Could the Germans have won on the Eastern Front?

Headshot

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2002
Messages
157
Reaction score
1
Location
Detroit, USA
Do you think it's possible that the Germans could have been victorious in the East and defeated the Russians? After all they did very well for a long time, often against superior odds.
 

Wolfe Tone

Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2002
Messages
407
Reaction score
0
Location
Dublin, Ireland
Country
llIreland
Absolutely. Germany came a lot closer to victory in the East than most people realize. Even at Stalingrad they inflicted more casualties than they took.
 

Dr Zaius

Chief Defender of the Faith
Joined
May 1, 2001
Messages
8,902
Reaction score
408
Location
The Forbidden Zone
First name
Don
Country
llUnited States
I've read a number of books -- including Glantz's works -- that basically argue that Germany simply lacked the material and manpower resources to ever be victorious on the Eastern Front. But these arguments tend to ignore that fact that anything can and often does happen in war. On paper Germany should not have even been able to do as well as it did. But there's really no way to spin the fact that Germany got the better of Russia for at least the first two years of WWII.

The evidence seems to suggest they could have pulled it off. The larger question is whether Germany would have been economically and structurally wrecked in the process and whether they would have had the strength to hold onto their gains for any significant period of time.
 
Joined
Mar 24, 2005
Messages
444
Reaction score
4
Location
OK
There are a few different pieces involved with "could they have won?" It starts with the obvious, yet profound question "how would one win the war?" Winning isn't always a matter of "taking objectives x,y,z", but can also be a matter of bringing a nation to a state of political collapse. In 1941, the Germans hit the Russians with an incredible sequence of body blows. The Russians lost an incredible amount of men, material and the like. However, the power of the political center (Stalin and his government) remained viable, and so they were able to rally the resources necessary to take the war to the Germans.

Further, there are times where a nation can fall to the collapse of the "national will" (for lack of a better term). Think of it is a catastrophic collapse of national morale. Germany in 1918, or France in 1914 are good examples of that.

Could the Germans have brought the Russians to that sort of collapse? I believe so. I think it was a severely uphill climb, but it may well have been possible. Sure, the Tsar was able to abandon Moscow in 1812, but could Stalin have survived abandoning Moscow in 1941? Yes, much industry was moved, such and so, but the morale hit (not to mention the losses in transportation, remaining industry and population), would have directly challenged the legitimacy of his government.

That said, I don't think that the Germans could have won the war after November 1941. Once Russia "got their feet under them", Germany had lost its only real chance.
 

Dave68124

Elder Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
905
Reaction score
181
Location
United States
Country
llUnited States
There are a few different pieces involved with "could they have won?" It starts with the obvious, yet profound question "how would one win the war?" Winning isn't always a matter of "taking objectives x,y,z", but can also be a matter of bringing a nation to a state of political collapse. In 1941, the Germans hit the Russians with an incredible sequence of body blows. The Russians lost an incredible amount of men, material and the like. However, the power of the political center (Stalin and his government) remained viable, and so they were able to rally the resources necessary to take the war to the Germans.

Further, there are times where a nation can fall to the collapse of the "national will" (for lack of a better term). Think of it is a catastrophic collapse of national morale. Germany in 1918, or France in 1914 are good examples of that.

Could the Germans have brought the Russians to that sort of collapse? I believe so. I think it was a severely uphill climb, but it may well have been possible. Sure, the Tsar was able to abandon Moscow in 1812, but could Stalin have survived abandoning Moscow in 1941? Yes, much industry was moved, such and so, but the morale hit (not to mention the losses in transportation, remaining industry and population), would have directly challenged the legitimacy of his government.

That said, I don't think that the Germans could have won the war after November 1941. Once Russia "got their feet under them", Germany had lost its only real chance.
Completely agree. Germans take Moscow, the odds of political collaspe goes up significantly. I don't know if they could have controlled all of the Soviet Union, but wouldn't have surprised me to see some kind of Vichy type split of Russia between the East and Western Russia.
 

Dr Zaius

Chief Defender of the Faith
Joined
May 1, 2001
Messages
8,902
Reaction score
408
Location
The Forbidden Zone
First name
Don
Country
llUnited States
I don't know if they could have controlled all of the Soviet Union, but wouldn't have surprised me to see some kind of Vichy type split of Russia between the East and Western Russia.
Considering the number of Russians that fought on the side of the Germans, it's not unreasonable to speculate that some sort of split like the one you describe could have been possible. And let's not forget the perception of these two leaders. Hitler was practically worshiped by a large percentage of Germans, and his followers were true believers in that they were willing to fight on even when there seemed to be no hope. Stalin, on the other hand, was widely hated, even by those closest to him. His was a rule based on fear and fear alone. If the Soviet government had been driven from Moscow, it seems entirely possible that the entire Soviet system might have collapsed.

The evidence seems to support the conclusion that the Germans could have "won" in 1941. But could they have won in 1942? I believe victory was still possible at this point, however, the Soviets would still have had to have made all the mistakes they did while the Germans would have had to done a few things different. But a German victory is still not inconceivable at this point.

By 1943 a German victory seems increasingly unlikely. Nevertheless, if some unforseen event had kept the US out of Europe and the Germans had been able to deploy their entire military strength on the Eastern Front, there is at least some chance the Germans may have been able to fight the Soviets to a draw somewhere in Poland. Unlikely, but possible. At a minimum, it was absolutely within their capabilities to have dragged the war out for at least another year if there had been no Western Front. Think of all the air assets that would have freed up. Considering the losses the Germans inflicted on the allies on the Western Front, it doesn't take much imagination to speculate how these forces could have entirely changed the outcome of the Soviet drive into Germany. And if the Germans had slowed the Soviet advance for another year or so, could they have developed an atomic weapon in that time?
 
Joined
Mar 24, 2005
Messages
444
Reaction score
4
Location
OK
Can't believe I said in my first post "France in 1914"... braincramp. Of course, I meant 1940. Sheesh.

Anyway, back to the topic. As I said, I don't think that the Germans had any semi-realistic shot at the Russians in 1942. I think the Russians had stabilized things enough to withstand the worst that the Germans could do. In an odd way though, if they had any shot at all (which I consider to be so marginal as to be unimportant), the Southern strategy may not have been as bad as many people said. The attempt to drive for the Caucausian Oil Fields was actually a strike at one of the most important strategic targets out there. Could you imagine us having to get enough oil to Russia to keep their war effort afloat through the Murmansk route?

That said, I think that the fields were such an extreme case of overreach that it's not really a truly realistic possibility.

Even recognizing that remote possibility, I think the Germans lost even that tiny glimmer of hope when they bogged down at Stalingrad. Not the counterattack and destruction of 6th Army, but they simply could not afford to get into that kind of slogging match at that point. They had to keep it mobile, keep the Russians off balance. Once it settled down, the Russian victory was inevitable. It was just a matter of when and where.

As to the proposed "Vichy" type split, that's pretty likely. At the minimum, the non-Russian areas would be carved off. Some, like the Baltic States would likely have been annexed directly, while things like the Ukraine would have been made into puppets.
 

Dave68124

Elder Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
905
Reaction score
181
Location
United States
Country
llUnited States
Personally, I think they had to get three strategic targets to "win".

1. Baltic States
2. Moscow
3. Oil Fields

If you get those prizes, then I believe Hitler was correct on one thing. The whole rotten house of cards comes down on itself.

Agree with Don's points. Winning in 1942 was still achievable until they moved the Panzers from the oil field drive to Stalingrad which I think at that point a draw was about the best they would do after that. Man power from Siberia had arrived in full force, production was kicked up and supplies started coming in from the West in meaningful amounts. Get the oil fields, at least the Germans had a new natural resource they needed and the Soviets didn't. It also would divert British attention from the Med and probably have put the Gulf in play in a real way.
 

AdrianE

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2003
Messages
913
Reaction score
268
Location
Ottawa, Ontario
Country
llCanada
Anybody who believes Nazi Germany ever had a chance really needs to read Wages of Destruction by Adam Tooze. Once you have read and understood this book you will realize Nazi Germany was colossally F*'d from the very beginning.

Also reading books like Russia's War shows that the average Russian/Ukrainian/Bellorussian/Khazak/etc/etc knew by the fall of 1941 that Nazi Germany's aim was genocide. They were never going to surrender after that.

Dave68124 - Read Glantz's first book of his Stalingrad trilogy. After that you will know why winning in 1942 was not possible.
 

AdrianE

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2003
Messages
913
Reaction score
268
Location
Ottawa, Ontario
Country
llCanada
Will do. Thanks. Care to share some of the arguments?
Basically after you read the book, you'll see that the Germans couldn't rebuild their forces to full strength and couldn't keep them fueled. Meanwhile the Russians had plenty of reserves and kept feeding them into battle.

Its clear that the Russian's poorly handled massed armour but were learning. The Russians were also continually counterattacking. This tied up lots of Germans around Voronezeh.

The German summer offensive of 1942 was spectacularly successful given that it wrote down about 12 armies. However even with that spectacular success, it still wasn't enough.

An important thing to remember is that the German summer 1942 offensive hit the Russians in a sector of secondary significance to them. The Russians deployed their reserves to defend Moscow. When AGC did try an offensive south of Moscow, it got stuffed.
 

Dr Zaius

Chief Defender of the Faith
Joined
May 1, 2001
Messages
8,902
Reaction score
408
Location
The Forbidden Zone
First name
Don
Country
llUnited States
Col. Glantz's conclusions regarding German operations on the Eastern Front tend to be, shall we say, more than a little pessimistic. For many years a lot of the literature on the Eastern Front came from German sources and, unsurprisingly, these accounts tended to filter operations through the lens of the German leadership. Colonel Glantz is one of those that worked tirelessly to document Soviet accounts of the war in order to craft a more balanced view of the conflict. However, in my view he often tries a bit too hard and seems to almost intentionally be trying to compensate by spinning in the opposite direction of the earlier historical analysis.

Hardly surprising. Every book I've ever read on the American Civil War is riddled with personal opinion and bias. Why should the Eastern Front be any different.

I stand by my earlier assessment: The issue was not decided in 1941. The fact that the Germans were able to fight a two front war (really three) as successfully and for as long as they did speaks volumes.
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
The fact that the Germans were able to fight a two front war (really three) as successfully and for as long as they did speaks volumes.
When did they do this? Aside from never. Maybe 1915-1917.

Their prosecution of the Second World War was thankfully inept on any level you care to name - strategic, operational, or tactical. And while they did happen to fight - coincidentally - on a couple of fronts for some periods, I don't recall those periods ever being ones of success. The periods they showed the most success in the field were ones in which they were engaged in operations on one "front" as you say. In 1939, it was the east, in early 1940, the west, and for the briefest of periods, in late 1941 and early 1942, North Africa, though that was primarily an Italian theatre of war which was mostly starved of German resources. Even there, success was fleeting; Rommel messed things up in short order. By late 1942, "success" was nowhere to be found, the Germans were on the retreat in North Africa - what few divisions there were there.

By the time a true second front opened in the summer of 1943, I don't know how you can label anything they did "successfully". They simply staved off total collapse through ruthlessness and brutality. That's not success, nor military skill. It's pig-headedness and criminality. They also owed a lot to lack of military experience among their enemies - which I think speaks well, not poorly, for their enemies.
 

Manilianus

His Royal Fubar
Joined
Oct 18, 2008
Messages
2,607
Reaction score
781
Location
Warsaw, Poland
First name
Michał
Country
llPoland
They were - gladly - farther and farther from victory, when Adolf decided to conquer land instead of focusing solely on defeating Red Army. And this began in late '41. Russia from sea to sea is couple of thousands kilometers wide, you have to have millions of people to make a front line to secure it, and keep it strong.

When Germans relied on their blitz, encirclement, destruction, move on, and so forth, without wasting time on capturing land for the sake of having it, they were on the move. When they have started to conquer Russia instead of defeating Russians, they've lost the initiative, and I think that definetely after first Soviet counteroffensive at Moscow. Not that not capturing Moscow was a key point, but that key point was that very counteroffensive, which maybe didn't stop Germans for good, but it have stopped Russians - from this time they weren't retreating and running into traps, but were on defensive and offensive, as army suppossed to be.

And in 1944 Wehrmacht simply took the role of Red Army in 1941. But it was the consequence of land capturing by far fewer troops than the enemy.

Add to this reppressions to potential collaborators and great many of neutral people, and forcing them to become partisants, sum it up and you have "a victory denied", to borrow phrase.
 
Last edited:

ChrisM

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2004
Messages
1,022
Reaction score
124
Location
Mineola, NY
Country
llUnited States
I'm not even sure about teh political collapse of the Soviet Union if moscow fell in 1941. maybe - but much of teh government was already gone (see Nagurski's "The Greatest Battle". yes - Stalin stayed - and rallied the people, but even if teh city was taken, their would ahve been enough of a government left to function.

And as was observed above - by that point, the Russains knew they were in a war of genocide. I don't know if they EVER would have given in. Taking into account their tremendous advantages in terms of population and resources - a German victory looks increasingly unlikely.

Maybe if tehy capture Moscow and the Russian government in the late summer fo 1941 - and before the depradations of teh Einstazkommandos becomes well known....maybe. But after that, its iffy and afetr December 1941 its pretty much out of the question - Stalingrad or no.
 

Dr Zaius

Chief Defender of the Faith
Joined
May 1, 2001
Messages
8,902
Reaction score
408
Location
The Forbidden Zone
First name
Don
Country
llUnited States
I'm not sure I buy that. The Soviets certainly scored a great victory by stopping the Germans in late 1941, but at tremendous cost. And they were hardly fully recovered by the time the Germans were ready to resume offensive operations in 1942.

Nothing is certain in war. If you look at the Vietnam War from a purely military perspective, the situation appears utterly hopeless from the North Vietnamese point of view. They are tremendously outgunned, outclassed, and generally outnumbered in every way that matters on a modern battlefield. They should have lost the war in spectacular fashion. Yet they did not, largely due to the "friction of war" and the vast number of variables that make every military venture an unpredictable and dangerous undertaking. Real war is not like war gaming, where every factor can be boiled down to reasonably predictable variables which determine success or failure. Sometimes even a force with overwhelming military resources and solid morale can failscade due to brilliant strategy on the part of an aggressive enemy, extreme bad luck, or being hit at exactly the right time and place.

The Soviet Union was a tyranny held together by fear and brutal repression. The fact that the Germans were unable to overcome the Soviets due to the choices they made does not mean it was impossible to do so. Tyrannies have many weaknesses that can be exploited, the Germans simply failed to take advantage of the opportunities that presented themselves. Instead, they pursued a repressive policy of their own that virtually guaranteed a protracted and extremely violent resistance. Who knows what could have happened had they pursued a policy rooted in common sense and designed to achieve strategic goals in their own long-term self interest.
 

Manilianus

His Royal Fubar
Joined
Oct 18, 2008
Messages
2,607
Reaction score
781
Location
Warsaw, Poland
First name
Michał
Country
llPoland
I'm not sure I buy that. The Soviets certainly scored a great victory by stopping the Germans in late 1941, but at tremendous cost. And they were hardly fully recovered by the time the Germans were ready to resume offensive operations in 1942.

Nothing is certain in war. If you look at the Vietnam War from a purely military perspective, the situation appears utterly hopeless from the North Vietnamese point of view. They are tremendously outgunned, outclassed, and generally outnumbered in every way that matters on a modern battlefield. They should have lost the war in spectacular fashion. Yet they did not, largely due to the "friction of war" and the vast number of variables that make every military venture an unpredictable and dangerous undertaking. Real war is not like war gaming, where every factor can be boiled down to reasonably predictable variables which determine success or failure. Sometimes even a force with overwhelming military resources and solid morale can failscade due to brilliant strategy on the part of an aggressive enemy, extreme bad luck, or being hit at exactly the right time and place.

The Soviet Union was a tyranny held together by fear and brutal repression. The fact that the Germans were unable to overcome the Soviets due to the choices they made does not mean it was impossible to do so.
Hard to disagree, Don. But we are all "what-iff-ing" extremely, when asking ourselves the question "could they". Sure, we can add "luck" factor and so forth, but with luck, Russians could even invade Germany in 1941 - Hitler and General Staff dying of heart attack, Wehrmacht disobeying orders, USA declaring war with Grofaz in June and opening second frontline... Even Kiev pocket would not be succesfull if Guderian would not get in time, maybe whole south-central German sector could be then encircled and destroyed. We do not have many more choices than looking on whole of this as from the view of a static wargamer.

Just my opinion ofcourse.
 

Vinnie

See Dummies in the index
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
17,426
Reaction score
3,364
Location
Aberdeen , Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
You can get thrown by Geography sometimes. The way you win a war is by destroying the enemies ability to prosecute it successfully. Destroy his armies and the geography will follow.
The Soviets had a great advantage of space to reteat into and this allowed them time to rebuild and rearm. If the Germans had destroyed the Soviet Armies of 1943 could the Soviets have rebuilt yet again? I'm not so sure.
However I don't think destroying these armies were ever in the capabilities of the German amy.
 

Dave68124

Elder Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
905
Reaction score
181
Location
United States
Country
llUnited States
You can get thrown by Geography sometimes. The way you win a war is by destroying the enemies ability to prosecute it successfully. Destroy his armies and the geography will follow.
The Soviets had a great advantage of space to reteat into and this allowed them time to rebuild and rearm. If the Germans had destroyed the Soviet Armies of 1943 could the Soviets have rebuilt yet again? I'm not so sure.
However I don't think destroying these armies were ever in the capabilities of the German amy.
Maybe, but agree with Don. Had the Germans even simply pursued different policies in the Baltics and Ukraine, I think at the worst, they could have set off an internal civil war in the Soviet Union. But the population was just saddled with another oppressor and better to go with the devil you know.

As for taking Moscow, I think that would have sent ripples through the Soviet political system that might not have been recoverable just because Stalin and Co. moved to the other side of the Urals.
 

Vinnie

See Dummies in the index
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
17,426
Reaction score
3,364
Location
Aberdeen , Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
I agree with the divide and rule concept, certainly they could have rouse Ukraine, Georgia, Khazakstan but it was not in the natureof the regime to achieve this.
Reading Michael Burleigh's Moral Combat at the moment anbd he's going into the reasons why the Thrid Reich ended up that way. It's rightening.
 
Top