Where should Hitler have attacked in 1942?

I'm getting confused... How will you convey oil by ship if you eat the sheep? Anyway, enough joking.

Fact remains one doesn't even need to be sentimental or humaitarian. It's simply sound policy. To be able to extract anything from the land (or from the backs of sheep) you need people to work it, and this people must be fed, or else they'll work for a short while only.

One needs a little vision to be able to see this, and Heydrich was an intelligent man, otherwise he wouldn't be head of the SD.

Otherwise all you create is a desert, whose resources are barred to you because there is no one to exploit them.

Hitler pestered everibody with his pretty economical ideas and geostrategy concepts, but even those resources he was able to get hold of - for a while - such as the Ukrainian breadbasket and mineral resources in the Donbass were uselessly unproductive due to lack of people to work them, and a structure to even do anything about whatever output there was. This was plain stupid.

 

Well, I finally decided to vote for Moscow, but I'm back and forth on the subject. Plus, with hindsight it is always easy to discard the option that historically failed...

On one hand, going head to head with the massive forces in front of Moscow would have been very costly for the Germans, an early Kursk could very well have happened.

On the other hand, the Soviets were still pretty raw in 1942, compared with 1943, and it's also quite possible the Germans could have acheived favourable exchange ratios. It would also allow the Germans to engage the main body of the Red Army in a direct struggle, rather than allow it to pull back and slash at the flanks of the advancing Wehrmacht, at least not to the extent possible in the south.

On the other hand yet again, perhaps the Germans would have made it to Moscow, and fought bitter fights in the city only to be encircled there instead...

Argh...

 

How about a large involvement around Moscow, instead of a direct strike aginst a heavy fortified area?

The trouble I see here is the communications network near Moscow is radial, not circular, so the spearheads closing behind Moskow would be in logistical hell.

Cheers,
Miguel

 

Like you mention, I suspect the terrain, roadnet and railroads would conspire together against such an attempt.

But first of all, the Red Army had placed its bet on further attacks against the capital, and the number of reserve armies and units drawn in behind the front were very significant. The Germans would have been stuck in a Kursk-like quagmire of Soviet reinforcements being thrown into the battle to replace battered formations. The question which I dare not answer is if the Soviet reinforcments could hold the Germans, and/or if the Red Army had enough skill to execute similar flank strikes and diverting attacks as they later did at Kursk, sapping strength from the German spearheads.

 

Actually Kursk's defences in July 1943 were much stronger than Moscow's in May 1942, and the Wehrmacht was still stronger than the Red Army.

And it's for sure that the Germans would have attacked in a gigantic pincer movement to perform a typical German annihilation battle, commiting a logistical suicide.

 

I personally voted for a German drive to the oil fields in 1942, but not completely taking them over.

I believe that the Germans should have inched their way down the Caucasus, till the point where they can let Richtofen loose on Baku (where Grozny) would also be within reach, and Maikop would likely be taken by the Ostheer. IMO, this is the safest way to do the most damage to the USSR in 1942. I don't agree with Friedrich that the Germans should have given the USSR a pass in 1942, as the Soviets probably would gain more out of it.


Subsequent this to a miniscale offensive-defensive role in favorable areas, and I think its the best the Ostheer can do.

 

Herb, Bakú is 1.000 kilometres from Rostov. No significant railways, motorways or roads and half the way is full with high peaks and mountain terrain. Taking your infantry and tanks there to be supplied by horses and a few lorries...? I don't think so...

 

I vote for Stalingrad.And then go ahead for oil fields in Caucasia.But Hitler should never attacked Russia.

 

Well Friedrich, good points. However, while I understand the problems that would come with logistics, so long as the offensive is carried out carefully enough, I don't see any major problems arising.

Maybe the best answer is to create an air unit that does a one-way mission to Baku.

 

Even by capturing Stalingrad, it wouldn't have brought the USSR to its knees. You had to conquer the Caucasus - logistically impossible - and then Moscow.

Herb, an air bridge to Bakú? I don't think so. The Luftwaffe didn't have the capability of carrying thousands of tons of supplies a week in 2.000 kilomeres sorties... And first, you need to capture air field in Bakú and finish the Russian resistance, which involves a very powerful land attack. And there you go back to the question of logistics...

 

Maybe not Stalingrad itself ( a moral blow yes ) but stopping the Volga supply boats would have done quite alot of damage to the Moscow and Leningrad sectors for Russians as well, I think!

 

Herb, an air bridge to Bakú? I don't think soThe Luftwaffe didn't have the capability of carrying thousands of tons of supplies a week in 2.000 kilomeres sorties... And first, you need to capture air field in Bakú and finish the Russian resistance, which involves a very powerful land attack. And there you go back to the question of logistics...>>


Friedrich, not quite.. By "one-way mission", I meant basically a suicide attack. Maybe a type of KG 200 unit created in 1942.


Kai, stopping the Volga supply route will not do much to the USSR, as historically shown in mid-late 1942.

 

In my opinion, he should have attacked anything but Russia. In my eyes that was one of Hitler's greatest mistakes. I think that he should have kept them as an ally throughout the war. Then Hitler would have had a chance at pushing back allied forces.

 

Would you please explain me this?

 

I don't know if this question has been answer yet, but why didn't Hitler just send bomber wings to Moscow and blow the hell out of it. Wouldn't that have ended the war with Russia quickly?

 

Colin... Did it work with London, Leningrad, Stalingrad and later Berlin?

 

I think the taking of moscow would of been the best idea as the german army with the red army in front with their backs to the wall.
Stalin would of ordered No retreating (even though he had a train waiting) and the german army (at full strenght and Hitler NOT having any command of units in east front) would of beat the poor tactics of the red army.

 

All right, admitting this, but then my question is when should this conquest of Moscow was to be done?

 

When? Autumn 1941 definitely! The longer the war lasted the less chances Hitler had to win.Germany was not prepared for along war.

 

Very right, Kai! And it had to be Moscow since it was going to bring almost all Soviet forces to the city as Halder believed. But then the Germans needed a much stronger force than they actually had, no autumn rains and stable supply lines... (Friedrich's dreaming again...)