Germany in WWI vs. WWII

[unmerged(19877)]

Oh look, the Czar just got overthrown, how are the Russians without leadership going to defeat the Polish and deal with Allied expiditionary forces and reconquer Georgia, Ukraine, etc? Stalin wasn't going to just go shoot himself, if someone gained enough power to knock him off it isn't unreasonable to think that the army wouldn't support them.



Germany has only 2 possible outcomes here.

1. Defeat the Red Army completely, occupy Russia.
2. Go home (perhaps with a token peace settlement in the process, like belarus and the baltics).


1 would stretch the german army impossibly thin, as at this point a significant part of the Russian industrial base was east of the Urals. The Germans were at the end of their supply lines already at Moscow and Stalingrad, and Moscow is only about half way from the Polish border to the Urals. There was still plenty of land left to trade for time.

2 is a long term loss, any peace treaty with any chance of success of being accepted by the Russians leaves the Russians in an equal or superior position 10 years down the road.

I find it hard to believe that someone in Russia would be capable of ousting Stalin early in the war yet somehow be completely incapable of organizing an adequate resistance against germany. And even in a total collapse, occupying Russia isn't like occupying France. At some point you simply run out of Germans.

I think you raise some interesting points and I'd like to address them if I can.

First and foremost, you are absolutely correct in your assertion that the occupation of Russia would be nothing like the occupation of France. The administration of occupied Russia would be daunting, to say the least.

Secondly, I think we need to recognize many "if"s when speculating a scenario such as the conquest of Russia during the Second World War. For example, the notion of trading space for time presupposes that events in the West unfold precisely as they did. It is important to remember that as of December, 1941, the British army was still reeling from defeats in France, North Africa and Asia; such defeats raised legitimate doubts regarding Britian's ability to continue its fight against Germany alone; the United States had yet to officially enter the war in Europe and its entry into to the war was still uncertain; the Germans had reached the outskirts of Moscow and Leningrad, the two most important cities in the Soviet Union. Certainly, the conquest of European Russia was within Germany's reach. Incidentally, trading space for time may also work in favour of Germany since it too can use this time to concentrate its forces, assuming there are no pressing obligations elsewhere.

Now, "if" the United States enters the war in Europe Dececmber, 1941 and "if" the United States and Britian form an uneasy alliance with the Soviet Union, then it seems doubtful the capture of Moscow or Leningrad or both would extinguish the Russian will to fight (Eventhough Paris and France fell, the French continued to fight the Germans; however, their ability to fight appeared to be wholly dependent upon America's willingness to provide them with the material to do so).

Additionally, the stability of the Soviet Union during this period primarily seems to be a projection of Stalin's will. Stalin was a brutal, ruthless dictator who did not hesitate to eliminate enemies whether they be real or perceived. Loyalty was maintained through fear, intimidation and murder. I suspect many ethnic Russians, particularly those from the Baltic region, Belarus and the Ukraine, fought the Germans because they presented the greater immediate threat to their well being. As we all know, a number of ethnic Russians ended up fighting with the Germans against their former Soviet master.

Subsequently, "if" the capture of Moscow led to the dissolution of Stalin's government, then the spectre of fear is removed from the hearts of millions of Russians. People no longer need to fear imprisoment or execution if they choose not to follow the whims of Stalin. This is not to say that Russians would embrace Germany but rather the ability of one of Stalin's lackeys to maintain order and the loyalty of a diverse Russian population, not to mention a diverse Red Army, is certainly unclear. A "second Russian revolution" was mentioned earlier and I agree that a civil war erupting from the disintegration of Stalin's government seems plausible. And such a civil war would effectively end Russia's ability to fight Germany as a cohesive force (as it did in the Great War).

In the end, there are too many "if"s to truly state with any certainty that Germany could or could not have defeated the Soviet Union. Personally, I think Germany had the potential to defeat the Soviet Union. In general, the Wermacht was better trained, better equipped and better led than the Red Army with the possible exception of the last year of the war. And at the outset of Barbarossa they had the manpower, too. Yet, as I have stated before, Nazi ideology was there undoing. In many instances, they vastly underestimated the Russian ability and desire to fight. This led to a number of strategic blunders based, at least in part, on the hideous fallacies of Nazi ideology.

Cheers :wacko:

 

[Desertfox]

> What would would have happened with the Soviet Union if both Germany and Japan had coordinated their attacks? The Soviets would have faced a two front war giving the Germans and Japanese a good chance of defeating them.

Japanese ground forces had their hands full in China. They didn`t have the capability to fight the Soviet Union.

And yes, Germanies pride was its undoing. England bombed Berlin so Hitler bombed London, instead of of continuing the successful campaign to bomb the British airforce. Even then, the British were within days of surrender when Hitler suddenly stopped its airblitz on England. The letter authorizing surrender was found after the war.

The main way to win a war is to choose a reachable, valuable objective and stick to it until you have it. After you have it, you get your "bonus" (i.e. permanently decreased capability of the enemy to fight, an economy bonus for yourself or a loss of economy for the enemy, or a tactical advantage like an encirclement) and your forces free up to take on the next objective.

Changing objectives halfway is just a terrible waste of time and fighting capability. It was even more obvious on the East front. German armies were closing in on Leningrad, then were sent towards Moscow, then later were sent back to Leningrad. All that time they were just walking around instead of fighting.
When fighting, the defender has the better position since he can make full use of the cover of the terrain and doesn`t have to expose himself by moving like the attacker has to. The attacker gets the "bonuses" when an attack succeeds (like the wehrmacht destroyed the French airforce on the ground, and was in a better position to attack the Maginot line), but if you attack and the attack fails, either through underestimating the difficulty of the objective, or by changing objectives halfway, it is very likely your losses are much higher than the enemy`s, without any "bonus" to compensate for it. If you are not going to reach your objective, it is best not to attack at all, and conserve your strength.