decisive battle debate

Isaw an interesting point about Barbarossa. There is really no decisive battle, because the Germans planned on a 2 month campaign and since they were unable to achieve that goal, they lost by the time the winter came.

 

It all depends on the definition of Barbarossa (whether you call it a battle, an operation or a campaign. If it's the attack of Russia based on a 2 months offensive yes, then the delay was not hold and the battle lost very early, but if you considerer that due to changes of strategies and weather conditions, logistics and others, the German had to adapt but kept going forward on a slower pace, you could make this battle last longer .

If one considers it's a whole campaign,then one could say it was lost in May 1945 only.

In my humble opinion it was the launching of the offensive in June 1941 and since the fighting never really stopped, the following skirmishes were part of it and lasted until it was replaced by the following battles . Just my 2 cents.

 

My two cents is that it was a series of decisive battles wich lead to a failed campaign.

 

The decisive battle was not winning the war in two months. My two cents. In 1942 they only had men and material to attack in one Army group area only, so that definitely tells the full story about the German military might in the East...

 

I would argue that the truly decisive battle was not fought between the Red Army and the Wehrmacht. Hitler based the whole campaign on the theory that the whole Soviet structure was rotten and "one good kick" would send the whole thing crashing down. When the Soviets proved more resiliant it was his strategy that came crashing down. That it took the Germans several years to realize it is another matter.

 

I would wanna say that through German's perspective the battles of Uman, Kiev and Minsk region were pretty decisive however obviously hubris was much their enemy as everything else you could factor. The battles, region changes and loss of manpower, equipment and leadership definitely changed Russia's military and tech. I think the Russians, seemed quicker to adapt than the Germans were post 1941. However that all being said you're probably right that there was no decisive battles by definition, as all things considering they had conflict for another 4 years after Barbarossa. I think the scale is too grand to really select a battle where it all came apparent. Though I bet the common person would say Stalingrad, or maybe Kursk, but I think more wise individuals would claim the Germans never had a chance, though I would say that's easy to claim when we all know what we know seventy years after it took place!

 

I just thought from the German point there was no decisive battle sincethey lost by not winning when they planned, but for the Soviets Moscow could bethe decisive because it meant they could win the war.

 

MAybe it was just a poor decision

 

I agree, but good thing for the world Cpl sHitler was such a poor general.

Once the original operation in the east (Barbarossa) ground to a halt, the blitzkreig was really over with the failure of Operation Typhoon which started on October 2, 1941 and was blunted by the Rookies at the gates of Moscow by December 5th. From that point on, the war in the east deteriorated into a massive war of attrition that the Germans could not win, no matter what they tried.

 

In the same book I read that it was actually Halder who supressed the idea by Marck that there was a possibility that the SOviets would not be beaten in 2 months

 

That must be why Hitler ordered German industry to not make cold weather gear and heavy coats to outfit the troops in Russia when they needed it the most.

 

I guess Mr. Hilter should have read that book instead of playing with crayons and lamenting the loss of his testicle.

 

Wasn't there hesitation regarding a counter to the more modern T-34? I recall Guderian suggesting a complete conversion to that tank or better.

 

Although my search was not exactly exhaustive, I could not find anything to support that theory although I could be wrong. However I did find that Guderian did favor the continued and increased production of Pz III's and IV's as opposed to the development of Pz V's and VI's. Hitler was fascinated with new weapons though, which contributed to the logistical nightmares of the Wehrmacht.

 

This is pretty much a red herring - most nation's plans early in WWII went right out the window when they actually began fighting.

The US pre-war plan was to send a fleet over to the Far East and sink the IJN in a decisive battle.
The French planned to repulse the Germans on the Maginot line.
The British assumed that the French would contain the Germans on the continent, and that their primary role would be naval, to bottle up the Germans in Europe, so there was little need to field a large army.
Churchill was also convinced that Japan would never dare to attack the US, so that there was no need to worry about Malaya.
Marshall & Stimson had plans for a landing in France in the summer of 1942, to put a quick end to the war.

Since the US & UK did not win the war when & how they planned it, did they lose?

The German plan to beat the Soviets in two months was obviously unrealistic, but had they managed to succeed in 1942 then they would still have "won", regardless of their original plans

 

There is a difference between having to change plans and having the whole basis for the war fail. The whole German plan was based on the campaign being very short because the Soviets were not capable of extended resistance.

 

Wasn´t Guderian and von Rundstedt adamant in telling Hitler attacking the USSR is "pure madness". They knew the hugeness of the country would produce problems that could not be overcome.

Also the idea was to destroy the Red Army before Moscow, and I guess the Germans believed they did, but 3,5 million was not enough POW´s though.

 

No, it's pretty much the same miscalculation, the whole US plan was for a quick campaign because the Japanese & Germans would be defeated quickly. Obviously the reality was very different - a massive build up and a 4 year campaign.

The German's "whole basis" for the war wasn't to conclude it in 2 months, the "whole basis" was to aquire Lebensraum, and had they succeeded it would have been a win regardless of whether it took 2 months or 12.

In Sept 1941 the war is perhaps still winnable by the Germans (though a very difficult proposition)

 

No the US did not plan for a quick campaign. If you would read the book War Plan Orange you would know the US realized they could not reach the Phillipines in one push and there fore planned for a long campaign going from one island to the other. Also Barbarossa was planned to be over by the end of summer.

 

That must be why Hitler ordered German industry to not make cold weather gear and heavy coats to outfit the troops in Russia when they needed it the most.

Dare we ask for documentation of this 'order'? Guderian for one tells a different story. In Panzer Leader he recounts the last big conference with the Fuhrer and senior commanders before the final push on Moscow. He pointed out that his troops were lacking winter clothing, and Hitler was furious, insisting that he had ordered it to be provided. Guderian replied that he had investigated and found that the clothing stocks were backed up around Warsaw; the issue was not that clothing did not exist but that there was insufficient transport capacity to move it forward along with fuel, food, ammunition, equipment, spare parts, troop reinforcements, and everything else the armies needed. Guderian records that Hitler sent for the army quartermaster who reluctantly acknowledged that this was true.