Operation Barbarossa

[Lysimachus]

My first question is what were the troop numbers on both sides upon the beginning of the operation? I've read that the Germans outnumbered the Russians but then i've also read that the Russians outnumbered the Germans.

Secondly, could it have been won (no changes to the start date, I mean from the get-go)? Hitler kept interfering with what was going on so if the German armour didn't keep getting re-directed southwards and northwards and was allowed to carry on to Moscow could it have been taken?

Finally, all i'm looking for is a nice discussion on this topic since I love discussing about World War II . No nationalistic comments please.

[Dr. Croccer]

On the issue of Hitler's orders to divert them southwards, it was rather logical. The flanks were open and continuing on to Moscow meant that the main force could be flanked and surrounded, which wasn't unlikely, as there were considerable Soviet troop concentrations inbetween Army Group Centre and South.

[conon394]

Secondly, could it have been wo

More or less no. The problems facing Germany were simply to large:

It was already had a war on another front and was do only so so at it.
Nazi management of the German economy was pathetic, wasteful and utterly out classed by the UK and USSR (at least until Speer and than it was too late).
The fact the US was more or less an undeclared ally of the UK and than the USSR
The fact that the US and UK sucked up their anti communist and Stalin positions and supplied aid to the USSR
The underlying nature of Nazism and is racial policies prevented Hitler from effectively benefiting on anti Russian/Stalin discontent in the USSR.

Even a completely perfect military operation would still have left Germany massively over-extended come the first winter.

[vizi]

More or less no. The underlying problems facing Germany were simply to large:

It was already had a war on another front and was do only so so at it.
Nazi management of the German economy was pathetic, wasteful and utterly out classed by the UK and USSR (at least until Speer and than it was too late).
The fact the US was more or less an undeclared ally of the UK and than the USSR
The fact that the US and UK sucked up their anti communist and Stalin positions and supplied aid to the USSR
The underlying nature of Nazism and is racial policies prevented Hitler form effectively benefiting on anti Russian/Stalin discontent in the USSR.

Rinse. Repeat. Say it again!

[Rodina38]

IF Hitler did not intervene in the military affairs of the German military, there could have been a different result. But the same IF could be applied to Stalin - what IF he never commited purges against the military or listened to his advisors about Germany's mobilization on its Eastern borders with Russia?

As for numbers, Germans were on par with what the Russians had but the swift blitzkreig destroyed much of their defenses and killed, captured or surrendered Russians were over 1.5 million totaled.

[Ahlerich]

well moscow could have been taken with a bit of luck. however that would not have defeated russia most likely (wasnt enough for napoleon anyways..)

in the end the land was to huge to be controlled, a logistical nightmare. a war between germany and russia only would have had a good chance of success, under the given circumstances i think operation barbarossa was doomed the moment it has been launched.

[Bwaho]

My first question is what were the troop numbers on both sides upon the beginning of the operation? I've read that the Germans outnumbered the Russians but then i've also read that the Russians outnumbered the Germans.

I think Germany with its allies (Romania, Hungary etc) outnumbered the Soviets at the start of the operation.

Secondly, could it have been won (no changes to the start date, I mean from the get-go)?

They probably could have won. Soviet losses at the start of the war were staggering... but as you know the rest is history.

[Lysimachus]

Was starting the operation late in June really such a huge problem? I read that the rasputisa only started to clear up late that year so that the Yugoslavian campaign wasn't such a big waste of time after all (it was only maintaing it which was hell ).

[Salem1]

I think that Hitler made the same mistakes as Napoleon:

- Didn't do a thing to get local support that was eagerly offered to him (he can kill them later if that's in his ideology). In fact he turned it against him, this mistake has been repeated throughout history by nations smaller than the nations they invade (England during the 100 Years War, Sweden during the Swedish Deluge etc.). Napoleon wasn't even offered support, so the mistake is actually worse here.

- He thought that controlling centers in Russia matters, which it doesn't. You can take Moscow and it won't matter, because Russia is too large to control from merely a few centers. It was similar over in China, what with the Japanese taking Nanjing and all.

- The ideologies he himself had destroyed the war. Hitler thought that Russia would be broken before winter had set in, he had learned nothing of the history of Russian people. They weren't going to give up, if you want to really defeat Russia then you must capture everyone capable of fighting that doesn't accept to fight for you as a PoW, level every village, every town, every city, destroy everything, burn everything and set examples everywhere for partisans. This is not a necessary policy outside of countries like Russia and China, but in countries like them you have to destroy the countries, not just defeat some armies.

- Germany was not prepared for a strategic war, only a tactical one. You cannot win against Russia with tactics alone if you don't have allies to support you on another one of Russia's fronts, which Germany didn't have. Germany's production and economy management was an embarrasment at best until Speer came along, and he only managed to improve it so much because it had been so very crappy previously; not really because he was a genius.

- Hitler did not know with who he was dealing with.

[Nikitn]

I think that Hitler made the same mistakes as Napoleon:

- Didn't do a thing to get local support that was eagerly offered to him (he can kill them later if that's in his ideology). In fact he turned it against him, this mistake has been repeated throughout history by nations smaller than the nations they invade (England during the 100 Years War, Sweden during the Swedish Deluge etc.). Napoleon wasn't even offered support, so the mistake is actually worse here.

- He thought that controlling centers in Russia matters, which it doesn't. You can take Moscow and it won't matter, because Russia is too large to control from merely a few centers. It was similar over in China, what with the Japanese taking Nanjing and all.

- The ideologies he himself had destroyed the war. Hitler thought that Russia would be broken before winter had set in, he had learned nothing of the history of Russian people. They weren't going to give up, if you want to really defeat Russia then you must capture everyone capable of fighting that doesn't accept to fight for you as a PoW, level every village, every town, every city, destroy everything, burn everything and set examples everywhere for partisans. This is not a necessary policy outside of countries like Russia and China, but in countries like them you have to destroy the countries, not just defeat some armies.

- Germany was not prepared for a strategic war, only a tactical one. You cannot win against Russia with tactics alone if you don't have allies to support you on another one of Russia's fronts, which Germany didn't have. Germany's production and economy management was an embarrasment at best until Speer came along, and he only managed to improve it so much because it had been so very crappy previously; not really because he was a genius.

- Hitler did not know with who he was dealing with.

That post was a major fail, sorry. I don't have time to comment on it right now though.

As for the question:

1. Yes, The Germans significantly outnumbered the Soviet forces in June 1941. After the first couple of months, the Germans outnumbered them Red army by a ridiculously high margin. It was evened out in 1942 though.

2. I don't know, but I seriously doubt the Germans would be able to take Moscow. Remember, if that would be the case then disasters such as the Kiev pocket likely wouldn't happen, and many hundreds of thousands of troops would be transferred to the defence of Moscow from other, fronts. The fighting for Moscow would be very fierce, as it was the hearth of the USSR.

[Frederich Barbarossa]

That post was a major fail, sorry. I don't have time to comment on it right now though.

As for the question:

1. Yes, The Germans significantly outnumbered the Soviet forces in June 1941. After the first couple of months, the Germans outnumbered them Red army by a ridiculously high margin. It was evened out in 1942 though.

2. I don't know, but I seriously doubt the Germans would be able to take Moscow. Remember, if that would be the case then disasters such as the Kiev pocket likely wouldn't happen, and many hundreds of thousands of troops would be transferred to the defence of Moscow from other, fronts. The fighting for Moscow would be very fierce, as it was the hearth of the USSR.

Salem is right, did you KNOW that Hitler invaded the Soviet Union the same day as Napoleon :L

[Heathen Hammer]

Salem is right, did you KNOW that Hitler invaded the Soviet Union the same day as Napoleon :L

I actually heard that when Germans were crossing Dnepr river in summer of 41, they actually found remains of old bridge built by Napoleon's forces, when he tried to invade Russia and they viewed it as a bad sign.

[René Artois]

I think the Russians most likely outnumbered the germans at the beginning but the Germans were more concentrated together.

[Henry X]

Germany very well could have won the war.

But instead, they treated conquered populations like dirt, which didn't endear them to the Nazi cause.

There are a lot of what-ifs to consider though in this part of the conflict. Stalingrad could have been avoided, if Hitler had decided to control the Volga.

[Poach]

I feel that, had the Wermacht been properly supplied for a winter stay in Russia, the operation could have been a smashing success. Had the winter not slowed the advance down, the Red Army would have continued to retreat in disarray and probably wouldn't been been able to hold any ground until they reached the Urals. From there on I'm unsure, the Wermacht would be very stretched by then but could probably have held their own lines until the Soviets could be pressured into negociations, after which dealing with the UK/US would have been quite easy had they stayed in the war: Ffooding France with Eastern Front troops would have left the continent uninvadable, it would have simply been an armed staring contest from either side of the channel.

[VOP2288]

The statistics I've come across suggest that initially, the German invasion force did outnumber the Russians if only by a bit - I believe troop wise it was something like 3.9 million up against 3.2 million with Russian tanks and planes outnumbering the German armour and aircraft though. However, one must consider you're measuring an active invasion force against an active military force of an entire country (which is a big deal when talking about such a massive one like Russia).

Secondly, when speaking about Russia during WWII in general, and Operation Barbarossa you also must consider other factors. These would include the fact that...
a) The German military was by far more technologically savvy than their Russian counterparts
b) The German military was by far more experienced and better trained than the Soviets
c) The invasion was more or less unexpected - sure Germany and Russia had a good idea that hostilities would come to be but I don't think the Soviets knew when or in how great a force
d) The effectiveness of early war German military logistics, planning, and organization severely outweighed the Soviet's own

But Germany wasn't indestructible, as we see in hindsight, due to poor decisions here and there (both politically and military-wise) and logistically when Russia wasn't won within a few months.

Many may disagree but thus far it has proven so (as with Napoleon as well and other random conquerors) - Russia has its size as an advantage. Germany did not have the resources it needed in manpower and production to conquer it, and for that matter fight a multiple front war on top of that fact. Take into account as well that the resources needed to be able to take a single territory, move on, and keep it secure were never going to be had by Germany. As we saw, Germany would push the front line forward with its troops and as time went on partisans and other resistance groups sprung up all over the place - making trouble behind the lines all over - the German military could not be everywhere at the same time and keep control. Plus, as with the invasion, Soviet troops were always falling back - ceding territory and resources but also condensing it's forces into larger masses.

[Godless Pickle]

c) The invasion was more or less unexpected - sure Germany and Russia had a good idea that hostilities would come to be but I don't think the Soviets knew when or in how great a force.

Actually the Soviets were so prepared for a war, all their tanks had been upgraded with lighter armor and increased speed just for the reason to invade Germany. But they didnt Germany would attack them first because of Germany's war with Britain.

[conon394]

I looking up information for some other posts I came across an interesting article by Joel Hayward "Too Little, Too Late: An Analysis of Hitler's Failure in August 1942 to Damage Soviet Oil Production" (In The Journal of Military History Jul 2000).

Overall I think it changed my stance just a little with respect to the Hitler meddling question.

The author makes the case that the 42 offensive could not ever in a realistic way have provided a positive gain for Germany.

That is Hitler would not have gained oil security nor benefited from the USSR oil resources. The argument essential goes along this line of... First even the small fields and refining areas captured by Germany were mostly put out of production by retreating Soviet forces, and logistical difficulties and partisans made repairs very difficult. More importantly there was simply no way to transport the petroleum back to Germany (especially if the far more important Baku region was captured). Trunk convoys could only move a tiny amount of oil to Germany, excess refining capacity really only existed at vulnerable Romanian facilities, whose logistical capacity was already full - Danube etc. The only way to really gain was to ship the oil via the Black Sea to Italy or Greece - imposable without neutralizing the Soviet Black sea navy and UK forces in the Med. Even if Soviet refineries were captured intact or repaired they could not produce high grade fuel so would be of limited value anyway.

The real point is that given the ease and depth of the initial advance and weakness of the Soviet air force and air defenses in the region what could realistically have been archived was the destruction of of much of the Soviet oil production for a year or so. In other words the fact of the German advance did force the Soviets to destroy their own smaller fields and had Hitler deployed the German air force not to reduce Stalingrad to rubble but rather the the major Soviet field around Baku Germany would have gained very much in the short term. Objective archived Germany could have withdrawn to effective defensive positions and prepared for a 43 offensive confident that Soviet production would be sorely impacted for the near term (of course this would also require Germany was implementing mass economic mobilization back home as well).

In essence Hitler unlike Stalin and the western allies did continue to think in terms of some operational/tactical knock out blow - ala France, when everyone else had already moved on to a war of national economy.

[hellheaven1987]

Liddell Hart in his "History of WWII" actually mentions that too; he state that the lost of Caucasus oilfield would be a blow to Soviet economy, which would significally reduce Soviet's mobile rate.

[Frederich Barbarossa]

My first question is what were the troop numbers on both sides upon the beginning of the operation? I've read that the Germans outnumbered the Russians but then i've also read that the Russians outnumbered the Germans.

Secondly, could it have been won (no changes to the start date, I mean from the get-go)? Hitler kept interfering with what was going on so if the German armour didn't keep getting re-directed southwards and northwards and was allowed to carry on to Moscow could it have been taken?

Finally, all i'm looking for is a nice discussion on this topic since I love discussing about World War II . No nationalistic comments please.

Nazis did outnumber but let me speak to you a great story in 1940s tone. And so with Germany attacking little England, the French have already Resigned the fight with the prideful German victory march in late June of 1940. The following year, with the conquests of Yugoslavia, Greece, and basic occupation of Eastern Europe, Germany now borders Russia completely by the west with the exception of Finland. Now the USSR invaded Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Ukraine, and Eastern Poland. Now the Russians have moved their fortified defensive lines to these new borders now, and long abandoned their old line which was well defended. Now the German war machine with a man power of around 3.9 million has attacked this newly constructed frontline, which was not even ready. The soviets had a force of 3.2 million in this area, but further inland the USSR did outnumber Nazi Germany with an extra 5 million of the reserves.

In conclusion the USSR did outnumber them.

Second question is simple. If Germany had prepared its petroleum and mixed it with oil, then tanks wouldn´t freeze so much. Also if Germany hadn´t interferred in Yugoslavia, then maybe they would have invaded in Spring, much earlier then June, and thus would have probably won without a winter.


What can I say, Im suppose to know this, its in my name... literally >.>