Would the easter front be totally different if Hitler had..?

Question

attacked his objectives progressively with regular supply instead of letting the panzers outpace the infantry and supply columns? i.e to consolidate his gains while at the same time to give due consideration for the weather change ?

Answer 1

A slower, methodical attack probably would not have had the same effect. The Panzers slashing ahead caused many of the problems the Soviets were unable to solve. What exactly could have been done to ensure German victory is difficult to say. Militarily the switching back and forth from Leningrad to Moscow etc. did not help. I think political changes would have made the biggest difference. People do not realize exactly how brutalized the peoples of the Soviet Union were by Stalin, Beria and the Party.
If Hitler had raised the Ukrainian flag over Kiev, made greater use of the people, he might have induced the ouster of Stalin, the disintegration of the USSR and a victory.

Answer 2

the whole point of the blitzkrieg was a fast advance by panzer troops. The problem however is that this worked quite well in small countries, on good roads where the needed suplies could be carried along with the panzers, but in Russia the space was enormous and the road network non existent

Advancing slowly means giving the enemy time to stand, think and prepare defenses. Think of Kursk as the "slower, well prepared attack"

People who are not panicked by fast moving events tend to stand and fight- and the 1940-1941 panzer armee was not made for that kind of work- light tanks with small calibre guns

I think the german high command had no idea what winter really meant in Russia. Probably didn't care either. All the winter uniforms were still in Germany in January

Answer 3

A slower advance would have allowed the Red Army to withdraw rather than being encircled and destroyed at the front. Soviet Casualties from June 22 through November exceeded the number of soldiers they had on the front as of June 22. The Panzer spearheads advancing so rapidly allowed the Germans to completely destroy the entire force that opposed them on June 22, from November on they were facing new divisions of conscripts with no training whatsoever. A slower advance would have left many industrial areas in Soviet control, and a much larger Red Army to fight them. It wouldn't have been totally different because the same side would have one, but it would have been much shorter, and the Red Army would have liberated France, not the Americans and British.

Answer 4

His problem on the eastern front was giving up on the blitzkrieg tactics at the city along the Volga named after the Soviet leader. I suppose during the first year of the invasion, he should've consolidated his gains along a shorter line in October and Novemer 41, rather attacking Moscow in the dead of winter. But the biggest blunder, of course was resorting to urban warfare....his panzer's were useless at that point.

Answer 5

No difference - Hitler was not going to defeat Russia. Russia's just too big and Germany was practically fighting on all four fronts. Perhaps if it was a one on one wiht Germany vs Russia, it would have been interesting. but even then I think Russian eventually wins. Read your history .. Russia is not easy to invade and defeat.

Answer 6

He should not have started Operation Barberossa. That was his downfall.