# Operation Barbarossa 73 Years Ago Today.



## pardus (Jun 22, 2014)

"On June 22, 1941, Nazi Germany and its Axis allies began a massive invasion of the Soviet Union named Operation Barbarossa -- some 4.5 million troops launched a surprise attack deployed from German-controlled Poland, Finland, and Romania. Hitler had long had his eye on Soviet resources. Although Germany had signed a non-aggression pact with the USSR in 1939, both sides remained suspicious of one another, and the agreement merely gave them more time to prepare for a probable war. Even so, the Soviets were unprepared for the sudden blitzkreig attacks across a border that spanned nearly 2,900 km (1,800 mi), and they suffered horrible losses. Within a single week, German forces advanced 200 miles into Soviet territory, destroyed nearly 4,000 aircraft, and killed, captured, or wounded some 600,000 Red Army troops. By December of 1941, German troops were within sight of Moscow, and they laid siege to the city. But, when the notorious Russian winter (nicknamed "General Winter") set in, German advances came to a halt. By the end of this, one of the largest, deadliest military operations in history, Germany had suffered some 775,000 casualties. More than 800,000 Soviets had been killed, and an additional 6 million Soviet soldiers had been wounded or captured. Despite massive advances, Hitler's plan to conquer the Soviet Union before winter had failed, at great cost, and that failure would prove to be a turning point in the war."

http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2011/07/world-war-ii-operation-barbarossa/100112/








The scale of this conflict was simply immense, far out shadowing any campaign or war before or since.


----------



## AWP (Jun 22, 2014)

The day the Germans lost the war.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Jun 22, 2014)

Indeed, Pardus! This operation cost the German Army way too much, and likely saved thousands of lives, of soldiers from England and the US. Questions that can be debated, include:  1.Would Stalin have invaded Germany, if left unmolested? 2 Would Hitler have been able to defeat England, if the troops for the Eastern Front, been sent west. 3. Would the Allied invasion of France, D-Day, had a different outcome; with Eastern Front resources being available to the German Army? 

The German advance to the East took millions of Russian civilian lives. The Russian's advance against Germany was a horrid event for any Germans in the way; military and civilian. I talking with Germans in Northern Germany, there was still hard feelings towards Allied forces. My impression was that it was because of the bombing raids during WW II. I was wrong in that thinking, at least to a degree. The Germans were still miffed because Ike stopped the Eastward push, to allow the Russians to advance further west. German civilians fled west ahead of the advancing Russian troops. Once the war was over, there were just too many displaced Germans now in Northern Germany. It made post-war housing and employment much worse; and the Germans were still pissed over this. They all were angry that Ike did not continue East as far as possible. It would have saved thousands more lives, and made post-war Germany much easier. That was the feeling in the early '80's


----------



## CQB (Jun 22, 2014)

The deal was that Stalin took that territory as reparation due to the Russian input into the offensive so this effectively halted the Allies western push. Correct me anyone but I think that was decided at the Yalta Conference. 
When Germany invaded they were greeted well, it was only when the likes of the SS battalions & Gestapo got to work that things changed. Every Russian soldier it was believed had lost a relative so they were out for revenge. 
Lastly, the movement of populations wasn't only confined to Germany and it civilian population. For example, Poland & the Ukraine fought a border war until about 1947 as their people settled down. (No love lost there) Jews had to find their way home and in some instances found their houses overtaken by others. The further west from the Channel you travelled the more desolate it became. 
Now for a fun fact: when the German army approached Moscow they were confident they could take it and halted to have an overnight breather. If they continued there was only one platoon guarding it. Their halt enabled reinforcements to be deployed.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Jun 22, 2014)

I have to agree, CQB, Yalta pretty much set the table for who got what @ war's end. In Jim Bishop's bio on "FDR's Last Year", it was very evident that the POTUS was not far from his final breaths. Even during his last run for the White House, FDR was very ill with multi-system failures,http://www.healthmedialab.com/html/president/roosevelt.html; and should not have even run for office. The short read is that FDR was too busy staying alive, to concentrate much at all on anything else at Yalta.FDR died two short months after Yalta. Churchill and Stalin were kept apart, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Yalta_Conference_(Churchill,_Roosevelt,_Stalin)_(B&W).jpg, and not only for the photos. Here in a color photo, http://www.history.com/photos/franklin-d-roosevelt/photo15, FDR looks ashen compared to others in the photo. IIRC, the bulk of the work/agreements , was done by aides and the like behind the scenes and, with very little hands on by FDR. If we had a healthier POTUS at Yalta, I'm pretty sure the results would have been more to Gen. Patton's liking.


----------



## pardus (Jun 22, 2014)

FDR, bowed to Stalin a lot, Churchill was given the cold shoulder by FDR in favor of Stalin. Churchill IMO was the only one making sense during the conferences. 
FDR seems to me to be very naive and foolish, swallowing Stalin's BS. This may have had something to do with FDR's health at the time but I have a feeling it was more than that.
I recall at one point Stalin proposing that he should be allowed to murder something like 50-60K German Officers, Churchill was so disgusted he walked out of the room, only to have Stalin come after him and assure him he was merely "joking"...

FDR's acquiescence to Stalin's demands were a major cause of the cold war IMO.


----------



## AWP (Jun 22, 2014)

pardus said:


> FDR, bowed to Stalin a lot, Churchill was given the cold shoulder by FDR in favor of Stalin. Churchill IMO was the only one making sense during the conferences.
> FDR seems to me to be very naive and foolish, swallowing Stalin's BS. This may have had something to do with FDR's health at the time but I have a feeling it was more than that.
> I recall at one point Stalin proposing that he should be allowed to murder something like 50-60K German Officers, Churchill was so disgusted he walked out of the room, only to have Stalin come after him and assure him he was merely "joking"...
> 
> FDR's acquiescence to Stalin's demands were a major cause of the cold war IMO.


 
I agree, BUT (you knew this was coming, right?  ) FDR spent until 43-44 listening to Churchill. This infuriated the American military, Marshall and Eisenhower especially, but probably kept us from losing the war in 42 or 43. If Marshall had his way we'd have invaded France in Nov. 42 instead of N. Africa. The UK talked FDR out fo this madness, but Marshall and the others were pissed. They saw this as British power play to hang on to the Med and India via the Suez. That may be the case, but Africa - Sicily - Italy proved to be the better choice in the long run. The Allies would have been obliterated if they invaded in 42 or 43.

I have issues with FDR, but he was a good wartime president until the Normandy invasion or so, whenever his health began to seriously decline. The choice of Truman as his running mate was done knowing that FDR wouldn't last more than a year.


----------



## CQB (Jun 23, 2014)

The German advance and early successes were in part caused by Stalin ordering no retreat, so units large & small were surrounded & captured.


----------



## pardus (Jun 23, 2014)

Not to mention the Soviet equipment was crap at the time, they had a huge lack of experience in the Officer Corps due to Stalin's purges. Their comms were shite too IIRC.


----------



## pardus (Jun 23, 2014)

Freefalling said:


> I agree, BUT (you knew this was coming, right?  ) FDR spent until 43-44 listening to Churchill. This infuriated the American military, Marshall and Eisenhower especially, but probably kept us from losing the war in 42 or 43. If Marshall had his way we'd have invaded France in Nov. 42 instead of N. Africa. The UK talked FDR out fo this madness, but Marshall and the others were pissed. They saw this as British power play to hang on to the Med and India via the Suez. That may be the case, but Africa - Sicily - Italy proved to be the better choice in the long run. The Allies would have been obliterated if they invaded in 42 or 43.
> 
> I have issues with FDR, but he was a good wartime president until the Normandy invasion or so, whenever his health began to seriously decline. The choice of Truman as his running mate was done knowing that FDR wouldn't last more than a year.



There were some serious anti-British feelings on the US side. I recall the Naval commander of the eastern seaboard of the US, refusing British help/advise due to his hatred of the Brits. This allowed the U-Boats to run rampant. He is therefore responsible for the deaths of a lot of people because of that. Pretty fucked up.
Churchill had good reason to want the Suez and India, he knew without them Britain was up shit creek.


----------



## AWP (Jun 23, 2014)

pardus said:


> There were some serious anti-British feelings on the US side. I recall the Naval commander of the eastern seaboard of the US, refusing British help/advise due to his hatred of the Brits. This allowed the U-Boats to run rampant. He is therefore responsible for the deaths of a lot of people because of that. Pretty fucked up.


 
I'd need to revisit Clay Blair's The Hunters for more details, but as I recall:
- Exisiting chain of command was inappropriate for an ASW campaign
- The Army owned all long range aircraft. The Navy's best ASW platform, the PBY Catalina, was in short supply at the time and committed elsewhere.
- The US was focused on the Pacific.
- The US did not order the use of convoys.
- It ignored British suggestions and Intel.
- The Brits weren't in a position to help physically though that would change
- FDR ordered the construction of inadequate patrol craft that wouldn't arrive in time.
- The Lend Lease of destroyers is cited as a failure by the US and it was...for the British. The vessels were so old that they required a lot of work to make ready for ASW. Therefore they wouldn't have done the US any good.
- Once convoys and a better C2 structure were implemented, losses went down.
- The UK had to supply armed trawlers and Flower-class frigates until the US could bring her shipyards up to speed. (See the comment about PC's above)
- What ASW platforms DID exist in the US were pulled to provide escorts for troop transports and Lend Lease convoys.

Our first year in the war was more or less a bucket of fail. Luck and the conduct of average Americans carried 1942 for us. Guts and brains...and very little of that from our leaders.


----------



## pardus (Jun 23, 2014)

Freefalling said:


> I'd need to revisit Clay Blair's The Hunters for more details, but as I recall:
> - Exisiting chain of command was inappropriate for an ASW campaign
> - The Army owned all long range aircraft. The Navy's best ASW platform, the PBY Catalina, was in short supply at the time and committed elsewhere.
> - The US was focused on the Pacific.
> ...



Sounds familiar...


----------



## pardus (Jun 23, 2014)

Operation Drumbeat. 400 ships and 5,000 lives lost.

Admiral King was the Anglophobe in charge.

From around the 50min mark...







ETD, I'm acutely aware this is just a documentary, but it is quick and has explosions and shit.

p.s. I'm also aware I'm highjacking my own thread. :troll:


----------



## pardus (Jun 24, 2014)

Personalities and politics of WW2 thread


----------



## CQB (Jun 26, 2014)

Man, that was really quite amazing, a pretty long viewing but worth it. I knew generally the story about the U-Boats but that was great. But a couple of points if I may.
1. I thought that the complete Enigma was taken intact on U110 by the Brits before it sank, the doco implies that an Enigma was captured from a German fishing trawler near Iceland & only the codes were taken from U110, two different scenarios. 
2. Canada was aggressive in repelling U-Boats. Did the decoded INT sharing extend to Canada? If so it was used effectively. (I do get the point you mentioned on Admiral King)
3. The difference between the Type 7C & 9 is stark. Type 9 was the luxury ride
4. I didn't know the U-Boat war came that close to the US at Texas/Galveston. It reminds me of the Japanese coming close at Newcastle, Sydney & Melbourne (yes, Melbourne). 
I don't know if you've read any Nicolas Montserrat , but the convoy reminiscences were pretty vivid.


----------



## AWP (Jun 26, 2014)

CQB said:


> Man, that was really quite amazing, a pretty long viewing but worth it. I knew generally the story about the U-Boats but that was great. But a couple of points if I may.
> 1. I thought that the complete Enigma was taken intact on U110 by the Brits before it sank, the doco implies that an Enigma was captured from a German fishing trawler near Iceland & only the codes were taken from U110, two different scenarios.
> 2. Canada was aggressive in repelling U-Boats. Did the decoded INT sharing extend to Canada? If so it was used effectively. (I do get the point you mentioned on Admiral King)
> 3. The difference between the Type 7C & 9 is stark. Type 9 was the luxury ride
> ...


 
Unless my memory is flagging, that's correct. Enigma codes and machines weren't from one source, but several over the war as the Germans changed a few things. regardles, Doenitz believed their codes were unbreakable and so they did little to secure the machines and more importantly the code books. Bletchley Park read U-Boat traffic in real time, they were that good.

The Canadians are unsung heroes in the Battle of the Atlantic.I forget the particulars, but there was one stretch were they basically held the convoys together. The UK and Us were...doing something and had resources allocate elsewhere and the Canadians "held down the fort." (which I think is racist in America today and no, I don't care)

U-505 in Chicago was a wonderful experience and even then you see how tiny a Type IX is so I can't imagine a VII. Two toilets, fore and aft, and usually one was filled with provisions; then men ate their way to a second latrine.

I've pimped the series before (and admittedly only read the first book) but look up Clay Blair. He did a 3 part series on the U-boat war and was himself a US submarine officer during WWII. His first book is amazing and covers all of the above in great detail. U-bots operated in the Gulf of Mexico and only one was sunk IIRC. The early patrols on the Atlantic seaboard saw U-boats running so shallow that they could barely submerge, 40-50 feet of water.

A fantastic online resource with more infor and photos than you can possibly use:
http://www.uboat.net/


----------



## pardus (Jun 26, 2014)

Ive been doing a bit of reading on the Enigma. A bit of conflicting info out there on the subject. The Poles first cracked the code in the '30s, the Germans kept updating the codes and machines which led to a lot more work by the Allies to keep up with the changes.
Seems the first one captured was during a commando raid  in Norway in March 1941 from a German trawler "Krebs". U-110 added new code books to the picture, I don't really see much significance in the Enigma machine itself being captured. Each branch of the German Military had different  codes, the Navy's being the toughest to crack.


----------



## AWP (Jun 26, 2014)

pardus said:


> Ive been doing a bit of reading on the Enigma. A bit of conflicting info out there on the subject. The Poles first cracked the code in the '30s, the Germans kept updating the codes and machines which led to a lot more work by the Allies to keep up with the changes.
> Seems the first one captured was during a commando raid  in Norway in March 1941 from a German trawler "Krebs". U-110 added new code books to the picture, I don't really see much significance in the Enigma machine itself being captured. Each branch of the German Military had different  codes, the Navy's being the toughest to crack.


 
I think the machines were commercially available. The codes were the big prizes until the 4 "spindle" version was released. There were a few periods during the war where no one could read German traffic, but within a few weeks or months a breakthrough would occur. One German weakness was in the operators themselves. Some stations would selecte the same initialization key/ letter or the same string over and over. Once a pattern was detected then it was easy to break their messages which in turn allowed Bletchley Park to decode others.


----------



## Robal2pl (Jun 26, 2014)

Yes, downgraded Enigmas were avalible on commercial market long before the war. Polish mathematicans managed to break the military codes on early 30's, but it was much more theoretical basis. And this was done with support from French military intelligence - their agent delivered some critical data, and other elements (including above mentioned errors of operators and fact that many messages in peacetime were sent as part of exercises and training). Also knowledge of German language and culture was important - all three mathematicians who broke the code (Rejewski, Różycki and Zygalski) were from Poznań - former German - controlled territory. 

Of course, some messages were decrypted, but Polish intelligence had then limited resources. And Nazis were upgrading machines. So for example, tere was a time when German military messages were not decrypted , but SS - wich used older version - were. 


The very important thing done in Bletchley Park was not the very breaking the codes , but the fact that British Intelligence had vast resources. So they could have lot of equipment, including the first computers to break the code on regular basis, lot of personnel, it was entire "factory" of cryptoanalysys. 

More information may be found here :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptanalysis_of_the_Enigma


----------



## pardus (Jun 26, 2014)

Freefalling said:


> *I think the machines were commercially available. *The codes were the big prizes until the 4 "spindle" version was released. There were a few periods during the war where no one could read German traffic, but within a few weeks or months a breakthrough would occur. One German weakness was in the operators themselves. Some stations would selecte the same initialization key/ letter or the same string over and over. Once a pattern was detected then it was easy to break their messages which in turn allowed Bletchley Park to decode others.



Yes, but the Military ones were changed modified so much that they turned out to be usless to the Poles, so they ended up making their own version of an Enigma called a Bomba. The Brits did the same after the Poles shared the info in '39, the Brits called theirs Bombe.


----------



## CQB (Jun 27, 2014)

So just looking at the calendar, about this time all those years ago, pretty amazing gains were being made except for Army Group South which had come up against a more aggressive Russian force. Army Group North was heading for Leningrad through the Baltic States.


----------

