Biggest German East front mistake

[Subchaser]

ORIGINAL: PeckingFury

In some form of twisted logic im glad Russia was attacked

This twisted logic is quite common actually

[SeaMonkey]

Think about this:

If Germany had concluded the UK hostilities by getting them to sue for peace, then the full might of Germany could have been unleashed against USSR later, after a few technological upgrades. Admiral Raeder introduced a plan "Operation Sphinx" to force UK into an extended campaign in the Med. Gibraltar was the first phase with the Spanish help, soon to follow was Malta. Second phase was the Suez, and then finally the third phase was the capture of Middle Eastern oilfields. "Sphinx" was completely in the grasp of German capabilities at the time and by extending UK resources in to an area chosen by the Axis and battle times also of their choosing, it is likely that eventually the UK would have come to some agreement with the Axis to end hostilities. Now all this probably would have concluded sometime in late 42 or early 43, remember the Axis are in no hurry, and they do not DoW USA if Pearl Harbor happens, that's Nippon's hole to climb out of. Now, the spring/summer of 43 is looming, battle tested Axis formation are moving East, there is an Axis presence in the MidEast backdoor to USSR, German technology is moving forward as well as their war industries. And, a big "AND" there is no belligerent in the West. Could Germany have won the war?

[Rooster]

ORIGINAL: SeaMonkey

.... and by extending UK resources in to an area chosen by the Axis and battle times also of their choosing, it is likely that eventually the UK would have come to some agreement with the Axis to end hostilities. ..... Could Germany have won the war?

I don't think Churchill would ever have sought any terms from Hitler. He forbade anyone in his government from ever ascertaining what types of terms would be offered because he feared such a move would put England on a "slippery slope. " Even so, if he had somehow neutralized the UK and had a free hand in the East, I doubt he could have conquered the USSR. Too big. Too many people. And Hitler's aims were too grandiose.

[Maliki]

Bet you could pick a reason out of a hat and then dump the hat and each one would have it's place.

Underestimating Russian manpower.
Overestimating their own capabilities.
The fact that despite panzer and other units,it was still largely an army that relied on horse transport.
The sheer physical size of the area to be conquered and controlled.
Taking the initial welcome of the populace who greeted them as liberators and turning it against them.
Not prepared to deal with the elements,be it the thaws,the rains,or the winter.
Not falling back to more defensible posistions once it became clear the initial drive stalled.The Germans showed that they were capable at fighting a mobile defense.If not that then the shortened lines and mobile reserve created could at least have blunted Soviet counter-offensives.

Theres so many little things and big things,that i would say that it would be hard to seperate them from each other as to which one was their biggest mistake.I'm not nearly as up on the East front as many here,so all this is just my opinion.

[Error in 0]

ORIGINAL: EricGuitarJames

ORIGINAL: Riun T

I think we all could consider Hitlers not making better negotiations with his supposed allies the japanese to get after their side of Russia, and just keep the original caucuss oil feilds in mind would have had them last a little longer but I've seen and read too much that explained too well that Hitler himself wasn't very worldly traveled and the first rule to any project,Military or otherwise, is for the designer of the task, has to know the land, and Russia was just too big for the bulshevik corprals brain!!..

It can indeed be argued that the vast expanses of Russia were something Hitler didn't fully grasp. The successes in Poland and in Western Europe had also bred a certain overconfidence. More than anything though it was the backward nature of the Soviet infrastructure that caused the Germans huge problems in supplying their troops. In the Winter of 41/42 it wasn't that the Germans lacked cold weather clothing but they simply hadn't been able to move it up to the front line. Unmetalled roads, low quality railway rolling stock (and rails that were the 'wrong' guage) and the complacency bred by the stunning early successes all contributed to this.

Well, just home from a night out, I may be alittle drunk, but the problem was not logistic. It was that they did not have winter clothes. For the loving gods sakem the soldiers weared women coats!

[max_h]

an interesting what if is imho what would have happened if italy didn´t join the war early. without italy there´d been - arguably ofc - no balkans campaign. thus there would have been no delay for the 11th army, whole Babarossa would have started earlier. the possible addition of the 12th army (10 divisions tied up in garrison duties in the balkans at that time) and the units from the DAK, supporting the romanians might have made AGS strong enough to destroy the russian southern fronts on their own. Guderians Panzergruppe 2 might have not needed to sweep down to Kiev, etc. etc...

[rtamesis]

Failing to plan for an early invasion of the UK in July 1940 as an integral part of a follow-up to the invasion of France and the Low Countries. First, Hitler should have gone for the destruction of the British army trapped in Dunkirk. Second, had the Germans started early to assemble landing craft, train the Luftwaffe for air-to-ship combat, mine the English Channel and target the radar installations of the RAF, they might have been able to prevent the Royal Navy and the RAF from opposing the amphibious forces landing on the beaches. The weather in the English Channel was perfect in July 1940 for a Sea Lion. The UK had little if any ground forces to oppose them in July, and the Germans might have been able to knock the UK out of the war. This would then free them to plan for Barbarossa without interference from the UK, and it is doubtful that the US would have intervened at that point. If the US later entered the war, they would have to stage an invasion of Britain all the way from the East Coast, which would have had a high chance of failure given all the U-boats the Germans could send all over the Atlantic.

[Dave Ferguson]

IMO the germans might have stopped the RN opposing the beach landings but only if they adopted the small solution with a small beachhead. With the prefered large solution it would take over 24 hours for the western invasion forces to sail from Boulogne, Cherbourg etc to the invasion beaches, plenty of time for the British to intercept. As for the luftwaffe sinking the RN, not likely as the planes to do the job were JU-87 or Ju-88, and both would only be effective within the combat radius of the BF-109, and can only operate during daylight!. This is the critical issue, they would not have been able to keep the RN far enough away to stop it getting a few destroyers in the channel, and a few destroyers would be all that was needed to scupper their invasion. Early planning for Sealion would have alerted allied intelligence and those british divisions might not have been trapped at Dunkirk as they had already been withdrawn.

Back to to topic, IMO the biggest mistake was underestimating the russians and having realised their mistake not having the foresight to realise that the only solution would be to engineer a stalemate on the eastern front in time to block allied attempts at invasion.

dave

[BlackVoid]

Ukranians and even many russians greeted the germans as liberators first.
After a few months they realized how wrong they were...

Biggest mistakes:
1. Mistreating the population (they could have drafted millions)
2. Changing strategy mid-campaign
3. Letting the italians attack Greece (which led to a big delay)
4. Not taking Malta in time (which would have led to a much better supply situation in North Africa -> Suez canal could have been taken -> Greece would be irrelevant anyway)

I do not agree that the end result of WW2 is inevitable. History is full of examples where a small, proficient and determined fighting force prevailed over much stronger opposition (Alexander, Scipio, ....)

As for Hitler: until the Battle of Britain he showed total strategical genius, then he lost it. Recommended reading: Strategy by Liddell Hart

[*Lava*]

Hi!

Personally I feel the biggest mistake on the eastern front occurred on the western front.

People always poo poo me when I say it, but I believe if Guderian had been allowed to destroy the British army at Dunkirk, the psychological balance would have been tiped heavily in favor of Germany. The real coup de gras came during the Battle of Britain, with the Germans losing heavy numbers of aircraft and valuable, experienced aircrew, which could have been of immeasurable help in the Russian campaign. Strategically, it all started unraveling in the west way before the Germans took one step into Russia.

As for the eastern front itself, Hitler expected a rapid victory in Russia, similar to what he achieved in Poland and France. When that did not occur, that's when the lack of logistics to maintain a large force deep inside Russia became the critical factor.

Folks like to talk about the lack of winter uniforms when it comes to logistics, but a far more critical topic, at least as far as Barbossa is concerned, would be the break down rate of German tanks, which I believe was somewhere around 30%. Russia was just a bridge too far.

Ray (alias Lava)

[ShermanM4]

Agree with all stated so far.

But Kursk would have to be the back-breaker for the Wermacht for me.

As Guderian asked, "Why attack in 1943 at all?"

Good point[8D]

[Belisarius]

ORIGINAL: JallaTryne

Kursk, what a battle! The sovjets had everything on their side. They waited for the germans in heavily well prepared positions. They knew the German plan in great detail. They had time to prepare everything for this battle. Still the outcome was a draw. Is Kursk one of the best german military achievements? (Altough, after Kursk the East front was definetily lost).

It's exactly what makes Kursk so interesting, apart from the sheer scale of it. The Red Army had time to set up camp exactly in the fashion they wanted it, plus stock up on equipment and supplies. Still they aaalmost didn't make it.

[Kung Karl]

ORIGINAL: PeckingFury

Agree, better preperation and more control of the battle on the feild and not with hitler. Basically it all comes down to the 2 front war, the germans with common sense during this time saw the writting on the wall.

When the two front war become an issue in 1944 the war was already lost. The two front war did not have an impact on the defeat of germany, only the political forming of europe after the war. The soviet union would have won the war without an invasion in 1944.

[freeboy]

Had there been no lend lease, no Hitler at the helm after 41, maybe a coup or other helpfull incedent.. and England and Germany suspend hostilities... all Germanies efforts against USSR would have been much different.. just the air war alone would have had profound changes.... more german industrial capacity etc, better more veteran units at the front...
My vote is a tough choice to the Biggest as there are just so many...
But lets for the sake of this great forum pick one... my choice is not liberating the poeples who hated the russians, and using this manpower to further the war aims.

[Kevinugly]

ORIGINAL: freeboy


But lets for the sake of this great forum pick one... my choice is not liberating the poeples who hated the russians, and using this manpower to further the war aims.

On the 'grand strategic' level this was an almighty blunder yet to do so would have contradicted Nazi ideology. You have to feel especially sorry for the Ukrainians though, persecuted by Stalin, 'liberated' and then persecuted by the Nazis, 'freed' by the Red Army and persecuted yet again.

[freeboy]

or the Eastonians/ LAtvians etc/ neither side really.." made friends and played well together"
My seciond chioce is Hitler interfearence... no jets... etc..
I am theistic in my view of history, as in His Story... and not to open THAT can of worms, or eat them but thank God these errors occured... like the allies breaking the German codes... poor sub bastards lost 75% of their forces I have heard....

Does anyone really want to see a tyrant ruling anywhere? Staling and Hitler where really nuts.... Millians and Millions of there own poeples destroyed through there own actions, I read over 15 million Russians in the pre war purges....

How about.. if Germany was content to strangle England by air and sea, would Russia have attacked ever?

[a19999577]

I believe I've seen a couple of arguments of the "Russia's nature makes it undefeatable", but I'm strongly against that. Russia was defeated in 1905 by Japan (albeit a different kind of defeat), but it was also pummeled into submission by 1917.

[PeckingFury]

ORIGINAL: freeboy

or the Eastonians/ LAtvians etc/ neither side really.." made friends and played well together"
My seciond chioce is Hitler interfearence... no jets... etc..
I am theistic in my view of history, as in His Story... and not to open THAT can of worms, or eat them but thank God these errors occured... like the allies breaking the German codes... poor sub bastards lost 75% of their forces I have heard....

Does anyone really want to see a tyrant ruling anywhere? Staling and Hitler where really nuts.... Millians and Millions of there own poeples destroyed through there own actions, I read over 15 million Russians in the pre war purges....

How about.. if Germany was content to strangle England by air and sea, would Russia have attacked ever?

I think Russia would have attacked, Stalin was a nutcase also. Only thing he did right was let his Generals command instead of breaking out his miniature Risk set like Hitler did. If Russia did not attack I believe the brits would have found a way to bring them into the war. If America did not join the war effort that is. Its hard to come up with what would have actually happened lots of possible outcomes.

[Kung Karl]

ORIGINAL: freeboy

or the Eastonians/ LAtvians etc/ neither side really.." made friends and played well together"
My seciond chioce is Hitler interfearence... no jets... etc..
I am theistic in my view of history, as in His Story... and not to open THAT can of worms, or eat them but thank God these errors occured... like the allies breaking the German codes... poor sub bastards lost 75% of their forces I have heard....

Does anyone really want to see a tyrant ruling anywhere? Staling and Hitler where really nuts.... Millians and Millions of there own poeples destroyed through there own actions, I read over 15 million Russians in the pre war purges....

How about.. if Germany was content to strangle England by air and sea, would Russia have attacked ever?

Just out of my head, can't rember exactly were I read it. Russia was planning on attacking in 1945. I am of the asumption that Russia wanted Germany and the western allies to bleed each other to death so Russia could walk in and take entire europe as a step in the world revolution. This was of course changed with the with the outstanding german victories in the west. The Russians stil was planning to invade Germany though.

This was one reason why Stalin were so willing to ally with germany in 1939, so germany could go to war with the west.

The German decision to invade Russia was correct since they had no choise but to strike before Russia was prepared. So Barbarossa was not a mistakle in itself. It was the only way out.

(I write this with reservation since I can't confirm were I've read it. Therefore I can't guarantee that it is correct)

[EricGuitarJames]

There is a theory that Barbarossa was launched to prevent a Soviet offensive reputedly planned for summer 1941. I'm attaching a copy. Please note that I acquired the article from a site where many of the articles carry an anti-semitic bias so I'm not vouching for the articles accuracy but it does make for an interesting read.