Why did the nazi abandon the offensive at Kursk?

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,351
Sydney
#21
Nope that's Churchill " Russia is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma "

operation Barbarossa was doable on paper ,
the soviet RKKA made a pathetic showing during the Winter war
the officers purge was supposed to have made it's war fighting ability even weaker , it did
the OKH was certain of destroying it during the battle of the borders , and it did
it was supposed that the regime would collapse , it nearly did

war-gamers both civilians amateurs and military professional have run the various scenarios ad nauseum
it's a pretty close call
winning in one year is very difficult winning in two a bit easier
the best moves involve going South which is what Hitler absolutely wanted , but he got sidetracked by his generals
 
Sep 2012
8,959
India
#22
Looking back it certainly does look as if it was a crazy risk to invade the Soviet Union, it was just so huge that it would be difficult to force a surrender (they might have learned that from Napoleon after all).
Very true. It would have been better if Hitler would have strengthened his submarine arm and tried to starve and then force the British Isles into a surrender. This could have been done without ruffling the feathers of the USA if the U-Boat captains would have been more careful. But Hitler had already neglected the U-boat arm of his Navy ( unnecessarily wasting resources and steel plate into building Tirpitz and Bismarck ) and perhaps the delay was fateful. Even the alternative strategy of paying attention to the Mediterranean, Gibraltar, and Malta pointed out by Admiral Raeder had already been neglected.
 
Jan 2014
999
Rus
#23
Very true. It would have been better if Hitler would have strengthened his submarine arm and tried to starve and then force the British Isles into a surrender. This could have been done without ruffling the feathers of the USA if the U-Boat captains would have been more careful. But Hitler had already neglected the U-boat arm of his Navy ( unnecessarily wasting resources and steel plate into building Tirpitz and Bismarck ) and perhaps the delay was fateful. Even the alternative strategy of paying attention to the Mediterranean, Gibraltar, and Malta pointed out by Admiral Raeder had already been neglected.
If Hitler fast defeated USSR and got its resources he would become a winner of WWII and Germany would become world leader. Britain would be doomed and USA would become isolated in New World.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,351
Sydney
#24
retooling the German industry toward naval warfare would have taken a couple of years at least ,
the whole point of Barbarossa was to gain economic self sufficiency in one year and remove a potential threat too
so this is a correct strategy ( if it could be done )
with the food and resources of the soviets in his hands , Hitler had time on his side and could ratchet up the pressure on Britain
without it he didn't
the soviets were at their weakest while Germany were at their strongest ,
in a few years the Red Army would be in much better shape , now was the time
 
Jan 2014
999
Rus
#25
retooling the German industry toward naval warfare would have taken a couple of years at least ,
the whole point of Barbarossa was to gain economic self sufficiency in one year and remove a potential threat too
so this is a correct strategy ( if it could be done )
with the food and resources of the soviets in his hands , Hitler had time on his side and could ratchet up the pressure on Britain
without it he didn't
the soviets were at their weakest while Germany were at their strongest ,
in a few years the Red Army would be in much better shape , now was the time
agree
 
Sep 2012
8,959
India
#26
If Hitler fast defeated USSR and got its resources he would become a winner of WWII and Germany would become world leader. Britain would be doomed and USA would become isolated in New World.
But Hitler was already engaged in a terrific struggle with the British Empire. A Two-Front war was what he had always declared he would avoid. Then why did he go and attack when the Soviet Union had, by the non-aggression treaty, committed to supplying him precious Oil and food grains?I t was a foolish gamble and unnecessary, at that moment.No doubt that Stalin was no friend-in-need, being not averse to gobble up the Baltic states while Hitler was busy in beating France and Britain in the European campaign.
 
Last edited:
Sep 2012
8,959
India
#27
retooling the German industry toward naval warfare would have taken a couple of years at least ,
the whole point of Barbarossa was to gain economic self sufficiency in one year and remove a potential threat too
so this is a correct strategy ( if it could be done )
with the food and resources of the soviets in his hands , Hitler had time on his side and could ratchet up the pressure on Britain
without it he didn't
the soviets were at their weakest while Germany were at their strongest ,
in a few years the Red Army would be in much better shape , now was the time
The history of WW I was well known to Hitler and his admirals well before the start of WW II. In WW I the U-boats had caused a fright to the British. Hitler had plenty of time to strengthen his submarine arm but he was fascinated by big ships and went for building Bismarck and Tirpitz.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,351
Sydney
#28
"The history of WW I was well known to Hitler "

indeed , he was fully aware than during WW1 one third of the German army defeated the whole of the Czarist Russia
now with the best two third of an even better German Army he could beat a Soviet Russia whom ,he believed ,was even more dysfunctional
 
Sep 2012
8,959
India
#29
"The history of WW I was well known to Hitler "

indeed , he was fully aware than during WW1 one third of the German army defeated the whole of the Czarist Russia
now with the best two third of an even better German Army he could beat a Soviet Russia whom ,he believed ,was even more dysfunctional
Wasn't his priority the defeat of the British ? And was it not a cost effective strategy to strengthen the U-boat arm ? Please give your opinions on these points.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,351
Sydney
#30
At all time Hitler priority was the acquiring of a continental sized resources base ,
he wrote it in Mein Kampf stated it in public time and again

Germany had starved during WW1 , it lost the war due to a lack of resources and the blocus
with all of Eurasia at Germany disposal , the Reich would be the geopolitical equal to the US
Britain would only be a financially insecure country dependent on the precarious safety of its sea lanes

All it's political move were toward the East ,that's where Germany future was