Did Barbarossa occur under the most ideal conditions for the Germans? It's one of the most what if'd periods of history, but Germany already had almost everything going for them. They were at the height of their power, with most of Europe under their control and numerous allies joining them in the fight against an isolated Soviet Union who would not receive significant outside aid for a couple more years, while the Red Army was still stumbling from the purges and the embarrassment of the Winter War. The Germans captured or killed millions of Soviet soldiers in numerous stunning victories, and took the most economically important land, but the war still continued on for 4 more years.
Does it really make much sense to create counterfactuals when it went as well as it possibly could for the Germans anyways?
Did Barbarossa occur under the most ideal conditions for the Germans? It's one of the most what if'd periods of history...
Other urls found in this thread:
www2.warwick.ac.uk
twitter.com
Almost like they were dumb for attacking a country with double their population, with a barely motorized and organized force, while fighting in at least one other front.
Then they strolled into the ''liberated'' territories and were greeted with cheers, but then started exterminating the locals, to the point of them joining the commies as the good option
how was the German army barely organized
It was not optimal. They had to delay Barbarossa to bail Italy out in the Balkans. As a result, they started later in the year and didn't have enough time to take Moscow before winter set in. The Soviets were able to counterattack while the Germans were unprepared.
> They had to delay Barbarossa to bail Italy out in the Balkans
This is an extremely old meme. No, they attacked in late June because that's when the mud finally dries out in that part of the world. They began Blau on June 24th, and Zitadelle was delayed all the way to early July. They were never going to attack earlier ,and if they were so stupid as to do so, their ability to actually do mass encirclements would be hugely off as they bogged down in the mud.
Stop posting this fucking map, it's absolute dogshit
this
Barbarossa literally could not have happened at a better time for the Germans
one of the big controversies iirc was Manstein's plan to halt the offensive in the south to deal with the Crimea pocket and Sevastopol. some contend that if he continued pushing and pinned the Soviet forces in the Crimea down with minimal forces he could have reached Rostov far sooner than he actually did
I don't see many people talk about that, the biggest one seems to be the encirclement at Kiev instead of pushing towards Moscow.
Not him, but that's another one that is borne out of people not having any fucking clue what they're talking about.
If Heersgruppe Mitte doesn't go south, then you don't have the Roslavl–Novozybkov Offensive from the Soviets, trying to take advantage of the apparent weakness of moving all those troops away. And without that disaster, you have roughly double the troops between Smolensk and Moscow. The defenses were actually weaker in October than they were towards the end of August and into early September. Trying to push through that is going to be slower and harder going than they historically encountered, and that's before those troops near Kiev decide to do something to fuck you up.
You have to admit, it took seriously balls to even attempt something like this. Yeah, but failed, but at least they fucking tried.
I'm sure the participation award was a great comfort to the millions of dead and interned Germans and their families
>Well, Hans, we did something retarded, but it's the thought that counts!
Seems like most of these what ifs center on the Soviets sitting on their asses while the Germans just plow through
Barbarossa biggest flaw was assuming that Russians were frogs and would surrender soon.
Straight from the horses mouth was that Hitler wanted to conquer the SU for "living space". The specifics of what could have changed the outcome have been debated for decades, and wlll probably continued to be debated for God only knows how long....
Fundamentally, the only real "win" for both the SU and Germany would be if the war never occurred (assuming they dont start a nuclear war in the following decades). The specifics of that are also counterfactual; a million games of EU5/ColdwarHeartsofIron could be played over the specifics of it.
Regardless, if you're asking for one specific counterfactual that could have made a huge difference? It would have to be the Italians. If you take the exact same amount of material/tanks/airplanes; and instead had designs that were actually useful when the war broke out, in addition to, an army/air force trained to the same level of competence of the Whermacht/Luftwaffe, then the course of the war would have been substantially different.
Would it have changed the outcome? Perhaps, perhaps not; but that's what makes it an interesting counterfactual.
Any later and the Soviets would have been ready for them. Their command structure and tactics would still be poor; they would still take massive losses and require on-the-fly adjustments, but they would do this without losing as much territory and troops.
No the germans didnt pack enough dildos and vibrators with them so they ended suffering catastrophic morale damage and subsequently lost the war, yet won the battle because they still got a good pleasing by the big slavic cock.
bunp
The cowardly Finns, oh how I hate the betrayal.
It lacked the single most important factor for invading Russia, political disunity in the defending country. You tend not to beat Russia by direct means, the people who do usually side with one group of Russians fighting another group, with the outside invader backing and controlling one of those factions. Stalin purged anyone who could even remotely be considered a viable alternate leader.
even if most variables were favorable, he still had no chance. His army was still fucking horse based, Canada alone built more trucks than the Axis combined over the duration of the war. The Germans had absolutely no chance of competing with the industrial base they had.
germany's overall industry was superior to the soviets'. they actually did not produce as much as they could've, whereas soviets had been overproducing armaments since before the war even started. but regardless, motorizing the entire army would've been fucking retarded, the infrastructure and weather was a nightmare for trucks. it was much more efficient to only motorize their breakthrough units. not only that, OIL was the crucial resource the germans lacked. wasting it all on a fully motorized army would've made things even worse.
>they actually did not produce as much as they could've, whereas soviets
Gee, I wonder why. Pic couldn't possibly be related? Germany's war industry was extremely inefficient and poorly organized.
www2.warwick.ac.uk
right, it was not that they lacked industrial base, but their view of "quality over quantity" led to autistic overengineering and underproduction.
Germans would have never won under any circumstances. Even if they took Moscow, most of Sowjet industry was located in Siberia, so they could still produce tanks.
USSR had bigger industry than German.
Over twice the population of Germany.
Unimaginable land size, so they could just retreat and spread out the line if needed.
Winter.
Allied strategic bombing.
Two fronts.
Literally, what was Hitler thinking? Fucking moron.
he was thinking that the soviets were only going to get stronger, and that war with them was inevitable anyway. they had just conquered practically the rest of europe while the soviets could barely fight the finngolians. it's easy to say it was impossible, in hindsight. but even so, there were many things the germans could've done better.
If Germany's population was 5% larger at the time they would have had won. Simple as.
I know what he was thinking, and it was just paranoid crap.
You know, when Hitler invaded Poland, Ribbentrop told Hitlet that war with England was unlikely. Hitler took this as a solid no war in the west, and decided to invade Polska. When the Western allies did declare war, Hitler got angry and shouted to Ribbentrop “Now what!”
Which just shows how much Hitler relies on emotion.
This is Overy's view and it has been discredited by economics trained historians working with facts and records instead of feelings. The prevailing view is that Germany did not produce as much of certain categories of finished munitions as the Soviets, such as tanks, because they put a large proportion of their war effort into materials production and capital development.
If a massive and powerful country is threatening you, invading it is pretty stupid. Why not hold them off instead?
If Hitler defended Europe instead of getting millions of his men encircled in the Asian steppes, he could have survived. Imagine if all the resources spent on preparing for Barbarossa were devoted to building gigantic fortifications on the border with the USSR. Hitler would actually have a chance.
I’ve always wondered what could have happened had hitler ordered his panzers to go after Moscow early instead of pincing down to take kiev
Ol Adolph for sure was autistic or aspy. Crazy to think how ducked Germany was that they let a literal retard take power
I think he means weeks of well laid german generals plans were often thrown out by Hitler for his lol war of extermination will power not strategy wins wars.
t. my history knowledge constists of history channel and ancient aliens.
Soviets were arming at such a pace that the only option was an offensive. If they had waited longer the soviets wouldve steamrolled Germany.
>materials production and capital development
what about later in the war when these were much less a priority, and armaments production rose due to said investment?
you do realize that the Italian had few good tank and airplanes because they had no industry?
>hur dur why didn't italy just build tiger tank