Operation Barbarossa : a close call or Germany was simply outmatched

[catconqueror]

Most people tend to say "Germany will lose in the end" Or "Soviet manpower is unlimited" and so on and say Germany was far from winning it.

But in the end,Germany was stopped just in front of Moscow. and germany high mobility make saving Stalingrad a possibility.

So is it fluke or fate?

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Close call. It was unlikely that they could have won it, but they got very close and were somewhat hamstrung by Hitler's own holding back of resources like tank engines stockpiled for campaigns after the defeat of Russia and the keeping of Organization Todt and other labor groups on a non-mobilized schedule and allowing them to have holidays off in the winter of 1941. With more serious planning and not ignoring intelligence its possible things could have gone better; David Glantz even said it was a near run thing and if Stalin had evacuated Moscow then the war would have been lost due to the importance of the city and what it would have done to the ability of the Soviets to organize resistance after evacuating the government/command structure.

 

[GlobalHumanism]

Most people tend to say "Germany will lose in the end" Or "Soviet manpower is unlimited" and so on and say Germany was far from winning it.

But in the end,Germany was stopped just in front of Moscow. and germany high mobility make saving Stalingrad a possibility.

So is it fluke or fate?

Close call.

The USSR could have collapsed into revolution a few times in early 1941 and it was due to the poor military strategy of Stalin.

The catastrophic encirclements, especially at Kiev could have easily emboldened the Red Army to mutiny against Moscow if the Germans had been more lenient on their captured POWs.

 

[Mike Stearns]

I'd say the answer is both. In theory, the Germans can decapitate the government, but their war aims were explicitly genocidal and everyone knew it. They'll find themselves stuck in an endless partisan hell.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

I'd say the answer is both. In theory, the Germans can decapitate the government, but their war aims were explicitly genocidal and everyone knew it. They'll find themselves stuck in an endless partisan hell.

That wasn't part of Barbarossa though, which was aimed and ending the conventional war. After that the unremitting hell that would have rained down on the general populace would likely have defeated the partisans pretty handily, because IOTL they only survived as long as they did due to the continuing war at the front and support from the Soviet state; without those and Hitler's total lack of morals there would have just been withholding food from the people to solve the partisan war via depopulation; without civilians to get food and support from partisans dry up. Plus the Nazis would use chemical weapons and have enough aircraft to use them where ever, when ever they want.

 

[Mike Stearns]

That wasn't part of Barbarossa though, which was aimed and ending the conventional war. After that the unremitting hell that would have rained down on the general populace would likely have defeated the partisans pretty handily, because IOTL they only survived as long as they did due to the continuing war at the front and support from the Soviet state; without those and Hitler's total lack of morals there would have just been withholding food from the people to solve the partisan war via depopulation; without civilians to get food and support from partisans dry up. Plus the Nazis would use chemical weapons and have enough aircraft to use them where ever, when ever they want.

Not even if the Allies supply them with food and weapons? I would that the Allies would seriously consider the idea of a fifth column in the Soviet Union.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Not even if the Allies supply them with food and weapons? I would that the Allies would seriously consider the idea of a fifth column in the Soviet Union.

The question is how. It would have to be via the USSR, but if that collapses or is stuck fighting a civil war over who replaces Stalin it's not going to be a viable option. Then its an issue of getting in range. They can't get major quantities of anything close once the USSR is defeated, as Turkey will be very eager to suck up to Germany to avoid any trouble, Iran will have all sorts of issues once the Soviet part of it losing its external dominating force though it may be a potential route for supplies into the Caucasus, while that leaves maybe the Balkans that can be reached a bit from North Africa. If the USSR implodes then Murmansk is captured, the Iranian route is pretty much cut off, Siberia isn't a viable option, the Baltic and Black Seas are dominated by the Axis or neutrals that want to be nice to Germany. Thereafter Germany pretty much moves in an sits on important resources and shifts them west while German industry gets ready for the air war and war in the Mediterranean.

 

[HIM Dogson]

A guerrilla campaign only works when the enemy is not aiming to kill you anyway. The SS would likely have very little moral quandaries about massacring village after village until the Russians would be too scared to try anything. The primary flaw of guerrilla resistance is that it relies on the humanity of the enemy.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

A guerrilla campaign only works when the enemy is not aiming to kill you anyway. The SS would likely have very little moral quandaries about massacring village after village until the Russians would be too scared to try anything. The primary flaw of guerrilla resistance is that it relies on the humanity of the enemy.

I mean look at what happened to the Native Americans. The US used a slow, grinding genocide and ethnic cleansing to ultimately end the Indian Wars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Wars
That was in fact the model Hitler used for his campaign of Lebensraum in the East:
http://www.amazon.com/Adolf-Hitler-The-Definitive-Biography/dp/0385420536

 

[CalBear]

I'd say the answer is both. In theory, the Germans can decapitate the government, but their war aims were explicitly genocidal and everyone knew it. They'll find themselves stuck in an endless partisan hell.

This ^.

There were any number of times that the Soviets could have cracked, especially in the first six weeks following the invasion. If anyone had grabbed the controls while Stalin was having his breakdown, the chances of Soviet government disintegration are fairly strong, although far from certain. Once Stalin recovered he was, however, exactly the strongman needed in that crisis since the rest of the leadership was far more afraid of him than any combination of Germans you could assemble. There are a few other potential points where the Soviets could lose, not that the Reich would actually manage to defeat the full might of the country, but where the Soviets would simply fumble things away through screwing up.

The other side of the equation is that the Reich could NOT inflict a comprehensive defeat on the entire Soviet Union. Too much Soviet Union, too few Germans. Even Hitler accepted this as a reality, with his wartime goals limited to ejecting the Soviets from European Russia (the Archangel or A-A line) and crippling them as a potential enemy for all time through a punishing peace treaty.

So, yes it was a missed opportunity (or at least a far more closely run thing than is sometimes imagined), but it was mainly a case where the Reich simply overreached in its chosen goals. Even if Berlin had managed to force the UK out of the war, the Reich could only achieve its desired outcome if the Soviet leadership broke (of course forcing the other side to blink and concede to demands is what constitutes victory in almost any war).

Unconditional surrender wasn't even on the table.

 

[Cronos988]

Close call. It was unlikely that they could have won it, but they got very close and were somewhat hamstrung by Hitler's own holding back of resources like tank engines stockpiled for campaigns after the defeat of Russia and the keeping of Organization Todt and other labor groups on a non-mobilized schedule and allowing them to have holidays off in the winter of 1941. With more serious planning and not ignoring intelligence its possible things could have gone better; David Glantz even said it was a near run thing and if Stalin had evacuated Moscow then the war would have been lost due to the importance of the city and what it would have done to the ability of the Soviets to organize resistance after evacuating the government/command structure.

It seems to me though that it was a close call only insofar as a different soviet reaction, i.e. a political collapse, might have lead to a different result. That is very different from a "close call" in the sense that is was up to the german generals to win or loose the campaign. If Stalin had not, in the last minute, decided to stay in Moscow, the SU might have been militarily defeated. What exactly that means isn't so clear to me though. Even a better prepared Germany cannot drive their tanks to the Urals.

 

[TFSmith121]

Close - could have ended in a stalemate and something

Most people tend to say "Germany will lose in the end" Or "Soviet manpower is unlimited" and so on and say Germany was far from winning it. But in the end,Germany was stopped just in front of Moscow. and germany high mobility make saving Stalingrad a possibility. So is it fluke or fate?

Close - could have ended in a stalemate and something close to an armstice akin to 1917 in 1941 and (possibly) even in 1942, given some minor to major changes in strategy, operations, tactics, politics, and diplomacy (on both sides, of course).

Stalin's breakdown is the big one, of course, but the US not joining the war in 1941-42 is another; the Japanese going west (even in a limited form) in the winter of '41 is one possibility. Both of the later have all sorts of pre-requisites and ripples of their own, of course, but are in the realm of the possible.

An Anglo-German Peace of Amiens type breather in 1940 is another one, of course, but that requires a departure point before the German invasion.

The Germans also, I think, would have had an advantage in chemical warfare against the Soviets in 1941, IF they were willing to countenance it; interesting to know if the British had made it clear they would retaliate in kind if they did so, however. The shock might have been enough to cause more instability in the Soviet leadership and rear-areas... nasty, but certainly within the possible options for the Germans.

And as vast as the Soviets' reserves of manpower were in 1941-42, they still required weapons and sustenance, and the Germans could have taken shots at denying those possibilities, as well.

Archangel and Murmansk are not exactly unreachable by the Germans in the summer of 1941, IF they chose to withdraw significant (surface) naval forces from the Atlantic in the winter of 1940-41 and husband their resources; not going into Africa in 1941 frees up significant military, aviation, and logistical resources that might have a real "knock-on" impact in the peripheries, as well... of course, that leaves the Italians twisting in the wind in Libya in 1941, but given the logistical challenges of a campaign in Libya based (essentially) on Egypt, it's not impossible the Italians could have held Tripolitania, at least.

More ripples there, of course.

Best,

 

[Deleted member 1487]

It seems to me though that it was a close call only insofar as a different soviet reaction, i.e. a political collapse, might have lead to a different result. That is very different from a "close call" in the sense that is was up to the german generals to win or loose the campaign. If Stalin had not, in the last minute, decided to stay in Moscow, the SU might have been militarily defeated. What exactly that means isn't so clear to me though. Even a better prepared Germany cannot drive their tanks to the Urals.

No, Germany couldn't get to the Urals in 1941, but that wasn't the goal for 1941, they were just trying to take Moscow and topple the country; that was potentially viable if better preparations had been made and Stalin panics, which would cause chaos for CiC and pretty much cause resistance around the capital to crumble. For a while there was disorder in Moscow itself until Stalin decided to stay and fight, cracking down on looters and mobilizing civilians.

 

[GlobalHumanism]

Germans also, I think, would have had an advantage in chemical warfare against the Soviets in 1941, IF they were willing to countenance it; interesting to know if the British had made it clear they would realiate in kind if they did so, however. The shock might have been enough to cause more instability in the Soviet leadership and rear-areas... nasty, but certainly within the possible options for the Germans.

What If Germany had launched massive gas attacks on Moscow / Red Square instead operation typhoon?

Could this have killed the Soviet leadership and collapsed the state?

 

[TFSmith121]

Well, they never got within artillery range, and

What If Germany had launched massive gas attacks on Moscow / Red Square instead operation typhoon?Could this have killed the Soviet leadership and collapsed the state?

Well, they never got within artillery range, and daylight operations at low altitudes over Moscow by German bombers is probably not a recipe for success, either.

I was thinking more of tactical use of gas via artillery, akin to WW I.

Best,

 

[wietze]

gas attacks? which means hitler is no longer alive.
they never used gas in otl, not even when the end was near, so what is the reason here?

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Most people tend to say "Germany will lose in the end" Or "Soviet manpower is unlimited" and so on and say Germany was far from winning it.

But in the end,Germany was stopped just in front of Moscow. and germany high mobility make saving Stalingrad a possibility.

So is it fluke or fate?

Conventional wisdom of the day would have believed that a government subjected to such an attack as that received by Russia would collapse and ultimately seek terms.

And why not it had happened in 1917 - so why not in 1941/42?

Had any other form of government even another leader been inflicted on Russia at the time and it probably would have collapsed under the German onslaught.

So why I cannot see Germany and her allies conquering Russia or even totally defeating its army in battle I can see the logic in expecting the Russian Leadership to fold and seek terms.

Must have been quite a disappointment to the Germans when this did not happen!

 

[Lee-Sensei]

Most people tend to say "Germany will lose in the end" Or "Soviet manpower is unlimited" and so on and say Germany was far from winning it.

But in the end,Germany was stopped just in front of Moscow. and germany high mobility make saving Stalingrad a possibility.

So is it fluke or fate?

Napoleon took Moscow. It didn't turn out very well for him.

 

[deathscompanion1]

Napoleon took Moscow. It didn't turn out very well for him.

Napoleonic Moscow was a small town and had not been the capital for long and had zero impact on the Russian ability to wage war.

Soviet Moscow was the rail hub for all of European Russia, had substantial industries and a huge population.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Napoleon took Moscow. It didn't turn out very well for him.

Moscow and Russia were radically different places in 1812 and 1941 with vastly different value and importance.

Napoleonic Moscow was a small town and had not been the capital for long and had zero impact on the Russian ability to wage war.

Soviet Moscow was the rail hub for all of European Russia, had substantial industries and a huge population.

And the hub of their communications network too; they lacked substantial radio communications to make up for the loss of their land line core.