PDA

View Full Version : Didn´t Hitler want to capture besieged Leningrad?


2RHPZ
09-16-2005, 05:50 PM
Hitler tried to starve Leningrad

Hitler did not want to capture besieged Leningrad in World War II, but tried to starve its citizens to death, a new book by a German historian says.

St. Petersburg was known as Leningrad during the war.

Released in Germany this summer, the book “Das Belagerte Leningrad” by JÚrg Ganzenmßller challenges the Soviet view of the Siege of Leningrad that the city was not taken because of heroic resistance by citizens and the Red Army. That view still dominates in Russia today.

Ganzenmßller set out to provide an unbiased and balanced picture of the genocide committed against the people of Leningrad, saying that German silence over the horrors committed in its name and Soviet propaganda have distorted the reality about the siege.

On Sept. 8, 1941, Leningrad seemed about to fall. German troops captured Schlßsselburg and closed their ring around Leningrad.

The city was cut off from all land access. German armies had advanced toward Leningrad from the south while their Finnish allies approached from the north. In the east and west Lake Ladoga and the Gulf of Finland formed natural obstacles.

Yet, at that point Hitler issued the command to stop short. What followed was one of the cruelest chapters in the history of the World War II: German troops laid siege to Leningrad, at that time with 3.2 million inhabitants the second-largest city of the Soviet Union. Almost 900 days, from Sept. 8 1941 to Jan. 27, 1944, Leningrad was in the grip of Nazi Germany. Hundreds of thousands of citizens — some say 1 million people — fell victim to starvation, disease exposure and enemy action.

Why did Hitler hold the German troops back to take Leningrad? Why did Hitler turn down the military and political triumph of conquering the city of the October revolution?

Ganzenmßller looked into these and other questions.

As early as in April 1941, two months before Germany invaded the Soviet Union, the Third Reich’s Food Ministry reported that “the problem of supplying Leningrad with an appropriate amount of food cannot be solved, should it fall into our hands.”

Two months later, Hitler’s propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels wrote in his war diary: “It is impossible to say what will happen to these people in the near future. I am anticipating a catastrophe the dimensions of which are entirely unpredictable”.

Ganzenmßller makes the case that Hitler and his generals were not interested in capturing Leningrad. The Nazi policy of expansion was directed toward capturing territory, but made no considerations about the people living there.

The Nazis’ Generalplan Ost of 1942 envisaged the massive relocation and extermination of peoples west of the Urals and the Germanization of these territories with “Aryan” settlers. It was assumed that Leningrad, or Ingermanland as it was then be called, would be the residence for 200,000 German settlers in 1942. It made no mention of the fate of the 3 million Leningraders.

However, Hitler’s invasion of Soviet Russia did not go according to plan. In the fall of 1941, Operation Barbarossa — the code name for Nazi German’s invasion of Russia — had stalled and the food supply for the German troops was getting short as winter approached. For Nazi Germany, Leningrad’s civilian population presented a concrete problem that needed to be solved.

On Sept. 29, 1941, Hitler announced his solution: “Requests from the city to surrender will be rejected because the problem of the remaining presence and nourishment of the population cannot and should not be solved by us. We have no interest in caring for even part of the population in this struggle for existence.” He later added that “a capitulation of Leningrad or later Moscow is not to be accepted, even if offered by the opposite side. ... No German soldier should enter these cities.”

ARMY WAS MORE IMPORTANT

Stalin was determined to hold the city at all costs. Though he first had inwardly written off the city, he regained hope after the Soviet front stabilized. Leningrad had too great a strategic significance to be sacrificed easily.

“[Stalin] regarded the situation as disastrous,” leading Soviet military strategist Georgy Zhukov said after a meeting with the dictator in September 1941. “He said that Leningrad would obviously fall within the next days. If Leningrad fell, however, the Germans would unite with the Finns and there would emerge a highly dangerous arrangement, creating a menace even to Moscow.”

Zhukov, who would in 1945 deliver the deathblow to the Nazi beast in its lair in Berlin, was dispatched to galvanize Leningrad’s demoralized defenders. The Red Army made several unsuccessful counterattacks.

The Soviet leadership assumed that the German troops would attempt to storm Leningrad as soon as possible. Therefore, when the ring closed around the city, the Soviets continued evacuating industrial plants and factories.

The priorities during the evacuation reflected clearly the maxim of Soviet valuation: machinery and raw materials were more important than human beings.

In order to avert the impending humanitarian catastrophe, the Soviets changed their strategy.

On Jan. 17, 1942, the decision was made to start evacuating large numbers of people quickly. This meant that skilled workers and their families were taken out of the besieged city first; refugees and wounded soldiers were the last to be evacuated.

Contrary to the heroic descriptions of Soviet propaganda, the evacuation went off in a highly chaotic and disorganized way.

As the Soviet leadership had failed to work out a strategy for evacuating the population of Leningrad, improvisations led to fatal mistakes that Soviet historians were eager to cover up after the war.

The first children moved out of Leningrad were sent in the wrong direction, toward the advancing German troops.

Ganzenmßller estimates that between 1.3 million and 1.75 million people were evacuated during the siege. Those remaining in the besieged city had to endure the nightmare conditions of a daily fight against famine and death.

Trapped in Leningrad

After the German troops had closed their ring around Leningrad, the only access to the city was across the Lake Ladoga, later dubbed the Road of Life. Yet in the early stages of the siege the Red Army had neither sufficient transport capacities nor logistic know-how to supply enough food to the starving inhabitants of Leningrad. What is more, the winter of 1941-42 was the harshest in decades. People were dying in appalling numbers.

“Whenever we walked somewhere we just stepped over corpses on our way and by this time we were numb to this,” Ganzenmßller quotes Nina Volodina, who was 10 years old in 1941, as saying.

The distribution of food rations was based on the same system as in the Soviet urban centers in the 1930s. In other words, workers got higher portions than white-collar staff and workers of significant factories more than workers of less significant ones. In addition, workers had access to canteens and special shops and often received additional food cards.

The food rations provided by the city were barely enough for survival, especially for people not employed at a local factory. Thus, individual strategies for survival were developed, often with fatal consequences. “They boiled leather belts, made soup from joiner’s glue or scratched glue from wallpapers ... . Pancakes made of mustard seeds were so extremely hot that they ate away your bowels,” Ganzenmßller writes.

People also used semi-illegal and illegal methods to obtain something edible. During the first war winter, 818 people were arrested for theft, 586 of whom were soldiers. Some factories registered “dead souls” to get more food. At the Stalin Factories, for example, 729 workers were registered — but 124 of these were dead, another 107 had been evacuated from Leningrad, 70 served in the army and 21 were in police custody.

The loss or theft of the daily bread ration was a tragedy because the city council would not make good the losses.

“At 6 a.m. we were all running for bread. I arrived at the bakery and what should I see? — a fight. ... . They were kicking a boy who had snatched away someone’s bread. And I started kicking him, too — ‘how could you?’ we had not had bread for three days! And guess what, I do not know how but I got hold of his bread, I put it into my mouth and — it is beyond comprehension — I kept kicking him,” one boy recalled.

Unbearable hunger drove some people to eat cats, dogs and even human beings. During the 900-day siege, 1,500 people were convicted of cannibalism — a fact often covered up by Soviet propaganda.

The then 16-year-old Yura Ryabinkin remembered the days of the great famine in Leningrad in his diary. “I ate a cat, stole food out of Anfisa Nikolayevna’s pots, stole every spare bread crumb from Mom and Irina — I cheated both of them — cursed and fought at the entrances to shops to get in and buy 100 grams of butter.”

EVERYTHING FOR THE FRONT

After the war, Soviet propaganda never tired of depicting the heroic defensive battle of the besieged city in the brightest colors. According to Soviet historiography, the people of Leningrad did everything possible to support the front and arms production never ceased. Yet the reality diverged to a great extent from the myth created by the Soviet leadership.

In the winter of 1941/42, there was no electricity and the productivity of the city fell almost to zero. “We wanted to work but there was no electricity. Our boss said: ‘Sit down and wait.’ At first, we sat there for several hours [each day], but the electricity was not on ... . We went more and more rarely to work; we were working only intermittently,” Ganzenmßller quotes one worker as saying.

Due to the constant shortage of food many people were too weak to show up at their work places. “Nobody was running, everyone was walking slowly and could barely lift their legs. Someone with a healthy and young body can hardly imagine such debility,” a young man wrote in his diary.

Another diary entry by a worker at the Izhora factories said: “21.1.42. We are sitting here and are starving. 22.1.42. the same ... . 1.2.42. I have recovered some strength and started working though I am only able to walk slowly and with a stick.”

As men had to serve in the army and skilled workers had been evacuated, factories soon faced a labor shortage. Most workers were adolescents and women. The lack of qualified and trained workers led to great losses and the army’s needs were barely fulfilled.

Lifting the siege

After the disastrous winter of 1941/42 Hitler and his supporters planned to draw the ring tighter around the besieged city, which would have killed many more civilians. But they failed and the Red Army forced the German troops more and more onto the defensive.

Finally, in January 1943, the Red Army forced open a small corridor at Schluesselburg. From then on, the inhabitants could be supplied with food and everyday goods. Soon, food rations were raised to above survival level and life in the city normalized.

The siege would drag on for another year until on Jan. 27, 1944, when Leningrad celebrated the lifting with artillery salutes.

Ganzenmßller writes that while in Germany the 900-day siege remained a chapter hardly ever opened by historians and politicians, the Soviet Union transformed the siege into a glorified myth of heroism and patriotism.

While survivors remember the siege as a time of famine, plight and struggle for survival, the Soviet leadership depicted it as a heroic epic. Under Brezhnev, the siege was promoted as a cult and monumental memorials to the heroes of the siege were erected all over the country.

In post-communist Russia, little has changed. In historical interpretations the Soviet version of a Red Army forcing the German troops to a halt in front of the city and their heroic defense battles prevail.

These interpretations, however, are blind to the fact that Hitler and his generals were not eager to capture Leningrad but intended to starve the city.

A glorified myth on the one side and an ignored chapter on the other side: in neither version is the 900-day Siege of Leningrad depicted as what it actually was: a cruel genocide against hundreds of thousands of people, Ganzenmßller concludes.

Link (http://www.sptimes.ru/story/15365)

Thor
09-16-2005, 09:08 PM
Ok, but I don't see anything new here.. It has always been a well known fact that Hitler didn't see any reason to capture Leningrad (with great casualties) and instead thought it was a good idea to starve them out.

Still one might think the force used for the siege could have been useful for the push towards Moscow..

Lokos
09-16-2005, 11:54 PM
Still one might think the force used for the siege could have been useful for the push towards Moscow..

LOL.

Thor, when you don't know anything about the subject in question, just don't comment. There's a good lad.

Lokos

GazB
09-17-2005, 12:16 AM
The Siege of Leningrad has pretty much always been known to have been a siege from shortly after it started to today.

Whether you call it a siege or an attempt to take the city it failed... either way.

Really don't see anything new here.

2RHPZ
09-17-2005, 05:28 AM
Still one might think the force used for the siege could have been useful for the push towards Moscow..

LOL.

Thor, when you don't know anything about the subject in question, just don't comment. There's a good lad.

Lokos

Lokos,

I am glad to see you reading my thread! p-)

CAG 147

Thor
09-17-2005, 09:06 AM
Still one might think the force used for the siege could have been useful for the push towards Moscow..

LOL.

Thor, when you don't know anything about the subject in question, just don't comment. There's a good lad.

Lokos
You are a proven moran on this forum so don't bother open your mouth.

I repeat, the troops and supplies used for the siege of Leningrad would have been useful in the push for Moscow.

If Hitler would have wanted the city taken (and accepting the casualties that would have meant) he would simply have ordered it.

End of story.

Lokos
09-17-2005, 11:40 AM
You are a proven moran on this forum so don't bother open your mouth.

Sorry, but coming from you this is a joke.

I repeat, the troops and supplies used for the siege of Leningrad would have been useful in the push for Moscow.

Is that a fact, now? Explain, in detail, how Army Group Center could have used the detachable formations of Army Group North for a final push against Moscow.

Lokos

VISTREL
09-17-2005, 12:23 PM
Still one might think the force used for the siege could have been useful for the push towards Moscow..

LOL.

Thor, when you don't know anything about the subject in question, just don't comment. There's a good lad.

Lokos
You are a proven moran on this forum so don't bother open your mouth.

you just proved that you're the biggest moron of mp.net....so ****ing stupid, it's unbelievable and laughable...for your own sake stop posting, and making dumbass out of yourself.

wiking
09-17-2005, 09:48 PM
bloody hell. Going from historical discussion to flame war in under 10 posts. Must be a new sodding record this p-)

My knowledge of the siege of Leningrad is minute at the best, but i remember something about the Germans never completely cutting the city of from supplies (think one, or the, problem was that they never cut of Lake Ladoga (?) wich was used to supply the town, atleast when frozen.

But Leningrad was a bad place, i read somewhere (cant guarantee the correctness of this) that Leningrad was the first, or only, place where the besieged (the other would be Stalingrad i guess) turned to cannibalism to survive.

Lokos
09-18-2005, 02:16 AM
(think one, or the, problem was that they never cut of Lake Ladoga (?)

True. But the Lake path was only open for a relatively short period each year. It was not until the relief of Leningrad that the city was properly supplied once more.

Lokos

lunny
09-18-2005, 03:22 PM
Ok, but I don't see anything new here.. It has always been a well known fact that Hitler didn't see any reason to capture Leningrad (with great casualties) and instead thought it was a good idea to starve them out.

true

Still one might think the force used for the siege could have been useful for the push towards Moscow..

:roll:

PeterG
09-18-2005, 06:24 PM
bloody hell. Going from historical discussion to flame war in under 10 posts. Must be a new sodding record this p-)

My knowledge of the siege of Leningrad is minute at the best, but i remember something about the Germans never completely cutting the city of from supplies (think one, or the, problem was that they never cut of Lake Ladoga (?) wich was used to supply the town, atleast when frozen.

But Leningrad was a bad place, i read somewhere (cant guarantee the correctness of this) that Leningrad was the first, or only, place where the besieged (the other would be Stalingrad i guess) turned to cannibalism to survive.

I think Hitler actually divided up his forces too much, trying to go for moscow, the caucasus, and leningrad simultaneously - and thereby getting none of them.Hitler was also far to obsessed with capturing symbolic cities instead of vitally important military objectives.

Luno
09-18-2005, 07:39 PM
Army Group North where the smallest of the three German army groups and they did held a fairly static positions near the Soviet Finnish border.
They did dig miles of trenches similar to World War I so with the static position in the Northern front allowed the Germans to pull needed men off the line for other fronts . and panzer units badly needed elsewhere could be released from group north

so if you ask me there where no way that the German could take Leningrad with that manpower

my five cent :D

duck
09-19-2005, 04:22 PM
Guderian was firmly of the option that once the mobile units of the Red Army had been destroyed in the border clashes the best strategy would be a fairly straight forward advance to Moscow.

The forces defending Leningrad and the heavily forested North Western Russia were as static as Budennys army around Kiev, If I'm not mistaken. The exception being some cavalry units that were not strong enough to seriously threaten the German Panzer divisions.

So what if most of the German infantry and artillery had formed the siege/defensive rings around Kiev and south of Leningrad? Wouldn't that have released the Panzers plus mobile infantry and artillery units to dash all the way Moscow through the Smolensk - Jelnya - Roslavl area? Maybe the battle of Moscoe could have been fought in the late summer of 1941?

Lokos
09-20-2005, 02:43 AM
So what if most of the German infantry and artillery had formed the siege/defensive rings around Kiev and south of Leningrad?

There was never enough German infantry for the job. Holes in the pockets had to be plugged by highly mobile forces. Otherwise, the cauldrons would have just leaked away and thus bolstered the Red Army. In any case, even if we accept that - somehow - the panzer forces could have been substituted by infantry formations, this still does not entail a German capability to reach Moscow by 'late summer 1941'. That's just not practicable in any scenario apart from the one where there is no RKKA to oppose the advance.

Lokos

duck
09-20-2005, 03:24 AM
You mean the Soviet troop concentrations at Leningrad and Kiev could have broken out without fuel, food and ammunition? And how much Red Army troop strength was there on the Moscow fromt in July and August 1941 after the disastrous frontier battles?

Taekwondo
09-20-2005, 05:24 AM
Finns never completed the encirclement as the Germans had planned, and the siege was not "full". This was because of the High Command's orders, not because of opposition. The Ladoga route into the city was open for almost the whole siege. Finnish reports stated that more than half of the transports stopped held weapons and weapon materials, not supplies or food.

Para
09-20-2005, 02:03 PM
If Hitler did not want the city then why did he press his troops so hard to take the place. Also ask your selfs why didn't the Russian's punish Finland like Germany, one of the reasons about this the Fins did not press the attacks in this area and turned a bit of a blind eye to food convoys, the Russians always remembered this.

Lokos
09-20-2005, 03:50 PM
If Hitler did not want the city then why did he press his troops so hard to take the place.

He didn't.

You mean the Soviet troop concentrations at Leningrad and Kiev could have broken out without fuel, food and ammunition?

Yes. It's called exfiltration, and was successfully conducted by both the Soviets (1941-1942) and the Germans (1943-1945) more often than not. It takes a greater number of troops to properly contain a cauldron than are in the cauldron itself. Exfiltration, of course, does not entail expenditure of munitions, fuel and/or food, as the intent is to escape - with or without equipment - by utilising developing gaps in enemy lines. This preserves manpower at the cost of heavy equipment.

On a side note: the Soviet troops at Leningrad were never ordered to attempt a 'break-out', nor were they without food, ammunition and fuel. The situation was not similar to the one at Kiev.

And how much Red Army troop strength was there on the Moscow fromt in July and August 1941 after the disastrous frontier battles?

Considering that STAVKA was rebuilding the RKKA by drawing on incoming reserves and forming armies in the Moscow district, the answer is 'a very large number indeed'. Especially by the time Moscow was actually threatened. In fact, by December, there was enough of a manpower superiority to enable an ill-advised, yet telling counter-offensive.

Also ask your selfs why didn't the Russian's punish Finland like Germany

They did. During 1944. When Finland's forces were put to rout, and Finland accepted Soviet terms, initiating hostilities with Germany shortly thereafter.

one of the reasons about this the Fins did not press the attacks in this area

I do not believe that the Finns ever considered attacks into Soviet territory they recognised as such to be within the scope of their war aims.

the Russians always remembered this.

Rest assured, this was not Stalin's primary consideration in 1944.

Lokos

Taekwondo
09-20-2005, 04:09 PM
Lokos, Finnish troops were not put to "rout" in 1944. They withdrew after the initial offensive but organized and kept fighting back. And finally stalled the offensive in July, and the soviets were unable to break their lines.

Amerikosskiy_xyu
09-20-2005, 10:43 PM
Ok, but I don't see anything new here.. It has always been a well known fact that Hitler didn't see any reason to capture Leningrad (with great casualties) and instead thought it was a good idea to starve them out.

Still one might think the force used for the siege could have been useful for the push towards Moscow..


*pet* *pet* there, you nice little swede wannabe, you have lots to learn.

Lokos
09-21-2005, 05:44 AM
Lokos, Finnish troops were not put to "rout" in 1944.

The regiments that absorbed the initial impact of the offensive were certainly routed. And, were the Soviets so inclined, nothing could have saved the Finns from certain and total defeat in short order. By July, however, well over ninety percent of Soviet resources were directed to Belorussia and Poland, where Operation Bagration was in the process of removing sixty divisions from the German TO&E.

Let's not labour under any illusions, here. The SU did not try to 'conquer' Finland in 1944. It was a show of strength meant to 'encourage' the Finns to join the winning side. And it worked.

and the soviets were unable to break their lines.

Don't mistake operational decisions with inability. Like I said, had the Soviets been so inclined, Finland could have been annexed in very, very short order.

Lokos

duck
09-21-2005, 06:11 AM
Lokos: I think you misunderstood me slightly. I'm just curious as to what your opinion is regarding the Moscow operation Guderian planned for July/August 1941? The number of Panzer divisions would have been smaller and air and artillery support less than it was in late Septmber/early October when the actual Moscow offensive started. Do you see any realistic chance for Guderian to reach Moscow or cut it off from the Siberian reserves if he would have attacked during the summer?

And what about the Red Army troops defending the approaches to the city? Could you provide some estimation how many and what quality troops STAVKA had at Smolensk and around Moscow in July and August 1941? What kind of operations could troops from the Kiev and Leningrad areas have committed if the Panzers would have been kept at Army Group Centre?

Taekwondo
09-21-2005, 06:22 AM
Lokos, don't BS about any soviet goodwill. They didn't invade Finland because they couldn't. The only strategic offensive of Stalin's five such operations to fail was the one meant to invade Finland - being the only one that failed btw.

The Finnish resistance in July 1944 was so intense and lethal for the soviet forces, that in of August they rather dug in at defensive positions than continued their offensive.

After that it was trench warfare for a month until the armistice.

Lokos
09-21-2005, 12:07 PM
The Finnish resistance in July 1944 was so intense and lethal for the soviet forces, that in of August they rather dug in at defensive positions than continued their offensive.

Yeah, sure thing champ. The Soviets were too weak to destroy Finnish resistance. Sure thing.

:lol:

I'm talking with real authorities in the field, here.

Lokos, don't BS about any soviet goodwill.

Who said anything about good will?

And what about the Red Army troops defending the approaches to the city? Could you provide some estimation how many and what quality troops STAVKA had at Smolensk and around Moscow in July and August 1941? What kind of operations could troops from the Kiev and Leningrad areas have committed if the Panzers would have been kept at Army Group Centre?

On 1. September, the Moscow (Western) military district had the following formations available for action:

16th, 19th, 20th, 22nd, 29th and 30th Armies (32 Rifle Divisions, 3 Cavalry Divisions and 4 Fortified Regions). They were supported by 3 Tank Divisions, 3 Tank Brigades, 1 Motorized Brigade, 1 Separate Tank Regiment, 1 Motorcycle Regiment and 9 Separate Tank Battalions.

The Reserve Front (in the STAVKA operational reserve):

24th, 31st, 32nd, 33rd, 43rd and 49th Armies (18 Rifle Divisions, 12 Homeguard Divisions, 1 Fortified Region). They were supported by 4 Tank Divisions, 1 Tank Brigade and 1 Motorized Division.

The Bryansk Front: (formed August 16th)

3rd, 13th, 21st, 50th Armies, Ermakov Group, Akimenko Group (36 Rifle Divisions, 2 Separate Inf. Regiments, 3 Airborne Brigades and 7 Cavalry Divisions). These were supported by 2 Tank Divisions, 3 Tank Brigades, 1 Separate Tank Regiment, 1 Motorcycle Regiment, 2 Separate Tank Battalions.

I'm just curious as to what your opinion is regarding the Moscow operation Guderian planned for July/August 1941?

Hitler might have been a fool as his house of cards fell down all around him, but in July 1941 he did understand that following Guderian's plan would leave a massive concentration of Soviet troops in Gomel and the Kyiv oblast. The decision to turn south and destroy these concentrations of soldiery and materiel was not only understandable, but probably the right one, given the circumstances.

Lokos

Atlantic Friend
09-22-2005, 04:57 AM
Is that a fact, now? Explain, in detail, how Army Group Center could have used the detachable formations of Army Group North for a final push against Moscow.

Lokos

Wouldn't this have made Army Group Center vulnerable to enveloping flank attacks, and placed Finland in a defensive posture right from the beginning ?

Lokos
09-22-2005, 01:27 PM
Wouldn't this have made Army Group Center vulnerable to enveloping flank attacks, and placed Finland in a defensive posture right from the beginning ?

Had AGC continued the July drive against Moscow, instead of turning against Gomel and Kyiv, a strategic flanking envelopment was not only possible, but likely. Both Hitler and his generals were deluded as to the extent of available Soviet reserves and manpower potential - but many of the generals also believed that reaching Moscow alone could end the war in their favour. This is contrasted by Hitler, who also wrongly believed that every encirclement was a big step toward ultimate victory, but who also considered the resource rich Ukraine a bigger and more important prize than the symbolism of Moscow (after all, by September Moscow was already being evacuated, and its most important industries shifted to the East). Had AGC become entangled in fighting for the city itself, it is very plausible that a Soviet counter-offensive from Gomel, Kyiv and a reinforced Western Military District could have destroyed the heart of the Wehrmacht in one fell swoop.

Lokos

duck
09-22-2005, 07:36 PM
I have to disagree to some extent. Werent the Red Army divisions at Gomel and Kiev lacking fuel and leadership to try serious offensive maneuvers? What I'm looking for if they could be contained by just German infantry and artillery?

Would it have made sense for the Germans to put their whole strength in the south and attack the Caucasus oil fields and Stalingrad already in 1941 instead of Moscow? I.e stop at Smolensk and try to keep it over the winter and put the Panzer strongpoint on the Southern Front.

Of course this all comes down to if the Germans ever had a chance of even a stalemate or were they doomed from the beginning of Barbarossa?

Lokos
09-23-2005, 04:04 AM
Werent the Red Army divisions at Gomel and Kiev lacking fuel and leadership to try serious offensive maneuvers?

Fuel, perhaps. Leadership, no. Kirponos, for example, was a very capable leader in the Kyiv MD. The lack of fuel was also a very temporary problem. At the time, these Soviet divisions were not cut off from supply - only lower down on the prioritisation tables. Had a strategic counter-offensive been planned in the region, they would have been resupplied. Besides, all they would have to do is move into the rear of AGC's operational elements. That action alone would have cost the Germans dearly, had they insisted on pursuing the Moscow objective.

What I'm looking for if they could be contained by just German infantry and artillery?


Never enough infantry or artillery for the job. Besides, infantry is very unsuited for maintaining an encirclement. Of course, what you are talking about is not simply maintaining an encirlement, but creating one in the first place (which the panzer formations could not do if they were to continue the offensive against Moscow). This is nigh impossible without mobile elements to seal gaps and assure the degradation of the opponent's ability to offer resistance.

Would it have made sense for the Germans to put their whole strength in the south and attack the Caucasus oil fields and Stalingrad already in 1941 instead of Moscow?

Do you mean, should they have, uppon reaching Smolensk, have attempted to shift the axis of their advance to the South completely, and funnelled both AGC and AGS into a Caucaus offensive? It wouldn't have helped. At all. The shift, alone, would have taken anywhere between two and three weeks to complete on any scale. The construction of the infrastructure to support that force level on a much narrower front would have taken just as long. And time was not on the Wehrmacht's side. Every day spent refitting, recouperating, resting and otherwise not destroying the Red Army was a day used by the RKKA to restore and enhance combat capability.

Of course this all comes down to if the Germans ever had a chance of even a stalemate or were they doomed from the beginning of Barbarossa?

Look, a lot of different authorities have their own answers to this question. Personally, IMHO, if the destruction of the border MD's did not settle the war, it was as good as lost for the Germans. I'll put it to you this way: Barbarossa, until the very moment of its failure, was the most specatcular and the most successful offensive ever conceived of and conducted by the hand of man.

It went better and with fewer casualties than the Wehrmacht had dared to hope for.

And, yet, it failed miserably. The Soviets had the worst luck imaginable in that Hitler guessed, almost to a month, the period during which the SU was going to be at its weakest. Yet, even at its weakest, its potential far outstripped that of the GGR. If the Germans could not destroy that potential in the first weeks and months of the war, it was going to consume them. And consume them it did.

Lokos