Been thinking about the role Leningrad played in World War Two. I would like your thoughts.
It would have been key to unlock formations in northern Finland and the bottleneck of units near the city. These could be released to press on Archangel and deny lend lease. Also it would cut the natural defense of the swamps and rugged terrain and forced alot more Soviet forces to meet it in more fertile land which would give unique advantages to the Germans who were superior in open country and could emphasize warfare based on mobility. As it was became a WW1 trench war and that neutralized the axis even though they had the qualitative advantage. Now with open country Moscow would have more pressure on it and more problems for Ivan.
It seems to me that possession of Leningrad would have helped the German supply lines in the campaign. This may then have given a boost to the northern groups, or the extra effort could be redirected to other efforts on the Eastern front. Ultimately, I think it would have lengthened the war, but I am not sure if it would have been by much. I don’t see how capturing Leningrad would have had much effect on either the Allied invasion of France or the war in the Pacific. It may have changed the cold war, though.
Germany lost the war the day they attacked Russia.
End of discussion.
People with another opinion are ignorant retardet morons.
Germany lost the war the day they attacked Russia.
End of discussion.
People with another opinion are ignorant retardet morons.
Interesting, Aldertag. At last, something that we can agree on.
Germany lost the war the day they attacked Russia.
i think this is true, i dont think germany could ever have conquered russia, given the superior numbers of hardware and supplies of oil and raw materials that russia could call upon, i think russia was hitler’s first priority, and could not afford to wait any longer to let russia build up it’s armor. in response to the question, i think only the capture of moscow, and the destruction of the red army could have taken russia, if russia had fallen under nazi occupation i think the war would have continued for many more years.
I don’t think so either even though Russia was defeated by Germany in WW1, when Lenin was released from Prison to poison pill the Imperial aristocracy and the much weaker Imperial German army produced setback after setback militarily for the Czar influencing the further political changes that eventually weakened and toppled the political leadership.
Hitler could have produced the same exact result quite easily, but ignorance truly is looking at the result with the myopia that nothing else could have been done because of what happened. Thats tunnel vision and false conclusions based on misinterpretation of these events.
IN October 1941 Stalin asked Hitler for his terms for Armistice and again latter the following month. Stalin asked Zhukov if he can hold Moscow about Oct 18th and Zhukov said he could, but what if he didn’t say this, or if Hitler didn’t sent units heading to Moscow to move against Kiev? Zhukov only said this because Hitler already made his decision, so it was easy to say he can hold because huge military formations heading to Moscow were now moving south.
Or Hitler didn’t make his invasion a crusade against Communism and just fight that and liberate the Slavic people. It was clearly Hitlers war to lose and the Soviets had little part in their fate. It was Hitler that made his mistakes.
Its a simple thing to make claims just to back up propaganda and hatred of the enemy. But its rubbish to simplify like this.
and consider:
In an alternate universe based on what science knows about the possibility of parallel realities based on an infinite universe; I can guarantee that this was repeated somewhere else in the universe and the result was different. And it was different and the same result an infinite number of times before and since. Think about it.
the political leadership of russia may have been toppled, russia was never conquered during wwI .
my understanding is that hitler thought that he had to take the ukraine in order to gain supplies of food and materials nescessary for the continuation of the war further to the east.
i dont think the armies that were sent by hitler to attack kiev would have been enough to capture moscow.
the nazi leadership had vast resources and armor, which could not be sustained to their end without conquering every nation that was in their path, and taking control of every resource that nation had, to use for the nazi pursuit of total world domination and the destruction of any person or people who stood against them.
leningrad was very important in terms of the war, for the people of leningrad to hold out against the siege and continue to supply their front lines with supplies, while surviving on very little food and stopping the enemy from taking their city, supply centres and resources was severely damaging to the enemys advance and intention to occupy their nation.
the political leadership of russia may have been toppled, Russia was never conquered during wwI .
The military setbacks directly led to the political instability because the soldiers gave up hope for victory and mutiny was rampant. If the Russians did well enough the Czar would have wielded more power to stabilize his army. Its the very same thing that happened to the Imperial German army in 1918 and its kreigsmarine that mutiny was everywhere, because the war was not going well enough. The Russians actually refuted the original German proposal and the Germans marched in as far as smolensk and near St Petersburg, until they accepted terms.
my understanding is that hitler thought that he had to take the ukraine in order to gain supplies of food and materials nescessary for the continuation of the war further to the east.
Hitler thought alot of things and changed his priorities many times and always invariably making the worst decision, except the stand order of no retreat in the winter of 1941, but this was after she lost her chance to end the war. Hitler should have let Manstein run the war and it would have been over.
i don’t think the armies that were sent by hitler to attack kiev would have been enough to capture moscow.
The Germans had wasted Guderians talents for 2 weeks when they were like 50 miles away, then sent the best mobile force south. Stalin’s posture during the period was to hold the cities and Kiev was the major city for Ukraine, so the capture of Moscow would have also led to the loss of the same Soviet armies at Kiev after Guderian would hook south.
Also after Vyazma, the Germans had clear superiority over the forces in front of Moscow.
@Imperious:
The Germans had wasted Guderians talents for 2 weeks when they were like 50 miles away, then sent the best mobile force south. Stalin’s posture during the period was to hold the cities and Kiev was the major city for Ukraine, so the capture of Moscow would have also led to the loss of the same Soviet armies at Kiev after Guderian would hook south.
if army group south had advanced on moscow and not won a quick and descisive victory in the ukraine, and in the process
defeating up to 1/5th of the soviet army which was operational at that time. they would have reached moscow sooner and with greater numbers which would have increased the chance of taking moscow, however this would have left the axis forces trapped between the moscow defensive line and facing an attack of up to 500,000 soviet troops from the ukraine that would have been well armed and capable of seriously undermining an axis offensive on moscow. furthermore considering the onset of winter and the slow progress that the armed forces of nazi germany was making toward the ultimate goal of operation barbarossa, and the fierce resistance they faced, army group south would have suffered the same same fate as army group centre, and been forced back from moscow, and would never have reached kiev unless by reorganising and retreating from the moscow offensive and making their way to the ukraine to face most likely by that time exactly what they faced at moscow, they would have been demoralised and understrenght and probably incapable of a serious attack on a more prepared, heavily fortified and defended territory.
AGS was too far from Moscow. The proper road is directly above on an axis: Vyazma-Smolensk-Moscow.
AGS was a hinge to engage the defenders at Kiev, while Moscow could be taken and a great hook sweeping down to trap Kiev defenders.
If Leningrad fell, Murmansk and the White Sea ports fall, I beleive we all agree with this line of thinking.
Black Sea is usless as a supply route.
This leaves only two other routes, the long slow overland route in Iran and the long Pacific route.
How does the U.S.S.R get the Lend-Lease Supplies needed to speed up the fight againist Germany without Murmansk and Achangel?
I can’t sleep and was just thinking.
:roll:
It was old man winter that saved Russia, And even the Russians will admit to that.
Vast supply lines played a huge role in the German defeat in 41.
Russia was saved by vast distances, cold winter and terrain with forest’s, swamps and marshes. All factors that favour the defender.
Germany lost the war the day they attacked Russia.
End of discussion.
People with another opinion are ignorant retardet morons.
Only a sith deals in absolutes. :wink:
Some would say Germany lost WW2 when they invaded Poland,
Some would say Germany lost WW2 when they failed to knock England out of the war.
Some would say Germany lost WW2 when the US entered the war.
It seems to me that Germany lost WW2 when it failed to win in Russia and not when they invaded it. Lots of reasons the Axis lost
Well it appeared to me the slower the Blitzkrieg was advancing, the less effective the Wehrmacht was…
So if I was a Field Marshall, I would have let my armored spearheads advance all the way to Moscow, deploying a small force of less important units to contain the defenders, while the main spearhead captured Moscow, or destroyed or encircle the Red Army… Then focus on the defenders in Stalingrad and Leningrad…
If Germany had captured Leningrad in 1941 and had not followed up with Moscow, the capture of the city would have helped the 1942 offensive.
If that offensive failed to destroy the U.S.S.R, Leningrad would have become an strong German defensive postion. The Russians could not leave such a strong postion flanking the push into eastern Poland.
With the terrain around Leningrad, a defenders dreamland, the war in the east could very well become static war. Germany would have also been able to use Leningrad as a port to supply Army Group North. Stalin would have become as fixed on capturing Leningrad as Hitler was Stalingrad.
With Leningrad in German hands I believe the war last into 1946.
Had the Germans captured Leningrad in 41. Could the German have turned the city into a true fortress, a WW2 version of the Battle of Verdun?
I just read some books by Anthony Beevor. He state that some high Whermacht officers belived that the only way to beat Stalin, was to turn it into a Russian Civil war. They would arm slaves to fight slaves. After -42, more than 20 % of the Axis force in East was made of ukraineans, belorussians and kossacks that wanted to fight Stalin. Of course, Hitler hated the idea of slaves in nazi uniforms, so whermacht fooled him, and named them all cossacks.
Also historian Keegan had some ideas, that if Hitler conquered Middle East before he did Barbarossa, then he got a fat oil supply that would have made a difference. The Bagdad-Express railroad from the oil fields in Iraq to Berlin was running since 1918, and the muslim population in Iraq did support Hitler. They do it even today. From Iraq, the distance to the russian oilfields in Baku is short, and this could be a secont front against Stalin.
