Which city should hitler have gone for on the russian front?

[julian]

Had I looked up a large number of sites there might have been some validity to that suggestion but the quotes I posted were the majority of the ones that I found in a quick search..

Does not matter at all as that does not mean a thing.You posted what suited you. The data do not support what you say.

[julian]

Such superlatives are most often wrong. This one is not one of the exceptions. Whether or not Germany would gain would depend on how you define the term as well as things like exchange rations, territory held, how long "prolonged" is etc. Stating your opinions as if they are facts does not make them so.

Blablabla. It is not rocket science to understand that Germany would not win a pure war of attition.German leaders understood that pretty well.

[julian]

From the standpoint of the 18 August Wehrmacht/OKH plan the Germans thought themselves in a good position. In both reality and hindsight that estimate and opinion were both proven absolutely incorrect. The Wehrmacht as it stood in mid-August was not capable of defeating the USSR no matter what historical decisions you try and debate. The Wehrmacht forces deployed for Barbarossa did not possess the military strength to inflict enough damage to the USSR so as to facilitate its collapse given the time frame it had to work with.
On 30 October the US and UK gave the Soviets the pledge of unlimited support in the form of Lend Lease and promised military action to alleviate pressure. On Dec. 7 the US entered the war and a few days later declared war on Germany directly giving the Soviets further confidence in ultimate victory. So even if the Wehrmacht somehow takes Moscow, end game will still ultimately happen in Berlin with an Allied victory.

Not the issue. The issue is that given the intention to try to wage a decisive battle by going for the enemy capital, the ofensive towards moscow needed to start end august and this was feasible. So the the city Hitler needed to go for was Moscow.

[julian]

Regardless of the Kiev or Moscow decision the US/UK-CW will support the Soviets (militarily, economically and politically which has a huge effect on morale) and the US will enter the war, thus the Soviets do not surrender even if Moscow falls in 1941. If the decision is Moscow its unclear if the Germans could take it and also unclear if that operation would hurt the Soviets more than the Kiev debacle. Either way, the Soviets aren't that much worse off going into 1942 even if Moscow falls. The main factories, economic assets, population, etc. are all still out of reach of the Wehrmacht, the Red Army will still outnumber the Germans (and will still grow). The main effect is on command and control as well as the rail net, both of which will be temporary albeit substantial problems.

You are in retreat so the battering has at least worked in some way.
If you really do not care about what city the germans went for then you should not even bother to take part in this type of discussion.

[Osterhase]

Not the issue. The issue is that given the intention to try to wage a decisive battle by going for the enemy capital, the ofensive towards moscow needed to start end august and this was feasible. So the the city Hitler needed to go for was Moscow.

I agree in principle, however in practicality the intent could not be met successfully and at the time the intent was better met by the Kiev operation.

Regardless of the Kiev or Moscow decision the US/UK-CW will support the Soviets (militarily, economically and politically which has a huge effect on morale) and the US will enter the war, thus the Soviets do not surrender even if Moscow falls in 1941. If the decision is Moscow its unclear if the Germans could take it and also unclear if that operation would hurt the Soviets more than the Kiev debacle. Either way, the Soviets aren't that much worse off going into 1942 even if Moscow falls. The main factories, economic assets, population, etc. are all still out of reach of the Wehrmacht, the Red Army will still outnumber the Germans (and will still grow). The main effect is on command and control as well as the rail net, both of which will be temporary albeit substantial problems.

You are in retreat so the battering has at least worked in some way.
If you really do not care about what city the germans went for then you should not even bother to take part in this type of discussion.

Retreat? Why?..... You continue to batter away with the same old tired argument that has been demolished by unavoidable facts every time it appears. All things considered (economy of force, force protection, etc.) the Kiev operation changed the balance of forces more than a Moscow in September operation would. The cost of the Kiev operation in terms of losses and logistical requirements was minimal compared to what a Moscow operation would entail and managed to remove 1 million Red Army Soldiers from the Soviet OOB as well as vast economic assets.

In principle Moscow was the correct target, in reality/practicality Kiev was the wise choice. Regardless of target, Barbarossa could not succeed strategically.

[julian]

]

I agree in principle, however in practicality the intent could not be met successfully and at the time the intent was better met by the Kiev operation.

Retreat? Why?..... You continue to batter away with the same old tired argument that has been demolished by unavoidable facts every time it appears. All things considered (economy of force, force protection, etc.) the Kiev operation changed the balance of forces more than a Moscow in September operation would. The cost of the Kiev operation in terms of losses and logistical requirements was minimal compared to what a Moscow operation would entail and managed to remove 1 million Red Army Soldiers from the Soviet OOB as well as vast economic assets.

In principle Moscow was the correct target, in reality/practicality Kiev was the wise choice. Regardless of target, Barbarossa could not succeed strategically.

The Kiev operation loses time which cannot afforded to be lost. No, the city to go for was Moscow and that needed to be done when the campaign season was still good. Kiev would always fall.

[Osterhase]

The point was destruction of the Red Army, thus OKH pushing for Moscow as the target, no? My point is that the Kiev operation delivered up one million Red Army Soldiers to the Wehrmacht, something that an early Moscow operation isn't likely to do. Without the help from AGC to AGS there can be no encirclement of Kiev.
The objective was destruction of the Red Army, Moscow was the best target to achieve this in principle but the Wehrmacht could not deliver the same level of force that it could to a similiar number of Red Army troops in/around Kiev which in pr.
acticality turned out to be the better option.
You continue to cling to the idea that the Germans could have taken Moscow with an early offensive and defeated the USSR, no?

[julian]

The point was destruction of the Red Army, thus OKH pushing for Moscow as the target, no? My point is that the Kiev operation delivered up one million Red Army Soldiers to the Wehrmacht, something that an early Moscow operation isn't likely to do. Without the help from AGC to AGS there can be no encirclement of Kiev.
The objective was destruction of the Red Army, Moscow was the best target to achieve this in principle but the Wehrmacht could not deliver the same level of force that it could to a similiar number of Red Army troops in/around Kiev which in pr.
acticality turned out to be the better option.
You continue to cling to the idea that the Germans could have taken Moscow with an early offensive and defeated the USSR, no?

If you want a decisive battle with the enemy main force then you go for Moscow. That was the reasoning of the OKH and I accept that. An offensive towards Moscow had to be done when the campaign season was still favorable.I do not speculate upon the consequences of the fall of Moscow but there was certainly a better chance of taking it by an earkier advance.

[Osterhase]

Agreed, my point is that taking Moscow is the optimal scenario but that in practicality it wasn't the best option once the campaign started (Op Barbarossa's force structure was inadequate to complete it's objectives). It would cost the Wehrmacht too much and the Soviets weren't going to surrender anyway as historical facts support.
The real mistake the Axis made was pursuing Operation Typhoon after early November. They should have accepted that they had done as much damage to the Soviets as they could have and the culmination point of their offensive had been reached. Pulling back to favorable defensive ground, digging in, withdrawing the mobile formations for rest and refit (for spring) would have allowed for another attempt at a decisive battle with the Red Army for Moscow in 1942 (IMHO). The Red Army counteroffensive would have been blunted and losses mitigated.

[julian]

.
The real mistake the Axis made was pursuing Operation Typhoon after early November. They should have accepted that they had done as much damage to the Soviets as they could have and the culmination point of their offensive had been reached. Pulling back to favorable defensive ground, digging in, withdrawing the mobile formations for rest and refit (for spring) would have allowed for another attempt at a decisive battle with the Red Army for Moscow in 1942 (IMHO). The Red Army counteroffensive would have been blunted and losses mitigated.

Certainly true. Once Typhoon stalled, there was no prospect anymore of achieving anything decisive in 1941 so falling back to a defensible line and pulling back mobile forces for refit was the logical option.

[lwd]

Had I looked up a large number of sites there might have been some validity to that suggestion but the quotes I posted were the majority of the ones that I found in a quick search..

Does not matter at all as that does not mean a thing.You posted what suited you. The data do not support what you say.

But it does. The fact that you don't like doesn't mean that it doesn't it just indicates your inability or lack of desire to confront itmes that don't support your positon.

Such superlatives are most often wrong. This one is not one of the exceptions. Whether or not Germany would gain would depend on how you define the term as well as things like exchange rations, territory held, how long "prolonged" is etc. Stating your opinions as if they are facts does not make them so.

Blablabla. It is not rocket science to understand that Germany would not win a pure war of attition.German leaders understood that pretty well.

??? Just because you don't like a truth doesn't mean that it isn't true. If the above is how you support a postion it's clear that that position is seriously challenged.

It's also clear at this point that you aren't really interested in discussing this you simply wish to parrot your beliefs. So be it.

[ljadw]

[julian]

But it does. The fact that you don't like doesn't mean that it doesn't it just indicates your inability or lack of desire to confront itmes that don't support your positon.

At least I presented data while you simply assembled quotes which suited you.

[julian]

?? Just because you don't like a truth doesn't mean that it isn't true. If the above is how you support a postion it's clear that that position is seriously challenged.

It's also clear at this point that you aren't really interested in discussing this you simply wish to parrot your beliefs. So be it.

Rather funny coming from somebody with almost zero knowledge on this subject.

[lwd]

But it does. The fact that you don't like doesn't mean that it doesn't it just indicates your inability or lack of desire to confront itmes that don't support your positon.

At least I presented data while you simply assembled quotes which suited you.

??? So when you present it it's "data" but whe In present it it's just "quotes which suited" me? We have both presented quotes that support our position. It's pretty clear however that there are a lot more out there that support mine than that support yours. It's clear that you are not capable of a reasoned rational discussion of the topic so I'll not try to convince you otherwise any more. I will continue to point out holes in your logic and "data" however for the edification of others if not you.