ANATOMY OF A FAILURE THE DEFEAT OF THE SOVIET KHARKOV OFFENSIVE, 1942 ©2022 Jim Werbaneth
In the spring of 1942,
the Soviet Union was in the process of fighting back against the
German invasion.
It
survived the onslaught of Operation Barbarossa, starting on 22 June
1941, and then the last-ditch offensive against Moscow.
Finally, over the winter, the
Soviets launched a series of improvised offensives against the
overstretched Germans, inflicting crisis after crisis on the invaders,
pushing the Germans back and yet never quite achieving a decisive
victory. The May 1942 offensive
was intended to build on the successes of the winter attacks.
Rather than being improvised with the
forces at hand, this was premeditated, and employed carefully-husbanded
resources more than the forces at hand, plus those arriving piecemeal.
However, the offensive ended as a
massive Soviet defeat.
Not only did it fail to achieve its
chief objectives, the Soviet offensive was countered by a preplanned
German one.
As a result, the original attackers
became the defenders, and were decisively beaten in the kind of
mechanized battle at which the Germans were supremely skilled at the
time. Many of the reasons for
the Soviet defeat lie with the Soviets themselves.
Their forces lacked the skill to
conduct the offensive, particularly against a Wehrmacht at the peak of
its powers.
Secondly, there were upper-level
command failures, primarily a tardy commitment of reserves to the
northern pincer when it was on the verge of overrunning the Germans
before Kharkov and taking the city.
Third, when the Germans launched their
own attack against the southern flank of the Soviet salient, the Soviets
were slow to react, when time and timing were of the essence.
Finally, the Germans reacted well,
displaying steadiness on the defense, swiftly shifting airpower from
Crimea to support their forces, and then executing a devastating
counterattack. LEADERSHIP AND PLANNING The driving force behind
the Kharkov offensive was Marshal of the Soviet Union Semyon
Konstantinovich Timoshenko.
While the Kharkov operation can be
viewed as a premature, even rash action, in compliance with Josef
Stalin’s direction, this is actually at odds with Timoshenko’s past
professional behavior.
Prior to the German invasion, he and
his more famous fellow cavalryman and marshal, Georgy Zhukov, resisted
an existing stress on the strategic offensive ordained by Stalin.
Together, through a series of wargames
in January 1941, Timoshenko and Zhukov were able to convince Stalin of
the fallacy of his infatuation with an offensive-minded, first-strike
strategy in the event of war with Nazi Germany.[1]
One has to regard the disabusing of
such a ruthless dictator as Stalin of an existing predilection as quite
an accomplishment, especially as both officers survived it. Timoshenko further had,
for a senior Soviet commander, an unusually solid background as an
operational leader.
In January 1940, poor Soviet
performance in the Winter War against Finland led Stalin to replace
Kliment Voroshilov with Timoshenko, who already had a good reputation as
a planner.
Timoshenko instituted an all-forces
training program, building up his artillery and armor, before launching
his own offensive against Finland in February.
This failed to achieve a decisive
breakthrough, and was held by the enemy, though at great cost, at first.
Then on 12 February, the Soviets
breached the Mannerheim Line, and while the Finns retired in good order,
they had to sue for peace.[2] At the start of
Barbarossa, the Soviet military lacked a supreme commander.
At 0900 on 22 June 1941, a supreme
headquarters, the Stavka, was created.
As one might expect, Stalin was named
its commander, but the dictator crossed out his own name and wrote in
Timoshenko’s.[3]
Despite his previous opposition to an
overly aggressive strategy toward Germany, Timoshenko immediately
ordered a series of rushed attacks against the invaders.[4]
On 30 June, he was named commander of
the Western Front and then the Western Direction, a role in which he
fought the costly, pyrrhic battle at Smolensk, while Stalin took over
overall command.
As reward for this, Timoshenko was
sent to take over the Southwestern Front and Southwestern Direction,
just in time to preside over the final stages of the massive defeat
Kiev.[5]
Thus while the marshal might have been
a thorough-going professional, with a good deal of strategic common
sense and the ability to prevail upon Stalin’s prejudices, there were
decided limits to the last; he still had to work under the limits
imposed by “the Boss.”
Further, as the Kharkov campaign was
to demonstrate, he had ability to make his own mistakes, and not just
implement Stalin’s. The primary German
commander during the offensive was Field Marshal Feodor von Bock, the
commander of Army Group South.
This was not his first command at such
a level; in 1941 he was commander of Army Group Center, tasked with
taking Moscow.
However, in December of that year, his
last advance on the city was halted by Soviet resistance and
deteriorating weather, Bock was relieved.
However, a month later, he was called
back to lead Army Group South upon the death of its commander, Walther
von Reichenau.[6] Secondarily, there was
the commander of the Sixth Army, Colonel General Friedrich Paulus.
As the deputy chief of the General
Staff, he had been instrumental in the planning for Barbarossa,
especially the division of resources between Army Groups North, Center
and South.
It was on his watch that the plan
evolved from that of a single thrust to one in which each army group
would fight its own battles of encirclement, on its own terms, and
largely separate from those of its fellows.[7]
Despite a career centered primarily on
staff work, Reichenau recommended that he be given command of the Sixth
Army, which Paulus took on 1 January 1942.[8] The second army-level
commander involved in the Kharkov battle was Ewald von Kleist.
His command, Army-Group von Kleist (Armee-Gruppe
von Kleist) was cobbled together to defend against the Soviet
offensives of the previous winter, and was successful at stopping an
enemy drive toward Dnepropetrovsk.[9]
In the initial offensives into Ukraine
in 1941, he had commanded the First Panzer Group,[10]
and previously the XX Panzer Corps in Poland and the main German panzer
group against the West in 1940.
Thus he was a formidable, experienced
combat commander, much more so than Paulus, who though a good staff
officer, was probably unsuited for high-level combat leadership.
On the other hand, Kleist was, in the
words of David M. Glantz, “a fighter who had fought against the best the
Soviets could offer.”[11] One more leader has to
be considered, on the Soviet side: Josef Stalin.
Just as Adolf Hitler believed that the
Soviets were on their last legs, so Stalin believed the same of the
Germans.
After all, the winter offensives had
pushed the Germans to the limits of their endurance, and southeast of
Kharkov had torn a large salient from which their spring attack would be
launched.
The general consensus within the
Stavka was that the Soviets would remain on the defensive, albeit
temporarily, building their strength to absorb Germany’s expected
resumption of the offensive.
After absorbing the blows, expected in
the direction of Moscow, only then would the Soviets seized the
initiative and launch their own counterattacks against an exhausted
enemy.[12] However, due to
doctrinal preference for offensive-minded “deep battle” and a desire,
perhaps sensible, to please a dictator determined to go on the attack as
soon as possible, subordinate commanders proposed a series of plans for
local offensives.
Stalin chose to adopt a proposal from
Timoshenko to attack out of the Izyum salient toward Kharkov, encircling
and destroying the German forces there while taking the city.
Then the plan was upgraded to allow
for an even larger operation, with a view toward a deeper breakthrough
by an accompanying southern thrust toward Krasnograd, or even Army Group
South’s headquarters at Poltava.
Stalin reasoned that even a limited
penetration might roll up much of the German line.[13] The operation would be
different than those of the previous year.
Instead of relying on masses of
untrained troops, this called for fewer infantrymen, but backed by much
larger proportions of armor, artillery, and airpower.
Thus Soviet organization and doctrine
would have a greater resemblance to those of the Germans,[14]
at least superficially, and they would aim for a more sophisticated
approach to operations.
However, as events would show, whether
or not they were up to the task was a whole other question. Not all agreed with
Timoshenko, or with Stalin.
Opposition to the Kharkov/Izyum
operation came from General Boris M. Shaposhnikov, chief of the General
Staff, who recognized the tactical and operational skill of the German
army, and did not believe that the Soviets were truly competitive yet.
Therefore he recommended a cautious
approach, wearing down the Germans before Moscow before assuming the
offensive themselves.
The head of the General Staff’s
Operations Department, Aleksander M. Vasilevsky, concurred.[15]
Indeed, both were horrified, in no
small part because Timoshenko’s plan called for pressing a growing
number of units into a relatively constricted space.[16] Zhukov was equally
opposed; thus Stalin’s top three military advisers recommended against
Timoshenko’s plan.
In Zhukov’s case though, he was less
set against an offensive in general than he was against this one in
particularly.
He advocated at attack in the
Rhzev-Viazma area, where he saw an opportunity that, in his mind at
least, had not been fully exploited during the winter battles.
In his view the problem was not that
the Soviets were about to go on the offensive, but that they were doing
so in the wrong place.[17] For his part, Zhukov
blamed the commander of the Southwestern Front, that is Timoshenko, and
the front’s political commissar, Nikita Khrushchev, for lobbying for
Kharkov offensive to Stalin.
Khrushchev put forth a self-serving
account, distancing himself from the eventual debacle, as part of his
secret address to the Twentieth Party Congress in 1956.
As part of his overall condemnation of
Stalin, Khrushchev put the blame for the failure at Kharkov squarely on
Stalin’s shoulders.
According to Khrushchev, he and
Timoshenko saw the defeat coming, and tried to convince Stalin to cancel
the attack.
But by this version, Stalin was
determined to proceed.
This was all part of a fabric of
arrogance, as Khrushchev asserted: On one occasion after the war, during a meeting
[between] Stalin [and] members of the Politburo, Anastas Ivanovich
Mikoyan mentioned that Khrushchev must have been right when he
telephoned concerning the Kharkov operation and that it was unfortunate
that his suggestion had not been accepted.
You
should have seen Stalin’s fury!
How
could it be admitted that he, Stalin, had not been right!
He
is after all a “genius,” and a genius cannot help but be right! Everyone
can err, but Stalin considered that he never erred, that he was always
right.
He
never acknowledged to anyone that he made any mistake, large or small,
despite the fact that he made more than a few in matters of theory and
in his practical activity.
After
the Party Congress we shall probably have to re-evaluate many [of our]
wartime military operations and present them in their true light.[18]
Khrushchev’s version lacks full credibility, and
appears to be an attempt by him to distance himself from a major
military defeat, while discrediting the late dictator. There was undoubtedly a
non-military, intrinsically political element to the decision to attack
at Kharkov.
Josef Stalin favored a more offensive
strategy, instead of passing the initiative to the Germans.
Naturally, those commanders who saw
their fortunes and perhaps their lives depending on the favor of the
dictator would have good reason offer options to which he would be
predisposed.
At the very least, this would temper
criticism, let alone opposition, among prudent officers.
Timoshenko, an old associate and ally
of Stalin’s, lobbied hard for the Kharkov attack, and Stalin approved
it, deflecting the reservations emerging from within the Stavka.[19]
But by 1956, with Stalin dead and
Khrushchev embarked on a de-Stalinization campaign, it became not just
safe, but politically advantageous to criticize an operation that had
ended in disaster anyway. The Germans were
preparing for their own offensive in the area, against the same salient
from which the Soviets were preparing to attack.
Hitler decided that the Wehrmacht’s
objective for 1942 would be the Soviet Union’s oil, not its capital, and
thus the main German effort would be in the south, toward the Caucasian
oil fields.[20]
As early as August 1941, Hitler
identified economic objectives as more important than Moscow, which a
month earlier he had dismissed as “a mere geographical concept.”[21]
The Crimea would have to be occupied
to safeguard the Romanian oil fields, with Kharkov and the Donets Basin
necessary for the coalmines and heavy industry.
The Wehrmacht would also cut off the
flow oil from the Caucasus to the Soviet war economy.[22]
Then, with petroleum shortages
afflicting the Germans, and with its allies, particularly Italy,
dependent upon fuel allocated by the Germans, Hitler and his generals
settled on a southern strategy that was expected to take them to the
Caucasian oil fields.[23] In preparation for the
main drive toward the Caucasus, Case Blue (Fall
Blau) the Germans adopted a plan called Operation Friderikus.
This would reduce the Soviet salient
around Izyum and Barvenkovo, and secure the Donets River line.
There, the Germans would regroup, and
finally launch their main effort toward the Volga and especially the
Caucasus and its oil.[24]
Friderikus was scheduled to start on
22 April, when the Donets would be in full flood, and thus the Soviets
would be pinned against it.
However, Hitler and Franz Halder
reviewed the plan, and altered it to “Friderikus II,” in which the
Germans would penetrate to the eastern bank of the Donets.
This occurred while the Wehrmacht was
experiencing difficulties moving the necessary reinforcements to the
area, and thus Bock ended up delaying the German offensive to 18 May.[25] COMMENCEMENT OF THE OFFENSIVE The Soviet Kharkov
offensive began on 12 May 1942.
Initially, they poured through the
German lines, but the latter were able to prevent a complete rout by
adopting the same type of strongpoints that they had used to defend
against the winter onslaughts.
In consequence, the Soviets had to
retain forces from the attack to deal with the German hedgehogs, or at
least contain these units from breaking out into the Soviet rear.[26]
Still, both Soviet and German sources
count this beginning as spectacular, exceeded only by the winter
offensives before Moscow after the failure of Operation Typhoon, and
even then not by very much.
While the Soviets did not claim to
have overwhelming numerical advantages, just 1.5 to 1 in troops and 2 to
1 in armor, they definitely had the Germans fooled at the time.
The German Sixth Army claimed to have
been attacked by twelve divisions and over 300 tanks, leading Bock to
state that it was “fighting for its life.”[27]
Two Soviet pincers penetrated north
and south of the city, and by midday on 12 May, were within twenty
kilometers of Kharkov.
According to Timoshenko, Kharkov would
be liberated in a day or two.[28] The Soviets achieved not
just concentration of force at Kharkov, but operational and strategic
surprise as well.
This was despite earlier German
analyses indicating that an attack out of the Izyum salient, enveloping
Kharkov, was in the offing.
Writing of the impending Operation
Friderikus, Bock told Halder a week before the Soviet attack that “the
Russians might beat us to it and attack on both sides of Kharkov.”[29]
Still, the Soviet attack came as a
profound shock to the Germans. Paulus appealed to Bock
for reinforcements.
The Army Group South commander
no
longer believed that Frederikus could proceed as planned, and gave him
the 23rd Panzer Division, one of the German offensive’s spearheads.
This diversion of resources angered
Halder, who told Bock in a heated phone conversation that units intended
for Frederikus could not be reallocated to address what Halder termed
minor “blemishes.”
With a more accurate view of what was
actually occurring at the front, Bock denied that the Soviet
breakthroughs were blemishes, but rather represented a severe crisis for
Army Group South: “It’s neck or nothing!”[30] Bock finally managed to
convince the Army Chief of Staff of the critical danger posed by the
Soviet attack.
Halder went to Hitler, who immediately
ordered most of the bomber and dive bomber units then fighting at Kerch
to go north to support the defense of Kharkov.
The Luftwaffe’s fighters achieved air
superiority over the Kharkov battlefield against more numerous but
poorly-trained Soviet airpower.
Yet it was not until 15 May that most
of the bomber units sent from the Crimea arrived; until then the light
anti-ground armament of the German fighters in the Ukraine could do
little more than harass the Soviet attackers.[31] Despite the apparent
success of the Soviet offensive, not all was going well in the first
three days.
Inexperienced at the sort of
mechanized actions at which the Germans excelled, they found it
difficult to get reserves to the forward spearheads in the southern
sector.[32]
At the same time, the Germans were
giving a good account of themselves tactically, with local
counterattacks especially on the northern flank stalling the offensive.[33]
The Soviets themselves were candid in
a post-offensive report, citing “Unwarranted deviations from the plan of
operation, poor organization of Front co-operation, poor reconnaissance
and a number of operational errors” for the impending disaster.
Thus,
both German skill on the battlefield, and Soviet errors born out of
inexperience,
[34]
were
impeding the Soviets from the beginning.
Then Timoshenko added his own
mistakes, chief among them was a poor sense of timing.
The marshal committed his reserves
slowly in penny packets, instead of
en masse, thereby depriving
himself of the means to actually win the battle at the most critical
moments of opportunity.[35]
When the time came to win, Timoshenko
failed to act. ENTER FRIDERIKUS The Germans launched
their long-planned offensive on 18 March.
At 1230, the III Panzer Corps under
General Eberhard Mackensen attacked the southern flank; the 14th Panzer
Division drove in the center, flanked by 100th Light Division on its
right and the 1st Mountain Division on its left.
Mackensen’s panzers routed the Soviets
to their front immediately, taking Barvenkovo and bridging the Sukhoy
Torets River.
The 14th Panzer Division poured
through the breach.
By the end of the day, the
headquarters of the Soviet 57th Army was destroyed, and its commander.
Lieutenant General K.P. Podlas killed, along with his chief of artillery
and chief political commissar.
[36]
Thus the German offensive roared to a
victorious start, and sounded the death knell of not just the Soviet
onslaught, but the forces prosecuting it. This was compounded by,
again, slow Soviet reaction to changing events.
While the Germans caved in their
southern flank and enveloped their troops in a large
kessel, the Soviets
obstinately continued to try to drive forward around Kharkov.
Rather than defending against the
counterattack, they pushed deeper into what had become a massive trap.
The Stavka saw the danger, and its
generals begged Stalin to call off the attack, while warning Timoshenko
of the danger to his flanks.
Rather than recognize the growing
danger, Timoshenko insisted that all was well.
Still, by the end of 18 May, 250,000
Soviet troops and 1,200 tanks were about to be encircled, and Timoshenko
and his friend and political commissar, Khrushchev, finally realized
their plight.[37] Terrified of Stalin,
Timoshenko asked Khrushchev to call Stalin.
When the commissar asked to speak to
the Boss, Georgi Malenkov called him to the phone.
However, Stalin refused to answer,
demanding that Malenkov hang up.
Khrushchev said that the offensive had
to be called off; Stalin charged that he was injecting himself into
military matters that were not his business, and that orders had to be
obeyed.
Besides, Stalin’s military advisers
knew better.
Anastas Mikoyan later expressed shock
that while Khrushchev “was calling from the front line in battle with
people dying all around him,” Stalin “would not walk ten steps across
the room.”[38] Stalin relented the next
day, cancelling the attack toward Kharkov.
But the damage was already done, not
just on the battlefield, but also to the relationship between Timoshenko
and Khrushchev.
The political officer and the marshal
engaged in an exchange of denunciations, fighting for their own careers
and perhaps existance by accusing each other.
Eventually Khrushchev was forgiven,
but in a reassuring manner that actually served to terrify him still
further, as Stalin was wont to send people from his office with good
news, only to have them arrested a short time later.[39] At this point, a Soviet
disaster was probably inevitable, regardless of the fearful nature of
Moscow’s internal politics.
Their forces were already thrust deep
into the snare, and the Izyum-Barvenkovo salient presented a hazardous
situation even without each side launching an attack there.
Nonetheless, the slow Soviet response
to the German buildup and attack, and Timoshenko’s nonchalant
reassurance that all was well despite Stavka’s concerns, did nothing to
reduce the stakes, or the scale of the coming defeat. Yet even as Timoshenko
was having Khrushchev plead with Stalin call off the attack, he tried to
rescue it by finally committing reserves to his Sixth Army to the
offensive.
At 1535 on 19 May, with Khrushchev by
his side for support, Timoshenko called the Stavka for permission to
execute this change in plans, starting late on 21 or early 22 May.
Vasilevsky conveyed Stavka’s
concurrance fifteen minutes later, with the recommendation that the
commitment occur quickly.
But instead of exploiting success and
regaining the initiative, Timoshenko’s move simply aggravated the
damage, and drove the Soviets deeper into disaster.
Possibly informed by radio intercepts,
the Germans seemed to know the Soviet intent immediately, and were
emboldened to order Kleist to seize the crossing of the Donets at
Protopopovka.[40]
Thus instead of just pocketing the
Soviets in the salient on the near side of the river, the Germans
adopted a larger solution that including crossing the Donets. Friderikus’ momentum
grew with its ambitions.
In part this was due to the Luftwaffe
reinforcements diverted from Crimea, starting on 15 May, and with
especially effective air support to Mackensen’s panzer korps from 18 May
onward.
In addition, during the first days of
Friderikus, German air crews flew up to ten missions per day.[41]
This skilled and indefatigable air
support was beyond anything that the Luftwaffe’s Soviet counterparts
could deliver, and was instrumental first to blunting the original
offensive, and then supporting the counterattack. The climax of Friderikus
came on 20 May, when the 14th Panzer Division seized Protopopovka.[42]
American observers noted that
continuation of the German advance would threaten to encircle all Soviet
forces west of the Donets,[43]
a prescient reflection.
The Soviets trapped inside fought
desperately to escape.
Only one attempt came close to
success, near Petrovskoye, but on 25 May two divisions supported by some
T-34’s were caught by Luftwaffe Stukas and halted.
This was but a momentary scare for the
Germans, and on that day the mouth of the pocket was closed for good;
three days later the last Soviet resistance petered out.[44] CONCLUSIONS The Soviet army suffered
terrible casualties in the Kharkov offensive, and the subsequent German
counteroffensive.
The official Soviet tally is that
765,300 men participated, and that 170,958 were killed, taken prisoner,
or became missing in action.
An additional 106,232 were taken
prisoner, for total losses of 277,190,[45]
or about 36% of those engaged.
Particularly savaged were the 57th and
6th Army commands,[46]
so one could view both as rendered essentially
hors de combat.
For their part the Germans tallied
Soviet prisoners at 239,000, and stated that they destroyed the bulk of
twenty-two rifle and seven cavalry divisions, with fourteen tank or
mechanized brigades routed.
Soviet equipment losses, per the
Germans, came to 1,250 tanks and 2,026 guns either destroyed or
captured.[47]
The USSR’s losses were so great that
at first they grossly understated them at 5,000 dead and 70,000 missing,
and suppressed anything approaching the true cost until Nikita
Khrushchev had assumed the supreme leadership himself.[48]
It should also be noted that while the
Germans were inflicting massive casualties on the Soviets around
Kharkov, they were still winning their battles in the Crimea, so the
Soviet Union suffered not one but two major defeats in the spring of
1942. The German victory at
Kharkov was the greatest single triumph on the Eastern Front, except for
the encirclement at Kiev the year before.
Significantly too, while Friderikus
was already in the works, this was a reactive victory, in which the
Soviets had the advantages of both surprise and the initiative, at least
at the beginning, and were able to generate a major crisis for the
Germans.
By no means was it a testimony to a
completely incompetent army marching happily to its inevitable doom; a
Soviet victory was definitely within reach. The reasons why this did
not occur are evident at all levels of the Soviet army.
To start with, the Soviets themselves
cited frequent breakdowns in command and control at the army, corps,
division, and regimental levels.
In a report to the Stavka from the
Southwest Direction staff, it was admitted that: It turned out that the
army command and a portion of the divisional and corps commanders, with
their staffs, were incapable of controlling forces in complex
situations.
As a rule, the command leadership of
armies, corps and divisions at critical moments during the operation and
battles did not direct their forces’ formations, but instead travelled
around to their subunits.[49] On the other side of the
lines, the Germans were impressed by the determination, even fanaticism,
at times of the Soviet forces.
While the Germans might be quite
pleased by their victory, and cognizant of Soviet weaknesses in
planning, logistics, and command and control, they noted that the USSR
appeared to have a bottomless reserve of resources, including
ferociously-motivated soldiers.
Kleist noted that the battle was
unusually harsh, and that where the fighting was the hardest, “[A]s far
as the eye can see, the ground is so thickly covered with the bodies of
men and horses that it is difficult to find a passage through for one’s
command car.”[50]
Mackensen observed that the Soviets
were even more ruthless and determined than the year before.[51]
Therefore it can be concluded that at
the small-unit tactical level and immediately above, Soviet commitment
and fanaticism in defense of the Motherland was up to the task of
fighting the Germans, even though the officers were still learning. The top of the Soviet
command structure exhibits a more problematic picture.
Collectively, the Stavka appears to
have been the most clear and rational in its thinking, demonstrating a
healthy, and prescient, skepticism about the offensive when it was first
proposed.
It did not jump on the Kharkov
bandwagon, and advocated a more cautious, defensive-minded strategy
instead of commencing a large-scale offensive before the Soviets had the
clear capability to do so.
Further, while Timoshenko was assuring
Moscow that all was going well, the supreme headquarters could see the
danger through the marshal’s happy talk. As a political officer
rather than a military man, to some extent Khrushchev might be excused
for embracing and advocating the offensive as he did.
Operations were certainly outside his
core competencies as a Soviet
apparatchik.
At the same time, his consistent
efforts to revise history and run from the massive failure that was the
Kharkov offensive is telling.
Montefiore characterizes Khrushchev’s
denunciations of his old friend Timoshenko as indicative of an
“unstable” state of mind, and states that the future leader may have had
a mental breakdown after the encirclement, flying to Baku to get away
from the scene of the crisis.[52]
In this light,
his
revisionism in 1956 reads like the overkill of a man sensitive to the
notion that while success has many parents, failure has few, and he was
thus determined to avoid being counted in that select number.
That this narrative fit into his
campaign of overall de-Stalinization was a matter of conveniently
converging interests. Timoshenko comes off
even less well.
While Khrushchev was not a military
professional, Timoshenko certainly was, and purportedly one of the best
in the Soviet Union.
Glantz describes him as “reliable and
competent,” and thus accorded ever-growing responsibilities as war with
Germany approached.[53]
However, Montefiore sees him less
positively.
His character is one that the marshal
shares with Khrushchev, in Montefiore’s eyes: “uneducated, crude and
energetic.”[54]
This seems more than a little unfair,
considering Timoshenko’s credible performance in the Winter War, and the
summer 1941 battles at Smolensk.
While Timoshenko might have been a
rough character, so were many other generals, especially in the Soviet
Union, and this does not necessarily undercut his basic competence.
Therefore one has reason to expect
better from him. Nonetheless, the Kharkov
offensive was his idea, and it proved to be a bad one.
Timoshenko cannot escape the blame for
conceiving and then advocating it.
Further, even Stalin, not one to care
at all about the effusion of blood in pursuit of victories military or
political, castigated Timoshenko for his losses in May 1942.
Said the Generalissimo: “Maybe the
time has come for you to wage war by losing less blood, as the Germans
are doing?
If you don’t learn to how to fight
better, all the armaments produced in the whole country won’t be enough
for you.”[55]
However, Stalin treated him as
leniently as he did Khrushchev, transferring Timoshenko to the Leningrad
front in July.
If there was a scapegoat, it was
Timoshenko’s chief of staff, the Armenian general Ivan Bagramyan, and
even he emerged as one of the Soviet Union’s leading commanders by the
end of the war.[56] On the Soviet side, all
roads lead back not just to Moscow, but to Josef Stalin.
The dictator set the tone for
leadership relationships during the Great Patriotic War, as throughout
his domination of the USSR, and made it clear that he wanted an
offensive in spring 1942.
Timoshenko provided it.
Not that he was alone, as the Stavka
was “bombarded with proposals for offensive action from front-line
commanders asking for additional forces,” according to Geoffrey Roberts.
While Roberts might overstate the
offensive-mindedness of Stavka in his account, there is no doubt that an
offensive is what Stalin wanted, and therefore Stalin got, at Kharkov.[57] The battle was not just
one for the Soviets to lose, but one for the Germans to win as well, and
German kampfkraft, from top to
bottom, was evident throughout.
They responded to the early crises
with tactical skill, combining the assumption of effective, 360-degree
hedgehogs, according to established doctrine,[58]
with local counterattacks, in a combination of passive and active
defense.
Furthermore, despite the early
disagreement between Bock and Halder on this count, the German
leadership recognized the attack for the crisis that it was, and
reinforced Paulus sufficiently to deal with it.
Then they shifted airpower from Crimea
to support their defense at Kharkov, and subsequently employed it to
support the Friderikus counteroffensive. As a result, Germany
achieved a better line of departure from which to launch their summer
drive to the Volga and Caucasus, all the while clearing the Izyum
salient and destroying the Soviet forces within.
Meanwhile, they were still able to
clear Crimea and seize Sevastopol, despite the distraction of Kharkov.
Therefore, Friderikus and the
envelopment of the Soviet armies was one of the most impressive German
victories of the entire war, a singular demonstration of the operational
art.
In no way is this diminished by the
denouement at Stalingrad over the next winter, nor by the Soviet
failures that contributed mightily to the outcome. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bomba, Ty. “Sunrise of Victory: How Strategy’s
End Turned the Tide in the East.”
Command Issue 2
(January-February 1990), 16-19, 45-49. Fugate, Bryan and
Dvoretsky, Lev.
Thunder on the Dnepr: Zhukov-Stalin and the
Defeat of Hitler’s Blitzkrieg.
Novato, CA: Presidio, 1997. “Feodor von Bock.” Jewish Virtual Library.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Bock.html).
accessed 10 January 2022. “Friedrich Paulus.” Jewish Virtual Library.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Paulus.html).
accessed 10 January 2022. Fritz, Stephen G.
Ostkrieg: Hitler’s War of
Extermination in the East.
Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2011. Glantz, David M.
Barbarossa: Hitler’s Invasion of Russia 1941.
Charleston, SC: Tempus, 2001. _____.
Kharkov 1942: Anatomy of a Military Disaster Through Soviet Eyes.
Hersham, UK: Ian Allan, 1998. Hallion, Richard P.
“The Winter War.” Air Force Magazine
http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2012/September%202012/ 0912finland.aspx.
accessed 10 January 2022. Hayward, Joel S.A.
Stopped at Stalingrad: The Luftwaffe and Hitler’s Defeat in the East
1942-1943.
Lawrence: University Press of Kansas,
1998. Montefiore, Simon Sebag.
Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar.
New York: Vintage, 2003. Patrick, Stephen B.
“Kharkov: The Soviet Spring
Offensive.” Strategy & Tactics Number 68 (May-June 1978), 4-14. Roberts, Geoffrey.
Stalin’s General: The Life of Georgy Zhukov.
New York: Random House, 2012. “Speech to 20th Congress
of the C.P.S.U.”
Marxists.org.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/khrushchev/1956/02/24.htm).
accessed 10 January 2022. Ziemke, Earl F. and
Bauer, Magna E. Moscow to
Stalingrad: Decision in the East. Washington: Center of Military History, 1987.
[1]
Bryan Fugate and Lev Dvoretsky, Thunder
on the Dnepr: Zhukov-Stalin and the Defeat of Hitler’s
Blitzkrieg (Novato, CA: Presidio, 1997), 15.
[2]
Richard P. Hallion, “The Winter War,” Air Force Magazine
(http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2012/September%202012/0912finland.aspx).
accessed 10 January 2021.
[3]
Simon Sebag Montefiore,
Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar (New York: Vintage, 2003),
368.
[4]
Earl F. Ziemke and Magna E. Bauer,
Moscow to Stalingrad:
Decision in the East (Washington: Center of Military
History, 1987), 24.
[5]
David M. Glantz, Kharkov
1942: Anatomy of a Military Disaster Through Soviet Eyes
(Hersham, UK: Ian Allan, 1998), 105-107.
[6]
“Feodor von Bock,” Jewish Virtual Library
(https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Bock.html),
accessed 10 January 2021.
[7]
Stephen G. Fritz,
Ostkrieg: Hitler’s War of Extermination in the East
(Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2011), 53.
[8]
“Friedrich Paulus,” Jewish Virtual Library
(http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Paulus.html),
accessed 10 January 2021.
[9]
Joel S.A. Hayward, Stopped
at Stalingrad: The Luftwaffe and Hitler’s Defeat in the East
1942-1943 (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1998), 38.
[10]
David M. Glantz,
Barbarossa: Hitler’s Invasion of Russia 1941 (Charleston,
SC: Tempus, 2001), 47.
[11]
David M. Glantz, Kharkov
1942, 157-158.
[12]
Fritz, 248-249.
[13]
Ibid., 249.
[14]
Ibid., 249.
[15]
Glantz, Kharkov 1942,
27-29.
[16]
Fritz, 249.
[17]
Geoffrey Roberts, Stalin’s
General: The Life of Georgy Zhukov (New York: Random House,
2012), 150.
[18]
“Speech to 20th Congress of the C.P.S.U.,” Marxists.org
(http://www.marxists.org/archive/khrushchev/1956/02/24.htm),
accessed 10 January 2021.
[19]
Glantz, Kharkov 1942,
41.
[20]
Ty Bomba, “Sunrise of Victory: How Strategy’s End Turned the
Tide in the East,” Command
Issue 2 (January-February 1990), 19.
[21]
Hayward, 9.
[22]
Ibid., 9.
[23]
Ibid., 17-21.
[24]
Stephen B. Patrick, “Kharkov: The Soviet Spring Offensive,”
Strategy & Tactics Number 68 (May-June 1978), 5.
[25]
Glantz, Kharkov 1942, 49.
[26]
Patrick, 6.
[27]
Ziemke and Bauer, 273.
[28]
Hayward, 121.
[29]
Fritz, 249.
[30]
Hayward, 121.
[31]
Ibid., 122.
[32]
Fritz, 247.
[33]
Ibid., 250.
[34]
Glantz, Kharkov 1942,
19.
[35]
Patrick, 6.
[36]
Glantz, Kharkov 1942,
256-257.
[37]
Montefiore, 414-415.
[38]
Ibid., 414-415.
[39]
Ibid., 415.
[40]
Glantz, Kharkov 1942,
266-269.
[41]
Hayward, 124-125.
[42]
Glantz, Kharkov 1942,
278.
[43]
Hayward, 125.
[44]
Ibid., 125.
[45]
Glantz, Kharkov 1942,
302.
[46]
Ibid., 302.
[47]
Ibid., 301.
[48]
Patrick, 7.
[49]
Glantz, Kharkov 1942,
306-307.
[50]Fritz,
252.
[51]
Ibid., 252.
[52]
Montefiore, 415.
[53]
Glantz, Kharkov 1942,
107.
[54]
Montefiore, 414.
[55]
Ibid., 416.
[56]
Roberts, 152.
[57]
Ibid., 152.
[58]
Patrick, 7. |