Matrix Games Forums

[align=left]I wonder if the insisting on going for Moscow wasn't some kind of diversion. [/align]

At any rate, Stalin was bidding his time. He was hoping for more direct involvement from his new "friends" ( the Allies) in the shape of a second invasion. In the meantime, Stalin took whatever Land-Lease equipment being shipped to him. ( even today, I'm surprised at the enormous amount of goods sent to Russia, not just humanitarian in nature, but war stocks of all types)
As for Hitler, he (probably) knew he had to rush things out East, among other factors, was for lack of reliable allies of his own. Italian troops in summer clothing vs t-34's? Not good.. Rumanians holding flanks? Hmmm, think not.
Face it, Germany did not have quality allies in Europe, unlike the Russians. That alone helped them out a lot.
Cheers
MC

I would also emphasise German operational method. Traditionally, Germans attacked. They saw the solution to any problem as risking the offensive. After the great encirclements at Vyazma and Briansk, there wouldn't have been an Officer in the Wehrmacht who didn't think the offensive should be continued on.

Germany was not suited to taking the Soviet Union on in the long term. If they felt they had a shot in the short term at winning, they would always have took it.

regards,
IronDuke

Moscow would have been Stalingrad on a bigger scale.

I always thought the cruicial decision was WHEN the Soviets were attacked, as in several years too early. The war in the west needed to be settled first. If that would even have been possible is an entirely different question.

Russia HAD to be attacked. It would have been only a matter of time before THEY would have jumped off themselves and marched to the west. ( Stalin, though an Ally, was still a dictator, and had territorial ambitions of his own)

ORIGINAL: Rodwell

I always thought the cruicial decision was WHEN the Soviets were attacked, as in several years too early. The war in the west needed to be settled first. If that would even have been possible is an entirely different question.

The war in the West was unwinnable. (Germany in worse position than WWI) Stalemate possible only.
Germans --and yes Hitler-- rational enough to know that.

Germany needed imports from Russia. Asking Russia exposes weakness.

So "win Slavia" = huge resource and march zone for the third reich from which they could prosecute their peace overtures against the west en leveraged. (Third Reich-ians were Anglophiles.)

Bad Intel told the Germans Soviet Union was weak at that time...

-Lost to little ol Finland (and "the Finns aint even real Aryans or anything --they hold their swastikas all wrong").

-Internal political culls of trained military, recently.

-Germans deploying east anyway for Balkan reasons.

------
Alts to invasion:

Stalin was prepared to let the Fascists and Democratists fight it out (fascists on his dime).

More U-boots westward.

Germany and Britain into all out war in North Afrika. Britain would not lose the world --but if defeated there, would give up on trying to oust Third Reich. And might even experience regime change at home leading to romanticist --ie NS-like, Prussian-like (warrior ocracy)-- sympathetics. (Germans could hope.)


===============
My less informed opinions on Barbarossa:

Once Eastern committed...

It is not that Moscow is so important. It is what it represents...

No more treaty/resources with/from Anglo Americans = dispersed ever weakening threat. Resistance --especially satellite state-- in occupied zones would dissolve (they would be un-ammo'd).

Most of what we call the Eastern war was actually fought over Russia's satellite states. (Germany could have tried co-opting them ...considering they let everybody just up and join anyway at the end.)

Germany has year plus of resource pile. Soviets too.

Ie in hindsight southern resources --especially all the way to Stalingrad-- not as important as Northern ports and central road exchange coming from Pacific. (Also as Russia weakens Japan emboldens, further closing Pacific supply lines). Then move on South volga. (And watch your salient by that Bend for Pete's sake!)

The German's were good at Tactics - they essentially had a 100,000 man professional Army - and the vast difference between their training system and for example the French system - was well indicated by the results of the Western campaign.

However, strategists, the Germans were not. They started the war with important ammunication shortages for example - and their material shortages never got better. They started with war outproducing the Russians in some key industrial areas, but the Russians surpassed them by mid-war. So as one example, in the area of strategic logistics they were badly beaten by the Russians.

I would also add that even if the Germans had paused in November 1941 and went on the defensive, digging in and waiting for resupply and spring, its not very clear that the war would have had a different outcome. Even if they had taken Moscow in the 1942 campaign, its doubtful that Russia would have been defeated. And without Russia defeated, and an ongoing two front war, its hard to see how Germany could have won. Yes, they might have held on longer, and yes the war might have been bloodier, but wouldnt the outcome have likely been the same? Germany's only chance was to knock out Russia, and so the late 1941 offensive might have been their only chance to knock out Russia, as unlikely as it was to succeed...

IMO German war didn't have a solid base.
The only opponent which they had a hard advantage over was Poland. In fighting with the rest they haver relied on superior tactics.
Making a prolonged war against an opponent that has a hard advantage but inferior tactics is stupid, because it assumes that the opponent doesn't learn.

What if, Hitler had agreed with the generals on the center of gravity of the war and focused on Moscow? One might think German victory but I think that Russia would have beat them as they did in Stalingrad.