Was Hitler right to attack the USSR in 1941?

Probably because the possibility of a success exists. Besides, looking at all of your 167 posts, it seems that you have yet to post some details to support your position. Emotional outbursts is all that you throw out.

 

Perhaps but the allies were lucky in their invasion of Normandy...luck is part of war.

 

"Lucky" you call it? Please tell me where you have came to believe that the Germans were on the brink at any point of the French campaign. They totally defeated the French military in every form and all within the span of a month and a half. They must have done something right there.

 

And civil population also:
1. To dissolve kolhozes. (Collective farms)
2. To make German soldiers responcible for "unprovoked" crimes against civilian. (I mean killing, robbing etc which were not caused by querilla and other anti-German activity. And to be less cruel in suppressing such activity).
3. To creat at least three "independent states" (Russian, Ukraine and Belarus)

The problem is that it was against his ideology.

 

According to his political thesis , YES, and his military power was at its height, YES, and the Red Army was at its weakest,YES. In 1942 of course the Wehrmacht would have been stronger but the Red Army in comparison more modern than 1941 and would cause much more trouble to Wehrmacht from day one.

 

Good point Kai.

they could have very well beaten the soviets if they had started their campaign against the soviets instead of the west. that would have changed the course of WW2..

thats why I voted no , because the nazis ended up in too many places at once.

but if they had focused on one front at a time they could have very well defeated the soviets in 1941 or even earlier. and in that case it would have been wise for Hitler to invade the Soviet Union.

im just giving a "what if" kind of answer which I know is not the case here


Suzie

 

In 1941,when his military power was at its height,he did not succeed in eliminating the SU,in 1942,his chances would have been much less .

 

I voted no considered I believe the whole invasion was nothing more than a big waste of man power and equipment and a lot of lives where lost because of it, but I really don't see any alternative other than trying to conquer the soviet union. Britain was a dead stick since the germans could not get over the english channel etc. So it was 1941 or bust.

 

What about the SS?

 

Totally agree. I posted these in a previous thread.

 

What about them? You might get better responses if you post clear and concise questions.

 

I am sorry if my post seem emotional I did not mean for it to seem that way. By SS I mean if the Germans were less cruel I don't think that's possiable SS was bound to somthing and the reagular army had some bad apples to.

 

If Hitler conducted a campaign of liberation, things may have turned out differently. The Russians were as anti-semitic as the Germans. But the cruel treatment of the POWs and the general population, the Germans fed the partisan movement. Had they adopted a different method and treated the Russians on an equal basis as the Western countries. Fortunately, the Nazi edict of the Aryan superiority is what caused the German failure. Every country was willing to support a resistance movement because of it. Had Germany just invaded to take back what it lost and declared a war on communism with a strategy to incorporate the conquered population into a German empire with civilized administration, things may have turned out differently.

 

Not sure that before the conquest of Europe Hitler`s army had enough resources and expirience for such an enterprise.

 

Hitler was always going to attack the Soviet State. We know this from "Mein Kampf" that he considered the lands of the Slavs to be the area that the Germans should take as theirs for living space. So he was always going to attack the Soviet Union the only question was when.

The idea that the Ukraine could be harnessed and the population treated fairly is a good one, to a rational and non-rascist mind! The very thought that the Ukrainians would ever get treated decently went right out the window from the very beginning. There was no way that was ever going to logically happen. If it did then yes, the germans could well have won, having a numerous and (just as importantly) enthusiastic well of manpower to draw from. But this is the Third Reich we are talking about and the likes of Rosenberg, Himmler, Koch et al would ensure that this was never going to happen. The only time it was mentioned was when things started to look dicey and by that stage no-one was prepared to change sides.

so was he right to attack the Soviet Union? Its a moot point. He was always going to so whether he was right or not is immaterial.

 

Well,I doubt that there was that enourmous reservoir of people willing to risk their lives,fighting against Stalin;there was of course much hostility towards the regime,but ,as always,only a small minority is willing to take the arms .
About the partisan movements :I thought it was 1942 or 1943 before they were effective .
But the most important point is ne of the reasons for which Hitler attacked the SU (and one can discussing the importance of it )was that he needed the food of the Ukraine (is his mind ):food for the German civilian population and for the army that had to be fed on the spot:there was no possibility to transfer food from Germany :the 'harsh treatment' of the populations was the consequence from and the condition for the attack .The Germans could not feed their army with corned beef ,like the US.

 

No he did not.

This was not possible.

Agree completely. There was no way for Hitler to NOT invade Russia. For this reason I voted YES. From solely a military perspective, there was no better time from Hitler to invade Russia than he historically had. As Glantz put it: Hitler simply got lucky with his timing.

 

But neither were the soviets.. hitler was more prepared for war then the soviets were in 1939/40 .. the soviets only had the advantage of manpower.. but what good is manpower without enough weaponry


but the Germans were better prepared in artillery and armour and if they had put all their manpower towards the eastern front on the early days of the war they could have well had the advantage of defeating the soviets..

The question is would France, Britian, etc. intervene on the behalf of the soviet union?

 

The nazi party's racial laws dealt more with the Jews than with the Russians. Yes, with their declaring themselves aryan and every other race untermenschen was dominant but they could have pulled back on that rhetoric. Heck, going by those Aryan standards, the Japanese and even the Italians were not suitable yet they were allies. But the fact is that Hitler did have plans to enslave the eastern peoples and that was written in Mein Kampf. Guess I forgot about that. Sorry gents. Good counterpoint Lou.