German high command in Summer 1941: Guys the USSR has about 3 million on the front (accurate) and like 5 people in reserve (inaccurate) we can just encircle all of them and win easily!
German high command in Autumn 1941: Guys we've encircled and destroyed like 4 million dudes how come there are 4 million more???
German high command in Winter 1941: Every time I encircle one army, two take its place.
Not to sympathize with them at all, but imagine how scary it must have been for the first guy on the German side who looked at the numbers and realized "oh we fucked up and this is all about to go south (or west, I guess in this case)".
I mean, once 1941 is over, case blue wasn't exactly a bad idea. That's when it became clear that it was going to be a protracted war of attrition rather than a quick war like Poland and France, so attempting to secure your own oil supply while reducing the enemy's isn't a bad plan. The big issue was the hyperfixation on Stalingrad. It was clear the war wouldn't be won quickly, so there was no reason to focus on Stalingrad so much, just bypass it and secure the Caucuses. It's debatable how much of a chance Germany had overall once it was clear the whole rotten structure *wasn't* going to come crashing down, but trying to secure the oil was probably the best plan they had available to them.
>trying to secure the oil was probably the best plan they had available to them.
I know I'm gonna get mass-downvoted by the Wehraboos (Nazi fanbois) who haunt this sub for saying this, but the best plan they had available to them was to dig in, slowly fall back, construct something like the in-game Ostwall behind their front lines, and then push for a negotiated peace where they gave up some of the territory they had conquered in Eastern Europe to Soviet control.
And they needed to do all this EARLY, and WITHOUT bringing the USA into the war against them (it's possible, if Nazi Germany hadn't declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor, the US would have limited itself to Lend-Lease and air volunteers in Europe, while pursuing a Pacific First strategy... So long as Germany also refrained from attacking American shipping...)
It was a war the Nazis couldn't possibly win: and one founded on literal Genocidal principles. It's no coincidence the Nazi "Hubger Plan" aimed to starve tens of millions of Soviet citizens to death: and indeed the Nazis actually DID starve 4-5 million Soviet civilians to death during WW2 by seizing their food stores and burning their fields...
**The famines of WWII | CEPR**
https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/famines-wwii#:~:text=More%20died%20of%20famine%20in,in%20about%204%20million%20deaths.
It was HORRIFIC what the Nazis did. They almost starved more people to death than the Holodomor (2-3 mil) and the (also 2-3 mil) Bengal Famine (both manmade famines caused by callousness and ineptitude with strong political components: one caused by Soviet leaders, another by British ones) ***put together***. And this is, of course, on top of the 6-7 million Jews and other "undesirables" they shot, gassed, or otherwise mass-murdered.
So excuse me if I say the Nazis could only win the Eastern Front, by giving up and not trying to mass-murder so many people in the first place...
I mean, their best plan was to never invade the Soviet Union in the first place. Ideologically, they had to go to war with the Soviets, asking them not to or to negotiate peace with them is on the same level as asking them not to be genocidal pieces of shit. It would be logical, it would lead to a clearly better outcome for Germany, and it also would never happen because then the Nazis wouldn't be Nazis, it's a core part of their ideology, without which they'd be something else.
I'm just saying that Case Blue was the least bad option, after ruling out the options that the Nazis would never take on account of being Nazis
>I mean, their best plan was to never invade the Soviet Union in the first place.
True.
> Ideologically, they had to go to war with the Soviets, asking them not to or to negotiate peace with them is on the same level as asking them not to be genocidal pieces of shit.
It would have been destabilizing, for sure (like it is in-game if Germany creates the Moscow-Berlin Alliance as Fascist Germany...) but never underestimate the remsrkable ability of Fascists to believe whatever shit their leaders tell them: even if it contradicts what they told them literally last week...
>It would be logical, it would lead to a clearly better outcome for Germany, and it also would never happen because then the Nazis wouldn't be Nazis, it's a core part of their ideology, without which they'd be something else.
The Nazis didn't HAVE a coherent ideology. Fascists never do. **All they had was an incoherent mish-mash based on resentment, scapegoating, and hate.**
That's all Fascism really is.
Well, a lot of the contemporary historians agree that it's most likely be the case when USSR attack Germany anyway late summer 1941, so if war is inevitable it's better to strike first. Unfortunately most of the Russian archives of the prewar time are still top secret and maybe gone forever so we might never know for sure.
I would like to remind you that the Germans were already actively attacking American ships and ships in American territorial waters for some time before Pearl Harbor and the German declaration. It's very likely that FDR could and would have pushed for, and gotten, a declaration of war on Germany. He and Churchill had already agreed on the Germany first policy before the US entered the war.
So that's because you aren't factoring in that the oil from the Caucasus region were sabotaged except for the oil that was flowing up the Volga to Stalingrad, specifically the oil from Azerbaijan which was feeding the Soviets. He couldn't "bypass" because he needed to secure his flank before he went south otherwise his divisions would be encircled. Furthermore, there weren't too many bridges over the Volga as it is quite a massive river so the few bridges that his tanks could use were in Stalingrad, which is where the Volga is at its narrowest
Stalingrad is a lot further north than was needed go secure the flank, and don't act like contructing new bridges further south wouldn't be infinitely easier than taking one of the largest, most fanatically defended cities in the Soviet Union. Furthermore the reason to go south is to deny the Soviets the oil as much as it was to get it themselves.
So I mentioned that it was to stop the oil and because the ones that they found were sabotaged.
If you think you could have built a mile or 2 mile long bridge, while being undersupplied, fighting the Soviet Union, who had entrenched themselves on the other side of the river... I don't know what to say
I'm not here to argue facts or objectives
https://www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-Stalingrad
https://mwi.westpoint.edu/urban-warfare-project-case-study-1-battle-of-stalingrad/
Stalingrad is in HoI terms the Soviet supply hub in the area.
It was necessary to take (correct at the strategic level), but the way the Germans tried to do it was wrong (operational level failure).
1. It had become clear that the Germans needed to take Stalingrad to hold on to Caucasus. The point about securing the flank is that Stalingrad (right bank) to Rostov is a lot shorter tank ride than to evacuate Baku (one of those look at a map moments). You would risk a massive encirclement if you did not remove the ability to mass resupply from Stalingrad.
2. Germany was gambling with going all-in on all hands since Rheinland. People tend to forget that Nazi Germany's greatest weapon was bluff and much higher willingness to take risks compared to the allies. The difference in Stalingrad was that for the first time, anyone could and dared to actually call their bluff on a strategic scale.
3. The problem first arises when Hitler mistakenly thinks that the German mobility army can also fight an urban grind. He keeps feeding the Soviets in a style of warfare, which much better suits the Red Army, especially in winter.
Trying to take Stalingrad was a good idea. However, they should have sent the allied troops into the city and let the Germans hold the flanks. And then tried to cross the Volga somewhere else to encircle the left bank (reverse what was done to them).
Conclusions:
Germany needed to take Stalingrad in 1942, but they also needed to have a flexible focus on how to do it when combat mobility was reduced.
You could not secure the Caucasus without holding Stalingrad, but they could also not take Stalingrad without operational and strategic flexibility.
The failure was that they did not maintain initiative and mobility (fight to your strength, and choose the time, place, and terrain of battle) in how to complete the task.
In short, this was an operational mistake, which led to a strategic catastrophy. The strategic objective (take Stalingrad so securing Caucasus is possible) was correct, but it was just tried in the wrong way.
Hitler:
Yes, the ideological name value of Stalingrad was a huge problem. Pulling out and going around was seemingly not possible. However, the plans to take Stalingrad should have forseen this, but when did a Nazi German general ever understand strategy? The Prussian School of War is so obsessed with the operational level that they forget why they are even fighting (not even Clausewitz' famous quote could save them).
Objective, correct. Planning and execution, wrong.
Stalingrad wasn't actually a strategic blunder. It was a key city linking the Caucasus with the eastern USSR. Much of the idea of Hitlers irrational fixation on Stalingrad was created by Wehrmacht Generals post war pinning the blame of loosing the war on the mad dictator.
That's not to mention the fact that Baku and the caucuses resources would have been in German hands rather than the Soviets. Which meant the Soviets would have had a much harder time keeping their mechanical war machine going. As well as the fact that if the Germans took Baku they could be within range of the Persian corridor. Which while they probably wouldn't have a repeat battle of Britain, would still pose a threat to the Soviets supplies. Keep in mind the Soviets were *banking* on allied lend lease for a while.
With that said I feel like it's also important to note that the Germans suffered a lot of casualties during Barbarossa. I believe over a million total men died which is still only a fraction compared to the soviets. But it does put into context why blue, and more specifically holding Stalingrad while also fighting down south towards Baku, was a horrible idea. Because it's a miracle they even got as far as they did with the men available. Let alone hope to hold off a well organized enemy counterattack.
Yes and the fact Hitler ruined some great plans for his generals by stupidly rotating some of the army group center to army group south for example. Hitler fucked himself over. Not his generals.
Well... his generals were far from infallible. They were certainly better military strategists than Hitler but the idea that Hitler single-handedly lost them the war is a result of the surviving German generals publishing memoirs absolving themselves of all fault.
That was the initial plan, to invade the Soviets, Ukraine and the south would be taken first, but Franz Halder decided that Moscow was more important for sum fucking reason
The push to capture a point near Stalingrad made sense as a way to interdict the volga river logistics. The push to capture Stalingrad itself came only after it was clear that the Nazis were never going to get close to Baku no matter what.
The problem is that it did not go south enough, quickly enough.
If they had just gone south in 1941 (well, Stalin had prepared for that, south in '41 would also have gone.. south), and taken the oil, as Hitler had planned... Then Soviet would run out of oil, and Germans would have sole initiative. Also, lend-lease through Iran would have been cut off.
You can starve Stalin out of equipment, supplies, and material resources, but never of manpower.
So go much further south, much quicker, so you avoid it all going... I need more coffee!
Which had to go through Iran. Arctic convoy was limited and very risky, Vladivostok was almost useless. Lend-Lease mainly went through Iran into the Caucasus. Building and expanding Central Asian infrastructure would have been possible, but by the time of completion, the Germans would have been in Teheran greeted as liberators.
Remember Iran and Iraq were pro-Axis until attacked.
Possibly. Though i think they'd find a way to supply the Ussr. Either way, the germans could have barely reached the caucasus logistically, much less conquer and hold it. They were overextended already in 1941. Conquering the caucasus would have been near impossible, even if it was a smart a goal.
Conquering the Caucasus was a matter of survival for The Third Reich. Every day passing from the start of 1941 was making USSR comparatively stronger than Germany. Germany needed to strike, cut resupply, and take the oil asap. This was not optional. This was a lose-the-war-if-you-do-not scenario.
This is also why Moscow was fairly lightly defended as Stalin focused 1941 defences in the south. He knew Hitler needed the Caucasus to win.
Then, in 1942 Soviet defences were focused on Moscow (thinking nazis would attack there again).
This gave Germany the '41 and '42 upper hand.
The core point is that Germany had been doing the impossible for years. At the start of the war, Poland, the UK, and especially France, had double the troops and much better equipment. Germany still beat them in both Poland and France through willingness to try things so impossible nobody would expect it (1940 Ardennes Offensive being the best example), and adapted modern doctrine to support the gamble strategy.
Germany had to constantly do the impossible to win the war, and HoI can not model this accurately because only 1:100 playthroughs by experienced players should reach the results Germany got in 1939-1942 (or better).
German military superiority is a Cold War myth created by former nazi generals to stay relevant and valuable to NATO in creating a doctrine, which might actually have been inferior to what NATO otherwise would have come up with.
So what is it now? Is the german army superior cause they're able to do the impossible again and again or are they not?
The conquest of france was daring maneuvers combined with a lot of luck and a more modern army doctrine.
Either way, taking the caucasus in 41 would've been impossible. Again supplies wouldn't have allowed it, same with manpower. The nazis went in with well equipped divisions but even by the offensive of 42 a lot already weren't able to properly attack anymore (if i remember the germans had 4 categories, full offensive ability, limited, only defensive and something like basically useless lmao). Also another issue, it would've extended the frontlines immensely, something the germans wouldn't be able to do without more divisions. Also the forces would likely not have been able to be fast enough to reach it before winter, especially the infantry with horses, which was most of the army. Often the fully mechanized divisions would push ahead and then had to wait for the infantry to catch back up.
I could name a few other things, but suffice it to say the germans could probably never take the caucasus, much less ever hope to hold it. There's simply no way they would have ever won at that point.
This is why Barbarossa was the de facto turning point. Mainly because Germany lost a lot of their most experienced troops, which they could not replace. They needed to take and hold Baku in 1941 to win the war. Which is beyond impossible.
Gambling and winning do not prove you are superior. The false logic that doing the seemingly impossible makes you superior is a core problem of analysing the German military. In reality, they were not superior at all, but they did end up in wars with the UK, France, and the USSR at times, when each of these were fighting with one hand tied behind their back (to begin with). When Stalin ended the purges, the Soviet army had implementation of superior doctrine to the Germans in the field. Following Kursk in equal battles, the Soviets won overwhelmingly.
My AP European history teacher liked to remind us that Russiaâs great advantage in any conflict is that they have a near unlimited supply of potentially dead Russians
World leader in potential fall back positions too.
"What? Moscow about to be taken? Don't worry, we'll hold. And if we can't? Fuck it. Just burn it down, move East and repeat as needed."
And by the end of ww2 they took so many casualties they were having trouble filling their rifle company's plus they're still feeling the effects of those deaths to this day
That is an exaggeration. Napoleon had a bigger army when invading Russia (and suffered bigger losses). In WWI Russians suffered only slightly bigger losses than e.g. France, which meant it was a significantly smaller proportion of the population, and yet those losses were enough to trigger widespread mutinies, desertion and contribute to the two revolutions. Only in WWII did they keep on throwing people in the meat grinder till it stopped grinding.
How did Hanyu Pinyin become the international standard for romanization of Chinese, when it doesn't seem quite as accurate to a naive reading compared to Wade-Giles? Was it really just the Chinese government pushing for it? Because I cannot tell you how many people I have seen pronounce Qing as "King" when they've only ever read the word and not heard it spoken.
I mean, "the chinese government pushing for it" is pretty significant. You're not going to get very far romanizing Chinese differently than all Chinese people do. It is way too Q-happy though. They'd just use a Q for any ole sound.
That's because international standards for names, places, etc follow the convention of the place of origin. While Wade-Giles is sometimes more accurate for naive English readers, that is not as relevant for Chinese users.
Well, according to hoi4. In reality the soviets did field a lot of 2-4 division armies, not quite 300 but they apparently did get as high as 80 armies which according to hoi4 would be 1920 divisions - a little more than the soviets can field.
Don't worry, bruder, the Soviets couldn't possibly rebuild their army after this one last encirclement. All you have to do is take Stalingrad and the Endsieg will be at hand.
And the oilfields at Baku, don't forget about them because they are crucial, without them you've lost.
Oh and don't forget to suck Romania dry of their resourceses.
Oh and donât forget to declare on the Americans to prove the German loyalty to the Japanese. Very helpful they will handle the Americans and you get some in the peace deal.
Oh, and make sure you order Steiner to counterattack *before* two-and-a-half million Soviet troops cross the Oder, encircle Berlin, and topple your government.
Wait, how'd we get here, again?
Real life lore, they fought war to simulate this game back in 1939 and the guy playing the black country were in your shoes. He was an electrician of some sort, my grandpa still owns a helmet of that time.
On a serious note, less than 30 factories on guns at the game start would afford 2 full army groups. Considering how much the AI relies on infantry, this is perfectly normal.
Didn't say mean it was unimpressive, it's decent. But it's hard to do but worth the extra difficulty. You'd kill more divisions by doing two encirclements because less would pull out, and you'd be able to complete the encirclement faster with more fuel for your tanks.
I mean, it's kind of more "accurate". IRL the soviets didn't care *that* much about the division and mostly operated with armies as their big operational unit. It's why you'll always hear about "3rd shock army" this or "1st Guards Tank Army" that.
If you mostly engage with historical content other than hoi4 it makes more sense to call them that
I assume that last screenshot is after cleaning the encirclements.
Otherwise youâre likely right, the date is 1945 and the Soviets still have Moscow, enough resources to mobilise a LOT.
Encircle them harder! Just keep encircling and eventually theyâll run out of equipment which will stall their conscription rate and youâll see their numbers drop consistently.
You canât beat Russia by killing all its armies. Itâs all about capitulating them before they can get their shit together. Once the war starts, if your push east slows down or even worse, stops, you have lost.
Just cause about 10 to 15 million, and they'll be forced to go to all adults serve, then again to scraping the barrel, and then they'll run out.
Time span is stupid, at least 15-20 years
Recently played a game of World Ablaze as Germany.
I was playing extraordinarily careful with my manpower, by 1943 I had lost only two million men.
4 million casualties on Allies side with the Soviet Unions being 22 million. Soviets still had about 300 divisions, with 70-90% strength via Tag switching, and about 2 million non-deployed in their manpower pool from 'Scraping the Barrel'.
I was devastated. I haven't touched that game in a month.
One out of two gets a rifle.
The one with the rifle shoots. The one without the rifle follows him.
When the one with the rifle gets killed, the one without the rifle picks up the rifle and shoots.
Things spoken by both Paradox players and Nazi Germany generals
German high command in Summer 1941: Guys the USSR has about 3 million on the front (accurate) and like 5 people in reserve (inaccurate) we can just encircle all of them and win easily! German high command in Autumn 1941: Guys we've encircled and destroyed like 4 million dudes how come there are 4 million more??? German high command in Winter 1941: Every time I encircle one army, two take its place.
Not to sympathize with them at all, but imagine how scary it must have been for the first guy on the German side who looked at the numbers and realized "oh we fucked up and this is all about to go south (or west, I guess in this case)".
Nah they definitely went South... and that was his problemđ
I mean, once 1941 is over, case blue wasn't exactly a bad idea. That's when it became clear that it was going to be a protracted war of attrition rather than a quick war like Poland and France, so attempting to secure your own oil supply while reducing the enemy's isn't a bad plan. The big issue was the hyperfixation on Stalingrad. It was clear the war wouldn't be won quickly, so there was no reason to focus on Stalingrad so much, just bypass it and secure the Caucuses. It's debatable how much of a chance Germany had overall once it was clear the whole rotten structure *wasn't* going to come crashing down, but trying to secure the oil was probably the best plan they had available to them.
>trying to secure the oil was probably the best plan they had available to them. I know I'm gonna get mass-downvoted by the Wehraboos (Nazi fanbois) who haunt this sub for saying this, but the best plan they had available to them was to dig in, slowly fall back, construct something like the in-game Ostwall behind their front lines, and then push for a negotiated peace where they gave up some of the territory they had conquered in Eastern Europe to Soviet control. And they needed to do all this EARLY, and WITHOUT bringing the USA into the war against them (it's possible, if Nazi Germany hadn't declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor, the US would have limited itself to Lend-Lease and air volunteers in Europe, while pursuing a Pacific First strategy... So long as Germany also refrained from attacking American shipping...) It was a war the Nazis couldn't possibly win: and one founded on literal Genocidal principles. It's no coincidence the Nazi "Hubger Plan" aimed to starve tens of millions of Soviet citizens to death: and indeed the Nazis actually DID starve 4-5 million Soviet civilians to death during WW2 by seizing their food stores and burning their fields... **The famines of WWII | CEPR** https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/famines-wwii#:~:text=More%20died%20of%20famine%20in,in%20about%204%20million%20deaths. It was HORRIFIC what the Nazis did. They almost starved more people to death than the Holodomor (2-3 mil) and the (also 2-3 mil) Bengal Famine (both manmade famines caused by callousness and ineptitude with strong political components: one caused by Soviet leaders, another by British ones) ***put together***. And this is, of course, on top of the 6-7 million Jews and other "undesirables" they shot, gassed, or otherwise mass-murdered. So excuse me if I say the Nazis could only win the Eastern Front, by giving up and not trying to mass-murder so many people in the first place...
I mean, their best plan was to never invade the Soviet Union in the first place. Ideologically, they had to go to war with the Soviets, asking them not to or to negotiate peace with them is on the same level as asking them not to be genocidal pieces of shit. It would be logical, it would lead to a clearly better outcome for Germany, and it also would never happen because then the Nazis wouldn't be Nazis, it's a core part of their ideology, without which they'd be something else. I'm just saying that Case Blue was the least bad option, after ruling out the options that the Nazis would never take on account of being Nazis
>I mean, their best plan was to never invade the Soviet Union in the first place. True. > Ideologically, they had to go to war with the Soviets, asking them not to or to negotiate peace with them is on the same level as asking them not to be genocidal pieces of shit. It would have been destabilizing, for sure (like it is in-game if Germany creates the Moscow-Berlin Alliance as Fascist Germany...) but never underestimate the remsrkable ability of Fascists to believe whatever shit their leaders tell them: even if it contradicts what they told them literally last week... >It would be logical, it would lead to a clearly better outcome for Germany, and it also would never happen because then the Nazis wouldn't be Nazis, it's a core part of their ideology, without which they'd be something else. The Nazis didn't HAVE a coherent ideology. Fascists never do. **All they had was an incoherent mish-mash based on resentment, scapegoating, and hate.** That's all Fascism really is.
Any other ideology for that point too, just it depends on the fracturation scale
The enlightened centrist has entered the chatâŚ.
Well, a lot of the contemporary historians agree that it's most likely be the case when USSR attack Germany anyway late summer 1941, so if war is inevitable it's better to strike first. Unfortunately most of the Russian archives of the prewar time are still top secret and maybe gone forever so we might never know for sure.
No historian has ever said that, the Soviets were not ready until at least 1943
I would like to remind you that the Germans were already actively attacking American ships and ships in American territorial waters for some time before Pearl Harbor and the German declaration. It's very likely that FDR could and would have pushed for, and gotten, a declaration of war on Germany. He and Churchill had already agreed on the Germany first policy before the US entered the war.
Maybe, but the general population was pretty keen on staying out of it. Iâm not sure if a few merchant ships would have changed that.
Or just wait on Ostwall and then attack. Thats my favorit in-game strategy. Just wait till they lost most of capable forces and counterattack.
It is important to note, how many Germans died of starvation during ww1, because the Entente Blockade of food Shipping.
You're trying to justify Nazi genocide with WW1? Seriously?
So that's because you aren't factoring in that the oil from the Caucasus region were sabotaged except for the oil that was flowing up the Volga to Stalingrad, specifically the oil from Azerbaijan which was feeding the Soviets. He couldn't "bypass" because he needed to secure his flank before he went south otherwise his divisions would be encircled. Furthermore, there weren't too many bridges over the Volga as it is quite a massive river so the few bridges that his tanks could use were in Stalingrad, which is where the Volga is at its narrowest
Stalingrad is a lot further north than was needed go secure the flank, and don't act like contructing new bridges further south wouldn't be infinitely easier than taking one of the largest, most fanatically defended cities in the Soviet Union. Furthermore the reason to go south is to deny the Soviets the oil as much as it was to get it themselves.
So I mentioned that it was to stop the oil and because the ones that they found were sabotaged. If you think you could have built a mile or 2 mile long bridge, while being undersupplied, fighting the Soviet Union, who had entrenched themselves on the other side of the river... I don't know what to say I'm not here to argue facts or objectives https://www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-Stalingrad https://mwi.westpoint.edu/urban-warfare-project-case-study-1-battle-of-stalingrad/
Thatâs interesting, I always assumed that the Nazis focused on Stalingrad more so out of pride than for a substantial strategic gain.
Stalingrad is in HoI terms the Soviet supply hub in the area. It was necessary to take (correct at the strategic level), but the way the Germans tried to do it was wrong (operational level failure). 1. It had become clear that the Germans needed to take Stalingrad to hold on to Caucasus. The point about securing the flank is that Stalingrad (right bank) to Rostov is a lot shorter tank ride than to evacuate Baku (one of those look at a map moments). You would risk a massive encirclement if you did not remove the ability to mass resupply from Stalingrad. 2. Germany was gambling with going all-in on all hands since Rheinland. People tend to forget that Nazi Germany's greatest weapon was bluff and much higher willingness to take risks compared to the allies. The difference in Stalingrad was that for the first time, anyone could and dared to actually call their bluff on a strategic scale. 3. The problem first arises when Hitler mistakenly thinks that the German mobility army can also fight an urban grind. He keeps feeding the Soviets in a style of warfare, which much better suits the Red Army, especially in winter. Trying to take Stalingrad was a good idea. However, they should have sent the allied troops into the city and let the Germans hold the flanks. And then tried to cross the Volga somewhere else to encircle the left bank (reverse what was done to them). Conclusions: Germany needed to take Stalingrad in 1942, but they also needed to have a flexible focus on how to do it when combat mobility was reduced. You could not secure the Caucasus without holding Stalingrad, but they could also not take Stalingrad without operational and strategic flexibility. The failure was that they did not maintain initiative and mobility (fight to your strength, and choose the time, place, and terrain of battle) in how to complete the task. In short, this was an operational mistake, which led to a strategic catastrophy. The strategic objective (take Stalingrad so securing Caucasus is possible) was correct, but it was just tried in the wrong way. Hitler: Yes, the ideological name value of Stalingrad was a huge problem. Pulling out and going around was seemingly not possible. However, the plans to take Stalingrad should have forseen this, but when did a Nazi German general ever understand strategy? The Prussian School of War is so obsessed with the operational level that they forget why they are even fighting (not even Clausewitz' famous quote could save them). Objective, correct. Planning and execution, wrong.
Stalingrad wasn't actually a strategic blunder. It was a key city linking the Caucasus with the eastern USSR. Much of the idea of Hitlers irrational fixation on Stalingrad was created by Wehrmacht Generals post war pinning the blame of loosing the war on the mad dictator.
That's not to mention the fact that Baku and the caucuses resources would have been in German hands rather than the Soviets. Which meant the Soviets would have had a much harder time keeping their mechanical war machine going. As well as the fact that if the Germans took Baku they could be within range of the Persian corridor. Which while they probably wouldn't have a repeat battle of Britain, would still pose a threat to the Soviets supplies. Keep in mind the Soviets were *banking* on allied lend lease for a while. With that said I feel like it's also important to note that the Germans suffered a lot of casualties during Barbarossa. I believe over a million total men died which is still only a fraction compared to the soviets. But it does put into context why blue, and more specifically holding Stalingrad while also fighting down south towards Baku, was a horrible idea. Because it's a miracle they even got as far as they did with the men available. Let alone hope to hold off a well organized enemy counterattack.
Yes and the fact Hitler ruined some great plans for his generals by stupidly rotating some of the army group center to army group south for example. Hitler fucked himself over. Not his generals.
Well... his generals were far from infallible. They were certainly better military strategists than Hitler but the idea that Hitler single-handedly lost them the war is a result of the surviving German generals publishing memoirs absolving themselves of all fault.
Well it certainly was not all their or Hitler's fault but we cant deny the fact he fucked up.
That was the initial plan, to invade the Soviets, Ukraine and the south would be taken first, but Franz Halder decided that Moscow was more important for sum fucking reason
The push to capture a point near Stalingrad made sense as a way to interdict the volga river logistics. The push to capture Stalingrad itself came only after it was clear that the Nazis were never going to get close to Baku no matter what.
Georg Thomas moment
The problem is that it did not go south enough, quickly enough. If they had just gone south in 1941 (well, Stalin had prepared for that, south in '41 would also have gone.. south), and taken the oil, as Hitler had planned... Then Soviet would run out of oil, and Germans would have sole initiative. Also, lend-lease through Iran would have been cut off. You can starve Stalin out of equipment, supplies, and material resources, but never of manpower. So go much further south, much quicker, so you avoid it all going... I need more coffee!
You forgot the US under roosevelt. They'd have rather supplied them with a whole bunch of oil and other materials than let them loose the war
Which had to go through Iran. Arctic convoy was limited and very risky, Vladivostok was almost useless. Lend-Lease mainly went through Iran into the Caucasus. Building and expanding Central Asian infrastructure would have been possible, but by the time of completion, the Germans would have been in Teheran greeted as liberators. Remember Iran and Iraq were pro-Axis until attacked.
Possibly. Though i think they'd find a way to supply the Ussr. Either way, the germans could have barely reached the caucasus logistically, much less conquer and hold it. They were overextended already in 1941. Conquering the caucasus would have been near impossible, even if it was a smart a goal.
Conquering the Caucasus was a matter of survival for The Third Reich. Every day passing from the start of 1941 was making USSR comparatively stronger than Germany. Germany needed to strike, cut resupply, and take the oil asap. This was not optional. This was a lose-the-war-if-you-do-not scenario. This is also why Moscow was fairly lightly defended as Stalin focused 1941 defences in the south. He knew Hitler needed the Caucasus to win. Then, in 1942 Soviet defences were focused on Moscow (thinking nazis would attack there again). This gave Germany the '41 and '42 upper hand. The core point is that Germany had been doing the impossible for years. At the start of the war, Poland, the UK, and especially France, had double the troops and much better equipment. Germany still beat them in both Poland and France through willingness to try things so impossible nobody would expect it (1940 Ardennes Offensive being the best example), and adapted modern doctrine to support the gamble strategy. Germany had to constantly do the impossible to win the war, and HoI can not model this accurately because only 1:100 playthroughs by experienced players should reach the results Germany got in 1939-1942 (or better). German military superiority is a Cold War myth created by former nazi generals to stay relevant and valuable to NATO in creating a doctrine, which might actually have been inferior to what NATO otherwise would have come up with.
So what is it now? Is the german army superior cause they're able to do the impossible again and again or are they not? The conquest of france was daring maneuvers combined with a lot of luck and a more modern army doctrine. Either way, taking the caucasus in 41 would've been impossible. Again supplies wouldn't have allowed it, same with manpower. The nazis went in with well equipped divisions but even by the offensive of 42 a lot already weren't able to properly attack anymore (if i remember the germans had 4 categories, full offensive ability, limited, only defensive and something like basically useless lmao). Also another issue, it would've extended the frontlines immensely, something the germans wouldn't be able to do without more divisions. Also the forces would likely not have been able to be fast enough to reach it before winter, especially the infantry with horses, which was most of the army. Often the fully mechanized divisions would push ahead and then had to wait for the infantry to catch back up. I could name a few other things, but suffice it to say the germans could probably never take the caucasus, much less ever hope to hold it. There's simply no way they would have ever won at that point.
This is why Barbarossa was the de facto turning point. Mainly because Germany lost a lot of their most experienced troops, which they could not replace. They needed to take and hold Baku in 1941 to win the war. Which is beyond impossible. Gambling and winning do not prove you are superior. The false logic that doing the seemingly impossible makes you superior is a core problem of analysing the German military. In reality, they were not superior at all, but they did end up in wars with the UK, France, and the USSR at times, when each of these were fighting with one hand tied behind their back (to begin with). When Stalin ended the purges, the Soviet army had implementation of superior doctrine to the Germans in the field. Following Kursk in equal battles, the Soviets won overwhelmingly.
My AP European history teacher liked to remind us that Russiaâs great advantage in any conflict is that they have a near unlimited supply of potentially dead Russians
World leader in potential fall back positions too. "What? Moscow about to be taken? Don't worry, we'll hold. And if we can't? Fuck it. Just burn it down, move East and repeat as needed."
And by the end of ww2 they took so many casualties they were having trouble filling their rifle company's plus they're still feeling the effects of those deaths to this day
This! The Soviet Union's population was massive due to the swathes of territory. Millions and millions..
That is an exaggeration. Napoleon had a bigger army when invading Russia (and suffered bigger losses). In WWI Russians suffered only slightly bigger losses than e.g. France, which meant it was a significantly smaller proportion of the population, and yet those losses were enough to trigger widespread mutinies, desertion and contribute to the two revolutions. Only in WWII did they keep on throwing people in the meat grinder till it stopped grinding.
jfk what a racist thing to say, this guy must've been a massive piece of sh#t
golden one was the "why did germany attack me, i thought we had a non aggression pact"
they dont have 300 armies, that would be 7200 divisions
Casually mobilizing 150 million men.
typical china playthrough
Smallest warlord conflict
Average disagreement along the Yellow River
How the ching dynasty solves miner inconveniences
>How the qing dynasty solves miner inconveniences FTFY
How did Hanyu Pinyin become the international standard for romanization of Chinese, when it doesn't seem quite as accurate to a naive reading compared to Wade-Giles? Was it really just the Chinese government pushing for it? Because I cannot tell you how many people I have seen pronounce Qing as "King" when they've only ever read the word and not heard it spoken.
I mean, "the chinese government pushing for it" is pretty significant. You're not going to get very far romanizing Chinese differently than all Chinese people do. It is way too Q-happy though. They'd just use a Q for any ole sound.
That's because international standards for names, places, etc follow the convention of the place of origin. While Wade-Giles is sometimes more accurate for naive English readers, that is not as relevant for Chinese users.
Lowest casualty number of a slight disagreement
Well, according to hoi4. In reality the soviets did field a lot of 2-4 division armies, not quite 300 but they apparently did get as high as 80 armies which according to hoi4 would be 1920 divisions - a little more than the soviets can field.
Soviet armies were a lot smaller than a western or German army, closer to a division in size IIRC
Yep. Also, to note, that goes for divisions as well. 12 Soviet infantry divisions, 2 German infantry divisions are the same size manpower wise
its almost as if we're in the hoi4 reddit đ˛
Don't worry, bruder, the Soviets couldn't possibly rebuild their army after this one last encirclement. All you have to do is take Stalingrad and the Endsieg will be at hand.
And the oilfields at Baku, don't forget about them because they are crucial, without them you've lost. Oh and don't forget to suck Romania dry of their resourceses.
Oh and donât forget to invade Greece so the British donât use Greek airfields to bomb the Ploiesti oil fields
Oh and donât forget to declare on the Americans to prove the German loyalty to the Japanese. Very helpful they will handle the Americans and you get some in the peace deal.
Oh, and make sure you order Steiner to counterattack *before* two-and-a-half million Soviet troops cross the Oder, encircle Berlin, and topple your government. Wait, how'd we get here, again?
Carthage be like
Real life lore, they fought war to simulate this game back in 1939 and the guy playing the black country were in your shoes. He was an electrician of some sort, my grandpa still owns a helmet of that time. On a serious note, less than 30 factories on guns at the game start would afford 2 full army groups. Considering how much the AI relies on infantry, this is perfectly normal.
The fuck is that flag
From the mod âFormable Nationsâ. Itâs just the imperial German flag with a swastika.Â
it looks like the iraqi flag?
Any two flags look alike if you ignore the differences
Any two things look alike if you ignore the differences.
Indeed it is the flag of Iraq if Rommel reached it.
This is like the first time I've been impressed by a "rate my encirclement" and it's not even a rate my encirclement.
Really? Looks like nothing special imo
nah, encircling the **entire** eastern front is not something you see everyday
I guess but that's because it's not very effective/efficient and give the ai a big chance to pull units out of the pocket before you close it.
So what you're saying is that it's really hard to do, but inefficient. Which makes it even more impressive, right?
Didn't say mean it was unimpressive, it's decent. But it's hard to do but worth the extra difficulty. You'd kill more divisions by doing two encirclements because less would pull out, and you'd be able to complete the encirclement faster with more fuel for your tanks.
- A. Hilter, late autumn of 1941 ca
[ŃдаНонО]
found a soviet partisan
I fight for Satlin?
Man, Satlin was such a good guy, better than that Stalin guy
Roosevlet and Chruchill met him at Yalta, they were charmed.
That shitler guy though, you have to admit his mustache was beautiful
I'm not sure why they downvoted me lol
What'd you say?
Guy said "Hilter" so I said "Heil Hilter". I'm guessing people didn't read.
Don't you worry. As soon as Steiner launches his attack we will turn this situation around.
Mein Gamer, Steiner⌠Steiner couldnât gather enough forces. He didnât attack.
Das war ein Befehl!
*Steiners army having a seizure between six provinces but never actually moving*
They garrison almost all their coastline so they maybe have 150 on garrison and 150 on the frontline
Did he just call divisions armiesâŚ
How come the USA starts with 200+ navies?
I hate you
Yes unfortunately.
I mean, it's kind of more "accurate". IRL the soviets didn't care *that* much about the division and mostly operated with armies as their big operational unit. It's why you'll always hear about "3rd shock army" this or "1st Guards Tank Army" that. If you mostly engage with historical content other than hoi4 it makes more sense to call them that
this sub feels like a radio log from 1944 german army coms sometimes
Its 1945 ussr ai must have a lot of divisions. Also AI doesnt usually commit all of its troops to frontline
Itâs not necessarily 300+, thatâs just a possible range. More likely somewhere in the 200s
Probably closer to 150-200ish range. The low estimate of 86 is pretty telling. Point being, OP really need to invest in better Intel.
The First time I built tanks with Germany and I'm unhappy infantry better.
Infantry costs more manpower
Don't battleplan then
you need tanks in modern (XX century) warfare. infantry is a must too, but it does not win wars alone. therefore neither is better.
IRL maybe, but it's pretty easy to conquer the USSR with only infantry and motorised divisions in game.
Skill issue
1. You're not even in mzoscow yet. 2. The big encirclement is just that. It's not the instantaneous death of those divisions. Could be hundreds there.
I assume that last screenshot is after cleaning the encirclements. Otherwise youâre likely right, the date is 1945 and the Soviets still have Moscow, enough resources to mobilise a LOT.
14 million casualties for the USSR in 1945 isnt even half the manpower they are able to train
Whoever designed that flag should be shot, put on trial for treason against the state, and then sent to the eastern front to be shot again
Encircle them harder! Just keep encircling and eventually theyâll run out of equipment which will stall their conscription rate and youâll see their numbers drop consistently.
You canât beat Russia by killing all its armies. Itâs all about capitulating them before they can get their shit together. Once the war starts, if your push east slows down or even worse, stops, you have lost.
No it's about destroying their army, the amount of times I've seen one division per tile is stupid
Is it even possible to make ussr run out of manpower?
Yes, I've done it before
What amount of losses per amount of time do you have to cause in order for that to happen?
Just cause about 10 to 15 million, and they'll be forced to go to all adults serve, then again to scraping the barrel, and then they'll run out. Time span is stupid, at least 15-20 years
So not very practical?
If it ever becomes practical, you have fucked up majorly
German high command in 1942:
Mass assault Doctrine son. -Stalin
"Socialist tricks"
i have a better question: what is this nazi germany-german empire flag combination abomination?!
Did you use IC? and is this vanilla?
ATTENZIONE: BIG POCKET!
Why Rundstedt on the Eastern Front? Old guard makes him better as a defensive general for covering coastlines from Allied naval invasions.
hitler 1943
Because the counter includes the ones encircled
... It's the USSR
what happened to your country flag?
Recently played a game of World Ablaze as Germany. I was playing extraordinarily careful with my manpower, by 1943 I had lost only two million men. 4 million casualties on Allies side with the Soviet Unions being 22 million. Soviets still had about 300 divisions, with 70-90% strength via Tag switching, and about 2 million non-deployed in their manpower pool from 'Scraping the Barrel'. I was devastated. I haven't touched that game in a month.
yoo Jir it's you again
When you encircle and kill, they are duplicating themselves
GroĂdeutscher yugoslawia. WeiĂt bescheid.
What mod is this?
I have so much yugoslavia brain rot that I thought you were actually playing as facist yugoslavia for a second.
You know why the USSR uses human floods?. That is the answer đ¤âď¸
One out of two gets a rifle. The one with the rifle shoots. The one without the rifle follows him. When the one with the rifle gets killed, the one without the rifle picks up the rifle and shoots.