An American Analysis of Operation Barbarossa

[frinik]

I recommend reading that very interesting analysis that emanates from the US War College in 1999 on how close Germany came to defeating the Soviet Union and winning WWII.Had Hitler listened to his generals and gone for Moscow it's likely Stalin and the SU would never have recovered. My only personal comment would be to say that the German would have been stuck with a very costly guerilla war Tito style for years to come. One shivers thinking what would have been the fate of the people of the SU had Hitler and his National Socialist policies prevailed....  Here's the link:http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/world-wars/37063-world-will-hold-its-breath-reinterpreting-operation-barbarossa.html

[Tanker]

It is a thought provoking article.  One reply made me think though.  Napoleon took Moscow but it did him no good in the end.  I'm not sure Stalin would have ever surrendered even if Moscow was taken.

[lockie]

Had Hitler listened to his generals and gone for Moscow it's likely Stalin and the SU would never have recovered.

Something similar was written by Heinz Guderian. A soviet capital was a very important political point and he thought it was possible to capture Soviet Union with Moscow captured. There were many soviet ppl, who took Hither as a liberator from the bolsheviks. And there's a point that german-soviet war was a continuation of Civil War.

[whukid]

It is a thought provoking article.  One reply made me think though.  Napoleon took Moscow but it did him no good in the end.  I'm not sure Stalin would have ever surrendered even if Moscow was taken.

The majority of the Russian population resides in the European half of the country. That's the only part of Russia Hitler needed to control; without it Stalin didn't have a chance.


Personally, I think Hitler caused his own doom. His micro-management of his army caused his downfall; had he let his generals do their thing, the USSR wouldn't have stood a chance. In 1942 in particular, Hitler zigzagged the 6th army across the Caucuses. Had he let Manstein roll into the gates of Stalingrad without touring the countryside for those vital months, Chukov would've been annihilated before the Soviets could've counterattacked. At Kursk, he ordered the assault even though the Russians knew what was happening, and then ordered it stopped when Manstein was on the verge of winning. It just goes to show what happens when you let one man have all the power.

[frinik]

Even if they had taken Moscow the germnas would still have been faced with an intractable problem; how to control territories(theEuropean part of the SU) the size of the entire European continent. Look what happened in Yugoslavia despite 4 years of constant offensives and a fierce anti-insurgency war they never managed to defeat Tito and his partisans and they had much more favorable conditions climatic and the smaller size of the country( albeit very mountaneous). I suspect Stalin might have been purged had Moscow been taken by the Wehrmacht as there were lots of people in his party with an axe to grind against his terror and brutality. But the National Socialists brutal and racist policies would have generated a generalised resistance movement able to find shelter in Siberia and vast tracts of the SU that the Wehrmacht would have been unable to conquer or control. Germany wiht a population of 75 million would not have had sufficient human resources to control Europe, North Africa and the a large chunk of the SU. It would have been a war of attrition similar to what Napoleon faced in the Iberian peninsula in 1808-1814 with along with the disaster in Russia brought about his collapse. Not to emntion that the Germans would still have been force to contend with the Britsh and their naval superiority and huge empire which they would have used to keep the SU or what was left of it supplied through Persia, the ME or Pakistan.

[whukid]

I think that had the Germans been smart, they would've crushed the Russians and then used the Ukrainians, Lithuanians, Poles, and Estonians as garrison soldiers. They were known for being terrific fighters and had decades of hate towards the Soviets that could've been put to good use. Once the USSR had been occupied, the only thing the Germans would've needed to keep the population on their side is food, and lots of it. Throughout the 30's, Stalin starved his people to the point of extinction, so by feeding the populace, they would've had a massive leg up towards winning the hearts and minds. But alas, they had to get on with that retarded "final solution" for some reason or another.

As much respect as I have for the British military, they wouldn't have been able to do scratch without the US. They had very few tanks, a dwindling supply of manpower, and no naval/air superiority beyond their coastal zones. Without US planes, the most they could do is a few piddly night raids into France, which were even more deadly than the daylight raids the USAAF would launch. Without US tanks, their armored divisions would've been almost non-existent beyond the few remaining Matilda II's and Churchill I's. Even in 1945, the majority of their armored force was made up of Shermans. Without US manpower, the British had no hope of going on the offensive whatsoever beyond a few Commando raids. Even then, they had about a 50% chance of succeeding and the damage was generally repaired in a few months. As for their Navy... without the US's lend-lease program and the massive influx of ASW ships operating in the North Sea and Atlantic, they almost certainly would've been strangled by Germany's U-boat arm. At the very least, the Queen's Surface Fleet would've been decimated, if not completely destroyed. If we're talking about a scenario where Hitler wasn't a control freak, Germany would've been able to field atleast 3 aircraft carriers by 1944, 6 by 1945, two of which were full blown fleet carriers.

I'm not saying the US won the war, but it was certainly the linchpin that kept the Allies from losing.

[frinik]

Whukid like many Americans you may be fed a diet of Hollywood version of History  you underestimate the British.By 1945 they had 2.8 million men under arms and could mobilize more from their empire counting 350 million inhabitants.Without England acting as a massive aircraft carrier the American troops would have been unable to launch any assault against Germany.The British invented an dperfected the radar which allowed the American fleets to gain the upper hand against the Japs in the Pacific, they perfected the sonar and broke the Germna enigma cod which allowed the Allies to know exactly where German troops were deployed and when.Yes they were on the ropes but Hitler wasnever able to mobilise a decent fleet to invade England and the Royal Navy, even decimated. managed to supply the American land lease aid through convoys to Murmansk and contributed decisively to DDay.Of the 156 000 Allied troops that landed in Normandy on June 6th 1944 83 000 were British( includes Canadians( then British subjects) and only 73 000 were Americans.The victory in North Africa was first and foremost a British one since they had been fighting the Germans since 1941 Even without the US in the war the British would have been a constant thorn in the side on the Germna who would have had to keep troops in Western Europe and North Africa just in case. Without the Soviet steamroller in the East and the British pitbull in the West the Americans - single handedly - would not have been able to defeat Germany alone end of story!

[Mistwalker]

Why Hitler did even take command in the first place? Because the German generals failed to make Barbarossa go as planned from the beginning.
Someone just had to be blamed for all the fails after the war. And Hitler became that man in the memoirs of his generals. It's not a fact that they could do better without him.

[frinik]

While it's true that all the blame whether for war crimes, the Final Solution and the loss of the warwas conveniently palced on him by his generals and fellow Nazi leadership it's undeniable that his orders to stand fast and transform every city into a stronghold to be defended to the last man, his refusals to withdraw troops which ended in countless Germna lives lost at Stalingrad, Kowel, Korsun, Demyansk, Kamenets-Podoslsky and more.His orders to hold on to the Crimea in May 1944 resulted in of tens of thouand of Germna and Romanian troops, his insistence on trasnforming every major city from Belarus to German Silesia and Pommerania in 1944-1945 into festungs that resulted again in immobilising hundreds of thousand of valuable troops that could have been used to stop or slow down the Soviet advance.  Hitler was a corporal(Gefreiter) his generals were trained commanders with military service during WWI and subsequent rise in the ranks based on talent. I would rather trust military advice and strategy from a von Manstein , Guderian, Rommel, von Rundstedt or even a Model over a Hitler any time.Likewise I would take aRokossovsky,a  Zhukov or a Koniev any day over a Stalin.Which Stalin - all paranoid that he was - saw clearly and accepted letting his generals win the military war while he won the political one.

[Mistwalker]

While it's true that all the blame whether for war crimes, the Final Solution and the loss of the warwas conveniently palced on him by his generals and fellow Nazi leadership it's undeniable that his orders to stand fast and transform every city into a stronghold to be defended to the last man, his refusals to withdraw troops which ended in countless Germna lives lost at Stalingrad, Kowel, Korsun, Demyansk, Kamenets-Podoslsky and more.

The thing is you're looking at the events from humanitarian point (i.e. human lives). The decisions to hold the specified areas had been made from a strategic war-time point. And from this point the decisions couldn't have been all bad. Soviet troops just performed better in 1943-45, likewise the Germans in 1941-42. For example take the most crushing German military defeat in 1944 - operation Bagration. Hitler is hardly at any fault here.

[frinik]

Again even with BagrationHitler was partly at fault,  the Kommandant of the Armee gruppe Mittel, a man appointed  by Hitler becasue not of his military skills but because of his absolute loyalty to him, had asked Hitler to shorten his front as there was a bulge which he feared the Soviets would use to make a pincer attack against his forces from the Baltic area and from the Ukraine.Hitler , faithful to the end to his never yield an inch policy, refused putting the AGM in danger. Even though he did not create  huisn polciy to force his troops to remain in Vitebsk as a fortified area condemned 5 divisions to death,  then he refused Busch's request to evacuate Orsha and then refusing Busch's request for 40 000 German troops to cross the Berezina which led them being encircled by the Soviets and decimated. Hitler's refusal to allow his commanders to yield and avoidnd encirclement made the Soviet success, undeniably a remarkable operation, even greater than it should have been. Had generals like von Manstein( who had been forced to retire by Hitler) or even Model allowed a free hand Army Group Centre would still have been mauled but not anihilated and Belarus/Byelorussia still lost but the German losses would have been less severe and the Soviet ones greater and their adavance might have been stopped well before the Vistula.  One can also specualte that if Hitler had not sacrificed some of the best troops of the Wehrmacht at Stalingrad and other pockets during 1943-1944 may be he would have had reserves available to avoid the catastrophy of June-July 1944.

[lockie]

Soviet troops just performed better in 1943-45...

It sounds a bit funny
So, du u think that Soviet Union was a winner with German without help of allies?
As my point, would be better to say that Nazi German was overrun by Allies (GB, SU, USA). Only in CONJUNCTION of Allies, the Victory had place.

[Tanker]

Whukid like many Americans you may be fed a diet of Hollywood version of History  you underestimate the British.By 1945 they had 2.8 million men under arms and could mobilize more from their empire counting 350 million inhabitants.Without England acting as a massive aircraft carrier the American troops would have been unable to launch any assault against Germany.The British invented an dperfected the radar which allowed the American fleets to gain the upper hand against the Japs in the Pacific, they perfected the sonar and broke the Germna enigma cod which allowed the Allies to know exactly where German troops were deployed and when.Yes they were on the ropes but Hitler wasnever able to mobilise a decent fleet to invade England and the Royal Navy, even decimated. managed to supply the American land lease aid through convoys to Murmansk and contributed decisively to DDay.Of the 156 000 Allied troops that landed in Normandy on June 6th 1944 83 000 were British( includes Canadians( then British subjects) and only 73 000 were Americans.The victory in North Africa was first and foremost a British one since they had been fighting the Germans since 1941 Even without the US in the war the British would have been a constant thorn in the side on the Germna who would have had to keep troops in Western Europe and North Africa just in case. Without the Soviet steamroller in the East and the British pitbull in the West the Americans - single handedly - would not have been able to defeat Germany alone end of story!

Come, come frinik.  You sound like a typical British person with a chip on his shoulder.  Whukid never said the Americans won the war by themselves.  He said that without their help there was no way that Germany would have been defeated.  He's right.  Who provided the landing craft that landed those 83,000 British soldiers in Normandy?  Who provided the aircraft numbers that destroyed the Luftwaffe in the west to pave the way for D-Day.  The answer is the US.  Britain in July 1944 was already worried about running short of manpower. It was a subject that worried Churchill, Alan Brooke and Montgomery.  In the months after D-Day which nation provided the largest amount of manpower, armor, and equipment for the push across France and into Germany?  Again the US.  Without the avalanche of manpower and materiel (also sent to the USSR) there would have been no credible threat of an invasion in the west.  Without that threat, Germany would not have faced a two front war and could have concentrated in 1944 and beyond on Russia.  Saying that in no way denigrates the British and it certainly is not Hollywood fiction.  It's obvious that it took all the allies to defeat the axis during the war.

[frinik]

Tanker; just for your info I am not British.I have in fact no English blood or ancestry nor link whatsoever! No I was not berating Whukid, I was pointing out ( spanking him in the process) that unfortunately in the US the tendency is to rewrite history to make it sound like the US army won the war single handedly.Just an example; every pupil in the States knows about the Normandy landings D. Day virtually nobody has heard of Operation Bagration which was the most severe  deafeat ever suffered by a German army in history.DDay was just s little firework compared to the size, scope and result of O.Bagration which in fact all but ended the war for Germany.

I like the States and the Americans and always defend them when I hear some idiot making anti american comments but at the same time I don't mind criticising them when they go overboard with the USA! USA! syndrome.

I also feel that the British contribution tends to be overlooked.That being said their tanks sucked big time and most of their equipment except for the palnes was terrible.

[Tanker]

Well frinik, I said you SOUNDED like a typical Brit with a chip on his shoulder, not that you actually were one.

You won't believe the number of times I've heard some British acquaintances of mine whine about Saving Private Ryan and other Hollywood movies highlighting the American story in WW II.  I just laugh and tell them to grow a movie industry and then they can do the same thing for their story.

I feel you over reacted to Whukid's point that, without the US's contribution, Germany would not have been defeated.  His point is essentially valid.  It didn't sound like he went on the kind of jingoistic rant which seems to rankle.   

It is always better for all students to have more knowledge of history, but how many school kids in Russia today believe that the former Soviet Union defeated Germany all by itself?
It's only normal that non-specialists will be more familiar with their own country's participation in history than that of other countries.

[whukid]

I wasn't going overboard with the USA USA syndrome 

[frinik]

Ah ah you are sweating!!!! Good!

AS for the British they have made quite a few good war films but nobody in the States likes watching foreign films anyway...

As for the US I absolutely agree with Whukid; their contribution to Soviet and Allies victory was absolutely essential; what is overlooked for example is the aamzing success and efficiency of American bombings of key components of German industry ; ball bearings which tanks and other vehicles need to roll and the destruction of Leuna's synthetic oil plants which essentially led to the Luftwaffe being  largely grounded and limited training for new pilots and tank crews so drastically that the quality of both declined and never recovered.In contrast to largely imprecise Birtish night bombings which resulted in huge civilian casulaties and no effective results, American day bombings were much more accurate and brought tangible results.Hitler's disastrous order to delay production and entry in service of Germans jet fighters such as the ME-262( to turn it into a bomber) gave the Allies air domination which they put to very good use. American land lease aid did keep the British and Soviets afloat in late 1942 all the way to 1944 when their loses in armour and vehicle exceeded their production. Without this aid they would not have been able to take the offensive in mid 1943 . I am fair in my assessment giving credit to everybody .Soviet victory without the Allies would have been possibly unachievable or would have required much more time, losses and left the SU exhausted. Victory Soviet manpower and resilience an Allied victory in the West would have been impossible. Without the UK in the war the Americans alone would not have won the battle of the Atlantic against the U.Boote.The Allies and Soviets had each other to rely on whereas the Germans never had reliable allies...That made all the difference!

I am not fan of the Russian version of history either but at leats they have the excuse of having inherited an education system shaped by a totalitarian regime whereas the American system is based on freedom of thought and the free flow of information.

[Mistwalker]

Again even with BagrationHitler was partly at fault,  the Kommandant of the Armee gruppe Mittel, a man appointed  by Hitler becasue not of his military skills but because of his absolute loyalty to him

He successfully repelled 2 RKKA offensives as a commander of army group though. But failed at third.

had asked Hitler to shorten his front as there was a bulge which he feared the Soviets would use to make a pincer attack against his forces from the Baltic area and from the Ukraine. Hitler , faithful to the end to his never yield an inch policy, refused putting the AGM in danger.

In 1943 the Soviet forces didn't make anything to shorten Kursk bulge too, but prepared and successfully defended against the German offensive.

It sounds a bit funny

Why? From 1943 every German offensive either failed (Kursk, Narew, Balaton) or ended in a stalemate.

So, du u think that Soviet Union was a winner with German without help of allies?

After Stalingrad and Kursk  the defeat of German forces was only a matter of time. It would took maybe a year longer and cost a lot more of human lives though.

As my point, would be better to say that Nazi German was overrun by Allies

I think it would be better to say that Axis nations were overrun by Allies.

[Flashburn]

Oh my........

Does anyone think the Soviet Union would have surrendered if Moscow fell?  I sure don't.  Maybe someone could have made Stalin have an accident had it fallen.  But throw in the towel?  Don't think so.  BUt had they locked up the Eastern Front it would have been vary bad on the Western side of Europe.  Germany would sooner or later fall no matter what happened.  Stalin did so much damage to the red army its not even funny.  Both nations had tards for leaders, lets face it.  The US was developing ultra long range bombers in case GB fell. And dont forget the manhatten project.  Had things gone down the crapper in Europe it would have been Berlin nuked. 

In the end every nation fighting that fruit cake hitler guy helped EACH other out.  Nazi Germany was simply to evil to exsist.  It was turning a blind eye for years that allowed that nightmare to happen.  That war could have been used to truelly usher in a new era of peace.  But instead we got the damned cold war (both west and east to blame for that). 

[frinik]

After Stalingrad and Kursk  the defeat of German forces was only a matter of time. It would took maybe a year longer and cost a lot more of human lives though.

Had Germany been able to only fight the Soviet Union in 1942-43 without having to worry about the Allies in the West it would have been able to fight the Soviets to stalemate.  Even after Kursk.

Flashburn; I am not sure had the Uk been out of fight the Americans would not have been so interested in taking Germany down.They would have turned their attention to the Japanese as they were more of an immediate threat to them . As for the Atom bomb it was developed more with Japan in mind than Germany.I think the US would have kept it as a trump card against either winner of a German-Soviet war.

As for Nazi Germany being evil no question about it( the regime not the people) but a Stalinist Soviet Union ( again the regime not it's people) was very close behind in term of sheer brutality and murderous ideology.

As for the Western democracies they had their own baggage as well;systemic racism, colonialism etc...