It was rare and it is only in the west. A small number of traitors does not give the right to say so about the whole Ukraine.Millions fought for the Soviets, hundreds/thousands of happily greeted the Germans.
Quite frankly, Hitler did not get the Eastern Front he was hoping for.Barbarossa's objective was a quick victory over Russia; this was done via the classical Blitzkrieg tactic that worked in France and the Low Countries. The idea was to rapidly blast through into Russia, sieze resources wherever and encircle whole portions of the Soviet army. Whatever stood in their path was blasted, but the main goal was a "bloodless kill"- lopping off the head of the enemy quickly than wearing him down. After such shock and awe, it was hoped that the German forces would sieze Moscow and Russia would capitulate.The Germans did indeed manage to rapidly smash through Soviet resistance, wipe out whole armies (technically Corps-size formations IIRC). The satellite states like Ukraine and Poland initially welcomed the Germans as liberators from Communist totalitarianism. The purged and antiquidated Red Army crumbled whenever it chose to stand ground, and the average soldier faced death from the advancing enemy or execution for cowardice. If not for a number of seemingly significant but critical factors there was indeed a real chance Barbarossa was successful.First off, the blitzkrieg was both a success and failure; the army moved so fast that some encircled Soviet formations continued as partisans, disrupting the supply chain and hindering German efforts in securing the vast territory they held. Second, the Germans moved so fast that supply lines were extended making partisan activity far more dangerous than it would be. The Germans may advance far, but once they reach their limit the Blitzkrieg tactic is largely nullified of its important elements- speed shock and mobility. The Germans reached barely reached Moscow but failed to take it, allowing the Soviet leadership to relocate and continue safely. Soviet industry was also packed up and merely moved eastward, far from German bombers. Third, the Germans relied on Blitzkrieg to achieve a quick victory that made anything less a garunteed failure. Because of the factors of overextended logistics, harassing partisans and the aparent lack of a Soviet collapse, the Germans then had to adjust to these new problems. The SS deployed Einsatzgruppen forces to enforce Nazi ideology, that is, killing Jews, enslaving Slavs for work and general brutality, losing local support and consequently feeding partisan activity. The Russians burned much of what they can't salvage as they retreated, forcing the Germans to rely entirely on supply lines rather than local sources of food and fuel to bolster their ability to continue fighting. Fourth, since Germany had not anticipated a prolonged Soviet resistance, development of long-range bombers to inflict damage on the war industry was not prioritized. Here we see the same mistake Hitler made in the Battle of Britain: the decision to target cities instead of finishing off the RAF (which ironically was nearly battered and defeated utterly without the Germans realizing it). So when factories packed up and moved out of bomber range, the Soviets were able to continue manufacturing the means to fight the Germans. No matter how many Russian troops and vehicles they killed, more of them came, while the Germans were running themselves into the ground. So a short summary would be:-lack of further planning into the posible scenarios of Barbarossa (namely, the chance that campaign goals were not achievable in time such as winning before the onset of winter)-inabiltiy to maintain logistics-unwillingness to favourably treat occupied areas thus allowing the enemy to operate behind the lines-inability to strike the heart Russia that is the war industry- Russian lives and materiel were the blood, but so long as the heart kept beating, Russia wouldn't flounder-Hitler's unrealistic expectations and demands on the German army to achieve objectives without addressing these issuesIn analogy, Germany was continuously punching the air out of Russia, but never stopped it from breathing. Everytime the Germans ran out of steam, the Russians struck back. However valiantly the Germans withstood Russian offensives, every German loss was far more fatal than a Russian one. Russia can afford to be sloppy, while Germany could not.
Author
Topic: Why did Germany lose on the Eastern Front (Read 60187 times)
