84 Years Ago

[Curtis Lemay]

June 22: Day 1 of Operation Barbarossa.

[altipueri]

A blunder?

Exceeded only by the declaration of war against the USA in 1942?

====

The wargame industry has a lot to thank Hitler for.

[Neilster]

Apologies. I didn't see this thread before starting my thread. The traditional view that launching an invasion of the Soviet Union was a totally avoidable disaster has undergone some revision, with arguments such as Stalin would have eventually invaded Greater Germany and that by knocking out the USSR, Britain would lose its last potential ally in Europe and hence sue for peace. I'm not convinced.

Would Stalin have eventually invaded? Dunno, but given the Red Army's performance early in the campaign it would have gone catastrophically badly against any credible German defence and the Wehrmacht would surely have launched a massive counterattack against a now weakened Red Army.

In my opinion Hitler should have realised after the Battle of Britain that he was in for a long war against Britain but that he was in a far superior position than in 1914. He had plenty of resources from the continent and USSR, had Norwegian/French bases and he should have concentrated on the Battle of the Atlantic. This was a near-run thing anyway even though the Kriegsmarine was starved of resources due to the priority of the Eastern Front. It would still antagonise the US but would they have entered the European war before they historically did because of it? I don't think so. It took Pearl Harbor and a German declaration of war for that to happen. A massive German naval campaign may well have starved Britain out before US intervention could make a difference.

With no Barbarossa a properly supplied and powerful Afrika Korps would most probably have captured the Suez Canal and been able to exploit into The Levant and beyond, with all that lovely oil. Of course this ignores the ideological imperative. Hitler was very keen on a showdown in the East.

[Orm]

Hear, hear.

[warspite1]

With no Barbarossa a properly supplied and powerful Afrika Korps would most probably have captured the Suez Canal and been able to exploit into The Levant and beyond, with all that lovely oil. Of course this ignores the ideological imperative. Hitler was very keen on a showdown in the East.

warspite1

One of the great what-ifs of history, that's for certain....

[Neilster]

With no Barbarossa a properly supplied and powerful Afrika Korps would most probably have captured the Suez Canal and been able to exploit into The Levant and beyond, with all that lovely oil. Of course this ignores the ideological imperative. Hitler was very keen on a showdown in the East.

warspite1

One of the great what-ifs of history, that's for certain....

It's been argued that a larger Afrika Korps couldn't be supplied but Africa was never a priority for Hitler. If the Mediterranean was the focus of action it would have been, and generally when the Germans set their minds to something, at least for the first half of the war, they tended to do it very well. The conquest of Malta would surely have occurred, making things very difficult for the British. Only the Pedestal convoy in August 1942 prevented Malta from being surrendered due to starvation, and that's with the huge distraction of the Eastern Front.

In September 1940 Raeder tried to convince Hitler that the rapid collapse of the Allies in the West had opened up tremendous opportunities in the Mediterranean. Hitler does appear to have attempted some of what was suggested but there were diplomatic difficulties with Italy, Spain and Vichy France. Ultimately, Hitler didn't dismiss the Mediterranean plan but thought it could be accomplished after the expected swift victory over the Soviet Union. He planned for the navy and air force to receive tremendous priority to prosecute the war against the British Empire. Of course, in the end, neither plan worked.

[Curtis Lemay]

It's easy to use perfect 20:20 hindsight to "predict" the outcome of a war and then castigate the participants for not forseeing it. Churchill thought that the combo of Britain and the USA would over-match the combo of BOTH Germany and Russia. That's how little the world thought of the Soviet Union prior to Barbarossa. Think about how poorly Russia had performed in World War I, or even as recently as the Winter War. And think about how stalwart France had been in World War I then how easily they were rolled in 1940.

[Neilster]

It's easy to use perfect 20:20 hindsight to "predict" the outcome of a war and then castigate the participants for not forseeing it. Churchill thought that the combo of Britain and the USA would over-match the combo of BOTH Germany and Russia. That's how little the world thought of the Soviet Union prior to Barbarossa. Think about how poorly Russia had performed in World War I, or even as recently as the Winter War.

Yes. The British even thought about declaring war on the Soviet Union over their annexation of Eastern Poland but wiser heads prevailed. They had enough on their plate with Germany and the probable entry of Italy (who looked more formidable than they turned out to be), no matter how little they thought of the Red Army.

When Barbarossa happened the newspapers, who were under instructions to be upbeat, were quite low-key about the USSR's chances but hoped for a delay and weakening of the Wehrmacht at least. Allied military opinion was similar, as they had drawn their conclusions from WW1, the bloody Civil War, the ongoing joke of the inefficient Soviet steamroller, Stalin's purges and the Winter War. It's worth noting that despite terrible planning and command failings, Russia hung in there quite well until 1917 and going another century back would indicate that a German invasion was still a big gamble.

Perhaps the prevalent anti-Communist sentiment was a big factor here, with a feeling that a big enough shock would see the collapse of an already rickety system; which given the geography of the joint, would be required for a total capitulation.