Nazi Germany VS The Soviet Union

[Flashman]

You did no see, sir.  What I’m meaning is that if you capture the “Capital” (city) then you get the “Capitol” (money) as well, understanding?

[cyan]

the captiol is in the capital. you can say Germany attacked SU’s capital but the did not fight over the capitol. VE day was when the Capitol of Berlin was taken because the Soviets already controlled almost all of Berlin.

[Flashman]

Except the Nazis had salted all their capitol away in Swiss bank accounts.

Or do you believe that when Berlin was captured there was a big safe in the Chancelor’s office with “German Capitol; do not spend until next turn” printed on it?

[ezto]

haha u got him flash

[cyan]

@Flashman:

Except the Nazis had salted all their capitol away in Swiss bank accounts.

Or do you believe that when Berlin was captured there was a big safe in the Chancelor’s office with “German Capitol; do not spend until next turn” printed on it?

no it said give to soviets in case berlin is captured.  :lol:

[Imperious Leader]

Cyan:

Both of us know this to be true. Capital is what he was referring too…not Capitol.

But it doesn’t matter really.

[cyan]

@Imperious:

Cyan:

Both of us know this to be true. Capital is what he was referring too…not Capitol.

But it doesn’t matter really.

yeah i know. you could probablly use capitol in the sense of th ebuilding interchanablly with capital but their slightly differnt. but you can’t use it in the sense of money that way.

[Romulus]

Had Moscow fallen before the autumnal rains, Russia had lost every capabilities to transfer industrial production from over the Urals to the Western Front, as Imperious Leader has said. Red Army should have to fight without supplies and replacements, not a good situation considering that winter was coming.

Moreover, if the German Capitol in the Capital (Berlin) was captured the big safe had contained the national gold reserve. However I do not know if German gold was in Berlin and nor I know where Russians held their gold, if they have it.

[Guest]

Do you honestly think there is one “big safe” with all the nations gold in the capital? :lol:

Ours is at Fort Knox, guarded by a whole Division.

[Romulus]

@M36:

Do you honestly think there is one “big safe” with all the nations gold in the capital? :lol:

Ours is at Fort Knox, guarded by a whole Division.

Well… I am obviously joking!  :-D

I only would underline that capturing a Capital should not be evaluated only from a political and economics point of view. A Capital have also strategic, geograpic, and logistic values for his nations.
Moscow fall had hampered very much Red Army struggle to survive in 1941.

[Flashman]

In fact the Soviets already had huge industrial capability east of Moscow; in the Urals, Kuzbas and Kazakhstan.  The “evacuation” program of moving factories from Ukraine and Leningrad to the east is generally overestimated.  That’s why my map has a Trans-Urals territory with an industrial complex, and higher values for Soviet eastern territories.

@Romulus:

Had Moscow fallen before the autumnal rains, Russia had lost every capabilities to transfer industrial production from over the Urals to the Western Front, as Imperious Leader has said. Red Army should have to fight without supplies and replacements, not a good situation considering that winter was coming.

Moreover, if the German Capitol in the Capital (Berlin) was captured the big safe had contained the national gold reserve. However I do not know if German gold was in Berlin and nor I know where Russians held their gold, if they have it.

[Imperious Leader]

By far the Soviets relied in those Western European factories and not as you point out those industries of 'Kuzbas and Kazakhstan"

In 1942 Germany occupied 134.2 out of the total Soviet output of 452 GDP leaving the Soviets with 318 which i can safely assume that the unconquered Area west of the Urals and the Caucasus would make up no less than about 50% of this balance leaving some 150 GDP to be assumed to become the territories east of the Urals. This is a generous statement because the Soviets only truly farming lands, oil refineries and transportation are all found in those areas west of the Urals. Their was no point in establishing Industry farther than outside of German influence because it took time to deploy these items to the front and logically industry needs to be close to the ‘action’.

[Romulus]

@Flashman:

In fact the Soviets already had huge industrial capability east of Moscow; in the Urals, Kuzbas and Kazakhstan.  The “evacuation” program of moving factories from Ukraine and Leningrad to the east is generally overestimated.  That’s why my map has a Trans-Urals territory with an industrial complex, and higher values for Soviet eastern territories.

@Romulus:

Had Moscow fallen before the autumnal rains, Russia had lost every capabilities to transfer industrial production from over the Urals to the Western Front, as Imperious Leader has said. Red Army should have to fight without supplies and replacements, not a good situation considering that winter was coming.

Moreover, if the German Capitol in the Capital (Berlin) was captured the big safe had contained the national gold reserve. However I do not know if German gold was in Berlin and nor I know where Russians held their gold, if they have it.

In fact I am giving the appropriate consideration to the TransUral industries. What I am stating is that Moscow was the central hub of railroad network. The fall of Moscow in German hand, with or without the “big safe”, had casused the impossibility for the industrial products coming from Kazak, Kuzbak, etc., to reach the front.
So the Red Army of Worker and Peasants should have really fought with hammers and sickles.

[Crazy Ivan]

Humbly, I would like to point out, that the diversion of Army Groupen Center to envelop Kiev was not a blunder by the Germans but a necessity. It would have been unthinkable to leave such a huge force on their sourthern flank while they pushed hundreds of miles further with little support to guard that flank. It was protected mostly by the area known as the Pripet marshes, which General Heniz Guderian had just pushed some armor through in the capture of Smolinsk.
Besides, the Army Group South was severely stalled, and needed Centers help. The coal mining fields, wheat fields, and the ports in the Crimea all needed to be captured without delay, and they were all just east of the Ukraine.
Second topic is that of the Siberian Troops. They did not arrive in force until after the snow had already stalled the final drive on Moscow. The Siberians merely gave the Germans a push to give Moscow a little more breathing room. Had the Germans made Moscow the priority in 42 instead of the Caucuses, things could have turned out differently, but this thread is about Moscow in 41, and no I still don’t think they could have done it. the Severe weather and Harsh conditions along with the stiffening resistence of the Soviet workers and soldiers was too much for the over-extended and worn out German war machine.
  The Germans had enough men, tanks, planes and heavy guns to win every battle in operation Barbarossa. They simply could not achieve their goal, (Moscow) before the weather shut them down. Even had they forseen a winter campaign, it was not something the Germans had the means to deal with in 1941. Sub-artic temperatures congeal oil and grease to the point where guns won’t fire and engines will not start. Troops froze to death standing up! The germans lost more men to frostbite in that winter than to enemy bullets, bayonets, and entrenching tools combined.
  Even if they had broken into the outskirts of Moscow, it would have just become an early Stalingrad for them. They were lucky that they didn’t get caught in there, like Napoleon had.
  I’m sorry folks, but I’ve studied the “Eastern Front” or as the Soviets called it,“The Great Patriotic War” for many years and it just was not feasable in 41.
  1942 on the other hand, it was a reasonable goal.
      Crazy Ivan
  and no, I’m not of Russian ancestry, German and English actually.

[Imperious Leader]

Humbly, I would like to point out, that the diversion of Army Groupen Center to envelop Kiev was not a blunder by the Germans but a necessity. It would have been unthinkable to leave such a huge force on their sourthern flank while they pushed hundreds of miles further with little support to guard that flank. It was protected mostly by the area known as the Pripet marshes, which General Heniz Guderian had just pushed some armor through in the capture of Smolinsk.

Yes but the same thing could have been achieved if they took Moscow first. AGN was must farther eastward and Moscow only had like 90,000 around Moscow in October. Germany could have easily taken it and THEN hooked south to envelop the entire southern area. They would have bagged more than 650,000. Also, the Soviets would have a hard time to cut them off due the Marshlands in between the two armies. Stalin was adamant at this stage of the war “not to give up the cities”. Hitler basically should have reversed the basic goal in 1941 to capture objectives rather than defeat the enemy on the field. That took too much time for a campaign that was designed on the ‘cheap’ to be of 6 months duration. And Germany previously had ONLY engaged in objective based campaigns… and didn’t rely of defeating the enemy on the field head on.

[Romulus]

@Crazy:

Humbly, I would like to point out, that the diversion of Army Groupen Center to envelop Kiev was not a blunder by the Germans but a necessity. It would have been unthinkable to leave such a huge force on their sourthern flank while they pushed hundreds of miles further with little support to guard that flank. It was protected mostly by the area known as the Pripet marshes, which General Heniz Guderian had just pushed some armor through in the capture of Smolinsk.

I agree, but the Blitzkrieg strategy has to be applied completely, i.e. German Army should have to run to Moscow and then attacking from the rear the Red Army on Kiev. German started the campaign with Blitzkireg in mind and then they reversed to pocket and destroy Red Army, and so they failed even in applying their own strategy. Having not a clear idea of how the defeat the enemy is a problem!

[Crazy Ivan]

As you say Romulas, the German High command was all about the Blitzkrieg. And encirclement was very much the key to that doctrine. So, the opportunity to encircle several hundred thousand enemy soldiers was too much to resist. Besides, they must have thought that such a loss to the Soviets would be unrecoverable, and possibly force them to capitulate before winter. I would have had I been there then. Men fight, not cities.

[Romulus]

I think that Blitzkrieg is also about encirclement.
I think that blitzkrieg is also about conquering cities.

But the principal character of blitzkrieg is to break the enemy will to combat. Morale factors are the main key of blitzkrieg doctrine.

Encirclement of russian soldier could have shaken russian morale, a more important achievement than the simple number of enemy soldiers out of combat. From a practical point of view the human resources of Red Army have overcame the problem in an easy way.

I think that had Moscow fallen, Russian morale had received a more serious hit.
It is for this reason that I have said that having German the Blitzkrieg as strategic doctrine they had to attempt the conquest Moscow.

Had this achievement caused Russian defeat?
All of us say no, because we see the future of the conflict: four year later Russian troops entering in Berlin. And probably the war had continued also after the fall of Moscow.
But that was the German objective, a morale objective to be achieved with Blitzkrieg strategy.
Men fight if they feel that there is a hope for victory. If the morale of the men is broken they more probably will run away more than try to fight a battle without hope.

[cyan]

@Romulus:

I think that Blitzkrieg is also about encirclement.
I think that blitzkrieg is also about conquering cities.

But the principal character of blitzkrieg is to break the enemy will to combat. Morale factors are the main key of blitzkrieg doctrine.

Encirclement of russian soldier could have shaken russian morale, a more important achievement than the simple number of enemy soldiers out of combat. From a practical point of view the human resources of Red Army have overcame the problem in an easy way.

I think that had Moscow fallen, Russian morale had received a more serious hit.
It is for this reason that I have said that having German the Blitzkrieg as strategic doctrine they had to attempt the conquest Moscow.

Had this achievement caused Russian defeat?
All of us say no, because we see the future of the conflict: four year later Russian troops entering in Berlin. And probably the war had continued also after the fall of Moscow.
But that was the German objective, a morale objective to be achieved with Blitzkrieg strategy.
Men fight if they feel that there is a hope for victory. If the morale of the men is broken they more probably will run away more than try to fight a battle without hope.

unless teir crazy like the 300 spartans.  :wink: if the soldiers  believe retreated/surrender was unthinkable then they would fight to the death. sorta like the Japanese in WWII.

[Crazy Ivan]

:-o
  Russian soldiers were and still are very dedicated and proud warriors. In WWII, running away was not an option, the NKVD saw to that. Surrender maybe, but not running.
  I go back to the Quote from the German soldier that fought on the Eastern Front; “It was too damn big, It got too damn cold, and there was just too damn many of them”.
Don’t mistake these more or less balanced games we play as what was real in those days. Serious supply problems have always plagued armies that have tried to invade Russia. And the more men and machines that you send, the more supplies you’ll need. And Germany and its’ satillites could only produce so much, which was often not enough for what did get sent to Russia.
    :roll: