29-09-2002 01:21									#1
	Why did both Napoleon and Hitler fail to defeat Russia? Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

We're having this discussion at Historic Battles. Why not join the discussion?

********

Both Napoleon and Hitler tried it, and both failed. Russia's size, abundant manpower and harsh winters have defeated any external enemy. Was the German (Axis) and Napoleons armies doomed from the day they set they're foot in Russian soil? Or did they both make critical mistakes that caused they’re own downfall. Over a century span the two invasions, and still they have so much in common, why do you think they both failed?

********

	29-09-2002 01:43									#2
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

They forgot the most basic truth of all: "Never get involved in a land war in Asia." Only slightly less well known is the truth "Never go up against a Sicilian when death is on the line."

	29-09-2002 01:44									#3
	Increase the size of your Attachments

They weren't Finnish.

	29-09-2002 01:47									#4
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

They both forgot that it's cold in Russia....

	29-09-2002 01:49									#5
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Napoleon lost a war because of winter and he collected army from hot spots (except some Lithuanians, but there were very few of them )

Hitler would have won if not USA help for Soviet Union

	29-09-2002 01:56									#6
	Got spare money?

That is an easy one.

Because..

Russians are the superior race !

	29-09-2002 01:56									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Supply.

	29-09-2002 02:03									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I think the Wehrmacht could have defeated Russia if they played the cards just a bit better. They really maintained at least a fighting chance on the Eastern Front until Kursk and Operation: Bagration, even after the disaster at Stalingrad. And it goes without saying that Moscow was saved in '41 by only a razor thin margin.
Napoleon's invasion however, was most likely doomed from the start. Unless he employed a vastly different strategy than immediately marching deep into Russia, there is no way he could have won.

	29-09-2002 02:25									#9
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Napoleon's invasion however, was most likely doomed from the start. Unless he employed a vastly different strategy than immediately marching deep into Russia, there is no way he could have won.

Napoleon made many mistakes in his invasion of Russia, most notably his decision to retreat from Moscow along the same route that he had travelled to get there. Since his army had already used up the available forage on that road on the way into Moscow, thousands of them starved on the way out. The Russians didn't really beat Napoleon; Napoleon beat himself.

	29-09-2002 02:42									#10
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Hitler didnt assemble enought divisions. He could have taken Moscow on the first attempt. He also could have invaded 21 days earlier.

	29-09-2002 03:50									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Because neither of them came to us for advice.

	29-09-2002 04:01									#12
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Just watched Stalingrad... disappointing, the fighting scenes are nice and gory, but that's it ... nothing about the real war itself !!

	29-09-2002 04:08									#13
	Increase Your PM Length

snow

	29-09-2002 04:21									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Hitler could have had winter suits made for his Army, Mussolini volunteered the services of Italy's innumerable seamstresses, but he didn't want to seem to be a defeatest so he declined. Subsequently the majority of the men sent into Russia in 1941 died or were disabled by cold injury. The funny thing is that Hitler's time schedule, even if it had succeeded, would have put these men deep in Russia when winter came roaring across the steppes. There wasn't any preparation for them other than some vague idea of bringing them home, so even if Hitler had vanquished the Soviets the German Army would still have suffered massive casualties.

	29-09-2002 05:17									#15
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

BECAUSE!

	29-09-2002 05:37									#16
	Remove this text

They did not have the Will to Power.

	29-09-2002 05:44									#17
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Yes, because of logistics they lost early...but both would have most likely lost anyways, even with proper winter equipment.

	29-09-2002 05:58									#18
	Increase the size of your Attachments

hitler:

He didn't prepare for the harsh winter.

He made some errors in judgement IMO as to where to goto next.

He waited too long to attack. If he had attacked several months earlier - he would have won.

	29-09-2002 06:48									#19
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Not mentioned but deserving was Hitler's growing role in military leadership. He made some very poor decisions. He did not allow his commanders at the front the freedom of manuever. He identified objectives and stubbornly refused to listen to his generals if they suggested that circumstances dictated changing those goals. He refused to allow tactical retreat or defensive measures.

Not to be disrespectful of the Soviet performance, but German generals recognized that elements of the Wehrmacht was in danger of being cut off and told Hitler so. Hitler was not fully rational and had decided that the general staff was full of incompetents and cowards. His decisions reflected his fantasies more than strategic or tactical reality and this is what doomed the German invasion.

(above is my opinion based on my personal research...I was not there)

	29-09-2002 08:10									#20
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

It's too dam cold to fight there. The Russians burned crops to starve both armies.

jimmy is right too Hitler made some dumb decisions that lead to failure too.

	29-09-2002 10:31									#21
	Inflate your Upload Space

Excellent analysis JT.
(wow, I never thought I would say it.)

Germany *did* have some excellent field commanders on the eastern front, such as Guderian and Manstein. Even despite Hitler's many blunders on a more macro-level (lack of preparation for "General Winter", etc), if the generals were given more direct command, and were not subject to Hitler's fanatical whims, Germany still could have possibly emerged victorious. Of course, Hitler had a nasty habit of firing some of his best generals when they didn't live up to his impossible expectations (Guderian, the master of armored tactics, was fired and reappointed twice if I recall correctly).

	29-09-2002 11:25									#22
	Tired of ads?

General Winter, obviously, played a significant role in Nazi Germany's defeat in Russia, but let's not forget Muddy Spring. She, too, staved a few German heads in (figuratively speaking).

Gatekeeper

	29-09-2002 18:27									#23
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Napolean should have retreated from Moscow right after he arrived and found it burned out. The five weeks he spent there waiting for Alexander to capitulate spelled doom for his army.

Hitlers failure could attributed to the failure of the pro-German Yugoslav government to maintain power. Germany had to invade Yugoslavia pushing back the Russian invasion five weeks. With those five weeks, the Germans would have surely taken Moscow. Stalin would have been forced to sue for peace.

	29-09-2002 21:08									#24
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I know this is a bit sidetracking, but it seems so obvious to everybody in WW2 nothing could possibly withstand the German invasion...
Let's not forget that the Russian forces faced a similar loony at the top of the Ranks: Stalin is reported to have been 'incommunicado' for days if not weeks, while his generals where 'waiting' for his orders. The purges Stalin had made in the 30's were still in the memories of the surviving militairy top-brass, and they were very afraid to act on their own.

I think that the answer to why both failed is in that they both had multiple Fronts to fight: Napoleon more or less invaded Russia because he wanted Russia on HIS side against the Brits ( ), and there are quite some reports that Russia was about to attack the Nazi's (a very large portion of the Red Army was amassed at the border!), and that Hitler may have not been so keen on invading Russia this early in the war, but had to strike first. The lack of winter equipment supports this theory.

So, in the end the answer is:

The UK.

	29-09-2002 21:16									#25
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Wasn't Hitler obsessed with invading SU at the same moment as Napoleon did?

He had opportunity enough to go earlier, but wanted to do it Napoleon-style...and he also failed Napoleon-style.

	29-09-2002 21:54									#26
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Napoleon took Moscow, yet Russia didn't surrender. It is very hard to say whether the Soviet Union would sue for peace if the Germans had managed to capture Moscow.

	29-09-2002 22:36									#27
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by germanos So, in the end the answer is: The UK.

There is actually more truth in this statement than most would know.

Napolean's invasion of Russia was provoked by Alexander's rejection of the "Continetal System" which prohibited trade with England. The Russian were not an active ally of France or England, as they were embroiled in a war with the Ottomans. Napolean could not take such a slap in the face, so invaded thinking that defeat of the Russian army would bring Alexander back in line.

The German's lost the bulk of their airborne forces, both men and transports, in the invasion of Crete. The English used their Enigma machine, provided by the Poles who intercepted one before the war make a copy and sent it back to it's destination, to decipher German plans for the invasion. While the Commonwealth forces on Crete didn't win out in the end, the information probably caused a greater amount of German casulties especially in the transport aircraft. The Germans went into Russia with very limited airborne capability and great shortage in transport aircraft which could have been used to resupply forward elements of the breakthrough units.

	30-09-2002 01:41									#28
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by germanos I think that the answer to why both failed is in that they both had multiple Fronts to fight: Napoleon more or less invaded Russia because he wanted Russia on HIS side against the Brits ( ), and there are quite some reports that Russia was about to attack the Nazi's (a very large portion of the Red Army was amassed at the border!), and that Hitler may have not been so keen on invading Russia this early in the war, but had to strike first. The lack of winter equipment supports this theory. So, in the end the answer is: The UK.

The theory of a planned Soviet attack aganist the Germans has been disproven by historians that have looked through the Red Army archives. As for the Soviets having the bulk of their forces close to the border: well, were else would you put them if you have Nazi germany as a neighbor? In Siberia?

	30-09-2002 01:44									#29
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

That is true Swissy. But the crop burning was a significant part. When Napoleon retreated to find Smolensk (his hoped for winter camp) all deprived of food, he had no chance. His troops died, and the Russian crop burning eventually deprived the French of local food, so they couldn't stay.

	30-09-2002 02:04									#30
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

What would have happened if Napoleon had advanced up the coast to St. Petersburg instead of to Moscow?