Conditions needed for a German victory against the USSR

Right, I've been fascinated by the eastern front recently, posting in multiple threads across multiple websites on the matter, basically, of whether or not hitler could have beaten Stalin and what the conditions needed were.

I've recently started reading Stalingrad, by Anthony Beevor (a truly brilliant explanation and well developed account of the battle and the lead up to it!!), and I came to this conclusion mainly: although people say that Moscow's defeat wouldn't have made the soviets surrender, I believe that it's capture in an earlier operation typhoon would have certainly given the soviets less chance to organise and rally the civilian population.
According to the book, even the early stages and successes of Barbarossa saw the Germans with relatively weak supply lines and lack of reinforcements (clothes oil mechanical parts etc). It was problems like this, along with stubborn soviet resistance, which made operations in the south challenging, and thus if the German economy had been prepared and streamlined for total war, the army would have been significantly stronger. Therefore, the simple claim that if hoth and guderian's panzer divisions (well supplied and more reliable) had pushed onto Moscow earlier and the city was captured faster before the winter came in, is not entirely as silly as some claim.
By no means am I saying that the Germans would have won, but with winter clothing, and better preparation in general (so for instance, specially developed oil which doesn't freeze in the conditions faced) the soviet high command would have had much less time to organise and raise the morale of the civilians- Zhukov wouldn't have been able to prepare the mobilisation of half a million civilians, and most importantly, the Germans would have kept the initiative. The soviets would have, for a while, remained in disarray.
The situation in Leningrad would have been similar, as the railway between it and Moscow would have been severed by hoths panzers either way. The movement of Siberian divisions would have been harder with Moscow captured.

Wow that was a mouthful, the outline of what my point is, with a total war declared earlier, prior to Barbarossa, and an earlier typhoon, the soviet disarray and panick would have continued into the winter,and if the relentless German blitzkrieg contining through winter, either a soviet coup would be imminent or the eventual and complete collapse of the red army.
 
Easiest route, have a non-Nazi government take over Germany and later invade. Have them act like human beings instead of demons from Hell and you are a long way there.
 
Have the attack on Moscow work, don't have the tanks, and other mechanized vehicles freeze out right before the attack. The battle in OTL was pathetic. Have faul blue work if Hitler decides to initiate the plan, a Finnish/German offensive into would knock around Soviet morale. Turkey joining the axis wouldbe good.
 
Have Zhukov's air transport heading toward Leningrad to relieve the hapless Soviet general ready to blow up the city's infrastructure to deny its capture by the Germans be shot down by german long range me110 fighter bombers and get severely injured that he is out of the fight for the duration and that hapless Soviet general in charge of defending the city wail in despair and start the demolition of soviet infrastructures in Leningrad and starts the evac of soviet civilians and soldiers out of the destroyed city...

Just for starters..
 
If Germany realizes that the USSR is not going to collapse with a good kick, then they plan better for a campaign that lasts more than six months. Clothing, lubricants, more specialized railroad troops to regauge RRs (and equipment to do it). Decide where the Schwerpunkt should be. Cutting the Leningrad-Moscow RR is as good as investing the city for starts. Do that, take or encircle Moscow before the winter sets in and life has gotten very bad for the Soviets. From the get go do what you need to do to cut the RR and isolate Murmansk - it won't take much more than was used, but needs to be enough/properly planned.

Logistics was always a problem with the Germans, and the racial blinders they had vis a vis the Soviets meant that Grofaz and his coterie had unrealistic expectations even without factoring in the distances and General Winter. As we used to say failing to plan is planning to fail - and the Germans never really (realistically) planned Barbarossa.
 
Don't do it.

I've recently started reading Stalingrad, by Anthony Beevor (a truly brilliant explanation and well developed account of the battle and the lead up to it!!), and I came to this conclusion mainly: although people say that Moscow's defeat wouldn't have made the soviets surrender, I believe that it's capture in an earlier operation typhoon would have certainly given the soviets less chance to organise and rally the civilian population.

An earlier Typhoon would have been catastrophic for the Germans. All those logistical problems you described? Apply just as much to a German thrust on Moscow in September 1941, except even more so. Soviet resistance at the time was also tougher and more prepared for a German assault. And the real killer is that this thrust would have resulted in a long slender salient with inadequate numbers of infantry guarding the flanks just waiting for the Soviets to sweep in and encircle the German spearheads. It would have been Stalingrad a year early.
 
But the book states that the defence of Moscow prior to October was basically the disastrous Bryansk front- the Stavka had been expecting an assault by army group centre since its halt in August, and they cut through the western and reserve fronts easily throughout early October, and I'm proposing a typhoon earlier than this.
It was only after Yeremenko, who organised the Bryansk front, was almost captured by German tanks on 6 October that Zhukov was flown in to mobilise a quarter of a million (sorry I said half a million before haha) civilians. Even now, from the 15th Octorber red army divisions from Siberia were only just beginning to move along the trans-Siberian railway into position. With an earlier offensive, the mood in the soviet high command would have remained in panic, the Germans would have maintained the element of surprise and continued moving (with winter equipment and vehicles) and the soviets would have likely remained in disarray for much longer.
This brings me onto another condition I believe would have helped Germany- the development of strategic bombing, this would have been perfect for bombing soviet positions east of Moscow, again, maintaining panic and surprise. Anyways,that's what I think
 
Easiest route, have a non-Nazi government take over Germany and later invade. Have them act like human beings instead of demons from Hell and you are a long way there.
This.

This brings me onto another condition I believe would have helped Germany- the development of strategic bombing, this would have been perfect for bombing soviet positions east of Moscow, again, maintaining panic and surprise. Anyways,that's what I think
A meaningful strategic bombing force? In order to beat the USSR, Germany really needed that plus a fully motorised army (a non-insane government might just have helped too :rolleyes:, though a non-insane government wouldn't be trying to capture Moscow in the first place...). What it had was an air force using Stukas and an army using horse-drawn carts (I summarise somewhat unfairly perhaps). And to get even that much of a force, the Nazis had to:
a) sacrifice any prospect of building a strong surface Navy;
b) sacrifice German civilian living standards;
c) loot most of Europe.
The Nazis could not handwave into existence resources that didn't exist.
 
A breakdown in the Soviet leadership, resulting in a power struggle just as the Germans are rampaging their way across the Balctics, Belarus and Ukraine. IMO that is the most reliable way to achieve a Nazi victory against the USSR.
 
Have Stalin die, he was the only thing holding the Soviet Union apart. Without him, the factions would be too busy fighting each other than fighting the invaders.
 
Have Stalin's purges back fire on him epicly. The officers and generals figure out that Stalin has one too few a marbles and start making moves against him. Stalin is assassinated after the Winter War and the whole house of cards falls apart.

Hitler takes advantage and pushes hard into Russia in the ensuing chaos. The only advantage to this the allies have is that there is no longer any form of government in Russia and no political elements that you could really call pro-fascist Germany get their victory, but no one who can surrender to them.

The Allies take advantage of this and push for D-Day. The axis end up overstretched but with more supplies. The Long March to Berlin begins.
 

Deleted member 1487

British neutrality. A European Axis vs. USSR results in Soviet defeat in the long run. Without Britain in the war the US doesn't get involved other than perhaps LL if they feel Stalin won't fold soon.
 
I see what people are saying about the nazi ideology being a hinderance, soviet morale was always going to be strengthened by the nazi subjugation of the population- but I don't agree that the nazis were incapable of co operating with the Baltic States, Ukraine and soviet civilians- has no one heard of theory of the nazis would have began their racial philosophy treatment after the war? Again, it just shows how much more of a chance they would have had if more planning had been done- Albert Speer should have streamlined the economy sooner, specific preparations for winter combat should have been made. The long range bomber thing I mentioned is not essential I now realise, the strategic bombing of Germany did not have the huge effect the allies wanted it too- they still churned out jet fighters, tiger tanks, ballistic missiles- this surely begs the question, how much more effective would a fully mobilised economy have been?

although there's definitely not one specific factor or choice which determined Germany's fate in the east, but only a few conditions needed to be changed for them to have a chance of winning.
 
Top