• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Had Germany waited to invade Poland

You basically think that there is no way that the Germans could have won... I disagree.

Germany could've won, but not Nazi Germany.



A massive spear tip invasion worked in the West and could easily have in the East.

This is not a spear tip invasion. This is a massive, wide sweeping invasion on a very broad front.

Invasion1941.jpg
 
Not the Reserve Armies for STAVKA, the reserve Front of the Battle of Moscow commanded by Marshal Budyonny, consisting of the 24th, 31st, 32nd, 33rd, 43rd, 49th Armies, and the Bryansk Front consisting of the 3rd, 13th, 50th Armies and Ermakov's Operational Group.

Those were not Reserve Armies... they were regular Army units deployed against the Germans. Many of them were encircled and wiped out in the Battle of Bryansk. The Reserve Armies were created after the Battle of Moscow in mid 1942.
 
Germany could've won, but not Nazi Germany.





This is not a spear tip invasion. This is a massive, wide sweeping invasion on a very broad front.

Invasion1941.jpg

I said that they could have employed a spear tip invasion like they did in the West... I also think you are having trouble differentiating what I am saying could happen from what actually did happen.
 


The entire problem with Barbarossa was that it was an insane logistical undertaking for an army that was critically flawed in it's logistics.

The Wehrmacht was by far the most tactically proficient and flexible army in the field, a standard maintained up until the last few months of the war. But while tactically capable, the Wehrmacht was cripplingly flawed at the strategic level. Mechanization of the Germany army was drastically limited. We often see images of German troops riding in halftracks, supporting Panzers and armed to the teeth with MG42s and STG-44s, but the vast majority of German troops never had either. Only about 20% of the Wehrmacht was ever mechanized, while meant that 4/5 German soldiers walked, not rode, to battle. 80% of German divisions did most of their heavy lifting with horses, and could only move as fast as their troops could march. This always led to the same problem for German commanders; their panzers would constantly outrun their own supplies and supporting infantry, and would have to halt to wait for them to catch up.

This is because German doctrine of WW2 was based on two main sources, A) The teachings of the Prussian General Staff College, and B) The German Spring Offensives of 1918. Both these sources emphasized rapid deployment and movement of field armies to rapidly encircle and annihilate still mobilizing enemy forces in a Kesselschlacht, or Cauldron Battle, more commonly known as a Battle of Annihilation. This was developed during a time when it seemed likely the German Empire would face multiple enemies on multiple fronts and would need to rapidly knock out a nation or two to ensure that victory could still be achieved.

But the problem with this strategy was that it was developed for use in Western Europe, a very industrialized and road-heavy network across relatively short distances that facilitated the rapid movement of troops. While the USSR had it's own road network, it was largely concentrated along the Leningrad-Moscow operational area. The Germans invaded on a very wide front to overwhelm the Soviets across the board, which worked in annihilating the Soviet field forces but also spread German forces over a very large expanse of terrain, a lot of which did not feature roads that were easily utilized by vast field armies of the Ostheer.

The entire invasion was also undercut by a severe lack of German logistical capabilities. The Germans had very few trucks and motor vehicle (some divisions were entirely equipped with trucks captured from the Polish and French, and therefore couldn't be replaced when broken down), and therefore the rate of advance for German forces was incredibly unsustainable. This problem had been identified 8 months before Barbarossa was launched but was ignored by the German Oberkommand because it was believed that the Soviets were not capable of resisting the Wehrmacht.

As was the case proven time and time again, the Germans made the very bad mistake of underestimating their opponents and overestimating their own capabilities.
 
I said that they could have employed a spear tip invasion like they did in the West... I also think you are having trouble differentiating what I am saying could happen from what actually did happen.

No they couldn't, because the Low Countries are a lot smaller than the USSR. Western Europe was perfect for the German style of warfare, the war of movement. The Eurasian steppe on the other hand is a terrible place for German operations.
 
No they couldn't, because the Low Countries are a lot smaller than the USSR. Western Europe was perfect for the German style of warfare, the war of movement. The Eurasian steppe on the other hand is a terrible place for German operations.

Except that they won them all until they were over-extended... and this was only because they were not prepared for a lengthy war.
 
What if Germany had waited to invade Poland and gone after Russia through Romania, Hungary and Czechoslovakia instead? Avoid a two front war. Bypass Poland and take out Russia and then prepare to deal with France and England. Take Poland then. France would still not have been ready to deal with Germany although England would have been, but in their isolation if Germany could have still defeated France not much would have changed... EXCEPT Russia would have bee out.

What about the Nazi-Soviet Pact?
 
Except that they won them all until they were over-extended... and this was only because they were not prepared for a lengthy war.

But there in lies the problem you see. The Germans were tactically unrivaled. They had excellent officers and NCOs leading their troops.

But the German war machine was a fundamentally flawed beast. It relied entirely on conducting operations within a very stringent and narrow definition of what constituted reasonable execution.

The only way for the Germans to win in Russia was to halt their advance after taking Kiev. Build up their defenses, rebuild their logistics, and dig in for the inevitable Soviet counterattacks in the winter. Once those have been crushed, the Germans have an easy path to operational victory in 1942.

But to do would force the Germans to A) Envision Barbarossa as a two-step, long lasting offensive, contrary to their emphasis on rapid battles of annihilation

and B), take the Red Army seriously, something the Nazis were blinded to by prejudice and racism.

Nazi Germany could've won WWII, but it's just not feasible or realistic. For Nazi Germany to win, it would've had to stop being Nazi Germany.
 
The entire problem with Barbarossa was that it was an insane logistical undertaking for an army that was critically flawed in it's logistics.

The Wehrmacht was by far the most tactically proficient and flexible army in the field, a standard maintained up until the last few months of the war. But while tactically capable, the Wehrmacht was cripplingly flawed at the strategic level. Mechanization of the Germany army was drastically limited. We often see images of German troops riding in halftracks, supporting Panzers and armed to the teeth with MG42s and STG-44s, but the vast majority of German troops never had either. Only about 20% of the Wehrmacht was ever mechanized, while meant that 4/5 German soldiers walked, not rode, to battle. 80% of German divisions did most of their heavy lifting with horses, and could only move as fast as their troops could march. This always led to the same problem for German commanders; their panzers would constantly outrun their own supplies and supporting infantry, and would have to halt to wait for them to catch up.

Absolutely, this weakness was actually spotted pretty early on in the war, De Gaulle saw it, had the French and British been able to better use the tanks they had during the counteroffensives of in May 1940, they could have cut off Guderians Panzers after he had advanced from Sedan, the war could very well have turned out quite differently.

An excellent point.
 
Absolutely, this weakness was actually spotted pretty early on in the war, De Gaulle saw it, had the French and British been able to better use the tanks they had during the counteroffensives of in May 1940, they could have cut off Guderians Panzers after he had advanced from Sedan, the war could very well have turned out quite differently.

An excellent point.
They could, just to add, actually have annihilated the whole German thrust into the West right there in the Ardennes. The hilly and densely forested range that the Germans had to cross to even thrust at Sedan.

As it were their intelligence was lousy, possibly (but not alone) also neglected on account of incompetent generalship holding the belief that no Panzer could ever negotiate the Ardennes terrain, exacerbated by the (false) conviction of the Maginot line providing sufficient protection further South and that the Germans would advance into and thru Belgium the same way as they had in WWI.

As such the Allies fell into the Belgian trap, deeming the Southern flank protected by the insurmountable Maginot line and subsequently concentrating their major forces further North. And where the Germans indeed attacked there as well, the major thrust came thru the Ardennes and at inferior (in numbers and equipment) defenders, with the Maginot being rendered ineffective.

But crossing the Ardennes had been a massive gamble, relying on the move to not being detected. As things developed, the whole advance became a massive headache, in that the virtually impossible proper co-ordination of vehicles, troops and tanks in that narrow terrain caused probably one of the biggest traffic jams in history, with everybody falling over everybody else, vehicles non- manoeuvrable in the ensuing congestion and thus providing an incredible abundance of sitting ducks, had there only been a shooter around.

By sheer luck all this went un-detected by the Allies and the Germans could finally manage to unravel the whole mess, but traversing the Ardennes took two days longer than planned. Enough time, had the Allies known about it all, to either pulverize the whole force still in the difficult terrain or (and) to deploy forces from the North to Sedan, thus to more effectively resist and probably defeat the Germans.

The subsequent German Sichelschnitt (scythe cut) to the Channel could have been prevented altogether.

Well, could have, would have, luck was on Germany's side and it consisted primarily of the French side being led by tottering old generals well past their shelf life, stuck in old fashioned strategic thinking, bias and national arrogance.
 
What if Germany had waited to invade Poland and gone after Russia through Romania, Hungary and Czechoslovakia instead? Avoid a two front war. Bypass Poland and take out Russia and then prepare to deal with France and England. Take Poland then. France would still not have been ready to deal with Germany although England would have been, but in their isolation if Germany could have still defeated France not much would have changed... EXCEPT Russia would have bee out.

If Germany didnt invade Poland then England and France would not have declared war. On the other hand there was no reason for Germany to attack the USSR at that time either. They had just signed a neutrality pact.
 
All leading to the meanwhile universal wisdom of "never start a land war in Asia and especially not with and in Russia".

With best regards from Napoleon Bonaparte.
 
If Germany didnt invade Poland then England and France would not have declared war. On the other hand there was no reason for Germany to attack the USSR at that time either. They had just signed a neutrality pact.
Actually a mutual non-aggression pact but yeah, same difference.

Nevertheless Hitler's intention wrt Russia were pretty clear to "inner circles" from way before. Just not to Stalin and Co. although he had similar ambitions wrt Germany. Some time in the not too distant future.
 
What if Germany had waited to invade Poland and gone after Russia through Romania, Hungary and Czechoslovakia instead? Avoid a two front war. Bypass Poland and take out Russia and then prepare to deal with France and England. Take Poland then. France would still not have been ready to deal with Germany although England would have been, but in their isolation if Germany could have still defeated France not much would have changed... EXCEPT Russia would have bee out.

The problem is that the USSR would have invaded Poland and then Germany would have had to invade an occupied Poland just get to Russia. More attrition for Germany as the Soviets would have thrown Polish conscript battalions at the Germans.
France was prepared for the Germans, they just thought that they would attack them directly and beat themselves to death on the Maginot Line (a correct assumption had they tried to break through there instead of through Belgium).
 
Actually a mutual non-aggression pact but yeah, same difference.

Nevertheless Hitler's intention wrt Russia were pretty clear to "inner circles" from way before. Just not to Stalin and Co. although he had similar ambitions wrt Germany. Some time in the not too distant future.

Hitler made plenty of mistakes and attacking the USSR was the biggest one. The Germans had no chance to win unless they somehow got atomic weapons.

Fun fact: Even when the Nazis were at the gates of Moscow, Stalin had 1.5 million men in the far east, guarding against a Japanese attack. The fact that he never bothered to transfer these men to the west means he knew he he could recruit an endless horde of soldiers without touching the ones stationed in the east.
 
The problem is that the USSR would have invaded Poland and then Germany would have had to invade an occupied Poland just get to Russia. More attrition for Germany as the Soviets would have thrown Polish conscript battalions at the Germans.
France was prepared for the Germans, they just thought that they would attack them directly and beat themselves to death on the Maginot Line (a correct assumption had they tried to break through there instead of through Belgium).
Well, the attack was two-pronged in that the Germans not only broke thru into Belgium but thru the Maginot as well. Better said, bypassed it just barely at Sedan.

There the French hadn't left enough troops for anyone to beat themselves to death upon, seeing how they'd deployed the bulk of their forces to further North (French-Belgian border). Both German moves were decisive but the more Southerly ensured the ensuing "Blitz" to the channel. Guderian's tanks all came thru the Ardennes.
 
What if Germany had waited to invade Poland and gone after Russia through Romania, Hungary and Czechoslovakia instead?

The problem is that by that time, Czechoslovakia really did not exist.

As part of their 1938 appeasement of Germany, the Sudetenland was annexed. Right after that, Poland and Hungary occupied most of the remainder of the country.

b18fe96ac1acf14b30757ed62e218a89652bdee3.gif


All that was left was Slovakia,

And if they had tried such a movement, the Soviets would have been waiting on the border for them. There was no way they were going to pass through 2 different countries in secret, or even unopposed. Simply doing so would likely have been seen by the Allied powers as a breech of the Munich Agreement and war still would have come.
 
Hitler made plenty of mistakes and attacking the USSR was the biggest one. The Germans had no chance to win unless they somehow got atomic weapons.

Fun fact: Even when the Nazis were at the gates of Moscow, Stalin had 1.5 million men in the far east, guarding against a Japanese attack. The fact that he never bothered to transfer these men to the west means he knew he he could recruit an endless horde of soldiers without touching the ones stationed in the east.

He didn't transfer them but it was not out of confidence...
 
He didn't transfer them but it was not out of confidence...

Of course it was. Stalin was sure he had the manpower in the west to deal with whatever the Germans threw at him.

Don't believe me? Just look at the tank production between the two countries during that time. The best the Germans could do was produce 900 PzIV tanks in 1942, the Soviets produced over 12,000 T-34s. The Germans had no chance. None.
 
In my scenario it didn't happen. Good question. I should have made that point.

Understood.

Thing is, sans the Nazi-Soviet Pact the West might have allied with the Soviets early or shortly after the Nazi attack through the south against the Soviets, and with Poland on the Nazi flank... well, that's not an advantageous position.
 
The only way that you can change history is with a time machine (Which doesn't exist yet.).You're entitled to express your opinion but my opinion is that this is yet another time-wasting thread which accomplishes nothing.

"Just sayin'."
 
I don't see how Germany could have ever defeated Russia. In the long run Russia just had too many men and too much land. They would have never been able to cross the Urals, so the USSR would have just kept fighting and bleeding Germany dry.

Every other country Germany conquered they occupied the whole country, that would have never been possible in Russia.
 
Those were not Reserve Armies... they were regular Army units deployed against the Germans. Many of them were encircled and wiped out in the Battle of Bryansk. The Reserve Armies were created after the Battle of Moscow in mid 1942.

No, they weren't. Your confusing reserve forces with the STAVKA Reserve. These were reserves of Soviet forces built up from the Universal Service Initiative, which amounted to 14,000,000 men that had military training. The Bryansk Front was rebuilt during the Battle of Moscow by hundreds of thousands of freshly conscripted Soviet citizens.

You're attempting to dispute historical fact. There were ten field armies the Soviets raised to defend Moscow in addition to the Red Army forces already stationed there. That's how the Soviets won the Battle of Moscow.
 
Of course it was. Stalin was sure he had the manpower in the west to deal with whatever the Germans threw at him.

Don't believe me? Just look at the tank production between the two countries during that time. The best the Germans could do was produce 900 PzIV tanks in 1942, the Soviets produced over 12,000 T-34s. The Germans had no chance. None.

Yet Soviet tactics were decidedly inferior until several years after Barbarossa kicked off. Their officer corps had been utterly devinated by Stalin's tactic of "shoot anyone who seems competent". All the great tanks in the world are meaningless if you can't use them effectively.

You show a confidence that the Soviets themselves never actually shared. They knew full well how close they came to defeat. Had Japan not been so shaken by their defeat in the pre war skirmishes and launched any sort of attack, the Siberian divisions don't get sent west and it's a whole new ball game.
 
Back
Top Bottom