What does it takes to defeat the Soviet Union?

[Kuniworth]

Ok, this question is now open for debate. I think our discussions about german war-success always misses out on whats needed to be done to defeat the Soviet union.

So what do you think. Looking forward to hear your opinions!

[Mist]

I think that destroying its war industry would be fairly enough. Another option was to convert USSR population on German's side and turn War in Russia into the civil war.
Another fictionary option was to push Soviet troops all the way to Far East and throw them to the Pacific ocean.

[Yogi Yohan]

For those of you that haven't yet read Clausewitz, he defines victory as capturing or destroying that thing that enables the enemy to continue to offer resistance. This can be an area, a symbol like the capital city or something more intangible, like his fighting spirit. North Vietnam purposefully targeted the American public opinion, correctly identifying it as the one thing the US could not loose and keep fighting in Vietnam.

So, what enabled the Soviet Union to continue to offer resistance to the Third Reich?

I say three things:

1) Its physical resources, industries, mines, oil fields etc, supplemented by the lend-lease aid from the west.

2) Its vast reserves of manpower.

3) The deep-rooted patriotism, suicidal courage and blind belif in the Communist utopia of the Russian people - at least the vast majority were convinced that the Socialist system was the first real hope for a future of freedom and prosperity for a people that had known nothing but opression and deprivation.

If one or more of these three factors could be destroyed, the Soviet Union would collapse.

Regarding the physical resources, with the move to Siberia of large parts of the war industry, they were effectively out of reach for the Germans, although they could be greatly damaged by capturing ore and oil deposits in european russia. Even so, they would have had to advance to the Urals to accomplish decisive damage.

Regarding the manpower reserves, I belive this was The Soviet weak spot. A large majority of the Soviet Union inhabited the European half. If the Germans had been able to reach their intended objective (the line Archangelsk-Astrachan) the Soviet armies would have been denied the bulk of replacements.

Regarding the faith in Communism and the Patriotism of the peoples of the Soviet Union, the best way to break it would have been to exploit the nationalism of the non-russian peoples of the Soviet Union. Seeing all non-russian nations turn against their former masters would have eroded to some extent the belief that all peasants and workers wanted and profited from socialism. It would also cause suspicion against remaining non-russian Soviet peoples and reduce the fighting spirit of all Soviet soldiers from rebellious republics. Finally it would have further reduced the Soviet advantage in manpower, by enabling German recruitment in occupied areas. It might even have been possible to raise some RUSSIAN anti-soviet units from anti-communist elements.

All in all, in my opinion only a combination of a sucessfull advance at least to the intended objective line AND a policy of "benign occupation" could have have had any hope of causing enough damage to production, manpower and spirit to cause a Soviet collapse or even surrender.

The Soviets would never have surrendered to the Nazis as they knew they would have been enslaved or butchered anyway, but with a more "benign" invader, a surrender might have looked like the better option after a defeat of the above described magnitude.

[achappelle]

Regrding the Anti Soviet, non russian resistance.... in the Ukraine particularily there was a large continget armed by the Nazis of Ukrainians who hadn't forgotten the pogroms of Stalin and the near genocide of their people under his rule.. Didn't work though. Also there were many anti stalin groups in the islamic republics of the SOviet UNion, again not being very effective.

[Yogi Yohan]

Originally posted by Aleksandr Morozov:
Regrding the Anti Soviet, non russian resistance.... in the Ukraine particularily there was a large continget armed by the Nazis of Ukrainians who hadn't forgotten the pogroms of Stalin and the near genocide of their people under his rule.. Didn't work though. Also there were many anti stalin groups in the islamic republics of the SOviet UNion, again not being very effective.

Yes, but that was AFTER the Nazis had begun playing their usual tricks - murder, rape, plunder, forced labour etc. Then, when things started to go wrong, they tried to play the nationalist card, and of course failed miserably. But suppose they had gone about things like they did in Croatia, setting up a puppet regime from the start and treating the nationals fairly well? Croatia remained in the Axis block until overrun and contributed considerably in the fight against Serb partisans.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Yogi Yohan:
I say three things:

1) Its physical resources, industries, mines, oil fields etc, supplemented by the lend-lease aid from the west.

2) Its vast reserves of manpower.

3) The deep-rooted patriotism, suicidal courage and blind belif in the Communist utopia of the Russian people - at least the vast majority were convinced that the Socialist system was the first real hope for a future of freedom and prosperity for a people that had known nothing but opression and deprivation.

4) Alied Lend Lease in '41 and '42. Some of you may remember this argument in the ArtWar forum. It wasn't the Shermans or British Valentines, or P40s and Hurricanes that were the most important thing of LendLease. We were giving them everthing from K-rations to rail ties and locomotives, to trucks to steel and other essential raw materials, and even boots and cloth, and we were doing this in massive amounts.

Other possibilities exist, as already mentioned here and elsewhere, but if everthing else remains historical, then Germany's only shot at defeating the Soviets was in the initial campaign of '41. After that the allies would have overwhelmed Germany eventually using the vast resources the rest of the world possesed.

[Heartland]

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:
4) Alied Lend Lease in '41 and '42. Some of you may remember this argument in the ArtWar forum.

Hey, I vaguely recollected this. I seem to remember that the general consensus was that Lend Lease didn't really take effect until well into 1942?

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Fredrik Rask:
Hey, I vaguely recollected this. I seem to remember that the general consensus was that Lend Lease didn't really take effect until well into 1942?

Perhaps. The counter-argument was the supplies reaching the USSR in '41 and '42, although not as much as what came later, was just as critical because the USSR's war production was in a shambles as a lot of production centers were overrun, or moved east which meant they were going to be offline for several months. Depends on how you define "well into", but you may be right.

[matt.buttsworth]

historically extremely difficult. the soviets were simply much too well prepared. A non-racist, anti-communist Axis policy could have helped greatly in triggering a Russian civil war in which the Germans could have won. Such a policy though was specifically vetoed by Hitler against the wishes of the General staff and many in the Nazi party itself including Rosenberg.