Why did both Napoleon and Hitler fail to defeat Russia?

[sas]

Moderator Action: I'm tolerant up to a point because I love history, but CFC doesn't exist for you to lure posters to another site.
You want to discuss this topic, but all means do so, but DO NOT keep saying "talk about it here".
This is not the first time you have done that, but it will be the last.
Link removed.
AoA
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
********

Both Napoleon and Hitler tried it, and both failed. Russia's size, abundant manpower and harsh winters have defeated any external enemy. Was the German (Axis) and Napoleons armies doomed from the day they set they're foot in Russian soil? Or did they both make critical mistakes that caused they’re own downfall. Over a century span the two invasions, and still they have so much in common, why do you think they both failed?

********

 

[FrosTi]

What about mongols? they partially succeeded

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

For Napoleon, and later Hitler, both attacked to late in the campigning year, and both failed to make adaquite preperations for winter and long campaigns.

Keep in mind, the Kaisar's army forced a peace treaty on Russia, so they were far from unbeatable.

 

[anarchywrksbest]

Has anyone read Stalingrad by Antony Beevor?? It tells the story of the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union, and is a great book!

I agree with AoA that they just didn't plan for the winter. Hitler expected the war to be over in 6 weeks Which is what the Schleifen Plan in WWI said about the invasion of France.

But even so if Hitler had followed the original invasion plan and taken out Moscow then they would have won. But instead became dogged down in a battle for Kiev. Then instead of heading straight for Moscow he split his troops with some heading for Leningrad and St Petersburg in the North, and finally he launched an attack on Stalingrad which went badly from the start but he refused to pull out, this drained the Wehrmachts resources and well the rest is history...

 

[Hades]

Hitler and Napoleon's situations were very similar:

1. They both had a highly trained military force though difficult to replace.
2. They were both fighting the western front while attacking Russia.
3. They both tried to have a quick and specular victory in Russia.
4. They both lacked a good and reliable strategic advisor to prevent them from making the above mistakes.

Russia was not unbeatable but as AoA said, preparation is the key. Russia's advantages are their natural resources, man power and climate.

Russia was not meant to be beaten by Napoleon because defeating her requires much patience and defensive abilities whom Napoleon clearly lacked.

If I were Napoleon's advisor, I would urge him to take care of the Spanish situation first. In Russia, he should attack in the summers and defend in the winters. Bring in smaller troops but keep them in constant rotation to avoide battle fatigue, huge logistics requirement, and catastrophic defeat. This would take about 3 years of winning many small battles but I doubt he would do this.

Hilter was in no situation to attack Russia at that time: He lost his airforce in the battle of britain and he was in friendly terms with Russia. He should leave Russia alone until defeated the English. I don't think he could beat England but if he did this is what I would do to attack Russia if I were him:

Stop killing the Jewish people (even if not for moral reason it is still a drain on German resources). Rest the troops for a year or so, in the mean time, ensure the newly conquered territories are productive. The combined production of England, France and Germany should be able surpass Russia's. Take northern africa to ensure good supply of resources then attack Russia from Europe and the Middle East. Take advantage of the popular support from liberating Ukraine and recruit them to help fight the russians. Slowly chip away Russia's industrial strength using constant aerial bombardment. Take the farmland and resources and slowly strave the russians to surrender. This would take about 5 years.

 

[stalin006]

hades how did u do it so ur avatar moves? i tought that was not posible to get those in here

 

[Hades]

Originally posted by stalin006
hades how did u do it so ur avatar moves? i tought that was not posible to get those in here

It is ok as long as it is less than 4K

 

[REIEMDIS]

Originally posted by sas
Both Napoleon and Hitler tried it, and both failed. Russia's size, abundant manpower and harsh winters have defeated any external enemy. Was the German (Axis) and Napoleons armies doomed from the day they set they're foot in Russian soil? Or did they both make critical mistakes that caused they’re own downfall. Over a century span the two invasions, and still they have so much in common, why do you think they both failed?

Assuming you really want a discussion here, let me say this.

The Swedes also failed, their offensive ending at Poltava in 1709.

The Mongols sort of succeeded, but that was really before there was a single unified Russia.

Napoleon had diffeent objectives: destroy the Russian army, take the capital, and force the czar to make peace. But he failed to destroy the Russian army early in the campaign, and the czar would not make peace despite Moscow being captured.

Hitler sought to conquer and enslave the Soviet Union - very different aims.

If Napleon had bagged the bulk of the Russian army early on, long before he took Smolensk, the czar may has sued for peace. Maybe.

If Hitler had gobe after Moscow without diversions, and if the Autumn had not ben so muddy, he likely would have taken the capital, which was of more than symbolic value; it was a road and rail hub of vital significance.

Both invasions were not doomed to failure from the first day.

 

[Leglaen]

Napoleon had one main problem:

He could fight very well with about 100,000 troops, but as the armies got larger, the logistics got far worse. B/c in those days the theoretical maximum(calculated by the French during the 1770's) was 75,000. Napoleon managed to strech that value by using his great strategical and tactical mind to live off the land and to defeat the army-not their magazines as in Frederich the Great's day. Also, Napoleon himself couldn't fight in three places in once. Yes, he did have competent generals under him, but they could only fight so well without direct orders from the emperor.

 

[gerryandersson]

The great general winter came to their aid.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

General Winter was a major aid...

But moreover the vast size of Russia meant that the Russian forces could avoid total defeat by withdrawing from the invading army so surviving to fight another day.


Furthermore for both France and Germany they were not solely devoted to destroying one enemy - Russia but had to contend with Britain and whoever Britain could prop-up to also resist. The fact that Napoleon and Hitler both left Britain unconquered before setting off to defeat the Russians meant that they could not devote all their arms to the task, nor did they have security in most of their holdings.

With Britain resisting also both France and Germany were denied access to global trade, and presented other fronts on which war had to be fought. When Russia defeated Hitler and Napolean they were not alone, but assisted by Great Britain from day 1.


The fact of British (and in WW2 later American) support, the fact the Russian armies could avoid complete defeat due to the space of Russia, the vast manpower Russia could call upon after disasterous defeats and the telling effects of the Russian Winter, not to mention the difficulty of supplying an invading army into such a vast country with appalling weather and communications Russia had many advantages, the main one being time. Russia could afford a long drawn out war, whilst Napolean and Hitler could not as they were afflicted with other enemies and the need to protect a vast amount of Europe from Britain.

 

[A_Bashkuev]

Excuse me for bothering, but I must warn you about one very common mistake.
You (as Napoleon & Hitler before) made the same logistic mistake - you transfer European transport situation on Russian soil. Pls, check your history books you will find very funny information that Napoleon & Hitler had intention tro invade Russia as early as May month (in 1812 & 1941 respectively). Change of this decision in Napoleon case usually don't discussed, but in Hitler case it usually said that it was more reasonable (or not reasonable to go against Yugoslavia & Greece. Rubbish. Just Rubbish. I'll try to explain.

Today in 2002 I'm driving my car in Spring am used to see warning sign in Moscow region (suburban area): "Forbidden road usage in April-May by any heavy trucks with mass more then 1,500 kg!" Reason is - there is very late spring in Moscow region - then soil began melting in mid-April. (Until last "global warming" in my youth we used to go into Forest for "birch juice drinking" in... "May holidays". "Birch juice drinking is possible only in moment of birch first leaves appearance - after 1 week after last snow melting, but I remember that in 1-3 of May there was "snow spots" around our village home in my childhood. (Now last snow is melting around 15 April in Moscow suburban area).
It means that until 25-30 May soil under russian roads in Moscow region is still wet & any "heavy truck" can destroy road coating. Pls, take a notice - I tell you about Moscow situation in 2002! In 1941 (let's don't speak about 1812!) roads around Moscow was - "ground roads" & quality of them was strictly worse then present. Just imagine road situation in Byelorussia where roads was intentionally in bad condition due to permanent fear of Russian government about "Western Invasion".
In reality we got Halder' report for Hitler from 14 June 1941. "Russian roads dried enough for our Panzers. I wait your Order, mein Fuhrer!"
In 1812 year Russian road situation was worse then in 1941. Napoleon had very bad luck in form of chain of heavy rains in Byelorussia region in end of June - then he waited for "road drying" longer then Hitler....
Oh, other thing is our summers. I've got in one summer in Britain & can tell you - Russian summer - more drier, but definitely shorter then English summer with one week of temperature maximums higher then in Britain, but in other times - our summer is colder. I'm afraid that not only winters were bane of foreign invaders here...

Sincerely yours, Alex.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

That is directed against AoA? Very wise not to name him

 

[joespaniel]

The Russian winter. Mostly.

Though in late 1941, during Operation Typhoon, the Russians did finaly start to kick a little Nazi ass.

 

[FlakJacket]

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
For Napoleon, and later Hitler, both attacked to late in the campigning year, and both failed to make adaquite preperations for winter and long campaigns.

Originally posted by gerryandersson
The great general winter came to their aid.

That was one of the main factors. And add in that their supply chain was stretched beyond its endurance. The Russians used another gauge- size- of railway track and their road networks weren't that great so everything had to be trucked in over rough terrian. The Germans had special engineer detatchments that followed their armies ripping up Russian tracks and laying standard German size but they could never keep up with the advancing troops.

You also had the 'scorched earth' policy of both times. In the second world war tghe Russians literally took down, boxed up and shipped east whole factories by train. And both armies weren't all that well behaved. The Nazi's shot practically anything that moved and Napoleon ran his arnmy by basically stealing food and supplies from the locals. This was a major mistake he made in Spain, the British always made sure to pay for stuff to keep the locals happy. So both the French and Germans had the locals hating them which leads to Partisans.

Same with Napoleon. By the end of the campaign he was banking on Moscow with all of its supplies. When he finally got these he found that the Russians had snuck out under cover of dark and either taken or torched all the supplies and city. He was forced back out of Russia by starvation.

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
Keep in mind, the Kaisar's army forced a peace treaty on Russia, so they were far from unbeatable.

That was more to do with the Russians themselves thoughwasn't it? I'd always believed that by that point thew lines had become static like in the West and it was just the army revolting over conditions both at the front and the country at large, leading to the Bolshevic revolution, that brought them out of the war?

Originally posted by kittenOFchaos
But moreover the vast size of Russia meant that the Russian forces could avoid total defeat by withdrawing from the invading army so surviving to fight another day.

Um, not quite. Stalin had a major thing about his troops retreating. Any of them crossed the 'Start line' a few miles back from their positions manned by NKVD or SMERSH troops were automatically shot. Stalin didn't even allow his generals tactical manouverability. They had to just sit there and fight.

So the Gernans used to just attack them frontally and then send other elements around and behind them to surround them, cutting them off. The Germans were capturing whole armies of hundreds of thousands of Russian troops at a time.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Originally posted by FrosTi
What about mongols? they partially succeeded

Ironic that the Mongol invasion may have actually increased Russian power in that it organized it into larger states for governing purposes, which later banded together for protection.

Much like the German states after the Napoleonic phase.

sorry bit OT

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

That was more to do with the Russians themselves thoughwasn't it? I'd always believed that by that point thew lines had become static like in the West and it was just the army revolting over conditions both at the front and the country at large, leading to the Bolshevic revolution, that brought them out of the war?

Each year the Germans advanced a little further, and the Russian death total climbed, untill the Kerensky gov took over, determined to continue the war.
This was a major mistake, it was a rallying point for the bolshiveks, they wanted a end to war at ANY cost, the treaty they signed, Brest Litvosk, was quite severe, but they had no choice.
They were fighting the whites, BUT the German army was unbeatable as far as they were concerned, they could defeat a white army, not a well equiped and supplied German one (the Germans drove this point home by continuing to advance untill Brest-Litvosk was signed).

Germany won, by every measure you can make, Russia was freed only by the west's victory over imperial Germany.

 

[A_Bashkuev]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by FrosTi
What about mongols? they partially succeeded
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Ironic that the Mongol invasion may have actually increased Russian power in that it organized it into larger states for governing purposes, which later banded together for protection.

Much like the German states after the Napoleonic phase.
_______________________________________________

Mongol' invasion differs from any invasion from European powers. In some sense in XIII century situation Russian armies were in position of modern European forces, but Mongols used advantages of modern Russia.

Curtly speaking - "General Frost" & "Queen Winter" were on Mongol' side in campaigns of 1237-1238; 1239; 1240-1242. If you check it you will see that Mongol' armies prefered to make their assaults in winter time, because they got more mobility then Russsians in that time of year.
Mongolian horses weren't hoofed, then Mongol' cavalry used ised surfaces of Russian rivers as fast "ice-roads" into Russian heartlands. Russian cavalry used hoofed horses then hoofs slipped on river ice & Russian heavy Cavalry couldn't get out from Forts & Keeps for fighting Mongols in open (I'm not sure that it was viable strategy against steppe cavalry anyway .) Then each Russian stronghold had to resist assaulters one after one without any helping from other Russian detachements.
Rashid-ad-Din wrote in his story of Mongol invasion in Europe that idea of "cam-paigning in winter" hit mongol' warlords after very bloody for Mongol side Kalka battle (1223). They won, but they lost was really damaging. Then they found out from Russian defectors that Russian custom is dissolving their armies in winter time with reason of common inability to wage war by Russian cavalry in winter-time. Then Russian Fate was sealed & doomed by this crucial knowledge . That is that...

 

[joespaniel]

I think AoA is right about WWI. The Reichswehr pushed the Russian armies back quite a distance over time, unlike the Western Front (after the initial successes).

Anyone know any good books about the Eastern campaign?

 

[Serutan]

Originally posted by joespaniel
I think AoA is right about WWI. The Reichswehr pushed the Russian armies back quite a distance over time, unlike the Western Front (after the initial successes).

Anyone know any good books about the Eastern campaign?

Actually, the German armies continued to campaign in
Russia *after* Brest-Litovsk. IIRC they didn't withdraw
until 1919.

I'm not as familiar with Napoleon's campaign, but IMO
the Germans might well have won IF they had tried to win over
the population. What they actually did was prove that it *was*
possible to worse off than under Stalin, so the Russians fought
to the death.

Books:

By David Glantz: (From Soviet perspective)
When Titans Clashed (Recommended as introductory work)
The Battle of Kursk (These last if you're interested in battle studies)
Zhukov's Greatest Defeat

By John Erickson: (Recommended if you want lots of detail)
(From Soviet perspective)
The Road to Stalingrad {These are a 2 volume set}
The Road to Berlin.

By Earl Ziemke: (More extensive intro, German perspective).
Moscow To Stalingrad {These are a 2 volume set}
Stalingrad To Berlin