Any way for the Germans to win the Eastern front?

[11B4V]

But Lenningrad was initially ole Adolf's first objective of Barbarossa. Then Moscow. But not  both simultaneously. Unless their was a total collaspe of Russian resisitance.

[Viking]

But Lenningrad was initially ole Adolf's first objective of Barbarossa. Then Moscow. But not  both simultaneously. Unless their was a total collaspe of Russian resisitance.

The good'ole Nipponese WWII ability to focus on everything.

[11B4V]

But Lenningrad was initially ole Adolf's first objective of Barbarossa. Then Moscow. But not  both simultaneously. Unless their was a total collaspe of Russian resisitance.

The good'ole Nipponese WWII ability to focus on everything.

Yea, apparently he had a hard time following his own operations directive..lol

[CountDeMoney]

Even if there hadn't been a Smolensk and Moscow fell in record time, there would've been no capitulation.  Moscow to Kuibyshev to Perm...the Hun would've been swallowed whole eventually by patriotic workers and peasants.

[CountDeMoney]

Anyway, the cooler question to answer, besides if there were any real way for the Germans to win (which there wasn't), would be: what if Stalin's plan for his own eventual attack got the drop on Hitler and the Soviets pushed east first in late summer of 1941?

[11B4V]

Anyway, the cooler question to answer, besides if there were any real way for the Germans to win (which there wasn't), would be: what if Stalin's plan for his own eventual attack got the drop on Hitler and the Soviets pushed east first in late summer of 1941?

Interesting. Are the Germans in the midsts of their Barbarossa build-up when Stalin gets froggy?

[Darth Wagtaros]

Anyway, the cooler question to answer, besides if there were any real way for the Germans to win (which there wasn't), would be: what if Stalin's plan for his own eventual attack got the drop on Hitler and the Soviets pushed east first in late summer of 1941?

I'm guessing the British would have found common cause with their fraternal Germanic cousins. 

[Malthus]

Ok, but how do they do that? Weren't they basically forced to halt their central thrust towards Moscow because of logistical constraints? The turn south turned out pretty well for them didn't it?

I was not aware it was because of logistical constraints, but strategic ones.  And all it may have taken is having their army equipt for winter action.

Or invading earlier. If Germany started the invasion even a few weeks earlier, they could have arrived much closer to Moscow before the autumn rains started. The original invasion date was in may, IIRC, and it was delayed because of the Balkans campaign. Also, once the invasion began the army group aiming for Moscow was at some point diverted southwards to support the campaign in Ukraine, which delayed their advance towards Moscow.

Also, the nazis had no problem justifying the cuddling of slavic populations when it suited their needs, so they could have done the same in Ukraine if they wanted.

Story I've heard is that the "the Italians (fatally) delayed 'em" account is pretty much a myth - that because of a late spring Rasputitsa, the invasion could not have been launched earlier than it was.

Still wouldn't they be in a better position if they hadn't had to wast men and supplies on a pointless Balkan campaign?

Aside from Crete, which while the Germans won essentially destroyed their crack airborne troops, the Germans used very little in the way of resources in the Balkan campaign.

If anything it had major benefits for them, not the allies - as the British foolishly committed resources they could not afford to support the Greeks, impairing their N. African campagn to do so.

I sorta suspect the whole "it threw the Barbarossa timetable off" thing is a bit of hindsight to make the British strategic foolishness look better than it was.

[derspiess]

Anyway, the cooler question to answer, besides if there were any real way for the Germans to win (which there wasn't), would be: what if Stalin's plan for his own eventual attack got the drop on Hitler and the Soviets pushed east first in late summer of 1941?

Where exactly would he have pushed?  Alaska?  The Pacific Ocean?

[Ideologue]

I guess it would settle the North/South debate between the IJA and IJN.

[The Minsky Moment]

Anyway, the cooler question to answer, besides if there were any real way for the Germans to win (which there wasn't), would be: what if Stalin's plan for his own eventual attack got the drop on Hitler and the Soviets pushed east first in late summer of 1941?

Where exactly would he have pushed?  Alaska?  The Pacific Ocean?

All the way around to France.  Can't trust the Allies to start the second front.

[Tonitrus]

Anyway, the cooler question to answer, besides if there were any real way for the Germans to win (which there wasn't), would be: what if Stalin's plan for his own eventual attack got the drop on Hitler and the Soviets pushed east first in late summer of 1941?

Interesting. Are the Germans in the midsts of their Barbarossa build-up when Stalin gets froggy?

Or how about a "Hitler dies (plane crash or assassination) in 1938" (sometime after the annexation of Austria) and Chancellor Goering chooses diplomatic schmoozing over war.

Presuming Himmler doesn't decide to off the fat man and take over himself.

But either way, all that, and then Stalin invades...

[Capetan Mihali]

Aside from Crete, which while the Germans won essentially destroyed their crack airborne troops, the Germans used very little in the way of resources in the Balkan campaign.

I went to the German military cemetery on Crete.  Only historical war thing I've ever been to, except a couple minor US Civil War sites.  It was surprisingly moving.  Though filled with a lot of platitudes about working for peace, which I'm sure would not impress the Languish crowd.

The old man we were staying with made me engage in an extended colloquy in broken English about how terrible Bush is (this was 2005), then showed me all of British military awards and described killing a German paratrooper with a pitchfork when he was 14. 

[Viking]

Aside from Crete, which while the Germans won essentially destroyed their crack airborne troops, the Germans used very little in the way of resources in the Balkan campaign.

If anything it had major benefits for them, not the allies - as the British foolishly committed resources they could not afford to support the Greeks, impairing their N. African campagn to do so.

I sorta suspect the whole "it threw the Barbarossa timetable off" thing is a bit of hindsight to make the British strategic foolishness look better than it was.

The issue with the Luftlande Troppen is not that Crete destroyed them. You have them fighting as light infantry for the rest of the war, at Cassino among other places. It's rather that Crete convinces Hitler that mounting airborne attacks is really really stupid. The allies, not knowing the german casualty rate, learn the lesson that paratroopers can jump significant geographical obstacles and fight and win battles after landing; or at least hold the positions they sieze immediately after landing.

[MadImmortalMan]

What's the strategic rationale for attacking Crete in the first place?