When should Hitler have attacked Russia?

Don't worry, Bratwurst, as they say in all the best Western movies :

It's just the boys havin' 'emselves a bitta fun !

 

Also, Fugate's "Thunder on the Dniepr" contains a very good look into the German headquarters at the time, bringing together many of the documents and memoirs into a cohesive story. It also shows Guderian in a somewhat less flatterin light than the (usual) superhuman father-of-the-panzers guise.

(Unfortunately, some parts of the book go off on fantastic tales about intial Soviet losses in pre-war Russia being a trap, but that is a different story.)

 

Damn! I told you not to mention it! Now the cover is blown

 

No, it is not getting personnal any attcks are going on. Why don't you look at Dresden's thread a year ago? Very embarrasing and very bad... Now, we are 'behaving'...

 

I think you guys need to mellow out and go have a Bier........

Rülps !

 

A bier is never misplaced...although I should get to bed for an early flight to London tomorrow. So perhaps an ale is more the order of the day.

Yay for Foyles bookstore!

 

...the Military section is on the 2nd floor...

 

I can't go in there, temptation is too strong

 

The attack of Russia eventually led to the loss of WW2 for the Nazi's. So it doesn't matter when you attacked, at 1941, they attacked,nevertheless, they were still beaten. Maybe it was the best chance, but I'd have thought if you didn't attack Russia, then you would no longer have a two fronted war, and an ally to help win countries.
Personally, knowing I'd lose the war, I'd have never attacked. And if they attack you, you lose, and loss was inevitable.
If you went back in time and played the role of Hitler, would you WANT to attack Russia 1941, knowing you would lose, and you would commit suicide? Or would you just attack other countries with support FROM Russia?
This was a bit like chess. Either attempt a take of a piece, or be taken. In that case Germany took a Rook with a Queen. Instead they could have moved the Queen out of the way and be neutral, no wins, no losses.

 

Liam, that is certainly not right. The Germans wouldn't have invaded if they had no posibilities of winning.

Almost everybody back then believed the Germans could win for various important reasons:

</font>

• The German armed forces conquesting Poland, France, Scandinavia, the Low Countries and the Balcans</font>
• The Soviet political system being considered rotten and already unstable</font>
• The humiliating temporary defeat of the Soviet armed forces in Finland</font>
• The Soviet officer corps being severely weakened by Stalin's purges</font>
• The Soviet armed forces being ill-equiped, ill-trained and with old fashioned tactics</font>

 

Then again he had info by Guderian before the war, I think, that the Red Army had some 20,000 tanks, as he during Autumn 1941 told Guderian
" If I had believed the Russians had 20,000 tanks I would have never started the war."

Then again I think Hitler was so convinced that he could win that nothing would stop him.

 

In my opinion Liam is right. Hitler couldn't defeat Russia in 1941 whatever the date of the invasion would be. Even if Germans managed to capture Moscow it would not be a great benefit for them - they'd get nothing but ruins and serious losses because in October of 1941 most of political , economical and military Moscow objects were evacuated.
"The Soviet armed forces being ill-equiped, ill-trained and with old fashioned tactics". Could you please show me an army of 1941 (except German one ), that had better tactics, equipment etc. than Soviet ? You repeat the worst Hitler's mistake. He would have much better chances to win if he planned for two-year compaign in Russia, made preparations for winter and produced more tanks,planes etc., mobilized more soldiers( in fact he did the same in 1942, but the time was lost ).

 

Certainly not. As most of the German strategists accurately believed back then, an attack on Moscow would attract almost all Soviet armed forces' units to the battle, where they could be annihilated in a gigantic Kesselschlacht. If Stalin had refused to evacuate the city that would mean that the main rail and motorway junction, communication and command centre in the whole USSR would have been included in the battle and their loss —and I'm not going to discuss whether this gigantic battle could have happened or not— would have meant the destruction of the USSR's political and military leadership.

The Japanese, British, Finnish, even French armies.

This is very easy to say. Two years campaign, switching to full-war economy in 1938 and having 300 infantry divisions, plus 25 Panzer and 20 motorised, along 5 air fleets fully equipped, and six months of summer...

 

Yea the Germans would take Moscow and it would be over, just like Napolien did... err maybe not

 

Being how I'm not a geography major,what is Russia?4-5 times as big as Poland/France.Majority of Germans MARCHED into Russia or horse back.Needed trucks/halftracks etc.Speed was the key.To encircle/capture as many troops as possible before they retreated back into Russia. Hitler knew nothing about the T-34 tank which they had nothing to deal with it. Hitler opened his big mouth and declared war on the US which started a 2 front war. Hitler's hatred of Jews,etc. Instead of being partisans they might have been allies.

 

Imagine you had a pack of cavalry... 60 Cavalry...
Your enemy had 100 pikemen....
I wouldn't like to run into those pikemen with my cavelry.
I'd prefer to attack them while they're on the move.

You also said that they wouldn't have attacked if they hadn't a chance of winning....
The new Soviet slogan was "Not one step backwards" *traitors* would be shot. That means you are up against how much population?

I would have personally just deploy sandbags, MG42's and other gun emplacements on my lines and wait for the onslaught. MG42's aren't portable and so probably the most effective weapon is out. I'd prefer to defend than attack. Re-build the population, get more men, improve technology, hold on to the land I have.

Knowing I'd lose attacking then all I'd be doing is sending off my queen in chess to take a rook (for those who don't play chess, that's a bad thing). Ah, but if I was Hitler, I wouldn't have attacked Russia in the first place! I'd stay focused on France, Brits, and repel the Americans. Russia could still be my ally and the "not a chance for Hitler" could have become more realisitic....
Imagine it as this:
| Germany |
Two fronts..... Now without attacking Russia:
| Germany
All the men defending/attacking Russia could be on the other side attacking France! Probably more than DOUBLE the men. The question is: Would Russia have attacked Germany?

But all I can say is:
Germany attacks Russia - Loses

What if after maybe conquering Europe and having no enemies on the West Hitler could have concentrated on Easter Europe.
After playing M:TW I know for a fact that one all but one of your sides you must have allies. The other you can attack. Germans were outnumbered, so they had to pray that they can pull off an "Agincourt" victory, killing more than they kill you.
The fact is, Hitler was going for the whole world in one.
You can't eat a whole sandwich in one bite.
But one by one it will eventually be yours.

 

Also, we all know that the attack didn't help win the war, so why do the same thing over? Hoping that it wasn't a mistake but something Hitler did later was wrong?

 

Monday morning quarterbacking is so easy, because hindsight is 20/20 - always

Cheers,

 

Must say any other army in the world would have probably surrendered in the face of those terrible losses.

It is estimated ( in my earlier posts ) during Barbarossa (41-45) that Red Army losses were 5-7:1 to German army in every area of arms: men, aeroplanes, tanks etc.

 

I'll try to comment that ridiculous statement that Japanese , British and Finnish armies "had better tactics, equipment etc. than Soviet".
Yes, Finland had splendid, "beautiful" army, extremely small, without armoured forces, with weak AF (or maybe General Friedrich H thinks that a couple of Buffalos, Hurricanes and Blenheims were better than thousands of MiG - 3 , LaGG-3 , Il-2 and Pe-2 , which managed to hit more German planes on 22.06.1941 than western allies of 1939 could do per single day ) Finnish army was good in large pinewoods and during -40 C frost, but it wouldn't be a serious obstacle in palnes of Ukraine for example.
Japs were better than Soviets ! That really makes me laugh. Probably General forgot about 1939 and Halhin - Gol river, when Soviets swept away "mighty" Manchurian army.
I hope that British people will excuse me , but in my opinion in 1939-1941 UK had the weakest army with WWI - fashioned tactics and strategy(God bless Montgomery ! He changed that pity situation ). Otherwise it would easily deal with a couple of Rommel's divs in Africa.
And after reading others General's nonsense statements it seems to me taht he simply does know less about Russian campaign.

[ 18. February 2004, 07:40 AM: Message edited by: Alexanderr ]