True but what I meant was I don't think the Germans were prepared fr the Russian policy of burning their own posseions when the Germans were going to capture those positions.

Originally Posted by Kunikov

An exercise in futility, especially since the essence of Blitzkrieg, is once again, ignored.

How is it ignored? It's impossible to have a successful 2 month campaign in a country as vast as Russia. What happened historically in 1941 was a series of mini Blitzkrieg operations punctuated with traditional keil und kessel or Kesselschlacht operations that were necessary to close pockets and reduce them. I'm sure you know that Blitzkrieg can be maintained for as long as the momentum and impetus exists. I'm not sure why you are so wrapped up in this 6-8 week length which is fine for countries the size of Poland and France but impossible for the largest country on earth.

Originally Posted by MontyB

I really cannot see how a two campaign strategy would have worked given the comparative strengths and weaknesses of both armies at what would have been the end of the first campaign and the start of the second one.

My impression is that the Germans achieved as much as they did by not allowing the Russians a respite and time to regroup and rearm as soon as they were given that chance the tide of the war in the east changed which had to be expected when fighting a nation with such large quantities of resources.

Well, look at what happened historically Monty. Because they chose to attack south instead of another assault on Moscow, the Wehrmacht caught the Soviets off guard and Case Blau was initially as successful as the opening weeks of Barbarossa had been. In my 'what if' scenario, the Germans would again do something like this but without the losses suffered in the Soviet winter counteroffensive of 1941.

My reason for a 2 season campaign is that it is a gamble to a) be able to capture Moscow in one season and b) there is no guarantee that taking Moscow would signal the capitulation of the Soviet regime. Remember what happened to Napoleon. German military doctrine since the Scharnhorst reforms in the early 19th century was to destroy the enemy army in the field rather than capture strongholds - a 2 season campaign would mirror this doctrine.

Originally Posted by Josh678

Well I think the Germans were going on what had worked in France also I think they underestamated the harshness of the Russian Winter.

My earlier quote -Generals Janvier and Fevrier, and the manner in which Russia makes use of them, prepared to make their last stand at the siege and defence of Moscow, is the real miracle that invading armies have been unable to overcome. I was not being flippant. Napolean was right!

Originally Posted by Josh678

True but what I meant was I don't think the Germans were prepared fr the Russian policy of burning their own posseions when the Germans were going to capture those positions.

While the Red Army used a scorched earth policy there was much that was still left for the Germans due to their fast advances in 1941. The Germans themselves used the same policy when they were retreating later in the war.

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

How is it ignored? It's impossible to have a successful 2 month campaign in a country as vast as Russia. What happened historically in 1941 was a series of mini Blitzkrieg operations punctuated with traditional keil und kessel or Kesselschlacht operations that were necessary to close pockets and reduce them. I'm sure you know that Blitzkrieg can be maintained for as long as the momentum and impetus exists. I'm not sure why you are so wrapped up in this 6-8 week length which is fine for countries the size of Poland and France but impossible for the largest country on earth.

Because you obviously ignore what I say which does not match up with your limited knowledge. Blitzkrieg was not used in Poland or France. Blitzkrieg was only really used against the USSR and the essence of Blitzkrieg is a quick campaign, no total war footing, no mobilization of the entire country for a war, but a planned operation by the General Staff which would only take 8-12 weeks. Planning for only 8-12 weeks and stock piles for that long, supplies, etc. What you're advocating is, once again, NOT Blitzkrieg.

Originally Posted by Kunikov

Because you obviously ignore what I say which does not match up with your limited knowledge. Blitzkrieg was not used in Poland or France. Blitzkrieg was only really used against the USSR and the essence of Blitzkrieg is a quick campaign, no total war footing, no mobilization of the entire country for a war, but a planned operation by the General Staff which would only take 8-12 weeks. Planning for only 8-12 weeks and stock piles for that long, supplies, etc. What you're advocating is, once again, NOT Blitzkrieg.

I don't ignore what you say, I just disagree with it, just as I completely disagree with this entire post. I'm not sure where you get your definition of Blitzkrieg from, but it doesn't correspond with my understanding of it. Must be my limited knowledge huh?

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

I don't ignore what you say, I just disagree with it, just as I completely disagree with this entire post. I'm not sure where you get your definition of Blitzkrieg from, but it doesn't correspond with my understanding of it. Must be my limited knowledge huh?

It's either your limited knowledge or simply an incorrect understanding of the term. Blitzkrieg is an operational art which has limited goals and a limited time period during which it can be accomplished. Blitzkrieg campaigns do not last for years. Provide an example of one that does, you cannot, they do not exist.

Originally Posted by Kunikov

It's either your limited knowledge or simply an incorrect understanding of the term. Blitzkrieg is an operational art which has limited goals and a limited time period during which it can be accomplished. Blitzkrieg campaigns do not last for years. Provide an example of one that does, you cannot, they do not exist.

I agree they do not last for years. Please point where I am supposed to have said this.

Originally Posted by Kunikov

Blitzkrieg was not used in Poland or France. Blitzkrieg was only really used against the USSR and the essence of Blitzkrieg is a quick campaign, no total war footing, no mobilization of the entire country for a war, but a planned operation by the General Staff which would only take 8-12 weeks. Planning for only 8-12 weeks and stock piles for that long, supplies, etc. What you're advocating is, once again, NOT Blitzkrieg.

In what respect was the invasion of France and the low countries not Blitzkrieg? Surely if one campaign counted as Blitzkrieg this was it. This was completed within around 5-6 weeks, by-passing stronger forces, severing the means of communication and supplies through the rapid movement of armour supported by aerial artillery. There are some who suggest this was the only genuine use of Blitzkrieg ever successfully achieved. The only flaw was allowing the evacuation of the BEF, and this wouldn't have happened if Guderian had had his way.