Could Germany have ever defeated the Russia in WW2?

silverharp

Even in hindsight if they had, left Britain alone, sealed up the Med. and bypassed the Russian cities instead of getting bogged down in them, would they still have been bled white, my answer is yes, given the sheer size of Russia and the logistics of sending tanks to the front, also I believe tanks don’t last long travelling over long distances. So from the beginning was the strategy that worked well in the west flawed from the start in the East?

If they had developed lighter units based on complete air supremacy would this have worked any better? Maybe using tanks for defence instead of attack?

Hagar

It's not beyond belief that the Germans could have beaten the Russian Army in the scanario suggested above but the country is too vast and the population too large to surpress. They could never have held the ground taken and bypassing cities would have left enemy strongholds everywhere. Not a good strategy. So I'd have to say no they couldn't have achieved a lasting victory.

If they did beat Western Russia and advanced eastwards I would say that by the time they got halfway across the Steppes they would have been meeting Chinese soldiers coming the other way. So it's still a no from me.

NMM

TerrorFirmer

Yes.

Primarily, the war in the west should have first been ended, there were not many German resources tied up in the west at the onset on the invasion but leaving britain unoccupied and undefeated are what lead to the d-day landings and subsequently draining 33% of german forces.

The major reason for the defeat in Russia was Hitler disasterous strategies. His orders constantly changed, made outrageous demands on the army groups and were completely ignorant to common sense. Had the German Army been lead by its very capable commanders and generals and the war directed the way they wanted it to, the Germans would have had no problem crushing the red army, at least, in the sense that they could have inflicted such defeats that the red army could never have come back to the fighting force it rose into in early 1942 onwards.

Some people who are not very clued up on history tend to think after Stalingrad, that was the final turning point. Even after the defeat at Stalingrad, the German army went back on the offensive in early 1943 and completely stopped the Russian advance and could have easily stalled the war into a static one for years had Hitlers generals had their way and tried to make the best of an already bad situation by imposing a universal defensive line. Hitlers insane orders are what lead to the Kursk battle - in which the German forces inflicted a numerical defeat but could not sustaint the losses they sustrained - and german retreat and defeat thereafter.

So to sum that up, I do not think that the German army could have outright beaten the Red army completely but with proper leadership and direction it could have easily taken vast tracts of land - that were strategically important - and easily defended them and/or forced some sort of agreement.

Regarding your point about bypassing cities, that was exactly what they DID do in many cases.

They bypassed alot of cities, as well as which they did not occupy Moscow with could have easily been acheived if again, Hitler was not in charge. A fall of Moscow would have been a major blow to Russian morale.

Finally, the hugest mistake of the invasion was the way in which it was waged. Had Hitler abandoned his ideal, even temporarily, of the Russians being "sub-human", he could have easily appealed to the general populace (especially of the surrounding integrated countries like Latvia, Ukraine, etc) as saviour to free them from Stalin. Russia, or at least, what the Germans wanted from it, could have been taken over with (relative) ease in this instance.

My opinion.

magick

lll go with what havok said

plus if the Germans treated the Ukraine population with respect , the Ukraines people were ready to take up arms and fight along side with the Germans, as well as many other soviet dominated peoples

babybundy

i'll have to say no hittler was a drug addict and completely paronoid and as long as he was in control he would never defeat the russians

Bam Bam

With the russian building of Magnetograd on the other side of the Urals, it ment the Germans couldn't touch the Russian industrial machine.

Hitler wanted pockets of resistence left in the cities.

He felt that the russian partisan forces would be used to keep the german forces sharp and constantly battle hardened.

The Chinese wouldn't have been able to help the Russians, they were being slaughtered by the Japenese.

silverharp

Indeed taking out Britain would have made a more sensible strategy. However Germany then could not have attacked Russia til spring 42, by then the US may have allied with Russia more strongly and supported with divisions etc (comments welcome on this , only guessing)

I still think it came down to the fact that Russia could build more tanks than Germany by a large factor, regardless of how clever one's military strategy is, you can't win (or continue to win) against superiorty in numbers, Germany was always going to lose a war of attrition. As was mentioned they ignored useful allies like the Ukraine and were stuck with unreliable allies like Italy. The Russian winter was always going to give the Russians time to reorganise so I don't believe they could have beat Russia in one season

Hagar

I didn't mean that the Chinese would be helping Russia, I was thinking of attacking Russia, a land grab while they were being attacked on another front. OK they were fighting the Japanese but the US were eventually going to be embroiled there so they wouldn't have been a long term threat. With a population like China's the Japanese would have a problem defeating them. Winning battles is one thing, surpressing a population is quite another.

As for Ukaraine becoming allies with the Germans, possibly short term but when Germany started bleeding their resources for the war against Russia I would say the nature of the alliance would have changed. Germany I think viewed allies as short term for Germany's benefit only, look at how they treated their Italian allies.

NMM

purple'n'gold

Germany could certainly have defeated the Russians if they had used some common sense. They should have invaded 6 weeks earlier than they did, (because of their campaign in the Balkans). But, most importantly, they should have treated the Russian civilian population humanely. They were prepared to dump Stalin and would have welcomed the Germans with open arms if they were treated properly. When Germany had conquered European Russia, the rest of the country would have been unable to withstand them.

tallus

The Russian Winter had to have played a large part in slowing down the Germans, their tanks had narrow tracks and got bogged down totally, also the German troops were ill equipped for the severe Russian weather, IE: light uniforms etc. The Russian railways also had different size tracks which also presented logistical problems for the Germans. These problems combined had to have a large impact on the morale of German troops, coupled with the slow down caused by Russian weather. Also the lack of raw materials at the Germans disposal had to have caused problems. He sent much needed men to the cacausas(spelling?) Oil fields while they might have been better served fighting further north and might have even made it to moscow.
Hitler got too involved with decision making which has already been pointed out in the thread. Also the fact that Stalin stupidly had most of the experienced Officers in the Russian army sent to gulags in Siberia, or shot.
I dont think they would have defeated the Russians it in the end because of the huge resources at the hands of the Russians and the fact that they did learn fast and were a superb fighting force by the time they started to push the Germans back to Germany.

FiSe

Well, it's not so simple to say would they - Germans and their allies - beat Soviets - no "Russians" back then... They would ofcourse, but they didn't...

If USA and UK would stay away from any involvment in this conflict and if they send no military or any other help to Soviets...
If Soviet empire would be "civilised" like Europian countries, with, probably not good, but normal infrastructure above all.
If Germans would go slowly and more systemathicaly, huge pockets of partisans and regular Soviet army Germans bypassed on their way in first few weeks of fighting didn't do any good.
If Germans would built mass production tanks, though not perfect, like Soviets or American did - T34, Sherman.
And of course if they would show some recognition to people who lived not only on Soviet occupied teritory - Ukraina, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Belarus, but in German occupied countries as well, France, Poland...
If Germans would have unlimited human resources like Soviets had. And so on and so on...

Clare gunner

Yes they could have won.
BUT there were too many factors that causedthe plan to fail.From Hitlers overall command,and countermanding his best generals orders.To a incoherent objective plan.Push to Moscow,or the oil fields to the Causasus,or claim vast tracts of land for Lebensraum. To the equipment,to weak supply lines,to partisan activity,to German allies or the handling of people who would have fought against the Russians.. The crucial fact was that Hitler ignored most of his generals who were pushing for taking out Moscow,which hadnt suceeded for Napoelon,and the German high command were still using his plan albeit modified for the 20th centuary to invade Russia.A daunting task in itself.Hitler was supporting a plan put together by Gen Von Losberg which aimed at driving for the heartland of Russias industry and oil,of which Stalingrad was the lynch pin.If Stalingrad fell,the way was open to the oil fields.That is why so much hinged on Hitler winning there.Stalingrad could have been won [as well,as my german grandfather said,he was there,and was lucky to get out with frostbite,when he did.] IF Von Paulus had had the guts to ignore the Furher befehl[Furhers orders]and had broken out of Stalingrad and re grouped.It would have been a holding action til Spring and then it was well belived by the troops on the ground that they could have retaken Sgard.
But Hitlers crazy ideas that the Germans should die rather than retreat from the Untermensch,would condem the prime German 6th army to destruction.

All in all it cant be down to just one paticular cause,rather a factor of many.
IF Hitler had listend to his generals,IF they had struck for Moscow,IF the German generals had been allowed more autonomy and not been burdend with political decisions,If,if, if....

TempestSabre

HavoK wrote:

...
Some people who are not very clued up on history tend to think after Stalingrad, that was the final turning point. Even after the defeat at Stalingrad, the German army went back on the offensive in early 1943 and completely stopped the Russian advance and could have easily stalled the war into a static one for years had Hitlers generals had their way and tried to make the best of an already bad situation by imposing a universal defensive line. Hitlers insane orders are what lead to the Kursk battle - in which the German forces inflicted a numerical defeat but could not sustaint the losses they sustrained - and german retreat and defeat thereafter. ...

I think your putting a very optimistic spin on the last major strategic German victory of the war. "The 3rd Battle of Kharkov". While Von Manstein's stabilizing the German front was brilliant. It did not reverse the loss at Stalingrad or retake that ground. If there were more like Von Manstein in control, it might have been possible to do what your suggesting, but the fact was there wasn't.

The Germans didn't have the manpower and the industrial production to recover from their losses, the Russian did have an ever increasing ability to do this. In what ever scenerio is painted, that is always going to be a major factor in the outcome.

Truth9834

Could Germany have defeated Russia in world war 2?

Yes, it could have however it would have cost the Germans dearly. Spoiled from their easy victories over Poland, France and the rest of Europe, the Germans to win this war would have had to commit to it fully prior to the start in 1941.

First propaganda selling a free Ukraine and Baltic states, promises to free the Russian people from the oppression of Stalin, the commitment of more troops from the west as Britain was far from a real threat.

The building of more Mark 4 tanks, full supply of winter gear, the call up of an additional $2 million troops on the day of the start of the war. The fair treatment of the civilians and captured troops were a must, along with giving local authorities control over the land conquered by the Germans.

After Smolensk the Germans would have to had to commit to a full attack on Moscow, and than later swinging around and taking the Ukraine. After capturing Moscow and the Ukraine, the Germans would need to dig in for winter and wait for better weather to finish the war in 1942. They would have the additional 2 million troops, more tanks, a somewhat supportive population and this in my opinion would tip the scales for the Germans.

Later after crushing the Russians in 1942 they would than revert to who they really were and act ruthlessly against the population but not until they had the war won. That was their mistake. A mistake of such arrogance that it cost the Germans victory over Russia in world war 2 and the destruction of their country.

Yes, they could have won had they been prepared for total war including the art of deception. This should have been their strategy.

goldie fish

zombie thread alert...

Truth9834

The truth is the art of deception is a part of any military strategy. The Germans through arrogance failed to realize that when dealing with another ruthless regime (Stalin) that they had to incorporate this military scheme fully in their military strategy. That "failure" is why they lost to Russia.

Dyr

bleh..victory is achieving your objectives, not winning battles. Hitlers objectives were not achievable with the resources he had at his disposal.

Manic Moran

Five and a half years? Not bad.

What's the Boards record, out of interest?

NTM

twinytwo

Had then been equiped for the russian winter anything could have happened.

However there were a chain of events that would lead to the never having a hope

1) Was the change of attack from british airfields to british ctites.. this allowed the brits to win the battle of britian... which led to germany never setting foot in the uk.

2)Japan attacking america, mistake or what. Had hitler taken england before this, events may have turned out differently

America coming into the war destroyed whatever chance the germans had against russia. Having to fight on 3 fronts was always a losing a battle. Also its hard enough to fight either america or russia without having to fight them both at the same time.

Charlie87

Personally I think it's a tricky one. The Balkans campaign forced on Hitler by the Italians severely delayed (for the worse) the planned invasion of the soviet union, with the quest for lebensraum being germany's ultimate goal.

It could have still been done regardless of the vastness of Russia. Germany's main aim was to secure the western soviet union (Poland, Belarus, ukraine, Baltic states, Crimea, caucausus region, and western Russia). They never really planned to go much further than what was European territory, or further than the urals. Their war aims were to a) secure natural resources b) claim land for colonization c) exterminate or push beyond the urals the inferior (supposedly) Slavic population.
Granted the treatment particularly by the ss of the civil populations in conquered territories of the east was going to cause resistance, and Hitler should not have brought his ideological war to Russia if he wanted to win. There were however, many Ukrainians, Russians, and Baltic peoples serving with the waffen ss. This shows that some people regardless of nazi evils towards their own kind still preferred them to stalins regime.
Ultimately in order to win in the east, Germany should have dumped their ideological form of warfare for the duration (as mentioned before), thus securing manpower and a willing civil population. With this and Hitler not interfering in tactics, the wermacht would have captured Moscow, leningrad, and Stalingrad, aided by disgruntled new troops from the former unwilling soviet republics. This would cause chaos and collapse as most Russians would fear more their blood thirsty, rapacious former underlings as a pose to professional German troops, and possibly begin to flee eastwards to siberias wastelands. This would then allow the Germans to secure their new borders, And begin organizing their new state the way they wanted to from defensive positions.

Charlie87

Personally I think it's a tricky one. The Balkans campaign forced on Hitler by the Italians severely delayed (for the worse) the planned invasion of the soviet union, with the quest for lebensraum being germany's ultimate goal.

It could have still been done regardless of the vastness of Russia. Germany's main aim was to secure the western soviet union (Poland, Belarus, ukraine, Baltic states, Crimea, caucausus region, and western Russia). They never really planned to go much further than what was European territory, or further than the urals. Their war aims were to a) secure natural resources b) claim land for colonization c) exterminate or push beyond the urals the inferior (supposedly) Slavic population.
Granted the treatment particularly by the ss of the civil populations in conquered territories of the east was going to cause resistance, and Hitler should not have brought his ideological war to Russia if he wanted to win. There were however, many Ukrainians, Russians, and Baltic peoples serving with the waffen ss. This shows that some people regardless of nazi evils towards their own kind still preferred them to stalins regime.
Ultimately in order to win in the east, Germany should have dumped their ideological form of warfare for the duration (as mentioned before), thus securing manpower and a willing civil population. With this and Hitler not interfering in tactics, the wermacht would have captured Moscow, leningrad, and Stalingrad, aided by disgruntled new troops from the former unwilling soviet republics. This would cause chaos and collapse as most Russians would fear more their blood thirsty, rapacious former underlings as a pose to professional German troops, and possibly begin to flee eastwards to siberias wastelands. This would then allow the Germans to secure their new borders, And begin organizing their new state the way they wanted to from defensive positions.

Charlie87

twinytwo wrote: »

Had then been equiped for the russian winter anything could have happened.

However there were a chain of events that would lead to the never having a hope

1) Was the change of attack from british airfields to british ctites.. this allowed the brits to win the battle of britian... which led to germany never setting foot in the uk.

2)Japan attacking america, mistake or what. Had hitler taken england before this, events may have turned out differently

America coming into the war destroyed whatever chance the germans had against russia. Having to fight on 3 fronts was always a losing a battle. Also its hard enough to fight either america or russia without having to fight them both at the same time.

I think you may have too much faith in America as a power at this point. I think Americas contribution to both wars was mainly materialistic. Don't get me wrong the us did great things, but were never regarded by the axis troops (particularly Germany) as being up to the standard of Russian or British (including dominion and colonial troops) servicemen. Also Hitler declared war mainly because he thought of Americans sort of the same way as he did Russians, as racially inferiors, not cut out for fighting.

OS119

Charlie87 wrote: »

Germany's main aim was to secure the western soviet union (Poland, Belarus, ukraine, Baltic states, Crimea, caucausus region, and western Russia)...

which was mental. look at a map, you're talking about an area over 1000 miles wide - Germanys' population could never, ever have 'settled' an area that large and remained an industrialised society, let alone an industrialised society capable of fighting any kind of border war.

Germany would have been hard pushed to settle Poland and Western Ukraine while retaining its industrial and warfighting capability - the largest errors Hitler made were that he had utterly unrealistic war aims, he created a military that was great at fighting battles, but rubbish at winning wars (it lacked logistics, it lacked 'reach' and it couldn't do the things that defeat enemies before they get to the battlefield), he wasted effort and opportunity by buggering around with the civil populations in the countries he invaded, and he ignored the lesson of history that in Europe, if one country gets too powerful, the others will gang up on it regardless of their differences.

Capt'n Midnight

Napoleon took Moscow. The Russian government had already evacuated, just Joe there keeping the lights on.

Not only could the Russians could produce more tanks they were producing better ones and in quantity. yes some of the German tanks were better but they were built in response to the Russian ones and never in the numbers required to cope. The tractor factory in Stalingrad was churning out tanks during the siege.

Soviets were very good at scorched earth tactics and leaving partisans behind and as long as they had access to oil the wheels would roll.

Of the major combatants perhaps only the Japanese soldier had to endure worse conditions. It was a war of attrition and the Russians individually and as a country could take more.


Had the Germans gone full tilt for Moscow, but allowed Uncle Joe to escape then it would have been another Stalingrad / Leningrad.


Had they gone for the Caucuses and captured the oil fields, they would have a very long frontier to defend. Remember 1917 ? - The Russians surrendered the Ukraine to Germany. But the Germans would have know it was only a ceasefire at best so even if the war had ended that way it would not have ended that way for long.

Capt'n Midnight

silverharp wrote: »

As was mentioned they ignored useful allies like the Ukraine and were stuck with unreliable allies like Italy.

They gave the Cossacks a "kingdom" in Italy towards the end.

Yeah you have to remember the Hungarians and Romanians too.
The Baltic states and Poles. Plenty of people who hated Stalin/Russia. Something like one million Russians fought on the German side, could easily have been more. How many prisoners died in German captivity ?

Imagine if they had sent all the Jews to Madagascar or even enrolled them in the army and treated captured folk like fellow travellers ?

Delancey

If Goering had got his act together and allowed the Luftwaffe to develop the ' Ural Bomber ' with the payload and range to fly past the Urals and attack the relocated Soviet war plants that might have had a decisive impact on the war in the east.

Charlie87

OS119 wrote: »

Charlie87 wrote: »

Germany's main aim was to secure the western soviet union (Poland, Belarus, ukraine, Baltic states, Crimea, caucausus region, and western Russia)...

which was mental. look at a map, you're talking about an area over 1000 miles wide - Germanys' population could never, ever have 'settled' an area that large and remained an industrialised society, let alone an industrialised society capable of fighting any kind of border war.

Germany would have been hard pushed to settle Poland and Western Ukraine while retaining its industrial and warfighting capability - the largest errors Hitler made were that he had utterly unrealistic war aims, he created a military that was great at fighting battles, but rubbish at winning wars (it lacked logistics, it lacked 'reach' and it couldn't do the things that defeat enemies before they get to the battlefield), he wasted effort and opportunity by buggering around with the civil populations in the countries he invaded, and he ignored the lesson of history that in Europe, if one country gets too powerful, the others will gang up on it regardless of their differences.

I can agree with what you say regarding the land mass to an extent. Himmler had a few ideas regarding colonization which were in all honesty was quite feasible such as the volksdeutsche from other parts of the world. Also the idea essentially of settling or promoting settlement of other racially acceptable people such as scandanavians and british after the war. There were some ludacris ideas that clearly wouldn't have worked such as resettling the entire Dutch population in Poland by the Vistula. Also germanization of people deemed to be worthy in the conquered territories would have helped a population boost (although hostility may have prevented this).
With regards to one nation state in Europe becoming so powerful that the rest gang up on it. Not strictly true, Britain was the most powerful nation in the world for centuries and rarely did a European opponent challenge us regardless of our policy of isolation from Europe. We deprived many European states of colonies due to our gunboat policy. Had Germany played their cards right this would have been a luxury they could afford to play with too.

Charlie87

OS119 wrote: »

Charlie87 wrote: »

Germany's main aim was to secure the western soviet union (Poland, Belarus, ukraine, Baltic states, Crimea, caucausus region, and western Russia)...

which was mental. look at a map, you're talking about an area over 1000 miles wide - Germanys' population could never, ever have 'settled' an area that large and remained an industrialised society, let alone an industrialised society capable of fighting any kind of border war.

Germany would have been hard pushed to settle Poland and Western Ukraine while retaining its industrial and warfighting capability - the largest errors Hitler made were that he had utterly unrealistic war aims, he created a military that was great at fighting battles, but rubbish at winning wars (it lacked logistics, it lacked 'reach' and it couldn't do the things that defeat enemies before they get to the battlefield), he wasted effort and opportunity by buggering around with the civil populations in the countries he invaded, and he ignored the lesson of history that in Europe, if one country gets too powerful, the others will gang up on it regardless of their differences.

I can agree with what you say regarding the land mass to an extent. Himmler had a few ideas regarding colonization which were in all honesty was quite feasible such as the volksdeutsche from other parts of the world. Also the idea essentially of settling or promoting settlement of other racially acceptable people such as scandanavians and british after the war. There were some ludacris ideas that clearly wouldn't have worked such as resettling the entire Dutch population in Poland by the Vistula. Also germanization of people deemed to be worthy in the conquered territories would have helped a population boost (although hostility may have prevented this).
With regards to one nation state in Europe becoming so powerful that the rest gang up on it. Not strictly true, Britain was the most powerful nation in the world for centuries and rarely did a European opponent challenge us regardless of our policy of isolation from Europe. We deprived many European states of colonies due to our gunboat policy. Had Germany played their cards right this would have been a luxury they could afford to play with too.

Dyr

OS119 wrote: »

which was mental. look at a map, you're talking about an area over 1000 miles wide - Germanys' population could never, ever have 'settled' an area that large and remained an industrialised society, let alone an industrialised society capable of fighting any kind of border war.

Germany would have been hard pushed to settle Poland and Western Ukraine while retaining its industrial and warfighting capability - the largest errors Hitler made were that he had utterly unrealistic war aims, he created a military that was great at fighting battles, but rubbish at winning wars (it lacked logistics, it lacked 'reach' and it couldn't do the things that defeat enemies before they get to the battlefield), he wasted effort and opportunity by buggering around with the civil populations in the countries he invaded, and he ignored the lesson of history that in Europe, if one country gets too powerful, the others will gang up on it regardless of their differences.

I said it in less words :pac:

bleh..victory is achieving your objectives, not winning battles. Hitlers objectives were not achievable with the resources he had at his disposal.

You have to hand it to the germans though, they punched way above their weight

Jawgap

This comes up time and again, but it's still an interesting discussion to have.

I think the answer to this is no, if you are talking about an outright defeat - could they have reached an 'accommodation' (like a Warsaw Pact in reverse, only dominated by Germany) - as in gained territory at the expense of the USSR, probably.

The problem for the Germans was they were in a catch 22 - they needed Soviet natural resources to beat the Soviets, but couldn't get their hands on them in the quantities needed unless they defeated them.

The size of the USSR / Russia made defeating them impossible - how could you project, supply and sustain an army into a space that size? Then garrison and hold the real estate you've "conquered"? It would simply be impossible with the population base the Germans had - they were pretty much doomed as soon as they launched Barbarossa.

Even if they had taken Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad etc, they would still not even have been out of European Russia, never mind the rest of the USSR (have a look on google maps and draw line from St Petersburg, to Moscow and Volgograd - you're barely a tenth of the way across the country).

All the time the Germans advanced they were extending their supply lines and the Soviets were falling back on theirs.

If a T34 tank crew had a tank shot out from under them, they could nip back to the factory and get another one and be back in action in hours, a German crew could take days / weeks to get into a replacement sent out from the factory in the Reich, and to get it to them the Germans had to use fuel and rail transport (that then couldn't be used for anything else).

getz

the russian take on this is interesting, this is what they teach in their schools,yet it doesent figure in britains schools,after germanys operation barbarossa churchill promised to supply stalin ;at all costs; knowing that had russia fallen the full weight of the nazi would have been directed at the west,[30,000 british sailers died] it was the arctic convoys the worst journey in the world 78 convoys dilivered more than 4 million tons of cargo,7,000 planes 5,000 tanks and over 100 ships sank,every few years they bring over those sailors who are still alive to celebrate that journey,this year they rewarded those who survived with medals.

Capt'n Midnight

getz wrote: »

78 convoys dilivered more than 4 million tons of cargo,7,000 planes 5,000 tanks and over 100 ships sank,every few years they bring over those sailors who are still alive to celebrate that journey,this year they rewarded those who survived with medals.

you are also forgetting about the Vladivostok convoys from the US via the railway.

Main thing the convoys delivered was trucks, lots of them

the Russians for the most part used their own weapons because they reckoned they were better. Trucks freed up their factories to make more tanks.



The Ural bomber sounds interesting, 'cept you have to remember the Russian factories didn't even have roofs back then so would have been a lot harder to destroy everything. Also is there any evidence that the bombers would have got through or disrupted production ?

getz

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

you are also forgetting about the Vladivostok convoys from the US via the railway.

Main thing the convoys delivered was trucks, lots of them

the Russians for the most part used their own weapons because they reckoned they were better. Trucks freed up their factories to make more tanks.



The Ural bomber sounds interesting, 'cept you have to remember the Russian factories didn't even have roofs back then so would have been a lot harder to destroy everything. Also is there any evidence that the bombers would have got through or disrupted production ?

at the start,russia had very little and it took time to get the factories in full production,

Jawgap

getz wrote: »

the russian take on this is interesting, this is what they teach in their schools,yet it doesent figure in britains schools,after germanys operation barbarossa churchill promised to supply stalin ;at all costs; knowing that had russia fallen the full weight of the nazi would have been directed at the west,[30,000 british sailers died] it was the arctic convoys the worst journey in the world 78 convoys dilivered more than 4 million tons of cargo,7,000 planes 5,000 tanks and over 100 ships sank,every few years they bring over those sailors who are still alive to celebrate that journey,this year they rewarded those who survived with medals.

probably a hold over from the Cold War - generally the Allies played down the contribution of the Soviets and vice versa.

The best example I've seen is in the attached photo (quite large, so open at your peril:)) from the American Cemetery overlooking Omaha Beach .

It shows the Allied advances on Germany from June 1944 to May 1945 - compare the size / scale of the arrows for the Western Front with those for the Eastern Front - it makes it look like the Red Army was just a few lads mucking about in a truck!

Charlie87

Jawgap wrote: »

This comes up time and again, but it's still an interesting discussion to have.

I think the answer to this is no, if you are talking about an outright defeat - could they have reached an 'accommodation' (like a Warsaw Pact in reverse, only dominated by Germany) - as in gained territory at the expense of the USSR, probably.

The problem for the Germans was they were in a catch 22 - they needed Soviet natural resources to beat the Soviets, but couldn't get their hands on them in the quantities needed unless they defeated them.

The size of the USSR / Russia made defeating them impossible - how could you project, supply and sustain an army into a space that size? Then garrison and hold the real estate you've "conquered"? It would simply be impossible with the population base the Germans had - they were pretty much doomed as soon as they launched Barbarossa.

Even if they had taken Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad etc, they would still not even have been out of European Russia, never mind the rest of the USSR (have a look on google maps and draw line from St Petersburg, to Moscow and Volgograd - you're barely a tenth of the way across the country).

All the time the Germans advanced they were extending their supply lines and the Soviets were falling back on theirs.

If a T34 tank crew had a tank shot out from under them, they could nip back to the factory and get another one and be back in action in hours, a German crew could take days / weeks to get into a replacement sent out from the factory in the Reich, and to get it to them the Germans had to use fuel and rail transport (that then couldn't be used for anything else).

I would like to start by saying that the answer you have given is wonderfully educated.
In response I would say that if Germany stuck to the original plan and carried on the way they did in the first six weeks of invasion for possibly another six weeks (also having the correct equipment for the seasons and terrain), it could have been done. Logistically the Germans were quite creative and if they had the audacious Rommel on the eastern front things may have got done. With hard initial punch continuing I personally think the Germans would have kicked the door in and watched the whole rotten structure tumble down. Due to how weakened and incompetent the soviets were a relentless assault would have at least chased them beyond the urals.

Sand

The Germans could have defeated the Soviets, but the Nazis never could. A realist German leadership would have played on huge nationalist and political dissent within the Soviet Union and presented themselves as liberators from the Communists - as a better option than the quite frankly Kafkaesque Soviet leadership. Soviet political commissars were horrified to learn that many Red Army soldiers had never even *heard* of Stalin and there was deep resentment within Soviet peasant society with regard to brutal collectivization and oppression. All through 1941 and most of 1942 the Germans went up against badly trained, awfully led, poorly motivated troops who deeply resented the Soviets and suspected rule under the Germans couldn't be much worse. Very few were willing to die for communism or Stalin. It wasn't for no reason that the Soviet leadership told the Red Army that the Soviet people had begun to lose faith in them - by that point the Soviet Army had been pushed back as far as Stalingrad with the vast majority of the "Russian" Soviet Union lost.

The vile cruelties and injustice of Nazi rule in occupied territories, and their brutality toward and starvation of Russian POWs gradually seeped back across the lines to the Russian soldiers. The Nazis prevaricated on the siege of Lenningrad, not over military concerns, but on what was the best way to exterminate the civilian population - starvation or machine guns. This is what swung the war to the Soviets. The average "Ivan" realised that they weren't fighting a war over territory or what flag flew. That they weren't fighting a war that they could afford to lose. They were fighting an existential conflict - If the Nazis won, the Russians, their children and their grandchildren would be born into inhuman slavery if not outright exterminated. It was a conflict no less total than that faced by Athenians at Salamis when they recognized that there would be no Athenians if they did not beat the Persians.

"Even those of us who knew that our government was wicked, that there was little to choose between the SS and the NKVD except their language, and who despised the hypocrisy of Communist politics - we felt that we must fight.

Because every Russian who had lived through the Revolution and the thirties had felt a breeze of hope, for the first time in the history of our people. We were like the the bud at the tip of a root which has wound its way for centuries under rocky soil. We felt ourselves to be within inches of the open sky.

We knew that we would die of course.

But our children would inherit two things: A land free of the invader; and Time."

Hitler was convinced that war was simply a matter of Will. So what did he have to put against this mix of fatalism and stubborn, defiant resistance? Greed for land and contrived ideas of racial supremacy? The only surprise is that the Russians weren't in Berlin by 1944.

Delancey

In the many threads that have appeared on this subject much has been made of strategies , tactics , weapons and of course the great Russian General - Winter.

I think it worthwhile to note another great strenght of the Russians , in the words of the great writer Boris Pasternak it was '' our accursed capacity for suffering ''.
What other country could have suffered and endured so much but keep fighting ?

OS119

Delancey wrote: »

...What other country could have suffered and endured so much but keep fighting ?

personally, i think this 'stoic Russian nature' thing is overstated - Russia's working/peasant class keep fighting/enduring because if they don't either the Tsar or Stalin will shoot them. they are conditioned to be more afraid of their 'leadership' than they are of anything else.

in 1940 in London, talk of a 'compromise' with Nazi Germany was a legitimate subject for serious discussion, and anyone had the right to argue for or against it. in Russia in 1941 talk of 'compromise' with Nazi Germany by anyone except Stalin would have seen you hung up on a meat hook, shot and your family sent off to starve in some Gulag a thousand miles from the next living thing. this does not provide a backdrop that allows you to make a comparrison between the 'ability to endure' of different peoples.

its also worth noting that this 'ability to endure' was quite brittle - as soon as the commissars had gone and the Red Army was away the civilian population seemed remarkable keen to get along with/work for the Germans. only when the Germans showed themselves to be worse than the Russians did this 'stoic patriotism' resurface...

Jawgap

@Sand's post raises some very interesting points.

Stalin's regime was indeed as cruel, venial and corrupt as the Nazis, but even despite that I would question whether, on the basis of what we've seen recently in Iraq and Afghanistan, an invading army (as opposed to a returning one) can ever be regarded as liberators?

To answer the OP's original question, I think the economics of the war have to be taken account of.

German war plans were predicated on the basis that economic output in the occupied territories (whether to the east or west) would, over the long term, be unaffected by German domination; that after a decline, they would recover to their pre-war levels.

The truth was that aside from Norway and Denmark (where economic growth was stagnant from 1940 to 1945) every other country occupied by the Nazis saw a collapse in economic output. For example in France, steel production was less than one-third what it had been in the peak years of 1930 to 1932, and French coal production fell by 18% in 1940 in a country that previously needed to import 40% of its annual requirement - a significant proportion of which came from Britain.

During the War, German GDP increased substantially, but at the expense of the territories occupied. Before the War the combined GDP of the occupied countries and Germany exceeded that of the British Empire, but by about the middle of 1942 it was about three-quarters of the British Empire - and that's before you take account of America.

Over 1940ish-1945 combined Allied GDP increased dramatically, whereas German / Axis / Grossraum GDP went slowly downhill (exclude Germany and the decline is more significant).

Once the Germans headed East they locked themselves into a death spiral, economically speaking......

To make war, they needed steel........to make steel they needed coke........to make coke........they needed coal........to get coal they needed miners......miners like workers and soldiers and the population in general need to be fed.

They problems they faced were manifold. First, mining in Germany was still highly labour intensive and skilled miners were in high demand - the same skilled young men who the Wehrmacht also wanted.

The estimated steel needs for the Reich were 46m tonnes per annum, of which it was estimated that the Ruhr could produce 17.5m tonnes pa. The invasions and occupations of France and Czechoslovakia secured the ore supplies they needed.

Coke production from the Ruhr (virtually the only source for the Germans) peaked at 131m tonnes on 1939 but by 1941 was falling by 2m tonnes per month.

Overall, the coal deficit was about 11m tonnes, which was manageable - if it had been managed!

The system was re-organised to ensure miners were better paid and the Wehrmacht released as many skilled miners as it could back to the mines in 1941. However, production still declined - miners were working 7 days per week, with no recovery days and even though they were relatively well fed (to the rest of the population) they were still not nourished sufficiently for this kind of hard physical work.

Nor could they be better fed. Germany started the war with 8.8m tonnes of grain - enough to provide bread for the German population for a year. By the end of 1940 the reserve was down to 1.3 million tonnes.

The high intensity dairy farms in France and the Netherlands relied on imported grain and oil seed to feed the animals and maintain output, but this largely came from Argentina and Canada. Unable to feed their animals many farmers began to cull them for their meat, the same also happened on the poultry farms, thus permanently reducing the capacity of these sources to supply fat and protein.

Even those farms still producing milk could not get it to creameries to be processed - France was reduced to 8% of its pre-War supply of petrol, meaning no trucks for collections.

To compound it all, the grain harvest in Europe in 1940 was less than half what it had been in 1938 because the fertiliser industry had been turned over to producing explosives and because of the need for horses.

The irony is that the only regions producing grain surpluses enough to feed people and horses were Romania and Ukraine (with Ukraine providing the bulk). Another irony of the whole situation was that when the Germans demanded that the Soviets double their grain shipments in 1940 and they did so immediately (by dipping into their own national reserves), it persuaded Hitler of the correctness of his decision to launch Barbarossa and in particular to target Ukraine.

The Germans could have 'gone all the way' and taken Moscow, but their defeat was inevitable, it was just a question of when.

Capt'n Midnight

Jawgap wrote: »

German war plans were predicated on the basis that economic output in the occupied territories (whether to the east or west) would, over the long term, be unaffected by German domination; that after a decline, they would recover to their pre-war levels.

Germans looted machinery from territories they conquered. But they didn't put it into use. This is one of the reasons the US ballbearing plan could have worked.

In the UK selection for the "Bevin Boy's" working down the mines was simple http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peopleswar/stories/33/a5269133.shtml

Ernest Bevin the Minister of Labour created the Bevin Boys. This was done by the last digit on your identity card either nought or nine.

How big an effect did Speer have on the war ?

Italy had a GPD about 1/10th that of the UK at the start of the war.
How did the Czech's industry fare ?

Jawgap

I've no data specifically on Czechoslovakia, but Italy is covered in the attached table.

This graph (using the data from the table) shows how Axis and Allied GDP fared over the course of the war....



The data is taken from this paper

....and if you are a real sadist, the book the paper is taken from (The Economics ofWorld War II: Six Great Powers in International Comparison) is a real page turner!!!

Jawgap

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Germans looted machinery from territories they conquered. But they didn't put it into use. This is one of the reasons the US ballbearing plan could have worked.

In the UK selection for the "Bevin Boy's" working down the mines was simple http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peopleswar/stories/33/a5269133.shtml

How big an effect did Speer have on the war ?

Italy had a GPD about 1/10th that of the UK at the start of the war.
How did the Czech's industry fare ?

On a related point, the Soviets weren't daft - when they were supplying the Germans with food, fuel and mineral resources they were taking payment (at least in part) in the form of precision machine tools, industrial plant and other tech - a lot of the industrialists were horrified at the thought of handing over stuff like that, but the Wehrmacht (and Goering in particular) overrode their concerns.

Speer had an impact, but not nearly as great as his PR suggested.

Charlie87

I think personally that from a resource point of view it may have been easier for Germany to have followed the plan they had gone for in the first world war. If they occupied and incorporated Poland and the Baltic states into the greater German Reich, they would have been far more able to germanize and colonize this smaller tract of land. Also they could of made client states of the Ukraine and Belarus thus supplying an economic back yard for Germany. There was talk of the soviet union giving up these territories to appease german aggression anyway and it's possible it could have been gained peacefully. If they had followed the mitteleuropa policy of before they could have carried the war on with the soviets at a later date if they so wished as the soviets would have been robbed of vitally strategic and economically important territory. Also they could have then played a more long term game of divide and conquer in the east while dominating or incorporating western Europe and appeasing Britain and America who would now be focussing on the Japanese threat along with the weakened soviets.

nuac

Charlie87 wrote: »

I think personally that from a resource point of view it may have been easier for Germany to have followed the plan they had gone for in the first world war. If they occupied and incorporated Poland and the Baltic states into the greater German Reich, they would have been far more able to germanize and colonize this smaller tract of land. Also they could of made client states of the Ukraine and Belarus thus supplying an economic back yard for Germany. There was talk of the soviet union giving up these territories to appease german aggression anyway and it's possible it could have been gained peacefully. If they had followed the mitteleuropa policy of before they could have carried the war on with the soviets at a later date if they so wished as the soviets would have been robbed of vitally strategic and economically important territory. Also they could have then played a more long term game of divide and conquer in the east while dominating or incorporating western Europe and appeasing Britain and America who would now be focussing on the Japanese threat along with the weakened soviets.

Interesting post. If cooler heads were in control in Germany, that may have happened. However by 1941 after the successes in Anschluss with Austria, Poland, France etc Hitler was under the delusion that he was omniscient and unbeatable. The crowd of sycophants around him reinforced this view, so -- off to Moscow