Could Germany have won "the Great Patriotic War?"

Strictly a marriage of convenience! For Hitler, keep Russia out of the situation until we are secure in the West. For Stalin, get my share of Polish real estate – which also just might be a buffer once this maniac gets set to attack me!

For an eye-widening experience, check out the film “Alexander Nevsky” (silent B/W) in which Russia is a loosely defined territory, circa A.D. 1000, and this prince Nevsky must rally the people and soldiery to halt an invasion by… none other than the Teutonic knights – wait til you dig the bizarre yet strangely familiar helmets on these early German horsemen! Then there’s the amazing clash of mounted armies on the frozen lake (Ladoga?)

Anyway, Russia has been invaded by swarms from the west since time immemorial. Stalin knew that, regardless of any warmer recent relations. Your point is nevertheless well taken F_alk, because there must have been open and somewhat cozy lines of communication for the secret pact dividing Poland to have been established. And look at relations since 1945: Germany and USSR were always ahead of the rest in doing business across the Iron Curtain. I maintain that geography is destiny: As the main economic power in Europe proper, due in part to its central location, Germany would always be the logical partner with a westward-looking Russia.

((The real way for Hitler’s Reich to have staying power would have been to keep Russia on its side – how about THAT as a topic: how would the African and Balkan fronts have worked out, not to mention the plans to take down Britain, had Berlin-Moscow relations remained cordial? A chilling prospect.))

@ZimZaxZeo:

Strictly a marriage of convenience! For Hitler, keep Russia out of the situation until we are secure in the West. For Stalin, get my share of Polish real estate – which also just might be a buffer once this maniac gets set to attack me!

For an eye-widening experience, check out the film “Alexander Nevsky” (silent B/W) in which Russia is a loosely defined territory, circa A.D. 1000, and this prince Nevsky must rally the people and soldiery to halt an invasion by… none other than the Teutonic knights – wait til you dig the bizarre yet strangely familiar helmets on these early German horsemen! Then there’s the amazing clash of mounted armies on the frozen lake (Ladoga?)

I heard about that movie. Do you know when it was shot? Anyway, in the late WW1, the germans already had that helmet that they used in WW2 as well.
THe movie btw was banned by Stalin during the non-agression time :)
For more info: see
http://www.dvdreview.com/html/alexander_nevsky___ivan_the_terrible.html

so, it was shot 1938 :) … and the lake was Lake Chudskoe called “Ledovoe Poboishche”…

…((The real way for Hitler’s Reich to have staying power would have been to keep Russia on its side – how about THAT as a topic: how would the African and Balkan fronts have worked out, not to mention the plans to take down Britain, had Berlin-Moscow relations remained cordial? A chilling prospect.))

Well, i guess than it would all have looked differently. I guess, we would have had a world of more superpowers then after the war: the US, east-european-asian USSR, central-west european Germany. The question is wether Japan would have done Pearl Harbor, or sticked to it’s chinese war.

Japan’s motives in East Asia hand nothing to do with what Germany was doing.
Japan had been growing their sphere of influence long before WW2.
The Americans had sanctions against them as well.

The motives behind attacking Pearl Harbour was a question of survival for the Empire of Japan, at the time.

what if germany had not attach russia and made peace with th UK?

@F_alk:

@ZimZaxZeo:

For an eye-widening experience, check out the film “Alexander Nevsky” (silent B/W) in which Russia is a loosely defined territory, circa A.D. 1000, and this prince Nevsky must rally the people and soldiery to halt an invasion by… none other than the Teutonic knights – wait til you dig the bizarre yet strangely familiar helmets on these early German horsemen! Then there’s the amazing clash of mounted armies on the frozen lake (Ladoga?)

I heard about that movie. Do you know when it was shot? Anyway, in the late WW1, the germans already had that helmet that they used in WW2 as well.
THe movie btw was banned by Stalin during the non-agression time :)
For more info: see
http://www.dvdreview.com/html/alexander_nevsky___ivan_the_terrible.html

so, it was shot 1938 :) … and the lake was Lake Chudskoe called “Ledovoe Poboishche”…

Right – great link you found there! The director, Sergei Eisenstein, is probably the greatest Russian filmmaker of the 20th century. Yet he was accused by Stalin of, among other things, “nostalgia” and hounded. His most often celebrated film is “Battleship Potemkin” which is built around the 1917 Russian Revolution, and is known for its amazing imagery and editing: one image in particular is a cinematic icon: the baby carriage by itself bumping down the vast stairs of the city hall after the crowd has been fired upon.

Right you are on the helmets – but think of seeing a version as early as 1250!! Talk about enduring design!

@F_alk:

so, it was shot 1938 :) … and the lake was Lake Chudskoe calle “Ledovoe Poboishche”…

“Ledovoe” means made out of ice

There is absolutely no way the Germans could ever have beat the Russians, even if the UK made peace. First of all, Germany’s population was a fraction of Russia’s; with the patriotism in Russia at the time (hence Great Patriotic War) every last man, woman, and child could have and very nearly was mobilized for the war effort. Were the Germans able to do that? The Russians win by pure brute force. But also the Germans never really mobilized their economy; Russia, on the other hand, managed to mobilize a huge economy in a rather short period of time (from virtually nothing, too). Do you know how much steel was being produced everyday in Russia? Tonnes and tonnes. They were pumping out T-34s (arguably the best tank of the was) 24 hours a day every day. Compare this to the hand crafted German designs, like the Pzkw. VI, of which nearly 18 could be made every day, not only did the Russians have a more durable design but they also had more steel on the front. Next, the Red Airforce may have been decimated but that means nothing. Airforces do not win wars, even now. Even the amount of damage done by the massive allied bombing campaigns had a negligable effect on the German economy untill late in the war when they were exhausted anyway. After the initial offensive the Germans were doomed to be crushed under the soviet juggernaut. Even if the forst offensive had worked in gaining Moscow the Russians would never have tolerated foreign rule. Imagine, a massive, disgruntled population that was under the power of a foreign state. I’d have loved to be a German occupying Russia at the time.

@bossk:

There is absolutely no way the Germans could ever have beat the Russians, even if the UK made peace. First of all, Germany’s population was a fraction of Russia’s; with the patriotism in Russia at the time (hence Great Patriotic War) every last man, woman, and child could have and very nearly was mobilized for the war effort. Were the Germans able to do that? The Russians win by pure brute force. But also the Germans never really mobilized their economy; Russia, on the other hand, managed to mobilize a huge economy in a rather short period of time (from virtually nothing, too). Do you know how much steel was being produced everyday in Russia? Tonnes and tonnes. They were pumping out T-34s (arguably the best tank of the was) 24 hours a day every day. Compare this to the hand crafted German designs, like the Pzkw. VI, of which nearly 18 could be made every day, not only did the Russians have a more durable design but they also had more steel on the front. Next, the Red Airforce may have been decimated but that means nothing. Airforces do not win wars, even now. Even the amount of damage done by the massive allied bombing campaigns had a negligable effect on the German economy untill late in the war when they were exhausted anyway. After the initial offensive the Germans were doomed to be crushed under the soviet juggernaut. Even if the forst offensive had worked in gaining Moscow the Russians would never have tolerated foreign rule. Imagine, a massive, disgruntled population that was under the power of a foreign state. I’d have loved to be a German occupying Russia at the time.

The Germans could have easily won. Do not forget Stalin’s first radio broadcast, when he claimed that over 2 million German soldiers had been killed while the soviets had only lost 300,000. this was when 40% of the country was under German control. Had the Germans not diverted their forces so much, they would have simply mowed down the russian army. If the Finns could hold out against the Red Army for a few months with a much smaller army by a 5 to 1 ratio, then if Germany had a better strategy it surely would have won. The Red Army was inferior to the German army in every way except numbers at the start of Operation Barbarossa, but they lost massive amounts of equipment and soldiers in the initial advances of the Germans. Don’t forget that if hitler had been smart enough to keep on producing for the army in 1942 and had not been so overconfident that a German victory would be at hand, the Germans would have had fresh new tanks rolling off the assembly lines ot support their divisions.

Operation Barbarossa was a stretch for the Germans too. They advanced way too quickly and extended their supply lines far too long. The Germans couldn’t have advanced faster becuase they would have run out of ammunition. No matter how fast you make the AFV you still need supplies for it, and those travel just a little slower. Also, thanks to scortched earth, the Germans had to get their food from Poland or beyond, slowing them down even futher. Again, it doesn’t matter how fast an army can move, you still need to get supplies to it. I don’t think you realize that most of Russia has never had any kind of road system, especially paved ones. Not only that, but I’m not sure if you’re aware of Russian geography, but it would have been extremely hard to drive directly to moscow; this is sort of a large marsh directly in the way, and I do mean large, in the area of hundreds of kilometres across. In order to take the sothern half of russia and the forces it contained, part of the German army had to be sent south of the Pripet marshes.

@Mr:

The motives behind attacking Pearl Harbour was a question of survival for the Empire of Japan, at the time.

Well, it was a pre-emptive strike….

@bossk:

There is absolutely no way the Germans could ever have beat the Russians, even if the UK made peace. First of all, Germany’s population was a fraction of Russia’s; with the patriotism in Russia at the time (hence Great Patriotic War) every last man, woman, and child could have and very nearly was mobilized for the war effort.

That was a another “stupid” mistake by the germans. In the beginning, teh people saw them as liberators from Stalin and his bloody dictatorship! In the Ukraine, later there were germans fighting russian(ussr)-guerilla fighting ukrainian(national)-guerilla… three parties, and had the germans not had the doctrine of the “Untermensch”, they would have found valuable allies not only in the baltic states, but in the Ukraine and Belarussia.

But also the Germans never really mobilized their economy;

not until it was too late anyway.

After the initial offensive the Germans were doomed to be crushed under the soviet juggernaut.

Well, you still need coal to make steel, and oil to let the tanks go ….

@F_alk:

@bossk:

There is absolutely no way the Germans could ever have beat the Russians, even if the UK made peace. First of all, Germany’s population was a fraction of Russia’s; with the patriotism in Russia at the time (hence Great Patriotic War) every last man, woman, and child could have and very nearly was mobilized for the war effort.

That was a another “stupid” mistake by the germans. In the beginning, teh people saw them as liberators from Stalin and his bloody dictatorship! In the Ukraine, later there were germans fighting russian(ussr)-guerilla fighting ukrainian(national)-guerilla… three parties, and had the germans not had the doctrine of the “Untermensch”, they would have found valuable allies not only in the baltic states, but in the Ukraine and Belarussia.

just as an aside - when the Germans invaded (both wars), the Mennonites viewed them as their liberators from the brutal and oppressive Russian regime, as well as bands of anarchists which mauraded around the Mennonite villages, killing the men, women and children in brutal ways. In fact, the Germans treated them like long lost brothers and welcomed them back with them to Germany (where they were treated much better, of course). After the war Russia demanded that the Mennonites who had fled to Germany be returned, and so the Germans handed us back over (after all, Siberia needed to be settled some how).
unnecessary history, but it relates to F_alk’s point.

Bossk, however, when Barbarossa failed, the Germans were not beaten. During the Spring and Summer months, Russia had problems fighting Germany, and were hanging on by their fingernails.

The problem with Germany’s attack into Russia was mobility.
The dirt roads and weather were the most disabling factors.

Simply put, Germany did not plan very well at all for the Russian campaign.

@Mr:

Simply put, Germany did not plan very well at all for the Russian campaign.

well if you had the generals run the war

i’ve read that Hitler’s obsession with “the Final Solution” helped lead to the undoing of the Russian campaign (as well?). Basically supply lines ran short, trains were diverted, as were other tools and resources for the managment of the camps and keeping them to their full gruesome capacity. Basically their obsession with Jew/gay/disable/etc. slaughter kept the army from being up to snuff and was quite instrumental in the stalling of the Russian campaign.

@Yanny:

Bossk, however, when Barbarossa failed, the Germans were not beaten. During the Spring and Summer months, Russia had problems fighting Germany, and were hanging on by their fingernails.

The Russians may have had some stratigic difficulties early in the war, due to the purges mostly, but ultimately the Germans had not real chance against such immensely superior industrial capacity (which even if Germany had more aircraft on the front, they could never really touch) and sheer numbers. Stanlingrad was only threatened very seriously in the initial week or two, and even then a victory there would have been rather empty. Leningrad is basicly a completely flat marshland with rather nice weather (for Russia) and yet the germans couldn’t take it even after 900 days of seige. The Germans had lost momentum, after a few days of fighting an enemy that existed everywhere they turned German troops became severly demoralized and lost the will to win any sort of objective except perhaps getting home alive. If the Russians were just holding on with their fingernails, how did they come back mere months later to win such stunning victories as the encirclement of Stalingrad or the Battle of Kursk? Armor and numerical superiority, plus the vast expances the Russians could work with all gave them a definate edge on the Germans, after Barbarossa.

@bossk:

… but ultimately the Germans had not real chance against such immensely superior industrial capacity (which even if Germany had more aircraft on the front, they could never really touch) and sheer numbers.

about the “sheer numbers”: ok, about the immensly superior industrial capacity: i doubt that severely, i have to look it up.
If the USSR had so much more resources, why did they ever have famines etc.? I will look that up though.

If the Russians were just holding on with their fingernails, how did they come back mere months later to win such stunning victories as the encirclement of Stalingrad or the Battle of Kursk? Armor and numerical superiority, plus the vast expances the Russians could work with all gave them a definate edge on the Germans, after Barbarossa.

Kursk was stupidity by the germans. You could easily see what they were buliding up, plus the USSR did a good job on providing false information for german spies.
Stalingrad was a winter battle, and Yanny talked of summer battles.

Also, you cannot deny had it just been Germany vs Russia, well that war would of lasted for many years past 1945. The German Technological advantage was growing every day. It was only a matter of time before the Germans had the Long Ranged Bombers capable of hitting the Russian Industrial base east of the Urals.

Kursk was stupidity by the germans. You could easily see what they were buliding up, plus the USSR did a good job on providing false information for german spies.

Even if the Germans won the battle and destroyed every Soviet tank without losing one of their own it wouldn’t have done much to change the overall war effort.

about the “sheer numbers”: ok, about the immensly superior industrial capacity: i doubt that severely, i have to look it up.

“By the Spring of 1943, the Russians were massing weapons systems that were outnumbering the Germans in the area of 10 to 1 for artillery, 5 to 1 for arm, 3 to 1 for Ftrs and Ground assault aircraft.”

“By December 1941 the Russians were already starting to outproduce the Germans.”

If the USSR had so much more resources, why did they ever have famines etc.? I will look that up though

The stupidity of Stalin.

The German Technological advantage was growing every day. It was only a matter of time before the Germans had the Long Ranged Bombers capable of hitting the Russian Industrial base east of the Urals.

Long range bombing is based on air superiority… simply the Germans didn’t have it, even if they had tech breakthroughs in strategic bombing…
Also you are forgeting that Russian Technological advantage was growing daily. The Russians AFV’s were far superior to what the Germans had, especially the JS series. Imagine if the JSIII had entered into service before the war had ended…