Soviet failure during Barbarossa

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017 08:19
Location: Belarus

Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa

Post by jesk » 31 Dec 2018 11:12

Stiltzkin wrote:
18 Dec 2018 03:46
The fault is mine as tbh no matter what the original direction was he (Manstein) was unable to carry out his orders or intentions and this can rightly be viewed a failure:
Well, I always think that every individual has a right to express itself. Jesk brings a lot of information and enthusiasm to the table, which is fine, perhaps there is something we do not see nor understand, but many seem to lack the understanding of the true nature of the war. Even if we accept the theory that interference prohibited success, then it would be still a failure, since humans make mistakes. The other question would be of course if the mission was achievable. What If scenarios can be a useful tool, but in this case taking Leningrad would have consumed manpower which was already strained, tied and dispersed over a vast front. Its strategic importance was also relative: It would have mattered only, if it could be held for a prolonged period. There is a reason why arrows end on the map, the enemy is willing to pay the price and I doubt that the Wehrmacht was that suicidal and too incompetent to assess the situation in which they found themselves in. I think they were doing exactly what they were supposed to and could do: Sieging it. Everything else would lie in the realm of fantasy.
Other than that, the EF was a war of manpower, necessary to cover vast areas, it was not the Karelian Isthmus, nor the Thermopylae. The Germans could not be everywhere, while also fighting a numerically superior enemy, simple as that. After the failure of Barbarossa, the Wehrmacht was trapped in a life and death struggle, Hitlers "divine" intervention :D or not, that barely mattered. I honestly think that the German High Command is equally guilty, perhaps even more responsible for poor decision making than Hitler (at least from my studies). They were great tacticians, but poor strategists and even worse diplomats.
At any cost Germans had to take Leningrad to release the 18th army for active operations. Alfred Jodl in 1942 suggested to attack first of all Leningrad. Hitler told: Caucasus. In 1941, Hitler refused to allocate forces for the complete blockade of Leningrad and connection with the Finns west of the Neva. He insisted on blow to Tikhvin!

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

Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa

Post by DavidFrankenberg » 31 Dec 2018 12:31

Jesk, you posted this Warlimont testimony viewtopic.php?p=2174858#p2174874

I wonder how, reading it, you could still believe in a victory on the Leningrad front...
It was obvious that the Germans could do nothing except defend themselves on the Leningrad front.

In 1942 Hitler had no forces to attack on two fronts.
After his barbarossa failure, it was doomed.

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

Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa

Post by jesk » 31 Dec 2018 18:10

DavidFrankenberg wrote:
31 Dec 2018 12:31
Jesk, you posted this Warlimont testimony viewtopic.php?p=2174858#p2174874

I wonder how, reading it, you could still believe in a victory on the Leningrad front...
It was obvious that the Germans could do nothing except defend themselves on the Leningrad front.

In 1942 Hitler had no forces to attack on two fronts.
After his barbarossa failure, it was doomed.
The Germans in 1942 confidently repelled all attacks and could attack. The quote from Warlimont well confirms, Hitler forbade to seize Leningrad. There idle.

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

Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa

Post by jesk » 31 Dec 2018 18:25

Stiltzkin wrote:
19 Dec 2018 17:00
If, as you are stating, the Eastern front was a matter of "manpower", then you have to logically conclude that the OHW and OKH were suicidal by doing a war they could not win with "manpower"... since the German manpower was inferior to the Soviet manpower, according to your own statements.
No, because the High Command was convinced that they will capture the capital before the end of 1941, or (speaking about the prolonged war of attrition) will be able to drain the enemy of manpower until its offensive power seeps in. Defeating the USSR was not impossible, it was just impossible to do that while being overextended over the vast steppes of the EF. Caesar in Gaul had the same problem (in "de bello gallico" he reveals his concerns), so he chose a slow approach.
Your posts the biggest on volume. But in them there could be a sense if decisions were made by robots instead of people. The analysis of fighting shows violations by Germans of the principles of the military theory.

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

Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa

Post by DavidFrankenberg » 31 Dec 2018 19:45

jesk wrote:
31 Dec 2018 18:10
DavidFrankenberg wrote:
31 Dec 2018 12:31
Jesk, you posted this Warlimont testimony viewtopic.php?p=2174858#p2174874

I wonder how, reading it, you could still believe in a victory on the Leningrad front...
It was obvious that the Germans could do nothing except defend themselves on the Leningrad front.

In 1942 Hitler had no forces to attack on two fronts.
After his barbarossa failure, it was doomed.
The Germans in 1942 confidently repelled all attacks and could attack. The quote from Warlimont well confirms, Hitler forbade to seize Leningrad. There idle.
No. They could not attack. Read Warlimont own words !

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

Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa

Post by jesk » 31 Dec 2018 19:59

DavidFrankenberg wrote:
31 Dec 2018 19:45
jesk wrote:
31 Dec 2018 18:10
DavidFrankenberg wrote:
31 Dec 2018 12:31
Jesk, you posted this Warlimont testimony viewtopic.php?p=2174858#p2174874

I wonder how, reading it, you could still believe in a victory on the Leningrad front...
It was obvious that the Germans could do nothing except defend themselves on the Leningrad front.

In 1942 Hitler had no forces to attack on two fronts.
After his barbarossa failure, it was doomed.
The Germans in 1942 confidently repelled all attacks and could attack. The quote from Warlimont well confirms, Hitler forbade to seize Leningrad. There idle.
No. They could not attack. Read Warlimont own words !
I read words. On September 3, to Hitler on a table put the draft of directive 47 and he refused to consider it. Hitler looked for an occasion not to attack Leningrad. After Sinyavino he announced preparation for reflection of approach against the Center group. Therefore to Stalingrad there were no attacks on Leningrad. September, October, November Hitler does not hurry to attack.

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

Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa

Post by DavidFrankenberg » 31 Dec 2018 20:09

jesk wrote:
31 Dec 2018 19:59
DavidFrankenberg wrote:
31 Dec 2018 19:45
jesk wrote:
31 Dec 2018 18:10
DavidFrankenberg wrote:
31 Dec 2018 12:31
Jesk, you posted this Warlimont testimony viewtopic.php?p=2174858#p2174874

I wonder how, reading it, you could still believe in a victory on the Leningrad front...
It was obvious that the Germans could do nothing except defend themselves on the Leningrad front.

In 1942 Hitler had no forces to attack on two fronts.
After his barbarossa failure, it was doomed.
The Germans in 1942 confidently repelled all attacks and could attack. The quote from Warlimont well confirms, Hitler forbade to seize Leningrad. There idle.
No. They could not attack. Read Warlimont own words !
I read words. On September 3, to Hitler on a table put the draft of directive 47 and he refused to consider it. Hitler looked for an occasion not to attack Leningrad. After Sinyavino he announced preparation for reflection of approach against the Center group. Therefore to Stalingrad there were no attacks on Leningrad. September, October, November Hitler does not hurry to attack.
And why Hitler didnt want to attack ? because he could not.

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

Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa

Post by jesk » 31 Dec 2018 20:13

DavidFrankenberg wrote:
31 Dec 2018 20:09
jesk wrote:
31 Dec 2018 19:59
DavidFrankenberg wrote:
31 Dec 2018 19:45
jesk wrote:
31 Dec 2018 18:10
DavidFrankenberg wrote:
31 Dec 2018 12:31
Jesk, you posted this Warlimont testimony viewtopic.php?p=2174858#p2174874

I wonder how, reading it, you could still believe in a victory on the Leningrad front...
It was obvious that the Germans could do nothing except defend themselves on the Leningrad front.

In 1942 Hitler had no forces to attack on two fronts.
After his barbarossa failure, it was doomed.
The Germans in 1942 confidently repelled all attacks and could attack. The quote from Warlimont well confirms, Hitler forbade to seize Leningrad. There idle.
No. They could not attack. Read Warlimont own words !
I read words. On September 3, to Hitler on a table put the draft of directive 47 and he refused to consider it. Hitler looked for an occasion not to attack Leningrad. After Sinyavino he announced preparation for reflection of approach against the Center group. Therefore to Stalingrad there were no attacks on Leningrad. September, October, November Hitler does not hurry to attack.
And why Hitler didnt want to attack ? because he could not.
In it all essence of disagreements. Generals considered they can, the last word remained for Hitler and he imposed the disputable opinion that Germans cannot. Hitler battles against generals!?

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

Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa

Post by DavidFrankenberg » 31 Dec 2018 20:23

jesk wrote:
31 Dec 2018 20:13
DavidFrankenberg wrote:
31 Dec 2018 20:09
jesk wrote:
31 Dec 2018 19:59
DavidFrankenberg wrote:
31 Dec 2018 19:45
jesk wrote:
31 Dec 2018 18:10

The Germans in 1942 confidently repelled all attacks and could attack. The quote from Warlimont well confirms, Hitler forbade to seize Leningrad. There idle.
No. They could not attack. Read Warlimont own words !
I read words. On September 3, to Hitler on a table put the draft of directive 47 and he refused to consider it. Hitler looked for an occasion not to attack Leningrad. After Sinyavino he announced preparation for reflection of approach against the Center group. Therefore to Stalingrad there were no attacks on Leningrad. September, October, November Hitler does not hurry to attack.
And why Hitler didnt want to attack ? because he could not.
In it all essence of disagreements. Generals considered they can, the last word remained for Hitler and he imposed the disputable opinion that Germans cannot. Hitler battles against generals!?
Hitler blamed the generals. Maybe the generals blamed Hitler, like Warlimont do after the war :milwink:
Hitler knew what he wanted to do, and he had to deal with limited ressources after the failure of Barbarossa. He could not launch simultaneous attack to Leningrad and Stalingrad.
By seizing Stalingrad, Hitler would have taken the third biggest city in USSR, and would have secure the way to the Caucasus. A big deal.
If he seizes Leningrad, he takes the second biggest city in USSR and a lot of snow...

It was very logic that Hitler preferred Stalingrad to Leningrad.

But, let's take a closer look to what had the "generals" to take Leningrad :

-a solitary moutain division with 3 Tiger tanks too big for the bridges of the area :lol:

And after that, you still wonder why Hitler decided not to launch the attack on Leningrad ?

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

Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa

Post by jesk » 31 Dec 2018 20:32

DavidFrankenberg wrote:
31 Dec 2018 20:23
jesk wrote:
31 Dec 2018 20:13
DavidFrankenberg wrote:
31 Dec 2018 20:09
jesk wrote:
31 Dec 2018 19:59
DavidFrankenberg wrote:
31 Dec 2018 19:45


No. They could not attack. Read Warlimont own words !
I read words. On September 3, to Hitler on a table put the draft of directive 47 and he refused to consider it. Hitler looked for an occasion not to attack Leningrad. After Sinyavino he announced preparation for reflection of approach against the Center group. Therefore to Stalingrad there were no attacks on Leningrad. September, October, November Hitler does not hurry to attack.
And why Hitler didnt want to attack ? because he could not.
In it all essence of disagreements. Generals considered they can, the last word remained for Hitler and he imposed the disputable opinion that Germans cannot. Hitler battles against generals!?
Hitler blamed the generals. Maybe the generals blamed Hitler, like Warlimont do after the war :milwink:
Hitler knew what he wanted to do, and he had to deal with limited ressources after the failure of Barbarossa. He could not launch simultaneous attack to Leningrad and Stalingrad.
By seizing Stalingrad, Hitler would have taken the third biggest city in USSR, and would have secure the way to the Caucasus. A big deal.
If he seizes Leningrad, he takes the second biggest city in USSR and a lot of snow...

It was very logic that Hitler preferred Stalingrad to Leningrad.

But, let's take a closer look to what had the "generals" to take Leningrad :

-a solitary moutain division with 3 Tiger tanks too big for the bridges of the area :lol:

And after that, you still wonder why Hitler decided not to launch the attack on Leningrad ?
There still Tuapse, Baku. Your arguments are always empty. Cause anti-Semitic moods if you indeed that for whom you give out. Roughly looking at the map of the eastern front, could the Germans defeat the Leningrad front? Could probably.

Image

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

Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa

Post by jesk » 31 Dec 2018 20:37

Long way of the 11th army from the Crimea under Leningrad too a way to sabotage an attack on Leningrad.

Image

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

Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa

Post by DavidFrankenberg » 31 Dec 2018 20:46

jesk wrote:
31 Dec 2018 20:32
DavidFrankenberg wrote:
31 Dec 2018 20:23
jesk wrote:
31 Dec 2018 20:13
DavidFrankenberg wrote:
31 Dec 2018 20:09
jesk wrote:
31 Dec 2018 19:59

I read words. On September 3, to Hitler on a table put the draft of directive 47 and he refused to consider it. Hitler looked for an occasion not to attack Leningrad. After Sinyavino he announced preparation for reflection of approach against the Center group. Therefore to Stalingrad there were no attacks on Leningrad. September, October, November Hitler does not hurry to attack.
And why Hitler didnt want to attack ? because he could not.
In it all essence of disagreements. Generals considered they can, the last word remained for Hitler and he imposed the disputable opinion that Germans cannot. Hitler battles against generals!?
Hitler blamed the generals. Maybe the generals blamed Hitler, like Warlimont do after the war :milwink:
Hitler knew what he wanted to do, and he had to deal with limited ressources after the failure of Barbarossa. He could not launch simultaneous attack to Leningrad and Stalingrad.
By seizing Stalingrad, Hitler would have taken the third biggest city in USSR, and would have secure the way to the Caucasus. A big deal.
If he seizes Leningrad, he takes the second biggest city in USSR and a lot of snow...

It was very logic that Hitler preferred Stalingrad to Leningrad.

But, let's take a closer look to what had the "generals" to take Leningrad :

-a solitary moutain division with 3 Tiger tanks too big for the bridges of the area :lol:

And after that, you still wonder why Hitler decided not to launch the attack on Leningrad ?
There still Tuapse, Baku.
Your arguments are always empty. [/quote]

Which one ?
Cause anti-Semitic moods if you indeed that for whom you give out.
Im not sure of what you mean.
Roughly looking at the map of the eastern front, could the Germans defeat the Leningrad front? Could probably.
Ah... this is the reason of your stubbornness.
This is true that while watching at this map, we could only wonder WHY they did not... we could only conclude that they COULD but didnot want to...

But, it is an illusion.
First, look at the map.
Leningrad is not entirely surrounded. So indeed, its not a siege.
Then, the north front was not held by the Germans but by the Finns... Did hitler really trust them ? Nope...
Finally, what were the german forces involved ? Not the strongest... the best forces were sent to the center (because many soviet forces there) and the south en vue de Fall Blau.

So what did you get to take Leningrad ? Not many things...

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

Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa

Post by jesk » 31 Dec 2018 20:50

DavidFrankenberg wrote:
31 Dec 2018 20:46
jesk wrote:
31 Dec 2018 20:32
DavidFrankenberg wrote:
31 Dec 2018 20:23
jesk wrote:
31 Dec 2018 20:13

In it all essence of disagreements. Generals considered they can, the last word remained for Hitler and he imposed the disputable opinion that Germans cannot. Hitler battles against generals!?
Hitler blamed the generals. Maybe the generals blamed Hitler, like Warlimont do after the war :milwink:
Hitler knew what he wanted to do, and he had to deal with limited ressources after the failure of Barbarossa. He could not launch simultaneous attack to Leningrad and Stalingrad.
By seizing Stalingrad, Hitler would have taken the third biggest city in USSR, and would have secure the way to the Caucasus. A big deal.
If he seizes Leningrad, he takes the second biggest city in USSR and a lot of snow...

It was very logic that Hitler preferred Stalingrad to Leningrad.

But, let's take a closer look to what had the "generals" to take Leningrad :

-a solitary moutain division with 3 Tiger tanks too big for the bridges of the area :lol:

And after that, you still wonder why Hitler decided not to launch the attack on Leningrad ?
There still Tuapse, Baku.
Your arguments are always empty.
Which one ?
Cause anti-Semitic moods if you indeed that for whom you give out.
Im not sure of what you mean.
Roughly looking at the map of the eastern front, could the Germans defeat the Leningrad front? Could probably.
Ah... this is the reason of your stubbornness.
This is true that while watching at this map, we could only wonder WHY they did not... we could only conclude that they COULD but didnot want to...

But, it is an illusion.
First, look at the map.
Leningrad is not entirely surrounded. So indeed, its not a siege.
Then, the north front was not held by the Germans but by the Finns... Did hitler really trust them ? Nope...
Finally, what were the german forces involved ? Not the strongest... the best forces were sent to the center (because many soviet forces there) and the south en vue de Fall Blau.

So what did you get to take Leningrad ? Not many things...
About Leningrad empty things. 2 Russian armies which are cut off from supply except shaky across Lake Ladoga. Germans literally needed to kill 5 soldiers and to take the city. Hitler could not prove, just nonsense. Leningrad was doomed at any German attack.

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

Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa

Post by DavidFrankenberg » 31 Dec 2018 21:15

jesk wrote:
31 Dec 2018 20:50
DavidFrankenberg wrote:
31 Dec 2018 20:46
jesk wrote:
31 Dec 2018 20:32
DavidFrankenberg wrote:
31 Dec 2018 20:23

Hitler blamed the generals. Maybe the generals blamed Hitler, like Warlimont do after the war :milwink:
Hitler knew what he wanted to do, and he had to deal with limited ressources after the failure of Barbarossa. He could not launch simultaneous attack to Leningrad and Stalingrad.
By seizing Stalingrad, Hitler would have taken the third biggest city in USSR, and would have secure the way to the Caucasus. A big deal.
If he seizes Leningrad, he takes the second biggest city in USSR and a lot of snow...

It was very logic that Hitler preferred Stalingrad to Leningrad.

But, let's take a closer look to what had the "generals" to take Leningrad :

-a solitary moutain division with 3 Tiger tanks too big for the bridges of the area :lol:

And after that, you still wonder why Hitler decided not to launch the attack on Leningrad ?
There still Tuapse, Baku.
Your arguments are always empty.
Which one ?
Cause anti-Semitic moods if you indeed that for whom you give out.
Im not sure of what you mean.
Roughly looking at the map of the eastern front, could the Germans defeat the Leningrad front? Could probably.
Ah... this is the reason of your stubbornness.
This is true that while watching at this map, we could only wonder WHY they did not... we could only conclude that they COULD but didnot want to...

But, it is an illusion.
First, look at the map.
Leningrad is not entirely surrounded. So indeed, its not a siege.
Then, the north front was not held by the Germans but by the Finns... Did hitler really trust them ? Nope...
Finally, what were the german forces involved ? Not the strongest... the best forces were sent to the center (because many soviet forces there) and the south en vue de Fall Blau.

So what did you get to take Leningrad ? Not many things...
About Leningrad empty things. 2 Russian armies which are cut off from supply except shaky across Lake Ladoga.
Without it Leningrad was doomed.
With it Leningrad didnt fall.
Germans literally needed to kill 5 soldiers and to take the city.


Really ? Im pretty sure they killed more than 5 soldiers and they still didnt take the city !
Hitler could not prove, just nonsense. Leningrad was doomed at any German attack.
Hitler could not because the Wehrmacht could not.

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

Re: Soviet failure during Barbarossa

Post by jesk » 31 Dec 2018 21:20

DavidFrankenberg wrote:
31 Dec 2018 21:15
jesk wrote:
31 Dec 2018 20:50
About Leningrad empty things. 2 Russian armies which are cut off from supply except shaky across Lake Ladoga.
Without it Leningrad was doomed.
With it Leningrad didnt fall.
Million dead for hunger showed unsteadiness of supply. As well as your fast logic.
Germans literally needed to kill 5 soldiers and to take the city.


Really ? Im pretty sure they killed more than 5 soldiers and they still didnt take the city !
Hitler could not prove, just nonsense. Leningrad was doomed at any German attack.
Hitler could not because the Wehrmacht could not.
Germans wanted another, Hitler imposed them other plans.

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”