Operation Barbarossa Launched In May 1942

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Post Reply
Zoomer
Member
Posts: 17
Joined: 07 Jul 2020, 15:41
Location: Athens

Re: Operation Barbarossa Launched In May 1942

#181

Post by Zoomer » 07 Jul 2020, 16:04

ljadw wrote:
04 Jul 2020, 15:26
Lebensraum, the breadbasket of Ukraine and the oil of the Caucasus would not help Germany to win the war against Britain and the USA .
And, if Germany won this war,the exploitation and colonisation of European Russia (= the territories west of the Urals ) would be impossible ,and,if possible, would destroy Germany's economy .
That's obvious.
The logical move for Hitler would be to create a triple alliance (Germany, USSR, Japan) in order to defeat the Anglo-Saxons. They could give Finland, half of Romania (up to the Carpathians) and guarantee free passage from the straits of Turkey and Denmark to the Soviets. Then, the axis would expand southwards. Why did they choose to go to war with a potential ally? Did they really think that they could defeat the Red Army at the border and the soviet state would collapse? I find this very hard to believe. Maybe this was wishful thinking from the german high command. But again, why? They really did not need to go to war with the USSR. It just doesn't make sense. Any opinions? Am I missing something?

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15583
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Operation Barbarossa Launched In May 1942

#182

Post by ljadw » 08 Jul 2020, 21:14

Zoomer wrote:
07 Jul 2020, 16:04
ljadw wrote:
04 Jul 2020, 15:26
Lebensraum, the breadbasket of Ukraine and the oil of the Caucasus would not help Germany to win the war against Britain and the USA .
And, if Germany won this war,the exploitation and colonisation of European Russia (= the territories west of the Urals ) would be impossible ,and,if possible, would destroy Germany's economy .
That's obvious.
The logical move for Hitler would be to create a triple alliance (Germany, USSR, Japan) in order to defeat the Anglo-Saxons. They could give Finland, half of Romania (up to the Carpathians) and guarantee free passage from the straits of Turkey and Denmark to the Soviets. Then, the axis would expand southwards. Why did they choose to go to war with a potential ally? Did they really think that they could defeat the Red Army at the border and the soviet state would collapse? I find this very hard to believe. Maybe this was wishful thinking from the german high command. But again, why? They really did not need to go to war with the USSR. It just doesn't make sense. Any opinions? Am I missing something?
As I can't reply to your PM, I will answer here.
Hitler's decision to attack the USSR was ,even with hindsight, well founded ,given Germany's catastrophic situation in the late summer of 1940 .
The longer the war lasted, the less chance Germany had to survive .
During his conferences of July 21 and 31 1940,Hitler argued the following
1 Britain continued the war because it expected an intervention from the USA/USSR.
2 It would take Germany several years to force Britain to surrender,and meanwhile the USSR /USA would intervene,US directly, USSR indirectly .
3 IF the SU would be eliminated, Japan would be in a much stronger position vis-á-vis the USA
4 A war with Japan would prevent the USA from intervening in Europe
5 This would force Britain to give up .
6 If Britain would give up ,US could/would not intervene
7 Only the quick elimination of the USSR could force Britain to give up
8 Time constraints dictated a short victorious campaign in the east
Source : Unternehmen Barbarossa ( by Walther Post P 159 )
I will add that Lebensraum,extermination of the Slavs/Jews were NOT the reason for Barbarossa, but that Barbarossa made this possible.
The USSR was useless as an ally against Britain and the USA, besides,it refused to enter the war,on the side of Germany AND on the side of Britain .
Of course, it was obvious ,already in 1940, that a successful Barbarossa, even if it resulted in the surrender of Britain before the USA intervened,would not help Germany .
Germany was already doomed in the late summer of 1940, but Hitler was searching desperately for an exit .
If Britain surrendered before Barbarossa, there was no need for Barbarossa and Germany could not occupy Western Europe and protect its border with the SU : it was too weak.
If Britain surrendered after a short/successful Barbarossa, this would only hasten Germany's collapse,as Germany was too weak to dominate Europe from the Pyrenees to the Urals.
Germany had also not the means to colonize and exploit the east ,besides it did not need the east : not the oil,not the grain .

8


Zoomer
Member
Posts: 17
Joined: 07 Jul 2020, 15:41
Location: Athens

Re: Operation Barbarossa Launched In May 1942

#183

Post by Zoomer » 09 Jul 2020, 07:30

ljadw wrote:
08 Jul 2020, 21:14
Zoomer wrote:
07 Jul 2020, 16:04
ljadw wrote:
04 Jul 2020, 15:26
Lebensraum, the breadbasket of Ukraine and the oil of the Caucasus would not help Germany to win the war against Britain and the USA .
And, if Germany won this war,the exploitation and colonisation of European Russia (= the territories west of the Urals ) would be impossible ,and,if possible, would destroy Germany's economy .
That's obvious.
The logical move for Hitler would be to create a triple alliance (Germany, USSR, Japan) in order to defeat the Anglo-Saxons. They could give Finland, half of Romania (up to the Carpathians) and guarantee free passage from the straits of Turkey and Denmark to the Soviets. Then, the axis would expand southwards. Why did they choose to go to war with a potential ally? Did they really think that they could defeat the Red Army at the border and the soviet state would collapse? I find this very hard to believe. Maybe this was wishful thinking from the german high command. But again, why? They really did not need to go to war with the USSR. It just doesn't make sense. Any opinions? Am I missing something?
As I can't reply to your PM, I will answer here.
Hitler's decision to attack the USSR was ,even with hindsight, well founded ,given Germany's catastrophic situation in the late summer of 1940 .
The longer the war lasted, the less chance Germany had to survive .
During his conferences of July 21 and 31 1940,Hitler argued the following
1 Britain continued the war because it expected an intervention from the USA/USSR.
2 It would take Germany several years to force Britain to surrender,and meanwhile the USSR /USA would intervene,US directly, USSR indirectly .
3 IF the SU would be eliminated, Japan would be in a much stronger position vis-á-vis the USA
4 A war with Japan would prevent the USA from intervening in Europe
5 This would force Britain to give up .
6 If Britain would give up ,US could/would not intervene
7 Only the quick elimination of the USSR could force Britain to give up
8 Time constraints dictated a short victorious campaign in the east
Source : Unternehmen Barbarossa ( by Walther Post P 159 )
I will add that Lebensraum,extermination of the Slavs/Jews were NOT the reason for Barbarossa, but that Barbarossa made this possible.
The USSR was useless as an ally against Britain and the USA, besides,it refused to enter the war,on the side of Germany AND on the side of Britain .
Of course, it was obvious ,already in 1940, that a successful Barbarossa, even if it resulted in the surrender of Britain before the USA intervened,would not help Germany .
Germany was already doomed in the late summer of 1940, but Hitler was searching desperately for an exit .
If Britain surrendered before Barbarossa, there was no need for Barbarossa and Germany could not occupy Western Europe and protect its border with the SU : it was too weak.
If Britain surrendered after a short/successful Barbarossa, this would only hasten Germany's collapse,as Germany was too weak to dominate Europe from the Pyrenees to the Urals.
Germany had also not the means to colonize and exploit the east ,besides it did not need the east : not the oil,not the grain .

8
I disagree.
During the battle of France:
Goring: The campaign is going very well Fuhrer!
Hitler: Wait till you see the russian campaign!
The above means that Hitler always wanted to attack east. In fact, he hoped for a British deal, in order to free resources from the west and use them against the USSR. Lebensraum, Volksdeutsche, resources and anti-communism were the true reasons he invaded the USSR. The argument he expressed (that the British would surrender if the USSR was defeated) was nothing more than wishful thinking. Goring and Ribbentrop tried to convince him that Barbarossa is not a good idea (trade is always more profitable than war) but he didn't want to listen. He was living his dream.

So, my question is:
Why didn't he make a deal with the Soviets? Both Germany and USSR could expand southwards, against the British. In order to convince Stalin to join the Axis, Hitler could give him: Finland, Moldavia, the whole asian continent (even China, so the Japs would focus on the islands ie against the British and the Americans and not inland) and guarantees for the the straits of Turkey and Denmark. In exchange Stalin joins the Axis and provides critical material (oil, minerals, grain etc) to the Germans, so the german industry can focus more on the war effort (building U-boats, warships, bombers, fighters etc, because they don't really need more ground units to drive the British out of Africa and Middle East). Also, the Americans would never join the war against three powers. Sooner or later Britain will starve and surrender.

German sphere: From Scandinavia to Romania to Turkey to Arabia including Africa. Also, future expansion in South America.
Soviet sphere: Everything else to the east.
Japanese sphere: All the islands, ie Indonesia, Australia, NZ, Pacific islands etc.

This sounds very logical. In fact, something similar was proposed during the Molotov visit (November 1940) but Hitler was convinced that the USSR was the enemy and made no offers. Again, Ribbentrop tried to make a deal with the Soviets but Hitler didn't want to give Finland for example, so nothing came out from the visit.

So, why did Hitler decide against this plan that would greatly increase the influence of his country in the world? Probably because he was a mad man and wanted everything. In the end he got nothing. Like Napoleon. Same story.

PS: Yes there would be a cold war in the future - the German and the Japanese spheres against the Soviet and the North American spheres but that's irrelevant for the timeline we are discussing.
Last edited by Zoomer on 09 Jul 2020, 11:20, edited 2 times in total.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15583
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Operation Barbarossa Launched In May 1942

#184

Post by ljadw » 09 Jul 2020, 11:12

Zoomer wrote:
09 Jul 2020, 07:30
ljadw wrote:
08 Jul 2020, 21:14
Zoomer wrote:
07 Jul 2020, 16:04
ljadw wrote:
04 Jul 2020, 15:26
Lebensraum, the breadbasket of Ukraine and the oil of the Caucasus would not help Germany to win the war against Britain and the USA .
And, if Germany won this war,the exploitation and colonisation of European Russia (= the territories west of the Urals ) would be impossible ,and,if possible, would destroy Germany's economy .
That's obvious.
The logical move for Hitler would be to create a triple alliance (Germany, USSR, Japan) in order to defeat the Anglo-Saxons. They could give Finland, half of Romania (up to the Carpathians) and guarantee free passage from the straits of Turkey and Denmark to the Soviets. Then, the axis would expand southwards. Why did they choose to go to war with a potential ally? Did they really think that they could defeat the Red Army at the border and the soviet state would collapse? I find this very hard to believe. Maybe this was wishful thinking from the german high command. But again, why? They really did not need to go to war with the USSR. It just doesn't make sense. Any opinions? Am I missing something?
As I can't reply to your PM, I will answer here.
Hitler's decision to attack the USSR was ,even with hindsight, well founded ,given Germany's catastrophic situation in the late summer of 1940 .
The longer the war lasted, the less chance Germany had to survive .
During his conferences of July 21 and 31 1940,Hitler argued the following
1 Britain continued the war because it expected an intervention from the USA/USSR.
2 It would take Germany several years to force Britain to surrender,and meanwhile the USSR /USA would intervene,US directly, USSR indirectly .
3 IF the SU would be eliminated, Japan would be in a much stronger position vis-á-vis the USA
4 A war with Japan would prevent the USA from intervening in Europe
5 This would force Britain to give up .
6 If Britain would give up ,US could/would not intervene
7 Only the quick elimination of the USSR could force Britain to give up
8 Time constraints dictated a short victorious campaign in the east
Source : Unternehmen Barbarossa ( by Walther Post P 159 )
I will add that Lebensraum,extermination of the Slavs/Jews were NOT the reason for Barbarossa, but that Barbarossa made this possible.
The USSR was useless as an ally against Britain and the USA, besides,it refused to enter the war,on the side of Germany AND on the side of Britain .
Of course, it was obvious ,already in 1940, that a successful Barbarossa, even if it resulted in the surrender of Britain before the USA intervened,would not help Germany .
Germany was already doomed in the late summer of 1940, but Hitler was searching desperately for an exit .
If Britain surrendered before Barbarossa, there was no need for Barbarossa and Germany could not occupy Western Europe and protect its border with the SU : it was too weak.
If Britain surrendered after a short/successful Barbarossa, this would only hasten Germany's collapse,as Germany was too weak to dominate Europe from the Pyrenees to the Urals.
Germany had also not the means to colonize and exploit the east ,besides it did not need the east : not the oil,not the grain .

8
During the battle of France:
Goring: The campaign is going very well Fuhrer!
Hitler: Wait till you see the russian campaign!
The above means that Hitler always wanted to attack east. In fact, he hoped for a British deal, in order to free resources from the west and use them against the USSR. A combination of Lebensraum, Volksdeutsche, resources and anti-communism made him mad. Like you said: He didn't need the east.

So, my question is:
Why didn't he make a deal with the Soviets? Both Germany and USSR could expand southwards, against the British. In order to convince Stalin to join the Axis, Hitler could give him: Finland, Moldavia, the whole asian continent (even China, so the Japs would focus on the islands ie against the British and the Americans and not inland) and guarantees for the the straits of Turkey and Denmark. In exchange Stalin joins the Axis and provides critical material (oil, minerals, grain etc) to the Germans, so the german industry can focus more on the war effort (building U-boats, warships, bombers, fighters etc, because they don't really need more ground units to drive the British out of Africa and Middle East). Also, the Americans would never join the war against three powers. Sooner or later Britain will starve and surrender.

German sphere: From Sweden to Wallachia to Turkey to Arabia. Also, expansion in South America.
Soviet sphere: Everything else to the east.
Japanese sphere: All the islands, ie Indonesia, Australia, NZ, Pacific islands etc.

This sounds very logical. In fact, something similar was proposed during the Molotov visit (November 1940), but Hitler was convinced that the USSR was the enemy and made no offers.

So, why did Hitler decide against this plan for world domination (yes there would be a cold war in the future between the Germans and the Russians but that's irrelevant at this point)?
Probably because he was a mad man. Like Napoleon.
1 I like to see the proof that he said during the French campaign that the war in the east would be easier than the war in the west.
2 For a deal with the SU,the SU would have to agree with a deal ,and there is no PROOF at all that Stalin was willing to make a deal with Germany against Britain . Besides there was no benefit for the USS to join the war at the side of Germany.Why would Stalin join the side of a loser ? Germany was losing in 1940 .And why would Stalin occupy the Middle East ? There were already enough hostile Muslims in the USSR .And, sorry, but saying that Hitler could give China to Stalin (why would Stalin want China ?) is not serious : since more than 10 years the KMT,the Chinese Communists and Japan were fighting against each other and none of them had any desire to let the Soviets join the fighting .
3 The " çritical '' Soviet material is a myth : most German oil came from Germany (synthetic oil program ) and before and even during the war Germany did not need Soviet grain .Hitler did not need Stalin, Churchill needed Stalin .
4 Hitler did not have a plan for world domination ,he even did not have any plan : he was forced to improvise and he chose the Flucht nach Vorn to escape from the sh..t where Germany was finding itself on .
5 The German sphere : Germany did not need the ME : there was only sand and Arabs in the ME ,and Germany did not need them .
Last point : Napoleon was not a madman .As Louis 14,he tried to dominate Europe. He failed . The Kaiser, Hitler and the Red Tsars also tried to dominate Europe and they also failed .

Ружичасти Слон
Member
Posts: 488
Joined: 24 Jan 2020, 17:31
Location: Изгубљени

Re: Operation Barbarossa Launched In May 1942

#185

Post by Ружичасти Слон » 09 Jul 2020, 12:20

ljadw wrote:
08 Jul 2020, 21:14

Hitler's decision to attack the USSR was ,even with hindsight, well founded ,given Germany's catastrophic situation in the late summer of 1940 .
What was be Germany's catastrophic situation in the late summer of 1940 ?

Who was say Germany was be on catastrophic situation in 1940 ?

Is it ljadw opinion or was you take from some book ?

Historical fact or ljadw opinion ?

Zoomer
Member
Posts: 17
Joined: 07 Jul 2020, 15:41
Location: Athens

Re: Operation Barbarossa Launched In May 1942

#186

Post by Zoomer » 09 Jul 2020, 12:54

1. I read it here. I don't remember the exact subforum sry.

2. The Molotov visit IS a proof that Stalin wanted a deal. Like i said, Hitler should give:
Finland
Moldavia
Guarantees for the straits of Turkey and Denmark.
Everything east of Arabia.
= Stalin joins the Axis.
Hitler gave nothing, thus, there was no deal. Ribbentrop, Schulenburg, Goring and other high ranking Nazi officials wanted a deal. Hitler though, didn't. He wanted to attack so he made no concessions and the meeting was fruitless.

3. Also, what makes you think that Stalin didn't want Iran, Afghanistan and India? Why then did he have Mongolia Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan etc under his control? Stalin also wanted Turkey, Bulgaria and Romania! He supported the Yugoslav communists too. As for China, he wanted the communists to win the civil war so they can join the USSR afterwards. But the Japs invaded. The Chinese nationalists and communists stopped the infighting and focused on defeating the Japs. After the war though, Mao wasn't excited about joining the USSR. But certainly, Stalin supported the communists against the nationalists before the Japs invaded.

4. Hitler was just like Napoleon. They didn't want to create a European Union. They wanted to created something called a European Union but in reality it was french/german hegemony. This is the reason Napoleon failed in Spain and Hitler in Russia. People were seeing what they were doing and they didn't want anything of it.

5. Germany's situation was not bad at all in 1940. The British on the other hand were so desperate, that they wanted a deal with Germany. Before ofc a warmonger called Churchill came to power and threw everything he had against Germany. He destroyed British domination of world trade and the value of the pound. Good job Winston!

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15583
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Operation Barbarossa Launched In May 1942

#187

Post by ljadw » 09 Jul 2020, 14:26

Ружичасти Слон wrote:
09 Jul 2020, 12:20
ljadw wrote:
08 Jul 2020, 21:14

Hitler's decision to attack the USSR was ,even with hindsight, well founded ,given Germany's catastrophic situation in the late summer of 1940 .
What was be Germany's catastrophic situation in the late summer of 1940 ?

Who was say Germany was be on catastrophic situation in 1940 ?

Is it ljadw opinion or was you take from some book ?

Historical fact or ljadw opinion ?
1 Germany had not the means to eliminate Britain before the US would intervene
2 Germany had not the military/diplomatic means to prevent the US to intervene .
These two FACTS dictated Germany's strategy ,which was :a Flucht nach Vorn.
Britain would fight as long as it could hope on US aid/intervention ( Hitler in his conferences from 21 and 31 July ) and US would aid Britain as long as Britain would fight .
War with the US was inevitable:in August the GOP selected an interventionist (Willkie ) as presidential candidate .In March Lend-Lease was activated .
Germany was powerless against the British/American alliance .Its attacks against Britain failed, it could do nothing against the US where the war party would win the election . Remained : the USSR,the policy of which was to remain neutral as long as it was in its interest .
Barbarossa was nothing more than an attack on the SU, hoping that it would result in a quick victory (victory in 1942 would not help Germany ) and hoping that this would be sufficient to force Britain to give up before the intervention of the Yanks.
The chances for a quick victory were almost non existent,the chances that the elimination of the SU would force Britain to give up were also almost
non existent : there are no proofs that the fall of the USSR would result in a palace revolution in Whitehall with Churchill being ousted and Hoare becoming the British Quisling .
Germany's strategy was founded on wishful thinking .Because its situation was hopeless .
The alternative for Barbarossa was unconditional surrender .Thus Hitler chose Barbarossa .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15583
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Operation Barbarossa Launched In May 1942

#188

Post by ljadw » 09 Jul 2020, 14:54

Zoomer wrote:
09 Jul 2020, 12:54
1. I read it here. I don't remember the exact subforum sry.

2. The Molotov visit IS a proof that Stalin wanted a deal. Like i said, Hitler should give:
Finland
Moldavia
Guarantees for the straits of Turkey and Denmark.
Everything east of Arabia.
= Stalin joins the Axis.
Hitler gave nothing, thus, there was no deal. Ribbentrop, Schulenburg, Goring and other high ranking Nazi officials wanted a deal. Hitler though, didn't. He wanted to attack so he made no concessions and the meeting was fruitless.

3. Also, what makes you think that Stalin didn't want Iran, Afghanistan and India? Why then did he have Mongolia Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan etc under his control? Stalin also wanted Turkey, Bulgaria and Romania! He supported the Yugoslav communists too. As for China, he wanted the communists to win the civil war so they can join the USSR afterwards. But the Japs invaded. The Chinese nationalists and communists stopped the infighting and focused on defeating the Japs. After the war though, Mao wasn't excited about joining the USSR. But certainly, Stalin supported the communists against the nationalists before the Japs invaded.

4. Hitler was just like Napoleon. They didn't want to create a European Union. They wanted to created something called a European Union but in reality it was french/german hegemony. This is the reason Napoleon failed in Spain and Hitler in Russia. People were seeing what they were doing and they didn't want anything of it.

5. Germany's situation was not bad at all in 1940. The British on the other hand were so desperate, that they wanted a deal with Germany. Before ofc a warmonger called Churchill came to power and threw everything he had against Germany. He destroyed British domination of world trade and the value of the pound. Good job Winston!
About point 3 : You know what happened in Afghanistan when the Soviets invaded ? A Soviet defeat .
Why should Stalin want Iran and India ?India's population was the double of that of the USSR . Where would Stalin get the millions of soldiers to defeat the British, conquer and occupy India ? Stalin had already big problems with the Muslims in the USSR .There is no proof that he wanted Turkey, Romania and Bulgaria .About Yugoslavia:when there was, after the visit of Allen Dulles, an anti-German military coup, Stalin was one of the first to recognize the new regime .In 1948,Tito rebelled and the only thing Stalin could do was to eliminate the other communist leaders of Eastern Europe to prevent the rise of other Titos . And he failed.
About China : the Japanese (Japs is not PC ) were already in China BEFORE the existence of the USSR.The Japanese presence did not stop the Chinese civil war and Stalin was helping and the KMT from 1937 to 1941. Hitler was also helping the KMT.
About point 4 : of course, and justifiedly, Napoleon neither Hitler wanted a European Union ,because it was not in their interest and because no one in Europe wanted such an union . And, I am not convinced that the situation is different to day .
Whatever : there was no European nation in 1814, in 1914, in 1945 .

Ружичасти Слон
Member
Posts: 488
Joined: 24 Jan 2020, 17:31
Location: Изгубљени

Re: Operation Barbarossa Launched In May 1942

#189

Post by Ружичасти Слон » 09 Jul 2020, 15:52

ljadw wrote:
09 Jul 2020, 14:26
Ружичасти Слон wrote:
09 Jul 2020, 12:20
ljadw wrote:
08 Jul 2020, 21:14


Hitler's decision to attack the USSR was ,even with hindsight, well founded ,given Germany's catastrophic situation in the late summer of 1940 .
What was be Germany's catastrophic situation in the late summer of 1940 ?

Who was say Germany was be on catastrophic situation in 1940 ?

Is it ljadw opinion or was you take from some book ?

Historical fact or ljadw opinion ?
1 Germany had not the means to eliminate Britain before the US would intervene
2 Germany had not the military/diplomatic means to prevent the US to intervene .
These two FACTS dictated Germany's strategy ,which was :a Flucht nach Vorn.
Fact or ljadw opinion ?

You was not give evidences for to be fact.
You was not give evidences for it was be opinion for hitler or Germany army commanders.
You was not give references for to be opinion of any peoples or historians after war.

Everything is ljadw self opinion.
ljadw wrote:
09 Jul 2020, 14:26
Britain would fight as long as it could hope on US aid/intervention ( Hitler in his conferences from 21 and 31 July ) and US would aid Britain as long as Britain would fight .
War with the US was inevitable:in August the GOP selected an interventionist (Willkie ) as presidential candidate .In March Lend-Lease was activated .
Germany was powerless against the British/American alliance .Its attacks against Britain failed, it could do nothing against the US where the war party would win the election . Remained : the USSR,the policy of which was to remain neutral as long as it was in its interest .
Barbarossa was nothing more than an attack on the SU, hoping that it would result in a quick victory (victory in 1942 would not help Germany ) and hoping that this would be sufficient to force Britain to give up before the intervention of the Yanks.
The chances for a quick victory were almost non existent,the chances that the elimination of the SU would force Britain to give up were also almost
non existent : there are no proofs that the fall of the USSR would result in a palace revolution in Whitehall with Churchill being ousted and Hoare becoming the British Quisling .
Germany's strategy was founded on wishful thinking .Because its situation was hopeless .
The alternative for Barbarossa was unconditional surrender .Thus Hitler chose Barbarossa .
Everything is ljadw self opinion.

On Halder notes on 22.july for conversation with Brauchitsch on meeting with hitler was write Halder anything on Germany catastrophic situation ?

On Halder notes on 31.july for big hitler conference was write Halder anything on Germany catastrophic situation ?

On Hoth memoirs on 31.july for big hitler conference was write Hoth anything on Germany catastrophic situation ?

Halder and Hoth was write for hitler was say Britain hope for Amerika. Halder and Hoth was write for hitler was say must to invade Soviet union for to make Britain capitulate.

It is ljadw self opinion for Germany not have means for to win Britain and for to stop Amerika and for catastrophic situation.

Zoomer
Member
Posts: 17
Joined: 07 Jul 2020, 15:41
Location: Athens

Re: Operation Barbarossa Launched In May 1942

#190

Post by Zoomer » 09 Jul 2020, 17:25

1. The British didn't give up after France. Why would a defeated USSR force Britain to surrender? This logic is flawed. The British literally sold themselves to the Americans in order to win. They opened their empire to american companies, they took huge loans, they gave all their advanced tech, they gave away their dominant position in world trade. Why did they do that? Because Hitler wanted conquest. Hitler simply wanted to dominate the world and didn't make deals with anyone. He could give Finland, Moldavia, and guarantees for the straits to Stalin and the USSR would join the Axis. He didn't do that. He could abandon the Axis project and agree the entire Africa and Middle East would pass to the British, in order to bring peace and enjoy his big country. He didn't do that. He simply wanted conquest and glory. Thankfully, Hitler and Napoleon lost!

2. I know what happened in Afghanistan. Do you know what happened in Iran and Iraq in 1941? They collapsed immediately.

ChrisDR68
Member
Posts: 212
Joined: 13 Oct 2013, 12:16

Re: Operation Barbarossa Launched In May 1942

#191

Post by ChrisDR68 » 09 Jul 2020, 18:44

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
05 Jul 2020, 06:34
ChrisDR68 wrote:Short of Stalin's regime falling and being replaced by one that is willing to sign a peace treaty on almost any conditions (as the infant Soviet regime did at Brest-Litovsk in March 1918) then I think the best the Germans can hope for is a River Volga Reich frontier.
IMO that's not good enough. SU would still have a population of ~80mil and, with Lend-Lease help, would still have been able to put a ~4mil army in the field. That smaller Red Army isn't strong enough to beat a full Ostheer but it means Hitler needs ~2.5mil at the front permanently and >300k on occupation duty. So Germany is still in an indefinite two-front war.

An indefinite war would have been welcomed by Hitler. He thought it gave the German Reich and it's people vitality (as mad as that sounds).

If Germany takes the Urals, however, then Soviet population is at most ~40mil including Central Asia - which likely revolts or stops contributing to the war effort. That weaker SU probably can't deter Japan from blockading or taking Vladivostok, which means Lend Lease is a mere trickle through northwest Iran.


The Wehrmacht wasn't strong enough to reach the Urals. The Volga river was the best they could hope for and yes it would mean very large numbers of troops permanently garrisoned in the east to guard against a Soviet counter strike westwards. What Hitler always wanted was autarky. His logic was that with the breadbasket of the Ukraine, the oilfields of the Caucasus and the minerals of Scandinavia the new German empire would have everything it needed economically without the need for worldwide trade.

After Pearl Harbor, isolationism was discredited regardless of a German DoW - the America First Committee dissolved itself on December 10, the day before Germany's DoW. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Committee. The idea that America could ignore the rest of the world was over.

As discussed in multiple threads on AHF, the senatorial anti-war coalition lagged public opinion significantly in 1940-41 and, after Pearl Harbor, all isolationist senators would have been voted out in November '42 had they remained isolationist. Just look at Robert Taft, the "Mister Republican" who nearly lost his '44 re-election as a punishment for past isolationism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A. ... e-election

On August 12th 1941 (eight months into my ATL) the House Of Representatives passed an amendment on the Select Service Act of 1940 (the American draft) by a margin of only 203 votes to 202. In other words, on a bill that had far fewer implications than a declaration of war on Germany and Italy, there was barely a majority in the House.

Once Japan foolishly attacked Pearl Harbor my guess is that the majority sentiment on Capitol Hill would have wanted to target Japanese (partly out of a sense of revenge) while the war in Europe took a back seat.


As an aside, Germany finishing the war with more territorial gains than she started with always depended on how the Soviet Union and the United States reacted to German expansionism. The Soviet Union due to her near limitless territorial expanses and the United States due to her industrial power. It was never in Hitler's power to dictate how much territory he finished up with.

He needed a near perfect military campaign in Russia just to get to the Volga and then hope that the Soviet Union was by then too damaged and weak to win back her lost territory. If the isolationists in the House Of Representatives eventually lost out and Roosevelt got his declaration of war on Germany and Italy then it was all over for Hitler. It would have taken longer than in the OTL but the end result would have been the same. That's how slim I think his chances were in 1940/41 (although I'm sure it didn't look that way at the time).

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15583
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Operation Barbarossa Launched In May 1942

#192

Post by ljadw » 09 Jul 2020, 19:55

Ружичасти Слон wrote:
09 Jul 2020, 15:52
ljadw wrote:
09 Jul 2020, 14:26
Ружичасти Слон wrote:
09 Jul 2020, 12:20
ljadw wrote:
08 Jul 2020, 21:14


Hitler's decision to attack the USSR was ,even with hindsight, well founded ,given Germany's catastrophic situation in the late summer of 1940 .
What was be Germany's catastrophic situation in the late summer of 1940 ?

Who was say Germany was be on catastrophic situation in 1940 ?

Is it ljadw opinion or was you take from some book ?

Historical fact or ljadw opinion ?
1 Germany had not the means to eliminate Britain before the US would intervene
2 Germany had not the military/diplomatic means to prevent the US to intervene .
These two FACTS dictated Germany's strategy ,which was :a Flucht nach Vorn.
Fact or ljadw opinion ?

You was not give evidences for to be fact.
You was not give evidences for it was be opinion for hitler or Germany army commanders.
You was not give references for to be opinion of any peoples or historians after war.

Everything is ljadw self opinion.
ljadw wrote:
09 Jul 2020, 14:26
Britain would fight as long as it could hope on US aid/intervention ( Hitler in his conferences from 21 and 31 July ) and US would aid Britain as long as Britain would fight .
War with the US was inevitable:in August the GOP selected an interventionist (Willkie ) as presidential candidate .In March Lend-Lease was activated .
Germany was powerless against the British/American alliance .Its attacks against Britain failed, it could do nothing against the US where the war party would win the election . Remained : the USSR,the policy of which was to remain neutral as long as it was in its interest .
Barbarossa was nothing more than an attack on the SU, hoping that it would result in a quick victory (victory in 1942 would not help Germany ) and hoping that this would be sufficient to force Britain to give up before the intervention of the Yanks.
The chances for a quick victory were almost non existent,the chances that the elimination of the SU would force Britain to give up were also almost
non existent : there are no proofs that the fall of the USSR would result in a palace revolution in Whitehall with Churchill being ousted and Hoare becoming the British Quisling .
Germany's strategy was founded on wishful thinking .Because its situation was hopeless .
The alternative for Barbarossa was unconditional surrender .Thus Hitler chose Barbarossa .
Everything is ljadw self opinion.

On Halder notes on 22.july for conversation with Brauchitsch on meeting with hitler was write Halder anything on Germany catastrophic situation ?

On Halder notes on 31.july for big hitler conference was write Halder anything on Germany catastrophic situation ?

On Hoth memoirs on 31.july for big hitler conference was write Hoth anything on Germany catastrophic situation ?

Halder and Hoth was write for hitler was say Britain hope for Amerika. Halder and Hoth was write for hitler was say must to invade Soviet union for to make Britain capitulate.

It is ljadw self opinion for Germany not have means for to win Britain and for to stop Amerika and for catastrophic situation.
Unternehmen Barbarossa P 159 :
Halder's notes about the conference on the Berghof :
Englands Hoffnung ist Russland und Amerika.Wenn Hoffnung auf Russland wegfalt,fält auch Amerika weg..........Russland ostasiatischer Degen Englands und Amerikas gegen Japan ....
If Germany had the means to defeat Britain before an American intervention, there would be no need for Barbarossa .
And ,about the catastrophic German situation at the end of the Summer of 1940 :
Christian Gerlach wrote the following in ''Operationsplanung der Wehrmacht ""
''Geostrategisch blieb nur ein Angriff auf die UdSSR ''
NUR !
The only remaining option was an attack on the USSR, and, we know that victory or defeat was not laying in German hands, but in the hands of the Soviets .
That indicates, not : it proves, that Germany's situation was desperate, catastrophic,hopeless .
The only way to prevent a US intervention,was to eliminate Britain, and the ONLY way to eliminate Britain was to eliminate the USSR .
The whole strategy was founded on wishful thinking .

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Banned
Posts: 3255
Joined: 15 Jan 2019, 23:32
Location: USA

Re: Operation Barbarossa Launched In May 1942

#193

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 09 Jul 2020, 20:29

ChrisDR68 wrote:It was never in Hitler's power to dictate how much territory he finished up with.
At the most abstract level that's true - had the U.S. gone to war in 1936-40, there's no feasible path for Germany.

That's not interesting to me though - not in a military history sense.

What's interesting is that, after the Fall of France and given American isolationism, Hitler held his fate and much of the world's in his hands. Had he made the right military decisions (i.e. take the SU seriously), he could have established durable domination of Europe for generations.
He needed a near perfect military campaign in Russia just to get to the Volga
Technically he reached the Volga (Kalinnin) with the most poorly-planned campaign in modern military history. If the Ostheer can advance 1,000km with a Three-Stooges strategic concept, going another 500km doesn't require perfection.
The Wehrmacht wasn't strong enough to reach the Urals. The Volga river was the best they could hope for
I'd really like to see your detailed explanation of why the Volga is some hard limit. Not an AHF-style invocation of "logistics" or "space" with no reasoning behind it, but a real analytical treatment of the matter.
An indefinite war would have been welcomed by Hitler.
I meant indefinite only in the sense that Hitler can't end the Eastern War. The Allies certainly can.

And Hitler knew this - he knew he needed to finish Russia before facing the US/UK.

So there's no feasible situation in which Hitler conceives of an indefinite Eastern Front - not one in which the SU still controls Russia (concededly he would have been fine with sporadic warfare in a post-Soviet-collapse hellscape).
https://twitter.com/themarcksplan
https://www.reddit.com/r/AxisHistoryForum/
https://medium.com/counterfactualww2
"The whole question of whether we win or lose the war depends on the Russians." - FDR, June 1942

Zoomer
Member
Posts: 17
Joined: 07 Jul 2020, 15:41
Location: Athens

Re: Operation Barbarossa Launched In May 1942

#194

Post by Zoomer » 09 Jul 2020, 21:11

OK this is going nowhere.

You are Hitler. You want to defeat the British and force them to surrender. What do you do?
a) You allocate all your resources to the Air Force and the Navy and you make a deal with the Soviets (during the Molotov visit).
b) You attack Russia.

You see? Your argument makes no sense. Hitler was a mad man and went for b. A reasonable leader would go for a.

Another option would be to make a deal with the British. Then, he could focus on the USSR. But he didn't even think of all those options. He was living his dream. That's the answer.

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Banned
Posts: 3255
Joined: 15 Jan 2019, 23:32
Location: USA

Re: Operation Barbarossa Launched In May 1942

#195

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 09 Jul 2020, 21:21

Zoomer wrote:OK this is going nowhere.
It's just not going where you want it to go; repeating yourself won't change that.

You're new here so I've no idea what knowledge base you're working from. The History Channel will tell you there was no chance of German victory in the East but many scholars would disagree. For example: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8fea/8 ... b1263e.pdf

If that paper is new to you, probably start reading up a bit.
https://twitter.com/themarcksplan
https://www.reddit.com/r/AxisHistoryForum/
https://medium.com/counterfactualww2
"The whole question of whether we win or lose the war depends on the Russians." - FDR, June 1942

Post Reply

Return to “What if”