Could Nazi Germany have turned around its fortunes in Russia after Kursk in 1943 with different decisions?

Question

Germany's Eastern Front collapsed in summer 1944 when they lost all the Soviet territory they occupied. It is said that along with Stalingrad, that it was really the defeat at Kursk which made German defeat inevitable. However some have argued that Hitler's constant interference in military decisions especially after this, made things much worse for them that it might otherwise have been. Do you think the Germans could have stabilised the Eastern Front after Kursk and why?

Answer 1

In the short answer no. But in the long answer by the time they lost ground they were out of food amunition and fuel. They over extended there capabilities with out stabilising there core area. They should have never tried for a winter offensive. I also didnt help that they were more brutal than the ruling comunist of the day. By the time they had reached that far into russia the allies had already bombed 75 percent of there fuel making and amunition plants.

Answer 2

this is a very interesting question.
Essentially by this stage the war was a foregone conclusion, and there was little oppurtunity to shorten the line by retreating.
The mis-management of "wonder weapons"programmes may have been a slight factor, but even if all resources had been optimised there would have been no difference to the outcome.

PS although comprehensive, i believe the answer above is dealing with a pre-Kursk situation.
By this stage the allies were clearly in the ascendancy, and there could be no diplomatic solution - ie making a temporary peace on one side and launching a massive offensive on the other.
A massive defense in depth would merely have prolonged the eastern front until the allies landed and pushed east - resulting in an iron curtain on the other side of Poland perhaps? Hope this helps
Cheers

Answer 3

Hitler's interferrence in the tactical decision only accerating his demise. Stalingrad was only significant if the Germans lost, which they did. The Soviets destroyed the 6th Army, which, in turn, forced the other half of Army Group South (engaged in capturing the Caucasus and Baku oil fields) to withdraw to the north-west to regroup and form a new defensinve line.

The failure to capture the oil fields cut off the Axis powers from any hope of finding a large enough fuel source to continue an effective war, essentially sealing their fate with that of the 6th Army.

If the Soviets lost, the war was not lost as they had plenty of room to retreat further into the hinterland. Their resources in manpower, tanks, war factories, etc., meant they would've enventually won the war by sheer weight of numbers.

From the defeat at Stalingrad onward the Germans lost the strategic offensive. The outcome of the war was still up for grabs after the defeat at the gates of Moscow in '41, but after Stalingrad , it was all but over. The localized battles at Kursk, D-Day and the Battle of the Bulge were fought when the outcome was no longer in doubt. The loss of the Sixth Army, men and material, was something the Wehrmact never recovered from.

Answer 4

Quite simply, no.

They could have tried being more rational in their deployment of resources, let local commanders enjoy more tactical flexibility on the battlefield; let field Marshal Von Manstein become generalissimo on the Eastern Front and tried to become more humane in the treatment of the occupied territories and concentrated on building up reserves and retreating to shorter and more defensible lines. They still would probably have lost in the end. Also since the whole Nazi state was based on the biggest collective outburst of insanity in human history this application of rationality might have been a little difficult for them.

Whilst nothing in history is inevitable they would have lost primarily because of the Soviet Unions vast productive capacity and resources, its huge population and the massive aid it got from the other allies particularly the US. It is interesting to note that Fritz Todt Hitler’s armaments supremo spoke with Hitler in mid November 1941 (!) after a survey of tank production had been shown to Hitler, that "The war can no longer be won militarily” (Kershaw 2000 ; 441)

Even if they had won at Kursk they still would have lost in the long run.

Answer 5

By this stage the damage had been done. Firstly, Germany had made no provision for a winter offensive during the initial offensive. No winter clothing. No anti freeze. There are records of tank crews lighting fires underneath their vehicles in order to get them started. The German armies greatest weopon in France and in the early part of Barbarossa had been mobility. When cold stopped the forward momentum it gave the Russian the one thing that they needed. Time. Time to stabilize their front and time to move elite winter troops into positions where they could do the most damage.

However, this was not a complete loss. Many men froze to death and a great deal of equipment was lost, but once the Germans had pulled back to a viable defensive position they might have carried a decent counter strike once the quagmire of spring had passed.

The next big mistake was Stalingrad. The 6th Pzr Armee was sent into the city to fight along the length of the city, since Stalingrad is long and thin. Not smart but. However, their armoured strength had been stripped, the tanks being re-directed to the Southern Caucasion oil fields. Also, Herman Goring had promissed, on a really big stack of bibles, that he could supply the city from the air (This is the same guy that swore, on a really, really big stack of bibles that he could take out the RAF). Stalingrad turned into a meat grinder. One thing that the Russians can afford to lose is peasant soldiers. One thing that the German army could not afford to lose was 1 million well trained veterans of France.

Hitler made another clanger before Citadel. Von Paulas had been forced to retreat against Hitlers stand and hold order. However, he did this knowing that his shortened supply lines would work in his favour and allow him to counter attack as Russia began to extend her lines. Not only was his counter offensive devastating, it also placed Von Pualas in a position that exposed the entire Russian flank, allowing him the chance to mop up a sizable section of the Russian army. But Hitler would not release the resources for this pursuite, since he was already planning to use as many resources as possible in Kursk.

A traitor in British inteligence, who had access to the Blechley Park data, gave full opperational plans to the Russians of the planned German offensive. Consequently, the Russians knew exactly where the German weak points were.

Russia had a lot of tractor factories at the start of the war. These were converted into arms producing plants. The T34 was very robust and simple to build in vast quantities. It was not machined to great tollerances or put together with more than a years life expectancy. Germany, on the other hand, did not have quite so many tractor factories. It was also obsessive about the precision of its machinery.

Kursk was a massive battle. While both sides lost heavily, Russia could replace her losses within months. Germany could not. Also, while Germany spent a high percentage of its production capacity creating super tanks, Russia could still churn out masses of T34s and still have enough reserve capacity to create the JSU 152 Animal Killers, JS II and JS III tanks.

It is a similar reason for the American insistance on producing the Sherman. As a tank, it was awful. But if you could produce 52,0000 of them and you could service them easily in the field, who cares if its a brilliant design concept or not. The Russian used a ruthless philosophy. For every 10 T34s that you kill, we will kill one Tiger.

By this stage it was all over. Even if Hitler had had a stroke, they might have dazzled the Russians with their footwork, but they had already squandered their resources and, more to the time, given the Russians enough time to equip and train. Game over.

Luck

Answer 6

IMO Germany could easily have won the European War if not for the idiot decisions by Hitler.

The German General Staff was the best collection of military minds in the world. And Hitler kept ignoring them.

Here are TEN dumb decisions by Hitler that cost them the war.

1. He had the RAF on the ropes and then in a fit of anger over the bombing of Berlin, he orders the German Air Force to bomb British cities. That gave the RAF time to recover and fight them off. With the RAF intact, the possibility of an invasion was out of the question.

2. Failing to take out England, in Jun 41 he goes and attacks the USSR, creating a two front war against two powerful enemies.

3. Instead of making the war his primary focus, he diverted many men, much money and lots of assets to wiping out the Jews. Even at the very end when Germany was about to fall, the Jews were still a focus.

4. Not having enough problems with England and the USSR, he goes and declares war on the USA in DEC 41.

5. He kept flip flopping on what kind of jets he wanted. First he wanted bombers, then he wanted fighters, then he wanted bombers, then he wanted fighters. So by the time they finally came on line, it was too late to change the outcome of the war.

6. He let Mussolini get him tied up in North Africa. Nothing there at the time but sand. He should have used those forces against England (Or Russia.)

7. He made battleships while his Navy guys were telling him battleships were out of date and what they needed was subs and aircraft carriers. But Hitler wanted a SHOW BOAT to impress people.....What he got was the Bismarck.

8. He let the Army dictate air doctrine. They wanted planes for ground support which was good, but he did not listen to the Air Force guys who wanted to develop a four engine bomber so they had few and most of their bombers were two engine. Not very good for long range, heavy loads or speed.

9. Even though Germany had the most advance chemical weapons in the world, Hitler would not let the Army use them. While the Allies did have mustard gas and others of World War One vintage, Germany's were nerve agents and could have changed the tide of war.

10... He kept looking for wonder weapons to save Germany. Instead of simply turning out a ton of regular stuff. The Tiger Tank could beat any other tank in the world, but for the amount of material and work it took to make one, the USA would make five Sherman tanks and the Tiger could only handle four at a time.

Hitler was a military idiot and better than a secret weapon for the allies.

Answer 7

No overall, however.

If various decisions had been made differently we would have lost the war or never entered it.

1. If early day computers had not been used.
2. If we had done then what we are doing today with IRAQ.
3. If we had been slower on nuke research.
4. If japan had not attacked us.

Point is, that it was #4 that started it for us, that is in fact what FDR waited for, as he knew that it would be War that would get his country out of the depression....and not his policies.

Note, it was WWII that got us out, not fdr efforts.
And it was SS that directly contributed to the change in the family unit where grandparents are on their own the most.

Answer 8

Field Marshal Erich Von Manstein, who died in 1973 said after the war, the German eastern front campaign could have been won if Hitler had relinquished control and leave the management of the war to the professionals. He was dismissed as eastern front commander in 1944 (to the benefit of the russians), due to his constant arguments with Hitler about over all strategic decisions. He advocated elastic mobile defense (regroupings) wherein the enemy in an offensive attack could easily be encircled and crushed, while Hitler on the other hand ordered continuous static warfare (thrust/onslaught) with complete disregard to German logistical limitations.

Answer 9

Germans could bring USSR to collapse in 41 or 42 if they would mobilized more forces, choose another strategy and get lucky.

In 19943 and later they could not win from USSR-USA-UK alliance.
The question was When Germany would accept their failure.

Answer 10

He may have got trained by the Tavistock Institute in propaganda techniques as some suspect Hitler and the communists were too. edit: Ohbrothers' answer could reinforce that possibility