Eastern Front victory conditions

See, MAD is working, now and then. In 1933/39, the German Luftwaffe was considered to be the "nuke" of the 1930s. In 1940, the allmighty "Blitz"-Wehrmacht and her Panzer Divisions were believed to be unbeatable; thus Stalin was arming like hell to not become the next victim.

Too bad that MAD didn't work for Hitler, he gave a rat's ass on how strong the USSR was, he felt the need to invade the USSR out of ideological, strtegic and ecomomic reasons, basta. (Hitler indeed believed that a German -Russo war is ineviatable).

To be honest, I don't think that any war is ineviatable per se. If there is a political will to _not_ go to war or strategic, ecomonic, political or military disadvantages overweightingthe benefits for both sides, peace will have a chance.

Cheers,

Cheers,

 

That argument is a little weak. One a-bomb in a few seconds could do what the entire luftwaffe could do in a few weeks. Add to that the radiation after effects. Besides MAD assumes both sides have this devastating weapon. The Russians didnt have the luftwaffe or the panzer divisions. Sure they had tanks and planes, but hadnt used them with incredible success. You say arming like hell...the best defense is a good offense.

Which is one reason why a war would have come about sooner or later, among others. Hitler realized that domination of Europe meant only one superpower in charge.

Maybe not 100%, but in the case of Germany and the USSR, the chance for peace was negligible considering the circumstances.

 

War between nazi Germany and the USSR was INEVITABLE. You are probably right that in 1941 Stalin and therefore the USSR didn't want to attack Germany, but they were becoming stronger not just to hold a possible invasion but to become stronger later and smash the Germans. Stalin was just trying to gain some time.

The human nature is not that you watch on TV about the UNICEF and mother Theresa. Human nature is its most realistic and worst shape: holocaust, nuclear weaponry, Hussein invading Kuwait, and mr. Bush playing Hitler... If civilised and not so opposite nations can go to war (as great Britain and Germany did in 1914) what can you expect of two warrior-dictators as Stalin or Hitler?!

 

Again my question here: Do you have any FACTS on which you base your assesment that Stalin dedised to "smash the Germans" in 1941 or later?

Or are we talking about your believes/ideology?

General, you weaken your point by advoicating such nonsense like comparing Mr. Bush with Hitler.

Cheers,

 

Bush in the regard of foreign policy is acting very much like a watered down Hitler. Threatening to invade Iraq because of false reasons and having ulterior motives is EXACLTY what Hitler did to Poland.

 

Warnung ! You are getting off topic here ! Stick with the thread. If you want to dump on Bush and his policies go to the FFZ. You are watering down what seemed to be some decent postings/

 

Well, I agree with Erich here. No more Bush stuff around here. That has caused too many problems already. I apologise.

And there are no 'facts' (what are those, by the way?) excapt that as I have said, both nations were going to be at war sooner or later because no one could have expanded (as was their wish) in an economical way nor in a military one. Those two nations were too powerful and very powerful nations cannot co-exist, History has taught that. And one or the other was going to start it! Hitler and Stalin were the same kind of leader, seeking for the same things, just in a different way. Things like that provoke wars.

 

Erichs right. I only was using him as an example for what Hitler is doing. Back to the subject at hand...

AndyW; when discussing the POSSIBILITY of a war, evidence is not necessary. What we have are circumstances with facts.

FACT: Nazism and Communism are on the opposite ends of the political spectrum.
FACT: Soviet Communism has as one of its goals as world wide revolution to communism, internally or not...
FACT: Two enormous military powers share a large border.
FACT: Both the USSR and Nazi Germany were engaged in active expansion of their countries, per treaty or not.
FACT: Both countries see a desire to control the east; Balkans etc. In USSR's case, easter Europe.
FACT: Both Hitler and Stalin were not afraid to shed blood to achieve whatever they wanted to achieve
FACT: Hitler was obsessed with lebensraum in the east, as shown in countless statements, directives, and even his own autobiography.

Of course, as I said, none of this makes war a certainty, but it makes an environment very conducive to war.

 

fact n L. (L: factum, fr. facere to make or do.]
1: a piece of information about circumstances that exist or events that have occurred; "first you must collect all the facts of the case"

2: a statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened; "he supported his argument with an impressive array of facts"

3: an event known to have happened or something known to have existed; "your fears have no basis in fact"; "how much of the story is fact and how much fiction is hard to tell"

4: a concept whose truth can be proved; "scientific hypotheses are not facts"

See, that is your thesis, not a fact. And I haver to admit that I don't get your point: Why can't Germany and USSR expand economically or her military without getting to war?

Wasn't it more certain territorial "spheres of interests" (Romania and Bulgaria) collinding between Germany and the USSR which might have caused a possible military conflict if not solved politically (Diplomacy)?

Cheers,

 

FACT #1: right

FACT #2: right, with the exception that i disagee that Communism was to be spread with military means; AFAIK, the Leninist theory called for a internal revolution by the working people of the resp. country. But I agree that E.Poland, Finnland and the Baltic states were occupied and not "revolutionized", though not out of ideological reasons, but out of very realpolitik, strategic thoughts.

FACT #3: After Poland's destruction, I agree.

FACT #4: But both countries did this within their "partial separation of the spheres of interests" as laid down in the Ribbentrop-Molotov talks in Aug. 1939. Molotov was pretty straightforward to Hitler in Nov. 1940 about the Soviet's further territoral interests ( This visit was nothing but a political attempt to explore each others plans including territorial claims and eventually to get in sync in later talks. By this time Hitler already had decided to invade the USSR.

FACT #5: Now, according to Stalins Directives given to Molotov on his Nov. 40 visit, it was "aspired" to include the following countries into the USSR's "sphere of interest": Finnland (as already agreed in the 1939-treaty), The costal end of the Danube in Romania (USSR was pi**ed that Germany marchied into Romania without consultation), Bulgaria, "participation" in any questions regarding Turkey and Iran, "interests" in any question regarding the further fate of Romania and Hungary, Greece and Yugoslavia: axis plans in those countries, Sweden: To remain neutral. (Source: Lev Besymenski: "W. Molotovs Berlin-Visit of Nov. 1940 in the light of new documents", 2000). Now this was tough sh*t for Hitler, but if you see it in a cool, machtpolitik sense, it was still a basis for political talks.

FACT #6: Neither Hitler nor Stalin were lunatic idiots. They were willing to shed blood if the benefit was worth the risk. After France, Hitler and his military were in the belive that the USSR was simply not in a position to make any more territoral claims, the USSR was regarded as a "sandbox game" (Hitler on June 25, 1940), a "hollow colossus" who was "ready for harvest". Contrary to that Stalin appeased Hitler to "maintain peace until 1942" (Stalin to Merecov Jan. 1941), to prevent a Germo-Russian war at all costs in 1941, because this war might be fought under better conditions for Russia in 1942. (Stalin in May 1941).

War was not ineviatable, but very likely once Hitler firmly decided to go to war on Soviet Russia in July 1940.

FACT #7: I agree.

Cheers,

 

http://www.fortunecity.co.uk/underworld/kick/495/abgangpz.htm

Directly from my site this should clear up some of the questions about German vehicle numbers AFTER Barbarossa. It is possible to imagine roughly where and when these losses occured. Even if you just take a monthly average you get pretty drastic figures.

If you do the maths, you arrive at the fact that the Heer in the East was a staggering 2466 armoured vehicles short by 31.12.1941. And short by another 82354 non-armoured vehicles (motor vehicles). Note that the actual losses are quite a bit higher. The Germans on average couldn't even replace 10% of their losses in any field. Trucks (LKW) stands out at about 40% only because of 5000 captured Russian vehicles.

Encore pondering on the supply problem - what difference would, say a doubling of the railway engineer bns have made? Or mechanised heavy railway bns? Or road construction bns with heavy mobile equipment?

[ 06. November 2002, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: Andreas Seidel ]

 

Nice link, Andreas. Quick question- Abgang? Zugang? I don't know german worth diddly...

The problem with logisitcs is that it is so all-encompassing. Lets say the german haad mobilized more engineer battallions, and mobilized more trucks and prime movers. Immediately, fuel becomes a major problem. Clearly, more mechanized vehicle means more fuel consumption. Then there are the minor issues, like spare parts, engine oil, and so on. I think, if anyhting, the only method the germans could have used to avoid some of their logistical problems was a catch-22. To avoid the logisitcal problems, the germans would have had to advance into russia much slower , thus allowing themselvves to constantly regroup, and, more important, to keep the supply lines secure and running.
But then, of course, would the germans have been able to gain any significant amounts of territory?

 

CrazyD nailed it!

Of course more resources and emphasis put into logistics would have helped the Germans to a certain extent, but it wouldn’t have turned the principal fact that German logistics wasn’t ready to keep pace with advance speed of the “Blitzkrieg” in the East. Soviet Russia was simply not a country to be “blitzed”, especially not by a lightweight as Germany was at this time (economically and logistically).

Abgang = losses
Zugang = additions (e.g. production, repaired)
( ) = Additions by booty included in “Zugang”
Fehlbestand = Difference
Im Ganzen = Total
Insgesamt = Total
Stück = pieces

P.S. Crazy, did you read my reply RE. “Ammunition” (02. November 2002 09:50 AM). I’m pretty interested what Murray has what I haven’t to come to a different conclusion.

Cheers,

 

As you gents may have noticed, I think logistics was a HUGE issue for the germans (and it seems the japanese too, although I know little about that theater). The germans had logistical problems they just never could address sufficiently.
I've always wondered about the Hitler factor here- I wonder how germany would have done in the war had Hitler forseen the need for a wartime economy. We have discussed how he did not implement a war economy until late 1942; what about late 1938? Could this have allowed the germans more breathing room?

I guess I just came up with my answer to the thread title... a war economy by no later than 1938 was the major "eastern front victory condition".

Andy, I did see your reply, and I definetely want to look into it. Haven't had too much time this week, unfortunately.
Here ya go tho- I'll make sure I get to it by tomorrow afternoon, at the latest!

[ 07. November 2002, 12:17 PM: Message edited by: CrazyD ]

 

Agreed about wartime economy in 1938...could have been a big help.

Russia, unless you are China, cannot be beaten by a war of attrition. Germany had to blitz Russia in order to win. Their biggest problem was the lack of fuel, and its unneeded waste.

 

No need to hurry...but I'm "burning" to see some hints on Murray's "lack of ammo" therory (if one can simplyfy it to that term, unfortunately no way for me right now to access his book), as most stuff I have here isn't really pointing towards an ammo "production / storgage" crisis, but "only" an ammo supply (=logistics) crisis here and then...

As for full war footining in 1938, please keep in mind that the 1940/41 ressource basis for Germany (France, Poland, Nordic, the pact with Italy,the Balkans) was way better compared to 1938. Germany (incl. Austria and even Sudetenland) had real problems in 1938 to get all thier armament stuff.

Cheers,

 

Correct - hence the co-operation with the Soviet Union.

 

On the subject why Luftwaffe had winter clothing for 1941-42:

" OKH decreed that the army would not require winter clothing. Some cold weather gear was ordered, but only for the 60 or so divisions earmarked for occupation duties. Only one top commander demurred-Field Marshal Milch quietly ignored a direct order from Hitler and set about organising winter uniforms for all 800 000 Luftwaffe personnel he suspected would still be needed in Russia as the snow started to fall."

From "Ostfront" by Charles Winchester 2000 Osprey Publishing Ltd

 

Of course, as I have always said that a full-steam economy in late 1940 and early 1941 was the main victory condition for victory in WWII (In the East). And this process should have started in 1938 as das Reich says, but Andy is right about the resources available in 1938. They could have been bought or exchanged or even stolen, but German economy did not have the richess enough to buy resources in 1938.

However, German industry in January 1941 could for sure produce, let's say the weaponry quantities that produced in mid-1944, when the production peaked. In 1944, all the front were pulling back, the German comunication lines were being attacked and cut constantly and the German factories were bombed, delaying production. In 1940-1941 there were any of these conditions. That could have helped a lot for sure.

And Das Reich, what a horrible avatar is that! I liked Rommel quite a lot more!

 

By the way. I understand those meanings of fact. Therefore I do not have facts, because we are not Guderian nor Von Bock and we are not fighting in Russia in 1941.

60 years later, the only 'facts' we have are opinions and thesis of many authors and their books...