Great Patriotic War (USSR in World War II)

Few days before parade :

I am looking for a detailed map of German troop dislocation on the eve of Barbarossa, down to division level.

Well if you think that we polish people were liberated by Stalin, ehh thanks for such liberation and dozens of years of cruel system. Just look at the history of Warsaw uprising? What Stalin did? Stalin was intelligent, smart, the best player of WWII. However, he was evil as Lucipher. He was not a good uncle and CCCP was a cruel system that made a lot of harm to their own people. Just look at the statistics how many russian people died in a working camps. I would rather be in a western sphere like German Federal Republic. Compare it to eastern now. To much propaganda in your brain. Just seek for the equilibrium. Slava!

GarryB wrote:
capturing Moscow didn't help Napoleon, why would anyone believe it would be different for Hitler?

Circumstances had changed. The USSR was an industrialized state in an age where modern weapons and communications were essential for survival. Soon after the start of Barbarossa, German generals pressed for the capture of Moscow. It was an important armaments production center, and, perhaps most importantly, the hub of the Soviet rail and communications system. "Take it, and the Soviets would not only be deprived of an essential source of arms but would be unable to move troops and supplies to the more distant fronts, which would thereafter weaken, wither and collapse." In fact, before Barbarossa German wargamers concluded that "should Moscow not be attained, the result would be a long-drawn-out war beyond the capacity of the German armed forces to wage."
There are two things I can't understand. Considering the importance of Moscow, Stalin should've ordered Zhukov to bring his forces back west right after Barbarossa started, instead of waiting for Sorge's intelligence that Japan would not attack. Even if Japan had planned to attack it was better to lose all of Siberia than Moscow. They could survive the loss of the former better than the latter.
Another mystery: In view of the wargamers's conclusion, why didn't the Germans attempt to negotiate an end to the eastern war after they failed to take Moscow? If said failure meant ultimate defeat had the war gone on, they should've tried to negotiate.

starman wrote:

GarryB wrote:
capturing Moscow didn't help Napoleon, why would anyone believe it would be different for Hitler?

Circumstances had changed. The USSR was an industrialized state in an age where modern weapons and communications were essential for survival. Soon after the start of Barbarossa, German generals pressed for the capture of Moscow. It was an important armaments production center, and, perhaps most importantly, the hub of the Soviet rail and communications system. "Take it, and the Soviets would not only be deprived of an essential source of arms but would be unable to move troops and supplies to the more distant fronts, which would thereafter weaken, wither and collapse." In fact, before Barbarossa German wargamers concluded that "should Moscow not be attained, the result would be a long-drawn-out war beyond the capacity of the German armed forces to wage."
There are two things I can't understand. Considering the importance of Moscow, Stalin should've ordered Zhukov to bring his forces back west right after Barbarossa started, instead of waiting for Sorge's intelligence that Japan would not attack. Even if Japan had planned to attack it was better to lose all of Siberia than Moscow. They could survive the loss of the former better than the latter.
Another mystery: In view of the wargamers's conclusion, why didn't the Germans attempt to negotiate an end to the eastern war after they failed to take Moscow? If said failure meant ultimate defeat had the war gone on, they should've tried to negotiate.

I have an answer only for your last question: because at the core of nazi ideology is racism. And Hitler was convinced up to the end that the Russians are barbarian, inferior Asians, who would never be able to defeat a modern, civilized, Western power. He could conceive the idea of negotiating with the West (US, UK), but never with the Soviet Union.

Svyatoslavich wrote:
I have an answer only for your last question: because at the core of nazi ideology is racism. And Hitler was convinced up to the end that the Russians are barbarian, inferior Asians, who would never be able to defeat a modern, civilized, Western power. He could conceive the idea of negotiating with the West (US, UK), but never with the Soviet Union.

But there were claims of secret Nazi-Soviet negotiations around the spring of 1943. They may be interpreted as just a Soviet ploy to pressure the West into launching the second front soon. But one author indicated the negotiations were serious, but failed because of the German demand for a border on the Dneiper whereas Stalin wanted all his turf back.

Considering the importance of Moscow, Stalin should've ordered Zhukov to bring his forces back west right after Barbarossa started, instead of waiting for Sorge's intelligence that Japan would not attack. Even if Japan had planned to attack it was better to lose all of Siberia than Moscow.

Hahaha... rubbish.

If the Soviets had withdrawn their forces from the east to defend against Germany then Japan could simply have not bothered attacking Pearl Harbour and most of Asia as the oil they wanted would be there for them in Siberia...

The Pacific War would not have happened and the US may never have entered the war.

The British Empire would not have lifted a finger to help China or the Soviet Union except in the European front.

The Soviet Union in the 1940s was much less urban than most of Europe and so the loss of Moscow would have had little effect on the Soviet war effort... the factories of the west were not moved to Moscow... they went further east and once they were in full production... the taking of Moscow was never going to happen.

GarryB wrote:
If the Soviets had withdrawn their forces from the east to defend against Germany then Japan could simply have not bothered attacking Pearl Harbour and most of Asia as the oil they wanted would be there for them in Siberia...

I always thought Soviet oil production was in the Caucasus. Besides, after Khalkin Gol the Japanese had little stomach for fighting Russia. They couldn't be sure Zhukov wouldn't come back to get them again.

The Pacific War would not have happened and the US may never have entered the war.

The Japanese wanted the oil of Borneo and had to get it.

The Soviet Union in the 1940s was much less urban than most of Europe and so the loss of Moscow would have had little effect on the Soviet war effort... the factories of the west were not moved to Moscow... they went further east and once they were in full production... the taking of Moscow was never going to happen.

The German generals certainly wanted to take Moscow and thought it could be done. Moscow was the center of the Soviet transportation and communications system. "Take it and the Soviets would...be unable to move troops and supplies to the distant fronts which would weaken, wither and collapse." In fact, prior to barbarossa German wargamers concluded that if Moscow were not attained, "the result would be long drawn out war beyond the capacity of the German armed forces to wage."

Surprised I always thought Soviet oil production was in the Caucasus. Besides, after Khalkin Gol the Japanese had little stomach for fighting Russia. They couldn't be sure Zhukov wouldn't come back to get them again.

Not just oil... timber, minerals and oil were the primary reasons for the Japanese to strike Khalkin Gol in the first place... when they were soundly defeated they turned south. If they knew all of the Soviet resources had been turned to the west then it would be likely they would try again.

Ironically it was the Rippentrop Molotov pact that was important... when the Japanese found out about this they decided to not trust the germans and so when germany wanted the Japs to attack the Soviets in the 42-43 period, they gave excuses and did nothing.

Besides the Soviets transferred Siberian units in time to defend Moscow... they would not have been able to do much more if they had arrived earlier as the combination of the colder weather and the overstretched German lines meant their impact on the battlefield had maximum effect.

The Japanese wanted the oil of Borneo and had to get it.

Plenty of oil all over Siberia... and Alaska for that matter.

The German generals certainly wanted to take Moscow and thought it could be done. Moscow was the center of the Soviet transportation and communications system. "Take it and the Soviets would...be unable to move troops and supplies to the distant fronts which would weaken, wither and collapse." In fact, prior to barbarossa German wargamers concluded that if Moscow were not attained, "the result would be long drawn out war beyond the capacity of the German armed forces to wage."

Leningrad, Stalingrad and Kiev were also all hubs of communications and transport and when they were surrounded or captured the effect did not seem to be defeat... or simply not able to operate normally because of combat or siege or simply being occupied in the latter case.

GarryB wrote:Not just oil... timber, minerals and oil were the primary reasons for the Japanese to strike Khalkin Gol in the first place... when they were soundly defeated they turned south. If they knew all of the Soviet resources had been turned to the west then it would be likely they would try again.

If memory serves, Stalin knew by September, via Sorge, that Japan wouldn't attack. He then ordered Zhukov back west. If the Japanese knew of this Soviet withdrawal from Siberia by October, or even November, they didn't modify their plans. So maybe they wouldn't have had Zhukov begun pulling out in July. It seemed a new policy was fixed.

Ironically it was the Rippentrop Molotov pact that was important... when the Japanese found out about this they decided to not trust the germans and so when germany wanted the Japs to attack the Soviets in the 42-43 period, they gave excuses and did nothing.

They had a very good reason-- they already had to deal with the US; I'd call that a good reason not an excuse, for avoiding war with Russia.

Besides the Soviets transferred Siberian units in time to defend Moscow... they would not have been able to do much more if they had arrived earlier as the combination of the colder weather and the overstretched German lines meant their impact on the battlefield had maximum effect.

Yeah historically it worked out OK. But what if Guderian and others had been heeded and the drive on Moscow had started sooner? Zhukov could've made the difference.

Plenty of oil all over Siberia... and Alaska for that matter.

Not as easily recoverable as oil from the Dutch East Indies.

Leningrad, Stalingrad and Kiev were also all hubs of communications and transport and when they were surrounded or captured the effect did not seem to be defeat... or simply not able to operate normally because of combat or siege or simply being occupied in the latter case.

But Moscow was the really major hub, not just a local one. I think the reich's pro generals knew what was best to go after.

If memory serves, Stalin knew by September, via Sorge, that Japan wouldn't attack. He then ordered Zhukov back west. If the Japanese knew of this Soviet withdrawal from Siberia by October, or even November, they didn't modify their plans. So maybe they wouldn't have had Zhukov begun pulling out in July. It seemed a new policy was fixed.

Well lets work with what you remember, can we therefore assume that if they did not transfer forces earlier it was because they were not sure Japan would not attack?

Policies change with new information... before the Germans attacked the Soviets any suggestion the Germany was going to attack the Soviets was dismissed as British propaganda trying to get the Soviet Union into the war on the side of Britain or at least to take some pressure from Germany off Britain.

After Germany attacked then any suggestion of further attacks would not be dismissed I suspect.

They had a very good reason-- they already had to deal with the US; I'd call that a good reason not an excuse, for avoiding war with Russia.

They knew about the agreement well before 42 and had already decided to use germany but not directly support her in anything that didn't further Japanese interests.

Yeah historically it worked out OK. But what if Guderian and others had been heeded and the drive on Moscow had started sooner? Zhukov could've made the difference.

History is too complex to make any guesses as to what might have happened.

Better reinforcement of Moscow might have led to the capture of Moscow but it was not Moscow they needed control of, it was the oilfields to the south.

Not as easily recoverable as oil from the Dutch East Indies.

Hahahahahahaha... Yeah... taking on the US navy was easy...

But Moscow was the really major hub, not just a local one. I think the reich's pro generals knew what was best to go after.

Yeah... so they kept claiming... they didn't defeat Leningrad either... why do you think they could so easily take Moscow?

Fighting in large cities is a meat grinder where coordination of air power and armour is not as much use as your ability with a hand grenade and the sharp edge of a shovel.

GarryB wrote:
Better reinforcement of Moscow might have led to the capture of Moscow

I interpret that as increased German focus on Moscow. Seems oddly worded.

but it was not Moscow they needed control of, it was the oilfields to the south.

The first objective should've been destruction of the enemy's military power. Economic objectives would then fall into their hands automatically.

Hahahahahahaha... Yeah... taking on the US navy was easy...

The IJN probably had a better chance against the USN than the Japanese army had against the Soviet army. At least one book opines that Japanese defeat wasn't inevitable by the way.

Yeah... so they kept claiming... they didn't defeat Leningrad either...

The idea was just to starve it out and destroy it not take it.

why do you think they could so easily take Moscow?

I didn't say they could easily take it, just that it should've had priority.

Fighting in large cities is a meat grinder where coordination of air power and armour is not as much use as your ability with a hand grenade and the sharp edge of a shovel.

It wouldn't have been necessary to storm Moscow just surround it, initially with panzer forces. That alone would've put an end to the great hub.

The first objective should've been destruction of the enemy's military power.

The first six months of the war they encircled the vast majority of the trained standing armed forces that was in service at the start of the war.

An enormous amount of obsolete equipment like Polikarpov I-15 and I-16 fighters and T-26 tanks were also destroyed in that period.

The core of Soviet military power was in her people and industry... a lot of the latter moved east past the Urals so occupying Moscow would have no effect upon it.

Economic objectives would then fall into their hands automatically.

It is not about money as such it is about access to needed resources... it was nothing to do with the value of oil or timber or steel it was access to oilfields out of bomber range of the western allies for example.

The IJN probably had a better chance against the USN than the Japanese army had against the Soviet army. At least one book opines that Japanese defeat wasn't inevitable by the way.

The problem for the Japanese was the trade embargo imposed by the British and the US that blocked the import or oil and rubber and other resources. If the Japanese had more brains and less pride they could have made an offer to the Soviets... perhaps even to return territory taken by force in 1905 in return for trade in coal and steel and oil and other materials. The war in the Pacific would never have needed to happen.

The idea was just to starve it out and destroy it not take it.

An admission that they didn't have the time or resources to take everything in their path... why are people so sure they were happy to siege Leningrad but should have taken Moscow?

They tried to take Stalingrad but that was not a battle... that was a baited trap, where their progress was slow but the Soviets let them get more and more of the city until the point where they could not just leave and let it go... all the while building up the resources to encircle and capture the whole city were being built up in secret just across the river.

I didn't say they could easily take it, just that it should've had priority.

But what value would there be in the long costly battle to capture it?

The enormous resources to do that would need to come all the way from Germany.

Capturing the Caucasus would create a local oil source that could be used to greatly shorten supply lines and also supply Germany with oil too.... that would be vastly more valuable than trying to take Moscow.

It wouldn't have been necessary to storm Moscow just surround it, initially with panzer forces. That alone would've put an end to the great hub.

If it is such a mighty hub then why do you think it would collapse faster than Leningrad? Stalingrad was a hub too... and so was Leningrad. And for that matter Kiev. When under siege or surrounded a hub just has lots of channels for material to arrive to relieve that siege/pressure.