Was Operation Barbarossa a mistake or success?
Was Operation Barbarossa a mistake or success?
David Thomas
Other urls found in this thread:
dtic.mil
telegraph.co.uk
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Jonathan Campbell
Well it certainly wasn't a success. It's not super clear what would have happened without Barbarossa. There's some debate about whether or not Stalin was planning to attack the Germans first, but the evidence is sketchy at best.
Isaac Ortiz
It was neither.
Adam Mitchell
Le bump
Easton Taylor
It was about as successful as Barbarossa himself.
Sebastian Richardson
>Was Operation Barbarossa a mistake or success?
It was a strategic necessity, but obviously a failure.
The situation facing Germany in early/mid 1941 was as follows:
France has been subdued, but will cost manpower to continually occupy, and doesn't provide any large immediate benefits to the war effort.
The assault on Britain has failed disastrously, the RAF inflicted devastating losses on the Luftwaffe in terms of men and planes (especially heavy bombers), but no gain was made
The war in the Atlantic is unwinnable, the RN will never realistically be defeated by the KM
The NA campaign is going better than expected, however Italy has proved entirely incompetent and will likely not play a major part in the war
The Med is a mess, and the RN and RAF are sinking supply ships at an extraordinary rate
Minor theatres (Greece and the Balkans, Scandinavia etc) are just manpower sinks, and provide no real benefit to the war effort
We are running short on raw materials, oil being the main one, and we need to secure supplies not found in our borders necessary for a long term war
Lastly, the USSR, our great ideological enemy, is RAPIDLY increasing its level of industrialisation, and has manpower potential several times ours.
Britain has been driven off the continent, but remains untouchable at sea and air, they are attacking us with raids in Norway and France, and are causing Italy enormous trouble in the Med, while requiring us to split our forces to hold NA. They are committed to a protracted war, and are receiving massive support from the US. As time goes on, they will weaken our spread out forces as they did to Napoleon.
As time goes on, the USSR will surpass us in mechanisation, and they already have a manpower base far larger than our own. We know they will not maintain the peace, as they see us as just as much of a threat and enemy as we see them.
We cannot win a protracted two-front war, we must strike and win a decisive victory, and soon.
What do we do?
Brayden Nelson
The real mistake was not putting the German economy on war footing and launching Typhoon.
Lincoln Lopez
>What do we do?
Fix the economy, woo the occupied territories, consolidate our gains. Send a few divisions to North Africa to roflstomp the Brits, and after rolling through Egypt prop up Arab collaborationist regimes in the Mid East. Now Stalin has a southern front to worry about, so he probably won't be starting any shit.
Noah Williams
>. Send a few divisions to North Africa to roflstomp the Brits, and after rolling through Egypt prop up Arab collaborationist regimes in the Mid East.
New to the thread, but ultimate victory in the ME is pretty much impossible. You simply can't project force far enough in the desert for it to matter. dtic.mil
About the best you can hope for is to hold on as long as you can with as little force as you can to prop up Italy's southern vulnerability.
Jordan Scott
>Fix the economy, woo the occupied territories, consolidate our gains. Send a few divisions to North Africa to roflstomp the Brits, and after rolling through Egypt prop up Arab collaborationist regimes in the Mid East. Now Stalin has a southern front to worry about, so he probably won't be starting any shit.
The problem is, all that might take a few years, and without having to abandon the population dense and relatively developed west USSR, by the time you come to fighting them, they will overmatch you considerably.
Germany is reaching the upper limits of her mobilisation in 1941. If she mobilises more than a few million extra reserves, she will start cutting into her labour force. In 1941, the population of Germany, and all her annexed territories was ~80 million, while the population of the USSR including their annexed territories was ~196 million.
Remember that the emergency war economy of the USSR was still able to massively outproduce Germany, even with most of its traditionally populous and productive areas occupied. Give them a few extra years of peace, and two fronts or no, they will be infinitely more difficult to handle.
Then further, remember that if the USSR is invaded, you will still be fighting a two-front war against Britain (and possibly the US). The potential for Britain to open up a major second front (or third, assuming they keep fighting in Africa and the ME with the massive British Indian Army), is a serious threat to long-term plans.
And finally, keep in mind that if you plan on fighting a two-front war with the USSR, with one of your fronts being in central Asia, your supply lines will be ENORMOUS, in other words, a massive and very easy target for the RAF/RN and Soviet airforce, let alone Communist insurgents (as happened in Poland).