The German invasion of Russia:
Doppleganger
Active member
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.
Doppleganger
Active member
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.
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!
Last edited:
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.
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.
Doppleganger
Active member
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.
Doppleganger
Active member
I agree they do not last for years. Please point where I am supposed to have said this.
perseus
Active member
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.
It the invasion of France had been planned to be a Blitzkrieg then it would considered as such, in fact the Germans planned for a war to last at least half a year. Just because something turned out the way it did doesn't mean that's what the Germans intended. They simply took as much propaganda value from it as they could, so did the French and British, obviously for different reasons.
Doppleganger
Active member
'Blitzkrieg' is a operational-level system not a strategic plan. Please re-read post 62 of mine. In any case, this discussion is becoming increasingly pointless. The Germans used the same tactics in Poland, France and initially in Russia so this all basically nit-picking.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
I think it is a difficulty in believing that the Russians would have given up with the loss of Moscow that leads me to believe that putting the emphasis into AGC and AGS right from the start would have been a better option, I cannot think of any strategic benefit in the capture of Leningrad or Moscow over depriving the Russians of their prime oil supply. I accept that this would have left the Germans with a very extended front if AGC and N failed at any point.
Logistically they are still moving and supplying the same armies (in fact it would reduce the requirements of AGN) all thats happening is AGC's primary thrust is slightly further south than it was historically.
The problem that I see with a two season campaign is that you are taking the pressure of the Russian defense (allowing for the more orderly movement of factories etc. to the east) and because of this the Germans would be fighting a much better prepared Russian army in the second season from further west than they did historically and it is entirely probable that the second thrust would have faltered.
And yes Kunikov I know "WRONG" there saved you a post.
That's right, Blitzkrieg is an operational level concept, but for the invasion of the Soviet Union the German General Staff tried to create a strategic concept from it, hence one of the reasons they lost the war. Once again, read "Blitzkrieg Legend." France and Poland were NOT Blitzkrieg campaigns.
Ollie Garchy
Active member
The Soviet campaign was not Blitzkrieg ... it was Killkrieg. That was the problem. The Germans should have put the torch to the whole of the occupied territories. The Soviets only gained strength through territorial recovery. If no "Soviet" had been left alive, this increase would not have happened. The Germans were too soft.
LeEnfield
Active member
Ollie.......I thought the Germans did their best to destroy every thing they could in Russia as they retreated. They ploughed up the rial lines so that they could not be used, they burnt and blew up every thing they could including peoples houses leaving the people to freeze to death. the only reason they could not destroy it all was that the Russian advanced to fast and that the Germans did not have enough man power to destroy every thing and maintain enough men in their lines to fight the Russians
Supostat
Active member
That's right... They also tried to agitate people to flee in western direction where it was possible, most in non-Russian territories. By use of propaganda like `Evil commies will come and will kill/rob/enslave all of you` (in fact, this propaganda was partly true). From Latvia in such way fled about 200 000 people.
Supostat
Active member
That's true. However Latvians just like Lithuanians, Estonians and Ukrainians fought on both sides that war.