Could the Axis have won?

In such cases, yes. There were documented accounts of Germans entering villages where the population still thought that the Czar was in power.

 

It is funny that you mention this...... I read an article last year that a village deep in Siberia had absolutely no knowledge of any world events in the last 200 years. Including WW2!!! As this village was hundreds of miles away from any type of civilization, had no electricity or running water. The people in this village were absolutely isolated form the rest of the world.. I will try to find this article again.

But then again Russia is pretty big

 

Do you mean he wasn't?

 

It would have taken a lot of luck and USSR stupidity for the Germans to have beaten the Russians, I think it is just that simple. As you fellas have mentioned, Russia is such a large country, that you have to have an incredibly long frontline, or you make yourself vunerable to being outflanked. Once you create this huge frontline, forward progress can become very slow and it can become hard to overcome strongholds, especially in the dead of a Russian winter.

 

While I'll agree with you that a lot of Russians did identify with Stalin as defender and leader of their nation, you are clearly exaggerating when you say that each and every Russian was of this opinion. Vlasov would have never been able to assemble his Russian Liberation Army if that was the case. While later on in the war almost every single Russian saw Germany as the greater evil in comparison to Stalin, this was after German atrocities were common knowledge. In 1941 the Soviet Union had only been in existance for 19 years. Many, many Russians had experience in the White armies that had fought the communists (many of these were those who joined the RLA). The Soviet Union was not a monolithic entity and neither were the Russians all united in body and soul behind Stalin and his communists. The fact of this can be seen in how easily so many Russians sloughed off 70 years of communism when the Soviet Union fell.

So it is clear that Stalin didn't enjoy such complete and unquestioning devotion, and neither were the Russian people so thoroughly indoctrinated with communist beliefs. While many of the poorest of the poor were better off under communism many were worse off under Stalin than they had been under the czars (not all of the middle and upper classes were exterminated in the revolution) so a good number of Russians could have been expected to welcome the chance to throw off the dictator Stalin and his communist cronies. Hitler was counting on this sort of social division to precipitate a complete collapse of the Soviet systems when he launched Barbarossa. Hitler wasn't actually expecting to have to fight a united USSR. His mistake cost Germany the war. However, I don't think he was 100% mistaken; clearly there were many Russians who, before hearing about German atrocities, would have seriously pondered who was the greater evil; Hitler or Stalin?

 

I'd be suspicious about claims like this. There are many similar claims about people "lost to time" and living traditional lives as if the last few hundred years had never occurred. However, there are pretty much no areas like this anymore in the world. Even jungle tribes now are in regular contact with the rest of the world. I was working in the jungles of Guatemala back in 2003 when the Iraq war started and all of the local Indians were keen on getting the latest news from the war. These people have never moved more than a few hundred kilometers within their own small countries yet the modern world has crept in and they are well aware of it. I'd be surprised if there really are still so incredibly isolated groups even in the remotest part of Russia today that aren't aware of the nation states within which they live. I'd ask for confirmation on that story.

 

While you bring up excellent points at which I agree with, at the same time I must also respectfully disagree as there is a major flaw in this Logic.

Here is an example: Lets say Ahmadinejad wants to invade the United State. Im sure that he is perfectly informed about Bush's popularity, for example his Iraq campaign. Lets say Ahmadinejad knows how many Americans disagree with Bush. Wouldnt he be an idiot if he plans to invade the U.S. counting on those who disagree with Bush as his potential allies? Ofcourse he would.

By the way, traitors are never respected in any country in any society and consequently can not bring you success. I know for a fact that even now 60 years after the war's end General Vilaso is considered a traitor in Russia by an overwhelming majority of the population. Not because he didnt like Stalin but because he turned his weapons on his own people.

This very same flawed logic is what caused Hitler's demise.... and not jacking the thread, this is the very same logic which Bush went into Iraq with.

 

Cant not argue there, as I have no proof nor could I find this article. Even then im not sure how credible it is even though it was an interesting read.

Is it possible? maybe......... Is it likely? no

 

As a matter of fact I am surprised at how well did the SU weather the storm without large upheavals against the State, if we consider the widespread suffering caused by the introduction of communist rule. The forced collectivization, the famines, the number of families with members in internal exile, the oppression, all that should have caused a general revolt feeling. Was it the repressive state, was it the patriotic call, perhaps both? I don't know. On the other hand we also have to consider the large population who had emigrated and was fixed in Siberia, a large manpower pool, who as settlers had a lot of priviledges and had nothing to say but thanks to the regime. No, the SU was not monolithical at all, it's much more complex than it seems at first sight.

Of course Vlassov was a traitor then but we have to consider how shabbily he had been treated by Stalin, and the army he mobilised, well if given the choice of starving in a German POW camp or being decently fed and treated as a soldier I'm not surprised at the choice, same with the hundereds of thousands who worked for the Germans as Hiwis.

 

I´d say never underestimate the patriotic call!

Also after the first weeks the Einsatzgruppen etc had shown that things were not going to get better, perhaps even worse which was used by Stalin in his propaganda.

If Stalin had kept talking about protecting the communist values and the party he would have lost the war I think so that´s another point he cleverly changed as he gave the church a position etc etc.

 

Short answer is yes, absolutely. The Soviet Union was so close to collapse in the fall of 1941, all that was necessary was the capture of Moscow, which would have included the capture of Stalin himself, as he determined to stay right there, win or lose.

All that prevented that from happening was the one month postponement of operation Barbarrosa from May to June 1941. The reason for that delay was so Hitler could straighten out the mess created by Mussolini in the Balkans (Greece and by extension Yugoslavia).

This one month delay in operation Barbarossa cost the German army dearly, as the terrible winter of 1941-42 set in just as it reached the gates of Moscow. With one more month of German activity before winter and Moscow would certainly have fallen, taking the SU capital, Stalin, and finally the entire SU right out of the war.

It would have been a far different WW2 with Germany left to fight just the Western Allies.

 

Mmm, not quite. Barbarossa started on the date it started not because of the ops in Greece and Yugoslavia (which in any case affected only a fraction of the troops earmarked for Army Group South and not affecting the other AGs), but mainly because of the need to guarantee the weather would hold and the ground would be dry for tank operations.

Of course during Barbarossa there were hesitations, stoppages and the famou detour to Kiev which all together were indeed losses of precious time for the Germans. Also to be considered were the losses the Soviets inflicted on the German advance, as I believe all those Germans dead, wounded and missing were not casualties caused by sheer boredom.

Of course we can now say that the Germans committed this or that mistake, Hitler ought not to have meddled, etc., but that is talking with the benefit of 60 years of hindsight. What we know is not what the OKH, etc. knew at the time and this is very important.

What avatar is that, Rosetti?

 

The biggest mistake was that Hitler was not getting ready for a long battle. the factories were not making ammo, tanks were not built to replace the lost ones, soldiers were sent to civili life etc etc. The whole plan was based on Germany winning in eight weeks. It did not happen. And even if Hitler had prepared and factories were making guns, tanks etc in three shifts it´s hard to say what would have happened because the USSR is a huge country and man power enormous. And they had the T-34.

the Kiev incident is also interesting, as Guderian attacking later on from the side towards Moscow on Oct 41 came as a huge surprise to the STAVKA leading into the Vyazma pocket situation. So going to Kiev was not only a bad thing, but then again some two months were lost by turning the tanks backwards.

 

Ach, the joys of Volkerwänderung! Definitely the Czechoslovakian government was not in "Offer the other cheek" mode, after the 1936 events...

 

Can this really be considered a blunder? Afterall vast amounts of resources were taken from Kiev and brought to Germany, ( wheat, cattle etc. ) Not to mention that by just passing Kiev would leave about 1 million Soviet soldiers on your flank.

 

Yes, but at the cost of Moscow.

In any case, if the Germans would then be able to take Moscow or not that's quite another kettle of fish. Remember Leningrad and Stalingrad.

 

My point exactly, who is to say that the attacking force would not have been attacked themselves at the flank while making their advance on Moscow?

I might be wrong, but wasnt there concern about this exact scenerio from the German high command.

 

I'm even discounting that for the argument's sake.

Sure, that's the main reason for the southern detour.

 

So unless I am once again mistaken, the advance on Kiev, instead of Moscow can really only be considered a blunder, if Moscow would have definately fallen if the detour had not taken place?