Why did Operation Barbarossa fail?

[Dark Jakkaru]

This is basically what I'm talking about. And while it's true that the Third Reich couldn't rely on some of its conquered peoples for support, they could still get some "bang for their buck" so to speak. I think you need to add the populations of occupied USSR to the list as they used a lot of "hiwis" that is Soviet auxiliary troops, I know most were recruited from prisoners but I suppose some were former civilians.

At any rate 80 million Germans vs 110 million Soviets doesn't seem like such a huge gap. Yet Moscow was able to far outproduce their enemies in terms of recruitment.

The British Empire, the one where the sun didn't set, dwarfed both of those combined since it includes some of the most populated parts of the planet like India. Of course, just painting a map a different color and putting out numbers that fall under a color on a map isn't evidence of really anything tangible that would indicate the full power of the said map faction. I'm all for numbers ... when they make sense that is.

 

[Opanashc]

The British Empire, the one where the sun didn't set, dwarfed both of those combined since it includes some of the most populated parts of the planet like India. Of course, just painting a map a different color and putting out numbers that fall under a color on a map isn't evidence of really anything tangible that would indicate the full power of the said map faction. I'm all for numbers ... when they make sense that is.

80 million people in the 3rd Reich in 1939, 40+ million Italians, Romanians, Hungarians etc, vs 110 million Soviet citizens in areas under control of Moscow in December 1941. How about those numbers?

 

[Evan05]

At the end of 1941, Moscow had ~110 million people living in the territory it controlled. Germany had 80+ million Germans, plus Romania (12 million), plus Hungary (9 million), plus Finland (3.5 million), plus Italy (43 million), plus Slovakia (4 million), plus industrial support of France (40 million), Boghemia (5 million), Low countries (17 million). All in all, Axis had more manpower reserves, than USSR did, at the time. Their industry was larger (32 million tons of steel of 3rd Reich in 42 vs 8.5 million of USSR, 350 million tons of coal vs 75 million, etc).

Except the Axis was a very poorly coordinated collection of nations. Yes, the Axis had more raw industrial power than the USSR did (however, as soon as you factor in Britain it's already an even tie and when you put in the US, the allies beat the ever living hell out of the Axis's industrial strength) but they were using it for different things. Yes, they had more manpower but the Soviets were still putting more manpower to the war time effort.

It wasn't until 1943 that Germany fully mobilized their economy, and even then there was still a significant civilian industry. Meanwhile in the USSR, pretty much all economic duties were devoted to one of four areas:

A. Farming
B. Mining/Extracting raw resources
C. War time industrial processing/manufacturing
D. Actual fighting/direct military enlistment or conscription

 

[Evan05]

80 million people in the 3rd Reich in 1939, 40+ million Italians, Romanians, Hungarians etc, vs 110 million Soviet citizens in areas under control of Moscow in December 1941. How about those numbers?

It wasn't possible logistically to make all of those Soviet citizens under occupation work for the German war machine, nor to coordinate resources within Germany, Italy, Romania, Finland, and Hungary.

 

[Alias72]

It wasn't until 1943 that Germany fully mobilized their economy, and even then there was still a significant civilian industry.

Wrong. So wrong, in fact, that it is actually annoying me.

German was in a fully mobilized war economy from 1939 onward (and an almost fully mobilized war economy from 1934). The only reason why this "mobilized in 1943" crap keeps circulating is because Albert Speer claimed that he enacted total economic mobilization when he took office. He was attempting to make his predecessors look bad to improve his own image. Labor usage, steel production, and financial commitments all show an economy that is not only fully mobilized, but almost burnt out, by 1943. Its a myth and I would love it if it would just die.

 

[Opanashc]

It wasn't possible logistically to make all of those Soviet citizens under occupation work for the German war machine, nor to coordinate resources within Germany, Italy, Romania, Finland, and Hungary.

Wasn't possible logistically? Are you kidding me? Distances that SU had to transport materials from mines to factories were larger by far, than in European Axis! Infrastructure density in Europe beat that of USSR by a factor of 5!
Just comes to show, that in a pinch, Communist practices are better then that of Capitalism, I guess. LOL.

 

[Loke]

Wrong. So wrong, in fact, that it is actually annoying me.

German was in a fully mobilized war economy from 1939 onward (and an almost fully mobilized war economy from 1934). The only reason why this "mobilized in 1943" crap keeps circulating is because Albert Speer claimed that he enacted total economic mobilization when he took office. He was attempting to make his predecessors look bad to improve his own image. Labor usage, steel production, and financial commitments all show an economy that is not only fully mobilized, but almost burnt out, by 1943. Its a myth and I would love it if it would just die.

Interesting information but no link to a good source, or isit your own thoughts?

 

[Johnniemomomo]

Interesting information but no link to a good source, or isit your own thoughts?

I believe its sourced in Wages of Destruction which is an excellent book. He is absolutely correct btw.

Actually interestingly (and not defending it so please do not take it that way) I believe the holocaust was a rational endpoint of both nazi policy of 1921-1941 and also their acute food problems and ghetto problems in the General Gouvernment in 1940-41.

 

[Loke]

80 million people in the 3rd Reich in 1939, 40+ million Italians, Romanians, Hungarians etc, vs 110 million Soviet citizens in areas under control of Moscow in December 1941. How about those numbers?

No those numbers are not good, axis was also at war with the allies at the same time and had other commitments.

 

[Loke]

He is absolutely correct btw.

Thats impressive, being so certain about something.

 

[Alias72]

No those numbers are not good, axis was also at war with the allies at the same time and had other commitments.

The source is wages of destruction. Sorry I usually put that in the post.

Wasn't possible logistically? Are you kidding me? Distances that SU had to transport materials from mines to factories were larger by far, than in European Axis! Infrastructure density in Europe beat that of USSR by a factor of 5!
Just comes to show, that in a pinch, Communist practices are better then that of Capitalism, I guess. LOL.

There's a difference between physical and bureaucratic distance. Germany could and did make use of forced labor. That is soviet citizens working in Germany under German managers. Germany was far less successful in using resources retained by occupied countries. Finally the Soviet Union did not suffer from the same kind of resource shortages that Germany did. The German economy was constantly being throttled by steel and fuel shortages that cannot be solved by throwing more men at it. Germany already had more people then it could feed.

 

[Opanashc]

Finally the Soviet Union did not suffer from the same kind of resource shortages that Germany did. The German economy was constantly being throttled by steel and fuel shortages that cannot be solved by throwing more men at it. Germany already had more people then it could feed.

You sure about that? SU produced 1/3 the steel and 1/4 the coal 3rd Reich did. A LOT of the agricultural land was occupied by the Germans by 1942.

No those numbers are not good, axis was also at war with the allies at the same time and had other commitments.

And SU didn't have other commitments? Unlike Axis, SU did not have population of subjugated countries to put to work.

 

[Loke]

I wasnt aware that Russia had other fronts than the western one? The soviet union was full of subjugated people/nations forced to work for Moscow.

 

[Opanashc]

I wasnt aware that Russia had other fronts than the western one? The soviet union was full of subjugated people/nations forced to work for Moscow.

Far East Front, that soaked up 1 million men, in order to prevent a possible Japanese attack. In 1942, Turkey amassed 28 division on Soviet Caucasus border - and Red Army had to create a force as a deterrent, in case something happened.
Oh? Can you name some nationalities, that did not have citizenship?

 

[Loke]

Thats just a peaceful "front", I was talking about land, air and naval warfare like in Barbarossa. You know Axis had those real frontsvs Allies at the same time as Barbarossa was being conducted.

So you are saying that just because someone/people has a citizenship then they automatically want to be in the union?

 

[Opanashc]

Thats just a peaceful "front", I was talking about land, air and naval warfare like in Barbarossa. You know Axis had those real frontsvs Allies at the same time as Barbarossa was being conducted.
So you are saying that just because someone/people has a citizenship then they automatically want to be in the union?

African front - how many soldiers again? How many divisions were involved in the Italian campaign? Rest were simply standing by, just like Far Eastern Front.
Once again - name them. Where did USSR had to keep "occupational" troops in its own territory

 

[Adonnus]

African front - how many soldiers again? How many divisions were involved in the Italian campaign? Rest were simply standing by, just like Far Eastern Front.
Once again - name them. Where did USSR had to keep "occupational" troops in its own territory

For one there was a medium-level insurgency being conducted in Ukraine by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army. There was also a guerrilla war being fought in the Caucasus around the time and after the German attacks there of 1942.

The amount of German and Italian divisions in the Italian Campaign were, according to Wikipedia, 29 divisions. A pretty considerable, if not quite war-changing force. The Germans also had to fight a powerful partisan movement in Belorussia, Ukraine, Poland and Yugoslavia, so just saying they are "standing around" is probably not accurate.

As for the Far Eastern Front - weren't the vast majority of those troops redeployed to the West, arriving around winter of 1941?

 

[Opanashc]

For one there was a medium-level insurgency being conducted in Ukraine by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army. There was also a guerrilla war being fought in the Caucasus around the time and after the German attacks there of 1942.

I said DURING the war, not after it.

As for the Far Eastern Front - weren't the vast majority of those troops redeployed to the West, arriving around winter of 1941?

Did you pay attention? Red Army kept 1 million troops on the border of Manchuria through the ENTIRE war. To put it in layman terms: divisions 1XX through 1YY were there in June 1941, divisions 2NN through 2ZZ in 1942, etc. Sure, troops were transferred west, but new formations took their place.

 

[Loke]

Exactly, these numbers was not available, like when you wrote about 40 milion Italians(The Italians had only 3 divisons in CSIR for Barbarossa arriving late in Russia july/august 1941)

 

[Gethsemani]

So you are saying that just because someone/people has a citizenship then they automatically want to be in the union?

There was no serious opposition to the USSR in most of its' republics (the exception being Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania who were forced into USSR in 1940 but they were under German control for most of WW2) during WW2 and the reason for this is simple: Most of the republics had been subjects of Imperial Russia for hundreds of years and were just claimed as a normal part of greater Russia when the Soviet Union was formed. For most of these republics it was arguably a step up to be incorporated into the USSR as they were given a limited degree of autonomy as a Soviet Republic instead of being a vassal of Tsarist Russia (which gave no autonomy at all). Ukraine was probably the republic with the most contention against the USSR (not counting the Baltic states), which is why many Ukrainians initially thought of the Germans as liberators. Sufficient to say is that pro-German and anti-Soviet sentiments were at all time lows in 1944 when the Red Army pushed Germany out of Ukraine.

The problem is that you seem to be operating on the assumption that the tension that existed in the USSR in the late-80's were somehow present in the 30's and 40's, which simply isn't true. For most of its' existence the USSR was quite a stable union among its' core states (the extended east bloc is a different story) and it was only the economic crisis of the 80's that eventually led to most of them wanting to secede, when it became obvious that the USSR's economical system was failing catastrophically.