[Chewbarkah]

“Unlike other generals, Patton was an “aggressive thruster,” Hanson explains.”

And maybe a slow learner. Germany’s “aggressive thrusts” into the Soviet Union had just failed completely, despite Barbarosa being unleashed when the SU was unprepared, its military poorly equipped and even worse led. In 1944, Soviet war production, military size, momentum, and sheer brutal force were at a peak. The US was still at war with Japan, and the US population was eager to bring our forces home, not convert our “wonderful” Russian allies into new monsters to slay. Patton was like a queen on a chess board, but winning requires all the pieces.

[ealgeone]

And maybe a slow learner. Germany’s “aggressive thrusts” into the Soviet Union had just failed completely, despite Barbarosa being unleashed when the SU was unprepared, its military poorly equipped and even worse led.

Did they fail because of the tactics or the overall strategy?

The failure to drive on Moscow until the summer had passed for example.

[Ancesthntr]

“And maybe a slow learner. Germany’s “aggressive thrusts” into the Soviet Union had just failed completely, despite Barbarosa being unleashed when the SU was unprepared, its military poorly equipped and even worse led.”

---

The Germans failed to win in the USSR in 1941 because of bad strategic decisions, not because “aggressive thrusts” were a bad means of achieving victory. First among the strategic mistakes was the decision to invade Yugoslavia in early April, 1941 - this delayed the beginning of Barbarossa for at least 6 weeks, time that could have been used to finish off the USSR in the late summer/early fall. Second was Hitler’s decision to divert forces from the drive against Moscow toward capturing Leningrad and the Ukraine. Third was the use of forces to capture places, rather than to destroy Soviet forces.

Yes, there are limits to aggressive thrusts, but that isn’t the cause of the Germans’ failure to defeat the Soviets in 1941.