How close did Hitler come?

Very, according to this analysis; PARAMETERS, US Army War College Quarterly - Spring 1999
Jeffin
PS. Here is an expert debate on the "Moscow First" theory; http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtop...?f=55&t=124758 With great cases made by both sides.
__________________

 

Hitler would have been better of letting Rommel be Chancellor of Germany,There-fore Germany would have won ww2,than Hitler re-take his command back.

Hitler himself doomed germany,the german army and equitment could have won ww2 agianst Britain and America and Russia but not with Hitler going agianst germany,it was just to much for germany and men and equitment to handle.

Hitler came close but no cigar! meaning Hitler was Germany's own emeny!

 

By going on towards Moscow the almost one million Red Army soldiers would be left on the right flank nearly untouched. The Army group South was not capable of taking care of its "duty". What then if you go on and the Red Army attacks the flank and Army group Center could be cut from the rest of the German forces in front of Moscow? The Red Army might not have been able to do that but the fact remains we´ll never know.

 

Interesting article, Jeff. Thanks.

 

The question is "would have the seizure of Moscow and it's railheads have paralyzed the Soviet War effort?" Possibly Hitler was correct in choosing to secure his right flank but possibly not. The next question in this scenario is "Could have the RKKA mounted a successfull offensive on the German right?" Maybe our wargaming friends could shed some light on all this.
JeffinMNUSA

 

If Army Group South ( AGS ) could have followed the other Army Groups´advance at the same pace Hitler would not have been forced to turn south, but I guess the Red Army had the most strongest forces there, especially tanks. Still got alot to learn what happened with AGS as mostly so far have read books about AGC and AGN.

Notice the following site starts with year 1941 though....

The road to Stalingrad - Army Group South part 1.

 

Let us not forget that by securing Ukraine, the Wehrmacht accomplished 3 crucial objectives.

1. Food for the Eastern Campaign

2. Protection for Romanian Oil fields which would have been within range of the Soviet Air Force

3. Destruction of 3 Soviet Armies, which would have otherwise ( as Kai correctly pointed out ) been on the German flank. 1 million men can not be overlooked.

 

The article is being a bit vanilla in syntax by omitting a few details. The natural target for the German invasion was the Ukraine, and Stalin had concentrated most of his forward defences there. Gen.Halder's plan under instruction from Hitler was to delay the invasion of the Ukraine by two weeks whilst Army Group North and Army Group Centre advanced. These are key points.

Initially the objectives of Barbarossa were twofold, one towards Moscow and one towards the south. This was revised almost at the last minute by a greedy three pronged assault which none of the ranking Wehrmacht believed in, the target of Leningrad thrown into the mix and the three objectives to be achieved virtually simultaneously. Hitler had a habit of making sudden demands, believing he was a genius and any resistance caused of limited intelligence.

Barbarossa was in effect a double-double cross, the invasion north of the Pripet marshes was a feint, and yet they were also primary objectives. In any case their tremendous success was largely due to the fact they were inherently a flanking manoeuvre.

What Hitler refused to do was settle upon a singular objective for 1941. If this had've been in the south then sending the Panzers to Kiev was a good choice. If it was Moscow then it was a bad one and so was transferring Luftflotte 2 to the Mediterranean. But he also wanted that. If he wanted Leningrad then everything was all wrong.

In general theme I agree with the article's conclusions, indeed the Wehrmacht was very close to achieving absolute victory and could've done so by November. Any one of the three major objectives could've done this for them. They could've started the summer campaign of 42 piping oil from the Caucasus, or holidaying in the Kremlin, or taking in the view over St Petersburg, or replacing crosses with swastikas on Maltese churches.

That being said, in warfare an inch not close enough might as well be a million miles. Who the hell is ever going to tell the difference?

 

This is a no brainer. If someone like Manstein was given control over this operation Germany would have most likely won quickly before winter was even a factor.

 

Hey Vet, If you check my number 2 post,I mention the same thing! Kind of anyways.

 

This has been discussed here several times and it seems that we keep running around the same bush.

While performing nothing short of brilliantly on the battlefield, Germany suffered 800,000 in the first 6 months of Barbarossa failing to accomplish the tasks at hand (Leningrad and Moscow)and only received 200,000 replacements. This leaves 600,000 permanent German casualties. From this point on the German war machine was constantly and steadily shrinking in size and quality of men while the Red Army was growing and becoming more experienced.

I cant even imagine the casualties that Germany would have suffered had she taken Moscow and Leningrad.

Personally I can not see what Manstein would have done differently at Leningrad which Von Leeb had failed to do.

What would Manstein do at Moscow that had not already been done by Von Bock?

And how long would the Germans be able to hold these newly acquired objectives with only what I can imagine a fraction on men left?

 

Good points. I was kind of assuming the Soviets would surrender had Moscow fallen.

 

Nope

An alternate HQ was already established at Kubyshev, where the Soviet High command was transferred to. This was done, as almost all expected Moscow to fall. Preparations were made for a guerrilla war after the fall of Moscow. These included booby trapping hundreds of Govt. building including the famous Moscow Hotel and even the Balshoi Theatre.

Only Stalin stayed behind along with his top generals.

The war would have continued even if Moscow had fallen.

 

Thanks for educating me comrade.

 

Surrender? The Soviets could not do such a thing. The question is how the USSR's war fighting ability would have been comprimised by the capture of Moscow. It is true that Napoleon took Moscow and still lost his campaign, but those were pre industrial times. For certain leaving the Soviet in the Ukraine untouched would have resulted in a counteroffensive from that quarter but the Soviet units at this time were in dissarray and the counteroffensive could probably have been contained.
JeffinMNUSA
PS. Some dramatic photos; Google Image Result for http://www.e1.ru/fun/photo/view_pic.php/p/fe2461b03be27c1d764f4874adcc5b27/view.pic
and; http://images.google.com/imgres?img...25&prev=/images?q=wwii+russia&hl=en&sa=X&um=1

 

I recall that Napoleon actually lost the war in a battle before robbing Moscow. Going to Moscow was only some consolation.

 

Kai;
ANd no doubt the Napoleonic experience factored into Hitler's decision to swing south-but did the Napoleonic truths still apply in the industrialized era?
JeffinMNUSA

 

If you mean that did it work the way it should, I think yes. At least the normal military tactics would require that the threat be immediately eliminated.Von Bock though says in his memoirs that they did not have any kind of plan really what to do after August victories, but he was adamant it should be Moscow. I´d still personally go for the forcing of the Finns to attack Leningrad from the North, and if the city was captured, attack towards Moscow from the North, as well as AGC towards Moscow, and send troops to block the Red Army from the flank from interfering, as well as AGS put all their effort to pull the Red Army into fighting themselves. The Germans could only hope for a fast victory, and making several huge propaganda victories could be fatal for the Red Army morale.The Germans could not really let the war go on for a long time, the longer it lasted the more probabale it was they would lose it. They´d have to try to put it all on one card , I think, once the USSR did not collapse in a couple of weeks. My two cents

 

Kai;
Losing the Moscow railheads would have dealt the Sovs a blow. Would it have proved fatal? ???? Maybe some of our wargaming friends could shed a light on this debate.
Jeffin
PS. Could have Hitler have brow beat the Finns into investing Leningrad? Probably not without overthrowing the Finnish government.
PS. How close the Soviets were to a morale collapse is difficult to ascertain. Perhaps Morale is not such a factor when it became clear that it was to be a war of mass murder and enslavement? The Russians probably fight on regardless of setbacks.
PSSS. Some chilling reads on what a Hitlerite win might have meant; http://books.google.com/books?id=CY...f5pMEO&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/001164.html
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZK...W88MIO&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9

 

Excellent points.


Here is a question... From what I have gathered, Hitler, did virtually all that he could to get Finland to attack further south (into Leningrad). What else could he have done?