If hitler began operation Barbarossa at his initial proposed date

Could the wehrmacht have possiably overun the political centre of Moscow if hitler decide not to secure the balkans in 1941, specifically operation Marita the german invasion of greece. Instead of sending his forces to greece to fend off the british, if Hitler proceded to launch Barbarossa at his initial date and given his wehrmacht those two extra weeks could he have actually been succesful in moscow and russia as a whole.

Which would then result in Germany gaining the eastern europe and Hitlers proposed plan to resolve the british problem after his conquest Russia.Could Hitler have been able to achieve his plan if the Wehrmacht wasnt sent to Greece in april 6 1941.

 

im just looking for someone who might have an idea about the wehrmachts actual capabilities on the eastern front and if they could have completed their capture of Moscow before the dreaded Russian winter set in.

 

Very complex topic, just some notes...

1) There were several reasons preventing the german attack from taking place at the first date (weather, preparations not ready, etc)... attack to Greece just being one.

2) How important was Moscow: hard to say because communications centers were evacuated, administration was evacuated, foreign embassies evacuated... everything that wasn't nailed down was evacuated, so capturing Moscow would have just resulted getting hold of a major railway hub. During the battle of Moscow Communist were already printing posters explaining that "even Moscow was lost the battle continues..."

3) Winter clothing: There was a good amount of winter clothing available, but locomotives could not handle the weather and broke down, crippling the supply.

4) In 1941 Nazi Germany produced 10%-20% of the battle tanks it produced in 1944. So Hitler started the war with very small industrial effort.


_

 

so even if the wehrmacht had actually reached the ural mountains by 1941, would the Russians would still be victorious in a battle of attrition due to its vast population or would the german armed forces be unable to operate past the ural mountains, especially in blitzkrieg tactics anyway. Im also wondering where was the main body of the Russian armaments industry was located during 1941 ?

 

A lot of the industries in European Russia were relocate to the east but, several large production plants were left in the Moscow ,Leningrad and Stalingrad areas. What the Russians would have lost if the Germans had occupied up to the Urals is manpower as the lands west of the Urals contained most of the Russian pop. So the Soviets would be hard pressed to fight a war of attrition . Plus most of their farm land is in the western part of .

 

So essentially Russia would be forced to revert to guerrilla warfare in the Urals and further east. I was aware that Russia field some 1 million troops on the border near Manchuria in the event that the Japanese attacked, they would still provide some resistance to a degree.

Did Hitler actually have plans to incorporate the Russian land past the urals in the event that his gamble on Russia paid off or just gain possession of the Caucasus oil fields and rich farming land in the Ukraine ?

 

"If the rotten house does not collapse when the door is kicked in" then Hitler cannot win the war. he did not have the reserves to do it and he was not ready for a long war, really. I voted for the last option.

 

The Red Army was on its heels when Hitler broke through the eastern front, the possibility of shattering the morale and will to resist of the Russians was ever present if they captured Moscow during 1941. The Russians were the first to stop the wehrmacht on the land, this undoubtedly gave them some confidence. The Soviets were notorious for their recklessness and heroism which could only be described as shear stupidity in some cases. The did poses an invincible aura up until the later stages of operation Barbarossa. The initial advances made by the blitzkrieg was blistering and shocked the world again at the Germans audacity to wage war, although it was only a matter of time before anti-blitzkrieg strategies was placed into effect.

Hitler should have given priority to Moscow then one of the other major cities not try and take all three at once, that was a overconfident decision on his part. The Wehrmacht was pushed to hard and this was undoubtedly the last blunder Nazis could suffer before they themselves were thrown back and irreparable damage was enacted on the german armed forces for the remainder of the war. It was the make or break for Germany if they destroyed Russia they would have continental Europe for themselves and Britain would be far from any assistance but as we know germans failed to kill the Russian bear quickly and paid heavily for their inaccurate assessment of Soviet forces and capabilities.

 

When Guderian ca. october 1941 visited Hitler and asked for more and new panzers to cover the losses so far Hitler only had 200 new tank engines to offer instead. You want to win the war with this lot, Ja? " I can tell you where to put those 200 engines, mein..." I can imagine Guderian´s thoughts....

 

The Urals, what Urals?

Hitler never intended to wage war past the Volga.

 

Hitler might, might have captured Moscow but it is doubtful. If you look at the original 1941 campaign closely AGC was close to failure militarily just on losses of manpower and equipment as it approached Moscow. The Germans really needed to stop and regroup and restore their units fighting strength. The Soviets had the depth of reserves available and moving to the front to make a stand before Moscow particularly given the low strength of AGC.
The weather would have made no difference.

 

I believe the German Army would be bogged down in the spring rain and mud unlike in June. The whole thing was meant to be one gigantic kick and Russia will fall, as we all know that was not the case.

 

A large portion of failure of the eastern front must rest on hitler's shoulders as he failed to aim for one objective (i.e Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad) He disregarded one of the vital components of strategy ' have one goal and don't let anything distract you or lose sight of that goal. Hitler through his forces at all three, and failed to capture anything. In this regard he is a complete fool although he did achieve great bluffs at times like the bloodless war of Czechoslovakia.

 

I don't know if this has been mentioned before but i have several books on the Soviet invasion and the disaster of Hitlers meddling in the invasion, even before the beginning Hitler meddled in the Soviet invasion

Hitler ordered in June 1940 that plans be drawn up for the eventual invasion of the Soviet Union, so the Chef der Stab of the German 18th Army a Generalmajor Erich Marckes was chosen to draw up plans for the invasion of the Soviet Union and after sometime Generalmajor Erich Marckes drew up his invasion plans and they were to be.

The main thrust was to be towards Moscow, while smaller spearheads would target Leningrad and Stalingrad, and the eventual result would be the securing of the A-A line, the invasion would take place sometime in late April or early May, time for the invasion was to take 12 weeks.

But here was Hitler and his meddling began, while Generalmajor Erich Marckes was prepareing his plans, Hitler ordered Keitel and Jodl to prepare shadow plans specifically to target Stalingrad and Leningrad, Moscow was of little importance, so the OKW began to prepare their shodow plans. To begin at more or less at the same time.

Hitler as he was chose the shadow plans an went with them. But fate stepped in and dealt the Third Reich a blow, and that was the Italian debarkle in the Balkans/Aegean, that delay cost the Germans dearly.

So had Hitler decided that the Italians had to handle the Balkan situation by themselves and not diverted his forces and used Generalmajor Erich Marckes plans i would say that German/Axis forces could have secured the A-A line by at least by September 1941, that includes the capture of Stalingrad, Leningrad and Moscow and the Caucasus Oilfields by December and then defensively weathered the winter and the following spring/summer launch another offensive to the Urals by December 1942.

 

I must agree on the later half of the last post, But as i may have stated previously Hitlers unorthodox methods and high reliance upon surprise did reap its benefits, the drive through the southern Belgium and the Ardennes forest went hand in hand with these characteristics.

 

Germans taking Moskow? He he.
Moscow - city is10 times bigger then Stalingrad.
Axis eastern army suffered more than 734,000 casualties (about 23% of its average strength of 3,200,000 troops) during the first five months of the invasion(that is more then during 2 years of war on the West), and on 27 November 1941, General Eduard Wagner, the Quartermaster General of the German Army, reported, "We are at the end of our resources in both personnel and materiel. We are about to be confronted with the dangers of deep winter."
And by the end of November Soviets put Siberian resevs in.
I belive if Barbarossa did start 2 weeks earlier and Germans would let themself be lured in street fighting in Moscow - axis defeat in Battle fo Moscow would've been even more devastating.

 

one thing shouldn't be lost in view, the balkan campaign affect the supply and material replacements. It have very critical effect addinbg the fact that Hitler preferto send new unit instead to complete existed units.
better supply help german but It should not be suffisant to reach so many objectifs as Barbarossa have to do

 

Had the "Marckes Plans" been used Operation Barbarossa would have started eight weeks earlier than 22/6/41, if we overlay that with the surrender of the Vyazma Pocket then German forces would have attacked Moscow by mid to late August.

But the "Marckes Plan" insisted that Army Group Centre would attack Moscow in it's entiriety, Army Group South and Antonescu would attack Stalingrad in their entiriety, while Army Group North and Finnish forces would attack Leningrad. Above all in the "Marckes Plan" there were to be no deviation from those objectives.

If the "Marckes Plan" had been used then i would say casualty figures would be different.

 

If we look on Axis strategy on the Easter front it is clear that they prefered to incircle big cities rather then trying to take them directly. One of a few exeptions was Stalingrad. We all know what good come out of it.

Finns refused to have anything to do with Leningrad or advance furder then those territories they lost to Soviet in Winter War. That actually annoyed Hitler alot.

So, Axis did incircle Leningrad. It was blokaded for more then 2 years?
Axis failed to incircle Moscow simply coz they run out of strengh.

Let's play " What If".
What If Axis did entered Moscow? Fearsome, bloody street fighting from house to house AKA Stalingrad. Casualties would've been roughly the same for both sides.
Wich is unacceptable for Germans. Soviets coming with Sibirian reservs. The End.

What If Axis did surround Moscow? Front line stretches even more, wich i don't think is in favor of Germans. Spreading Axis forces even thinner. Soviets coming with Sibirian reservs. The End.

Does't matter how you look at it. Simply put: In case with Soviets, Axis had bite more then they could swallow.

 

Anyone checked the weather in Eastern Europe in May/June? I've been told the spring rains continued over several weeks, keeping the ground in mud until after 15 June. The Bug river is susposed to have been in flood with the roads to the bridges not entirely clear of water until the 17th or 18th of June. If this is true then there would not be much of a blitzkrieg were the attack started a month earlier.