If Operation Barbarossa was delayed (opinion)

Operation Barbarossa although debatably successful for Nazi Germany in the opening months of the operation, ended up being one of the major turning points of WW2. In the event Adolf Hitler delayed the operation until Britain was defeated, what is your opinion on how the war would have turned out.

Number one, would Britain have been defeated and why?
Number two, assuming Hitler would attack the Soviet Union regardless, could Nazi Germany have defeated the Soviets if Britain was defeated and full attention was given to the eastern front?


Side questions to think about,
Do you think there could have been a way the US never entered the fight against Germany? I.E. Britain defeated, Hitler does not declare war on US after Pearl Harbor

I understand that there were many reasons Hitler decided to attack the Soviets when he did, (Yes distaste for communists, but resources too). Did Hitler need the Soviet resources to continue his fight against Britain? I.E oil in the Caucasus

 

This has been discussed here in the past as well....

Just a few points tho. Had Hitler defeated Britain it would almost certainly mean GB would have to be occupied. Troops would be needed for this. How many? How long would this take? The Soviet Union was quickly modernizing its military and building defenses... With each passing day Russia gets stronger. Imagine if the Germans encountered 1000 - 2000 T34's as apposed to the 300 they initially had. All soldiers at their posts. Airforce ready to deploy etc.

Historically, when Barbarossa was launched, everything that Germany could muster was used. A skeleton force remained in Europe. Occupying the island might have even cost Germany soldiers for Barbarossa...

I do not see Germany along with all of her allies defeating the Soviet Union.

 

Hitler lacks a good mechanism for defeating the British so that's a clear stumbling block. Furthermore time is not on his side in this regard. The US would almost certainly enter the war sometime in 42 even without the Japanese attack and then his only hope is a long war but he's not in a position with regards to economy or resources to fight a long war. Furthermore if it looks like he's in a loosing position the Soviets may join the allies as well. If he's not facing a two front war the Soviets (i.e. Stalin) may be a bit more cautious of German actions as well. Even without the war the Soviets are also building up their military and correcting some of the issues that showed up fighting the Finns and Poland.

This probably belongs in the what if subforum by the way.

 

After the Fall of France, the Wehrmacht had a lot of captured equipment and weapons, which was difficult and expensive to maintain. And millions of soldiers almost doing nothing, even more expensive to supply.
All this equipment couldn't be used elsewhere against Great Britain.

The point is: The Red Army was regarded as a big, but second class army, not near as capable as the french or british army. The Wehrmacht on the opposite was at its peak, so victory was a question of weeks or months. Why wait and let Stalin do his homework?

 

I don't see England being defeated. I don't see it feasible that Germany could have successfully invaded from the sea regardless of how much air superiority they had. The Royal Navy was a huge obstacle. The planning and strategy, doctrine logistics, cooperation, etc., of amphibious invasions is just not in the German playbook like it was for the US or Britain, or Japan for that matter. Britain also had the whole of its empire mobilizing, and yes even though they are spread out around the world, there were millions of men available.

 

Personally I think there would have been 4-5,000 T-34´s minimum as they werejust getting the factories going on.That would have been a very bad fist power to kick the German offensive even if Germans had upgraded tank cannons to 50 mm most and several 75 mm for tank battle.

 

Then Barbarossa can be considered a preventive strike. In 1943 the Soviet Union would have been capable to invade Germany and the Balkan easily when they produced as many tanks, planes and artillery as they did after the start of Barbarossa.
Just think about it: No masses of destroyed equipment and no interrupted production with factories being transferred to the East.

 

No. There is no proof that Stalin ever wanted to invade Europe. Germany's plan for the East however; was spelled out in Mein Kampf.

 

Yes i know.
I just wonder if the Soviet Union would have built so many tanks etc. if they didn't have to.

Another reason for Barbarossa in 1941 was the lack of experienced officers after the "Tschistka". So attacking the Soviet Union as early as possible was a rational decision. If i decided to attack at all.

 

War was inevitable. Stalin along with other read Mein Kampf. Hitler's plans for Russia were known. Soviet forces were being modernized, all the BTs would would be replaced with the newer tanks. Also, in the Molotov Ribbentrop pact, there was a clause which allowed the Russians to inspect newest German armor. Upon examining the the Panzer IV they weren't impressed. Germans noticed and made a point of them " having something better".... Those sneaky Russians

As for timing of the attack... I tend to agree with Glantz. Hitler got lucky. Had he attacked a year or two earlier or later he would not have been as successful.

 

Molotov visited Dec 1940 Hitler and demanded their right to attack Finland again. Just gotta wonder what kinda response that would have made in the UK as Sweden would very probably been the next target, or Hitler might have to invade Sweden instead.

 

No.
They lacked the ability to project and supply a force across the channel sufficient to defeat Britain

Likely yes.

Yes. The US is not likely to want to be able to help the Soviets if the UK is neutral.

10, 15 divisions maybe? If it was needed at all.
However there would be a large number of Axis troops available (mainly Italian) that would otherwise be in British Empire POW camps by Jun 1941

There is a good chance of success if the Soviets face the Axis on their own.

Very unlikely that there will be any US involvement, or an attack at Pearl, if Britain is out of the war.
Perhaps the US would attack Japan on its own, but less likely

 

Not at all sure about that. He did subscribe at least publically to Communist theory which envisioned a Communist world government. I've also seen some post that indicate that he would have been quite willing to take advantage of opportunities to invade parts of Europe provided the risk was acceptable. Indeed come to think of it his invasions of Finland and Poland do constitute rather clear invasions of parts of Europe not to mention the various countries of Eastern Europe latter in the war.

 

Absolutely not. It was Trotsky not Stalin who wanted to spread Communism around the world by any means necessary. Stalin opposed this view. A rift formed. Trotsky went on the run....

Neither Finland nor Poland were attacked because Stalin wanted to conquer Europe.
Both Austria and Finland were liberated by the Soviets. Neither one became Communist....

 

Had GB been conquered a garrison would most definitely be needed. Had 10-15 divisions been needed for GB that means there would be 10-15 divisions less for the war with Russia.

What is your definition of victory in the East?

 

Unconditional Surrender of all Soviet forces and total capitulation of the Soviet government.

 

Wishful thinking. Hitler should have listened to Otto Von Bismark.

 

Actually not, as there would be less need for divisions in France to protect against Allied landings, so 10-15 divisions could be withdrawn from France.
In addition, there would be 20-25 additional Italian divisions, as the British would presumably have to release there 300,000+ Axis POWs (mostly Italian)

 

Finland? Russia fought them and took the Petsamo region, they didn't liberate them.

 

Finland was defeated by the Soviet Union and was forced to switch sides yes.... It still didn't turn into a Soviet State. No attempt was made either.