Hitler Should have not been medaling .

[Freightshaker]

Originally Posted by MAGNA

I have to say Cyberia's point about the treatment of the Russian civilians and POW's is a major factor in the loss of the war in the East. With proper treatment the numbers willing fighters and, more importantly, workers, would have made a huge impact. The failure to cooperatively harness the Ukraine's capability for food production along with tens of thousands of workers for defensive use and weapons production is a strategic and doctrinal blunder of the highest order.

Hitler had problems supplying his troops the way it was, adding more troops would only compound the problem.

[cyberia]

Originally Posted by Freightshaker

Hitler had problems supplying his troops the way it was, adding more troops would only compound the problem.

I believe what Magna is saying is with cooperation and support of the masses supply from long distance would no longer have been a problem. The Ukraine food resources would have been there where they were needed and captured guns and crews turned east could have been fed by supplies already in stock.

[Jim O]

Originally Posted by Kurttis Thomas

I think that if Hitler hadn't medaled that he could have won the war in Russia at least by the end of the autum or the begining of the winter.

This really is a "what if" from the get go, but I'll add my $0.01 worth.

There was a slim chance to win* the war in the east and that was by taking Moscow before the first of 1942. If... the rains had come later and/or the freeze not been as harsh, they might have done it. If... troops and matériel had been deployed differently, they might have done it. But even with perfect execution by optimal forces they may well not have done it either.

The idea of using the Soviet citizenry, particularly Ukrainians and Belorussians whom they had conquered in large numbers is a non-starter for any number of reasons. First and foremost, forgetting the "racial" issues, is the idea that a sizable effective fighting force could have been raised and trained and equipped and fed between June and December 1941 is a bit of pie in the sky. The Soviet soldiers who had surrendered in droves in 1941 were not necessarily well trained and would not have been a big factor except as cannon fodder. I understand that the Nazis raised significant numbers of men in the SS "foreign legions" but they were given proper training, something which takes a bit of time. Then there is the "racial" issue. These Slavic peoples were Untermenschen, only fit to be slaves. The whole point of the invasion was to take their land and drive them off it or to kill them. Treating the population well was not part of the plan. Despite all this, sizable numbers of Ukrainians did take up with their Nazi masters, such was their hatred of Stalin after the forced collectivization of the late 1920's - early 1930's when millions of Ukrainians were starved to death. Their animosity toward Jews and Poles was a factor in that as well. I guess that it was a case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

Now I put an asterisk (*) next to the word win above and let me define what I meant by winning this war. It would have been taking Moscow and pushing Stalin east of the Urals. At that point Stalin would likely have sued for peace on any terms acceptable to Hitler. He might have committed suicide in fact or been sacked by the military. No one knows. But the idea of pushing Stalin to the Bering is really unlikely without Japan involved. The supply lines would have been hopelessly long, even if you assume a friendly population in the Ukraine and Belorussia, which was not the case.

Once the winter was set in and Japan committed to attacking in south Asia and the Pacific, Stalin was, as history has shown us, free to deploy some of his well trained Siberian troops in the winter offensive. By 1942 the US was at war with Germany and all Stalin had to do was survive. By 1943 Lend-lease was really gearing up and Soviet superiority in manpower and their far shorter supply lines gave them the decided advantage.

So... again, with more than a little luck, Germany could have taken Moscow, pushed the Soviet government east of the Urals, perhaps forced a coup d’état and execution of Stalin, and forced a negotiated "surrender". Germany would then be able to keep all or most of European USSR plus the Caucasus with its oil and access to the Mideast. Of course winning would also have required subduing a hostile local populace, something that may have proved much more difficult than acquiring the Lebensraum.

[Kurttis Thomas]

good thoughts Jim

[grognard]

Better treatment would also reduce partisan activity, but that's the biggest what-if of all. Better treatment means the Nazis are not the Nazis.

[grognard]

Originally Posted by Jim O

This really is a "what if" from the get go, but I'll add my $0.01 worth.

There was a slim chance to win* the war in the east and that was by taking Moscow before the first of 1942. If... the rains had come later and/or the freeze not been as harsh, they might have done it. If... troops and matériel had been deployed differently, they might have done it. But even with perfect execution by optimal forces they may well not have done it either.

The idea of using the Soviet citizenry, particularly Ukrainians and Belorussians whom they had conquered in large numbers is a non-starter for any number of reasons. First and foremost, forgetting the "racial" issues, is the idea that a sizable effective fighting force could have been raised and trained and equipped and fed between June and December 1941 is a bit of pie in the sky. The Soviet soldiers who had surrendered in droves in 1941 were not necessarily well trained and would not have been a big factor except as cannon fodder. I understand that the Nazis raised significant numbers of men in the SS "foreign legions" but they were given proper training, something which takes a bit of time. Then there is the "racial" issue. These Slavic peoples were Untermenschen, only fit to be slaves. The whole point of the invasion was to take their land and drive them off it or to kill them. Treating the population well was not part of the plan. Despite all this, sizable numbers of Ukrainians did take up with their Nazi masters, such was their hatred of Stalin after the forced collectivization of the late 1920's - early 1930's when millions of Ukrainians were starved to death. Their animosity toward Jews and Poles was a factor in that as well. I guess that it was a case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

Now I put an asterisk (*) next to the word win above and let me define what I meant by winning this war. It would have been taking Moscow and pushing Stalin east of the Urals. At that point Stalin would likely have sued for peace on any terms acceptable to Hitler. He might have committed suicide in fact or been sacked by the military. No one knows. But the idea of pushing Stalin to the Bering is really unlikely without Japan involved. The supply lines would have been hopelessly long, even if you assume a friendly population in the Ukraine and Belorussia, which was not the case.

Once the winter was set in and Japan committed to attacking in south Asia and the Pacific, Stalin was, as history has shown us, free to deploy some of his well trained Siberian troops in the winter offensive. By 1942 the US was at war with Germany and all Stalin had to do was survive. By 1943 Lend-lease was really gearing up and Soviet superiority in manpower and their far shorter supply lines gave them the decided advantage.

So... again, with more than a little luck, Germany could have taken Moscow, pushed the Soviet government east of the Urals, perhaps forced a coup d’état and execution of Stalin, and forced a negotiated "surrender". Germany would then be able to keep all or most of European USSR plus the Caucasus with its oil and access to the Mideast. Of course winning would also have required subduing a hostile local populace, something that may have proved much more difficult than acquiring the Lebensraum.

It's a long way from Moscow to the Urals, and the Germans couldn't take bothMoscow and the Ukraine in one campaign--they had neither the numbers nor the logistics.

[McCoy]

Well, I've moved the thread to "What if?" now as it clearly is where it belongs. Keep on postin'...

[Freightshaker]

Originally Posted by cyberia

I believe what Magna is saying is with cooperation and support of the masses supply from long distance would no longer have been a problem. The Ukraine food resources would have been there where they were needed and captured guns and crews turned east could have been fed by supplies already in stock.

I should've been more clear. It's not the lack of supplies but the means of getting the supplies to the troops that was the problem. Imagine how many trucks you could make out of one King Tiger....

If there was to be any success in Barbarossa, Germany should've concentrated on the South. Capturing the oil fields of Baku, the industrial region of the Donets Basin, preventing the movement of industry east of the Urals, securing the Volga and preventing supplies coming in from the Middle East and the Black Sea. All these things would've crippled Russia's ability to fight. Capturing a capital or major city wouldn't make much difference. Moscow was more valuable as a rail center than as the capital of the USSR. In the end, I don't believe Germany would be able to occupy or pacify the 'Living Room' it had conquered so it's a moot point.

[grognard]

Keeping the factories from moving to the Urals would have meant a strategic air force, which the Germans did not haveand a concentration in the south allows for a soviet flank attack from anothwer direction. Since Moscow is the rail hub, a southern concentration does not prevent factory shifts.

[cyberia]

Originally Posted by Freightshaker

If there was to be any success in Barbarossa, Germany should've concentrated on the South. Capturing the oil fields of Baku, the industrial region of the Donets Basin, preventing the movement of industry east of the Urals, securing the Volga and preventing supplies coming in from the Middle East and the Black Sea. All these things would've crippled Russia's ability to fight.

On this I agree.