I have been reading the book Deathride by John Mosier, and it has produced some interesting facts and theories about Operation Barbarossa among other things. Was hitler right about where to strike? Or were the generals correct when they thought he knew nothing about military matters? Here are a series of questions that i would be interested to here answers on:
Hitler was way off on where to strike and the generals were correct in their assumption that he knew nothing of military matters.
Should the germans have focused their forces on the two northern army groups, or should they have concentrated on the ukraine which hitler wanted, and which initailly happened?
The former. Better yet, focus on Army Group Central, leaving the other two groups with merely enough troops to pin down the Russians in the area.
Assuming history goes along until the later stages of '41, should hitler have shifted troops north, and assaulted leningrad instead of having von Leeb lay siege to the city?
Neither. He should have withdrawn from the vicinity entirely when it became obvious that Moscow couldn't be taken. Moscow was the strategic prize in the area, not Leningrad. If Moscow fell, Leningrad would have no option but to capitulate or starve. The troops there should have been reallocated to other theatres.
Also assuming histroy follows its route, should the german forces stopped attacking and dug in for the winter in october/november instead of continuiong moving forward?
They should have either dug in or withdrawn to more defensible positions, yes. I'd say strike while the iron is hot and push on Moscow, but if we assume the same movements until October then it was too late for such a drive.
If history had gone differently, do you think the germans could have made barbarossa a success?
No. I said in a previous thread on this topic that Germany had a 1-in-a-100 chance of defeating the USSR. We happen to live in Parallel Universe #98, because they actually damn near pulled it off due to Soviet incompetence. But unless you assume vastly different German actions not just during Barbarossa but in WWII previously, or going back even further to the years of Nazi rule before the outbreak of war, Germany could not have defeated the USSR.
Would Hitler have accepted peace in the opening months of the war had stalin sent the offer he had been considering?
No. Hitler was not the type to give up when he believed himself to have his boot on an enemy's throat. Frankly, accepting such an offer would have been the smartest thing Hitler could have done, but he never would have done so.
I'll only answer what I'm confident on.
First, they definitely should have just dug in when the winter hit. And they should have thought about winter clothing, antifreeze, etc. The Russians tried their winter attack and it didn't go anywhere and they had a better chance. Launching military operations in that part of the world in winter doesn't work. Painful as it may be, just wait for spring.
Actually, the Germans performed quite well in winter. They lacked equipment and supplies for winter, yes - most notably winter clothing - but so did the Russians. The Russians were simply more used to it. The real problems for the Germans began not in winter but in
spring. In winter the 'roads' - I use that term very loosely, for in most parts of Russia these were mostly dirt tracks with the largest rocks removed - froze over; this wasn't much of a problem for a mechanised army. It may even have been preferable to driving on hard-packed dirt. In spring came the thaw, which turned those frozen dirt 'roads' into muddy quagmires through which a German tank stood no chance in hell of driving. The Germans were forced to focus on the few areas in which their mechanised equipment could travel safely, essentially giving the Soviets perfect killzones to aim for when the Germans were on the move.
Barbarossa might have succeeded had Germany not had a strategic debate for about a month about what to do in good campaigning weather. Key word is might, we'll never know.
Nope. Contrary to popular belief, delaying Barbarossa actually benefited it. It enabled more men and materiel to be assembled, which assisted the invasion mightily.
Minor point. A lot of people feel Hitler made a mistake attacking Russia. I don't agree. That assumes Hitler wasn't Hitler. He wanted peace with England (keep the status quo there) and always focused on Russia. He feared Russia would just get too strong later. And the winter war with Finland seemed to prove to him that Stalin's purges had made the Red Army not very effective.
Hitler's mistake wasn't attacking Russia, it was attacking Poland. Or better yet, focusing on rearmament in the 1930s rather than on economic growth. Germany could have been a powerhouse in the 1940s without the need for hopeless military campaigns.
If Germany and Japan attack the Soviet Union at the same time, and Japan is not at war with China or the USA, and both move quickly, it might work.
Japan could have no real effect on the outcome of war in the West. Even if we assume they have Manchukuo and no concurrent war with China - and thus, no problems with the US or Britain - what could Japan have really done to harm Russia? Taken Vladivostok? Why? Or marched in Siberia? That (at the time) mostly-useless wasteland with no real benefit to a conqueror? All Japan could have accomplished would be keeping some Russian units pinned down in the East. It wouldn't have been nearly enough to keep the Soviets from holding Moscow and pushing back.
Also the japan thing is a moot point, as the usa would have entered the war eventually since japan would have attacked indonesia and its surrounding areas, and they basicly would never have won in china. It just wasnt strategically possible, unless they managed to get some help friom an ally.
tailless_kangaru assumed no war with China. That changes the situation in the East drastically. Still not enough to make Japan an important factor, I agree, but not the situation you suggest.
Beelining for moscow wouldnt work, because what would the point have been? Its industtry was spread out. Moscow may have been a symbol, but it wouldnt have forced peace, it didnt have any resource value, its industries could be relocated, and the war would have just continued.
The USSR was a largely undeveloped, unindustrialised nation, with very few major transport and supply hubs. In other words, few important and well-maintained roads and railroads. Guess which cty was the single most important transport and supply hub in all of the USSR? That's right; Moscow. If Moscow were to fall - and I'm not saying it would have, as I don't personally believe the Germans could have pulled it off - then Leningrad and everything else in the Western European USSR would either capitulate to the Germans or starve. Murmansk is an exception, but it would be useless as a salient.
Without the ability to supply Russia through Murmansk - what would be the point, when the only Russian troops receiving these supplies would be those in the Murmansk salient itself? - Lend-Lease Aid would need to find a different route. What would that route be? Vladivostok? Considering the Japanese presence in the area this is extremely unlikely. Central Asia? This would require an overland or aerial route from the British Raj. The Caucasus? A similar route would be needed through Iran. All three of these choices would be longer and slower than the Murmansk railroad, and the best of the three options, supply through the Caucasus, would be going through territory rife with Axis sympathies - Iran and Iraq both had pro-Axis regimes at times during this period - and was awfully close to the German advance.
In other words, if Moscow fell the Soviets would be forced to rely entirely on themselves. Combined with the incredible demoralisation losing Moscow would have on the Russians, this makes continuing the war a much more difficult proposition for the Soviets.
That didnt even work for Napoleon, the city was burned before he got there. The armies of 1940, on the other hand, were so big already, their was no way a city could ease supply problems. Rather to the contrary, Leningrad was only besieged in order not having to supply the millions of civilians, and to starve them.
The French and German advances into Russia are two entirely different, virtually incomparable situations. Cities do provide more food and shelter than the countryside, however, not to mention preexisting transportation, administration and communication hubs which an occupier can move into. Never underestimate the usefulness of such systems.
