OT: A burning question..

Gary Grigsby’s War in the East: The German-Soviet War 1941-1945 is a turn-based World War II strategy game stretching across the entire Eastern Front. Gamers can engage in an epic campaign, including division-sized battles with realistic and historical terrain, weather, orders of battle, logistics and combat results.

The critically and fan-acclaimed Eastern Front mega-game Gary Grigsby’s War in the East just got bigger and better with Gary Grigsby’s War in the East: Don to the Danube! This expansion to the award-winning War in the East comes with a wide array of later war scenarios ranging from short but intense 6 turn bouts like the Battle for Kharkov (1942) to immense 37-turn engagements taking place across multiple nations like Drama on the Danube (Summer 1944 – Spring 1945).

Moderators: Joel Billings, elmo3, Sabre21

FM WarB
Posts: 292
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 4:40 pm

RE: OT: A burning question..

Post by FM WarB »

Every ton of good Krupp Steel used to build a ship instead of a tank was a mis allocation of precious assets. The Kaiser made a similar mistake building his navy before WW 1.
User avatar
Footslogger
Posts: 1245
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 11:46 pm
Location: Washington USA

RE: OT: A burning question..

Post by Footslogger »

If Germany attacked just France and the British and not Poland, would the Pols have declared war on Hitler?
dave_wolf
Posts: 157
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 3:28 pm
Location: GER, where two rivers meet.

RE: OT: A burning question..

Post by dave_wolf »

ORIGINAL: FM WarB

Every ton of good Krupp Steel used to build a ship instead of a tank was a mis allocation of precious assets. The Kaiser made a similar mistake building his navy before WW 1.
Completely different circumstances.

Building a serious navy was seen as a necessity for a potential 'global player' (as it still is). And it was only a waste of resources if you were stupid enough to challenge the one single sea power too big and too close to take on, the UK.

And keeping the UK out of the war was quite possible. Then they could have blown both the French and the Russian navies out of the water and protected the sea lanes, instead of being blockaded. Which would have made a huge difference!

In '39 the German surface fleet wasn't even prepared to fight the French navy (without an air screen anyway)! You cannot compare the two scenarios.
The artist formerly known as davewolf.

Lose your password, let your email account expire and you're a complete noob again...
dave_wolf
Posts: 157
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 3:28 pm
Location: GER, where two rivers meet.

RE: OT: A burning question..

Post by dave_wolf »

ORIGINAL: Footslogger

If Germany attacked just France and the British and not Poland, would the Pols have declared war on Hitler?
Probably not. But it's a moot question since Hitler had no intention to go west.
The artist formerly known as davewolf.

Lose your password, let your email account expire and you're a complete noob again...
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: OT: A burning question..

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: Footslogger

If you were in Hitler's place, what would you have done different?
[/quote]warspite1

Simple, if I were Hitler and I knew it, I would shoot myself.....
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
turtlefang
Posts: 334
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 9:43 am

RE: OT: A burning question..

Post by turtlefang »

Taking Hitler's insane policies of how he treated ethic groups off the table (Holicaust, Russian people policy, etc...), his strategic options were limited by 1939.

1) Attack Poland and then go west.
2) Attack Poland and go east.
3) Back down and give up expansion posibilities knowing that the USSR would, most likely, invade at some point.

Given that he misjudged the British/French in regards to Poland, he really needed to finish off the west. And he did that to the best of his ability. Germany had no chance to knock Britian out of the war once Britian made the decision that they would not make a deal with Germany after France fell. Unless the U boats could bring the British to thier knees. And reality was, that Britian has no chance of defeating Germany at that point.

Then he could only look to the East and either:

1) Attack Russia
2) Wait to be attack by Russia

And he chose to attack.

The big strategic mistakes Germany made, in my opinion, was:

a) declaring war on the United States. I must admit I have never really understood the rational for Hitler declaring war on the US. And I think this would have delayed the entry of the US into the shooting war in Europe for a long time.
b) Not deciding to "go here and no further" in Russia. Once 41 passed, the Germans should have decided on a defensive line and set one up along a major river with whatever resources secured by the end of the 42 summer. Then forcing the Russians to wear themselves out.
c) Supporting the Italians to finish off the sideshow in North Africa when the decision was made to go in to the area. Putting in the resources they put in just made sure it would drag on out. Or stay out. I know the original orders to Rommel were a "limited offensive" but that just creates a bleeding sore.
e) Stay at a war time economy in 39.

And Hitler would probably have to drop the UBoat campaign. Too big a chance of the US using that an excuse to go to war.

Truth is, I don't know that Hitler looked at things on a long term basis. Or that he was rational and could follow a rational strategy.

And once he made the decision to attack Poland, don't know that many strategic options actually existed at that point. The die was petty much cast. Especially if you assume that Japan was going to attack the US.
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: OT: A burning question..

Post by warspite1 »

I would recommend you read Ostkrieg for answers to your questions above. The problem with the stop line was that Germany simply could not afford to do that.

Two main reasons A) she was desperately short of raw materials (Hitler's whole raison d'être was to invade the Soviet Union to make Germany self sufficient in future - the Ukraine would be her bread basket and the Caucasus would provide her oil. Other key materials like coal, manganese etc were also to be found in the USSR) and was becoming increasingly short of manpower. After the winter of 41, losses could no longer be made good. B) that strategy would not work because Hitler knew he had to kill off Russia before the US came into play.

In summary, having chosen to wage war against Stalin, Hitler found himself in a situation whereby he had no choice but to see that gamble through to it's final conclusion - one way or another.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
turtlefang
Posts: 334
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 9:43 am

RE: OT: A burning question..

Post by turtlefang »

I have read Ostkrieg. I am less than impressed with it due to a large number of factual errors and will leave it at that.

After Hitler decided to go to war over Poland, I don't think he had any good strategic options. Britain made the decision to keep fighting; the USSR made the decision to not fold and surrender. At that point, Hitler had probably lost no matter what he did. The only question was how long and when. Not much different than Napoleon 140 yrs earlier.

The stop line and trying to keep the US out of the war - or out for as long as possible - was the only chance he had to win. If he could bleed the Soviets long enough, he might force a truce or potentially get the communist to turn on each other. Both highly unlikely but his only chance. And if he could keep the US out of the war long enough, it gave him longer to try and succeed in the East.

As far as the economic argument goes, I don't buy it. In four years, Germany never tried to organize the Ukraine into an economic/food producing area. Just look at the production stats. They did some looting, but even here it was fairly random and very inefficient. While he keep using the economic argument with his generals, reality was that NO PREPARATIONS were ever made by Germany to move oil out of the Caucasus or turn the Ukraine into a breadbasket. In France & Belgium, the Germans did organize stuff into war supporting assets. You never saw anything like that on the Eastern front. Or even the start of that type of preparation. All the advance did after the mid summer of 42 did was extend the front and set it up for a military collapse.

As far as production goes, look at Germany's output increase during the strategic bombing campaign. What do you think would have happened if it could have conserved losses with a stop line and kept the US out of the war for one or two years and no strategic bombing campaign (or a minimum one by the British) would have looked like?

Reality is that Germany, or Hitler, if you prefer, made some very serious strategic mistakes very early and one of the biggest was not moving to a war time economy in 1940.

Now, whether these strategic actions could have changed the war, don't know. As a friend once told me, when you have only long odds to win and every thing else gets you killed, take the long odds, you have nothing to lose and everything to gain. Once Hitler went to war, he really didn't have a lot of options. But he misplayed the few he had.
turtlefang
Posts: 334
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 9:43 am

RE: OT: A burning question..

Post by turtlefang »

As far as why Hitler invaded Russia, a lot of ink has been spilled over that one. But I believe that it had more to do with Hitler's belief in the inevitable battle of philosophies (fascism vs. communism) and races (Germanic vs. Slavic). He spoke - or ranted - about this for decades and stated that a total war was coming Germany and Russia. In Mein Kampf he goes on about this for chapters and chapters. As well as dozens of other places.

Much of the early war - in his speeches - is setting the stage for the final meeting between the two totalitarian philosophies. Germany did want to secure the western front to avoid a two front war but Hitler always regard this as the prelude to the "Great War".

The resources and living space was the justification and spoils of the war. Not the driving force behind it. If that were true, he could just have easily depopulated France and used it as a breadbasket and industrial complex to resettle millions of Germans for decades.

But, as I said, this is my opinion - and a lot of ink has been spilled over this one.
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: OT: A burning question..

Post by warspite1 »

As you say that is your opinion. But I think you have got it wrong - not a whole lot of oil in France is there? I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
TulliusDetritus
Posts: 5581
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:49 am
Location: The Zone™

RE: OT: A burning question..

Post by TulliusDetritus »

ORIGINAL: turtlefang
As far as why Hitler invaded Russia, a lot of ink has been spilled over that one. But I believe that it had more to do with Hitler's belief in the inevitable battle of philosophies (fascism vs. communism) and races (Germanic vs. Slavic). He spoke - or ranted - about this for decades and stated that a total war was coming Germany and Russia. In Mein Kampf he goes on about this for chapters and chapters. As well as dozens of other places.

We can safely say that Hitler wanted the USSR to become the German India [;)] He said so many times. First it's your goal, then you have to rationalize, justify this move. How? Racism.

It worked exactly the same way with European / American racism during the Imperialist Era (XIX century). Domination of the globe was the real prosaic goal: markets, raw materials, customers... and er, the racist doctrine auto-magically "appeared" to make this domination er... necessary [8D]

Western Europe was not supposed to become a German colony ergo there was no need of some grotesque racist doctrine to justify that move.

But as for the Poles, Russians and other people...
"Hitler is a horrible sexual degenerate, a dangerous fool" - Mussolini, circa 1934
turtlefang
Posts: 334
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 9:43 am

RE: OT: A burning question..

Post by turtlefang »

While I think Hitler had a fanasty of turning Russia - or at least a part of it - into an extension of Germany, I just believe that this is more a jusftification for his racism and desire to attack. Further, I think he had convinced himself that he could actually win as the Russians were subhuman and would just fold to his troops. I just don't think he felt he could lose to the subhumans eastern hordes.

We know about Hitler's racism far earlier than any statement he makes about resettlement in Russia. He began expressing this in WWI - which is recorded in several places. And this becomes "public" in his 25 pt declaration in 1920 - nearly five years before he published his first idea of resettlement - and about three years before he began writing Mein Kamf.

Anyway, based on the fact that Hitler was expressing his racism far in advance of his "resettlement" ideas, I believe that drove him more than the resettlement. The resettlement gave him a vision to sell his ideas to the general population.
turtlefang
Posts: 334
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 9:43 am

RE: OT: A burning question..

Post by turtlefang »

Your right. There is no oil in France.

But for all intents and purposes, there was no oil in the Caucaus oil fields for Germany.

Based on a number of German studies, the Germans projected a minimium 10 years to get oil out of the fields. The GHC understood how effective the "Scorched Earth" policy was. Odds of succcess even if you could unblock the wells and the Russians didn't set them on fire was low. And the Russian has the wells ready and wired to blow and burn.

Add in trying to open these fields up during a war, with partisans raiding, lay and run a 1400 mile pipeline, and with the hostile policies that the Germans implemented in Russia against the population?

And the Soviet's were fully aware that the Romanian’s functioned as the major supplier in oil. There are dozens of mentions in documents traversing the Stalin/Hitler diplomatic lines during the late 1930’s.

So, again, don't buy the oil argument. Long term, sure, if the Germans won. But then, they didn't need that much oil if they had won.

At least for the first decade, the oil field wouldn't have supplied a drop of oil to Germany. The only way the oil field argument works is if Germany could force a surrender similar to WW1 and capture the oil fields intact. Something that simply wasn't ever a possiblity. The Soviets knew how important it was to the Germans - and the Soviets weren't going to let the Germans have it come hell or high water. And that literally mean a burning hell or wells full of sea water to ruin the oil.

And the Germans knew it.

So, no oil, even if you have the oil fields.

Now, you can argue that captures - or forcing the Soviets to destroy the oil fields - denied it to the Soviets, and that was a strategic goal. But that's a different goal. And not worth the strategic mistake made by Hitler.
turtlefang
Posts: 334
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 9:43 am

RE: OT: A burning question..

Post by turtlefang »


Exert from a Report Regarding the Transportation of Oil to Germany

Report by Generalleutnant Hermann
von Hanneken of the War Economy and War Armaments Office, which
was appended to a letter sent by Keitel to the OKH. This report warned
that, even if the Caucasus oilfields could be captured intact, very little oil
(only 10,000 tons per month) could be carried overland to Germany.
Moreover, even if the Black Sea could be made safe for shipping, there
would be no ships available for the transport of Caucasus oil up the
Danube because its river tankers were already working to capacity
transporting Rumanian oil. The only remaining route was across the
Black Sea, through the Dardenelles, and on to Mediterranean ports.
Accordingly, the report concluded, 'the opening of the sea routes and the
security of the tankers in the Black Sea is the prerequisite for the use of
Russian supply sources in sufficient quantity to support the further
continuation of the war.' Clearly, to attain this prerequisite was virtually
impossible by early 1942; the Germans would have had to wipe out the
powerful Soviet Black Sea Fleet (which still had, according to Raeder,
'naval supremacy ... [allowing] great freedom of movement") and
eliminate British air and sea power from the eastern Mediterranean.

User avatar
Wally Wilson
Posts: 98
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2011 2:42 am
Location: The Republic of Texas

RE: OT: A burning question..

Post by Wally Wilson »

Without air dominance, Germany could not have successfully mounted and supplied an invasion of England. Having a few extra surface raiders and cruisers and destroyers probably wouldn't have helped that much with defending supply barges from aerial attack while trying to cross the Channel.
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: OT: A burning question..

Post by warspite1 »

Nope, I am not buying it. Hitler wanted Germany to be self sufficient (like the USA) so they were never in future liable to being blockaded into submission. Lebensraum was his whole reason for being.

Remember Hitler thought he could beat the Soviets in one campaigning season. He gambled.

Once that gamble failed, Hitler had no choice but to continue on the path he had chosen. He did not have the luxury of choosing to sit on the defensive. The Wehrmacht did not have the men, the Germans were being out-produced in war material and the position was worsening with every month.

Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
dave_wolf
Posts: 157
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 3:28 pm
Location: GER, where two rivers meet.

RE: OT: A burning question..

Post by dave_wolf »

It is a common mistake (amongst wargamers) to judge Hitler's decisions only by rational standards. He was no rational strategist like, say, Frederick II or Bismarck. Yes, he had his moments. But when it came to the crucial decisions, he usually fell back to ideology rather than objective arguments. (You probably won't realize that by reading only WWII books. If you're seriously interested you should also study Hitler's biography in order to get a better understanding of his character traits and the underlying patterns of the decision making in WWII.)

See this introduction on this topic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5agLW7fT ... ure=relmfu
The artist formerly known as davewolf.

Lose your password, let your email account expire and you're a complete noob again...
User avatar
TulliusDetritus
Posts: 5581
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:49 am
Location: The Zone™

RE: OT: A burning question..

Post by TulliusDetritus »

ORIGINAL: dave_wolf

It is a common mistake (amongst wargamers) to judge Hitler's decisions only by rational standards. He was no rational strategist like, say, Frederick II or Bismarck. Yes, he had his moments. But when it came to the crucial decisions, he usually fell back to ideology rather than objective arguments. (You probably won't realize that by reading only WWII books. If you're seriously interested you should also study Hitler's biography in order to get a better understanding of his character traits and the underlying patterns of the decision making in WWII.)

See this introduction on this topic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5agLW7fT ... ure=relmfu

The guy was indeed crazy But still his political, military choices were usually rational. He was obviously a gambler. He had to be one if he wanted Germany to defeat against all odds the Big Boys in the neighbourhood. When it didn't work and Germany was facing a long two-front war they could NOT remotely afford, he didn't "fall back to ideology"... he fell back to his own experience in WW1 as a Corporal [:D]

The modern, sophisticated Blitzkrieg was replaced by a more traditional "not one step back, attrit the enemy"... WW1 if you ask me. A rational choice that is. Tow sides of the coin: he accepted the Blitzkrieg because he knew the country could only afford short campaigns and that's what the Blitzkrieg was offering, was all about; when this failed he only had his own WW1 experience... and there we go.

Hitler was being crudely rational when he was saying Eastern Europe to the Urals would be a German colony (food, minerals, oil etc. etc.). The ideology is the pop corn here methinks. You need it to convince the part of the German population that would not accept a mere rapacious war. Because Hitler was a rapacious bandit. Now we should consider those behind him who also wanted to rob these territories... heavy industry barons etc etc... But that's another story.
"Hitler is a horrible sexual degenerate, a dangerous fool" - Mussolini, circa 1934
dave_wolf
Posts: 157
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 3:28 pm
Location: GER, where two rivers meet.

RE: OT: A burning question..

Post by dave_wolf »

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

He was obviously a gambler.
That was one of his traits. But it only scratches the surface.

More you won't find in most history books. Because the answers you're looking for belong to the realm of psychology. (I dare say most historians have a rather superficial understanding of psychology, if any at all.) Therefore it is recommended to study his biographies (as suggested above).
The artist formerly known as davewolf.

Lose your password, let your email account expire and you're a complete noob again...
turtlefang
Posts: 334
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 9:43 am

RE: OT: A burning question..

Post by turtlefang »

dave_wolf -

As a matter of fact, I agree with you. Hitler wasn't rational. And he was insane. He was much more instinct/gut driven by his decision making, very much like most gamblers as TulliusDetritus points out. But gambling isn't rational by definition if you have other options. Especially after he had already grabbed everything that any historic German leader would have considered successful.

warspite 1 -

Your choice on what you believe. Hitler proved time and time again that he could convince himself that could do things that he had no chance of doing. Seizing Poland without a war, Sea Lion, Knocking Russia out in 42, seizing the oil fields in 42, relieving the 6th Army and on and on.

The living space to me simply another way for Hitler to justify something he already wanted to do. He never put resources against it that would imply he really believed in this. And it fits with his history. Germany "won" WWI in the East. He wanted this to recreated the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk at the end of WWI which he felt Germany "won" and was invalidated by the Allies.
Post Reply

Return to “Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series”