Soviet failure during Barbarossa

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
User avatar
doogal
Member
Posts: 657
Joined: 06 Aug 2007 11:37
Location: scotland

Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa

Post by doogal » 25 Dec 2018 21:52

Conclusively Barbarossa was a failure on a strategic level where as Soviet "failure" occupied the operational and tactical level.
So we have both combatants involved in a series of complex engagements but one had a serious strategic advantage and one held an operational advantage which would over time erode.
The Soviets could afford failure on several levels due to Germanys inability to.
1) Strike at them in any other way than a frontal land assault.
2)Prepare it's armed forces sufficiently for the rigours of movement/combat/supply in eastern Europe.
3)Support eastern European nationalism.
4)Match Soviet industry and rationalise mass production techniques.
5)Mobilise the home population and economy sooner.
6)Make meaningfully alliances.
7)Hinder soviet industry or production.
8)Create a strategic bombing force ....

DavidFrankenberg
Member
Posts: 899
Joined: 11 May 2016 01:09
Location: Earth

Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa

Post by DavidFrankenberg » 25 Dec 2018 23:32

doogal wrote:
25 Dec 2018 21:52
Conclusively Barbarossa was a failure on a strategic level where as Soviet "failure" occupied the operational and tactical level.
So we have both combatants involved in a series of complex engagements but one had a serious strategic advantage and one held an operational advantage which would over time erode.
The Soviets could afford failure on several levels due to Germanys inability to.
1) Strike at them in any other way than a frontal land assault.
2)Prepare it's armed forces sufficiently for the rigours of movement/combat/supply in eastern Europe.
3)Support eastern European nationalism.
4)Match Soviet industry and rationalise mass production techniques.
5)Mobilise the home population and economy sooner.
6)Make meaningfully alliances.
7)Hinder soviet industry or production.
8)Create a strategic bombing force ....
The tactic is only a way to achieve the strategy...
Barbarossa is a german failure on all levels since the strategy was not achieved.
In other words it is a soviet success on all levels since soviet strategy succeeded : surviving the year 41, stabilizing the front and even push back the german forces.

Stiltzkin
Member
Posts: 1071
Joined: 11 Apr 2016 12:29
Location: Germany

Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa

Post by Stiltzkin » 26 Dec 2018 00:02

You should ! Barbarossa is a german failure. And certainly because it failed, Germany lost war.
Depends what you call "lost". I think with the failure of Barbarossa, it is safe to say that the war in the East was probably already decided, i.e. Germany could not win on the EF, by pursuing their original strategy, but this does not mean that the Soviets would suddenly teleport into Berlin, thats a different story and requires a different elaboration.
1) Strike at them in any other way than a frontal land assault.
No, they could have taken a slow approch (e.g. Caesar in Gaul), but they did not pursue such a strategy. There was no Plan B and every further delay meant that the Allies would be able to increase their strength and return to the continent, as long as the German Army was still battling in the East.
2)Prepare it's armed forces sufficiently for the rigours of movement/combat/supply in eastern Europe.
I would say that their armed forces performed quite well, judging that a German soldier had 600-800% the casualty infliction of a Soviet soldier, but since they speculated on a short war in the East, their armies were heavily exposed to environmental attrition in the winters of 1941 and 42 (this caused quite a considerable number of frostbites). It gradually changed though. I would support the assertion that they underestimated the EF to a certain degree though.
3)Support eastern European nationalism.
They did appeal to various groups, the number of nationalists/collaborators was not inconsiderable, but did not matter in the grand scheme of things. It never sufficed to replace entire armies, so yes ultimately the Nazi ideology prohibited further alliances (they did impose a "race war" and declared this publicly to the world), which they desperately needed.
Italy would have had to commit to the cause, by doing more than just sending a few Divisions.
4)Match Soviet industry and rationalise mass production techniques.
They did more than that. A german soldier had 5-6 times the worth of munitions invested (on a per capita basis), relative to a Soviet soldier. The Soviet Union was economically inferior to the German Grossraum. A lot of people make this mistake, because they mistake quantity of weapon output with the overall weights. Mass production techniques were the same in almost all industrialized nations, so I do not know what you mean by that. Production is based on decisions, doctrines and allocations of raw materials and labour (and most importantly: On losses and the size of the armed forces). German military outlays exceeded the combined effort of the USSR and Great Britain, only the US surpassed this level (but not before 1943, compare: Economies of WW2). The underdeveloped civil economy of the USSR was one of the reasons for the RKKA's high casualties, because this translates into the war economy.
5)Mobilise the home population and economy sooner.
German economy was prepared for a long war with France (all planning seemed to be based on their experiences of WW1), they should have perhaps attacked with all units they had available (instead of the preselected ones for Barbarossa), but nothing indicates that something like this would have considerably affected the outcome, for the following reasons:
It may require an imminent threat, a general awareness of the public eye, however the armament industry was already prepared in width and depth (compare, Scherner and Streb). The increase in 1943 and 44 was mostly due to the fact that material had to be replaced and more units had to be forwarded to cover other fronts. If anything, Germany already reached its desired levels before launching Barbarossa, their mistake was to inadequately prepare for any contingencies, should operation Barbarossa derail. They already started to convert industry to address the conflict in the Atlantic and had to revert their plans, so that in 1941 the output of munitions was thus, temporarily a bit too low.
6)Make meaningfully alliances.
Yes, ultimately this decided the war. In a prolonged war of attrition there is no "one deceisive battle".
7)Hinder soviet industry or production.
They did capture facilities in the western districts, which was certainly a heavy blow for the Soviet arms industry, but the share of the East USSR in defense industry enterprises as a whole was already at about 18-20% before the war, so they had backup facilities.
8)Create a strategic bombing force ....
Would not have changed much. Strategic bombing proved to be rather ineffective and resource heavy (during the 40s), despite this, they lacked the oil and could not allocate more manpower for such an expansion in the very first place.
In other words it is a soviet success on all levels since soviet strategy succeeded : surviving the year 41, stabilizing the front and even push back the german forces.
The Soviets planned to destroy the Army Groups in the Winter of 1941 and then again in the spring of 1942.

DavidFrankenberg
Member
Posts: 899
Joined: 11 May 2016 01:09
Location: Earth

Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa

Post by DavidFrankenberg » 26 Dec 2018 00:38

Stiltzkin wrote:
26 Dec 2018 00:02
You should ! Barbarossa is a german failure. And certainly because it failed, Germany lost war.
Depends what you call "lost". I think with the failure of Barbarossa, it is safe to say that the war in the East was probably already decided, i.e. Germany could not win on the EF, by pursuing their original strategy, but this does not mean that the Soviets would suddenly teleport into Berlin, thats a different story and requires a different elaboration.
Hitler wanted a 1000 year Reich. In order to do it, he needed to :
1) dominate Europe, he did it
2) conquer the western part of USSR, he failed

To achieve the 2) he needed to succeed in Barbarossa. But, he failed.

The only conclusion is : german failure, soviet success.

Fatally, the german failure in Barbarossa led to the conquest of Berlin. The failure of Barbarossa during the summer 41 announced the defeat of the III Reich. Soon the USA would enter the war to help GB and to get its part of the european cake, because they knew Germany was doomed since it lost the war during Barbarossa.

The Red Army entered Berlin. The Wehrmacht never entered Moscow except in the POW parade.

User avatar
Stugbit
Member
Posts: 246
Joined: 01 Sep 2013 18:26
Location: Goiânia

Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa

Post by Stugbit » 26 Dec 2018 01:10

I remember reading something about the German industries working hours in the beginning of the war. They seemed to be not working in full time. I think it wasn`t until 1942 or 43 that the industries began to have nocturnal turns of work and things like that. They were in a World War by 1940 but their economy was acting/working like peace time. They didn`t had a full scale production. England seems to got this in the middle of 1940 and Russia in the beginning of 1941. I`m not sure about it because there`s some time but I`ll try to find the book I read this, if someone else could also provide that information.

DavidFrankenberg
Member
Posts: 899
Joined: 11 May 2016 01:09
Location: Earth

Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa

Post by DavidFrankenberg » 26 Dec 2018 09:37

Stugbit wrote:
26 Dec 2018 01:10
I remember reading something about the German industries working hours in the
beginning of the war. They seemed to be not working in full time. I think it wasn`t until 1942 or 43 that the industries began to have nocturnal turns of work and things like that. They were in a World War by 1940 but their economy was acting/working like peace time. They didn`t had a full scale production. England seems to got this in the middle of 1940 and Russia in the beginning of 1941. I`m not sure about it because there`s some time but I`ll try to find the book I read this, if someone else could also provide that information.
After the failure of Barbarossa, the defeat was coming, so the Germans began to push up their war prod. So they started to speed it up in 1942 and Germany switched to a full war economy in mid 43 with Speer.

User avatar
Stugbit
Member
Posts: 246
Joined: 01 Sep 2013 18:26
Location: Goiânia

Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa

Post by Stugbit » 26 Dec 2018 12:53

This sounds a bit insane to me. I mean, they were about to do the biggest and most ambitious invasion in History, they were betting all their hope in a fast victory in the East and then, they didn`t went for a full blow? They hit the Soviet with a half blow?

And Hitler talking about the “world holding its breath” and all. Looks like a tourist forgetting his sunscreen when going to beach.

DavidFrankenberg
Member
Posts: 899
Joined: 11 May 2016 01:09
Location: Earth

Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa

Post by DavidFrankenberg » 26 Dec 2018 13:23

Stugbit wrote:
26 Dec 2018 12:53
This sounds a bit insane to me. I mean, they were about to do the biggest and most ambitious invasion in History, they were betting all their hope in a fast victory in the East and then, they didn`t went for a full blow? They hit the Soviet with a half blow?

And Hitler talking about the “world holding its breath” and all. Looks like a tourist forgetting his sunscreen when going to beach.
This is the Hitler's problem : "we are the supermen, we dont need to do much to conquer the world, let's go in USSR they will collapse as a card castle".

Hitler didnt want to worry the german people about the war. The Germans didnt want to suffer like they did during 14-18... Hitler needed to take care of the conditions of life in his Germany in order not to give any pretext for a social revolt like in 17 or 18.

User avatar
Stugbit
Member
Posts: 246
Joined: 01 Sep 2013 18:26
Location: Goiânia

Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa

Post by Stugbit » 26 Dec 2018 13:38

He wasn`t exactly pragmatic, isn`t it? The problems you`re talking about just happened because they got themselves in a prolonged attrition war in WWI. The logical solution would be doing absolutely everything possible for the fast victory in the East to happen.

Very contradictory decisions.

DavidFrankenberg
Member
Posts: 899
Joined: 11 May 2016 01:09
Location: Earth

Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa

Post by DavidFrankenberg » 26 Dec 2018 13:56

Stugbit wrote:
26 Dec 2018 13:38
He wasn`t exactly pragmatic, isn`t it?
He was in his way.
The problems you`re talking about just happened because they got themselves in a prolonged attrition war in WWI. The logical solution would be doing absolutely everything possible for the fast victory in the East to happen.
Hitler wanted a WWI bis, a revenge, which wd eneded this time by a flawless german victory. He wiped the jews out because he thought the jews fomented the revolt of 1918, the "betrayal"... he sacked communists this way too.
He was aware that a people who suffers angry is reluctant to do war and is favorable to a revolution. That's why Hitler planned all his wars as "blitzkrieg", short wars : the german people wd not have the time to suffer and revolt as in 1917-18.

Another point is the german public opinion : Germans were hostiles to the idea of a WWII, because they remembered the sufferings of WWI. That's why Hitler planned carefully the Gleiwitz incident in order to give to the german people an acceptable version of the polish war : they attacked us, this is a defensive war, we have no choice etc..

Very contradictory decisions.
Indeed it was not so much contradictory. As you said, the aim was a short war, famous "blitzkrieg". He succeeded in Europe with that tactic.
In USSR he imagined a 8 weeks war at the maximum length. It means 2 months. Started in 22 june 41, the war wd have ended the 22 aug at the maximum. That's why Hitler didnt plan winter clothes for example.
He knew that he had to win within 8 weeks, and he strongly believed in it. But, he failed. USSR was stronger than he thought.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 10394
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa

Post by ljadw » 26 Dec 2018 14:00

Stugbit wrote:
26 Dec 2018 01:10
I remember reading something about the German industries working hours in the beginning of the war. They seemed to be not working in full time. I think it wasn`t until 1942 or 43 that the industries began to have nocturnal turns of work and things like that. They were in a World War by 1940 but their economy was acting/working like peace time. They didn`t had a full scale production. England seems to got this in the middle of 1940 and Russia in the beginning of 1941. I`m not sure about it because there`s some time but I`ll try to find the book I read this, if someone else could also provide that information.
What you say is debunked by the Wages of Destruction

ljadw
Member
Posts: 10394
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa

Post by ljadw » 26 Dec 2018 14:06

doogal wrote:
25 Dec 2018 21:52
Conclusively Barbarossa was a failure on a strategic level where as Soviet "failure" occupied the operational and tactical level.
So we have both combatants involved in a series of complex engagements but one had a serious strategic advantage and one held an operational advantage which would over time erode.
The Soviets could afford failure on several levels due to Germanys inability to.
1) Strike at them in any other way than a frontal land assault.
2)Prepare it's armed forces sufficiently for the rigours of movement/combat/supply in eastern Europe.
3)Support eastern European nationalism.
4)Match Soviet industry and rationalise mass production techniques.
5)Mobilise the home population and economy sooner.
6)Make meaningfully alliances.
7)Hinder soviet industry or production.
8)Create a strategic bombing force ....
1 : could not be done
2 : was done and more would not help them
3 : would not help them
4 was not needed for a short campaign
5 : was not possible/not needed
6 : was done
7 : could not be done and was not needed for a short campain
8 : this existed, but would not help them .

User avatar
Stugbit
Member
Posts: 246
Joined: 01 Sep 2013 18:26
Location: Goiânia

Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa

Post by Stugbit » 26 Dec 2018 14:08

That's why Hitler planned all his wars as "blitzkrieg", short wars : the german people wd not have the time to suffer and revolt as in 1917-18.
But wasn`t he expecting that the invasion of France would be another WWI again?

User avatar
Stugbit
Member
Posts: 246
Joined: 01 Sep 2013 18:26
Location: Goiânia

Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa

Post by Stugbit » 26 Dec 2018 14:09

ljadw wrote:
26 Dec 2018 14:00
Stugbit wrote:
26 Dec 2018 01:10
I remember reading something about the German industries working hours in the beginning of the war. They seemed to be not working in full time. I think it wasn`t until 1942 or 43 that the industries began to have nocturnal turns of work and things like that. They were in a World War by 1940 but their economy was acting/working like peace time. They didn`t had a full scale production. England seems to got this in the middle of 1940 and Russia in the beginning of 1941. I`m not sure about it because there`s some time but I`ll try to find the book I read this, if someone else could also provide that information.
What you say is debunked by the Wages of Destruction
It isn`t true?

User avatar
Stugbit
Member
Posts: 246
Joined: 01 Sep 2013 18:26
Location: Goiânia

Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa

Post by Stugbit » 26 Dec 2018 14:33

Recently I was watching a video on YouTube talking about a similar subject of Barbarossa and the invasion of France but more focused on tanks. What do you guys think about?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw_gutZZXnc&t=432s

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”