Unsolved History: Conspiracies to Kill Hitler

[Gerald]

A real explanation, we learn, but probably not get the subject of discussion can be endless

[STEED]

Originally Posted by frau kaleun

Generally speaking, there are just so many reasons why a prolonged invasion of Russia (or whatever it's calling itself ATM) is never a great idea.

The only thing Hitler got right was 1941 as the Red Army was in transition apart from that, Barbarossa was pants! It all comes down to logistics and most part the Germans used horse power!

[Raptor1]

The Swedes and the French had similar problems in Russia...

[Gerald]

But then we go back in history....

[Diopos]

Originally Posted by STEED

The only thing Hitler got right was 1941 as the Red Army was in transition apart from that, Barbarossa was pants! It all comes down to logistics and most part the Germans used horse power!

Well if he had stuck to his initial plan... Don't forget that after the ill fated Italian attack on Greece in Autumn '40 and the Yugoslavian overthrow of a pro Nazi regime in Winter '41, he diverted assets to the balkans and lost time to initiate Barbarossa. Of course even if he blitzed Leningrad and paraded in Moscow, as planned, the question is would that be enough? Because the problem is that "European" Russia is just a part of Russia...and Siberia is just plain BIG.

.

[Raptor1]

Originally Posted by Diopos

Well if he had stuck to his initial plan... Don't forget that after the ill fated Italian attack on Greece in Autumn '40 and the Yugoslavian overthrow of a pro Nazi regime in Winter '41, he diverted assets to the balkans and lost time to initiate Barbarossa. Of course even if he blitzed Leningrad and paraded in Moscow, as planned, the question is would that be enough? Because the problem is that "European" Russia is just a part of Russia...and Siberia is just plain BIG.

.

The Balkans were never a fatal delay to Barbarossa, it could only have been launched a couple of weeks before it actually was because of the weather, as the late Russian mud season only ended in early June.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Diopos

Of course even if he blitzed Leningrad and paraded in Moscow, as planned, the question is would that be enough? Because the problem is that "European" Russia is just a part of Russia...and Siberia is just plain BIG.

Quite....the German advance into European Russia simply meant more emphasis was placed on the factories that were moved as well as those already in situ in Siberia.

[Raptor1]

Moscow was a pretty critical railway hub, though, most notably for connecting the Trans-Siberian Railroad to the Soviet European railway system and for being the main communication line between the northern and southern sections of the front. I don't think losing it would have necessarily meant the end of the war for the Soviets, but it would have been a pretty big hit to the Red Army's supply lines.

[Jimbuna]

Didn't Napolean also think that in the 19th century?

[Diopos]

Originally Posted by Raptor1

The Balkans were never a fatal delay to Barbarossa, it could only have been launched a couple of weeks before it actually was because of the weather, as the late Russian mud season only ended in early June.

Statements from Field Marshal Keitel:

Link: http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/Keitel/Keitel.zip, page 153

Of course one can only muse on what might have been had things only worked out differently. Even if it was too much to ask of our good fortune that Italy should have stayed out of the war altogether as a benevolent neutral, just consider the difference if Hitler had been able to prevent
their irresponsible attack on Greece. What would we not have saved by way of aid to Italy for her senseless Balkan war? In all probability there would not have been any uprising in Yugoslavia in an attempt to force her entry into the war on the side of the enemies of the Axis, just to oblige Britain and the Soviet Union. How differently things would then have looked in Russia in 1941. We would have been in a far stronger position, and above all we should not have lost those two months. Just imagine: we would not have frozen to a standstill in the snow and ice, with temperatures of minus forty-five degrees just twenty miles outside
Moscow, a city hopelessly encircled from the north, west and south, at the end of that November. We should have had two clear months before that infernal cold weather closed in - and there was nothing like it in the

winters that followed anyway!

And also (from the Nuremberg Trial, Ithink): "The unbelievable strong resistance of the Greeks delayed by two or more vital months the German attack against Russia; if we did not have this long delay, the outcome of the war would have been different in the eastern front and in the war in general, and others would have been accused and would be occupying this seat as defendants today".


Anyway, even If the rivers were swolen they wouldn't just put one of the largst invading forces ever "on hold" just outside the Soviet borders. Call it "mobilization inertia" () if you want, but they would have pressed on.

I still maintain, though that even if they succeeded in fullfilling Barbarossa's objectives it would not be enough in the end.


.

[STEED]

Originally Posted by Raptor1

Moscow was a pretty critical railway hub, though, most notably for connecting the Trans-Siberian Railroad to the Soviet European railway system and for being the main communication line between the northern and southern sections of the front. I don't think losing it would have necessarily meant the end of the war for the Soviets, but it would have been a pretty big hit to the Red Army's supply lines.

Problem was Hitler was farting around, one minute he was gunning for Leningrad and stuff Moscow the next he sees Moscow as the main target. The only thing he got right was to deal with the salient at Kiev before Moscow.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

Didn't Napolean also think that in the 19th century?

Napolean didn't have aircraft, or tanks, or radios etc...

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Napolean didn't have aircraft, or tanks, or radios etc...

True....but neither did the Russians

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

True....but neither did the Russians

Which time?

[Raptor1]

Originally Posted by Diopos

Statements from Field Marshal Keitel:

Link: http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/Keitel/Keitel.zip, page 153



And also (from the Nuremberg Trial, Ithink): "The unbelievable strong resistance of the Greeks delayed by two or more vital months the German attack against Russia; if we did not have this long delay, the outcome of the war would have been different in the eastern front and in the war in general, and others would have been accused and would be occupying this seat as defendants today".


Anyway, even If the rivers were swolen they wouldn't just put one of the largst invading forces ever "on hold" just outside the Soviet borders. Call it "mobilization inertia" () if you want, but they would have pressed on.

I still maintain, though that even if they succeeded in fullfilling Barbarossa's objectives it would not be enough in the end.


.

Keitel has many reasons to blame the failure of Barbarossa on the Balkan campaign, he's hardly objective.

The original date for Barbarossa was May 15th, that's a month and one week, not 'two or more months'. Besides that; yes, the mud season would have put the German invasion on hold; the mud season in Russia was very serious for military operations. In October the Russian mud season impeded Operation Typhoon even more than the frozen winter did later on.