Could Germany have defeated the USSR?

Gamers can also use this forum to chat about any game related subject, news, rumours etc.

Moderator: maddog986

User avatar
06 Maestro
Posts: 3997
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 10:50 pm
Location: Nevada, USA

RE: Could Germany have defeated the USSR?

Post by 06 Maestro »

ORIGINAL: Randomizer
Speer's reliability as an eyewitness regarding German wartime production is relevant here since he is generally used as primary source material for war production from mid-war to the end. I do not say don't use him, merely to use his accounts with caution.


Of course, I agree. There is alway a slant to a story-even if written by an impartial judge.

I have read about Germany's mishandling of it labor situation from multiple sources. I still find Speer's works fascinating-even considering it may be embellished a little here and there.
Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies.

Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Helpless
Posts: 15788
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2004 3:12 pm

RE: Could Germany have defeated the USSR?

Post by Helpless »

Arguably, the closest the USSR came to its downfall was not in Nov/Dec 1941 at the gates of Moscow, but in June 1941, when, for a brief moment, Stalin and thus the Stalinist leadership was absent, when he flet the Cremlin to his datcha in disbelieve for the, in terms of Realpolitik, senseless German attack, awaiting to be catched and shot by the Politbureau

It is a rumor launched by Khruschev. There is a recently published visitors diary showing that there was no reason to think that there was such escape.
Pavel Zagzin
WITE/WITW/WITE-2/CS-2 Development
User avatar
Randomizer
Posts: 1535
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 8:31 pm

RE: Could Germany have defeated the USSR?

Post by Randomizer »

What if one or more assasinations ocurred in japan during the 30's and the strike south plan is shelved to go after russia?
After the unmitigated military disaster at Nomonhan in 1939, the Japanese Army (and by definition the ruling junta) was not going to attack the Soviet Union, period.  The status quo in Manchuko was satisfactory (but not ideal) for Japan and expansion into Mongolia or the Russian Maritime province did not provide the oil resources essential to the economy and the proximate reasons for fighting in the Pacific (as opposed to in China).
What if Wever hadn't died during the 30's and Germany possesed four engine bombers?
To build enough four-engined bombers (the Allies built well over twenty thousand after all) Germany would have had to reduce building other essentials.  What to give up?  U-Boats?  Tanks?  Munitions?  Fighters?
Not diverting material or effort into strategic bombers was, in my opinion, one of the very few strategic decisions that the Nazi's got correct from the start.
the french and British to bomb the Russian oil fields.
This however was a potential political bombshell.
 
In reality I would submit there was very little chance of the French government getting on board by adding even more enemies to their Phoney War (and heating it in the process) and the British would not likely have acted unilaterally.  Doing so may well have violated the provisions of the Anglo-French alliance and given Reynaud's government an opportunity to leave the Allies before war came to French territory.
 
Speculative to be sure but reasonable given the available political and economic evidence.
 
Best Regards
sullafelix
Posts: 1521
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:17 am

RE: Could Germany have defeated the USSR?

Post by sullafelix »

These were not suggestions I am making as being good or even sane but ones that the major players were thinking about.

So your argument is with them not me. I'm just showing that there were many options open and thought about at the time that now we just poo poo and believe what happened had to have happened.

My argument is against thinking that WW2 had to happen the way it did.

I've also read more than a few places that the Japanese army was raring for another go at Russia. We are talking about the nation that used kamikaze's in the end.

Windows 7 home premium 64
Intel quad core I7
16 gig
AMD R9 200 series

Di! Ecce hora! Uxor mea me necabit!
User avatar
Randomizer
Posts: 1535
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 8:31 pm

RE: Could Germany have defeated the USSR?

Post by Randomizer »

My argument is against thinking that WW2 had to happen the way it did.

Actually I agree but would like to see alternatives based on what was known or thought to be known at the time as well as political and economic realities that drove the decision makers into taking the actions that they did, be factored into the narrative.  One can invoke space aliens, magic beans or killer rabbits for all I care but doing so is pure fantasy and not reasoned alternative history as is selective addition or subtraction of certain events while conveniantly ignoring probable causes and effects.
I've also read more than a few places that the Japanese army was raring for another go at Russia. We are talking about the nation that used kamikaze's in the end.

Have a read of Nomonhan, by Alvin Coox, a Japanese linguist and translator for the US Army in WW2.  It provides pretty strong evidence that the senior Japanese leadership wanted nothing to do with a Northern strategy after the battles lost in the spring and summer of 1939.  Some senior members of the Red Army would later comment that a Japanese attack during Barbarossa would make the situation "hopeless" for Russia but the virtual annihilation of the Japanese main force on the Khalkan Gol essentially took this option off the table politically and militarily.
User avatar
SLAAKMAN
Posts: 2556
Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2002 9:50 am
Contact:

RE: Could Germany have defeated the USSR?

Post by SLAAKMAN »

I have determined beyond a shadow of a doubt that Germany will defeat the Stalinist-Union. Barbarossa is upon you and the World is holding its breath!; [:'(]
Image
Image
http://www.theletterj.net/
Image
Germany's unforgivable crime before the Second World War was her attempt to extricate her economy from the world's trading system and to create her own exchange mechanism which would deny world finance its opportunity to profit.
— Winston Churchill
User avatar
Randomizer
Posts: 1535
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 8:31 pm

RE: Could Germany have defeated the USSR?

Post by Randomizer »

Brings back fond memories of SPI's War in the East and GDW's DNO!

Best Regards
Culiacan Mexico
Posts: 600
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2000 10:00 am
Location: Bad Windsheim Germany

RE: Could Germany have defeated the USSR?

Post by Culiacan Mexico »

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
...Basically the question is, could the Germans have defeated the Soviet Union in WW2?...
Historically, they really weren't that close to succeeding, so it would take a lot of 'changes to history' to alter that.

Increase German War Production (early on).

The problem as I see it is that:
The wisdom of the day was that German had lost WW1 do to betrayal at home, also one could argue that a lot of the political instability that brought Hitler to power was founded on this belief. Blitzkrieg as pushed by some Germans (Guderian)offered Hitler what he needed... the ability to win quick wars without stressing the public or economy. So he supported it; often against the hierarchy of the German military.

Betrayal at home, lower production, Hitlers rise to power, Hitler support/need for Blitzkrieg... how do you realistically separate them? Aren't they linked? Sure one could argue that the betrayal at home was a myth and early war production would not have been detrimental, but that was not the general German belief of the day.





"If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lig
Culiacan Mexico
Posts: 600
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2000 10:00 am
Location: Bad Windsheim Germany

RE: Could Germany have defeated the USSR?

Post by Culiacan Mexico »

ORIGINAL: bigbaba
with a human policy in russia, the germans would surely beat stalin, but not with their nazi ideology.
No Nazis and their policies... is there an invasion of the Soviet Union at all? Are they not linked?
"If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lig
Culiacan Mexico
Posts: 600
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2000 10:00 am
Location: Bad Windsheim Germany

RE: Could Germany have defeated the USSR?

Post by Culiacan Mexico »

ORIGINAL: Cmdrcain

which brings another blunder... Hitlers declaring war on USA rendered it unnecessary for roosvelt to push for a declaration on germany...
The Germans wanted war with the US (a country they had a particularly low opinion of), they just lacked the fleet at the time. Japan's actions gave them an instant fleet.

At the time, the Germans felt this was a great coups. Hindsight shows it to be something less.
"If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lig
Culiacan Mexico
Posts: 600
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2000 10:00 am
Location: Bad Windsheim Germany

RE: Could Germany have defeated the USSR?

Post by Culiacan Mexico »

ORIGINAL: sulla05
... I do believe that a correctly done defensive war in the east could have bled the Soviets so bad that a negotiated peace comes into play. With the opening of the Soviet archives we now know how close to the bottom of the barrel the Soviets were in 1945.
By some accounts, the Soviet did offer to come to terms with the Germans at different time during the war... but the terms were never acceptable to Hitler.

Hitlers minimum goal was the destruction of the Soviet State; and that was never open to discussion by the Communists... unless the Soviet Military was completely destroyed..., which would eliminate the need for discussion.


Note: by some account in May of 1943 the Soviets were offering peace for a return to the pre-August 1914 borders or perhaps the October 1939 lines. Hitlers response was to question what advantage is it to let the Soviet advance that much further to German without a fight?
"If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lig
Culiacan Mexico
Posts: 600
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2000 10:00 am
Location: Bad Windsheim Germany

RE: Could Germany have defeated the USSR?

Post by Culiacan Mexico »

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro
...I fully realize that the massive outputs attained later in the war could not have been achieved until the importation of foreign labor was taken seriously...
I think this is one areas that needs to be directly tied together:

A nice Nazi policy = reduced (historical)production. A German player can't play nice, but still used massed slave/forced labor.
"If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lig
User avatar
06 Maestro
Posts: 3997
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 10:50 pm
Location: Nevada, USA

RE: Could Germany have defeated the USSR?

Post by 06 Maestro »

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro
...I fully realize that the massive outputs attained later in the war could not have been achieved until the importation of foreign labor was taken seriously...
I think this is one areas that needs to be directly tied together:

A nice Nazi policy = reduced (historical)production. A German player can't play nice, but still used massed slave/forced labor.

Forced labor wasn't required early in the war. In some areas, such as air frame plants, there could have been a surplus of German labor simply by hiring women-they did eventually.

Keep in mind that switching to a 72 hour work week was a policy that could be initiated and reascended w/o considering the construction of new facilities or foreign labor. In Germany's case, it should have resulted in a 20% increase in critical production areas 3 and 1/2 years before they actually instituted it.

Perhaps if I present the idea in a different manner it would make some sense. What if Hitler refused to switch to the 72 hour work week in '43, how would this affect the war effort? One thing is that production would have been about 17% less than what was actually achieved. That may not sound like very much to some, but for 1943 that would amount to over 4000 a/c alone. There would have been a very high number of AFV's which would not have been built either-well over a thousand not including infantry carriers.

In view of the precarious position of the German military by late '43, It seems very likely that w/o the added production that the defeats would have been larger and faster. The obvious result of this is that Germany would have been defeated sooner than it actually was without the added production gained from the longer work week. Industrial output (or lack of) has tangible results on the battlefield.

Much of the late war industrial output was going to occur even without the 72 hour work week, but again, 20% is 20%-even more when you figure the earlier opening of new plants.
Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies.

Thomas Jefferson

IronDuke_slith
Posts: 1385
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: Manchester, UK

RE: Could Germany have defeated the USSR?

Post by IronDuke_slith »

All extra aircraft and tanks do is stretch the available POL further. Instead of getting to the outskirts of Moscow, the extra tanks and aircraft only really ensure that the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe are stopped after Kiev.
ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro
True-to a certain extent. However, one needs to analyze the cost of an entire divisions that requires supply and support while it is missing (or critically short of) its primary weapon system which makes it mission capable. An armored divsion which still had 14,000 men, 1,500 trucks, but 25 tanks is a huge and wasteful drain on the supply system. With 100 more tanks and 500 more men, the added costs to keep that division supplied would be minimal-especially when you consider its added capabilities-which would be several times more than the depleted division.

Well, General German policy would probably have used several thousand new Panzers to build major new formations. This would have required finding the extra trucks and vehicles which would have required POL that wasn't simply available.

On the more specific point, your example is still increasing the Panzer Regiment's POL requirements by 300%. Given most German Units in Army Group Centre were hand to mouth with supply most of the time, adding hundreds of new vehicles would have caused more problems than it solved.

The point was that Hitler wasn't allowing the maufacture of spare parts. Only one new tyre per month per 16 vehicles was being sent to motorised units. Failures to convert the railways were causing excessive usage of trucks to haul fuel and ammo and causing further drop out rates. (AGC lost about a third of its trucks within the first month).

Cranking up tank production just produces new toys without the logistical wherewithall to keep them mobile and armed in the field. Fuel itself was only taking Tanks forward less than half what it should because the vehicles were guzzling fuel in the poor road and ground conditions.

The Germans couldn't sustain what they had. Tripling the number of tanks would just have made it worse.
The same rational holds true for air units. To maintain a base that is meant to sup[port a hundred a/c, but there are only 20 to keep going is not the most productive way to do things.

As above, I don't see the Luftwaffe launching many more sorties with many more aircraft. Ultimately, it's sorties, not gross numbers of aircraft available that count.
ORIGINAL: IronDuke
Also, with regards munitions. Given the German logistical situation, extra munitions didn't help because the Germans couldn't lift them to the front anyway.
This is largely true from the late summer of '41 well into '42. By the spring of '42 the rail system had been repaired well enough so that operational shortages should not have occurred (until jumping forward again another few hundred miles). (side note, this raises the grand strategy for the '42 campaign-many though that by standing on the defensive-(except for Leningrad and Sevastopol)- for a year would pay off better than attempting another big push when things were just starting to go right-supply wise-no small consideration).

But by January 1942, Germany was essentially beaten. It was of crucial importance that the problems occurred in 1941 when they stood a slim chance. Also, given the pol situation, the strike into the Caucasus was inevitable.
The same applies to the trucks. Germany lacked the raw materials to make rubber. They simply would not have been able to produce enough tyres to equip 20000 or 50000 new trucks even if they had had the fuel to fill them up. 20000 was also not enough. The Wehrmacht marched into Russia with thousands of French Civilian vehicles that were simply not up to the job. Any serious programme should have concentrated on upgrading the truck fleet, not necessarily augmenting it.
Regards,
IronDuke
There were very good stocks of strategic materials at the start of the war-Goering was actually a very sharp chap in that regards. It is true that rubber was a looming problem, but one that was eventually overcome with synthetic rubber. The supplies could have handled the added production for a few years

I disagree. The Germans were hopelessly short of rubber and the spare tyre situation illustrates that. Even at full speed, the synthetic rubber production was simply nowhere near enough. Further raw materials became short when russia was invaded because she was Germany's sole source of some materials (eg, Manganese).
Shift work and the 72 hour work week could not have bee that difficult to implement-after all, the Brits did it immediately, Speer was able to get it rolling quite quickly after the demise of Todt. (in fairness, Todt did start the program for non Luftwaffe factories a few months before his accident).

The German issue was not just production, though, but the archaic practices and cottage industry that characterised it's industries. Much of German industry was made up of numerous small firms supplying a little each at widely dispersed locations. Ramping up family firms to three shifts per week would not have been easy, particularly since three was a shortage of skilled labour.

The key was rationalisation and mass production, which was not solved nearly as simply.

Secondly, the real issues for German production were not just primarily around labour, but around resources and methods. Put simply, they could have put everyone in the Reich onto Tank production in 1941 and not made a single extra vehicle. The problem was the Reich didn’t produce enough coal. Lack of coal meant that steel production was difficult to ramp up (much of what was ramped up in 1942 went to Ammunition production not tanks.) In other words, there was a limit to how many tanks Germany could make because she didn’t have inexhaustible supplies of steel.

This was the real bottleneck for German production. Speer did force through some improvements and they fuelled the economic growth, but many of Speer’s improvements came not through ramping production up or instituting a 72 hour week, but simply making what was already happening more efficient by building new mega factories or cutting down the number of vehicle types that needed to be manufactured.

There was a very definite limit to how far Germany could go on her coal production figures, particularly as 1943 and British bombing of the Ruhr gathered pace. After initial heavy raids early in 1943, German production of steel fell by 200 000 tons per month. As the Allies shattered the ruhr's transport infrastructure and shut down steel production and coal production, they nearly brought the Reich to its knees before switching targets and giving them some breathing space.
As for the fuel situation; there was no strategic shortage which would effect primary operations.


I disagree. The Germans were fundamentally afflicted by POL shortages right from the start. Fuel was very short within Germany during Typhoon. The Germans simply couldn't get it from anywhere. It affected everything from operational movement for the Heer to sortie rates for the Kriegsmarine to pilot training for the Luftwaffe.
I have seen statements that there were fuel shortages in France during the 1940 campaign-these were due to poor staff work rather than any strategic shortage of fuel.

It was largely a logistical problem. One the Germans overcme by flying fuel to the spearheads or being lucky enough to capture French stocks. To be fair, this was a very short campaign.
It was not until late in '42 before fuel was becoming critically short for primary operations. This is not to say that Germany was not acutely short in a strategic sense, but they had more than enough in 1941 for Barbarossa-even if there were another several thousand more tanks and a/c.

They had issues during Barbarossa. By August, fuel was getting short and the situation was exacerbated by the logistical apparatus and operational tempo. Wherever the Germans paused following an encirclement, Motorised troops used massive amounts of ammo beating off Russian counterattacks trying to get into the pocket and stopping breakout attempts from troops inside the pocket. This meant ammo took priority for deliveries and building up any kind of fuel surplus was impossible.
Hitler had told Todt that he wanted a thousand tanks a month after the French campaign-he was told it was impossible. It clearly was not.


It was impossible, simply because the Germans lacked the resources to build them and the production centres to assemble them. German tank production did significantly rise, but it took the building of major new factories (most notably at Linz in Austria) to achieve this. These factories simply didn't exist in 1940.

Tanks need dedicated production facilities organised in a modern industrially efficient way. Speer developed that but it was out of reach in 1940-42 and hampered significantly after 1943 by British bombing.
The Luftwaffe would have had to start looking into better ways to train much larger numbers of pilots, as they did later in the war. Fuel was certainly a big consideration in training the force. Had the cutbacks begun earlier, and accelerated the improvements in ground training, a much larger (and high standard) German Air Force would have been available by 1942.

But they didn't train pilots better at the end of the war. The number of hours German pilots got in training was steadily cut to the point the only reasonably trained pilots coming out of the schools in 1944/45 were bomber converts who already knew how to fly. Fuel was the key consideration in training the force and they simply didn;t have nearly enough.
Again, I think that a simple stroke of a pen ordering the 72 hour work week would have given enough material to make a significant difference in Barbarossa. By 1942, the differences would have been rather huge-especially in the air.

As above, I disagree as I don't see where the Reich would have got the coal, modern facilities or steel to make a significant difference to production that early, and even if they had, I don't see the logistical apparatus in the field being good enough to keep these extra vehicles moving.
On a related point; Goering wanted the new Volkswagen factory to be put under the Luftwaffe sphere right at the beginning of the war. This was Germany's biggest factory. Had he received control of that plant, resource consumption by the Luftwaffe would have expanded drastically. Goering had no qualms about that-and he was the guy who should have knon better than anyone in Germany. Luckily for the allies, Hitler decided to give it over to Army orders-but it sat idle for a very long time.

Goring was a fool. Milch was the driving force behind aircraft production and produced wonders on a shoestring by early 1943. Also, resource consumption expanding is only possible when excess resources are available to consume.
Compared to British prewar planning, the Germans were far behind the curve. The Brits (even under Chamberlain) had made real plans for turning all automotive plants into a/c factories. The appropriate executives were all informed so that the plan could commence as soon as required. They planned to double production in the first year, and double iot again in the second year-quite ambitious-and nearly completed.

The Germans steadily improved, but never got to grips with the central issue which was lack of resources. Britain had the empire and lend lease. America was the world's pre-eminent industrial giant. Russia threw everything into production in a way only a communist dictatership could and reaped the benefits, although we should note Soviet troops were moved by American trucks. The Russians produced thousands of tanks a month because they didn't have to produce everything.

Regards,
ID
Endsieg
Posts: 92
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 11:31 pm
Location: North Atlantic Treaty Organization

RE: Could Germany have defeated the USSR?

Post by Endsieg »

Back to the original question of the OP....yes, they could have won if they had acted like "Russians" and "jihadis" instead of just "Germans" (= only moderately murderous [>:])

Sarin, VX, etc..., anyone? on Moscow, say Oct 30,41, several tons from He111s....cool mod, eh?
GaryChildress
Posts: 6933
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: The Divided Nations of Earth

RE: Could Germany have defeated the USSR?

Post by GaryChildress »

ORIGINAL: Endsieg

Back to the original question of the OP....yes, they could have won if they had acted like "Russians" and "jihadis" instead of just "Germans" (= only moderately murderous [>:])

Sarin, VX, etc..., anyone? on Moscow, say Oct 30,41, several tons from He111s....cool mod, eh?

The Nazis were only "moderately murderous"? [&:] They were the ones who caused the whole world war. I would think that qualifies as being plenty murderous. [&:]
Endsieg
Posts: 92
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 11:31 pm
Location: North Atlantic Treaty Organization

RE: Could Germany have defeated the USSR?

Post by Endsieg »

I said "Germans" Gary, dear, that you need to say Nazis means you got trolled, ....but OK, you cant help it, Groucho.

User avatar
pasternakski
Posts: 5567
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2002 7:42 pm

RE: Could Germany have defeated the USSR?

Post by pasternakski »

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
The Nazis were only "moderately murderous"? [&:] They were the ones who caused the whole world war. I would think that qualifies as being plenty murderous. [&:]
Well, Gary, it seems that Endsieg here was merely trying to clarify things for us ... cool mod, eh?

Like a breath of fresh air ... or sarin ... or VX ... or ...
Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.
GaryChildress
Posts: 6933
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: The Divided Nations of Earth

RE: Could Germany have defeated the USSR?

Post by GaryChildress »

ORIGINAL: Endsieg

I said "Germans" Gary, dear, that you need to say Nazis means you got trolled, ....but OK, you cant help it, Groucho.


Well are you then comparing Germans to Russians or Germans to Bolsheviks or what? You seem to say the Russians are more "murderous" than Germans. If you compare Germans to the Bolsheviks then sure. If you compare Bolsheviks to Nazis then I don't see where one is any more or less "murderous" than the other. [&:]
GaryChildress
Posts: 6933
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: The Divided Nations of Earth

RE: Could Germany have defeated the USSR?

Post by GaryChildress »

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
The Nazis were only "moderately murderous"? [&:] They were the ones who caused the whole world war. I would think that qualifies as being plenty murderous. [&:]
Well, Gary, it seems that Endsieg here was merely trying to clarify things for us ... cool mod, eh?

Like a breath of fresh air ... or sarin ... or VX ... or ...

Well I apologize if I misunderstood but it looked to me like Endsieg is saying Russians are more murderous than Germans. Sorry if I misunderstood something. The post was rather cryptic toward the end. [&:]
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”