How could operation Barbarossa be successful?

how? you don't have the navy nor the airforce

>"Not being a tertiary front" would have been a good fucking start.
It wasn't a tertiary front. Do you just not know English or something?

Make one

Why didn't Hitler think of that. All he had to do was make one.

Kill more Russians

He's the worst leader ever that's why. Dummy Hitler.

make one

>All he had to do was make one.

They did have one though. The USSR had more manpower and oil though, plus it dedicated much more of the pre-war industrial capacity to the military

Push all army groups towards moscow them fan out one to the south one to the east & another to the ruskie retreat capital

They couldn't supply the army group that was there. How were they going to supply an army three times the size?

Better logistics, don't have 80 variants of the same tank, don't overengineer things, listen to the logisticians. Afaik the logisticians said the Wehrmacht would reach the outskirts of Moscow at the most before they couldn't keep going. That may be a myth though.

Under what circumstances would you ever not instantly take up an opportunity to kill commies?

How about 'under circumstances which make it impossible for me to win'.

Why people keep say that they need to push toward Moscow? Is not Caucasus is more important than Moscow?
For me
>Befriend the separatists and don't go full genocidal maniac.
>Push to Caucasus for dem oils.
>Supply all separatists with weapons and order them to hold the defense along the oil supply line. Build the longest fortification and dig the longest trench in the world.

if the soviets stopped figthing

>ITT armchair generals seriously think they could have even come close to what the Germans achieved

KYS

I don't see it possible.
Some might argue that diverting troops from push to Moscow to encircle Kiev was a mistake, but if you don't do that, your entire flank of AGC is exposed to some 700'000 russians.

>implying going after Stalingrad was a good idea.

Even if you were to go for Stalingrad, go all in or don't go in at all. Don't split your forces and send half to the southern oil fields but not give them enough fuel to even reach them. Also the invasion of Leningrad was unecessary, invading Moscow should of taken precedent above all else.

It's a dilemma, Germany didn't have the resources to win a "decisive" battle at Moscow even if they hadn't roflstomped the Russians at Kiev. Hitler gets a lot of shit for his decisions but the only reason the generals wanted to push onto Moscow was because it seemed like the classic thing to do. Seizing both Ukraine and the Caucasus would've given Germany the capacity to wage a much longer war than they might have.

It's stupid because the Russians wouldn't surrender just because Moscow is taken and its value as a strategic crossroads was way overstated. I just can't believe that German staff officers would study Napoleon's invasion in 1812 to death and make the same mistake Nappy did.

All rail lines went through Moscow, surely that would have some huge significance on how the USSR would be able to supply their other cities? Also Stalin stayed in Moscow even when the Germans were only 20 miles away, there would have been a very real possibility of capturing Stalin if they had sieged Moscow. And i would argue taking the capital city would have a crushing morale blow to the USSR, in a 6 month period the germans would have killed 4,000,000 Russian soldiers and taken their capital.

>All rail lines went through Moscow, surely that would have some huge significance on how the USSR would be able to supply their other cities?

Why do people keep repeating this ridiculous meme?

kresy-siberia.org/hom/files/Map-Overview.jpg

Yes, it was a significant rail hub, but it wasn't like if those rail links went suddenly the entire Soviet transportation network would come crashing down.

> Also Stalin stayed in Moscow even when the Germans were only 20 miles away, there would have been a very real possibility of capturing Stalin if they had sieged Moscow.

Assaulting a city the size of Moscow would take months even if successful, if the attacks on other Soviet cities were anything to go by. Plenty of time to scurry out.

I wasn't aware of that map, thank you.

>Assaulting a city the size of Moscow would take months even if successful, if the attacks on other Soviet cities were anything to go by. Plenty of time to scurry out.

At this point we are deep in Alt history territory, but Stalin didn't want to lose Moscow at all costs. Its not impossible to imagine him staying in the city to keep up morale and by some luck or stupid move on his part finding himself surrounded by German forces.

Also i really do think morale would play a big factor in the war if Germany took Moscow. They would appear at unstoppable conquered that had pushed the USSR from Poland to past the Volga without a single major setback. There very well might have been a revolt with these kinds of conditions.

This is all very speculative and you are most likely right, even taking Moscow wouldn't have stopped the growing soviet war machine. Its still interesting to think about alternative scenarios however.

You mean the overall invasion of Russia? Simple, don't be at war with first Britain, then Russia, and then the United States all at once like some stupid retard trying to aggro all the enemies at once in a computer game or some shit.

In other words, don't be Hitler.

War with Britain had no strategic impact on the invasion of the USSR just like war with Britain had no strategic impact on Napoleon invading Russia. It's only in hindsight that invading the USSR was a fatal decision and it has nothing to do with the UK.

Correction, I meant no strategic impact in terms of deciding the outcome of the campaign. Napoleon was invading Russia partly to force them to stop communicating/trading with the Brits.

they did hat tho

Winter gear.

no chance they werent even close

struggled to hold their position at moscow

losing 200k man in winter 41 due to soviet counterattacks

no industrial capacity no manpower

not taking caucasus or moscow(probably wouldnt even win them the war look at napoleon)

its so far away from being realistic that its not worth talking about it

shitty beta meme only few losses were due to clothing the red army fucked them 41 near moscow and that was it

>no white clothing
>get shot because you can fucking see them

However, Moscow was already heavily fortified and the Soviets were prepared for a fight in the city. It would have been much bloodier than Stalingrad which was hastily fortified.

Convince America of the evils of Communism as the ultimate enemy to Democracy and not Fascism, use combined scientific and technological might to develop the bomb, drop the bomb on Moscow.

By defeating England first. Hitler should've used his navy and u-boats to invade Ireland, so that he could attack England from both sides.

Either way, Hitler should've done more with Southern France/Spain. He had that area under control. From there, he could've opened another front against England in the south or the west.

Yeah, who needs bullets?

>Hitler should've used his navy and u-boats to invade Ireland
wew lad

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

These threads are great just for the retarded suggestions like these.

thats the fun of it

Barbarossa was spurred on by the German paranoia that the soviets would cut the oil they were supplying, and Hitler's rampant hatred for untermensch like slavs.

the soviets had so much land and manpower it would be impossible to fight that two from there as Germany, especially when many of the soviet's production centers were safely squirreled away deep in their lands.

The disaster of Barbarossa could have been avoided if the Reich had tried to get their oil elsewhere to ease the potential of disaster of the soviets decided to go back on their word.

At that point in history it's literally, not figuratively, impossible to invade and defeat the Soviets as the Germans.