Khalid Elhassan
Eclectic Rabbit Hole, and all around history buff
94w ago
No. If the Germans had attacked two months earlier, which would have been around April 21st, it would have backfired on them disastrously as only a few weeks into the campaign they would have been forced to bring activities to a standstill. That is because of the spring Rasputitsa , the Eastern European mud season when unpaved roads, which is to say the overwhelming majority of roads on the Eastern Front, become nearly impassable.
These guys are stuck until the roads dry
The Rasputitsa, caused by snow melt in spring and autumn rain in fall, would have ground an early Operation Barbarossa to a halt or agonizingly slow crawl as attacking units, and more importantly their supply chain, would have struggled to move in a sea of mud. That not only would have limited the depth of initial German advances, but would also have given the Soviets a desperately needed breather and opportunity to regroup and fortify while waiting for the roads to dry and the war to resume.
This is not Blitzkrieg weather
The need to account for the Rasputitsa is why the German invasion was launched when it was, contrary to the numerous myths that developed later to explain the supposed "delay" in the launching of Barparossa.
No brilliant lightening maneuvers in these conditions
As it was, throughout the course of the war on the Eastern Front, a campaign rhythm developed in which the pace of activities slowed down significantly for a few weeks twice a year, in spring and autumn during the semiannual Rasputitsa, while both sides waited for the roads to dry enough for the resumption of intensive fighting.
More
Oren Roded
studied Law
43w ago
The perception of Operation Barbarossa seems to be widely flawed among most people. People believe that the Russian winter and rasputitsa (muddy season) completely derailed the German juggernaut but this was not really the case, while it is true that after the muddy season only 1 in 10 German tanks was functional and the rest were cannibalised for parts, it was the strategy that the Germans opted for that really killed them in the end. Army group south was ordered to take Kiev and was later re-designated army group Ukraine in 1942 and while they took 450,000 Russian POW’s, the russians managed to build back this army in a matter of months. The germans throughout the war at this point opted for quick lightning blitzkrieg attacks into enemy territory so I don't understand why the opted for a siege in Leningrad, a 900 day siege to be exact, even though the Germans brought with them their knowledge of trenches from the first world war and were thus able to live through the Russian winters in relative peace they still failed to capture leningrad and bring the 1 million russian defenders to surrender, they lost thousands of men in order to try to take Leningrad which apart from its port had little to offer other than a symbolic victory. Army group center took the biggest beating especially at Stalingrad where they were led into a trap. Stalin had heard from his spy in Tokyo that the Japanese were not going to attack Russian again like they did in 1938 at Khalkin Ghol, but were instead going to attack south at pearl harbor, this allowed stalin to take his experienced siberian armies and bring them down to stalingrad, Zhukov then initiated operation Uranus in which he attacked the flanks of the German 6th army that was protected by poorly equipped lithuanian and romanina troops, they were no match for the crack russian troops and soon enough the german 6th army found itself locked in a pocket of death.
So to be honest it really would not have mattered if the Germans had attacked 2 months earlier because it would not have changed their tactics and strategies.
More
Samuel Smith
Interested in history, avid reader
110w ago
No.
They might have made a little more progress. But they would have still been facing these same problems.
Overstretched supply lines Supplying 4 million men isn't easy, especially when they are deep in enemy territory and split up into four different armies. This problem is compounded by the fact that the Russians are using the "scorched earth tactic" and going to great efforts to deny the enemy supplies of any kind. Also if the attack had been started earlier the supply problem would have been even more pronounced, since there would most likely have been to little and too few vehicles to transport them without the build up.The Battle of Stalingrad. Even if the attack had started earlier the army would have still bogged down at Stalingrad, and even had they been victorious massive losses would still have been incurred.
Hitler This turned out to be a crippling disadvantage to German strategy. He was a madman who tried to dictate his general actions, and subsequently caused some of the most catastrophic failures of the war. Most historians agree that his idea to invade and conqueror Russia was his worst mistake, and his resolution not to withdraw made it continually worse.
Winter No matter what they did the Germans were bound to encounter winter. If you would look at this map you can see how far the invasion got.
By the time winter came only a fraction of all Russia was in German hands. So it leads one to believe that in if the invasion had been launched earlier it would still have been slowed by Russian resistance and finally halted by winter.
This is my opinion and there may be others better informed who differ with it, but since history has already happened all we are left with is conjectures and no proof of how things "would have gone."
More
Bernie Schiemer
34w ago
The essential doctrine of Blitzkrieg requires concentration of your forces.
In February 1941 the Germans moved 1.5 x panzer divisions to Africa (90th Light and 15th Panzer).
In May they invaded Yugoslavia, Greece and Crete. This delayed their Russian offensive by six weeks (Barbarossa was due to begin in early May), so they were in fact aiming for an earlier start. In the Yugo/Greek campaign, the Germans lost well over 300 transport planes (270 alone in Crete) and many thousands of troops lost and/or tied up defending nothing.
In August 1941 the Germans send another panzer division to Africa (21st Panzer). Plus Rommel’s advances in Africa required 6000+ trucks to provide water and petrol to his forces.
Imagine the Germans with 3 x more panzer divisions, 300+ transport planes (supplies and more supplies), 6,000 + additional trucks and additional 6 weeks of campaigning, plus with Rommel driving a corp along with him, they almost certainly would have taken Moscow, and may well have beaten the Russians.
They had to beat the Russians in the first year or it was all over. Their economy was not set up for a long campaign, and their replacement pool of troops, equipment and spare parts was dangerously low. At least an early May start with ALL of their available forces and supplies would have given them the best chance possible.
If they had beaten the Russians in 1941, could you imagine how deluded Hilter and his cronies would have become. The US and Britain would have still prevailed but it probably would have been a nuclear rather than a conventional finish.
More
No comments:
Post a Comment