Nazi invasion of Russia

[Dr Mindbender]

I was watching a world war 2 documentary called the 'world at war' about the nazi advance on Moscow and it shocked me how close the Germans were to actually winning the eastern front and possibly even the entire war.

By the time they'd reached their closest point to Moscow, they were only 15 km from the Kremlin and the red army was down to it's last 400 tanks.
They even had to evacuate lenin's body for fear of it falling into nazi hands.
The Russians were only lucky that the reserves they had in siberia to watch the japanese werent needed because the japanese were distracted with the pacific theatre so they could bring in their cold weather trained commandos as reinforcements. Another saving grace was that the weather was so cold that it caused the German artillery to freeze and the cannons wouldnt fire.

If Hitler had listened to his generals and attacked Moscow before the warm weather finished insteading of pissing around in Kiev, we'd probably all be speaking German now and waving swastikas. Thats how close we were.

[Woland]

Actually, to put it in short, the entire Nazi plan relied on a political coup and/or the breakup of the Union. As the Nazis planned the war to be the last Blitzkrieg (one of the reasons they were not given winter uniforms, and as Hitler said 'We have only to kick the door and the entire rotten structure will come down'), to last as little as 3 months. This already makes it pretty clear. This, of course, did not work, and by that point, the war was basically lost for the Nazis. They had neither the sufficient war industries, nor the needed resources. To be honest, even if the Soviets lost Moscow and any other big cities, it would not have had that great of an effect on the war. Industry was quickly and efficiently mobilized (A great victory for a planned economy) and moved beyond the Urals. The entire German strategy as a whole relied on quick victories- they started the whole world war with only 3 months worth of oil.
The Japanese fought the Soviets in 1939, and were defeated, after which they decided to attack only if the major western cities were captured, the union was broken up, and the different nationalities were revolting in Siberia.

[Cumannach]

That's right.

This is why the rapid 'forced' industrialization of the Soviet Union, the collectivization of agriculture which made it possible, the concentration of production on heavy Industry, the ruthless purging of all subversives and potential subversives from positions of power, the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact which allowed the Soviet Union to push it's borders up to eastern Poland and allowed it to finish defeating the Japanese that had invaded in the east, and allowed it two more years to build up it's defensive war machine, at the same time forcing the other capitalist countries to become the Soviet Union's reluctant allies by sending Hitler on his little Western detour, all of these decisions taken by the CPSU under the leadership of Stalin, were neccesary.

[Dr Mindbender]

had neither the sufficient war industries, nor the needed resources. To be honest, even if the Soviets lost Moscow and any other big cities, it would not have had that great of an effect on the war. .

Lose the capital, lose the country. Also, it would have had a very big effect on the war.

With an excess of troops not needed in Russia, these would be then deployable in France against the British and American front. The nazis had about 5 million men in Russia around that time, i very much doubt this would be needed against whatever disorganised scraps that would have been left of the red army, especially if the Japanese had later found themselves in a position to join the European war. With the extra reinforcements in France the Germans could have prevented the Normandy invasion.

[ComradeOm]

I was watching a world war 2 documentary called the 'world at war' about the nazi advance on Moscow and it shocked me how close the Germans were to actually winning the eastern front and possibly even the entire warDon't be too impressed. The advance on Moscow took the Germans to the very end of their logistical tether and their operational capacity was seriously depleted. Given their failure to take both Leningrad and Stalingrad under more favourable conditions I see no reason why they would have taken the most heavily fortified city in Europe


The Russians were only lucky that the reserves they had in siberia to watch the japanese werent needed because the japanese were distracted with the pacific theatreLuck has nothing to do with it. The Soviets were able to transfer their Far East reserves* because Soviet intelligence was good enough to declare that Japan had no intention of striking north. This was because Zhukov had annihilated a Japanese army at Khalkhin Gol in 1939, thus convincing the Japanese to look south into the Pacific. But this is an indication of how Western scholars, drawing on German memoirs, have typically portrayed the Soviet victory as 'luck' or a result of the weather

*Who were incidentally not "cold weather trained commandos", they just appeared so because they were virtually the only formations with pre-war training and material intact


Another saving grace was that the weather was so cold that it caused the German artillery to freeze and the cannons wouldnt fireThe Russian winter, while undoubtedly a factor, was not the reason for the German failure. That myth lies in the memoirs of German generals themselves attempting to explain their failure. As I said, the Wehrmacht was at its logistical limit and its combat efficiency was decreasing with every kilometre it advanced east. Crucially, the first snow did not fall until the night of 7 Oct, by which time Guderian's panzers had effectively lost the initiative in the advance on Tula

Also note that snow itself was not the major problem but rather the flooding and mud it brought. When the weather continued to cool the snow turned to ice and mobility was largely restored to the German armour. Ironically the most mobile formations of the entire battle were the Soviet cavalry divisions which were not hampered by the snow

Another myth that occasionally crops up on the Hitler Channel is that the Germans had not even prepared winter uniforms for their soldiers. They had, of course, but such was the logistical nightmare of the offensive that these heavy uniforms were stockpiled in depots in Poland as more important supplies (ie, fuel, ammo, food) were given priority


If Hitler had listened to his generals and attacked Moscow before the warm weather finished insteading of pissing around in Kiev, we'd probably all be speaking German now and waving swastikas. Thats how close we were.The encirclement of Kiev was probably the greatest single greatest military triumph (certainly the Wehrmacht's greatest) of the war. Roughly 600k Red Army soldiers were killed or captured in what was a huge blow to the Soviets. Turning south was a smart strategic move that Hitler's generals almost uniformly supported. Unsurprising given that a) the destruction of Soviet formations was the primary goal of Barbarossa* and that any advance on Moscow was clearly impossible while such a dangerous threat remained on the flank. The difference between Hitler and his generals is that he was not around after the war to revise his story

* The second objective being seizing the economically vital Ukraine region, without which Germany would not be able to support more than a year or the war. Taking 'prestige targets' such as Moscow was the third priority


Lose the capital, lose the countryWhy? Despite the massive losses of Barbarossa, the CP's grip on the country did not falter in the slightest. There was no possibility of the Soviet state simply collapsing if Moscow fell... although that was the hope that German planners increasingly clung to. The only real value of Moscow was in its role as a transportation hub

[communard resolution]

the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact which allowed the Soviet Union to push it's borders up to eastern Poland

... and massacre the bulk of the Polish 'intelligentsia' on arrival (university professors, physicians, lawyers, engineers, teachers, writers, journalists, artists, etc). The pact also had the nice side effect of being able to blame the worst excesses such as the Katyn forest massacre on the Nazis.

Ironically, the Soviets were more efficient at putting Hitler's plans for the Poles (as outlined in 'Mein Kampf') into practice in their territory than Hitler was in his.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

That's right.

This is why the rapid 'forced' industrialization of the Soviet Union, the collectivization of agriculture which made it possible, the concentration of production on heavy Industry, the ruthless purging of all subversives and potential subversives from positions of power, the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact which allowed the Soviet Union to push it's borders up to eastern Poland and allowed it to finish defeating the Japanese that had invaded in the east, and allowed it two more years to build up it's defensive war machine, at the same time forcing the other capitalist countries to become the Soviet Union's reluctant allies by sending Hitler on his little Western detour, all of these decisions taken by the CPSU under the leadership of Stalin, were neccesary.
I couldn't possibly agree more.

[Cumannach]

... and massacre the bulk of the Polish 'intelligentsia' on arrival (university professors, physicians, lawyers, engineers, teachers, writers, journalists, artists, etc). The pact also had the nice side effect of being able to blame the worst excesses such as the Katyn forest massacre on the Nazis.

oh dear. been reading Conquest have we?

[communard resolution]

No Mr Zundel, I haven't, but the original Soviet documents have emerged a long time ago.

[ComradeOm]

Ironically, the Soviets were more efficient at putting Hitler's plans for the Poles (as outlined in 'Mein Kampf') into practice in their territory than Hitler was in his.Starkly untrue. Soviet hands are hardly 'clean' in relation to Poland but then nor was there anything to compare to the genocidal programme that saw millions of Poles, Jews, and POWs be purposefully starved, worked, or gassed to death by the Nazis

Unless, and I confess that I've never read Mein Kampf, Hitler had limited his stated ambitions to killing a 'mere' few thousand Poles?

[communard resolution]

Unless, and I confess that I've never read Mein Kampf, Hitler had limited his stated ambitions to killing a 'mere' few thousand Poles?

I was referring to his ambition of murdering the intelligentsia and not granting Poles an eductation beyond 4th grade in the future - that's the plan he outlined in Mein Kampf.

[Che_Guevara_]

i dont know where you got the idea ComradeOm that Moscow was the most heavily fortified city in europe. By the time the Germans were 15 KM from Moscow, it was in ruins. Even Stalin said my people take up arms and defend the city because there werent even enough troops to fire the artillery thats how bad the depletion was. Im afraid it was not the most fortified cirt in europe:
'the 3rd army began its assault on Metz, perhaps the most fortified city in Europe..'

[Led Zeppelin]

That's right.

This is why the rapid 'forced' industrialization of the Soviet Union, the collectivization of agriculture which made it possible, the concentration of production on heavy Industry, the ruthless purging of all subversives and potential subversives from positions of power, the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact which allowed the Soviet Union to push it's borders up to eastern Poland and allowed it to finish defeating the Japanese that had invaded in the east, and allowed it two more years to build up it's defensive war machine, at the same time forcing the other capitalist countries to become the Soviet Union's reluctant allies by sending Hitler on his little Western detour, all of these decisions taken by the CPSU under the leadership of Stalin, were neccesary.

Yes, that's right, actions which actually weakened the USSR and strengthened the Nazis were necessary.

Can totally see the logic in that.

[ComradeOm]

i dont know where you got the idea ComradeOm that Moscow was the most heavily fortified city in europe. By the time the Germans were 15 KM from Moscow, it was in ruinsWhere did you get that idea? Moscow suffered relatively light damage from German air raids, due largely to its extensive air defences. What with it being heavily fortified and all

To review: By late November 1941 the Moscow Defence Zone comprised three dense rings of fortifications surrounding the city (plus remnants of the Mozhaisk line). These were an extensive series of trenches, minefields, and anti-tank obstacles with the Soviet defensive works being more than 50 kilometres in depth. And this is before reaching the urban defences within the city itself! Had the Wehrmacht actually penetrated these defences then they would have become bogged down in streetfighting until the Red Army reserves swept them away in a earlier version of Stalingrad

Which is not to even mention that the second arm of the grand pincer was bogged down around Tula and didn't come close to even threatening Moscow's southern flank


Even Stalin said my people take up arms and defend the city because there werent even enough troops to fire the artillery thats how bad the depletion wasAgain, huh? Then just who do you think stopped the Germans? At its lowest point there were never less than 90k Red Army soldiers in Moscow and by the final German push there were over 500k present in the city itself. Irregular formations were in addition to these

[Socialist Scum]

2 points Id like to make-

The Soviets could have kept on fighting on and on over the Urals and beyond. The Nazi supply lines will have to stop somewhere, and with massive partisan activity behind enemy lines it would result and huge Nazi casualties and a eventually the Western Allies would have prevailed.

Point number 2-
What is everyones obsession with "If the Nazi's won We would be speaking German right now." I mean, were the French occupied areas forced to speak German on penalty of death or something. :confused:

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

Yes, that's right, actions which actually weakened the USSR and strengthened the Nazis were necessary.

Can totally see the logic in that.
Without the strengthening of the USSR in the twenties and thirties under Stalin, the nazis would crushed the USSR with formidale ease.

Oh no, wait a minute, they wouldn't have had to, because without the strengthening under Stalin the USSR would have collapsed long before 1940.

[Dimentio]

Point number 2-
What is everyones obsession with "If the Nazi's won We would be speaking German right now." I mean, were the French occupied areas forced to speak German on penalty of death or something. :confused:

I think that German in Europe would have played the same role as English today had the Germans won the war. But I don't think the nazi regime would have lasted three years after Hitler's death in a hypothetical German superpower of the post-war years.

Think a military coup would have created some sort of moderate dictatorship, which would later (about 1980 or so) turn into some form of bourgeois democratic system.

[Socialist Scum]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/00675/old3_675945c.jpg

A world that could have been! :ohmy:

[Vendetta]

http://english.pobediteli.ru/flash.html?DR=0

Here's a good site about the progress of the eastern front.

[hugsandmarxism]

That's right.

This is why the rapid 'forced' industrialization of the Soviet Union, the collectivization of agriculture which made it possible, the concentration of production on heavy Industry, the ruthless purging of all subversives and potential subversives from positions of power, the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact which allowed the Soviet Union to push it's borders up to eastern Poland and allowed it to finish defeating the Japanese that had invaded in the east, and allowed it two more years to build up it's defensive war machine, at the same time forcing the other capitalist countries to become the Soviet Union's reluctant allies by sending Hitler on his little Western detour, all of these decisions taken by the CPSU under the leadership of Stalin, were neccesary.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/picture.php?albumid=223&pictureid=1581

"In Soviet Russia, Tank out-produces YOU!"

I had to write a ten page paper about all of this, making a case for Stalin's policies (while the rest of the people in my class wrote about D-Day and all that jazz), and these numbers from my professor's power-point make a case for ole' Koba's war production and industrial measures.

[Brother No. 1]

The Nazis Thought the Russian people hated Communism and would come to their side. But Hitlers poor ideas and poor planing cost him his life, Dream, and the War. Really ended up like Napolean on the Russian Inavasion. See a Simularity here people.

[Vahanian]

The Nazis Thought the Russian people hated Communism and would come to their side. But Hitlers poor ideas and poor planing cost him his life, Dream, and the War. Really ended up like Napolean on the Russian Inavasion. See a Simularity here people.


they might have sided with hitler if he didnt opress them hardcore for the soviet partisans

[Brother No. 1]

Well maybe. But i meant Napolean and Hitler were at the same postion. they were bring Russia down but then were beaten back.

[RebelDog]

I was watching a world war 2 documentary called the 'world at war' about the nazi advance on Moscow and it shocked me how close the Germans were to actually winning the eastern front and possibly even the entire war.

By the time they'd reached their closest point to Moscow, they were only 15 km from the Kremlin and the red army was down to it's last 400 tanks.
They even had to evacuate lenin's body for fear of it falling into nazi hands.
The Russians were only lucky that the reserves they had in siberia to watch the japanese werent needed because the japanese were distracted with the pacific theatre so they could bring in their cold weather trained commandos as reinforcements. Another saving grace was that the weather was so cold that it caused the German artillery to freeze and the cannons wouldnt fire.

If Hitler had listened to his generals and attacked Moscow before the warm weather finished insteading of pissing around in Kiev, we'd probably all be speaking German now and waving swastikas. Thats how close we were.

We were never anywhere near that close. The economic, material and population strength of the USSR and the UK and subsequently the US over the Axis forces was massive. Moscow was the high-water mark of the axis assault driven by the momentum of their huge attack which was lacking in many material needs. The axis forces were doomed in taking on the UK, the US, and the USSR alone showed its superior strength in the statistics of victory. 10 axis soldiers killed on the eastern front for every 1 on the western. When you look at the forces engaged in this struggle it hard to envisage any axis victory. There is a wikepedia page on the massive disparities in soldiers, tanks, planes, artillery, navy etc, but I cannot find it right now. Most ratios were at least 5-1 in favour of the allies. The axis forces had no chance in reality. All the goosestepping in the world would not have won the war for the axis, they were given a brutal thrashing.

[Glorious Union]

*pic of an ugly old Nazi bastard*
A world that could have been! :ohmy:
Yes, they really they would have kept him alive for that long too.

[Lamanov]

To be honest, even if the Soviets lost Moscow and any other big cities, it would not have had that great of an effect on the war. Industry was quickly and efficiently mobilized (A great victory for a planned economy) and moved beyond the Urals.

What about 370.000 tons of war material delivered in November and December of 1941 (alone) by the Allies?

It's not just the planned economy that played a crucial role. It was also the "mass factor", the will of the Soviet people who increased their efforts.

It will not be a long time after the war before Soviet 'planned' economy plunders into waste and inefficiency.

[PRC-UTE]

What about 370.000 tons of war material delivered in November and December of 1941, alone by the Allies?

It's not just the planned economy that played a crucial role. It was also the "mass factor", the will of the Soviet people who increased their efforts.

It will not be a long time after the war before Soviet 'planned' economy plunders into waste and inefficiency.

the significance of the planned economy was that the soviet state could choose to move its industrial base. it would have been near impossible to pull off under any other system- a market, a federation of collectives, etc.

some of the war materiel such as the lend lease lorries were very important in extending Soviet logistics when they began pushing the Axis out of the SU. the food, especially spam was a great help. however, much of it was regarded as inferior quality to what the Soviets needed (such as the planes) and the contributions didn't get going until after the turning point of the war, Stalingrad.

[ComradeOm]

What about 370.000 tons of war material delivered in November and December of 1941 (alone) by the Allies?To quote Glantz, "Lend-Lease did not arrive in sufficient quantities to make the difference between defeat and victory in 1941-42; that achievement must be attributed solely to the Soviet people and to the iron nerve of Stalin, Zhukov, Shaposhnikov, Vasilevsky, and their subordinates". And from Harrison, "For the Soviet Union, Allied aid did not matter very much until after Stalingrad... the Soviet firepower which denied victory to Germany in 1941-42 was home produced"


It's not just the planned economy that played a crucial role. It was also the "mass factor", the will of the Soviet people who increased their efforts.And as anyone but fascists know, the 'will to triumph' is not in itself enough to overcome material constraints. The fantastic nature of the evacuation, which saved almost half of industry in the conquered territories, required a tremendous effort of organisation. With crucial facilities production was running again within 6-8 weeks of evacuation! This required both the physical transportation of the factories (no mean feat given the resulting congestion of the railways), the development of infrastructure in remote areas, re-routing of materials, and securing/accommodating/training of a fresh workforce

There is simply no comparable feat in history and its impossible to imagine just how any system less reliant on planning could have emulated it

Edit:

The economic, material and population strength of the USSR and the UK and subsequently the US over the Axis forces was massiveYour point is correct but be careful not to either a) read too much into demographics, and b) discount the importance of local superiority of material

In the long run Nazi Germany simply could not prevail but this should not distract from their achievements in the short term. The Nazi leadership was perfectly aware of its weaknesses and thus deliberately set out to fight a series of short campaigns. In France - where total Allied superiority in materials was rendered useless by the Wehrmacht's concentration of forces in the Manstein Plan - this strategy was successful and German superiority in doctrine led to rapid victory. Conversely there was near panic amongst German planners at the beginning of 1942 with the realisation that, for all their tactical victories, Barbarossa had failed and this was to be a long war

[NecroCommie]

Exactly! German army was designed to win short but "effective" wars. Germany might have won if they were allowed to take the countries in fast wars, but then comes the "Hitlers greed"-factor.

As to why operation Barbarossa failed: Have anyone looked at a world map recently? Especially an old one? Soviet union was HUUUGE! Too damn big for any foreign army to supervise, let alone conquer. The same reason Napoleon failed.

[Brother No. 1]

Really napoleon and Hitler thought of Russia easy to conquer. But they forgot the weather and its the largest country on earth. Even if they were close to getting the capital you should never underestimate your enemy mainly when you have them cornered.

[Woland]

It's not just the planned economy that played a crucial role. It was also the "mass factor", the will of the Soviet people who increased their efforts.

Yes, but while collective enthusiasm for labour was prevalent in the decades before the war (such as the stakhanovite movement, which also existed after the war), this also demonstrates another positive aspect of a planned economy- that is, the ability to mobilize the labour force, the hundreds of thousands of men and women who worked day and night to create the needed equipment.


It will not be a long time after the war before Soviet 'planned' economy plunders into waste and inefficiency.

I'm sorry but I do not see where you are going with this. The war destroyed over 70,000 towns and villages, including the country's most industrialized areas, while the rest of the industry has been doing nothing but producing war equipment for 4 years. However, it still beat all estimates and recovered in just 3 years after the war, so the enthusiasm must have remained, and it must have stayed there atleast until 1965, when, as a direct consequence of the anti-socialist reforms, worker productivity fell drastically for the first time. And then, any signs of waste and inefficiency started coming only in the late 70's, once again the result of these reforms.

[Dr Mindbender]

The Russian winter, while undoubtedly a factor, was not the reason for the German failure. That myth lies in the memoirs of German generals themselves attempting to explain their failure. As I said, the Wehrmacht was at its logistical limit and its combat efficiency was decreasing with every kilometre it advanced east. Crucially, the first snow did not fall until the night of 7 Oct, by which time Guderian's panzers had effectively lost the initiative in the advance on Tula

Also note that snow itself was not the major problem but rather the flooding and mud it brought. When the weather continued to cool the snow turned to ice and mobility was largely restored to the German armour. Ironically the most mobile formations of the entire battle were the Soviet cavalry divisions which were not hampered by the snow



The point is, if hitler had decided to go straight to Moscow during the warm months before the heavy snow came the ground would have still been hard enough for him to move his tanks. Plus the Germans would have coped better with the weather and their artillery guns would have worked.

Plus, the time that he spent in the south gave moscow the time it needed to fortify itself and give the red army a chance to move its troops there from the north east coast and consolidate their defences.

[ComradeOm]

The point is, if hitler had decided to go straight to Moscow during the warm months before the heavy snow came the ground would have still been hard enough for him to move his tanks. Plus the Germans would have coped better with the weather and their artillery guns would have workedYes, I understand the argument. What is less clear is the basis for the twin assumptions implicit in this - 1) that taking Moscow would suddenly cause Soviet resistance to collapse entirely, and 2) that the 600k+ Soviet soldiers at Kiev would simply sit idly by and ignore the assault on Moscow

(I've already dealt with the weather in a previous post - it was a factor in the German defeat but by no means a decisive one, and the offensive had already begun to falter before the first snows fell. Of far more importance was the sheer distances involved, plus the ensuring logistical difficulties, and the stubborn resistance of the Red Army. Also note that the primary difficulty with the weather involved reduced mobility, not cold guns)

In 1941 German soldiers reached Leningrad and in 1942 they reached Stalingrad. In neither case did the cities involved fall. Tell me, just why would Moscow be different? A common assumption here is that merely reaching the capital would have constituted a triumph for the Wehrmacht, even though the German plan called for a grand encirclement. In reality they came nowhere close to achieving this (the southern pincer being out by several hundred kilometres!). In the final analysis the Soviet counterattack is still going to occur in Winter 1941 and it doesn't matter if the Wehrmacht has taken the city or not, its freezing and impoverished formations will be in no state to present a credible resistance

In fact most stories of how close the Germans came to winning the war in 1941 (and there certainly was a risk of this) tend to accept the same desperate logic of the Wehrmacht generals themselves. After months of war the stubborn failure of the Soviet state to collapse was causing deep anxiety amongst some German commanders. In their desperation they cast around for a golden bullet that could bring the war to an end. This is despite the fact that taking Moscow would be an entirely symbolic act. Hitler, perhaps surprisingly, made a far more accurate assessment of the campaign objectives. He understood that Germany desperately needed the economic resources of the Ukraine in order to continue the war into 1942. In 1941 failing to take Moscow did not end the war for Germany but a failure to seize the Ukraine would have

But really the most irritating aspect of the whole topic* is the complete handwaving away of 55 Soviet divisions that were encircled and destroyed at Kiev. Had it not been for the turn south (which lets not forget only affected a handful of the divisions involved in Typhoon) then Army Group South might well have been stopped cold outside Kiev. In turn this would have allowed Stalin to either shift some of these, relatively, well trained and equipped divisions towards the defence of Moscow. More important would have been the almost inevitable attack on the German flanks during Typhoon. Given how Guderian struggled historically on that southern flank, such a counterattack would be hugely disruptive, if not terminal, to the advance on Moscow. Note as well that the Kiev offensive caused Stalin to assume that his capital was safe and deploy reserves to Leningrad and the south rather than the centre

In short you can't simply change an event in history and ignore the consequences. Given the political and military situation of July 1941 Hitler's direction to turn south was perfectly understandable. Had he not done so then perhaps Moscow might have fallen... but it would also have created an entirely different scenario that could have unfolded in many other ways

*And to clarify, there is much genuine debate about the events of these crucial months. Its just that the "Hitler lost the war" argument as presented by the Hitler Channel is ridiculously outdated and lacking in nuance. See Forczyx, Moscow 1941 for a decent operational history of Typhoon. Glantz also covers the operation in When Titans Clashed (cheers to PRC-UTE for that reference, I enjoyed the read). The economic rational for seizing the Ukraine, and its necessity for sustaining the German economy, is covered in detail in Tooze, Wages of Destruction

[PRC-UTE]

*And to clarify, there is much genuine debate about the events of these crucial months. Its just that the "Hitler lost the war" argument as presented by the Hitler Channel is ridiculously outdated and lacking in nuance. See Forczyx, Moscow 1941 for a decent operational history of Typhoon. Glantz also covers the operation in When Titans Clashed (cheers to PRC-UTE for that reference, I enjoyed the read). The economic rational for seizing the Ukraine, and its necessity for sustaining the German economy, is covered in detail in Tooze, Wages of Destruction

you've already read it? glad you enjoyed it, thought you would.

another problem with the scenario of Moscow falling and ending the war is that I dont see this as stopping the Red Army in its development. the invasion happened to catch them in tranistion to a much more effective military using combined arms, more effective use of armour, a better chain of command and communications, and deep penetration through extended operations. the improved Red Army that learned from its mistakes and developed in every way is one of the largest reasons the Germans lost, though it is usually ignored.

and since industry was moved to Asia, away from European Russia, an argument can definitely be made that it would have been of little consequence.

[ComradeOm]

I just reread the OP and noticed that it referred to the documentary series the World at War. If anyone hasn't seen this classic series then I highly recommend it as possibly the best introduction to the war ever screened on TV. It makes extensive use archive footage, interviews, and excellent commentary. I think BBC2 is currently rerunning it in an early afternoon slot... I caught the Stalingrad episode earlier this week. So watch it if you can

The documentary is extremely good but it is a child of the 1970s which, I suspect, is where some of the confusion above comes from. Our understanding of the war has greatly advanced since then and many aspects of the documentary are outdated. This is particularly true of the Eastern Front where many of the myths propagated by German generals have only been seriously challenged in the last decade. I think only three of the 26 episodes are devoted to the war in Russia whereas the likes of Burma gets an episode to itself

Despite this the series is well worth checking out, if only for the vast amount of archive material assembled, just don't take it to be the final word on the matter


you've already read it? glad you enjoyed it, thought you wouldWell I was laid off last month so I'm had plenty of free time on my hands (:lol:). It hasn't changed my opinion of operational histories (zzzzz) but was still a very good introduction to the topic and I can tell it will be a useful reference tool. The Eastern Front area was a real weakness in my knowledge of WWII, simply because its so rarely covered in Western accounts. So cheers again

[Revolution1278]

I just reread the OP and noticed that it referred to the documentary series the World at War. If anyone hasn't seen this classic series then I highly recommend it as possibly the best introduction to the war ever screened on TV. It makes extensive use archive footage, interviews, and excellent commentary. I think BBC2 is currently rerunning it in an early afternoon slot... I caught the Stalingrad episode earlier this week. So watch it if you can

The documentary is extremely good but it is a child of the 1970s which, I suspect, is where some of the confusion above comes from. Our understanding of the war has greatly advanced since then and many aspects of the documentary are outdated. This is particularly true of the Eastern Front where many of the myths propagated by German generals have only been seriously challenged in the last decade. I think only three of the 26 episodes are devoted to the war in Russia whereas the likes of Burma gets an episode to itself

Despite this the series is well worth checking out, if only for the vast amount of archive material assembled, just don't take it to be the final word on the matter

Well I was laid off last month so I'm had plenty of free time on my hands (:lol:). It hasn't changed my opinion of operational histories (zzzzz) but was still a very good introduction to the topic and I can tell it will be a useful reference tool. The Eastern Front area was a real weakness in my knowledge of WWII, simply because its so rarely covered in Western accounts. So cheers again

Interesting bro.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

Although the nazis had quite some success in the beginning, conquering Russia is not an easy task.
Even if they had taken Moscow, which would have costed hundreds of thousands of nazi lifes too, the Russians would still have resisted.
To conquer Russia, Hitler shoudl have went all the way to Vladivostok.
The Russians are not people to mess with, that's clear.

[Brother No. 1]

I dont think hitler could go all the way over there. maybe stop half way and retreat.