Battle for Ukraine

i just read some stuff about napoleon.... i know it's nothing new of course. but it's impossibile not to make a comparison (don't kill me pls):

- imho the "decisive" battle of moscow would never take place: yes, the russians would try hard to stop the nazi before moscow (like borodino in 1812) but if they fail, they are ready to abandon the city and dismantelled the whole area.

- in sept/oct the nazi would enter a ghost moscow (like in 1812), hitler would proclame victory (like napoleon) but in fact there would be no surrender. for the russians the "great patriotic war" goes on.

- in a couple of weeks the temeperature goes far below zero and the nazi are not equipped for winter (winter '41 arrived earlier and was the coldest in 140 years) .

- the nazi resupply chain terribly is overstratched, the whole south flank is exposed. of course hitler refuse to retreat from moscow and regroup forces.

the risk is a complete catastrophe.............

By contrast, as a supporter of the "operation blue", i think the nazi, after ukraine, should have gone further in the south!! it would have been a devastating surprise. Cut off the soviet natural resources in '41 could have been decisive! then, once secured the south, it would have been possibile to capture an exausted and starving moscow (spring '42).


well, maybe i exaggerated a bit....

 

Also with the Germans in Moscow, it eliminates their primary advantage ( speed and maneuverability ). With all of these soldiers in Moscow I would imagine that the supply lines would slowly be over run with with the extra Red Army 900,000 men that escaped and the City slowly being surrounded?

Not to mention the lack of food for the Germans which Ukraine provided, no slave labor the vulnerable oil fields in Romania as they would be in range of Soviet bombers.

 

If the Germans had pressed on to Moscow there is a good chance that the armies of the Ukraine would have tossed in the towel all together. Correct me if I am wrong but the army there consisted primarily of Ukrainians. How many of those men would have wanted to go and save Moscow?

I am sure that some would but the vast majority of the Ukrainian soldiers would probably have disappeared or possibly rebeled. Joined the Germans? I'm speculating but is it not possible?

Think about it, the chaos of the government being moved to say Ekaratinburg what would have been the result? A loss of overall command of the armies of European Russia most likely.

 

Unfortunately, other then speculation Im not sure that I can provide too much on the willingness of the Soviet troops in Ukraine to fight the invaders. After all, many stayed loyal after the country was completely over run.

We can only imagine that evacuating the troops as Zhukov and many other officers wanted would have saved hundreds of thousands of men to fight another day. General Pavlov who pleaded with Zhukov to allow him and his army to escape, fought till the bitter end until being killed and his men captured.

Moscow by most was actually expected to fall. As a result Kuibyshev, about 600 miles to the south east was to serve as the capital once Moscow fell. All of the Government officials including even Lenin were all moved there by armored train.

 

in theory what chuikov says is correct. in fact, in ukraine the resentment against soviets was strong, very strong (in the 30's stalin had starved to death the area).

But in practice, a few days of nazi occupation were enough for ukranian people to choose their side. that's the point: the war in the east was not the classic war of conquest for power & glory. indeed it was a war started for racial reasons. russians, ukranian, belaraus: it was all the same, they were all considered sub-humans. the more they die, the better for the arian race.
So it is no surprise that all soviets united to stand against the nazi.

anybody else would have exploited the soviet internal problems, not the brainless nazi.

i admit, i'm oversemplifying the situation. but i think the basic is correct.

 

Good points.

However not all of Ukraine was anti Russian. In fact the eastern half stayed loyal and did not welcome the Germans with open arms as (Western) Ukraine did. I guess this is what im basing the loyalties of men with, not to mention that many Russians were among the troops stationed in Ukraine as well.

 

Move South was correct. Move back to Moscow later was not, they should ve went for the oilfields there and then. During Barbarossa Ukraine and Caucasus should ve been main objective to begin with in my opinion.

 

If Hitler stayed on course for Moscow and took it, would this bring an end to the war? No, Stalin would fight on. Russia could draw on vast numbers of man power to replace there loses, true to say yes Kiev netted the Germans more prisoners. But in the end the planing and execution of Barbarossa was a plan for a short almighty knock out blow that failed. Blitzkrieg was over in 41 and Hitler faced a war that he just had no long term resources for.

 

If Moscow were to have fallen I agree that the fight would not have stopped. I do think that many of the men in the army of the Ukraine district would have went home but then many would have fled to the east. With the government in disarray and the military in disarray the Germans would be able to consolidate the gains in the north.

A key part of this would have been to pacify the people in the occupied lands. If they did not do this, it would not work. If they had kept order and the peace behind the lines I am sure that St Pete would have capitulated. With this the Nazis could have looked to the south and possibly went as far a the oil fields and Stalingrad. This would have required the arming of auxilialries from the occupied lands. The Germans would need manpower.

This would not mean the end of the war, the Russians may have been pushed back beyond the Urals but I can only imagine what would come over those mountains a few years down the road.

I think the shifting was a mistake, it slowed down the whole deal. I don't think in the long run the result would have been any different though.

 

I have a book that discusses the invasion of the Ukraine in a little paragraph and there is said by a old Tsarist general told to Guderian that
"20 years ago you would have seen as liberators, but now since then we have set back and on our feet again only for you to destroy what we have re-created. We now fight for Russia as the same side for what we have to protect"
something on the lines of that, i'll edit it once i'll find the book!

 

There are a lot of muths concerning this problem .Let's discuss some 1) The winter:there is no proof that the winter was worse than in other years.For the unbelievers;Russia at war:General Winter.Who spread those stories? The Germans in and after the war :an excuse for the failure of Barbarossa. And how could they know? It was their first Russian winter! 2) Moscow:in the general intentions of Barbarossa NOTHING about Moscow . We will never know if the fall of Moscow would have as result the collaps of the Sovjet Union,so far there is no proof . The aim of Barbarossa:the destruction of the Red Army before september,before the Russians could mobilize and then ,with was left from ressources (tanksartillery,horses, trucks,fuel )a pursuit of a defeated ennemy to the A-A line(Archangelsk-Astrachan ); the fall of Moscow would follow automatically. The Germans knew that the war had to be won (not finished ) before september,after that they had no more recources to win by fighting. But they failed because the Russian mobilisation started immediately (in june:2.7 and in september 3.2 although they had lost 2000000 ). In october the Germans started again on a small scale :Typhoon or miniBarbarossa:aim :using Mosow as a baite to lure the last Russian reserves in to battle .But they failed again by end november i e BEFORE the Russian winter. In december Russian frontstrenght 4.2 . With hindsight,one can say that after september the Germans had very little chance to finish the war in 1941. 3)Hilers decision in september to first eliminate the Russians in the Kiev area:taken because Army Group South was to weak to do it (the battle of Kiew did not start in september,it was already running several weeks) and needed reinforcements from Army Group Center and there was a danger of the Russians threatening the supplylines of AGC ;I think there was little possibility for AGC to start Typhoon in september,due to lack of supplies. Cheers .Iam goiing to sleep

 

For a few minor details, I think we are on the same page here even though im not sure that you agree with going after Moscow or Ukraine .

One minor detail is winter. Germans did in fact experience the Russian winter in the first World War along with Napoleon's memoirs... Winter was expected but this time it was even colder.

As for mobilization, it was in progress before Hitler invaded, but only in its preliminary stages. Much work was still needed.

Overall we agree. Hitlers main objective for Barbarossa (at least in the beginning) was to eliminate as much of the Red Army as possible, only after as few setbacks and what seemed to be an endless supply of Soviet troops did Moscow truly gain priority.

 

Slonik;
A great "whatif?" Would the taking of Moscow have resulted in a political collapse of the Soviet Union? How badly would the capture of the Moscow railheads have hurt the industrial strength of the USSR? Hitler went for the Red Army groupings in the Ukraine and how able were these forces to threaten the German flank? ... It is all in the realm of speculation but for certain the Einsatzgruppens were hardening Soviet resolve by 1942 and the time of maximum political confusion had passed. The relentless charactor of the Russian resistance was pretty much cast in steel by the second year of the war. "For the Rhodina!" (homeland).
JeffinMNUSA

 

I'd say Moscow would be the good objective instead of the armies of the Ruskies. Blitzkreig calls for lightning attacks, not the slow encirclement that the Germans got themselves into.

 

Cheese;
It's possible that Hitler lost sight of the "center of mass" on the swing to the South in 1941. The Napoleonic Invasion of Russia was no doubt a precedent and in this time the 1812 Russian Army was the critical factor. In 1941 industrial might was the rule of the day. Whatever-"Der Fuhrer" proved himself to be such an genocidal lunatic that the successes of the Wehrmacht were undermined in the East and pretty much everywhere else they went. Brilliant military success coupled with an ideological madness... There is an incomprensible element to the Hitlerian phenomeon that I frankly find baffling.
Jeff

 

Barbarossa got off the rails with shifting focus early on.
But I don't think that the Germans could have pulled it off anyways.

The German formations stranded outside Moscow were wastly understrength, and the logistics were completely shot.

IF they had gone for Moscow they would have impeded the war effort for the USSR, since it is an important comm centre.

 

Hitler made a massive error of judgment of the Russian people and so did the army. I recall a German officer in a interview on a documentary sum up the situation like this...

France, toilets inside the house...Russia toilets in the back yard.

I believe there were parts in the UK at the time had toilets outside and yet we were look upon as civilized by Hitler. Because Russia was not as well developed as Germany dose not mean there people are going to roll over for the invader. Hitler made the mistake in Western Ukraine as to use his words...

"We should only educate them just enough to read our traffic signs."

Western Ukraine welcomed the German invaders hoping the Germans would help them to breakaway from Russia. All they got was a face full of German boot and no wonder in a short time they turned against the Germans, this of course added to the German problems in the rear.

 

Understrength by as much as 50%! And that wasnt do to logistics or winter either (well for the most part at least ).

 

"France :toilets inside the house in 1940 " you would be fortunate to find a toilet outside the house