Operaton Barbarossa: Was it a dumb idea or not? an analysis

3,129 Views | 22 Replies | Last: 7 yr ago by Ag_EQ12
SBISA Victim
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
This is a pretty good analysis.

It does not look at our current view (yes it was a mistake, and you dont start a land war in russia). It looks at only the facts available to Hitler and his generals.
dcbowers
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Of course, the author's prominent timeline does not extend back to 1812 (Napoleon's invasion of Russia), where they might have learned a thing or two.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
aalan94
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
This is the point I've always argued against the Hitler was doomed to failure crowd. First of all, no one knows they're doomed or they wouldn't do it.

Russia was not uninvadable. The Soviet Union was truly a rotten house, as Hitler said. You kick in the door and the whole thing falls down. Well, unfortunately, there were just one or two beams that held it up and Stalin was able to convince the termites to fight for him (by threatening to shoot them, of course).

This is history as it HAPPENED, not as it was DESTINED to happen, because there is no such thing as the latter.

Hitler's biggest blunders were in intelligence, because the things that stopped him (winter and the T-34) were both underestimated. And because Hitler was a good Operational, but a horrible Strategic thinker, he was not able to keep up with the logistical challenges. He took a big gamble, and as the OP said, he did so with only so many facts at his hands. His failure was not having more facts. Even had he known those issues, that's not a dealbreaker, as there are things you can do to prepare. But that's really speculative.

Personally, to paraphrase Galland who said give me Mustangs and I'll win, I think had the Germans had a Sturmovik, they would have done fairly well.
BQ78
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
No Delay to bail out Mussolini in the Balkans and Hitler takes Moscow before the end of '41. The question would be, would taking Moscow by Hitler be more profitable for him versus Napoleon?
Rabid Cougar
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
Personally, to paraphrase Galland who said give me Mustangs and I'll win, I think had the Germans had a Sturmovik, they would have done fairly well.
I would substitute T-34 for Strumovik. It is a very good CAS/tank killer but I don't think had near the impact on the outcome of battles as say the P-47 and Typhoon in the West in 1944-45. This was due to the Luftwaffe having parity in the air over Russia in 1941 and opposed to Allied air superiority in the west in 1944.

The T-34 was game changer even when they encountered them in 1941.

Martin Cash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Hitler waited until late June to invade. Had he invaded earlier, say April, he may very well have succeeded.
The Original AG 76
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Had Hitler concentrated his forces on Moscow instead of splitting them he would have taken the city. Most historians , especially those from Russia, feel that Stalin would have not survived the fall of Moscow. He was barely hanging on to power at this point and knew he would be removed if the city fell. Without FRD's favorite uncle it is doubtful that the massive resources of Mother Russia could have been mustered. Don't underestimate the power and importance of Uncle Joes iron will , unbelievable brutality and dominant personality in the resurgence of the Soviets.
option short side
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
In addition to everything mentioned i would add:

Hitler's occupation policies were a failure as well. Had he gone in as a liberator and attempted to setup governments in conquered territories he could sapped alot of Stalin's support and of course betrayed the population once the war was over.. He had a chance to take Lennigrad early but instead wasted alot of manpower with a siege. The Germans also kept switching their armaments production. Hitler believed the campaign to be over in July and switched focus to producing U-Boats and fighters. Had he some sort of panzer strategic reserve he could have completed the great encirclement at Kiev while also continuing his drive on Moscow. As it happened he had to strip all his armor from Army Group Center.
Ag_EQ12
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Dumb idea or not, it was at the core of the Nazi grand strategy. It was absolutely necessary to invade the Soviet Union to gain the territory Germany needed. The invasion was also absolutely necessary to accomplish the goal of European racial reorganization. Remember, the vast majority of the Jews killed in the Holocaust lived in the East and Hitler wasn't promising lebensraum in the West.

cbr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Hitler had to invade Russia. Russia caved so badly in 41 because, in part, Stalin was preparing for an offensive against Germany and had force disposition with that in mind. Allied propaganda has largely kept this out of the history books. Russia was mobilizing much faster than Germany and if Russia had seized the initiative in 41 instead of Germany, they might have won. And if not, in a few years, Russia would have been damn near invincible anyway.

There are certainly things that could have been done differently and maybe changed the outcome. And honestly it is a very, very interesting question whether the world would have been a whole lot better off if hitler had beaten Stalin. As bad as the nazis were, they weren't as bad as stalins regime, or as hell bent on international subversion.
cbr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
option short side said:

In addition to everything mentioned i would add:

Hitler's occupation policies were a failure as well. Had he gone in as a liberator and attempted to setup governments in conquered territories he could sapped alot of Stalin's support and of course betrayed the population once the war was over.. He had a chance to take Lennigrad early but instead wasted alot of manpower with a siege. The Germans also kept switching their armaments production. Hitler believed the campaign to be over in July and switched focus to producing U-Boats and fighters. Had he some sort of panzer strategic reserve he could have completed the great encirclement at Kiev while also continuing his drive on Moscow. As it happened he had to strip all his armor from Army Group Center.
I knew two German ww2 pilots when I was a kid. They were very anti hitler at that point in life, but they both said that the entire population of Ukraine, the Baltic states, and western Russia greeted the nazis with parades as liberators. If hitler had been able to harness that, he'd probably have won. Instead he went all 'iron fist' early and turned a good percentage against his occupation.
Corporal Punishment
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
cbr said:

Hitler had to invade Russia. Russia caved so badly in 41 because, in part, Stalin was preparing for an offensive against Germany and had force disposition with that in mind. Allied propaganda has largely kept this out of the history books. Russia was mobilizing much faster than Germany and if Russia had seized the initiative in 41 instead of Germany, they might have won. And if not, in a few years, Russia would have been damn near invincible anyway.

There are certainly things that could have been done differently and maybe changed the outcome. And honestly it is a very, very interesting question whether the world would have been a whole lot better off if hitler had beaten Stalin. As bad as the nazis were, they weren't as bad as stalins regime, or as hell bent on international subversion.
Rabid Cougar
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
cbr said:

option short side said:

In addition to everything mentioned i would add:

Hitler's occupation policies were a failure as well. Had he gone in as a liberator and attempted to setup governments in conquered territories he could sapped alot of Stalin's support and of course betrayed the population once the war was over.. He had a chance to take Lennigrad early but instead wasted alot of manpower with a siege. The Germans also kept switching their armaments production. Hitler believed the campaign to be over in July and switched focus to producing U-Boats and fighters. Had he some sort of panzer strategic reserve he could have completed the great encirclement at Kiev while also continuing his drive on Moscow. As it happened he had to strip all his armor from Army Group Center.
I knew two German ww2 pilots when I was a kid. They were very anti hitler at that point in life, but they both said that the entire population of Ukraine, the Baltic states, and western Russia greeted the nazis with parades as liberators. If hitler had been able to harness that, he'd probably have won. Instead he went all 'iron fist' early and turned a good percentage against his occupation.
He screwed the pooch when he started killing and hauling them off.
BQ78
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

And honestly it is a very, very interesting question whether the world would have been a whole lot better off if hitler had beaten Stalin. As bad as the nazis were, they weren't as bad as stalins regime, or as hell bent on international subversion.


So Trump is Hitler and Hillary is Stalin.
The Original AG 76
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
cbr said:

Hitler had to invade Russia. Russia caved so badly in 41 because, in part, Stalin was preparing for an offensive against Germany and had force disposition with that in mind. Allied propaganda has largely kept this out of the history books. Russia was mobilizing much faster than Germany and if Russia had seized the initiative in 41 instead of Germany, they might have won. And if not, in a few years, Russia would have been damn near invincible anyway.

There are certainly things that could have been done differently and maybe changed the outcome. And honestly it is a very, very interesting question whether the world would have been a whole lot better off if hitler had beaten Stalin. As bad as the nazis were, they weren't as bad as stalins regime, or as hell bent on international subversion.


Great question . I think that since communism in particular and socialism in general is so counter to human progress and destroys everything it touches vs fascism which does alllow a bit of freedom and market economics ( as long as you are of the chosen persuasion) ....it was better long term that fascism was destroyed sine it could have survived and thrived indefinitely. Socialism is a cancerous disease that will always fail and collapse fairly quick.
Today we see a real world example in modern Russia. The same victorious socialist state has collapsed and has been replaced with the latest version of a mafia run fascist state.
Ag_EQ12
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
cbr said:

Hitler had to invade Russia. Russia caved so badly in 41 because, in part, Stalin was preparing for an offensive against Germany and had force disposition with that in mind. Allied propaganda has largely kept this out of the history books. Russia was mobilizing much faster than Germany and if Russia had seized the initiative in 41 instead of Germany, they might have won. And if not, in a few years, Russia would have been damn near invincible anyway.

There are certainly things that could have been done differently and maybe changed the outcome. And honestly it is a very, very interesting question whether the world would have been a whole lot better off if hitler had beaten Stalin. As bad as the nazis were, they weren't as bad as stalins regime, or as hell bent on international subversion.
What? I'm not a fan of ranking horrific dictators, but arguing the Nazis weren't "as bad" as anyone is disturbing.

Also, Stalin wanted to stave off a war with Germany as long as possible and certainly was not "preparing for an offensive against Germany" in 1941. The Soviet Union was in the middle of its third Five-Year Plan and working to promote massive economic and industrial growth. At this point, the Soviet Union was focused on what Stalin called "Socialism in one country" rather than the international communist revolution. What Stalin wanted was to forge the Soviet Union into an industrial powerhouse. War with Germany was the last thing Stalin wanted. He wanted to avoid a war so badly that he completely ignored a pile of intelligence on his desk that warned of the German invasion.

Furthermore, this idea that Russia was "mobilizing much faster than Germany" is bunk. The Soviets were catastrophically unprepared for war with Germany in the summer of 1941. After the purges the leadership was in shambles. There was almost no supply system to speak of (not a characteristic of an army preparing for an offensive) nor was there a reliable communications network. The Soviets still relied on cable comms rather than radio (also not a characteristic of an army preparing for an offensive in this period). The Soviet Air Force was in the process of modernizing and making the switch from wood and fabric bi-planes to metal airframes like the MiG-3 and the Yak-1. They still hadn't figured out how to employ the new fighters, let alone prepare for an offensive against what was arguably the world's best air force at the time.

There is absolutely no data to support the your claim that Russia might have won if they'd attacked first in 1941.
cbr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Wow. Wrong on many fronts.

Yes, Stalin purged big time. Didn't matter. That was political. His leaders were largely inept, but his strategy never counted on theoretical military brilliance.

He was literally selling grain out from under his starving population to finance his was industry.

And he learned a lot attacking Finland and the baltics.

It is now beyond debate that his force disposition was clumsily offensive against Germany in 1941. Basically all post Cold War studies confirm that. Any other reading is just a reminiscent mix of old propaganda, limited old data, and frankly possibly blended with a bit of communist sympathy so prevalent in modern American education.

How exactly do you think the Germans encircled almost a million Russians, including almost their entire Air Force, in the first weeks of Barbarossa? Even if you discount armor and infantry, Why was all the artillery, and almost all the aircraft, within 100 miles of the border? Far in front of the rivers and fortifications built over decades? And why we're all their supply depos forward as well?


Same for the assertion that nazis were worse than stalins regime. That is actually laughable. Stalin killed more people. Tortured more people. Did both for even worse reasons. Was even more morally bankrupt. Did both for much longer. Menaced the earth in much more dire fashion.

The only reason anyone would ever debate that today is because they were told as kids the nazis were the worst, and the commies were our allies.

Truth is, nazism just became the more immediate threat to England and therefore the us, and in fact became such a threat that we would have sided with the devil himself to overcome Germany. And in fact we did. Stalin is probably the human being most nearly resembling satan in a very long time.
Corporal Punishment
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Sounds like cbr read Suvorov's The Chief Culprit.

Great read.
cbr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Here is a good short read.

http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/stalwarplans.html

Bottom line, Stalin had to keep Britain in the war. He overestimated Germany's industrial capacity if Germany should control all of Europe. Hitler likewise underestimated the sheer number and quality of the enlisted men, and equipment at stalins disposal, even if the officers corps was still depleted from the purges.

The reason Stalin basically pretended to ignore the warnings of a German attack in June, IMO, was that he knew his forces were clumsily aligned for an attack later that summer, they had been building that way for a year, and he did not have the physical capacity to realign them into proper defensive positions in time.

cbr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Corporal Punishment said:

Sounds like cbr read Suvorov's The Chief Culprit.

Great read.
Have not but I sure will look it up now!
Ag_EQ12
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
cbr said:

Wow. Wrong on many fronts.

Yes, Stalin purged big time. Didn't matter. That was political. His leaders were largely inept, but his strategy never counted on theoretical military brilliance.

He was literally selling grain out from under his starving population to finance his was industry.

And he learned a lot attacking Finland and the baltics.

It is now beyond debate that his force disposition was clumsily offensive against Germany in 1941. Basically all post Cold War studies confirm that. Any other reading is just a reminiscent mix of old propaganda, limited old data, and frankly possibly blended with a bit of communist sympathy so prevalent in modern American education.

How exactly do you think the Germans encircled almost a million Russians, including almost their entire Air Force, in the first weeks of Barbarossa? Even if you discount armor and infantry, Why was all the artillery, and almost all the aircraft, within 100 miles of the border? Far in front of the rivers and fortifications built over decades? And why we're all their supply depos forward as well?


Same for the assertion that nazis were worse than stalins regime. That is actually laughable. Stalin killed more people. Tortured more people. Did both for even worse reasons. Was even more morally bankrupt. Did both for much longer. Menaced the earth in much more dire fashion.

The only reason anyone would ever debate that today is because they were told as kids the nazis were the worst, and the commies were our allies.

Truth is, nazism just became the more immediate threat to England and therefore the us, and in fact became such a threat that we would have sided with the devil himself to overcome Germany. And in fact we did. Stalin is probably the human being most nearly resembling satan in a very long time.


The theory that Stalin was preparing to attack Germany in 1941 is not supported by any serious historian. What evidence do you have to support your claims? I, like Corporal Punishment, assumed you were getting this idea from Suvorov's books.

Many Soviet forces were some distance from their former defensive positions in the summer of 1941 because they had just taken the eastern half of Poland not two years earlier and were establishing new positions and bases. Context matters here.

As for how the Germans were able to encircle some many Russian troops the answer pretty well known. Basically the attack caught the Soviets off guard so badly that they were totally unable to mount a defense. As the German panzer divisions drove deep into Soviet territory they encircled the slower, mostly non-mechanized Soviet armies as they retreated in chaos. This was textbook operational doctrine for the Germans. Let's not forget how far the Germans drove into Soviet territory in the first few weeks of the campaign.

I'm not interested in evaluating the horribleness of Stalin and Hitler. Unless you have an agenda for making one worse than the other, what's the point?
Ag_EQ12
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
cbr said:

Here is a good short read.

http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/stalwarplans.html

Bottom line, Stalin had to keep Britain in the war. He overestimated Germany's industrial capacity if Germany should control all of Europe. Hitler likewise underestimated the sheer number and quality of the enlisted men, and equipment at stalins disposal, even if the officers corps was still depleted from the purges.

The reason Stalin basically pretended to ignore the warnings of a German attack in June, IMO, was that he knew his forces were clumsily aligned for an attack later that summer, they had been building that way for a year, and he did not have the physical capacity to realign them into proper defensive positions in time.


I took a look at your link and noticed it's repost of an article from The Barnes Review. Huge red flag. You really need to look elsewhere for your information. The SPLC has called The Barnes Review "...one of the most virulent anti-Semitic organizations around. Its flagship journal, The Barnes Review, and its website, Barnesreview.org, are dedicated to historical revisionism and Holocaust denial." Link.

This is exactly the kind of stuff we (the history board) need to be vigilant about. We have an outstanding history department at A&M that many of us had the good fortune to learn from, we need to leverage this education to sort out bad history from good history.
Post removed:
by user
Ag_EQ12
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Point taken. In this case the SPLC is right on target. Harry Elmer Barnes, the namesake of the organization, was a pretty prominent Holocaust denier in the 1950s and 1960s. The Barnes Review promotes and sells books that deny the Holocaust. Willis Carto, the founder of the Barnes Review, was also a Holocaust denier and published some of the first books denying the Holocaust. The organization is an anti-Semetic platform dedicated to historical revisionism.
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.