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 » 26 Dec 2018 15:11

doogal wrote: ↑
Yesterday, 22:52
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 .
I said they lacked the ability to do these things.

1)With this I agree.
2)They were not ready for the mechanical problems encountered on the EF, far more could have been done to ensure the safety of lines of communication to forward units. Being better prepared always helps.
3)How would it not help them ?
4)Ended up being a long campaign, some foresight here would have been useful
5)How was it not possible
6)Please show which alliances were meaningful, apart from the pact of steel Germanys allies were a hinderance.
7)Again point (4) Hope for the best prepare for the worst.
8) The Luftwaffe essentially dropped the idea of a strategic air force once Walter Wever died, what they had was not a Strategic bombing force.

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

Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa

Post by DavidFrankenberg » 26 Dec 2018 16:25

Stugbit wrote:
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?
Not at all. His plan worked perfectly. France was KO within a month.
Stugbit wrote:
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?
Well, i have not read Tooze's book (shame on me) yet, but we should always take Speer's words with tweezers.
That Germany was or was not at 100% of her capacity in 1941 is not really relevant, since it doesnot change a iota about what happened.

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

Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa

Post by ljadw » 26 Dec 2018 16:49

Stugbit wrote:
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?
Germany was already fully mobilised economically before WWII, while Britain had in June 1940 still more than 1 million jobless .a bigger part of women was mobilised for war work in Germany than in Britain and in Britain than in the US .
1943 : Germany 34%Britain 33.1 % USA 25.4 %
1939 : A third of German workforce was composed by women, in Britain only 25 %
1940 : Germany : 41 %, Britain 30 %
1944 : Germany : 51 %, Britain : 41 %

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 17:03

DavidFrankenberg wrote:
26 Dec 2018 16:25
Stugbit wrote:
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?
Not at all. His plan worked perfectly. France was KO within a month.
Stugbit wrote:
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?
Well, i have not read Tooze's book (shame on me) yet, but we should always take Speer's words with tweezers.
That Germany was or was not at 100% of her capacity in 1941 is not really relevant, since it doesnot change a iota about what happened.
It may not change a iota when we consider the end results of Barbarossa and all, maybe. But it can cast light on what they were thinking when they took their decisions.
Last edited by Stugbit on 26 Dec 2018 17:07, edited 1 time in total.

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 17:05

ljadw wrote:
26 Dec 2018 16:49
Stugbit wrote:
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?
Germany was already fully mobilised economically before WWII, while Britain had in June 1940 still more than 1 million jobless .a bigger part of women was mobilised for war work in Germany than in Britain and in Britain than in the US .
1943 : Germany 34%Britain 33.1 % USA 25.4 %
1939 : A third of German workforce was composed by women, in Britain only 25 %
1940 : Germany : 41 %, Britain 30 %
1944 : Germany : 51 %, Britain : 41 %
I see. You got this info in Wages of Destruction, Ljadw?

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 18:36

The Germans didn't had estrategic bombing aircraft in WWII.

Henkel 111 was closer to a medium bomber definition than properly strategic. At the beginning of the war it was ok (as a medium bomber), but it was still a poor armed and poor armored aircraft which by 41’s standards was already obsolet. It just couldn't keep up any more. Ju-88 was a better aircraft than Henkel, but yet, even smaller. Definily a medium bomber. I think it’s not necessary to get in details about the Dornier, right?

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

Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa

Post by ljadw » 26 Dec 2018 19:24

Stugbit wrote:
26 Dec 2018 17:05
ljadw wrote:
26 Dec 2018 16:49
Stugbit wrote:
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?
Germany was already fully mobilised economically before WWII, while Britain had in June 1940 still more than 1 million jobless .a bigger part of women was mobilised for war work in Germany than in Britain and in Britain than in the US .
1943 : Germany 34%Britain 33.1 % USA 25.4 %
1939 : A third of German workforce was composed by women, in Britain only 25 %
1940 : Germany : 41 %, Britain 30 %
1944 : Germany : 51 %, Britain : 41 %
I see. You got this info in Wages of Destruction, Ljadw?
Yes : on P 515 .
I have also German sources . I will provide them later .

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 19:34

Ok, thanks.

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

Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa

Post by DavidFrankenberg » 26 Dec 2018 21:51

Stugbit wrote:
26 Dec 2018 17:03
DavidFrankenberg wrote:
26 Dec 2018 16:25
Stugbit wrote:
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?
Not at all. His plan worked perfectly. France was KO within a month.
Stugbit wrote:
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?
Well, i have not read Tooze's book (shame on me) yet, but we should always take Speer's words with tweezers.
That Germany was or was not at 100% of her capacity in 1941 is not really relevant, since it doesnot change a iota about what happened.
It may not change a iota when we consider the end results of Barbarossa and all, maybe. But it can cast light on what they were thinking when they took their decisions.
"They" is only Hitler.
Whatever true figures about german economy is always better than Speer's words !

User avatar
BDV
Financial supporter
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009 16:11

Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa

Post by BDV » 28 Dec 2018 16:42

DavidFrankenberg wrote: "They" is only Hitler. Whatever true figures about german economy is always better than Speer's words !
Not after Hitler and his merry band of murderers got done with the German (and the rest of European) economy.

(e.g., Reichsfuhrer's own words at Posen:
"The Russian army was driven together into great pockets, destroyed, taken prisoner. We did not then value the mass man as we do now, as raw material, as manpower. Which is not a shame in the end, if one thinks in terms of generations, but it is regrettable today due to the loss of manpower: the prisoners died by the tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands from exhaustion, from hunger.")
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion

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

Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa

Post by DavidFrankenberg » 29 Dec 2018 00:35

DavidFrankenberg wrote:
26 Dec 2018 21:51
Stugbit wrote:
26 Dec 2018 17:03
DavidFrankenberg wrote:
26 Dec 2018 16:25
Stugbit wrote:
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?
Not at all. His plan worked perfectly. France was KO within a month.
Stugbit wrote:
26 Dec 2018 14:09
ljadw wrote:
26 Dec 2018 14:00


What you say is debunked by the Wages of Destruction
It isn`t true?
Well, i have not read Tooze's book (shame on me) yet, but we should always take Speer's words with tweezers.
That Germany was or was not at 100% of her capacity in 1941 is not really relevant, since it doesnot change a iota about what happened.
It may not change a iota when we consider the end results of Barbarossa and all, maybe. But it can cast light on what they were thinking when they took their decisions.
"They" is only Hitler.
Whatever true figures about german economy is always better than Speer's words !
Himmler was such a "humanist"...

Boby
Member
Posts: 2594
Joined: 19 Nov 2004 17:22
Location: Spain

Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa

Post by Boby » 29 Dec 2018 12:36

Stugbit wrote:
26 Dec 2018 19:34
Ok, thanks.
Look also at these articles

http://library.fes.de/jportal/receive/j ... SION=false

and

https://zeitgeschichte-digital.de/doks/ ... /docId/821

with numerous sources and data
Boby

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

Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa

Post by Stugbit » 30 Dec 2018 00:03

Boby wrote:
29 Dec 2018 12:36
Stugbit wrote:
26 Dec 2018 19:34
Ok, thanks.
Look also at these articles

http://library.fes.de/jportal/receive/j ... SION=false

and

https://zeitgeschichte-digital.de/doks/ ... /docId/821

with numerous sources and data
Boby
Thank you for the text once again, Boby!

My German is not very good, but I'll try to handle the data.

Regards.

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa

Post by jesk » 31 Dec 2018 10:49

doogal wrote:
16 Dec 2018 21:48
Jesk wrote - My findings are consistent with authoritative sources. Without reference to Warlimont
1. You referenced Warlimont not other sources

2.Which Authoritative sources

3. If you have more authoritative sources why did you reference Warlimont ????
Doogal wrote then please explain why this course of action wasn't taken:
Then you can explain the reason that the 11th army went to AGN in Aug/Sep 1942 if it was a farce:
Jesk replied 11th army went to AGN... what a serious historical discussion - because Hitler did it!
You stated that Leningrad could be easily taken in 1942 I asked you to explain why this course wasn't taken. And then I ask if you would explain why sending 11th army to AGN was a "farce" I see nothing goofy in that and cannot understand why you will not at least substantiate your own opinion:
Halder's diary yet. Manstein was very not pleased with the decision. He wanted to attack in the Caucasus. Hitler prematurely considered the tasks in the Caucasus fulfilled. And this opinion went against the opinion of the German generals. In it nonsense of the made decision. Hitler vs generals. Santa-Barbara...

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa

Post by jesk » 31 Dec 2018 11:06

DavidFrankenberg wrote:
17 Dec 2018 17:31
jesk wrote:
16 Dec 2018 16:44
DavidFrankenberg wrote:
16 Dec 2018 09:45
jesk wrote:
16 Dec 2018 06:45
DavidFrankenberg wrote:
16 Dec 2018 01:15
They failed to get Moscow in 41 not 42. They were not 0km away from Leningrad, but they were outside of it, assieging it. They never entered Leningrad. They failed there too.
In September 1941, the Germans wanted to attack across the Neva, Hitler canceled the plan of operation. Imposing an attack on Tikhvin. In 1942, the desire to attack Lenngrad is doubtful. Russian many times unsuccessfully attacked, the Germans did not even try.
You say "Hitler wanted to attack" and then "Hitler cancelled the attack".
Why did he cancel the attack ?
Because he could not attack... Why ? because the germans suffered heavy losses before arriving in front of Leningrad and during the siege.
This is boorish logic.
Let's take a look at it.
You have to check your conclusions with sources at least a little.
This applies to you too.
In September 1941 there was a cancellation of the planned strike across the Neva, for the complete blockade of Leningrad, in favor of the redistribution of resources for the attack on Tikhvin.
Well, the correct conclusion of this is the following : since Hitler suffered heavy losses facing the Red army, he could not attack both Leningrad and Tikhvin. In other words : he didnt attack Leningrad because he could not do it.
doogal wrote:
17 Dec 2018 20:03
David Frankenburg wrote - The correct conclusion is : Manstein did fail to take or even try to take Leningrad, because of the soviet attacks on the Volkov fronts.
What ever the wording of the original order Mansteins intention was to not enter or take Leningrad (he makes this clear) but to complete the encirclement.

So: He failed to complete the encirclement of Leningrad as he was forced to mount defensive operations: i think that it fairer.. are we discussing semantics now ??wow :thumbsup: that's my fault, maybe I was a tad hasty in my assertion that he did not fail.
Peter89 wrote:
17 Dec 2018 20:00
I think this is the time when a Forum Staff intervention would be great.

Jesk sabotages almost every topic concerning the Eastern front, and no one can reason with him.
Peter89, I read your topic about the plans of AGN and commented there. Generalized: the Sinyavino operation could not have caused the breakdown of the offensive. Served for Hitler only occasion. After the intervention of Manstein, the Russians were not only thrown back to original positions, they were also surrounded and destroyed. The attack on Leningrad could be carried out simultaneously with the attacks of the Russian east. Everything is simple for me, as for you. Sinyavino operation ... the answer is ready ..

viewtopic.php?p=2174858#p2174858

Image

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”