Barbarossa

[b-17]

I was wondering if there is evidence for that Hitler invaded SU in order to force peace with Britain. At least preserving the Empire seems to have been in accordance with his ideology, so maybe he was a bit half-hearted in war against Britain itself. Also the flight of Hess suggests the peace talk at that time was not just propaganda. Ending the war indirectly by finish the SU then makes some sense. Also he may have considered himself out of other options after the failure of Seelowe. And Stalin not exactly a trusting character, would he have been the person to be totally duped by Hitler and the latter planned invasion in 1939?

[victor82]

Hitler never had his heart in Sealion. On the other hand, his hatred of all things Slavic went back to his hothouse days in Vienna. The invasion of Russia had to do with the conquest of Russia for settlement by Germany and its economic exploitation by Germans. Britain throwing in the sponge would have been a byproduct of Russia's collapse.

[b-17]

I read an account in Shirer's book where he tries to enroll the SU in war against Britain in a meeting with Molotov, saying they should divide the Empire among themselves. One gets the impression the latters evasiveness decided Hitler for eastern war. As for rabid anti-Slavic bias, I think he had at least Slovak and Croat allies (in addition to Hungary and Romania).

[steverodgers801]

Hitler wanted the resources of Russia so he could build up his forces against his other hatred, Roosevelt, who represented the other part of the Jewish conspiricy.

[dcmatkins]

In my opinion you have to consider the strategic position of Germany.
The need for raw materials to feed and fuel his people was more of importance than living space.
How many tonnes of grain went westwards from Russia to Germany pre June 1941 ?
From a war perspective invading Britain would reap rewards. But knocking Russia out would yield greater advantages.
If you knew at some stage you more than likely would face conflict with the SU.

[ljadw]

No,after Hitler attacked the SU,he got no more oil from the SU,and,still,Germany continued the war .This is proving that the amount of oil that Hitler received from the SU(some 600000 tonnes) was not indespensable for Germany .The oil that was imported was only a small part of Germany' production,and the oil from the SU was only a small part of the oil that was imported .
And,it was the same for grain,etc ...

[ljadw]

Traditionally,the economic importance of the SU for Germany has been overestimated.
1)Before the War,German imports from the SU were marginal:
In 1936 :150 million RM (3.5 % of total imports),from the US :230 million (5.5 %),from Latin America :448 million (10 %)
2)1940:the year,where,following some claims,Germany was totally depending on its imports from the SU:German imports from continental Europe:4.6 billion of RM,from the SU:545 million(12 %),from Italy :508 million,from Denmark:494 million
3)1941:the year where,following the traditional POW,Germany invaded the SU to capture its immense resources.What did Germany receive from te SU ? 325 million of RM(=5 % of its imports) Less than from Italy,the Netherlands,France and Belgium.
4)1942:German imports from the SU :482 million of RM(less than in 1940)=6 % of its total imports,less than from Hungary,the Netherlands,Italy,Belgium
And,if one is looking to the billions of RM the war with the SU was claiming,the obvious conclusion is that there were no economic reasons to invade the SU.
Sources :
A low dishonest decade
The legacy of fortress Europe

[dcmatkins]

I take your points ljadw. And agree totally but please bear in mind.

Read the other threads on here. There is a topic that stated whether Germany could have won the War or not.
The general feeling is that short term maybe but long term no.
Look at the strategic benefits long term. not just the short term tactical victories.
Hitler forgot that when his troops froze to death. The Russians burned everything the Germans path. Why.
Its not how you wage war. Its the ability to do so that always wins.

History tells us the Romans first invaded Britain, they forgot that you need to correct supply logistics -raw materials to sustain an army yet alone the population too.
Winning the war is easy maintaining the peace requires human and natural resources.

You need to put things into perspective with each other. Economic reality is one part of it.

Without any raw materials from home and abroad, how long could Germany realistically have survived.
If it could not trade with the outside world. Argue ably along time.

what happened to the saying "when you knock the door down, the whole lot will collapse". in Russia.

Germany is like most countries, cannot sustain itself either in peace time or wartime.
Without imports from anywhere. As the raw materials are not there necessary in the ground to start with.
Even today Russia is uses the threat of cutting of gas to the west. To hike the price up.

After conquering France what are you going to do with mighty German Army and Luftwaffe. It all has to be paid for and fed, economically from somewhere.
We will produce tanks, planes, submarines etc. wonderful. What are you going to use them for if not to fight with.
Look at the US did it go from producing tanks to cars very quickly at the end of WW2. It was producing all this steel un necessarily from raw materials for what purpose.

Did the Germans not try and scale back production of their arms inventory in 1940 ?
Where was the logic if they

I would question why the need to invade SU in the first place, or at all.
If it is of no economic importance at all.

Why might Hitler decide to go for the Ukraine instead of pushing onto Moscow in 1941.
I stand corrected but Army Group Centre and South captured thousands of Russians at Kiev. Tactical . Strategically also gained the area to produce grain. You would disagree that as Napoleon once said " an army marches on his stomach".
Perhaps Germans soldiers do not eat.

Why in 1942 was the main German offensive in the South and not towards.
It never crossed the Germany High Commands mind to seize the oil rich Caucasus then.
Was Hitler right to go after Stalingrad then. With it being just name like Stalin.

On a wider scale, did the Japanese not decide to seize countries, it needed for their raw materials for its economy. Namely Malaya for it rubber.

Did the US not put sanctions or something to stop this in the Far East. Which helped tip the balance into War.

In the Middle East, Oil is king. Some cynics would say. Hence one of the reasons why there is or has been trouble.

If i were in command of an army, Would you capture the enemies capital city,or his area of natural resources.
I presume Alsace and Lorraine were of no importance to Germany of France for its coal then.

As a foot note was the EU not set up between Germany and France to trade raw materials and help industry between the two ?

[dcmatkins]

You are correct to post details about the import levels and percentages from Russia to Germany.
Be interesting if someone could post total production for Russia and Germany compared annually against each other.
Then could we compare what the Germans percentage the Germans actually overran . That highlights the added benefit to Germany. Also shows what level of resources are left for the Russians to sustain war .
A much more detailed research is needed to draw a balanced answer I think.

We must not forget hitler and his living space , ideology . Or the value of the lands conquered itself .

To do so is ignoring the simple fact of June 41.
You can argue Stalin was trying to move his boundary westwards into Poland with the pact in 1939 . To provide a simple geographic buffer fro
His own country being invaded . Protecting his own Human and Natural resource. Keep the debate up

[b-17]

I doubt resources, they had a big trade agreement in 1940 (and another in 1939). Stalin seems to have been mostly willing to accommodate in 1941 too (but going to war in alliance with Hitler would have been impossible due to the communist ideology). I see getting/maintaining/saving the Empire as possibly ideological, it would be about maintaining worldwide white supremacy. SU would have been in a position to get at India and Persia. (As for the US, I believe Hitler thought it would self-collapse over time due to the racial mixing.)

[ljadw]

If there were economic reasons to attack the SU in june 1941,that would mean that Germany would have economic benefits from the occupation of the SU .
It is the opposite :it would have taken a generation and immense investments,before Germany would see the first outputs of its occupation of the SU .

[dcmatkins]

Anyone wishing to read more in to the subject, i would recommend the following book.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/World-War-II-Be ... ewpoints=1

There was also a TV series here in the UK, which highlighted the main points in the book.
It makes the point that Stalin was deeply concerned that Germany conquered France so easily.
It has been published that very shortly after the victory in France, Hitler was looking eastward already.

He probably though like the French that the war would become stagnant and become entrenched for years.
Which would have given him more time to prepare for the clash with Hitler.
I forget who said it after or maybe during the war "that war in the east was our destiny"

I would add that part of British diplomacy is and always has been to some level. That your enemies, enemy is your best friend.
The Russians like everyone else were deeply suspicious of British intentions and interests throughout the world.
I doubt he Brits really tipped of the Russians about Germany plan to invade. Was fairly obvious something was going to happen when Germany rearmed.
Did the Germans waste time in the Balkans before invading Russia in 1941. Which ultimately meant they could not knock out Russian in WW1.
More British stupidity than good luck in Greece. Might have helped stopped the Germans before winter set in achieving Barbarossas aims.

The book mentioned above, states that Russian mobilisation in WW1, raised the stakes. Which was one of the catalysts that lead to German troops been readied for war. No one wants to get blamed for starting the war, but neither wants to give the other a head start should the fighting start.

Where would Germany have got the immense investments from, before it could see the output from conquered Russia.
Print more money and devalue its own currency seems to be the modern trend.

Why do countries even bother to invade other countries then. If not to impose their own will on the humans and reap the benefits of that countries materials. Yes there is the debate about religion and ideologies but that is personal belief.
The world runs on trade across the water. Not Panzers.

You are quite right to say it would take a generation to repair and rebuild anywhere a country from conflict.

However, you do grown corn and harvest it from year to another. Hence the bible calls it the staff of life .
As a foot sore infantryman or peace time factory worker, the day to day needs need to be supplied from somewhere. Sometimes you have no option to literally live off the land. when there is no macdonalds nearby.
Up until modern transport armies could only march with what they could carry.

The Russians simply shut up shop and moved their factories eastwards to produce tanks away from the Germans.
So regeneration can happen much quicker, even to provide the full infra-structure if needs be in wartime.

[ljadw]

I see a lot of (insoluble) problems
1)sowing :who would do it ? What about seedling? What about tractors,thus fuel ?
2)conservation of the harvest:how ? fuel for heating ,guards
3)transport of the harvest :for 1 million tons,one would need 2500 trains:where would Germany get these trains and the staff,and the coal,...?
4)if all that grain and meat would arrive in Germany,the results on the prices for the German farmers would be very adverse
etc

[Posthumousdecay]

Interesting thoughts and points of view so far, no other debates or discussions I have ever read or heard with the exception of religion (thats got a solid lock on #1 spot) seem to stir up such ardent debate and opposing views and opinions as does WW2. Rarely if ever will you see a satisfied end of discussion agreement or a simple "you're right" and that's it. Partly thats what draws my interest to this particular conflict in history and I will be no exception to this. My opinion is that the war with Russia was both economically and ideologically spurred but the actual invasion time and date were more politically and self preserving then anything. Sure Hitler envisioned all the living space for Germans and the oil and wheat etc. but i believe Hitler thought he couldn't wait until 42 or later for war with Russia (which he knew would come) because they were mobilizing fast and still recovering and reorganizing from the purges and Hitler knew at some point he'd be fighting the U.S. and Russia which could never be won simultaneously on 2 seperate fronts, so he had to deal with the biggest land threat to Germany at the time, Russia. Couple that with the poor campaign against Finland and the fact that realistically even though losing the Battle of Britain the possibility of Allied invasion from the west was impossible in 41 and probably most of 42 so he decided to take out the greatest threat at that time which was Russia. With Russia defeated the political standpoint with Britain is drastically different and the Brits would be forced to sue for peace at that time. All of this was achieveable had the German high command (Hitler) had stayed focused on the original goal to take Moscow as planned. Economic gains would be achieved as a result of beating or negotiating peace with Russia at that time on Hitlers terms. Diverting 2nd panzer army south to assist with Kiev encirclement then recalling back to army group center for push on Moscow delaying Typhoon for 2 critical months after the initial delay of Barbarossa assisting Mussolini already at a time when the Russians had less then 100,000 troops guarding approaches to Moscow was the true turning point in the war. Just my thoughts though, and i'm interested to hear others as well.

[rendulic]

If there were economic reasons to attack the SU in june 1941,that would mean that Germany would have economic benefits from the occupation of the SU .
It is the opposite :it would have taken a generation and immense investments,before Germany would see the first outputs of its occupation of the SU .

That is not true as it was exploited very quickly. Hitler arguing against the giving up of the Donets area and the Nikopol area in 1943 are suffient illustration of this. He even argued that without the Donets area the war effort could not be sustained.