#4490920 - 09/30/19 06:26 PM
Sadly even historynet.com is becoming trivial
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 24,029
oldgrognard
Administrator
|
Administrator
Lifer
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 24,029
USA
|
Like the History channel and others, historynet.com is now doing crap pieces with poor depth. Like this. https://www.historynet.com/what-if-the-germans-had-captured-moscow-in-1941.htmPretty lousy.
Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
Someday your life will flash in front of your eyes. Make sure it is worth watching.
|
|
#4490925 - 09/30/19 06:49 PM
Re: Sadly even historynet.com is becoming trivial
[Re: oldgrognard]
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 24,029
oldgrognard
Administrator
|
Administrator
Lifer
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 24,029
USA
|
It is the lack of analysis to support the hypothesis. It was only at the near end that the hypothesis is even addressed. It came down to saying...
historically after failing to take Moscow the Germans were able to hold against Russian counterattacks. If they had taken Moscow they wouldn’t have.
Now how does he reach that ?
Had the German taken Moscow they would have had some advantages they didn’t have historically.
- Their lines would have been straightened from the historical bulges north and south. Improvement in unit frontages. - They would have had an improved supply base situation. Additionally they would have some advantage in captured supplies, even if small. -They have benefitted from more cold protection of buildings -They would have damaged the Soviet units facing them more -The soviets would have lacked the transportation center and supply base that they used in bringing in the Siberian units and staging the counterattack -The Soviets would have lacked Moscow’s airfields; there weren’t really others. The Germans would have had use of those fields. - The Soviets would have had another morale hit which would have depleted their units
-And the Big Possibility - The Soviet government would have had turmoil which just might have paralyzed the counterattack effort.
I failed to see the “why” the Germans would have been worse off had they captured Moscow.
That is just a quick off the head effort.
Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
Someday your life will flash in front of your eyes. Make sure it is worth watching.
|
|
#4490930 - 09/30/19 07:45 PM
Re: Sadly even historynet.com is becoming trivial
[Re: oldgrognard]
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 13,199
DBond
Strategerizer
|
Strategerizer
Veteran
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 13,199
NooJoyzee
|
I think I see what the author is claiming even if he doesn't spell it out very well. He is saying that the capture of Moscow would have obviated holding it, in turn making the forces there vulnerable to the counteroffensive. In my view that's a viable hypothesis, but not a certainty, partly for some of the reasons given by OG.
When the counteroffensive struck, the Germans in many cases reached the bottom of their morale well, and were pushed back, sometimes voluntarily so to speak. Hitler issued a stand fast order, against the wishes of his senior military leadership, and while some may argue against it, this order to hold probably saved the Germans in the winter of 1941. Hitler had many flaws as an operational commander, but here I must say he in fact did save 2nd and 3rd Panzer Armies as well as the bulk of 2nd, 9th and 4th Armies. To attempt a retreat in those conditions would have been a gamble at best. And although the men suffered terribly from the enemy and the conditions, in hindsight it was probably the only course of action that would prevent a complete collapse of Army Group Center.
The irony is that since it worked, and Hitler thought himself an operational savant as a result (he famously stated that "this little matter of operational command is something anyone can do") it led him to regard this course of action as the solution to every crisis, and as we know, in turn led to many unnecessary losses in Russia and on other fronts as well.
As to whether Moscow could have been held, it's an interesting discussion. I would say that if Moscow had been captured through a general offensive, and not simply a lunge made for the city itself, the Germans could have held. If a solid fortified line extended from Klin, through Moscow to Tula for example, attempts to encircle Moscow would have been difficult, not least as the Germans would have had the cities. A lunge however (which is what I think the author envisions) would have been vulnerable to a double envelopment, trapping whichever units were tasked with defense of the capital.
No, now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!
|
|
#4490954 - 10/01/19 01:25 AM
Re: Sadly even historynet.com is becoming trivial
[Re: oldgrognard]
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 24,029
oldgrognard
Administrator
|
Administrator
Lifer
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 24,029
USA
|
Even with the Kiev operation, once they initiated Operation Typhoon there was still good chance for success. Especially given the articles parameter of no rasputitsa. 16 days of good weather would have seen the 30 to 40 miles they would have needed. Once Moscow was seized, the airfields would have allowed some badly needed supply ability. I can’t stress enough that the denial of those fields to the Russian Air Force would have been extremely significant. Bringing in the Siberian reinforcements would have been greatly complicated had the Luftwaffe been operating from the Frunze, Bykovo and Vnukovo airfields. They would have had to detrain many miles away in the winter and then been under air attack for the whole approach by Luftwaffe units operating from good quality airfields with facilities. There would have been virtually no Russian air counter. Without the Moscow railyards turning the trains around to get more Russian units would have been greatly affected. There wouldn’t be the re-coaling at Moscow for the return trip. So the deploying of those 18 Siberian divisions would have been much more strung out. The Siberian units would not have arrived as a concentrated coordinated force.
I am not seeing his assertion that it would have a disaster had the Germans taken Moscow.
Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
Someday your life will flash in front of your eyes. Make sure it is worth watching.
|
|
#4490978 - 10/01/19 04:51 AM
Re: Sadly even historynet.com is becoming trivial
[Re: oldgrognard]
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 24,029
oldgrognard
Administrator
|
Administrator
Lifer
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 24,029
USA
|
I agree Max. That brings us back to my assertion that they are doing crap pieces instead of serious history.
It was just lousy and lacked any worthwhile content. His assertion that it would have been a disaster had the Germans taken Moscow was without merit. Just because he says it doesn’t mean it is so.
They have really dumbed down.
Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
Someday your life will flash in front of your eyes. Make sure it is worth watching.
|
|
#4490987 - 10/01/19 07:54 AM
Re: Sadly even historynet.com is becoming trivial
[Re: oldgrognard]
|
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,760
BD-123
Old Scroat
|
Old Scroat
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,760
Naunton Beauchamp Worcestershi...
|
"What if" scenarios, if documentary rather than fictional (e.g. 'SS GB' & 'The Man in the High Castle) are totally baseless with so many variables in place. If Leningrad could not be broken by siege I doubt Moscow could be, or it would of descended into an earlier 'Stalingrad situation' , thanks to 'General Winter'.
|
|
#4490994 - 10/01/19 10:35 AM
Re: Sadly even historynet.com is becoming trivial
[Re: oldgrognard]
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 121,389
PanzerMeyer
Pro-Consul of Florida
|
Pro-Consul of Florida
King Crimson - SimHQ's Top Poster
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 121,389
Miami, FL USA
|
That brings us back to my assertion that they are doing crap pieces instead of serious history.
To be honest, serious historical research and analysis will be almost exclusively found in books and research papers written by military historians and scholars. I wouldn't even bother trying to find stuff on that level on the internet.
Last edited by PanzerMeyer; 10/01/19 10:35 AM.
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
|
|
#4491008 - 10/01/19 12:33 PM
Re: Sadly even historynet.com is becoming trivial
[Re: Mad Max]
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 121,389
PanzerMeyer
Pro-Consul of Florida
|
Pro-Consul of Florida
King Crimson - SimHQ's Top Poster
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 121,389
Miami, FL USA
|
The point is though that there is a fairly persuasive school of thought that the war in Russia was in fact winnable, It might have been winnable had the Germans invaded earlier than June 22. That would have given them enough time to destroy more of the Soviet army and to take Moscow before the dreaded "rasputitsa" arrived. Having said that, the Soviets lost about 5 million soldiers between KIA, MIA and POW in 1941 and they still managed to hold on long enough to mount the winter counter-offensive. That is truly stunning to me.
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
|
|
#4491010 - 10/01/19 01:06 PM
Re: Sadly even historynet.com is becoming trivial
[Re: oldgrognard]
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 10,113
KraziKanuK
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 10,113
Ottawa Canada
|
The Spring was a real mess weather wise PM. The Germans might have not got as far as you think.
There was only 16 squadrons of RAF fighters that used 100 octane during the BoB. The Fw190A could not fly with the outer cannon removed. There was no Fw190A-8s flying with the JGs in 1945.
|
|
#4491070 - 10/01/19 09:57 PM
Re: Sadly even historynet.com is becoming trivial
[Re: oldgrognard]
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 9,522
Wklink
Permanent Latrine Orderly
|
Permanent Latrine Orderly
Hotshot
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 9,522
Olympia, Washington
|
Taking or not taking Moscow was immaterial IMHO. There were multiple issues that kept the Germans from winning war. Short of a morale collapse caused by the taking of the city (which I doubt would have occurred but it might have) Germany was going to at best force a stalemate with the Soviets, especially after the US entered the war.
The key to the whole war was resources. Hitler knew this. Ideology was just an excuse for his invasion. Hitler was a #%&*$# but he was a smart #%&*$#. He knew that an expansionist Germany was limited by the lack of two major resources: Oil and high quality iron ore. He secured his supply of iron ore with the invasion of Norway but oil was more problematic. There were two potential sources, both had their own issues.
1. The Middle East. This probably was the easiest to capture but the hardest to exploit. There was a lot of oil in Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia but the amount wasn't fully known back then. Interestingly all the oil needed for Germany and Italy WAS available in Libya but no one knew it was there until 1955. Thank goodness for small miracles. Had the Germans concentrated their forces they probably could have driven the British out of Egypt, Iraq and Iran and set up sympathetic governments there. There was already some pro-German sympathies there and this would have led to much more friendly deals to maintain oil transport. The biggest issue would have been getting the oil back to Germany and refining capacity. The refineries would have been relatively easy to create but transport across the Med would have been more difficult. Neither Germany nor Italy had much by way of oil transport shipping and these would have had to be made from scratch. Add to this the lack of real knowledge of how much oil really would be available in the Middle East and I can see why Hitler wasn't really willing to take that much of a risk. In hindsight though it probably would have been a better strategy, especially if there had been more of an attempt to actually try to find oil in Libya.
2. The Soviet Union. This ultimately was the reason that Germany went to war with the Soviet Union. Ideology and hatred of the Slavic 'subhumans' certainly played a part but this was more of a propaganda tactic than a real reason to go to war. The biggest reason the Wehrmacht relied on horse drawn transport wasn't because they didn't have the capability to motorize more, it was because there wasn't enough fuel to effectively motorize the majority of German divisions. Simply put, Germany had to win and win this war, and win quickly to secure the oil needed to maintain their economy and war production. It was hoped that the Soviet Union would collapse and allow German forces almost a free run to the Caucuses or at least a peace treaty that would exploit those resources but the Soviet resistance was stiffer than suspected. Once Germany declared war on the US its fate was sealed. Not only did the Soviets stop Germany from taking the oil rich regions of the Southern Caucuses it also got the rolling stock needed to transport that fuel to units that could use it.
Even if Germany had taken the Caucuses it probably would have only prolonged the war. The Soviets would have missed that oil for sure but the US would have made up a fair amount of it via shipping to Vladivostok and Murmansk. Still, the loss of the Iranian route would have been felt. The Germans might have gotten this oil but it would have taken at least a year, probably longer, to exploit it. Some wells the Germans did capture in the Caucuses were fired by the retreating Soviets and I doubt the area of Baku would have been spared. In addition the rail network would have had to be redone completely and I don't know how much rolling stock the Germans would have had to transport all of that oil. Germany had few tankers and even less means to get them there. I doubt Italy had many as well.
The artist formerly known as SimHq Tom Cofield
|
|
|
|