Decisions of Barbarossa

[Tank_Guy#3]

Wouldn't he have just gone to Zhiguli?

I vaguely remember he vehemently refused to leave Moscow, even as German troops were closing in on the city.

 

[Lord Baal]

I vaguely remember he vehemently refused to leave Moscow, even as German troops were closing in on the city.

He did, but that was only because he knew there was very little chance of the city falling, and that he'd have plenty of time to escape if it did. After all, a city doesn't just fall, like in a game of Civ; it takes time to occupy. Stalin would have had plenty of time to escape if Moscow were actually in danger. The chances of him being killed - or worse, actually captured - were miniscule, though possible.

 

[arya126]

Hitler was way off on where to strike and the generals were correct in their assumption that he knew nothing of military matters.


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.


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 He should have withdrawn from the vicinity entirely when it became obvious that Moscow couldn't be taken.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.


They should have either dug in or withdrawn to more defensible positions, yes.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.


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.


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.


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.


Nope. Contrary to popular belief, delaying Barbarossa actually benefited it. It enabled more men and materiel to be assembled, which assisted the invasion mightily.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.

1. Actually hitler had a much better idea of where to strike then the generals. He was once quoted saying his generals knew nothing of the economy side of warfare, and he was correct. The generals wanted to take moscow and leningrad since they thought their capture would knock russia out of the war and force a peace with a large gain for germany. This was not the case. The ukraine and other areas farther east in that direction held valuable resources that the germans needed to continue their war effort and deny them to the soviets.

2. He DID focus on army group central, even though it was late in the campaign and too late to complete the objectives. He SHOULD have focused on army group south and held his support there the whole time instead of shifting to the north later in the campaign.

3. Leningrad starved anyway. Moscow WASNT the strategic prize though.

4. We agree here, except for the push on moscow part.

5. It wasnt soviet incompetence. It was entirely stalin's fault, and the fact that the german generals didnt know how to wage a war, and a few mistakes on hitlers part. I could spend all day listing his mistakes, but i will only list a few.

a. He refused to believe that Germany had attacked, and gave the order not to return fire if attacked. He thought it could still be solved diplomatically.

b. When he finally realized this would not be solved diplomatically, stalin ordered the armies to ATTACK suwalski and lvov within 48 hours. He also ordered the armies to attack and encircle the german ones. This resulted in the annihilation of most of the armies and equipment on the front.

6. I agree with the hitler thing.

7. I also agree with the winter thing, but you are leaving out another thing as well. Spring was not the only time it was muddy. It starts raining ALOT in september, and it basicly becomes all mud in october and some of november until it freezes over. That is why Von Bock delayed operation typhoon until November 15th, in addition to having to rest his troops.

8. This can be debated forever. The month it took for more and better equipment to get there, may have had a benefit, but the extra month may have helped more. In fact, germany had more foces arriving through the entire campaign, although in small numbers. The forces that had arrived in that month of delay would have arrived at the front during the fighting instead, and it is arguable that if they HADNT waited a month, the initial forces would have better success since the soviets would hve been even more unprepared.

9. I disagree with this. I think hitler should have attacked SOONER, not later. His forces might have been smaller, but so would have been everyone elses. His mistake was accepting the sudetenland, instead of just attacking in '38.

10. They could have had a VERY large effect. The only reason stalin transfered ther troops from the far east, was that his spies had reported that japan was about to attack the usa. If they had decided not to, then stalin would never have transfered the troops. Many here have said that stalin would have traded space for time, but this is not true. Stalin was not like other people. He would never have done that. He had a very unique mind, one that i do not pretend to understand. But judging by his decisions in '41 on the european front, he would have told the forces in the far east to either hold against the japs or die trying. More likely still, he would have told them to attack the japs instead.

You see, many, including me, believe that he was living in the mindset of the first world war, where weeks could pass instead of hours before any attack or defense was made. This is probably why he ordered them to attack, since he didnt think the germans would come so soon. Therefore, if the japs had attacked, they would ahve pinned down ALOT of divisions and that would have resulted in very bad things against the germans. They would have likely taken moscow and pushed even further in the ukraine, posisbly taking and holding rostov and the area around it.

11. That makes more sense.

12. You are still wrong, although not by much. Yes, moscow was an important transport hub and such, but so was leningrad, rostov, kharkov, minsk, and basicly every other major city there. But the thing is, even in those cities the roads were VERY poor. It wouldnt have made much of a difference. Nothing would starve, at least not as much as you make it out as. Basicly the only thing worth taking in moscow was the industries and factories, and those would be moved to the urals if it looked like moscow would fall.

13. Actually, most of the lend lease was shipped through iran (which, in addition to iraq, were basicly puppets of the UK) already, and therefore would not have made much of a difference. Very little was shipped to murmansk (probably due to german norwya and the many subs in the area), although some was shipped to archengalesk (i know i mispelled that). Still, most of the shipments went through iran (which was called persia then). Tehren was even used as the metting for the combined chiefs and stalin for a war meteting in '43.

14. Not really.

15. Cities DONT PROVIDE FOOD. If they did dont you think the allies would have made paris much more of a priority? Instead it forced them to ship in 400 tons of rations(something like that, cant remember the exact stat) every day for the POP of paris. Moscow would ahve been worse. And trust me, and hubs or roads, or admin places would have been bombed flat, either by the germans, or by the soviets in later years.

Shelter would have been good whether it was bombed or not. Ruins are good for defense and shelter.

16. And stalin only refused to leave moscow after he deliberated on it for almost a week. If it looked like it would fall, he would certainly leave. He seriously considered abandoning moscow, although he decided against it.

 

[GoodGame]

But what if the Soviet Union does the smart thing, abolishes it's army in January 1936, turns all it's production to building industrial capacity, then spends 1940-41 building infantry divisions?

That sounds likes a board game strategy.

Why should Hitler have even negotiated with Stalin then, if Stalin abolishes his army?
He might have invaded Russia instead of France then.

 

[GoodGame]

But there is always the possibility that either the Wehrmacht or the Luftwaffe (probably the latter) could have killed Stalin while he was in Moscow. While Moscow may have been worthless, the death of Stalin wouldn't have been.


Yes, but remember that Monte Cassino was bombed out, and that made it easier to defend.

Not to mention Stalingrad, which Moscow would more resemble.

 

[ParkCungHee]

That sounds likes a board game strategy.

Why should Hitler have even negotiated with Stalin then, if Stalin abolishes his army?
He might have invaded Russia instead of France then.

Because he'd take a big dissent penalty if he turns down the Molotov Ribbentop pact.

Yes, but remember that Monte Cassino was bombed out, and that made it easier to defend.

Yes. But it made it noticably less useful as shelter against the cold.

 

[storealex]

That didnt even work for Napoleon, the city was burned before he got there.

Minor nitpicking here, but Moscow was burned after Napoleon took the city. In fact, he awoke in the Palace and could see the city burning in the night.

Anyway, I agree with Lord Baal in almost everything, although I do think he underestimates the German chances of succes. As he says, they almost pulled it off, even though making lot's of stupid decisions. Had they made a... well, normal amount of stupid decisions, they would come even closer to succes. Perhaps close enough.

 

[Zardnaar]

But what if the Soviet Union does the smart thing, abolishes it's army in January 1936, turns all it's production to building industrial capacity, then spends 1940-41 building infantry divisions?

Hearts of Iron II?

Even beter disband you army, let the Germans invade in 41 and build like crazy to smash them in 42. Or.

Build only militia units. Beat the Germans.

 

[Masada]

superior german org and speed will undo that pretty quick, massive encirclements and all that jazz.

 

[Dachs]

Build scads of 1941 infantry and pull off infantry overruns, destroying the Nazis in virtual pockets

 

[Zardnaar]

Soviet victory, no army when Germans invade.
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=481896

Militia only.
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=470215

I suck at this game

 

[Masada]

normal/not mp.

 

[Yeekim]

I was hoping that this thread would be about Aruj Reis in Algiers.

So did I

 

[ParkCungHee]

superior german org and speed will undo that pretty quick, massive encirclements and all that jazz.

Nah, you get 500 IC and a few hundred infantry divisions, with 1943 tech, you'll be golden no matter what the Germans try.

 

[arya126]

Nah, you get 500 IC and a few hundred infantry divisions, with 1943 tech, you'll be golden no matter what the Germans try.

Check the first link that was posted a few posts above this one. The author of the AAR said it was too easy.

 

[GoodGame]

Because he'd take a big dissent penalty if he turns down the Molotov Ribbentop pact.

Dissent from who? Hardcore Nazis?

Just think about it. Your rival, who racially and ideologically you hate and only are allying with for convenience sake (because he might act against you while you try some other invasions) abolishes their military. Your decision should be a no-brainer. What if Hitler hires Polish mercs to help reach Moscow in 1939?

 

[ParkCungHee]

Dissent from who? Hardcore Nazis?

The Molotov-Ribbentrop event of course. If it doesn't trigger things are a real mess already.

 

[arya126]

Hes talking about a game called HOI2. You get a dissent penalty if you decline the event, although that doesnt make much sense.

 

[GoodGame]

Ok so um...this is the history forum.

 

[arya126]

Yeah they got off topic. I think the discussion died off anyway.