Was victory in Barbarossa even possible for the Germans?

After reading much on the subject, yes the only way Germany could have prevailed over the Soviets would have been to go in as true liberators. Even if it was just a ruse to topple Stalin and his government just to betray the people at a later date, there was no way to win a complete victory my military means alone.

Maybe in 43.

You see, the Germans and Britain and France were preparing for war, but not in 39. If the war had started in 41, like they all thought it would, if Italy stayed at home, then I'd give Germany decent odds at winning Barbarossa 43. The thing of it is that they might not have done as well in the West in that scenario.

Victory was possible as long as there was a Soviet political collapse a la the Russian one in WW1. Without that, no, or at least not the sort of victory Hitler wanted.

It would have been eminently plausible to have some kind of more limited victory and a peace treaty, but ideological wars don't really leave room for that.

Why 43? Wouldn't Soviet industry be extremely prepared for war at that point? I don't know much about the soviet side of WW2

>muh Lend-Lease was what won it for the Soviets

I don't think the Soviets recover as quickly without the war. Facing an existential threat brought out their pragmatism, if they thought they were still allies with Germany, they would continue nonsense internal politics.

The key is that the Western Allies and Germany were preparing for war, just not in 39. So Barbarossa was not intended to be in 41 to begin with, probably more like 43.

Was Barbarossa as it happened - June 22nd, 41 etc - winnable?

Yes, but very unlikely. Victory in the Battle of Moscow, Stalin captured, Finns willing to close the gap at Leningrad etc could have done it.

Would an idea Barbarossa - victory in North Africa, Iraq coup maintained, no Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran, Turkey joining Axis, Japan joining in - succeeded? Quite possibly. I feel like the USSR could be defeated if it was essentially surrounded in an Axis bubble of Finland, Germany, Hungary, Romania, Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Japan, cutting off any route for convoys and pressuring it from so many sides militarily.

There are even just some simple tweaks - like preparing forces for winter, preparing allies with sufficient AT weaponry to deal with the T34/KV1 etc - that could have made a huge difference. The USSR wasn't 'winning' strategically until 1942/43 with Stalingrad (though personaly I believe Germany lost the war at Dunkirk).

.t someone who has no idea what they're talking about.

>victory in North Africa,

How exactly would this aid Axis fortunes in Russia? Against the CW, maybe, but against the Soviets?

> Iraq coup maintained,

Not relevant except for a faint drip of oil.

> no Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran,

Why wouldn't the Soviets invade? ESPECIALLY if Germany is making headway in the Middle-East?

>Turkey joining Axis,

Enjoy another mountainous, hellish front.

>Japan joining in

And doing what? Getting pounded and losing Manchuria? Even in the darkest days of the war historically, the Soviets increased troop strength in the Far East.

>cutting off any route for convoys and pressuring it from so many sides militarily.

How are you going to stop things from getting in through Murmansk and Archangel?

>like preparing forces for winter,

How much in the way of guns, fuel, and ammo are you going to sacrifice over your limited logistical apparatus to parcel out winter gear?

>with sufficient AT weaponry to deal with the T34/KV1

Except they were blasting through Soviet tanks at crazy rates in the initial rush, mostly by just advancing around them and letting them break down.

>I believe Germany lost the war at Dunkirk).

Why would you believe such an idiotic thing? 10 divisions more or less aren't going to break Britain. Most of the Middle-East Command was in place before France, so you wouldn't see significant changes in North Africa. You don't have the sealift to make a Sealion work in any case, and it wasn't Churchill who sent the BEF to die, it was Chamberlain, so you're not going to see a British governmental collapse.

Sure, it'll hurt them, but not decisively. And if your delay in mopping up Dunkirk gives the French time to re-establish their lines, you've probably lost more than you've gained.

>Victory in the Battle of Moscow
do you know how long the battle in the city of stalingrad took?
do you know that moscow is even bigger?

to be fair, most of the German formations attacking Stalingrad the city were at 50-60% strength due to the hard fighting in front of the city, which is one of the reasons it was such a mess.

Although, on the other hand, you're likely to get the same situation on the approaches to Moscow.

Apologies for the short statements in my original post. I was briefly describing an ideal situation for Germany, rather than saying they were directly plausible.

>victory in North Africa

Removes any possibility (for the time being) of UK/US threat to North Africa/Italy, thus freeing up a lot of effort for the Eastern Front. More importantly, secures Middle East/Arabian oil.

>Iraq Coup

Similarly for the oil in the Persian Gulf - Iran, Sauds, Afghans etc all friendly to Germany, lots of pro-Axis (or rather anti-Anglo-French) sentiment in the Middle East.

>Turkey joining

Yes, Caucasus front would be horrible, but main point would be that it would force a substantial diversion of forces from the USSR at little cost to Germany, as a Caucasus front could be utilised by elite mountain troops from Italy, Turkey etc.

>Japan joining

Simply stretching USSR further. I don't think Japan had a huge capacity to defeat the USSR, but could have further threatened convoys into the warm water port and indeed could well have taken it with a concerted effort.

>Murmansk/Archangelesk

With aforementioned Finns willing to go the extra mile, more Germans freed up = able to directly take Murmansk and direct more air/sea power to stopping convoys heading into Archangelesk.

>winter prep

I don't see how it's one or the other?

>AT weaponry

The initial push, yes, and that saw instances of a single KV tank holding off batallions by itself. I was referring to Uranus/Little Saturn where Romanian/Italian troops had no means of combating the Soviet armour.

>Dunkirk

Long story, but essentially if those troops had been captured it would have been a substantial bargaining chip to force UK to negotiation table - if Churchill says no peace (as he did) when Germany holds 300,000 UK prisoners, would Churchill have received the level of popular support/willingness to fight on that he did? Speculative of course.

>Removes any possibility (for the time being) of UK/US threat to North Africa/Italy,

Unless they say, invade Morocco from England, proceed from there to Tunis, and from there to Sicily.

>imilarly for the oil in the Persian Gulf - Iran, Sauds, Afghans etc all friendly to Germany, lots of pro-Axis (or rather anti-Anglo-French) sentiment in the Middle East.

You do realize you can't ship it unless you somehow gain naval control over the Indian Ocean, yes, since most of that stuff was routed to ports there. And I mean, think of how much trouble the British had shipping over the Atlantic against a handful of u-boats. Axis problems will be way worse.

>Yes, Caucasus front would be horrible, but main point would be that it would force a substantial diversion of forces from the USSR at little cost to Germany, as a Caucasus front could be utilised by elite mountain troops from Italy, Turkey etc.

Why would it be? If the Germans aren't putting significant forces into the mix, it's going to be the Turks and a few mountain divisions The Soviets will seal that off with no problem. You also have the more than insignificant problem of actually persuading Turkey to join. They're in no hurry to get into that kind of hatchet fight.

>Simply stretching USSR further. I don't think Japan had a huge capacity to defeat the USSR, but could have further threatened convoys into the warm water port and indeed could well have taken it with a concerted effort.

It won't. It literally won't because Japan doesn't have the forces to take on the 1.5 million Soviets that historically were sent there. Blockading Vladivostok might help, but they can do that just by being more aggressive towards the U.S., and would likely just result in those convoys being re-routed through the Arctic route.

1/2

>With aforementioned Finns willing to go the extra mile, more Germans freed up = able to directly take Murmansk

Yes, we'll go about 700 kilometers through icy forest and no roads to capture a Soviet city. That's happening.

>and direct more air/sea power to stopping convoys heading into Archangelesk.

You mean, the air and sea power the Germans historically were sending up in the Arctic? Or are you somehow implying that if the Finns somehow sent the Vainamoinen, their ONLY surface warship, and it somehow survived making the trip out of the Baltic, this would make a difference?

>The initial push, yes, and that saw instances of a single KV tank holding off batallions by itself. I was referring to Uranus/Little Saturn where Romanian/Italian troops had no means of combating the Soviet armour.

I would think that having a platoon per kilometer is the bigger problem here.....

>Long story, but essentially if those troops had been captured it would have been a substantial bargaining chip to force UK to negotiation table - if Churchill says no peace (as he did) when Germany holds 300,000 UK prisoners, would Churchill have received the level of popular support/willingness to fight on that he did?

Almost certainly so. The REASON he got into the PM's office was he was the "fight no matter how bad it got" candidate. He puts all the blame on the previous incompetent administration, and vows to persecute the war no matter how bad it gets.

>Unless they say, invade Morocco from England, proceed from there to Tunis, and from there to Sicily.

Indeed, but that wouldn't happen until late 1942 (historical Torch) at the earliest. Valuable time.

>You do realize you can't ship it unless you somehow gain naval control over the Indian Ocean, yes, since most of that stuff was routed to ports there. And I mean, think of how much trouble the British had shipping over the Atlantic against a handful of u-boats. Axis problems will be way worse.

Shipping though the Persian Gulf and up the Suez (since in this alternate reality, victory in the Middle East would lead to Italy maintaining East Africa, one would assume), protected by air - a relatively short journey, not too hard to escort.

>Why would it be? If the Germans aren't putting significant forces into the mix, it's going to be the Turks and a few mountain divisions The Soviets will seal that off with no problem. You also have the more than insignificant problem of actually persuading Turkey to join. They're in no hurry to get into that kind of hatchet fight.

I tend to consider Case Blue and ask what if there was an attack over the Caucasus to threaten Baku from the other side? The part that links Azerbaijan to Iran is also not so mountainous. Turkey was umming and ahhing about joining, you're right, but I figure the Axis seizing the Suez would be a pretty big persuasion.

>It won't. It literally won't because Japan doesn't have the forces to take on the 1.5 million Soviets that historically were sent there. Blockading Vladivostok might help, but they can do that just by being more aggressive towards the U.S., and would likely just result in those convoys being re-routed through the Arctic route.

But even just the presence of Japan, the threat was enough to keep the Soviets there in that strength. Isn't simplistically claimed that it was the eastern divisions diverted to Moscow that saved the day - what if they all had to stay in the east?

>Yes, we'll go about 700 kilometers through icy forest and no roads to capture a Soviet city. That's happening.

You what? Distance between Kirkenes and Murmansk is 224.6km. Either way, it would only have to be enough to continuously threaten the railway, and the supply train would be useless.

>You mean, the air and sea power the Germans historically were sending up in the Arctic? Or are you somehow implying that if the Finns somehow sent the Vainamoinen, their ONLY surface warship, and it somehow survived making the trip out of the Baltic, this would make a difference?

No, I'm implying that if the Finns close off Ladoga (and given the other circumstances), Leningrad falls, and Germany gets a whole lot more wiggle room.

>I would think that having a platoon per kilometer is the bigger problem here.....

Maybe, maybe not. But traditionally in that war numbers didn't count for that much if the ordanance was right.

>Almost certainly so. The REASON he got into the PM's office was he was the "fight no matter how bad it got" candidate. He puts all the blame on the previous incompetent administration, and vows to persecute the war no matter how bad it gets.

He got in because he was the best man for the job despite being unpopular with a lot of politicians. He also got in before Germany even invaded France (May 10th, 1940, I think, was the date of Chamberlain's resignation). Given how desperately the UK whipped Dunkirk into a propaganda victory, I think there'd be a massively different reaction to him if his bravado and desire to fight led to a huge portion of the British standing army being killed or captured. The Home Guard was created in spite of the 'success' at Dunkirk - what would the public response be to Hitler's offer of peace when Hitler held a bargaining chip made up of brothers, fathers, sons, husbands?

>nigger forgot to close the gate behind him

>Logistically, no.
maybe if the world ended at the urals and there was nothing below the caspian & black seas.

Or if he spoke fucking english.

“Amateurs think tactics, experts think logistics.”

Without U.S. and BritComm Lend-Lease aid, the Soviets would have been forced to sign a cease fire with the Germans, conceding most or all of European Russia.

Lend-lease was pivotal in allowing the russian invasion of europe, it had a fairly minor role in barbarossa, russia would have won without it

No. Lend Lease really didn't start reaching the USSR in any significant amounts until after the Soviets had already stopped Barbarossa.

>Indeed, but that wouldn't happen until late 1942 (historical Torch) at the earliest. Valuable time.

Before 1942, the amount of troops spent propping up North Africa were negligible anyway. I think it was 3 divisions.

>Shipping though the Persian Gulf and up the Suez (since in this alternate reality, victory in the Middle East would lead to Italy maintaining East Africa, one would assume), protected by air - a relatively short journey, not too hard to escort.

One, why would you assume that a victory in North Africa would lead to anything different in Ethiopia? And secondly, to clear out the Gulf of Arabia, you're going to need to do something about Aden at the very least, and an amphibious invasion of a desert mountain range is all kinds of no fun.

>I tend to consider Case Blue and ask what if there was an attack over the Caucasus to threaten Baku from the other side? The part that links Azerbaijan to Iran is also not so mountainous. Turkey was umming and ahhing about joining, you're right, but I figure the Axis seizing the Suez would be a pretty big persuasion.

Because Turkey's military was fairly large in 1941-2, but also very undertrained and undergunned. They're not likely to be capable of any real offensive action without significant support from Germany, and they're not going to want significant support from Germany, since they can't really get rid of a couple hundred thousand German troops once they invite themselves in. Attacking in the mountains is hard, even for mountain troops.

1/3

>But even just the presence of Japan, the threat was enough to keep the Soviets there in that strength. Isn't simplistically claimed that it was the eastern divisions diverted to Moscow that saved the day - what if they all had to stay in the east?

It's completely inaccurately claimed. A few divisions were transferred over and more were raised in its place. And how many men do you think the Japanese will need to mount an attack? "Conventional" military wisdom says you want a 3:1 advantage before taking the offensive against a dug-in enemy of similar quality. To get that against the Soviets, the Japanese would need about four and a half million soldiers, and they simply don't have that.

At most, the Japanese could close Vladivostok. Expecting anything more than that is pretty foolish, since the Soviets can always cut their losses and chop up the Trans-Siberian Railway, shrink the front they need to defend dramatically and dig in somewhere between Harbin and Irkutsk.

>You what? Distance between Kirkenes and Murmansk is 224.6km. Either way, it would only have to be enough to continuously threaten the railway, and the supply train would be useless.

So you're retreating from the claim of actually taking Murmansk? Because sending raiding parties is way different, and you'd have to have sufficient strength to keep the Russians from wiping them out. And I was working from the assumption that Petsamo would have to be the main base, it's way bigger than Kirkenes and actually connected to that highway they had back in the day.

>No, I'm implying that if the Finns close off Ladoga (and given the other circumstances), Leningrad falls, and Germany gets a whole lot more wiggle room.

How the hell does that get them to Arkanghelsk?

>Maybe, maybe not. But traditionally in that war numbers didn't count for that much if the ordanance was right.

You aren't going to stop the sort of counterattacks that the Soviets were mustering in Stalingrad with a platoon, even if you give it some ATGs.

>He got in because he was the best man for the job despite being unpopular with a lot of politicians. He also got in before Germany even invaded France (May 10th, 1940, I think, was the date of Chamberlain's resignation).

Yes, but the decision to send in the BEF was way earlier. They already had about 150,000 men in France by October of 1939.

>The Home Guard was created in spite of the 'success' at Dunkirk - what would the public response be to Hitler's offer of peace when Hitler held a bargaining chip made up of brothers, fathers, sons, husbands?

Without an actual ability to project force in Britain itself, fighting is far more likely. This wasn't the first war Britain got off to a bad start wtih.

Most of that Lend-Lease didn't arrive before 1943. You can make a very good argument that it was necessary for the Soviet counterattacks, but claiming that it won the defense is much, much harder.

Do you mean the initial barbarossa plan? No, that wasn't possible.

Do you mean a German victory in the east? Not particularly likely due to Germany being simultaneously at war with the USA and the UK at the same time.

>Before 1942, the amount of troops spent propping up North Africa were negligible anyway. I think it was 3 divisions.

With a lot of good equipment, one of their best generals, air power, supplies, ships, and Italians. Particularly of note, if the Med is closed, Italian submarines could operate with freedom in the Indian Ocean or be moved north to operate in the Arctic. The Regia Marina could similarly be deployed to support convoys in the Gulf.

>One, why would you assume that a victory in North Africa would lead to anything different in Ethiopia? And secondly, to clear out the Gulf of Arabia, you're going to need to do something about Aden at the very least, and an amphibious invasion of a desert mountain range is all kinds of no fun.

Why not? It wouldn't be a stretch to take Port Sudan and Khartoum after securing the Suez, thus freeing up easy access to East Africa. Of course, time constraints are a thing - perhaps Egypt falls when Italy invades in Sep '40, perhaps it is not until '41, in which case the East Africa war is already essentially lost for the Axis. As for Aden, it would fall to pro-Axis, anti-UK Arab forces. Saudi especially was pretty keen on Germany, despite its ties to the UK.

>Because Turkey's military was fairly large in 1941-2, but also very undertrained and undergunned. They're not likely to be capable of any real offensive action without significant support from Germany, and they're not going to want significant support from Germany, since they can't really get rid of a couple hundred thousand German troops once they invite themselves in. Attacking in the mountains is hard, even for mountain troops.

Indeed, but perhaps they would be warmer to the idea with a promise of territory? Plenty of Turkish irredentism, plenty of claims on lands in Syria, Iraq, Greece and the Caucasus. You are right in that the Turkish military was undergunned - which is partly what I was saying when I talked about Germany equipping its allies.

>It's completely inaccurately claimed. A few divisions were transferred over and more were raised in its place. And how many men do you think the Japanese will need to mount an attack? "Conventional" military wisdom says you want a 3:1 advantage before taking the offensive against a dug-in enemy of similar quality. To get that against the Soviets, the Japanese would need about four and a half million soldiers, and they simply don't have that.

At most, the Japanese could close Vladivostok. Expecting anything more than that is pretty foolish, since the Soviets can always cut their losses and chop up the Trans-Siberian Railway, shrink the front they need to defend dramatically and dig in somewhere between Harbin and Irkutsk.

Indeed, but as I'm sure you well know a division on paper is not necessarily one that can fight. Divisions in '41 for the USSR were seldom fully equipped, and I daresay the ones on the front were prioritised for equipment - though I know new model tanks were sent to the East too, so I could be wrong. I'd happily read any sources you have on this as it's not my most well read area.

Point being, if they lose Vladivostok, they lose a huge chunk of their imports. I do not believe the USSR could sustain a war on all fronts without supplies from abroad.

>
So you're retreating from the claim of actually taking Murmansk? Because sending raiding parties is way different, and you'd have to have sufficient strength to keep the Russians from wiping them out. And I was working from the assumption that Petsamo would have to be the main base, it's way bigger than Kirkenes and actually connected to that highway they had back in the day.

Not at all - I was querying where you got 700km from. Petsamo is even closer.

>How the hell does that get them to Arkanghelsk?

Hundreds of thousands of men, aircraft etc freed up to be used whereever they want - including bombing railways out of Archangelesk.

>You aren't going to stop the sort of counterattacks that the Soviets were mustering in Stalingrad with a platoon, even if you give it some ATGs.

Indeed, but this is my point - the domino effect of all these other things going in the favour of the Axis would mean they have more to work with, that they aren't underprepared or undermanned or undergunned. If Leningrad fell before Case Blue, it would free up so many more units for that attack - and there'd be less Soviets to make the counter attack if they have to have more on the Caucasus/in Central Asia.

>Yes, but the decision to send in the BEF was way earlier. They already had about 150,000 men in France by October of 1939.

Indeed, and how would Churchill have looked if they didn't return home? Maybe you are right, though, and they would have supported him and the war. Maybe not.

The Soviets had shot their wad stopping (barely) the Germans at the gates of Moscow, without Lend-Lease, they would have been utterly incapable of taking the fight to the Germans and at best, would have only been able to maintain the status quo and with the loss of the most productive parts of the U.S.S.R., that would ultimately be a losing battle.

The simple fact is that American aid kept the Soviets in the war.

The point I am trying to make is of a domino effect. Even if Britain doesn't agree to peace after losing their army at Dunkirk, its offensive capability is temporarily diminished, most of its forces coming from the empire and scattered all over the world. Maybe Hiter doesn't then commit to the Battle of Britain and instead supports Italy's invasion of Egypt, which leads to the Suez falling. Maybe this encourages a wave of anti-UK revolts across the Middle East in the manner of the Golden Square and sees Saudi Araba, Iraq and Iran joining the Axis and kicking the UK out of Oman, Yemen and the rest of the Arabian Peninsular/the Middle East - if a Syria/Lebanon campaign happened, it would be won by Vichy whom would be even more opposed to the UK as a result.

These successes inspire Franco to bring Spain into the war, feeling that the UK isn't winning, and as a result Gibraltar is taken, thus closing the Med. Italian troops make their way back into East Africa, the Regia Marina secures the convoy route from the Persian Gulf. The British are unable to launch the coup in Yugoslavia, so it joins the Axis as Greece falls.

With a promise of Arabic oil, Japan sees no need to attack the East Indies and instead waits while Barbarossa is launched, the Finns becoming a full member of the Axis that rules Europe by this point, save for the British Isles. In keeping with their pact, Salazar's Portugal sends troops to the East along with Spain, and both add their submarines to the Atlantic War, making the UK's situation even more dire, as they cannot convoy things to and from India safely now the Suez is lost.

Finns and Germans surround Leningrad completely and without a supply corridor it is lost. Moscow holds, the Germans, prepared for winter, dig in and annihilate the Winter Offensive. Come '42, Case Blue seizes the oil fields with an attack over the Caucasus as well as through Ukraine. The victorious troops from Leningrad help to seize Murmansk.

Japan sees the USSR war machine grinding to a halt with the loss of Grozny and Baku and launches its own attack, taking Okha, one of the last sources of Soviet oil production, and cuts off convoys to Vladivostok, the city itself coming under siege. Soviet troops heading West now have to turn back East as the old border conflicts erupt once again, with heavy ground losses for the Japanese, but their air power and supply situation infinitely superior. Vast amounts of Soviet tanks are useless without fuel, and the Red Air Force, devastated in the initial days of Barbarossa, has yet to come close to recovery.

With Case Blue's success, troops from the Middle East unite with their comrades around Stalingrad, Italian, Romanian, Hungarian, Turkish, Bulgarian, Yugoslavian, Iraqi, Arabian and Iranian soldiers alike fighting alongside the Germans who take the city. Moscow now has an enormous pincer bearing down on it as the northern troops make their way south and the southern troops make their way north.

The vast amounts of industry and resources lost continue to suffer as the Luftwaffe pounds the industrial cities (maybe general Wever didn't die and the long range bomber came to be?) - not that it matters due to the scant fuel situation. The various ethnic groups within the USSR begin to revolt and desert and fight the NKVD that comes to fight them - they are promised liberation by the Axis, who are cheered on by crowds of Ukrainians, Georgians, Chechens etc, many of whom volunteer to fight alongside them.

Maybe there is a fight around Moscow and Stalin flees to Kyubyshev and they hold their last stand there. Maybe not. Maybe Stalin is couped from within and the USSR surrenders unconditionally. Maybe not.

Either way, that kind of dream solution is how Germany could have won Barbarossa, for me. As things were, I don't believe they had a hope in hell.

And for what it's worth, even given victory over the USSR, should war with the USA emerge anyway (would it?), I don't think they could win. USA/UK would have a far harder time attacking fortress Europe with no USSR to occupy Axis attention, Axis would never be able to build a fleet to invade either the UK or the US, so it would end up in some weird cold war situation.