This is a VERY open-ended question, as it would ultimately come down to a couple of Major factors:
1. Only if Hitler does not get involved in strategic decisions.
2. Only if Hitler does not get involved in production
Unlikely as it was Hitlers -job- to be involved in strategic and production planning decisions.
The problem I see is more that Hilter got invloved in operational level decisions, which is what he should have kept his dirty political mitts off of.
I think there are too many added bits.
I voted ‘no’ on the understanding that ALL OTHER THINGS were equal. As in the war did start in June 1941 and continued pretty much as it did in the east anyway. The vast bulk of the Wehrmacht turned east in 1941. Easily enough to do the job (on paper).
The Luftwaffe too contributed the great majority of its men and machines to the effort. And as we know - for months the Russians dissolved under a hail of German fire and steel. A closely related question is - could the Germans have won in 1941 while at war with the UK? The answer is probably (in terms of capturing moscow) yes.
But as has already been pointed out - capturing a capital is far from (outside of boardgames) winning a war. This is partly why IMO you should be able to continue placing units in A&A as long as you have factories - irrespective of capitals. Though I realise that would potentially make the game utterly different - if not infinite!
Napoleon captured Moscow. He lost the war. Russia with her tens of millions of people would have been almost impossible to suppress entirely - partisan activity remained high even despite brutal SS action. An obvious tactic to limit partisan action would have been the demarcation of the great Reich in protectorates with self-government, but that would be far too liberal for the Nazis. As has been said before though - such a move could have enabled Germany to quickly gain economically from the Ukraine and other productive areas - and with teh supported of their new ex-soviet ‘citizens’ solidify their new border with the new (much reduced) USSR.
But back to my point at the beginning - all else being equal - I think the German war in Russia was mismanaged which is why they lost it - and those mistakes - based on racial hatred (death squads, and subjugation of ‘inferior’ slavic people) and political ego (obsession with Leningrad & Stalingrad) would have been made anyway. Eventually leading to the loss of the war. By the time the troops arrived at Moscow they were exhausted and their machines were worn out. One thing not covered in A&A - just how worn out a tank is when in one flick of your hand you ‘blitz’ it the equivalent of 1000 miles over (at best) shoddy roads.
Also - I have to say that my feelings about Nazi evil are this:
The Nazis were evil. People who supported the movement, who had read Mein Kampf and had seen jews and other ‘disappear’ from their neighbourhoods knew what the tennets of the movement were -and celebrated war as the ultimate expression of a race’s struggle for survival. The ideology was evil. People who perpetrated it, and allowed it to go on were doing evil.
BUT
Not all Germans were nazis. Though in one way or another most Germans contributed to the war effort because it was an irresistable force in their country. Many in the Wehrmacht retained a centuries old Prussian tradition of loyalty to the state and its leader, and considered themselves non-nazis in that they were non-political.
What I think is the uncomfortable truth though - is that many (if not most) Germans were Nazis - and had they won, they wouldn’t all be denying it. The interesting question that this raises (another thread entirely) is - could this not have happened anywhere? Just how much evil is there in all of us - ready to come out when the conditions seem right.
My grandmother refused to teach Eugenics at school. In England. In the 50s.
“Had Britain not declared war, Hitler would have attacked an unprepared Stalin in 1940. The result might well have been the liberation of the Gulag and its 12 million souls, the eradication of Bolshevism in Russia and China, no Cold War, no Korea, and no Vietnam. Instead of six years of World War II bloodletting, we may have seen six months of a Hitler-Stalin war, ending with one dead and the other crippled.”-Patrick J. Buchanan An Unnecessary War? October 11, 1999
Wow, this post has recieved ten thosand view!!
That is 1 of the nice things i like about the US. even though i dont agree with the KKK they are still allowed the right to express their opinion. It might not be my view of the world but if you would ban some groups the right to express themself and claim they are a threath to democracy what does that make you.
Well, that does depend on HOW the express their opinion. But if it is simply stating it…yeah, I agree, it needs to be equally applied.
The most precious thing we have as Americans is our freedom. Any attack on freedom, whether it be against a Neo-Nazi or a Communist, is an attack on everyone’s freedom. If they can silence the “cooks,” who’s to stop them from silencing me by labeling me a cook?
YES!!! Germany would have won definatily! Because 1st of all Germans had much better tanks, better weapons, air supiority, and more resources to use. Also Russia just got through with a whole bunch of revolutions which made them less likely to fight as hard.
I think Germany had no chance to win. Just look at the difference in the size of their 41 and 42 offensives. In 41 they attacked from the Baltic to Black sea , in 42 only with army group south. In the spring of 42 the German army was in a sorry state…most divisions were at 50-60% manpower. The panzer arm was even worse with some divisions having less than 70 tanks and these [PzkIII and PzkIV] were inferior to the Russian types. Even if the 41 campaign was managed better the Germans still could not replace their losses as well as the Russians. I’m not sure capturing Moscow would make a difference….the government could retreat to the Urals. I know there are some historians who use this forum. Perhaps they could provide some insight.
If no other countries came to the Soviets defense Germany would have been able to defeat them if they had gone after them first.
But once UK and France were in it because of taking Poland, Germany should have never bothered attacking Russia until it had dealt with UK. At the battle of Dunkirk when 200,000 UK troops were trapped, all Germany had to do was come in at full force quickly with all of its forces, naval and air included, and capture the UK transports and all the men. Then using their own transports gone accross the channel and put UK away. At that time (1940) UK was not heavily defended and US had not amassed a large contingent yet. If Germany had done this UK would have fallen and then Germany could then have went all out Russia while holding the Atlantic wall. The Allies would have to come from accross the ocean if they wanted to try an assault, they would no longer have their staging area in UK as they did. 8-)
sorry but I don’t understand the question!….
wich russia is meant to be defeated?
it was never in hitlers intension to completly overrun russia at all!!!
the “Weisung Nr. 21: Fall Barbarossa” he had given in dec. of 1940 was :
In the east (russia) is the livingspace for the german folk.
(Meant was a area from the polish borders to the beginnings of the Ural line Astrachan - Archangelsk).
you can find it in the book "Deutsche Panzertruppen {german tank divisions}byKennethJ.Macksey. The way this war was fought was never meant to be won.
So if the Question is whole russia then my answer is NO!
If the question is to conquer the A-A line then maybe but only if we could change a couple of things as their were: No Htler at all, fire General Kleist, promote Guderian and Manstein, suplly Rommel w. the equipment he needs, don’t go for the Uman pocket, equip each Panzer III and IV at least w. a 7.5 cm cannon, stick to the panther tanks ,try to make only few diffrent models of calibers, guns etc.,take lenningrad and many more …
2 words
‘lend’ and ‘lease’
don’t think russia would of made it in long term.
sure, they stopped Barbarossa on their own, but things like Kursk, and in less degree stalingrad…
@marine36:
But you see, Roosevelt wanted war with Germany, to help his buddy Stalin, so it would have happened eventually.
And I do believe the Tommies whipped Rommel all by there lonesome at El Alamean, though it is doubtful such success would have lasted once he got back to Tunisia and was reinforced.
The 6th Army. Yes, it was a significant number of men. A quarter of a million Germans is nothing to sneeze at! Personally, I don’t think moral is a factor in modern warfare, at least it isnt in the Corp, but you may be right there as well. It is reasonable to assume that the German soldiers are different from U.S. Marines, and are still affected by moral.
Rampant behavior of rape and murder? I am certain SS divisions maintained their dicipline in Russia, it was not until after the fighting had ended in an area and the soldiers had moved on than Himmler would move in with his death squads. The men of the SS where fine soldiers, do not label all of them barbarians for the actions of Himmler. Perhaps you have information that proves otherwise? Well, despite Himmler’s ruthless treatment of Russians, many Russians still did side with the Germans.
i partly agree with that
the waffen-ss were made by 90 % not nazi’s
they were ukrainians, tatars, belorussians, balts, etc, all willing to fight the sovjet union.
and of course, the russian army under general Vlasov fough the USSR aswell.
i partly agree with that
the waffen-ss were made by 90 % not nazi’s
they were ukrainians, tatars, belorussians, balts, etc, all willing to fight the sovjet union.
If I may correct you but that is not a 100% true…their were only 18 of 39 foreign Waffen SS divisions and all of them were leaded by german officers, their was no high ranking foreign officers exept by the hungarian and italian ones…and the Waffen SS start to replace thier horroble losses in 1943 and 1944-45…
one of their ruthless fighting divisions was the "33rd Waffen Grenadier Division Der SS( Charlemagne Division ) " they held berlin to the very end ,b/c they know their was no way out…
Heheh, if somehow an assassin’s bomb/bullets had taken out Hitler and his top generals early on in the war, Germany could EASILY of beaten the Soviet Union. Most of the problem with beating the Soviets was Hitler’s insistence on running EVERYTHING, coupled to many terrible strategic decisions and blunders he made (trying to hold EVERY inch of ground gained in a country 1/4 the size of the planet). The head of the SS Himmler was no help either, his SS divisions were the main reason why partisans sprang up everywhere after the Germans rolled through; initially many Russians welcomed the Germans as liberators.
Also you guys are forgetting that STALIN was Hitler’s opponent. Stalin was as slavishly enamored to Hitler as Hitler was to Mussolini. Stalin approved a purge of the Soviet military in 1937 that got rid of like 90% of his capable generals; he was so paranoid of his own people he destroyed most of his military power before the war even began. Tales of Soviet idiocy from their ill-fated invasion of Finland in 1938 tell volumes. Stalin also believed and trusted Hitler; he completely ignored German troop-build up warnings by his general staff and continued sending supplies by train to Germany across the 1939 polish border the very DAY Hitler invaded Russia. Stalin also had a complete mental breakdown after Barbarossa was started and wasn’t even available to lead for the first two weeks following the invasion.
My Grades:
Man Power: USSR
Air Power: Germany
Artillery: USSR
Tanks: USSR
Training: Germany
Navy: Draw
International Support: Germany
The Germans did not have the wealth of humans as the Soviets had. General Paulus in 1942 said that he could encircle and destroy a soviet army only to have another one take it place with little effort.
I believe the USSR wins. The Soviets had the T-34 and KV-1 when the Germans still had the Panzer III as a frontline machine. The Soviets could mass produce these tanks.
@ABWorsham:
The Soviets had the T-34 and KV-1 when the Germans still had the Panzer III as a frontline machine.
But that was only for the first year, and the Germans still kicked a$$.
is it not strange that the halting of the German advance coincides with the US’s entry into the war?
@ABWorsham:
The Soviets had the T-34 and KV-1 when the Germans still had the Panzer III as a frontline machine.
But that was only for the first year, and the Germans still kicked a$$.
is it not strange that the halting of the German advance coincides with the US’s entry into the war?
The Germans were able to advance dramatically again in 1942 though. I don’t think the major impact of US involvement came till the middle of that year - and the need by Germany to support Italy in North Africa. By 1943 large amounts of German armour were being pulled from the eastern front to save Italy itself. The 1941 defeat of the Germans had two architects - Hitler and the Russian winter.
However - it is fair to say that once the US was at war with JAPAN - the Russians knew that their back door was safe for a while enabling to concentrate force that had previously been in limbo awaiting a possible Japanese invasion.
Definitely. Also if Germany had decided to ONLY go against the Soviet Union at the very beginning, I’m sure most of the Western Powers would have been just fine to let them go right at it! The USSR wasn’t very well received amongst the rest of the world in 1939; in fact, it took WWII to raise Russia to a world superpower from the outcast backwater it was in the 1930’s.
Everyone is assuming that the beginning of the war between Germany and the USSR would play out as it did in the summer of 1941. Had Germany faced a Red Army prepared on the German/Russian border the results of 1941 may have been different.
