Simviation Forums

OK. WWII time!!  ;D

There have been a million (or so) post mortems and examinations of all the 'what ifs' and the 'maybes' regarding what Hitler did and did not do. Most people agree that one mistake or another led to his inevitable downfall.

I don't know, and I don't believe any of us ever will, whether the Reich could have lasted any significant period longer than it did, even if Hitler had not made the 'glaring' errors and misjudgements that he did.

However, I feel, apart from the fact that he may well have defeated the RAF if he had not turned to bombing citiies when he did. Apart from whether the Japanese had stayed away long enough for England to be brought down before the US became involved. There is one aspect that may have made a significant difference, at least to the length of the Reich's exisistence.  ???

I'm talking about the hypothetical success of the Invasion of Russia.
What would have been the Reichs position, strategically and politically, if they had attacked earlier (or later) and actually swept across 'Russia proper', before the winter set in, and of course, if they had had a reasonable 'supply' line option organised??  ;D
A situation where the Reich would not have had the 'Second' and very 'resource draining" front. Instead just a need for a reasonable sized occupaton force (and the inevitable SS and Gestapo operations).  ???

I always had the feeling that if the war had not been conducted on 2 fronts the German invasion of the Soviet Union had a fair chance of succeeding. In that case I suggest that the world would be very different to what it is now.

It's hard to say. The Germans certainly came very close, to all three major objectives.
I think a couple more weeks of good weather and maybe..................

But then, the Russians had a fantastic resilience. They also had huge numbers, even compared to the Germans. So they may well still have been able to recover, even after the loss of Stalingrad, Moscow, Leningrad and the Caucus's. The germans still had that huge supply line and one railway track!!  :o
I think the fuel in the Caucus's would have been a major factor on both fronts, had it 'changed hands'.  ;D

The Barbarossa offensive was launched two months later than first planned. I strongle believe that given the extra two months and the German army would have succeeded in capturing all its goals. However, I also believe that the Russians would have regrouped beyond the Urals and counter attacked. The overall out come would have been no different.

And personally, I think the idea of not properly outfitting your troops when it becomes obvious the goal will take longer than expected for fear of damaging morale was insane.  I think more troops died from exposure to the Russian winter than the Russians themselves.  

Air - Geko.

Hmmm time to listen to WKSU and get my NPR fix....  

The war in the East was lost with logistics, nothing more.  The German high command did not plan properly and accepted ridiculously low estimates for the supplies needed.  Also the Germans relied on a huge number of vehicles that did not share spares.  One Corps could have 450 vehicles of 300 differant types.  This led to a supply nightmare of massive proportions.

In addition Hitler and his High command did not continue to modernise the army or airforce after 1941 instead placing too much reliance on upgrading existing designs.  One order from Hitler specifically forbade the development of new tanks.

Numbers were also against the Germans from the start.  Despite the massive losses that the Soviets suffered in 1941 by January 1943 the Germans were outnumbered 2.5:1 in Men, 3:1 in tanks and about 5:1 in guns.

When German advances in armoured technology did reach the front line they were poorly tested and thus failed to have the impact that they should have had.
For example at Kursk the new Panthers that arrived had not had their engines run in and suffered a massive breakdown rate (80% I think)

It was in my opinion, and as history shows, simply a matter of time...

Will.

*Note.  I am at work and the figures quoted cannot be guarenteed as 100% accurate as I do not have access to my books.  Sorry.

This reminds me of a story a friend told me some years ago. He became friendly with a German family while on holiday. They got chatting one evening & the German told him he was on the Russian front in WWII. When winter came the German troops were very poorly equipped. mostly in summer gear. They had no greatcoats or decent boots for a start & to make matters worse, the cold affected their weapons. The high quality rifles would not fire due to the extreme cold. The only solution was to kill a Russian soldier & take his greatcoat, boots & rifle.

The only problem with this was that the Russian rifles had a distinctive sound, very different to the German ones. Apparently there were many instances of blue on blue when German troops clothed in Russian greatcoats & firing Russian rifles were naturally mistaken for Russians. It got so bad that an order was issued to the effect that any German soldier found wearing Russian clothing or possessing a Russian rifle would be shot on the spot. A classic Catch 22. Die of the cold or be shot anyway.

This particular soldier deserted & made his way back home. He finally arrived when the war was over. He was one of the lucky ones.

This was the tradgedy of the Russian Front.  The leadership on both sides seemed intent of causing mor damage to themselves than the enemy.

Take Stalingrad.  It held little strategic importance yet because of its name Hitler was determined to wipe it from the planet and Stalin was determined to hold it at all costs.  The Verdun of WW2 claimed an entire German army and countless Russians.

In less than a week Paulas had more men shot for cowardice than Haig shot between '14 and '18.  This was at the height of the seige.

The Russian front exemplifies mans inhumanity to his fellow man and was disgusting.

Stalingrad did have huge stratigic importance. If stalingrad fell then the Germans would be able to cross the Volga which was the last natural obstical between them and Asia. The russian oil fields would have been in german hands and so it would have been a huge blow to the russians. Not to mention the blow to moral that would have come from the fall of the city bearing stalins name.

But the strategy of Blitzkrieg demands that you bypass such cities and create pockets which then surrender. Hitler demanded that the city be leveled, which is where the mistake lay.  The area and crossing of the Volga was, as you state, important.  The city was not.

Will

[quote]But the strategy of Blitzkrieg demands that you bypass such cities and create pockets which then surrender. Hitler demanded that the city be leveled, which is where the mistake lay.

Leningrad is a differant case entirely.  The Whermact were never able to completly surround it and it received supplies by sea.  Had it been landlocked it would have fallen like so many other cities before it.  I feel that the strategic significance of Stalingrad is clouded by the fact that it was so fiercly fought over for so long that it became important by virtue of the struggle that took place.

Will

I believe that Stalin would not have let Stalingrad surrender if it was surrounded. It was the only strongpoint on that part of the front and if it fell then the whole of southern russia and asia would be open to the germans. Blitzkrieg did settle for the bypassing of strongpoints however these were just things like bunker complexes etc and not entire citys. And when the city controls the stretch of front then you have no choice but to take it. Crossing the Volga would have been next to impossible if there was a Russian army sitting in stalingrad. Therefore the capture of the city was vital to the advance on teh eastern front.

I shall have to get to my books to carry this one on Woody....  I can't remember enough off the top of my head to contest what you have written.  I'll get back to you on it later mate.


I still disagree though

Will

Right oh. I'm not at my best at the moment. It is one in the morning after all. And its been two years since I read Stalingrad.