Is it possible for Operation Barbarossa to succeed?

That's basically what happened to them

but the only chance they have to dont run out out of oil was focus on Stalingrad

>Franch

Maybe if Hitler listened to Rosenberg about minorities, but he didn't until 1944 and by then it was fucked, but probably not

>Operation Barbarossa

They were willing to nuke Berlin and major cities. And politcally i dont think a negotiated solution would be possible. It does not seem that the western allies wanted anything but full german capitulation

>Unless of course they were willing to nuke Berlin and every other major german city.
The original plan was to nuke Germany and Japan simultaneously.

>Not start a fight with Britain

Britain declared war on Nazi Germany, not the other way around. And to avoid that Hitler would've had to have avoided invading Poland, making this whole scenario irrelevant.

The USSR was waiting for Germany to attack Poland first so Germany and the USSR would've just waited forever for the other to attack, genius.

t. Gilbert Cockingshire

>every war

Oh Say, Can You See?

Police action

IT was a success, that is untill American Lend Lease kicked in. The first Campaign season was a complete success, Soviets were completely depleted of useful fighting machinery, the factories were either not running, or were in transit to their relocation in land, and would not be up to capacity for a long time, and Germans were inflicting Monumental casualties on Soviets from Ukraine on through to Russian territorial soils, every single engagement every single day. The type of casualties that, when you read them, are incomprehensible to contemporary man.

Literally the only reason Russian people physically exist is because of American "lend-lease"

without lend-lease literally saving the Russian "species", that entire region, and people would be a brief lesson in German childrens school books. American lend lease was an inconceivably effective lifeline of supply.

if left totally to their own devices, without a single solitary form of aid from the US or some outside interference like lend-lease, the soviet union and the core of boleshevism would have been extinguished like a small match in a hurricane, by the end of Campaign season 1942.

No.

Lend Lease wasn't a significant factor until 1944, at which point Soviet successes made it irrelevant. The US could have withheld all aid and the Nazis still would have lost.

The Wehrmacht's prime was from the beginning of Barbarossa to the end of 1941. The drive to Moscow utterly depleted the Reich's military, specifically by draining up its reserves and creating a supply situation it couldn't deal with.

After that it was a slow death by pin pricks until Operation Bagration, after which the whole house of cards came tumbling down. They had no chance after 1941.

But the Soviets were able to build weapons that totally outclassed anything the Germans had, like the T-34, they didn't need American and British weapons to win.

The Soviet Union barely received any lend lease aid from America in 1941. British tanks making around 30 to 40% of Soviet tank forces around Moscow made a difference, but they worked together with more than 200 mobilized divisions and 55,000 produced guns and mortars.
The Germans were stopped due to divisions being at half or one third strength, large losses and breakdowns of vehicles that they had a hard time replacing, depletion of their fuel reserves, hundreds of thousands of their horses dying, an inefficient rail system that had to be continually expanded and protected from partisans, and a continuing long list of logistical issues.
Lend Lease didn't keep Germany from conquering the Soviet Union. The simple issue of supply would prevent that either way. It helped the Soviet Union conquer Germany much easier.

*blocks your path*
>A KV-1 or KV-2 tank (accounts vary) advanced far behind the German lines after attacking a column of German trucks. The tank stopped on a road across soft ground and was engaged by four 50 mm anti-tank guns of the 6th Panzer Division's anti-tank battalion. The tank was hit multiple times by these guns but fired back, disabling all four guns. A heavy 88 mm gun of the division's anti-aircraft battalion was moved about 730 metres (800 yd) behind the tank but was knocked out by the tank before it could score a hit. During the night, German combat engineers attempted to destroy the tank with satchel charges, but were unable to, despite possibly damaging the tracks. Early on the morning of 25 June, German tanks fired on the KV from the woodland while an 88 mm targeted the tank from its rear. Of several shots fired, only two penetrated the tank. German infantry then advanced, with the KV opening machine-gun fire against them.[24] The tank's resistance was finally ended by grenades thrown into the tank's hatches

It wasn't so much weapons, but hundreds of thousands of trucks like these that could outclass any 4x2 German truck.

You have got to be kidding me. Lend lease was like CPR or a defibrillator for the USSR. It brought them back from a certain death, at the exact moment it needed it most. And with out it they would have been scrubbed from the earth.

EXACTLY.

>This is how you feed a soldier
>This is how you carry him arms and ammo
>this is how you move him
>this is how you evacute him when he is shot, so he lives to fight again.
>this is how you move construction equipment,
>this is how the medicine and bread feeds mom and dad

etc.. list goes on. Its outrageous how little emphasis is put on the immense history altering effect little ol' American lend lease had on human history.

The vast majority of that in 1943, how many M3s or P-40s did the Germans face during Operation Typhoon again?
Again, pretty much all wheeled vehicles were recieved in 1944 and 1945, they made it possible for the Red Army to advance 400km at a time during those years. Although they didn't beat the Germans at Stalingrad or Moscow.

The victory that stopped Barbarossa was won before Land Lease really took off.
>certain death,
What gave you that idea?

It's useful if you put those stats on a timeline.
Yes, the point is that Germany still had massive problems in doing all that, being hundreds of miles in a hostile country with a not so developed road network and a not so advanced method of supply themselves. The Soviets not having Lend Lease doesn't suddenly relieve Germany's logistical problems. The Soviets certainly wouldn't be as effective, but their fate would not be sealed; it would be more up in the air and like a stalemate.

German supplies were brought to the front largely by horse and wagon. Soviet supplies were brought to the front largely through American Jeeps and halftracks.

Play some historical strategic level ww2 games, it was a close thing as it was, with some changes russia would cease to exist by 1942.

Stalin explicitly stated they were to surrender should Moscow fall

>Stalin explicitly stated they were to surrender should Moscow fall
No he didn't. Stop making shit up.

>Play some historical strategic level ww2 games, it was a close thing as it was, with some changes russia would cease to exist by 1942.
So, you're citing to literal video games? What if I cite to my own video games where dealing a decisive blow to the Soviets is nigh impossible in 1941, and only done with incredibly shit-tier Soviet play?

>Play some historical strategic level ww2 games

t. hoi4 pro

Is it possible to hold the Molotov-Ribbentrop line in HOI3/HOI4/DH when playing as the Soviet Union? Without pulling off bullshit moves like declaring war on Germany first or anything like that.

...

Who the hell cares?

Why not ask 'say Operation Barbarossa succeeded, would Operation Barbarossa have succeeded?'

He was ready to fight to the death in Moscow, yeah. Moscow falling means the end of his life and his imperialist regime, basically.

>The first Campaign season was a complete success,

Sure if you ignore that the HGM got almost completely destroyrd in winter 42 right in front of moscow... without a single piecr of LL

Next time do your research stormfag

Yes, that's why he kept an armored train ready to go at a moment's notice, and approved the evacuation of the military command and most of the upper echelons of government to Kuybuyshev (nowadays Samara).

>Sure if you ignore that the HGM got almost completely destroyrd in winter 42 right in front of moscow... without a single piecr of LL
Not true! They got some signaling equipment from the Americans by that point. And the British did actually send some stuff by that point, although that's not officially LL, and its worth is debatable.

Source?

41 not 42

No they got 0 stuff in 41 from america look at the fucking charts and stop lying fatburger

ww2history.com/key_moments/Eastern/Panic_in_Moscow
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samara,_Russia#Soviet_period

>no "what if rommel had taken the middle east"

I believe you are correct on the absolute necessity of lend lease, it's been stated that for both sides, the americans and russians, to simultaneously reach Berlin, Ford trucks we used.
Russian soldier's also commented on how the American diesel engines acted as "zippos" when fired upon by flying by German air units.
- These two quotations in mind, fairly illustrate that the Lend-lease program was heavily involved in the Russian army.

But, a few things to mention.
1. The Russian command and conscripts were notorious for leaving damaged or sometimes empty vehicles all through the campaign. This trend of leaving a knocked out military truck or tank continued for nearly half of Operation Barbarossa. It wasn't until 1943-44 that the Russian army began to professionalize. Not just in tactics, but training as well. The lend lease did have its effects in 1941, but as we can see, repairs were not really kept up and the demand of the vehicles was felt.

2. In 1941, many accounts from Russian command, put the blame of the slowing of the German advance on the 3 greatest Russian generals. (December, January, February). One account from a German Panzer Scout said he could see the roof of the Kremlin, but his infantry support was easily 100 miles aways and he was out of services for necessary repairs, from the constant push forwards and mud. He also noted that many division were out of fuel. They had literally been pushed by their Generals, like Hoth, to take key objectives, because of Hitlers orders.
Which brings me to my last point.

This entire scenario is just "What if Hitler wasn't completely incompetent"

That's pretty much a fantasy scenario

Cont.
3. Supplies, the germans had simply not figured in the great vast supply chain needed to match their armies advances. When the germans resumed their advancements in the spring of 1942, many units were being used to hold the supply lines father west. Also many German units were dealing, with the now overwhelming Partisans activity. This was rather bad foresight on the Nazi High command. These 'partizans' were entire armies of the red guard, cut off from their high command, but still very capable fighting units.

So to conclude, don't underestimate the bad foresight and planning of the German high command. Their arrogance corresponds with Hitlers phrase of Russia. "We must simply kick in the front door, and the whole rotten structure will collapse."

Many Russians weren't fighting for Bolshevism after that bloody July in 1941, in fact many Commissars were still being shot in the back while leading troops. The Russian man, even though young and indoctrinated in Stalinism, fought for his homeland. His family and brothers in arms. And thus the tide turned in Stalingrad, which during the battle, one German captain remarked in diary. "Fuck hitler, when your in the foxhole with your brother, your fighting so you two can get home."

They got 66,000 dollars worth of signal equipment

>The first Campaign season was a complete success
According to my definition the campaign can only be a success if you achieved at least some of the goals of it.

They failed to take Moscow.

They couldn't take Leningrad.

Except they did fight a full scale land war against them in 1944. And had been since 1943.

>Let's just let the Soviets take the initiative.

In Hearts of Iron 4 it's possible to beat Germany, no tricks, as Poland by 1940.

>eternal anglo
>le land lease

you are all fucking trash, propagandists

It's piss easy because Japan never fucks with you so you don't have that concern like STAVKA did historically, just put every division on that front because you'll outnumber the Germans by dozens of divisions and the AI is fucking retarded

Just want to add Lend-lease took quite while to set up. Soviets didnt had infrastructure or any good warm water/safe ports. I would say land lease made them win. If not for it americans would either nuke germany or enter berlin themselves.

That last part is key. The German divisions will not have Hospitals, Engineers, logistical companies or fire support worth a damn, some divisions won't have a single artillery piece, period. Upgrade your division blueprint and be defensive for a few months. The Germans will never stop attacking during this time and should wrack up about 2 million casualties. Now just draw a big arrow on Berlin and wait for your planning meter to fill. Enjoy winning the war in 1941.

wtf how I always get steamrolled unless I go communist but it's always better to be dead than red.

The only success to them is inflicting as many casualties as possible

...

Never forget Raseiniai.

but then Germans failed even at that as well?..

obviously absolute number of millions of captured and killed civilians sound impressive for people who can't think on bigger scale but in terms of percentages of entire SU population it was a drop in the bucket.

They lost a lot of equipment also

I'd say the critical thing to Germany's stupidity (And what OPs who make "what-if Germany" ignore often from what I've noticed) was her use of transport. Which mainly consisted of horses. Horse logistics, of course, were okay for paved roads and reasonable climate. Enter Russia, with horrible infrastructure, crippling cold and, of course, the rasputitsa season. During Rasputitsa, the land is muddy, damp and just in general a nightmare for transport. Now you take a living organism and have fun dealing with all of that shit, + exhaustion, feeding the thing, taking massive casualties constantly (supposedly even with aerial superiority the horses were prone to dying often).
>Most of these horses were employed by foot infantry and horse-drawn artillery troops that formed the bulk of the German Army throughout the war. Of 264 divisions active in November 1944, only 42 were armored or mechanized (November 1943: 52 of 322).

Not to mention that Germany was advancing faster than supplies could reach up to Das Heer.

What do you propose as an alternative? Full motorization with their tiny oil reserves? Only the Western Allies were able to do this.

I'm not saying that. I'm just saying the sheer form of her transport meant that attacking Russia would've been suicide. Just wanted to clarify what also made Barbarossa a complete fuck-up.

And not attacking isn't the best option either.
It was pretty retarded to back themselves in a corner like that, but they really did the best with what they could.

In HoI4 anything is easy as fuck because it was specifically designed to appeal to a strategy game normie who can't give less of a shit about anything else except LE WORLD CONQUEST XD

Some of those infantry divisions had a couple hundred trucks, but at the start of Barbarossa, 77 divisions relied entirely on horse-drawn supply columns with wooden wagons, like something out of the Oregon Trail.

>No mention of the Revolutionary war

What? The opening success was to take several key cities and territories like the Baltics, etc.

They succeeded.

it's very easy to "succeed" when you intentionally set up the lowest bars possible

The goal was invasion and taking over of of SU (notably -- Moscow and Leningrad) and it's subsequent inevitable collapse.

according to hitler and mannerheim recording it was all stalin's plan