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.
Years ago I read Harrison Salisbury's great book "900 Days: The Siege of Leningrad" about the horrific battle for Leningrad in which almost a million people perished. More recently, the mantle has passed to military authors like David M. Glantz, "Leningrad: 1941-1944," who seems to be the premier authority today on the Soviet-German war. The siege at Leningrad was without parallel, at least in modern times. The human suffering was beyond comprehension, bringing out the best and worst in the human condition.
One entry across Lake Ladoga gave relief to the city and then, effectively, only when frozen over. The struggle for survival ranged from extraordinary stories of heroism and self-sacrifice to hushed accounts of cannibalism. I recall one passage in Salisbury's account in which some even tried to derive sustenance from licking glue on book bindings. One can only surmise the fate of the rare dog or cat, or even worse. But life went on in Leningrad and even some war materiel was produced, while the entrenched German artillery tried to pummel the city into submission.
To get to the point, I've been wondering lately if Leningrad wasn't ultimately almost as much a disaster for Hitler and the German High command as Stalingrad. My questions: Could Hitler's goal of knocking out Russia been better accomplished by isolation of Leningrad rather than siege, thus freeing up large forces to concentrate on Moscow early in the war? Would the Tirpitz and Prinz Eugen been better used offshore from Leningrad than at anchor in a Norwegian fjord? Was Hitler partially blindsided by his mania for capturing cities named after communist leaders?
Hitler's greatest tactical error was the timing of the invasion of the Soviet Union. If he would have completed the conquest of Western Europe and kept the US out of the war in Europe, then went East, Germany might have won.
Luckily madmen are impatient and overconfident.
The Tirpitz was a high priority target for the Allies too... if they would have brought it out of hiding, it would have instantly been attacked and sunk.
So no, I don't think blocading and waiting out Lenningrad would have made any difference in the outcome of the war, not unless Hitler had an army twice the size and no Western front to worry about.
Status:
"Listening. Always listening"
(set 21 days ago)
Location: NE Mississippi
24,443 posts, read 16,017,740 times
Reputation: 35617
I have thought that the venture into Russia was winnable, just not by the Nazis. Their treatment of all who were not German as inferior and not worthy of concern guaranteed the German failure.
And I feel the same way about Japan. They doomed themselves, and may have actually been able to win at one point.
Hitler's greatest tactical error was the timing of the invasion of the Soviet Union. If he would have completed the conquest of Western Europe and kept the US out of the war in Europe, then went East, Germany might have won.
Luckily madmen are impatient and overconfident.
The Tirpitz was a high priority target for the Allies too... if they would have brought it out of hiding, it would have instantly been attacked and sunk.
So no, I don't think blocading and waiting out Lenningrad would have made any difference in the outcome of the war, not unless Hitler had an army twice the size and no Western front to worry about.
Germamy was never going to "complete the conquest of Western Europe". The order to begin planning an invasion of the UK didn't even come until the summer of 1940. Literally, it was demanded that the invasion be planned and ready to launch within a month. And the plan? Use Rhine river barges to float the troops across the Channel and somehow hope the Royal Navy didn't interfere.
Utter folly!
With absolute air superiority and without naval opposition, the combined power of the United States and the United Kingdom (not to mention Canada, Australia, the Free French, and a slew of other assorted powers) found a cross-Channel invasion dicey in 1944. Germany's position in 1940/41 (without air superiority and facing a superior navy and having vastly inferior equipment), far and away poorer than that of the Allies 3/4 years later, was never going to allow for a successful invasion of the British Isles.
Germamy was never going to "complete the conquest of Western Europe". The order to begin planning an invasion of the UK didn't even come until the summer of 1940. Literally, it was demanded that the invasion be planned and ready to launch within a month. And the plan? Use Rhine river barges to float the troops across the Channel and somehow hope the Royal Navy didn't interfere.
Utter folly!
With absolute air superiority and without naval opposition, the combined power of the United States and the United Kingdom (not to mention Canada, Australia, the Free French, and a slew of other assorted powers) found a cross-Channel invasion dicey in 1944. Germany's position in 1940/41 (without air superiority and facing a superior navy and having vastly inferior equipment), far and away poorer than that of the Allies 3/4 years later, was never going to allow for a successful invasion of the British Isles.
Hey, not saying I wanted it to happen that way. God save the Queen and all that... I am VERY glad the Axis lost the war.
What I do know is the UK was in deep crap until after Lend-Lease started, and when the US entered the war. If the US had stayed completely neutral, the UK would have eventually fallen, even if the Nazi's crossed the channel on barges, and despite beaming British pride.
And besided that, who knows what they would have come up with if the tide turned in favor the axis powers? We couldn't have staged D-Day at the begining of the war either.
But I'm glad it didn't happen that way, America was definitely on the right side of war...wish I could say the same thing about today's wars though.
Years ago I read Harrison Salisbury's great book "900 Days: The Siege of Leningrad" about the horrific battle for Leningrad in which almost a million people perished. More recently, the mantle has passed to military authors like David M. Glantz, "Leningrad: 1941-1944," who seems to be the premier authority today on the Soviet-German war. The siege at Leningrad was without parallel, at least in modern times. The human suffering was beyond comprehension, bringing out the best and worst in the human condition.
One entry across Lake Ladoga gave relief to the city and then, effectively, only when frozen over. The struggle for survival ranged from extraordinary stories of heroism and self-sacrifice to hushed accounts of cannibalism. I recall one passage in Salisbury's account in which some even tried to derive sustenance from licking glue on book bindings. One can only surmise the fate of the rare dog or cat, or even worse. But life went on in Leningrad and even some war materiel was produced, while the entrenched German artillery tried to pummel the city into submission.
To get to the point, I've been wondering lately if Leningrad wasn't ultimately almost as much a disaster for Hitler and the German High command as Stalingrad. My questions: Could Hitler's goal of knocking out Russia been better accomplished by isolation of Leningrad rather than siege, thus freeing up large forces to concentrate on Moscow early in the war? Would the Tirpitz and Prinz Eugen been better used offshore from Leningrad than at anchor in a Norwegian fjord? Was Hitler partially blindsided by his mania for capturing cities named after communist leaders?
Capturing Leningrad went beyond a mania for taking cities named for communist leaders. Leningrad was the base of the Soviet Baltic Fleet and therefore had the docks and equipment necessary to help supply the German armies as they advanced into Russian territroy. It was also the central rail hub for the entire region and capturing it was essential. Leningrad was basically the Germans Antwerp. While you could operate without it, it made things a lot easier for you if you could get it.
Additionally the Soviet military presence in the area was large enough that it simply couldn't be bypassed or ignored without representing a major threat to the German rear. The Russians decided they would defend the city, the Germans had no choice but to take it and devote the resources necessary to doing so.
When it comes down to whether or not the Germans could have taken Leningrad, I think that lies in whether or not the Finns would have actually engaged. As it was the Finnish forces stopped at the border that existed before the Winter War and dug in. In general most historians believe that the Finns didn't even fire anything into the city. They basically moved to positions well away from the city at the historical border and sat there. They certainly denied the Russians access to send supplies through there area, but they never completed the encirclement despite German pleas to do so.
Had the Finns fully engaged (whether they actually had the equipment to do it is a matter of debate) the city could have been completely cut off and the Russians would have been forced to devote more troops to that front weakening the defenses against the Germans who may have been able to breakthrough.
To get to the point, I've been wondering lately if Leningrad wasn't ultimately almost as much a disaster for Hitler and the German High command as Stalingrad. My questions: Could Hitler's goal of knocking out Russia been better accomplished by isolation of Leningrad rather than siege, thus freeing up large forces to concentrate on Moscow early in the war?
First of all, I'm not getting the difference between a siege and what you call isolation.
Second, one of the key failures of the German high command (and I assume Hitler as well) was the removal of the 4th Panzers in 1941 from the Leningrad offensive effectively removing all armored forces from the Army Group North to do just what you suggested, bolster the forces arrayed before Moscow. Additionally, Army North was never to receive either the supplies or reinforcements that they other too groups received. In point of fact unlike either of the other two sectors, the Germans of the 9th Army were never relieved, and fought continually from 1941 till the end of the war.
Quote:
Would the Tirpitz and Prinz Eugen been better used offshore from Leningrad than at anchor in a Norwegian fjord? Was Hitler partially blindsided by his mania for capturing cities named after communist leaders?
I'm not sure as to why you would think that the best use of a single pocket battleship and a heavy cruiser as artliery support for infantry would be considered a wise choice but in point of fact the Kriegsmarine were quite supportive of the Army Group North throughout the siege of Leningrad and the subsequent retreat to
I doubt it for one reason - Hitler. He simply could not let his generals to their work. That in addtion to, IMHO, once Stalin realized he should not get in the way of his generals, the Soviet Army proved its superiority in strategy, manpower and material.
IMHO, once Stalin realized he should not get in the way of his generals,
When did he realize that? Before or after executing most of them so that the only ones that remained were the ones that could read his mind?
Seriously, Stalin was "appointed" People's Commissar for the Defense of the Soviet Union a position which he actively held throughout the war. Recent revelations from the Soviet archives demonstrate that Stalin was very much an hands on military leader of the Red Army weighing in on may of most minute details of the wars direction.
Location: Finally escaped The People's Republic of California
11,169 posts, read 8,520,404 times
Reputation: 6384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chango
What I do know is the UK was in deep crap until after Lend-Lease started, and when the US entered the war. If the US had stayed completely neutral, the UK would have eventually fallen, even if the Nazi's crossed the channel on barges, and despite beaming British pride.
.
The Problem us Americans have with WWII History, is that it started at Pearl Harbor. By Dec 7th 1941, The British had already won the Battle of Britain. The Royal navy was second to none, while having U-Boats the Nazi's had much else. They had lost the Graff Spree in 1939, the Bismark in May of 41, For the most part the Kreigsmarine failed to engage the Royal Navy, and chose to stay in Port. The Pocket BattleShip Admiral Scheer was probably the most succsessful German surface ship, fighting until 1945, before British planes sank her in port.
So ultimatley while unable to defeat the German's alone the British were far from being defeated themselves, and let's not forget North Africa, where Montgomery whipped Rommel despite what the Movies show Patton doing....
The British are some tough SOB's always have been, glad they are on our side..
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.
