Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

If hitler began operation Barbarossa at his initial proposed date

Discussion in 'What If - European Theater - Eastern Front & Balka' started by .docholliday, Jan 13, 2008.

?

Could Hitler have succeded in destroying the Russian state in 1941 or at least reaching the Ural mou

  1. Yes, it could be realised

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. No

    14 vote(s)
    40.0%
  3. Hitler captures mowcow but red army communications arn't shattered

    16 vote(s)
    45.7%
  4. Hitler captures Moscow, but Wehrmacht doesn't have the manpower to continue obilteration of Russia

    5 vote(s)
    14.3%
  1. Slipdigit

    Slipdigit Good Ol' Boy Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    Messages:
    17,669
    Likes Received:
    2,210
    Location:
    Alabama
    Or perhaps they had not met an adversary that was willing to sacrifice as much and that had the men and territory with which to do it.

    German border 1940 to Paris - about 200 miles
    German border 1940 Warsaw - about the same.
    German border Oct 1939 to Kiev - over 500 miles.
    German border to Moscow - over 600 miles.
    Kiev is over 500 miles southwest of Moscow and Leningrad is about 400 miles northwest, with Kiev and Leningrad being close to 800 miles apart.

    Great distances and divergent axes* faced the Germans.

    The Soviets had the room to spare and apparently were willing spare the men.

    *Plural of axis
     
  2. Slipdigit

    Slipdigit Good Ol' Boy Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    Messages:
    17,669
    Likes Received:
    2,210
    Location:
    Alabama
    But he did. The Werhmacht went from 100,000 men in 1934 to 4,722,000 by Aug 1939 and 8,154,000 by 1941. That is quite a buildup in a very short amount of time.

    Because he knew that the German forces could not defeat the UK without a significant addition the DKM and he apparently was too impatient to wait on that improbable eventuality.

    He apparently didn't think the US was capable or willing to get elbow deep in war or would not be much of an adversary, why I do not know. Looking at situation years removed and with post-incident knowledge of what happened, it is easy to see that he "should have known." Very likely, he considered a cross-channel invasion as impractical for the Brits as it was for him. I don't think the thought of American involvement in it even would have crossed his mind in the Spring of 1941.

    As Terry Gardner said in another thread, Sealion would have been an unmitigated disaster for the Germans on so many levels. On June 6, 1944, the Western Allies totally controlled the seas and the air over and around the landing grounds and had to fight over only the landing grounds themselves. Sealion as planned in 1940 would have required the Wehrmacht to fight over the air and sea around the landing grounds, as well as the landing grounds themselves. We are very aware of what happened over Great Britain the Summer of 1940 and we are also aware of the unreplaceable losses of naval assets the Norway expedition cost the DKM. How were the Germans going to change the outcome? If the Wehrmacht had persisted in a cross-channel invasion, we would probably now be spending our forum time arguing why he couldn't see that it was bound to fail, as it would be so plain to us now.
     
  3. Sloniksp

    Sloniksp Ставка

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    Messages:
    6,321
    Likes Received:
    460

    Yes you are correct. The size of the Soviet Union was without a doubt an ally of itself. We can also say that the Soviet people had more to fight for. ;)
     
  4. Sloniksp

    Sloniksp Ставка

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    Messages:
    6,321
    Likes Received:
    460
    Winter started early that year and believe it or not, the Russians too suffered heavy casualties as they too had summer clothes in which they froze to death while in German captivity. However unlike the Germans they also lacked, leadership, weapons, supplies, virtually no airforce, food and the element of surprise coming face to face with what at that time seemed an invincible force. ;)

    Also attacking earlier would have bugged down the Germans in spring rains and turned the roads into mud. We are talking about a country who at that time only had some 3,000 miles of paved roads. ;)
     
  5. PactOfSteel

    PactOfSteel Dishonorably Discharged

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    Messages:
    305
    Likes Received:
    3
  6. Sloniksp

    Sloniksp Ставка

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    Messages:
    6,321
    Likes Received:
    460
    You are correct....

    Fortunately for the rest of the world, the Soviet's shot was better. ;)
     
  7. PactOfSteel

    PactOfSteel Dishonorably Discharged

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    Messages:
    305
    Likes Received:
    3
    no the Soviets had their winter weapon is all, the same weapon they used on Napolean. Of course they also had such a large population on their side as well.
     
  8. Sloniksp

    Sloniksp Ставка

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    Messages:
    6,321
    Likes Received:
    460
    Unfortunately friend, such arguments or excuses for the German defeat in Russia will not hold much water in this forum. As anyone who is well read on the subject is fully aware that this was not the case. ;)

    P.S.

    The Germans had 4 summers to beat the Russians.
     
  9. PactOfSteel

    PactOfSteel Dishonorably Discharged

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    Messages:
    305
    Likes Received:
    3
    they should have invaded in the summer, but any historian will say it was the winter. I read a story about several Wehrmacht soldiers were walking through a town and the townspeople ran at them with pitchforks/knives and it was so cold that the gunpowder wouldn't ignite rendering their weapons useless.
     
  10. Sloniksp

    Sloniksp Ставка

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    Messages:
    6,321
    Likes Received:
    460
    The Germans invaded Russia on June 22nd 1941.... If thats not summer then I dont know what is.

    Believe it or not, but the Russians too had gun which jammed and tanks which froze as the Red Army used the same gunpowder and fuel that the Germans were using. :D

    Also... hundreds and thousands of Red Army men suffered from frosbite resulting in many deaths as well. ;)

    And please name me one historian which will claim what you are. ;)
     
  11. PactOfSteel

    PactOfSteel Dishonorably Discharged

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    Messages:
    305
    Likes Received:
    3
    let me rephrase, they didn't invade Russia in the winter but by time they reached Stalingrad ect... it became winter which slowed them down.
     
  12. von Rundstedt

    von Rundstedt Dishonorably Discharged

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2007
    Messages:
    678
    Likes Received:
    29
    Well thats the comment of the century, but the Heer got to Stalingrad in late 1942 at least 16 months after the intial invasion and you are talking about the winter of 42/43 not 41/42, not the original aim of the Marckes plan to reach the A-A Line within 12 weeks or so, no whatever you do the fact is that the Germans dramatically over estimated their capabilities, as pointed out, it is one thing to fight in western Europe with paved roads and available road maps, but it is another to fight in the Soviets Union where a goat track is considered a major highway, and no maps of the area.

    What the Germans did achieve was remarkable, but to defeat the Soviets they need at least 3 times the men and equipment and an unlimited amount of fuel to do it, that they neve had and a huge amount of good luck and leadership.
     
  13. PactOfSteel

    PactOfSteel Dishonorably Discharged

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    Messages:
    305
    Likes Received:
    3
    I completely agree, plus you cant fight a two-front war. Going back the winter, for example I was watching a documentary on the History channel and it was talking about the Battle of Stalingrad and how close they came to Moscow and the person commenting talked about how the winter/cold effected them greatly.
     
  14. .docholliday

    .docholliday Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    0
    The common conception that the Russian soldier was an improved adversary is vastly overrated, The Russian soldiers bravery and heroism is largely derived from lack of education and due to the fact that Stalin's tyranny was an equal hell for Hitlers Germany.
     
  15. B16bcivic

    B16bcivic recruit

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2008
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hitler gave his german a lot, Stalin was a horrible man, if Britan never covered up all Stalins war crimes we could know what Mass Murders stalin did
     
  16. Kai-Petri

    Kai-Petri Kenraali

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2002
    Messages:
    25,334
    Likes Received:
    1,890
    Location:
    Finland

    Everyone´s got right for his own opinion. Mine is that the Red Army soldier was a very tough opponent never giving up. Their motto was " take at least one with you!". And even if Stalin´s politics did affect the army early in the war by june 1941 Stalin had created it into a battle for Motherland.

    For instance try telling a soldier of a Western Allied nation " attack, die , but take at least one enemy with you!" How many soldiers would continue attacking....
     
  17. Sloniksp

    Sloniksp Ставка

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    Messages:
    6,321
    Likes Received:
    460
    I am going to assume that you mean on the battlefield in the first 6 months?
     
  18. PactOfSteel

    PactOfSteel Dishonorably Discharged

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    Messages:
    305
    Likes Received:
    3
    the Germans should have defeated Russia, I do not believe Russia did anything clever or intelligent to win, they had sheer numbers and bitter cold on their side is all. -Scorched earth was a good tactic though. We all know Stalin used the Nazi invasion as a excuse to invade Europe and communize it.
     
  19. Kai-Petri

    Kai-Petri Kenraali

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2002
    Messages:
    25,334
    Likes Received:
    1,890
    Location:
    Finland

    Well, Hitler disagrees with you here. He personally said in the bunker that the victorious Slavic nations will rule Europe, the Germans don´t deserve to live anymore because their race was inferior and lost. Hitler wanted a battle to the end and got it.
     
  20. GrossBorn

    GrossBorn Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2007
    Messages:
    138
    Likes Received:
    6
    This thread seems to have veered a bit off-course from the OP original question...:rolleyes:

    While I respect the rights of Soviet advocates and German advocates to argue their sides of the age-old question..."Who should have won the war, or who was worse, etc" the reality is that the Soviet Union utterly and completely defeated Nazi Germany (with the help of the Western Allies) and BOTH regimes were inherently EVIL and committed many atrocities against military personnel and innocent civilians. This forum does not seem to be the place to argue these points endlessly...:deadhorse:

    Now to the original "what if"...it probably would not have made any difference to the ultimate outcome of the war. The Soviet Union was too strong for the Germans to defeat in a prolonged conflict. The wild card would be if the Germans had captured Moscow because of the earlier start along with the possible capture of Leningrad...would this have caused a political upheaval resulting in the ouster of Stalin and peace overtures being made to Germany? That would have been the only way Germany could have been victorious.
     
    Za Rodinu likes this.

Share This Page