Could Germany have defeated Russia?

MontyB said:
I go with a yes and no approach on this one.

Producing complicated stuff was a problem for Germany but not because they produced it but rather they could not properly test it before putting it into frontline service.

Let's face it had they known the limitations through testing of the Elephant it probably would never have made it off the drawing board.
Personally I believe Germany should have focused on the Panther in small numbers and spent the majority of its resources retooling the Pz IV into the Jagdpanzer IV, this would have given them a cheap, powerful armoured vehicle with good crew survivability characteristics that could have been mass produced while still producing a high-quality MBT capable of footing it with anything on the battlefield.

One thing I think people tend to forget is that despite Guderians wanting to focus on the PzIV it was outdated and would have been a death trap up against the tanks of 1945.

I also think they really needed to put some focus on the Luftwaffe fighter wing as early as 1939, it more or less just stopped development between 1938 and 1942, but until they could wrestle back some level of air parity over Europe the war was as good as lost.

As for the surface Navy, despite its poor combat performance with the exception of my favourite ship the Prinz Eugen it was not the waste of resources people seem to believe it was, the number allied resources tied up in making sure the Tirpitz didn't break out was phenomenal, far greatter than the amount of resources that went into making the Tirpitz.

As for more submarines, not a lot of point in more tanks, subs or aircraft unless you have trained crews to operate them, and by 1944 the Germans didn't, therefore, they needed quality rather than quantity, they needed to keep inexperienced crews alive long enough to become quality.
Click to expand...

I am sorry for the late reply. I have read criticism about focusing a lot of resources on the surface fleet when these can have been used to produce subs and having more sailors for the sub fleet instead of challenge the RN like they did
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
I am sorry for the late reply. I have read criticism about focusing a lot of resources on the surface fleet when these can have been used to produce subs and having more sailors for the sub fleet instead of challenge the RN like they did
Click to expand...
It should be noted that Hitler came to the same conclusion, but by then the U Boats had been defeated.
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
I am sorry for the late reply. I have read criticism about focusing a lot of resources on the surface fleet when these can have been used to produce subs and having more sailors for the sub fleet instead of challenge the RN like they did
Click to expand...

Even with all the submarines in the world the Kriegsmarine would have needed about 300 years of training and tradition to have even come close to matching the Royal Navy.

In two world wars the only time the German Navy wasnt fleeing the Royal Navy was Jutland where once cornered they gave a good account of themselves but then decided never to put to sea again, hell even the Bismarck was trying to run from the Hood.

The German U-Boat fleet gave a good acount of itself and fought bravely to a rather bitter end but it had no chance from day one nor was it ever really a genuine threat to allied shipping, more submarines would only have killed more German seamen.
 
MontyB said:
Even with all the submarines in the world the Kriegsmarine would have needed about 300 years of training and tradition to have even come close to matching the Royal Navy.

In two world wars the only time the German Navy wasnt fleeing the Royal Navy was Jutland where once cornered they gave a good account of themselves but then decided never to put to sea again, hell even the Bismarck was trying to run from the Hood.

The German U-Boat fleet gave a good acount of itself and fought bravely to a rather bitter end but it had no chance from day one nor was it ever really a genuine threat to allied shipping, more submarines would only have killed more German seamen.
Click to expand...
Didn't do badly at Coronel either. Some studies say even when it looked like the U Boats were winning early in the War the shipyards reportedly were keeping up. The Germans, like the US subs, had big problems with their detonators and a lot of ships escaped. Reportedly one U Boat had an easy shot at two or three R.N. Battleships, all torpedoes failed. After the war comparisons revealed that the 1st Sea Lord Winston Churchill was on one of them and considering the way torpedoed R. N. BBs had of blowing up.....
 
To get back to the original question, could Germany defeat Russia?

In a word ""NO,"" Stalin had a total disregard for human life, he would have sent troops piecemeal into the front line until the last Soviet soldier was killed.

However, if Germany had developed the Atom Bomb................
 
George said:
Didn't do badly at Coronel either. Some studies say even when it looked like the U Boats were winning early in the War the shipyards reportedly were keeping up. The Germans, like the US subs, had big problems with their detonators and a lot of ships escaped. Reportedly one U Boat had an easy shot at two or three R.N. Battleships, all torpedoes failed. After the war comparisons revealed that the 1st Sea Lord Winston Churchill was on one of them and considering the way torpedoed R. N. BBs had of blowing up.....
Click to expand...

The US submarine expert Clay Blair said that the U Boats had no chance at all to win .
 
BritinAfrica said:
To get back to the original question, could Germany defeat Russia?

In a word ""NO,"" Stalin had a total disregard for human life, he would have sent troops piecemeal into the front line until the last Soviet soldier was killed.

However, if Germany had developed the Atom Bomb................
Click to expand...

Not sure it is that simple, just for arguments sake lets assume Moscow fell and the Germans advanced to the Volga, what is left East of that worth defending, they could have armed themselves and used Siberian oil to keep a war machine running but the bulk of the population would have been in German hands, all of its major urban areas would have been as well and most importantly its food supplying regions would have been.

I don't think the Germans needed to go as far as the Urals, the Russian position would have been untennable once they reached the Volga river and they were very close to achieving that.
 
MontyB said:
Not sure it is that simple, just for arguments sake lets assume Moscow fell and the Germans advanced to the Volga, what is left East of that worth defending, they could have armed themselves and used Siberian oil to keep a war machine running but the bulk of the population would have been in German hands, all of its major urban areas would have been as well and most importantly its food supplying regions would have been.

I don't think the Germans needed to go as far as the Urals, the Russian position would have been untennable once they reached the Volga river and they were very close to achieving that.
Click to expand...

The Germans reached the Wolga in 1942:wink:

The Germans could only go to the Urals if the SU was defeated west(far west ) of the Urals and they could only defeat the SU if they reached the Urals .

It was mission impossible .

While it is possible that MOST (not all ) food supplying regions would be lost , one must not forget that less people had to be fed .

It is possible that the Soviet position would be untenable if the Germans had reached the Wolga EVERYWHERE, but I like to see how the Germans could advance from the Wolga to the Urals .
 
lljadw said:
The Germans reached the Wolga in 1942:wink:

The Germans could only go to the Urals if the SU was defeated west(far west ) of the Urals and they could only defeat the SU if they reached the Urals .

It was mission impossible .

While it is possible that MOST (not all ) food supplying regions would be lost , one must not forget that less people had to be fed .

It is possible that the Soviet position would be untenable if the Germans had reached the Wolga EVERYWHERE, but I like to see how the Germans could advance from the Wolga to the Urals .
Click to expand...

I more or less agree however I think a line along the Volga - Dvina River may have been enough, I stongly doubt that after 1942 the Germans could have crossed the Volga and progressed to the Urals but I think had they been able to form a line along the Volga/Dvina the Russians position would have been basically pointless.
 
Germany could have defeated the Soviet Union, but in only by instigating a general collapse of the Soviet political superstructure. The only way to do this would be to get rid of Stalin. Once he's gone, I think there's a good chance the whole edifice comes crumbling down. The best (perhaps only) way to do this would have been to drive straight to Moscow as quickly as possible, induce general widespread panic and have Stalin and his goons (if alive) running for the Urals.

There were 2 key decisions that may have hampered the Germans:


  1. The delay of Barbarossa
  2. The Lotzen Decision

The Germans even so, managed to introduce such panic in Moscow on October 16th that Stalin very nearly left the city. He didn't and the moment was lost for Germany. Stalin then went on to give his stirring speech on November 7th that stiffened public moral and resolve to defend Moscow to the last. Had the Germans turned up earlier, I'm not sure the panic could have been stopped.

Of course, a drive to Moscow is fraught with difficulties and a massive gamble. I'm not even sure that logistically, it would have been possible, But it was the only chance for outright victory, The problem with German operational tactics in Russia is that the country is vast, unlike Poland and France, Unless the Germans moved quickly enough to cause regime collapse, they'd run out of time as the Soviets had massive tracts of land to retreat into. This was not the case in the West.

Time was of the essence! Which is why the 2 decisions I mention above were so key.
 
My personal belief is that the delay of Barbarossa was the failing point of the campaign, that extra few weeks of mobility would have made the difference.

I don't think the Lotzen decision made any difference as the Germans were out of steam and could not have taken and secured Moscow anyway, was probably one of the last smart military decisions Hitler made.

"Retreating into the Urals" is a smart thing to do with your industry but there is no way "Russia" could have survived east of the Urals, it would have lacked a population density, transport infrastructure and food supply to sustain itself. Once over the Volga, there is not a hell of a lot of Russia that is useful to keep a nation at war.
 
The Germans failed in the summer, thus a longer summer would not change the outcome .

Besides, it is not a question of mobility: PzG 2 (Guderian ) failed and of course blamed 4th Army of von Kluge .

To win the Germans needed mo bility, manpower and firepower, in the correct balance .

But reality 76 !! years ago was that it was impossible to have this correct balance :

more mobility meant less manpower and firepower .

more manpower and firepower meant less mobility.

more manpower did not mean more firepower.

more firepower did not mean more manpower .

The Germans needed boots on the ground, with sufficient firepower and sufficient mobility . Tanks are not boots on the ground and have no sufficient firepower .

And, there is also the question of the opponent ,who is always forgotten by those who try to excuse their defeat .

Barbarossa was conceived as a short campaign that would be decided in the summer ,onthe border . And it failed .
 
Doppleganger said:
Germany could have defeated the Soviet Union, but in only by instigating a general collapse of the Soviet political superstructure. The only way to do this would be to get rid of Stalin. Once he's gone, I think there's a good chance the whole edifice comes crumbling down. The best (perhaps only) way to do this would have been to drive straight to Moscow as quickly as possible, induce general widespread panic and have Stalin and his goons (if alive) running for the Urals.

There were 2 key decisions that may have hampered the Germans:


  1. The delay of Barbarossa
  2. The Lotzen Decision

The Germans even so, managed to introduce such panic in Moscow on October 16th that Stalin very nearly left the city. He didn't and the moment was lost for Germany. Stalin then went on to give his stirring speech on November 7th that stiffened public moral and resolve to defend Moscow to the last. Had the Germans turned up earlier, I'm not sure the panic could have been stopped.

Of course, a drive to Moscow is fraught with difficulties and a massive gamble. I'm not even sure that logistically, it would have been possible, But it was the only chance for outright victory, The problem with German operational tactics in Russia is that the country is vast, unlike Poland and France, Unless the Germans moved quickly enough to cause regime collapse, they'd run out of time as the Soviets had massive tracts of land to retreat into. This was not the case in the West.

Time was of the essence! Which is why the 2 decisions I mention above were so key.
Click to expand...

The delay of Barbarossa and the Lötzen decision had no influence on the speed of the Soviet mobilisation, which decided the outcome .

And it is not so that a drive on Moscow (which was impossible ) would have forced the SU to give up :a drive on Moscow was only possible after the Soviet state had collapsed .
 
I agree with Monty. The delay of Barbarossa cost the Germans a lot. However I am not convinced the capture of Moscow had changed anything if the Soviets had been able to regrouped east. It had been an significant blow for the Russians, but it would make them to stop the fighting. If the Russians could relocate their industries, they moved their people with an ease. They got help with the logistics, but it the long run, they paid the price for the war
 
The only way the Germans can win is by forcing regime change. If they can't do that then they can't win. Unless Stalin is overthrown quickly Germany has no chance. The only way Germany can overthrow Stalin is to drive straight to Moscow quickly enough to paralyse the Soviet political system, cause general panic, exploit the local grievances of the Ukrainians and Belorussians etc and cause a systemic collapse. The whole German military doctrine is built on rapid war anyway so it fits into that profile.

If the Germans had progressed along a less 'all or nothing' strategy, then what they might have achieved is an armistice, nothing more. They could have advanced to the river Dnieper in 1941 and then held the line until spring 1942, at which point launched Case Blau and had been in a better position historically. However, there would have been a very poor chance to defeat the Soviets because in a protracted war they had more of everything, more men, more tanks, more resources. Ultimately more tends to win.

It's a no brainer for me guys. It's like a boxing match. If you have a big punch but poor stamina, then you try and knock out your opponent before you tire. In military terms, Germany had a big punch but poor stamina. If they dont beat Russia in 1941 then ultimately its game over.
 
MontyB said:
My personal belief is that the delay of Barbarossa was the failing point of the campaign, that extra few weeks of mobility would have made the difference.

I don't think the Lotzen decision made any difference as the Germans were out of steam and could not have taken and secured Moscow anyway, was probably one of the last smart military decisions Hitler made.

"Retreating into the Urals" is a smart thing to do with your industry but there is no way "Russia" could have survived east of the Urals, it would have lacked a population density, transport infrastructure and food supply to sustain itself. Once over the Volga, there is not a hell of a lot of Russia that is useful to keep a nation at war.
Click to expand...

No delay does not mean more better wetter and more better wetter does not mean more chances for the Germans : the Germans did not better in good wetter than in bad wetter .
 
Doppleganger said:
If the Germans had progressed along a less 'all or nothing' strategy, then what they might have achieved is an armistice, nothing more. They could have advanced to the river Dnieper in 1941 and then held the line until spring 1942, at which point launched Case Blau and had been in a better position historically. However, there would have been a very poor chance to defeat the Soviets because in a protracted war they had more of everything, more men, more tanks, more resources. Ultimately more tends to win.

It's a no brainer for me guys. It's like a boxing match. If you have a big punch but poor stamina, then you try and knock out your opponent before you tire. In military terms, Germany had a big punch but poor stamina. If they dont beat Russia in 1941 then ultimately its game over.
Click to expand...

Yes and no.

I don't entirely disagree with your argument because it is mostly right.
But I think people put far too much emphasis on the resources of the USSR especially in terms of manpower.

The population of the USSR in 1939 was ~170M and Germany ~87M and while the difference is large it isnt proportionately overwhelming especially when you consider 70% of it lives West of the Urals and by late 1941 the majority is in German-occupied territory and no longer available to the Red Army.

Add to that the vast amount of manpower and material captured or destroyed since the opening of Barbarossa and and you would forgive the Germans a reasonable amount of confidence, by October the bulk of the June 1941 standing Red Army had been destroyed, killed or captured and the majority of the population they needed to replenish it was in German hands the 170M vs 87M fight had become a 1 on 1.
 
Last edited:
It really isn't a case of 'could Germany have defeated the Soviet Union,' which they may have been able to do without American Aid to Stalin. But, the Germans had no choice but to attack as Stalin was about to attack Central and Western Europe.
 
papasha408 said:
It really isn't a case of 'could Germany have defeated the Soviet Union,' which they may have been able to do without American Aid to Stalin. But, the Germans had no choice but to attack as Stalin was about to attack Central and Western Europe.
Click to expand...

I have heard the theories that Russia was planning to attack the west but I have never seen any concrete evidence that they were.
 
MontyB said:
I have heard the theories that Russia was planning to attack the west but I have never seen any concrete evidence that they were.
Click to expand...

I view that more as a conspiracy theory to somewhat explain and maybe to justify why the Germans attacked Russia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top