Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Invading the USSR

Discussion in 'Eastern Europe October 1939 to February 1943' started by dasreich, Oct 28, 2002.

  1. PzJgr

    PzJgr Drill Instructor

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2000
    Messages:
    8,386
    Likes Received:
    889
    Location:
    Jefferson, OH
    Aaaah here is the magic question that Stalin would have to ask himself.....What would be the reaction of the Japanese since they are an Axis power and the invasion would bind the Japanese to declare war on Russia? Stalin would not have 300 divisions anymore.
     
  2. dasreich

    dasreich Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    1
    Very good point PzJgr.

    However, didnt the Japanese have a skirmish with the Soviets in 1940 that hit them hard? Even then though, the Kwangtung Army was quit large...
    Add to that, the US probably wouldnt be brought into the war by Japan. Although invading England might have done the trick.
     
  3. TrasherTheGreat

    TrasherTheGreat Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2002
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    Invading England would most certainly have done the trick, das, in my opinion anyway. But you're right, if Germany had invaded England, it would have to be before barbarossa, but then again, let's use a cost benefit analysis to weigh the benefits of invading england (haha). You're right, invading england would have required a massive amounts of troops and resources, leaving Berlin basically undefended against the Red Army, and since apparantly they were massing for an attack anyway... well, sending troops far away from Berlin might have been a bad idea. Now, what benefit, really would Germany get from invading Britain this early in the War? They wouldve needed a whole bunch of troops stationed in England in order to keep control of it, and this would've made the US join the war too. Also, I think the retaking and the liberation of Britain by the United States would not have been nearly as hard, because the US could've put forth a navy that overwhelm Germany's. Let's face it, Germany's strength was not in its navy. And since the American forces would have the support of the people of Britain, I dont think the liberation of Britain by the Americans is that far-fetched of an idea. What really could the Germans have gained from invading Britain?
     
  4. dasreich

    dasreich Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trasher; we actually had a pretty good discussion on this in another thread. I agree that invading Britain would not have been necessarry. Only neutralizing them. But had Germany invaded in 1941, im not sure there is a whole lot the Americans could have done. They were just beginning to shift their economy to war production, and they would have left their Pacific forces undefended against the Japanese.
     
  5. TrasherTheGreat

    TrasherTheGreat Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2002
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe we also had a good discussion about this at school, hah. That's true, the Americans had two fronts to fight, etc, but if England got invaded, i think that the Americans would shift fully to War Production, and i believe the American industry at full steam, so to speak, was easily capable of producing a navy big enough to fight two wars on different fronts.
     
  6. TrasherTheGreat

    TrasherTheGreat Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2002
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    btw, I HAVE FIVE POSTS UNDER MY BELT!! WOOHOO! hah
     
  7. dasreich

    dasreich Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    1
    Actually you have 6 ;)

    We did indeed have a good discussion at school about it. But building a navy takes time, and thats something Britain may not have had if Sealion was launched.
     
  8. TrasherTheGreat

    TrasherTheGreat Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2002
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh, if Operation Sealion was launched, Britain almost certainly would not have enough time to build up a navy. I was talking about the US building up another fleet for the Atlantic more quickly. Besides, even by this time, the Brits were buying destroyers etc. from the us, were'nt they? It would not (nor did it) take much time for America to start spewwing out ships out of every factory. As well, Britain's navy was already more formidable than the German's wasnt it?
     
  9. dasreich

    dasreich Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    1
    Actually I was talking about the Americans. I highly doubt the British would be considering building a larger navy while the Germans are marching toward London. Ships arent built overnight, and by the time the Americans have a significant fleet built, it may be too late to save Britain.
     
  10. TrasherTheGreat

    TrasherTheGreat Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2002
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ships arent built overnight, you're right, but neither are invasions carried out overnight. I think the US would have had ample time to build up an Atlantic fleet before it was "too late." The US wouldnt really be under a time limit as such, phil, they didnt have to stop the invasion, this post is assuming that the invasion succeeded. But even with a large German Army holding England, I think that its entirely possible that the US would have carried out another Operation Overlord in England if it was occupied.
     
  11. dasreich

    dasreich Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    1
    Planning for invasions takes months if not years, but the actual process of landing on beaches takes but a few hours. Im operating under the assumption that the USA wouldnt join the war until Germany actually invaded. If this is the case, then England would likely have surrendered before the USA could do anything about it.

    From where would it come from. With a large German force likely supported by a strong Luftwaffe and an at least competing kriegsmarine could do immense damage to a fleet coming from USA or Canada. The only other place is Iceland to stage such an assault, and the Americans would have a hard time building up troops there. And before you mention Operation Torch, that was carried out against Vichy French forces, who had nowhere near the capabilities of the Germans to throw off an assault. Also consider that the English coast is exceptionally rocky in most places, and difficult to land on. The Americans MIGHT be able to stage an Overlord into England, but even if they did, they would have one hell of a time winning. Also, I dont think that North Africa would be a major target, for England under German control would nullify any usefulness North Africa had.

    I think Im hijacking my own thread! :eek: :D

    [ 31. October 2002, 08:59 PM: Message edited by: dasreich ]
     
  12. AndyW

    AndyW Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2000
    Messages:
    815
    Likes Received:
    1
    I never said i had concrete evidence that there was going to be a war. I said it was very likely given the circumstances surrounding World War 2, and that Soviet deployment on the Soviet border, and tension between the two powers, not to mention ideological differences, led to a climate very inducive of war.</font>[/QUOTE]So you have no facts supporting your assesment that the USSR was about to invade Germany sooner or later. This makes the discussion a bit hard for me, because I can't argue against "believes", but only on conclusions based on facts.

    And I think you forgot to mention the most "likely" reason for a German-Russo war: Hitler's 1940 decision to invade the USSR in 1941. Guess that was more of a reason for the war than the fact that the Soviets deployed parts of their Army at her border, huh?

    Cheers,
     
  13. dasreich

    dasreich Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    1
    Posted by AndyW:
    I apologize if I have been unclear; I am sometimes. But I am basing the likelihood of a war on circumstances, not hard evidence. And certainly we see the same thing today. How much evidence does Bush have to justify a pre-emptive strike on Iraq? Of course I dont know if there would have been or not for sure in the 1940's between Germany and Russia, but I have reason to believe one was very likely, not inevitable.

    And haha your right about Hitlers decision! That certainly would be a factor...but Im talking about other than that decision, war woould most likely still have occurred.

    [ 01. November 2002, 12:00 PM: Message edited by: dasreich ]
     
  14. AndyW

    AndyW Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2000
    Messages:
    815
    Likes Received:
    1
    Zero, I suppose.
    pre-emptive would mean that Saddam's Army is about invading/bombing the U.S.A. in the next few days. Given the fact that Saddam hasn't even aircraft and ships to do that, I don't buy the pre-emtive-thesis until CNN and Condoleeza will tell me that such a disbeliev makes me an enemy to the U.S.A: ("Either with us or against us.") ;)

    As for "preventive": I have no doubt that Saddam is trying to get WMD, espec. A-arms or bio-arms. Just like Israel, Pakistan, India, North Korea did in the past without becoming victim of a "preventive" war.

    It's all about oil, plain and simple. Worth more than such ethic crap like: "Don't wage war on other as you like.".

    Guess every country has some reasons to invade other countries if only possible. As a German I'm thinking of a nice German Island in the Sun or a "German" hut in Innsbruck. Nice ideas.

    Guess we're looking at exciting new times.

    Cheers
     
  15. Friedrich

    Friedrich Expert

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    6,548
    Likes Received:
    52
    First, I do agree that the war between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union was inevitable. Why? Because they were too powerful. And there cannot be two very powerful nations together. It is the case of WWI. It didn't happened for the assassination of the Austrian archduke, it happened because there was a lot of power in that little piece of land called Europe. In the 1940s, both, Germany and the Soviet Union wanted for sure many things in many places at the same time. This obviously provokes war. Let's put appart the thing of the pre-emptive attack that Germany or Russia might have launched. It was indeed inevitable. Both nations couldn't live together side by side.

    :eek: 53 divisions in Great Britain?!!! How?!!! What for?!!! Operation "Seelöwe" was impossible. (Thank you guys for showing me the truth!) :D At least it was impossible in 1940. And even in 1945 with a victorious Germany taking 53 German divisions across the English Channel is: 1. Impossible and 2. Useless!!! Even if Germany could have invaded Great Britain no more than 8 divisions were needed to smash Great Britain. And The USA could have not done anything worth it to help the British.

    Actually, 300 regiments ;) Soviet divisions are actually very small of the size of a German brigade or some two German regiments. So, there could have been 150 Soviet real divisions. ;)

    The USA invading the British Isles? Where from? What about the air cover? Carriers? That many? Yeah...

    You are more than RIGHT. Oil, oil, oil!!! Fianlly somebody see the TRUTH!
     
  16. dasreich

    dasreich Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    1
    Posted by Friedrich:
    Finally! Someone on my side. :cool: :D

    Posted by AndyW and Friedrich:
    You are more than RIGHT. Oil, oil, oil!!! Fianlly somebody see the TRUTH! </font>[/QUOTE]Same here, but I would say resources in general with oil specifically.

    Posted by Friedrich:
    Agreed about the number of divisions, and the impossibility of Sealion in 1940. But assuming there is no war with the USSR(although likely there would have been one ;) ) then with a shift to total war I can see a successful invasion by 1942. Of course, if the USA manages to send troops to England, then never mind.

    [ 02. November 2002, 05:13 PM: Message edited by: dasreich ]
     
  17. Kai-Petri

    Kai-Petri Kenraali

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2002
    Messages:
    25,099
    Likes Received:
    1,805
    Location:
    Finland
    Some interesting points to know and discuss:

    In "Ostfront" by C. Winchester

    " The roads in Russia were even worse than OKH planners had assumed and total fuel consumption rose to 330 000 tons per month, rather than the 250 000 budgeted for. Germany only had two or three months´supply of oil in reserve and it was discovered that captured Soviet petrol was unsuited to German engines (?).

    The army´s head quartermaster, General major Paulus conducted a wargame in Dec 1940 which demonstrated that the logistic arrangements would collapse before the germans reahed the upper Dnepr. However, as the date for offensive drew nearer, the famously professional German planners fudged the logistic plan again and again, persuading themselves that if the army could not sustain a campaign on this scale for six months, then the war would have to be won in three.

    The German army during the beginning of Barbarossa was made of two "armies". A small mechanised force of some 36 divisions ( 21 Panzer and 15 motorised ) and a large unmechanised mass dependent on horse transport.Most field artillery batteries were horse-drawn too.

    Hitler launched the attack on the USSR with about 200 fewer aircraft than he had been able to deploy for the attack in the west 1940. The Luftwaffe had a total of 1945 aircraft available for Barbarossa. LUftlotte 3 had some 660 aircraft in France and Belgium, 190 aircraft were retained for defence of German airspace, Luftlotte 5 was in Norway and 10th Air Corps in the Mediterranean. The total included 150 transports and about 80 liaison aircraft. ABout 1400 combat aircraft took part in the initial attack on 22 June: 510 twin-engine bombers ( Do-17, Ju-88, He 111 ) 290 Ju-87, 440 Me Bf 109, 40 Me Bf 110, 120 reconnaissance aircraft ( Ju-86, Fw 189 etc )."
     
  18. Friedrich

    Friedrich Expert

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    6,548
    Likes Received:
    52
    Well, but I do not think the air war in the East was a major factor in the defeat of Germany before Moscow in 1941. The Luftwaffe swept the Red Air Force completely in 1941 and played a major role in the destruction of the huge resistance bags like Kiev, Minsk, Byalostok and Viazhma. Even in 1942, when more aeroplanes had been lost and transferred to other operation theatres many planes could be gathered in large quantities for the offensive, even if it was more inefficient in 1942.

    More transport planes would have helped the logistic and the wounded men quickly transport, but were inefficient in the supplies transport and a lot more fuel would have been consumed.
     
  19. Erich

    Erich Alte Hase

    Joined:
    May 13, 2001
    Messages:
    14,439
    Likes Received:
    617
    Friedrich :

    I'll poke some reality in your face......the Luftwaffe was still in control over the OST front in 1945. Only because of the general retreat and little to no fuels was there a disbandment and a shuffling of units taking the eastern front German fighters units ever so closer to defendeding the Reich from both invaders.

    E
     
  20. JOL

    JOL Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2002
    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    0
    das, my two cents

    Was War inevitable, of course, one only needs to read Mein Kampf and see how diametrically opposed Facism and Communism is.

    Was Russia preparing to invade? That I don't know, but prior to Barbarossa, Russia continued to ship supplies to Germany under a pact where Germany was to provide military assistance in the way of advanced weaponry designs, joint staff exchanges etc. Germany was only providing the bare bones of there side of the deal in anticipation of going to war. Stalin was so fearful of starting a war with Germany in 1941 that he threatened officers lives who reported buildups and wanted to do something about German overflights on Russian territory. I read somewhere he locked himself in his office for days after the German invasion, debating "surrender or fight", somehow I find it hard to believe after purging his best officers, getting embarrased in Finland and considering surrender early in the invasion that this is a man who was considering invading Germany, by your account he got what he wanted, a reason to fight.

    As far as the pincer to the Suez, I find that such hogwash (and it's mentioned all the time!), take 2 panzer divisions from the Eastern front, get rid of the pinprick of Malta and Rommel could have captured it easily. That "Pincer" theory always smelled of a Churchill conspiracy to get the Americans in the War (Oil), that grew into supposed German grand strategy in many a history book.

    Does the USSR provide Germany with the needed resources, sure but they were getting it for free prior to the invasion, Hitler's mistake was, and always will be, NOT securing his western flank prior to invading.
    But....I suppose an argument can be made that it was better sooner than later...loved your post, good luck on your paper.
     

Share This Page