the political leadership of russia may have been toppled, Russia was never conquered during wwI .
The military setbacks directly led to the political instability because the soldiers gave up hope for victory and mutiny was rampant. If the Russians did well enough the Czar would have wielded more power to stabilize his army. Its the very same thing that happened to the Imperial German army in 1918 and its kreigsmarine that mutiny was everywhere, because the war was not going well enough. The Russians actually refuted the original German proposal and the Germans marched in as far as smolensk and near St Petersburg, until they accepted terms.
my understanding is that hitler thought that he had to take the ukraine in order to gain supplies of food and materials nescessary for the continuation of the war further to the east.
Hitler thought alot of things and changed his priorities many times and always invariably making the worst decision, except the stand order of no retreat in the winter of 1941, but this was after she lost her chance to end the war. Hitler should have let Manstein run the war and it would have been over.
i don’t think the armies that were sent by hitler to attack kiev would have been enough to capture moscow.
The Germans had wasted Guderians talents for 2 weeks when they were like 50 miles away, then sent the best mobile force south. Stalin’s posture during the period was to hold the cities and Kiev was the major city for Ukraine, so the capture of Moscow would have also led to the loss of the same Soviet armies at Kiev after Guderian would hook south.
Also after Vyazma, the Germans had clear superiority over the forces in front of Moscow.
@Imperious:
The Germans had wasted Guderians talents for 2 weeks when they were like 50 miles away, then sent the best mobile force south. Stalin’s posture during the period was to hold the cities and Kiev was the major city for Ukraine, so the capture of Moscow would have also led to the loss of the same Soviet armies at Kiev after Guderian would hook south.
if army group south had advanced on moscow and not won a quick and descisive victory in the ukraine, and in the process
defeating up to 1/5th of the soviet army which was operational at that time. they would have reached moscow sooner and with greater numbers which would have increased the chance of taking moscow, however this would have left the axis forces trapped between the moscow defensive line and facing an attack of up to 500,000 soviet troops from the ukraine that would have been well armed and capable of seriously undermining an axis offensive on moscow. furthermore considering the onset of winter and the slow progress that the armed forces of nazi germany was making toward the ultimate goal of operation barbarossa, and the fierce resistance they faced, army group south would have suffered the same same fate as army group centre, and been forced back from moscow, and would never have reached kiev unless by reorganising and retreating from the moscow offensive and making their way to the ukraine to face most likely by that time exactly what they faced at moscow, they would have been demoralised and understrenght and probably incapable of a serious attack on a more prepared, heavily fortified and defended territory.
AGS was too far from Moscow. The proper road is directly above on an axis: Vyazma-Smolensk-Moscow.
AGS was a hinge to engage the defenders at Kiev, while Moscow could be taken and a great hook sweeping down to trap Kiev defenders.
If Leningrad fell, Murmansk and the White Sea ports fall, I beleive we all agree with this line of thinking.
Black Sea is usless as a supply route.
This leaves only two other routes, the long slow overland route in Iran and the long Pacific route.
How does the U.S.S.R get the Lend-Lease Supplies needed to speed up the fight againist Germany without Murmansk and Achangel?
I can’t sleep and was just thinking.
:roll:
It was old man winter that saved Russia, And even the Russians will admit to that.
Vast supply lines played a huge role in the German defeat in 41.
Russia was saved by vast distances, cold winter and terrain with forest’s, swamps and marshes. All factors that favour the defender.
Germany lost the war the day they attacked Russia.
End of discussion.
People with another opinion are ignorant retardet morons.
Only a sith deals in absolutes. :wink:
Some would say Germany lost WW2 when they invaded Poland,
Some would say Germany lost WW2 when they failed to knock England out of the war.
Some would say Germany lost WW2 when the US entered the war.
It seems to me that Germany lost WW2 when it failed to win in Russia and not when they invaded it. Lots of reasons the Axis lost
Well it appeared to me the slower the Blitzkrieg was advancing, the less effective the Wehrmacht was…
So if I was a Field Marshall, I would have let my armored spearheads advance all the way to Moscow, deploying a small force of less important units to contain the defenders, while the main spearhead captured Moscow, or destroyed or encircle the Red Army… Then focus on the defenders in Stalingrad and Leningrad…
If Germany had captured Leningrad in 1941 and had not followed up with Moscow, the capture of the city would have helped the 1942 offensive.
If that offensive failed to destroy the U.S.S.R, Leningrad would have become an strong German defensive postion. The Russians could not leave such a strong postion flanking the push into eastern Poland.
With the terrain around Leningrad, a defenders dreamland, the war in the east could very well become static war. Germany would have also been able to use Leningrad as a port to supply Army Group North. Stalin would have become as fixed on capturing Leningrad as Hitler was Stalingrad.
With Leningrad in German hands I believe the war last into 1946.
Had the Germans captured Leningrad in 41. Could the German have turned the city into a true fortress, a WW2 version of the Battle of Verdun?
I just read some books by Anthony Beevor. He state that some high Whermacht officers belived that the only way to beat Stalin, was to turn it into a Russian Civil war. They would arm slaves to fight slaves. After -42, more than 20 % of the Axis force in East was made of ukraineans, belorussians and kossacks that wanted to fight Stalin. Of course, Hitler hated the idea of slaves in nazi uniforms, so whermacht fooled him, and named them all cossacks.
Also historian Keegan had some ideas, that if Hitler conquered Middle East before he did Barbarossa, then he got a fat oil supply that would have made a difference. The Bagdad-Express railroad from the oil fields in Iraq to Berlin was running since 1918, and the muslim population in Iraq did support Hitler. They do it even today. From Iraq, the distance to the russian oilfields in Baku is short, and this could be a secont front against Stalin.
so whermacht fooled him, and named them all cossacks.
LOL! your very funny!
The Siege of Lenningrad was another one of Hitlers stupid ideas.
@ABWorsham:
If Leningrad fell, Murmansk and the White Sea ports fall, I beleive we all agree with this line of thinking.
Black Sea is usless as a supply route.
This leaves only two other routes, the long slow overland route in Iran and the long Pacific route.
How does the U.S.S.R get the Lend-Lease Supplies needed to speed up the fight againist Germany without Murmansk and Achangel?
I can’t sleep and was just thinking.
About half of Lend-Lease went over the Pacific route. Effective Japanese submarine techniques and a declaration of war on the Soviets would have been the best way to disrupt Lend-Lease.
But no doubt taking Murmanks and Arch would have been a problem.
Russia was saved by vast distances, cold winter and terrain with forest’s, swamps and marshes. All factors that favour the defender.
The term you are looking for is Strategic Depth.
The Soviet Union had more Strategic depth than any other nation in history, so much space. So far to fall back and regroup.
Israel, for example, has the opposite. No strategic depth at all, hence the six day war.
