Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not sure why Hitler didn't just keep Stalin as a trading partner and instead try to muscle towards the Middle East in Africa which was French and English. Italy had the Mediterranean locked down, didn't they?
Agreed, the fact comes down to WW2 and Civil War history redundancy, we must move on from it. It's been discussed countless times. Vietnam war has also been discussed in the military section in a massive thread.
To be fair, there's only so many wars people are interested in talking about.
I wish we had discussions on here about the Jeffersonian Era of Politics, the War of 1812, the Era of Good Feelings, the Manifest Destiny, the building of the transcontinental railroad, the Guilded Age, the Progressive Era, the Roaring Twenties, and the Cold War. At various times in the past I have tried to start a few of these discussions and if I get half a dozen replies I'm lucky. Most people here want to talk about either World War II or the Civil War. Vietnam occasionally comes up as a discussion topic.
I have no idea why the Wehrmacht was set up for an attack on Moscow rather than Ukraine and then Caucasus. That was the only realistic goal - get the resources. Even if Moscow was captured, as Napoleon demonstrated, it does not mean victory. Very different from capturing Paris and defeating France in 1940. Yet someone thought a repeat of the French campaign would succeed in Russia? The only chance for success was to take over the Caucasian oil production as fast as possible, everything else being secondary. That would also deny the Soviet Union of its own oil supply and even lend-lease could not replace that.
[...]Fall Blau was also an unholy mess of resource mis-allocation by the Germans. Instead of concentrating all forces towards the Caucasus again, they sent 11th Army from Crimea to capture Leningrad. Absurd.
Seems to me to the only plausible option. Cutting off the Soviet oil supply would have partly compensated for Germany's short supply. It greatly extended the front, however, making them vulnerable to counter-attack from an undefeated Soviet army. Stalingrad would have remained a sticking point. Also, was it even feasible, even if not pushing on Moscow and Leningrad?
Seems to me to the only plausible option. Cutting off the Soviet oil supply would have partly compensated for Germany's short supply. It greatly extended the front, however, making them vulnerable to counter-attack from an undefeated Soviet army. Stalingrad would have remained a sticking point. Also, was it even feasible, even if not pushing on Moscow and Leningrad?
Good question. The Germans only had two options - either make peace or a run for Ukraine (food, rare earth metals) AND the Caucasus (oil). If the latter was ever realistic - I personally don't think so. Just too far away.
All, I understand the anger about topic redundancy. I just thought I presented a fairly different thesis on why the Wehrmacht failed in Barbarossa.
The standard theory: delay by a month, Hitler delaying attack on Moscow, Russian winter
The new approach: logistical delay due to railroad gauge difference - 2 months for every 300 miles; creating vulnerability from supply exhaustion, exacerbated by winter weather after 2x 300 miles and giving Red Army enough time to reform after whatever massive defeats happened. Plus - only real goals were Ukraine for food and Caucassus for oil and Wehrmacht's main attack towards Moscow was misguided.
I think this is worth a discussion. I'm not saying I'm right and everyone else is wrong. Trying to learn more.
Adam Tooze, Wages of Destruction, Page 454:
"Fundamentally the Wehrmacht was a "poor army". The fast striking motorised element of the Germans army in 1941 consisted of only 33 divisions of 130. Three-quarters of the German army continued to rely on more traditional means of traction: foot and horse. The German army in 1941 invaded the Soviet Union with somewhere between 600,000 and 740,000 horses. The horses were not for riding. They were for moving guns, ammunition and supplies."
"The vast majority of Germany's soldiers marched into Russia, as they had in France, on foot."
"But to imagine a fully motorised Wehrmacht, poised for an attack on the Soviet Union is a fantasy of the Cold War, not a realistic vision of the possibilities of 1941. To be more specific, it is an American fantasy. The Anglo-American invasion force of 1944 was the only military force in WW2 to fully conform to the modern model of a motorised army."
The reality was that the German Army was no super army with advanced equipment throughout, as propaganda portrayed. The Allies attempted to cover their pitiful, inept defeats, and that includes the Americans at the Bulge, Metz and Hurtgen Forest.
The German army attacking the USSR......
The Germans thought they had formulated a version of Blitzkrieg in France that was a sure-fire success. If the belt broke the whole movement stopped. They used this in the USSR, just scaling up forces. They did not have the intelligence to assess properly, that the reason for their success in France was allied incompetence not anything brilliant they did.
The Germans vastly underestimated the quality of design and make of Soviet weapons. The T-34 took them by surprise and they knew they were fighting an army they had hopelessly underestimated in all aspects. The Germans did not take into account the British supplying the USSR - 40% of the tanks used at the vital battle of Moscow were British supplied. The USSR had more tanks than the rest of the world combined in 1940.
The Germans underestimated the Soviets so much they decided to attack them with no reserves, all the German forces were involved in Barbarossa, lack of proper logistics to re-supply, short of steel, rubber, oil, an industry that could not re-supply at the rate required, short of fuel for industry and the forces, etc, etc. The Germans were so inept at assessing the Soviets they did not envisage fighting in the Russian winter in 1942/1942 thinking they would have overcome the USSR in three months. When they did not break the USSRs back they did not have enough winter clothes and equipment designed for such low temperatures. It was not just the logistics of getting to the troops, they just did not have the equipment. The Germans thought the Soviets could field 360 divisions, they fielded over 600.
Soviet industry was large and had moved to the east. Much was in the east anyhow. This was working 24/7 to re-supply. The T-34 tank by Dec 1941 was well established and available in numbers. The Germans first faced The T-34 in October 41, reducing a German division to a few tanks. The Soviet counter-attack in Dec 1941 was well supplied, and heavily with T-34s. There was still 1,400 Soviet aircraft available in Dec 1941.
The Soviet's mistake was attacking on a broad front and not aiming the the weakest point and pushing them right back, nevertheless they mauled the Germans. By Dec 1941 the Germans were exhausted in fuel, men and equipment. They could do no more. As early as In July 1941, many German armies were at the end of their effective supply lines. As Prof Tooze said, most say the Germans failed to take Moscow, the reality was that they could not as they were on their last legs. The large Soviet air force was still attacking German supply lines as well, exasperating the situation. The Germans foolishly thought most supplies could be taken along three very long rail tracks, which were easily ripped up by the Soviets and junctions bombed via the air. Thousands of German rail men worked to get lines partially operation. The Soviets evacuated lots of rail trucks.
Prof Tooze: Wages of Destruction, page 453:
'Halder wrote, Barbarossa needed speed and motorized transport for supply. No waiting for railways. The Germans planned for three rail lines and 740,000 horses.'
The Germans never had enough motorised transport to supply all the fast moving armies. Pre June 1941, they were considering de-motorising because of a shortage of rubber inflicted by the Royal Navy blockade.
Tooze: page 454:
'Three rail lines were used. The existing Soviet rail network was not even good enough to supply the German army if taken intact. It was also of a narrower gauge too. The retreating Soviets took most wagons with them and destroyed the rail infrastructure on retreating.
The Soviets had taken massive losses, but being so big they could absorb so many losses. The Soviets also had inflicted great losses on the Germans by Dec 1941. The only large power Germany conquered was France. This gave them a sense of superiority - their technique was now known, so succeeding twice was unlikely.'
They largely dropped the blitzkrieg of coordinated air and ground attacks.
Tooze: page 487.
'In July, all three German Army groups had reached the limit of resupply and stopped. The Soviets had taken devastating losses but not defeated. The Soviets saw the halt of the German armies and the re-supply problem and launched 17 armies against them forcing the Germans to dig in and defend.'
The British & US can be forgiven in underestimating the Red Army, which they did, not so the Germans as they would have to assess this force in detail as they were to fight it, unlike the British & US. Soviet industry was turning out the arms and to advanced designs. I don't want to go into what ifs, but if the T-34 was in place in summer 1941 the Germans would never have had such spectacular progress. Stalin knew what was being produced. They knew once the weaponry was in place, they could defeat the Germans who would be operating over 1,000 kms along a few supply lines they could not fully supply.
Apart from Stalingrad, which the Germans and the Soviets had an obsession with, the Soviets became less reckless as the British and USA were in the fight and arms, and some well advanced arms, were building up. The Germans would not win, and the Soviets knew that. Once a western second front was in place, it was clear the Germans would quickly crumble, and they did. On D-Day 1944, the Germans were still way inside the USSR. The end came quickly once hit from both sides. It can be argued that the Soviets should have pushed the Germans out of the USSR by 1943 or even 1942, however they were inept at most levels. The Soviets knew in a war of attrition the Germans were doomed.
The nazis utilized a poor Alliance system with Hungarians, Romanians and Italians. Barbarossa was thr largest land invasion in human history. 5 million troops, but Hitler needed help. Nazi Germany allies helped. However the nazi allies were tactically weaker than the nazis and poorly trained. Example. During the battle of Stalingrad. Nazis allowed thr Italians and Romanians to defend it's flank. With soviets knowing weaker Italians and Romanians protecting the nazi flank, it made it easy for the red army to attack the Italian and Romanian flank in order to surround and cut the nazis off. Also nazis supply line was to over extended.
I wish we had discussions on here about the Jeffersonian Era of Politics, the War of 1812, the Era of Good Feelings, the Manifest Destiny, the building of the transcontinental railroad, the Guilded Age, the Progressive Era, the Roaring Twenties, and the Cold War. At various times in the past I have tried to start a few of these discussions and if I get half a dozen replies I'm lucky. Most people here want to talk about either World War II or the Civil War. Vietnam occasionally comes up as a discussion topic.
I agree. Right now, there are NINE threads on just the first page of the forum about Germans/Germany/WWII/etc. I'd think that most anything somebody wants to say about those topics would probably fit in one of the existing threads. I don't think people ever take a minute to search and see if a topic already exists before starting a thread. When November gets here, somebody will start a new thread about the JFK Assassination and think they have a bunch of astounding new information to share.
There is a lot more to History than wars, and all that other stuff is much more interesting.
I'm game for themes like roaring twenties, transcontinental railroad and cold war. Some of the others are so esoteric that they may be beyond the realm of a lot of people. World War II is such a common theme of pop history and attracts the attention of entry level amateur historians.
The Germans lost because they didn't want it enough. The Russians put their pants on one leg at a time and just went out there to fight hard for however long it took. They didn't take anything away from the Germans, just fought one battle at a time, went out there looking for a Nazi they could hit, and always remembered that there is no "I" in army. Everyone was picking one another up, wearing their combat faces and doing the little things which don't show up at the medal ceremonies but mean so much in the long run. They overcame a lot of adversity, stayed within themselves, gave 110 % and even though, on paper, the Nazis were the power to beat, the Russians knew that it was a war of inches and they came together as a team.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
