Operation Barbarossa: Nazi Germany Versus USSR

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa#German_preparations

Soviet commander admits USSR came close to defeat by Nazis - Telegraph




Could the Nazis have defeated the USSR during WW2?

Let us assume that Barbarossa could have started off well rather than behind schedule since Germany had delayed the operation for several critical months in the spring due to having to use the panzers in their Balkan operations due in part to the Italians bungling their invasion of Greece. And let us assume also that instead of diverting troops tasked with the capture of Moscow in army group center to army group south to take the Kiev pocket, Hitler ordered an all out effort to assault Moscow before the med and the winter set in?

If we go by sheer numbers then it would still be highly unlikely that the Germans would have beaten the Russians. First of all, the Russians had a massive reserve army in Siberia in the event of a Japanese invasion and secondly Stalin would not have given up even if the Germans took Moscow, he could have easily moved the government behind the Urals and continued the fight.

In my opinion, the only way Germany could have beaten the Russians was to delay them long enough to develop atom bombs. That means keep the non-aggression pact and hope that Stalin would not attack first.

PoS said:

Could the Nazis have defeated the USSR during WW2?

Click to expand...

It was quite possible yes.

Let us assume that Barbarossa could have started off well rather than behind schedule since Germany had delayed the operation for several critical months in the spring due to having to use the panzers in their Balkan operations due in part to the Italians bungling their invasion of Greece. And let us assume also that instead of diverting troops tasked with the capture of Moscow in army group center to army group south to take the Kiev pocket, Hitler ordered an all out effort to assault Moscow before the med and the winter set in

Click to expand...

You've got his biggest mistake in a nutshell.

This was it, had he not ordered Guderians Panzers to swing South to assist in the taking of Kiev, it is extremely possible they could have taken Moscow.

If we go by sheer numbers then it would still be highly unlikely that the Germans would have beaten the Russians. First of all, the Russians had a massive reserve army in Siberia in the event of a Japanese invasion and secondly Stalin would not have given up even if the Germans took Moscow, he could have easily moved the government behind the Urals and continued the fight.

Click to expand...

My only problem with this, is that in many ways the Soviet Union was still quite underdeveloped in the East, one of the ways in which the Soviet Union was able to beat the Nazi's was how they were able to move factory equipment quickly East and pick up their production capacity, the only problem you have there though is that Leadership wise, it is possible Stalin would have pulled a Hitler and stayed in Moscow to the end.

The USSR at that point was a one man dictatorship with command and control almost entirely centered on Moscow, with Stalin gone, there would have been a power vacuum and the Soviet Leadership would have been in complete disarray and with possible infighting.

The Germans would have easily been able to exploit that Chaos to continue to obliterate the broken, ill prepared and poorly led Red Army just as they had done at the beginning of the campaign.

In my opinion, the only way Germany could have beaten the Russians was to delay them long enough to develop atom bombs. That means keep the non-aggression pact and hope that Stalin would not attack first.

Click to expand...

That's why history is fun.

I've been watching a lot about the Eastern Front lately.

Hitlers first mistake was as you rightly pointed out, waiting too long to begin because he wanted to secure his Southern Flank.

Then pushing Guderians Panzers South to assist in the taking of Kiev.

After that, it was one blunder after another the more and more he took control of battlefield decisions (The most costly being Stalingrad and Kursk), as much as I can speculate above... all of it is based on the idea that the Generals, not Hitler were still in command of the campaign.

As a continuation of the conversation:

Hitler was a tactical moron, had he allowed his army to remain mobile during the Soviet counter attacks following Stalingrad, it's possible he could have lured the Soviets too far in from their supply lines and allowed the tanks he had mobilized for Kursk to cause real havoc on their terms on their ground... only issue there is they had already pulled most of the Luftwaffe out of the Eastern front and back to the Homeland to defend against Allied Bombing of German cities, and with soviet air superiorty and the IL-2 in Play, that really affected the ground war quite a bit.

PoS said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa#German_preparations

Soviet commander admits USSR came close to defeat by Nazis - Telegraph

Could the Nazis have defeated the USSR during WW2?

Let us assume that Barbarossa could have started off well rather than behind schedule since Germany had delayed the operation for several critical months in the spring due to having to use the panzers in their Balkan operations due in part to the Italians bungling their invasion of Greece. And let us assume also that instead of diverting troops tasked with the capture of Moscow in army group center to army group south to take the Kiev pocket, Hitler ordered an all out effort to assault Moscow before the med and the winter set in?

If we go by sheer numbers then it would still be highly unlikely that the Germans would have beaten the Russians. First of all, the Russians had a massive reserve army in Siberia in the event of a Japanese invasion and secondly Stalin would not have given up even if the Germans took Moscow, he could have easily moved the government behind the Urals and continued the fight.

In my opinion, the only way Germany could have beaten the Russians was to delay them long enough to develop atom bombs. That means keep the non-aggression pact and hope that Stalin would not attack first.

Click to expand...

Defeat, with two front's going? Not likely. But severely damaging Russia by capturing the oil fields first would have been a major blow that really could have changed things. Had Hitler not split his forces and sent the rest north instead of taking the fields then and there, it could have been way different. Yet, in the over all you are quite correct to point out the numbers advantage that the Russians had. So, no, I don't think Hitler could have overtaken Russia by said conventional means at the time.

PoS said:

In my opinion, the only way Germany could have beaten the Russians was to delay them long enough to develop atom bombs. That means keep the non-aggression pact and hope that Stalin would not attack first.

Click to expand...

It was highly improbable that Stalin would attack first. People often forget that, until the 1941 invasion, the Soviet Union was essentially a co-belligerent of the Axis Powers and even looked favorably on the prospect of formally joining that alliance. Moscow had prohibited communist parties in countries under Axis occupation from resisting; conversely, Britain and France saw aiding Finland in its war against Russia as a part of the war effort against Germany. Stalin was in a furious denial when told by his subordinates that the Nazis were likely going to invade the Soviet Union and made little to no strategic preparation for the invasion even when it was obviously imminent. Hitler's largest strategic blunder was squandering Soviet goodwill in the first place.

The main deciding factor that stopped Germany from taking Russia was the USA. Our most significant part of WW2 was our ability to keep Germany in check. Russia vs Germany would have been very close and could have gone either way. However with the USA and England biting at their heels they never really had a chance. Of course we could never have had a successful foothold in Europe without most of the German army tied up in Russia. The D in D day would have stood for disaster. Had the men and equipment lost and tied up in Russia been available to confront us on D day and afterwards we would have been slaughtered. I don't think the American people could have stomached losses in the millions.

Jetboogieman said:

My only problem with this, is that in many ways the Soviet Union was still quite underdeveloped in the East, one of the ways in which the Soviet Union was able to beat the Nazi's was how they were able to move factory equipment quickly East and pick up their production capacity, the only problem you have there though is that Leadership wise, it is possible Stalin would have pulled a Hitler and stayed in Moscow to the end.

The USSR at that point was a one man dictatorship with command and control almost entirely centered on Moscow, with Stalin gone, there would have been a power vacuum and the Soviet Leadership would have been in complete disarray and with possible infighting.

The Germans would have easily been able to exploit that Chaos to continue to obliterate the broken, ill prepared and poorly led Red Army just as they had done at the beginning of the campaign.

Click to expand...

Good post but youre assuming two things:

1) That if the Germans surrounded Moscow Stalin would have stayed to face possible capture and execution when he could have easily evacuated over the Urals before that could happen.

2) That the battle for Moscow would not end up as a meat grinder for the Germans like what Stalingrad turned out to be.

The German military was already overstretched by the time they got close to Moscow, much of their transportation and logistics were still horse drawn. And the Russians were nothing like the Western Europeans who would surrender when surrounded. Each Russian unit fought on even when that happened.

PoS said:

1) That if the Germans surrounded Moscow Stalin would have stayed to face possible capture and execution when he could have easily evacuated over the Urals before that could happen.

Click to expand...

I said it was possible. I think he would have.

2) That the battle for Moscow would not end up as a meat grinder for the Germans like what Stalingrad turned out to be.

Click to expand...

That's certainly possible, but that was also based on timing, if Barbarossa had started earlier, it's possible that the Soviets would have been even less prepared and Moscow would have easily fallen. If we're talking about 2nd Panzer Corp not moving South to take Kiev... then you have a point I didn't consider.

The Germans would have entered Moscow and the Mud and freezing temperatures that did happen could have kicked in before it was captured, which would have been a disaster if epic proportions.

The German military was already overstretched by the time they got close to Moscow, much of their transportation and logistics were still horse drawn.

Click to expand...

Quite right.

And the Russians were nothing like the Western Europeans who would surrender when surrounded. Each Russian unit fought on even when that happened.

Click to expand...

Not really, Only Stalingrad brought out the real "NO RETREAT" mentality, before that time Soviets had been captured by the Hundreds of thousands.

Had Hitler not taken over strategy and gone after the symbol cities of Leningrad and Stalingrad, then the Russians would have been defeated... it is as simple as that.

Yes the delay in launching the attack did not help, but on the flip side, the advance far far went ahead what the planners had expected. So the critical issue was when Hitler decided to split his armies. This meant the Russians could complete their move of their industry and set up defenses.

Had Moscow been taken, then the route to the Ural mountains would have been open and any industry that had been moved would have been blow up by the Luftwaffe.

PoS said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa#German_preparations

Soviet commander admits USSR came close to defeat by Nazis - Telegraph

Could the Nazis have defeated the USSR during WW2?

Let us assume that Barbarossa could have started off well rather than behind schedule since Germany had delayed the operation for several critical months in the spring due to having to use the panzers in their Balkan operations due in part to the Italians bungling their invasion of Greece. And let us assume also that instead of diverting troops tasked with the capture of Moscow in army group center to army group south to take the Kiev pocket, Hitler ordered an all out effort to assault Moscow before the med and the winter set in?

If we go by sheer numbers then it would still be highly unlikely that the Germans would have beaten the Russians. First of all, the Russians had a massive reserve army in Siberia in the event of a Japanese invasion and secondly Stalin would not have given up even if the Germans took Moscow, he could have easily moved the government behind the Urals and continued the fight.

In my opinion, the only way Germany could have beaten the Russians was to delay them long enough to develop atom bombs. That means keep the non-aggression pact and hope that Stalin would not attack first.

Click to expand...

just one more leader who didn't study world history properly. invading Russia in the winter? sounds like a recipe for certain success. it seems like someone might have tried that before, and it didn't work. let's see........

oh yeah. Napoleon.

so to answer the question, no, i don't think Germany could have conquered Russia during the winter, and probably not even during the summer, considering that it was engaged in a multi-front war. Hitler was probably on meth, as is the rumor. plus, he was bat**** to begin with.

Helix said:

just one more leader who didn't study world history properly. invading Russia in the winter? sounds like a recipe for certain success. it seems like someone might have tried that before, and it didn't work. let's see........

oh yeah. Napoleon.

so to answer the question, no, i don't think Germany could have conquered Russia during the winter, and probably not even during the summer, considering that it was engaged in a multi-front war. Hitler was probably on meth, as is the rumor. plus, he was bat**** to begin with.

Click to expand...

Hitler didn't invade Russia in the Winter, he invaded in late June 1941.

Some strategic errors led to the Panzers being just short of Moscow when heavy autumn rain kicked in and brought vehicles to a standstill in the mud.

Then the temperature began to plummet, in November/December, just as Scouting units reported seeing the spires of the Kremlin, the temperature got to a point where engines completely froze, at that point so much time had gone into preparation for the German Attack and the Russians got intelligence reporting the Japanese would not invade, they moved 30 Divisions of Siberian soldiers over, these men were well equipped and specially trained in Winter Fighting.

On December 5th, the Soviets launched a savage attack on the bewildered Germans and pushed them back from Moscow.

Jetboogieman said:

Hitler didn't invade Russia in the Winter, he invaded in late June 1941.

Click to expand...

yeah, but it might have been a good idea to push that up a bit. he wasn't going to take Russia in two months while fighting a multi-front war. the invasion itself was a mistake, and the timing and overextension of his military made victory very unlikely.

Jetboogieman said:

Some strategic errors led to the Panzers being just short of Moscow when heavy autumn rain kicked in and brought vehicles to a standstill in the mud.

Then the temperature began to plummet, in November/December, just as Scouting units reported seeing the spires of the Kremlin, the temperature got to a point where engines completely froze, at that point so much time had gone into preparation for the German Attack and the Russians got intelligence reporting the Japanese would not invade, they moved 30 Divisions of Siberian soldiers over, these men were well equipped and specially trained in Winter Fighting.

On December 5th, the Soviets launched a savage attack on the bewildered Germans and pushed them back from Moscow.

Click to expand...

Napoleon actually took Moscow and was still defeated. once again, if you're going to wage war, you need to take a close look at the outcomes of earlier, similar campaigns. who knows, he probably was familiar with Napoleon's loss, and just figured that Germany was invincible.

MadLib said:

It was highly improbable that Stalin would attack first. People often forget that, until the 1941 invasion, the Soviet Union was essentially a co-belligerent of the Axis Powers and even looked favorably on the prospect of formally joining that alliance. Moscow had prohibited communist parties in countries under Axis occupation from resisting; conversely, Britain and France saw aiding Finland in its war against Russia as a part of the war effort against Germany. Stalin was in a furious denial when told by his subordinates that the Nazis were likely going to invade the Soviet Union and made little to no strategic preparation for the invasion even when it was obviously imminent. Hitler's largest strategic blunder was squandering Soviet goodwill in the first place.

Click to expand...

Well there are a number of historians saying that Stalin was planning to attack Germany as well and was just waiting until his military was at full strength after he purged it of suspected disloyal officers. I believe that Stalin was ultimately going to fight but he was stalling for time until his military was ready. Hitler just beat him to the punch.

I think the most over-looked aspect of any 'what-if' analysis is the tunnel vision that people get for the military realm--they lose sight of the political.

The greatest chance the German's had for a decisive victory was a military campaign that so thoroughly devastated the Soviet military and so completely accomplished it's initial objectives that it led to the disintegration of the Soviet government and the dispersal of it's existing formations.

Let's presume a few changes and create a scenario wherein a decisive German campaign in 1941 ends with a deep bulge in the Caucuses perhaps with Baku and Astrakhan in sight, Moscow and Leningrad having been seized with their garrisons dispersed or destroyed. What happens then? It seems entirely plausible that the Soviet government might have disintegrated. Even in our historical timeline there is some evidence that a coup against Stalin was considered by some, and there is great evidence that Stalin was militating against such an action and even believed that a coup was in progress when the delegation came to visit him at his dacha outside of Moscow. Even without a coup this combination of successes could have forced a complete withdrawal of the Soviet government to Kazan, or even further with an attendant winter withdrawal further east, or the frank disintegration of the authority of the state as most of the central government is put to flight and most population centers under occupation.

Perception is reality. We can argue about the raw data concerning the behemoth size of the Soviet Union, it's manpower reserves, it's capacity to nurture its internal industry, to maintain a persistent war-effort, etc etc. But this ignores the fact that war is not conducted in this manner. Psychology and the perception of defeat and hopelessness is more powerful than the reality of the situation. In 1941 the Soviet Union came dangerously close to a breaking point, positing these extra and apparently massive victories for the Germans could have changed everything.

No matter the outcome I think the Nazi's were going to face an unending insurgency, border conflict, and brush war but its conceivable that they could have delivered so debilitating a blow that they earn what would amount to a victory in the East.

Only to eventually be destroyed by an Anglo-American nuclear and strategic bombing campaign.

Interesting question PoS.

My answer? Maybe...but an AWFUL lot of 'if's' would have had to have happened, imo.

One big one was what Tim the plumber typed about the Nazi's treating the Soviets that they captured better.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/histo...ersus-ussr-post1064978256.html#post1064978256

When Germany invaded, many Soviets welcomed them (they had just recently been through a horrible famine brought on by Stalin which had killed millions of Ukranians). Plus, most Soviets hated Stalin. But once they found out Hitler was treating them even worse, they then fought to the death.
From that moment, I think Germany's fate was sealed. They simply did not have the resources and production capabilities to remotely match the U.S.S.R.'s....ESPECIALLY a motivated Soviet Union that knew that if Hitler conquered them that he might literally wipe them out.

I think had Hitler treated the Soviets better, then this might have helped the Germans at least have a chance to reach their original A-A line (Arkhangelsk-Astrakhan line) that they had targeted as the goal for Barbarossa. This would have given them Moscow and the Caucasus oil fields.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-A_line

Then, the following year, they could possibly drive past the Urals and take all the new production factories the Soviets built after the June 22 invasion. And then maybe victory would be possible...or even a WW1-like armistice that gave the Germans huge parts of the Soviet Union for their own.


But there are other 'but's'.

One is Great Britain. It surely would have been FAR easier for the Germans in Russia had they finished off the Brits in 1940/41. During the Battle of Britain, the Germans were winning as German pilots started to notice a definite drop off in opposition. But then Hitler changed the targets away from the British airfields/aircraft production facilities/radar stations and towards London - and that was that.
But Hitler was never gaga about conquering Britain anyway as he thought of them as sort of brothers as opposed to enemies.


But the biggest 'if' for me is America.

Had Japan still attacked Pearl Harbor and had Germany still came to their assistance (as per agreed), then I do not care what Germany had done in the U.S.S.R....there is NO WAY even Nazi Germany and Japan combined could have defeated America. They simply did not remotely have the logistics to do ti.
And once America got the A-bomb (Germany - despite conspiracy theories - was no where near getting the bomb in 1945...apparently, they were going in the wrong direction; more or less), that would be that.
With B-29's and later B-36's - America could literally destroy Germany right from America. The latter would have to surrender or be literally wiped out (eventually).


So the only realistic way that Germany could have conquered the Soviet Union would be if Hitler was not hell bent on wiping out Bolsheviks (literally) AND had Germany abandoned the Pact they had with Japan and not declared war on America after Pearl Harbor.

Not without losing WWII. Beating the Soviets was one thing, occupying the Soviet Union would have been a whole different animal. Had the Germans beaten the Soviets, they would have tied up millions of men in the USSR, along with fighting a never-ending battle against partisan Russians. It would have crippled their efforts at defending their gains in Europe. Had they beaten the Soviets and then had to pull out, the morale drop would have been just as damaging as any lost battle. Had they had to commit those resources to the USSR, we would have waltzed into Europe through Italy like nobodies business. When Germany would have had to execute their pull out from the USSR to reinforce W. Europe, the long slow process would have sapped the German's will to fight and would have most likely led to a successful coup. IMO, losing to the Soviets was one of the best things that happened to the Germans (from their perspective).

DA60 said:

Interesting question PoS.

My answer? Maybe...but an AWFUL lot of 'if's' would have had to have happened, imo.

One big one was what Tim the plumber typed about the Nazi's treating the Soviets that they captured better.

When Germany invaded, many Soviets welcomed them (they had just recently been through a horrible famine brought on by Stalin which had killed millions of Ukranians). Plus, most Soviets hated Stalin. But once they found out Hitler was treating them even worse, they then fought to the death.
From that moment, I think Germany's fate was sealed. They simply did not have the resources and production capabilities to remotely match the U.S.S.R.'s....ESPECIALLY a motivated Soviet Union that knew that if Hitler conquered them that he might literally wipe them out.

I think had Hitler treated the Soviets better, then this might have helped the Germans at least have a chance to reach their original A-A line (Arkhangelsk-Astrakhan line) that they had targeted as the goal for Barbarossa. This would have given them Moscow and the Caucasus oil fields.

Click to expand...

Well here's the thing, if Hitler had decided to treat the Slavs better, would it had made a difference since the only way the USSR could be defeated is if the Germans would have to arm the Ukrainians and Baltic peoples to fight for them... but would they have done it? If you were the Germans would you take the risk of arming and forming huge units of people that you just conquered?

The bottom line is during the first year of Barbarossa the Germans had a slight numerical advantage, but by year two the Russians had almost a two to one manpower advantage in terms of frontline troops plus they had close to another million in Siberia alone. If you look at sheer numbers the Russians would have prevailed regardless.

faithful_servant said:

Not without losing WWII. Beating the Soviets was one thing, occupying the Soviet Union would have been a whole different animal. Had the Germans beaten the Soviets, they would have tied up millions of men in the USSR, along with fighting a never-ending battle against partisan Russians. It would have crippled their efforts at defending their gains in Europe. Had they beaten the Soviets and then had to pull out, the morale drop would have been just as damaging as any lost battle. Had they had to commit those resources to the USSR, we would have waltzed into Europe through Italy like nobodies business. When Germany would have had to execute their pull out from the USSR to reinforce W. Europe, the long slow process would have sapped the German's will to fight and would have most likely led to a successful coup. IMO, losing to the Soviets was one of the best things that happened to the Germans (from their perspective).

Click to expand...

I think ultimately the Germans probably would have attempted to "cleanse" occupied Russia of its population.

That entire area was Hitlers Golden lebensraum.

So the fears of insurgency i don't think have much foundation.

PeteEU said:

Had Hitler not taken over strategy and gone after the symbol cities of Leningrad and Stalingrad, then the Russians would have been defeated... it is as simple as that.

Yes the delay in launching the attack did not help, but on the flip side, the advance far far went ahead what the planners had expected. So the critical issue was when Hitler decided to split his armies. This meant the Russians could complete their move of their industry and set up defenses.

Had Moscow been taken, then the route to the Ural mountains would have been open and any industry that had been moved would have been blow up by the Luftwaffe.

Click to expand...

Germany split its troops when taking the Kiev pocket for one simple reason: they did not have the manpower to advance across a broad front anymore, they were able to do it in the beginning when the Polish border was still small but as the front expanded into central Russia they just didn't have enough troops to hold every part of the line and their logistics were stretched to the breaking point..

PoS said:

Well here's the thing, if Hitler had decided to treat the Slavs better, would it had made a difference since the only way the USSR could be defeated is if the Germans would have to arm the Ukrainians and Baltic peoples to fight for them... but would they have done it? If you were the Germans would you take the risk of arming and forming huge units of people that you just conquered?

The bottom line is during the first year of Barbarossa the Germans had a slight numerical advantage, but by year two the Russians had almost a two to one manpower advantage in terms of frontline troops plus they had close to another million in Siberia alone. If you look at sheer numbers the Russians would have prevailed regardless.

Click to expand...

Logical argument...but if you look at the opening phase of Barbarossa, the Soviet troops were surrendering like MAD. My understanding is most of them despised Stalin and were hoping that Hitler would offer them a better life. When they found the opposite to be true, they were INCREDIBLY motivated from then on. I think (though VERY unlikely) that if Hitler had treated captured Soviets well, I think Russia's numerical advantage would have been negated - as it had been in WW1.
Just look at the 1939/40 Winter War, the Soviets (whose officer core had been obliterated in the Stalin purges) had to eventually throw a gigantic force at tiny Finland before they could even begin to reasonably advance. When troops are not motivated, they are ineffectual - no matter how many there are of them. And it seems clear to me that before it was realized how horrible Hitler was treating Soviets, the Soviet troops were (except for maybe the elite Guards units) generally not well motivated.
It's speculation of course, I cannot prove it.
But I believe had Hitler been assassinated (there were several have-baked attempts before Barbarossa) and the Nazis thrown out AND had the military run the country from then on, then I assume they would have treated the captured Soviets decently and Germany might have had a chance in the U.S.S.R. - IF they had finished off Britain first AND ended their Pact with Japan so as to not get into a war with America as well.
I am not sure if they could have - or even wanted to - conquer the ENTIRE Soviet Union. But I think it - under the above far-fetched circumstances - could have taken all of the U.S.S.R. west of the Urals and then made peace with what was left of Stalin's country...sort of what they did in WW1 (when Germany actually defeated Russia -sort of). This would have given Germany most of the Soviet industrial complex and apparently about 80% of her oil supplies (in the Caucasus area).

DA60 said:

Logical argument...but if you look at the opening phase of Barbarossa, the Soviet troops were surrendering like MAD. My understanding is most of them despised Stalin and were hoping that Hitler would offer them a better life. When they found the opposite to be true, they were INCREDIBLY motivated from then on. I think (though VERY unlikely) that if Hitler had treated captured Soviets well, I think Russia's numerical advantage would have been negated - as it had been in WW1.
Just look at the 1939/40 Winter War, the Soviets (whose officer core had been obliterated in the Stalin purges) had to eventually throw a gigantic force at tiny Finland before they could even begin to reasonably advance. When troops are not motivated, they are ineffectual - no matter how many there are of them. And it seems clear to me that before it was realized how horrible Hitler was treating Soviets, the Soviet troops were (except for maybe the elite Guards units) generally not well motivated.
It's speculation of course, I cannot prove it.

Click to expand...

Good points but one has to realize that when Germany first attacked they caught the best troops of the Russians in Poland and destroyed them as well as command and control for that whole front. That meant that the Russians didn't have full knowledge of the extent of the breakthrough and were throwing inexperienced troops forward in a bid for time, but nevertheless they did not collapse as Stalin's NKVD secret police was able to restore morale and prevent mass retreat and desertions- the Russians kept fighting even though they had no idea how strong the enemy was. Even when the Germans were pressing through they faced continuous Russian counterattacks, all of which failed until the winter began. But every time the Germans would destroy a whole Soviet army in front of them another one came in to take its place.

I dont believe a revolt in the Russian army was possible since Stalin already purged it a few years back and all that was left were completely loyal to him. In fact Hitler's generals were more rebellious than Stalin's were for the sole reason due to Stalin having killed most of his own off. The new officers Stalin had were inexperienced so they needed to sacrifice lots of men to fight the Germans off but they remained loyal.

Even though the Germans reached the gates of Moscow the Russians were learning (slowly and with great cost) how to fight and ultimately defeat them.

PoS said:

Good points but one has to realize that when Germany first attacked they caught the best troops of the Russians in Poland and destroyed them as well as command and control for that whole front. That meant that the Russians didn't have full knowledge of the extent of the breakthrough and were throwing inexperienced troops forward in a bid for time, but nevertheless they did not collapse as Stalin's NKVD secret police was able to restore morale and prevent mass retreat and desertions- the Russians kept fighting even though they had no idea how strong the enemy was. Even when the Germans were pressing through they faced continuous Russian counterattacks, all of which failed until the winter began. But every time the Germans would destroy a whole Soviet army in front of them another one came in to take its place.

I dont believe a revolt in the Russian army was possible since Stalin already purged it a few years back and all that was left were completely loyal to him. In fact Hitler's generals were more rebellious than Stalin's were for the sole reason due to Stalin having killed most of his own off. The new officers Stalin had were inexperienced so they needed to sacrifice lots of men to fight the Germans off but they remained loyal.

Even though the Germans reached the gates of Moscow the Russians were learning (slowly and with great cost) how to fight and ultimately defeat them.

Click to expand...

Well, I disagree that those officers left were loyal to Stalin. I think those that were left were either blindly devoted idiots or were simply looking to save their own skins. Imo, you cannot execute thousands of officers in your military for the stupidest of reasons and then expect to have anything remotely approaching a decent officer core from then on in. You are intelligent...would you feel ANY loyalty to a leader who killed thousands of your fellow officers for paranoid reasons? I CERTAINLY wouldn't. Which is why both men AND officers surrendered in GIGANTIC numbers during the opening stages of Barbarossa.

But we can go around this forever.

All things being the same on June 22, 1941 (when Operation Barbarossa began) - with a whacko Hitler in charge and Britain left undefeated and Germany destined to be at war with America - I do not think their was anything Nazi Germany could have realistically done at that point (assuming they still treated Soviet POW's horribly) to avoid the U.S.S.R. defeating them.

However, had they defeated Britain first (something Hitler was apparently adamant in Mein Kampf was principally why Germany lost WW1 - fighting on two fronts) AND had Hitler been assassinated/the Nazis booted out (leaving the traditional German military to run things during the war) which would mean Soviet prisoners were treated decently AND had Germany not got into a war with America...THEN I believe that Germany could have (maybe even probably would have) defeated the Soviet Union. Lots of 'if's, I know.
But, in the latter scenario, I think Germany might have achieved the 'A-A line' objective of Barbarossa. And that would have meant that they then held roughly 80% of the Soviet Union's oil reserves.
Please remember, Soviet Resistance stiffened CONSIDERABLY after word of Soviet prisoner treatment started reaching the troops - during Barbarossa alone, apparently over 2 million Soviet POW's had died in captivity already. From that moment onwards, surrender was not an option for them. Their iffy loyalty to Stalin suddenly became a huge loyalty as they chose a crappy survival with Stalin rather then near certain death under the Nazi's.
Plus the 'Commissar Order' (the Hitler order to immediately execute any captured Soviet political officers) would have changed things as well. These officers - after learning of this - would from that moment onwards be forcing their troops like crazy to never surrender and to fight to the death, because they knew they WOULD die if captured.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commissar_Order

'When the Commissar Order became known among the Red Army, it boosted morale and delayed or prohibited surrender to the Wehrmacht.[9] This unwanted effect was cited in German appeals to Hitler (e.g. by Claus von Stauffenberg), who finally cancelled the Commissar Order after one year, on 6 May 1942'

I realize you do not agree with this line of thought. But I believe that the deciding factor in Operation Barbarossa failing (the initial 1941 invasion - not the whole war against the U.S.S.R.) was due to the Nazi treatment of Soviet POW's/captured civilians more then any other single factor.

DA60 said:

Well, I disagree that those officers left were loyal to Stalin. I think those that were left were either blindly devoted idiots or were simply looking to save their own skins. Imo, you cannot execute thousands of officers in your military for the stupidest of reasons and then expect to have anything remotely approaching a decent officer core from then on in. You are intelligent...would you feel ANY loyalty to a leader who killed thousands of your fellow officers for paranoid reasons? I CERTAINLY wouldn't. Which is why both men AND officers surrendered in GIGANTIC numbers during the opening stages of Barbarossa.

Click to expand...

No one is denying lots of Russians troops surrendered... but for every one of them that did there were 5 more who kept on fighting, and this was even during the early months of the war. There was no massive collapse of Russian army troops unlike the French in 1940 either. If none of the Russian officer corps were loyal to Stalin then why didn't the Germans reach Moscow by August?

Even when the Kiev pocket was surrounded, many Russian troops kept fighting and the 600K the Germans captured also included a lot of civilians.

They systematically began to reduce the pocket assisted by the two Panzer armies. The encircled Soviet armies at Kiev did not give up easily. A savage battle in which the Soviets were bombarded by artillery, tanks and aircraft had to be fought before the pocket was overcome. By 19 September, Kiev had fallen, but the encirclement battle continued. After 10 days of heavy fighting, the last remnants of troops east of Kiev surrendered on 26 September. The Germans claimed 600,000 Red Army soldiers captured, although these claims have included a large number of civilians suspected of evading capture.

Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kiev_(1941)

And by the time the Germans reached the gates of Moscow they were at the end of their ropes too- their supplies were slow to reach them so they had to delay their attack several times and even though the Luftwaffe achieved air superiority in the beginning, the sheer size of Russia as they moved forward meant that their advantage became less and less.

PoS said:

No one is denying lots of Russians troops surrendered... but for every one of them that did there were 5 more who kept on fighting, and this was even during the early months of the war. There was no massive collapse of Russian army troops unlike the French in 1940 either. If none of the Russian officer corps were loyal to Stalin then why didn't the Germans reach Moscow by August?

Even when the Kiev pocket was surrounded, many Russian troops kept fighting and the 600K the Germans captured also included a lot of civilians.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kiev_(1941)

And by the time the Germans reached the gates of Moscow they were at the end of their ropes too- their supplies were slow to reach them so they had to delay their attack several times and even though the Luftwaffe achieved air superiority in the beginning, the sheer size of Russia as they moved forward meant that their advantage became less and less.

Click to expand...

Imo, by the Battle of Kiev, Barbarossa was 2 months old and surely word of the horrible treatment of Soviet POW's had filtered back to the troops by then.

I am fully cognizant of the pertinent details of the war (I have studied it for decades). I still stand behind my assertion that had Soviet POW's/captured civilians been treated properly AND had Britain already been defeated (all the assets engaging the Brits in North Africa and on the 'West Wall' could have been diverted to Barbarossa PLUS Germany might have been able to attack the Caucasus from Iran which Germany could have conquered after Great Britain's surrender and occupation of her Middle Eastern territories) that Germany could (would?) have successfully completed it's objectives of Operation Barbarossa (the A-A line).
Whether they could have defeated the U.S.S.R. in the long run would then depend on whether America stayed out of it or not.

There is probably little point in further debate. You obviously believe one thing and I believe another and I see little chance of either of us changing our minds any time soon. And since it is all just conjecture on a historic event, with great respect, what is the point in further discussion?


I enjoyed debating this with you.

Later man.

Jetboogieman said:

I think ultimately the Germans probably would have attempted to "cleanse" occupied Russia of its population.

That entire area was Hitlers Golden lebensraum.

So the fears of insurgency i don't think have much foundation.

Click to expand...

There's no doubt that the Nazis would undertaken a "Final Solution" approach to Russia, but they would have first faced a substantial insurgency (would have made France look like a walk in the park) and I think that a Soviet insurgency would have crippled the Nazi war machine. There were a lot of Russians (especially as you got further East) that were both armed and hated everything German (two things the French seriously lacked). The Nazis would have had to keep them under control and the sheer size of the area they would have had to deal with would have sucked up massive resources. Germany also had the challenge of putting to work the resources that they had captured and the horrific productivity from their existing slave labor factories showed the fallacy of using more slave labor. All of this only leads to the inevitable result of having to either commit manpower to Russia or beating them and then abandoning it (political suicide for Hitler). There was simply no way for the Germans to sustain a geographically extended occupation effort in the East and a war effort in the West. Even trying to do so would have exposed them to an attack in the west that would ended the war (most likely Patton driving on Berlin from Italy). We've already seen the results of Hitler splitting his forces just in attacking Russia, but I believe that occupying it would have tied up far more resources (and kept them further from the Western Front) than he had tied up during Barbarossa, leaving Hitler even more vulnerable.