A Theory on Barbarossa: Moscow, Leningrad or Stalingrad

[Jon Shafer]

The question of how the USSR could have been defeated at all must be raised as well. What would Moscow have gained the Germans? The Soviet capital, a communication and transportation hub, a large industrial center... okay, but when will the Soviets surrender, and under what circumstances? I personally don't know... I'm not quite sure what was going through Hitler's mind in early 1941... "gee, I wonder, if we capture Moscow, do you think the Soviets will surrender? Oh what the hell, let's invade anyways".

 

[Jon Shafer]

Not invincible, but nearly.

The only way the USSR could have been truly defeated is to capture the Leningrad-Moscow-Stalingrad line of cities and everything west, and to have destroyed all of the Soviet armies... daunting task, if you ask me.

 

[Jon Shafer]

The main hubs west of the Urals (i.e. Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad) are the only ones that are really necassary... and if the Soviets have no armies left, then that's all you really need. While getting further towards the Urals would be beneficial, after the Soviet armies were destroyed, it wouldn't be as important.

 

[Jon Shafer]

Overrated, yes. But it was a fairly important industrial center, and it was the transportation and communications hub for much of south-west Russia, including to the Caucasus. If Stalingrad falls (reasonably, not like what happened historically), the Caucasus will follow soon after.

 

[Jon Shafer]

Yes, assuredly capturing Leningrad and Moscow before the Soviets managed to put up a good defense would have given the Germans a much easier time. However, that doesn't mean the war would have been won. The Soviets would still have had millions and millions of troops, demoralized as they would have been, and it would have been quite a challenge to eliminate them all and bring about total victory.

 

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by webbrave
sounds reasonble. It would be interesting to know what people behind Plan Barbarossa thought. They must have justified the split of forces somehow. I don't really buy this "crazy Hitler doesn't know what he is doing" thing which seems to be widespread both in Russia and abroad.

Actually that idea was quite prevalent throughout the entire German Army for much of the war.

Many of the officers and the general staff became quite upset with Hitler after he took total control over the army mid-war. They felt that was a disaster that would never be lived down... Hitler would plan out things to the very last detail making the officers generally very unhappy. Manstein had to beg and plead to get his plan to go through for early 1943, and he probably saved AGS and the entire southern German flank, putting them into a position to launch another major offensive (Kursk).

The thing they associated him with most is simply a roadblock that would undermine everything they were trying to do.

 

[Jon Shafer]

The only total war they've lost was to themselves. Not too shabby!

 

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Bourbon
Never said they couldn't, but it doesn't mean German defeat was inevitable. And giving an order to hold ground at all costs is no brilliant military strategy.

Agreed. The only reason they held the line was because of the excellent quality of the German Army. A rigid defense is a bad idea in any situation.

Oh, and my comment about Russia never losing a total war but to themselves, I suppose you can stretch it and say they lost to the Mongols, but that's quite a stretch.

 

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Bourbon
Yeah, Mongols don't really count. But do you not consider WWI a total war?

They only lost it in a 'total war' sense because of the Bolshevik Revolution. Otherwise, they may have lost it like they'd lost previous wars. When I think of losing a total war, I think of Germany after WWI and WWII.

 

[Jon Shafer]

Yep, but it was one of the few circumstances. They wouldn't have fallen completely if it weren't for the Bolsheviks, but they would have fallen anyways if it weren't for France. But then again, none of that happened. It's like speculating what would have happened if Germany had their final 1917 offensive succeed.

 

[Jon Shafer]

Yes, but they'd lost wars before. Certainly nothing like WWI, but Germany was certainly in no position to dictate harsh terms on the Russians at that point... they just wanted troops for the West. The Bolshevik Revolution had more impact on Russia than a defeat to Germany ever could have.

 

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by madner
An rigid defense isn't always a bad idea. Especialy not for infantry divisions in the winter. Basicly if they don't hold they line and start to retreat, they can be overrun (as the winter slows infantry more then armour) by armoured formation. That is why armoured formations are esential for an elestic defense, they can conduct an fighting multilayered retreat. In the winter of '41 the germans had no armoured reserves, the Panzergroups were down to minimum strenght.
Most German generals proposed to retreat, and this could have been disastreus, yet Hitler "convinced" them to stay and fight.

It really depends on what you mean by elastic defense.

It woudl have been better for the Germans to pull back to a more manageable line, where they wouldn't have lost so many troops, and the lines would have been easier to hold. Rather than a 'not one step back' defense like Hitler wanted. Hitler didn't want to give up ground strategically or tactically... that's not good defense. The HOI AI showcases that.

 

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Bourbon
Actually if the Russian government would have been smart they should have accepted t peace treaty with the Germans in 1916, when it became obvious that Russia could not win the war and monarchy was in danger.

Of course, the peace treaty then would have been less harsh than Brest-Litovsk, perhaps only giving up Poland and the Baltics.

Agreed.

Russia had lost the war. I'm not saying they hadn't. The difference is that I'm saying that due to the circumstances facing Germany, they wouldn't have lost it in a total war sense... Germany wasn't going in and occupying all of Russia with its troops, enacting huge reparations, and taking territory from them in any large scale (the effects of Brest-Litovsk are debatable).

Had the Germans been at war only with Russia, then yes, I'd say things like that would have happened and been permanent. Brest-Litovsk only brought about a 'pseudo-occupation' of the territory agreed to. At the time, the Whites had more important things to deal with, as did the Germans.

 

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by madner
Agreed, it is a bad idea never to give space for time, but I'm talking here about an strategic decision, not to go back 15 km. *still the point remains wheter this would have been possible*
IMHO HOI is flawed in this aspect, if you beat the enemy and advance one province further you won't encircle the enemy (that is what I meant above) but they will retreat one province further.

Well what I was referring to was more like 15km, and not a strategic decision. I'm not talking about retreating to Riga-Smolensk-Kiev here, I'm just saying find a good river, dig some trenches, and fall back to a new line.