Let's have a WW2 thread. Operation Barbarossa is widely considered to be the worst German military failing of WW2. When Hitler postponed Operation Barbarossa by five weeks to pull Italy's ass out of the fire with Greece, it mired down twelve German divisions and, quite likely, cost Germany the war with Russia. If the wermacht had not been fighting in the Russian winter, there is every chance they would have been successful.
General Halder, when he finally became mired in the Russian winter outside Moscow, reflected that the operation had called for three to four more weeks to conclude victoriously.
So I ask Sup Forums: hypothetically, if Germany had not needed to bail out Italy, either through a lot of successful Italian operation, or Italian inaction, would Hitler have won ww2? If he had bailed out Italy but postponed Barbarossa until the following year, would he have been victorious?
Hitler's hatred of slavs is well documented, from Mein Kampf onward. In the 1930s, he ended a mutual rearmament treaty with Russia. What, if any difference, would maintaining that treaty until Barbarossa have made?
Pic related: the wermacht struggling through Russian snows in 1942.
FDR knew about the attack on Pearl Harbor Also Patton was murdered
Colton Brown
I doubt it.
Luis Wright
Anglos started the war in order to kill the Aryan race and consume Aryan BLOOD
Nolan Howard
Why is that? Had Hitler conquered Russia, he would have faced a single front war rather than a costly war on two fronts. Also, with more manpower, he would have been able to effectively blunt the damage caused by Operation Torch. Without a foothold in Africa, the allied offensive would have had much lower odds of success.
Isaiah Howard
The Nazis would have gotten bogged down trying to occup Moscow the same way that got bogged down trying to occupy Stalingrad. Wars don't end because you take the capital.
Xavier Reed
> Operation Barbarossa
WE
Wyatt Cook
>to pull Italy's ass out of the fire with Greece PURE SLANDER.
We were wiping the floor with those oily fuckers.
Justin Price
That's very true, but without leadership, the Russian war machine would have been far less effective. Certainly, they would have lacked the ability to push towards western Europe.
John Rogers
that is literally how most wars end you fucking retard.
Dominic Baker
Why does the Soviet leadership collapse? They lose the capital and escape to the Urals. The commies are used to that shit. The Nazis would be forced to occupy a hostile, frozen hell scale with twice it's national population. Not to mention, the Russians had already pulled back it's production behind the Urals where the Nazis couldn't touch them. Outside of nukes, the Germans were destined to lose.
Jason Lee
Not always, Russian production wouldn't have been affected, which was the main issue.
Stalin did seriously consider surrendering, it may have pushed him over, but Russia's production would have guaranteed a victory if he wouldn't.
Isaac King
Yeah, all those millions of Russians would have just put their guns down because Moscow was taken. The Russians had already moved their production lines to behind the Urals. Thats why they had T34s coming out faster than the Germans could destroy them.
Carson Rivera
Why does nobody ever say that Hitler never wanted to conquer Moscow? He wanted to go around it to the oil fields in the Caucasus (which would have made it impossible for the russians to continue the war, as they themselves admitted) but he fell ill and Brauchitsch hijacked his operation and decided "Lol let's attack Moscow from the front like retards".
If Hitler's plan had been enacted, he'd prolly have won WWII in october 1941.
Dylan Morgan
I believe Stalin was more worried about having power seized from him. A Nazi conquest of Moscow might have result in his death, but the Reds wouldn't have surrendered.
Lucas Rodriguez
Hypothetically, they flee to the Urals, where they have no infrastructure to wage war with. Moreover, loss of a capital often involves capitulation, or at lease an inability to continue to fight.
However, I see your point and I think it's worth consideration. So let me posit a different scenario: Italy does not invade Greece, or has a very successful invasion, effectively granting the Axis a huge increase in manpower - more so than would be required to occupy Moscow. How much of a difference do you think that would have made?
Alexander Reyes
*seized by his fellow commies
Luis Cruz
Actually the delay was caused by the longer winter and high number of floods in april may , and since RUSSIA had shitty roads the vehicles would have had problems . Another mistake was not taking into account the HUGE supply line needed to resupply the troops .
Also Japan attacking USA instead of RUSSIA
Gabriel Lee
I actually wasn't aware that Hitler wanted to go around Moscow. In fact, his attitude towards Russia suggested the opposite: he didn't want to simply conquer them, he wanted them utterly annihilated. Infrastructure, economy, culture and people.
Thomas Morales
It was actually both. Stop trying to absolve the Italian military of their fuck ups. And it was far more an issue of ferrying troops and equipment to and from Italy than it was waiting for a moderately wet winter to die down.
>he didn't want to simply conquer them, he wanted them utterly annihilated. Infrastructure, economy, culture and people. Nigga you need to distinguish between the propaganda speeches (especially from late in the war, when the Red Army was killing/raping any german in its path) and the REAL intentions of Hitler.
Hitler, before the war turned to shit and Germany got attacked by everyone from all sides, wanted simply to push Stalin back to the other side of the Urals. In 1941 he was telling his fieldmarshals he would have been content with just that, cause that would have made it really difficult for them to try to bolschevize Europe again (at least for a few decades).
He also repeatedly said that he was waiting for just one big military success before offering peace to Stalin (he wanted to be in a position of strength at the diplomatic table) and exposed his plans for the soviet territories he conquered. He wanted to turn them into a german colony, farm them, improve its infrastructures, build roads and bridges, install a few millions german farms within 10 years, etc.
He would've kept the russians under his control borderline illiterate and without any right to bear weapons, but didn't want to annihilate them or anything.
Gabriel Walker
And yes, he always aimed at the oil reserves in the Caucasus. It was beyond obvious: most of Stalin's oil came from that. It's not very useful to churn out 1000 T-34 a month if you don't have the gas to operate them.
But Brauchitsch wanted the glory of having conquered the russian capital. That fucker is the prime responsible for the german loss of WWII. It's amazing nobody ever talks about that ass.
Camden Scott
The delay was in fact caused by senpai Hitler rescuing us in Greece, but the unusual floods would have hindered the germans anyway. The russian roads were rivers of mud in spring and summer. The tanks sank for 1 meter inside the goddamn soil.
So yeah, can't really blame us for Hitler's loss.
Kayden Williams
>propaganda speeches
Here, have an excerpt from Mein Kampf. Hitler hated bolshevism and Russian Jews, m8.
M8, Hitler hated Russian bolshevism, communism, and Russian Jews. He viewed Russia as the Jewish staging ground for the conquest of Germany. Here, have an excerpt from Mein Kampf.
I'm just gonna go ahead an post that twice because my phone decided to fuck up.
Brayden Adams
Didnt it take Germany more than a year after the invasion to rev up to total war manufacturing?
Justin Reed
>Hitler hated Russian bolshevism, communism, and Russian Jews. Yes. But he NEVER stated he wanted to annihilate the russian peasants he had conquered. He planned to keep them illiterate and harmless, like B class citizens good only for manual labor but to keep accurately away from books because prone to dangerous ideology.
Adam Phillips
Yeah. That's because Hitler didn't want nor expect his little punitive expedition against Poland to degenerate in a world war.
Germany actually kept increasing war production throughout the war and reached its peak in late 1944 if I remember.
Zachary Clark
I think we may be having a hiccup in communication; I'm not suggesting he wanted to massacre Russian civilians or anything. Rather, he wanted the country that was Russia expunged and replaced with someone thing of German making.
Carter Cooper
Winter of 1941 was a meme compared to 1940. Also, German advance was stopped in mid-November. Germans got bogged down in late summer/autumn rainfalls that degraded dirt roads and made streams and rivers unfordable. Once the mud froze, the advance went onward.
And please, no "Siberian winter troops" "Siberian divisions" bullshit.
Retarded German overclaims from the front coupled with their faulty intelligence and underestimation of Red Army meant that they came to Moscow thinking that Soviets were running out of everything. Losses were catastrophic, but nowhere near the German estimates.
You people never read an actual book, on any subject
Leo Cooper
The whites in the russian civil war retreated all the way to Irkutsk before collapsing. They already moved the government to Samara and had everything in place there, if Moscow fell.
Also note, that moscow was fortified and is around 10x the size of stalingrad.
Joshua Campbell
Yes, he would've liked that a lot, but since in 1941 he was at war with the UK and Russia at the same time, he chose the next best outcome: chase Stalin beyond the Urals, weakening communism for decades and saving Europe from the red menace, at least temporarily.
But he had no illusion about that being a temporary solution. He said clearly: "Even if we make peace with Stalin, we will have to fight them all over again in the future, in better circumstances".
Joseph Mitchell
>Winter of 1941 was a meme compared to 1940. Winter of 1941 was the most precocious and rigid in the past 30 years. The temperatures reached -55 °C. People's gastric juices froze.
Brandon Morgan
Furthermore, if Stalingrad, which was a rather small and simple city compared to Moscow, could swallow up a German Army, I would say that a Metropolis with metro and an extensive underground network like Moscow could swallow up an entire Army Group. You see, you colonial fucktards, contrary to what your "popular history" "Historuh Chann'l", various retarded computer games etc. have "taught" you, the only advantage the Germans had was the prowess of their lower officer cadre and fighting spirit and experience of frontline troops, combined with excellent tactics for maneuver warfare. But once you send them into close urban combat or assaults on prepared defensive lines, they equalise with conscripts. In addition, the best German results were obtained while they had "crappier" tanks compared to the opposition. Notice the "". Yep, that's right, Tigers and Panthers were actually terrible tanks. Also, Germans had a huge lack of artillery and ammunition, because they had prepared for a short war. And on and on can I go, because I actually bothered to read and investigate the matter I am interested in, and not repeat "Internet wisdom" bullshit.
Charles Moore
>German advance was stopped in mid-November That's because that year winter started in fucking october.
>Once the mud froze, the advance went onward. Very very slowly and with enormous difficulties.
>please, no "Siberian winter troops" "Siberian divisions" bullshit. What do you mean? They did in fact keep coming to defend Moscow and other cities.
While it's true that german intelligence had underestimated the number of soldiers and tanks etc. the soviets had, it's also true that 1) everybody had 2) if it wasn't for Brauchitsch, they would've deprived the russians of oil and won the war even though the USA were giving them food, vehicles, etc.
Jason Morales
Actually, I pulled most of my information from "Why Nations Go to War", 8th edition. It's one of my favorites. Perhaps you should do a little research yourself.
Jaxon Fisher
Correct. Stalin clearly said that losing Moscow would have been a serious blow, but the war would have continued.
Nathaniel Myers
No, it wasn't. Winter of 1940, during Winter War, was colder. I literally read through weather reports. Even if you were correct, that would mean that the Soviets were counterattacking exposed to the extreme cold, because, like I have already written, Germans were stopped in mid-November. What is that? Russian General Winter? Post-war bullshit of retarded German generals who screwed it up, the same thing like blaming Hitler for everything that went wrong. There were winter uniforms and equipment, but it was a choice whether to ship that, or ship ammunition, spares and fuel to frontline troops. Because they screwed their logistics calculations that badly. But no one can beat Rommel when it comes to screwing up logistics.
James Watson
>a Metropolis with metro and an extensive underground network like Moscow could swallow up an entire Army Group. Please stop making yourself ridiculous, discount Serbia.
> Tigers and Panthers were actually terrible tanks. Panthers, yes. They mostly jammed and broke down. Tigers and Tigers II were amazing though.
>I actually bothered to read and investigate the matter I am interested in From here it seems you just read a couple of shallow, biased books.
Robert Brooks
Yes. The British were waiting for the Soviet Union and the US to bail them out. They wanted to hold out until their "allies" came to help. If the Soviet Union proved to be too weak, it's probable that Britain would have surrendered. Without Britain, It's highly unlikely that the US would have been able to invade Europe.
Isaac Collins
Barbarossa would have worked if the Japanese had invaded Russia from the east, like Hitler begged them to. The Japs were afraid of a repeat of the ass-whipping they got in Mongolia. Hitler, an idiot, invaded anyway.
Jonathan Smith
>that would mean that the Soviets were counterattacking exposed to the extreme cold They were. The cold of 1941 was so extreme it took even the russians by surprise. There are a lot of reports of russian units not fighting because they were too busy trying to survive the cold taking shelter in a semi destroyed building, or freezing during the night, etc.
The russians didn't suffer the cold as much as the germans because they had better winter equipment (furs and padded boots). The germans instead had horrible and scarce winter equipment and not because they were morons but because if they had mass produced it, the russians (who had spies in every german factory) would have understood that Hitler was about to attack them and attacked first.
That winter was so atrocious the soldiers drank antifreeze to warm themselves up and died. The engines refused to work. The goddamn rifles sometimes refused to fire because gunpowder didn't react. Soldiers had to cut off their own fingers that had frozen during the night. If they cried, the tears froze and destroyed their corneas. Let's not fucking joke about russian winter of 1941.
Angel Lewis
Tiger was an overengineered, boxy, inefficient design that could pawn T-70s and T-34-76 in 1943 steppe, but actually had rather bad protection and firepower, especially if we take its weight into account. Tiger battalions had an entire logistical company, and each Tiger battalion had a larger logistical tail and vehicle pool than an American armored division. Tiger II was hopeless and useless piece of shit. Which German commanders who had to use it, testified. Read through Wacht am Rhein Tiger II performance and troubles.
Tank combat average distance was 800-900, and 70% of penetrations were not on the front, but side shots. Vision and tactical awareness decide the outcome, because they dictate who fires and hits first. Guess what, Panther and Tiger II had turrets with poor ergonomics and bad situational awareness for gunner.
Dominic Cooper
>Italy does not invade Greece, or has a very successful invasion, effectively granting the Axis a huge increase in manpower - more so than would be required to occupy Moscow. How much of a difference do you think that would have made? The difference in manpower from invading Greece would be trivial and wouldn't have made a different in the grand scale of things. All the manpower from Ukraine, Norway, Denmark, Finland, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia and many more didn't help shit.
Bentley Nelson
>Hitler, an idiot I really wish ignorant people would stop talking about stuff they don't know.
Sup Forumsacks are always so smart and redpilled. They recognize propaganda a mile away... except when they don't.
Bentley Thomas
Sure. Because the Soviets left the border unguarded right?
Why are you people so retarded? Japanese Army was hopelessly outdated and poorly equipped, lacking integrated artillery and support weapons and antitank weaponry. Trying to push into literally a million Soviet troops manning the border would result in what exactly?
Jaxon Smith
USSR had 1-1,5+ mil troops on the border with Japan, throught the war. That they brought those people back to defend moscow is a meme. Japan army was incompetent as shown in khalkin gol and later in august storm. Japan was actually in a war with china at that time, and they would just be in a two front war.
Japan actually attacked USA to help germany; in part. Since USA was shipping lend-lease through vladivostok, and then straight on a railway to the front. Instead, now they had to go through Iran or Murmansk
Also Roosevelt already signed to lend-lease USSR as soon as barbarossa started, and not when they went to war.
Leo Richardson
While T-34 and IS-2 were superior, calling Tigers useless pieces of shit is unfair.
Parker Wright
Grorious dispray of japanese poweru and blavely?
Cooper Roberts
>Japan actually attacked USA to help germany; in part. Calm down. If that was the case, they'd have talked with Hitler about it before going all kamikaze. Instead he knew nothing (differently from Roosevelt, who was warned with months in advance).
Japan attacked the USA because of the embargo that was strangling them.
David Harris
There was winter equipment, but there was no ability to ship both ammo, fuel, food and winter equipment to frontline troops. Different railway gauges, poor infrastructure, reliance on horses (German Army employed several million of horses and mules) and not enough trucks (nor were they of good design).
Shallow books? Wages of destruction, German and Russian books on Ostfront etc. Actual archival records from both German and Soviet archives.
Lincoln Thomas
>There was winter equipment Very scarce. Germany only started producing good winter equipment in 1942. That winter wasn't as gruesome as the one in 1941.
There were logistical problems, yes, but that isn't even in the top 5 of the reasons why Germany lost.
>properly prepared his men for the russian winters
or
>didnt attack russia at all
and
>listened to Rommel and fortified Normandy more
Charles Russell
>would Hitler have won ww2?
nope. the only way the nazis could have won is if they remained allied with russia, but created a cold war type situation with russia at the same time. so that they could protray themselves as protectors of europe from communism, and get the usa on their side so they could broker a peace deal with the UK.
Gavin Hall
Hitler would have won if he set out to liberate the liberate the slavs, balts, cossacks, etc instead of conquering them. A stronger German effort to rally the peoples of Europe against Bolshevism would have helped as well.
Liam Anderson
Once you break it into numbers, it actually is a piece of shit. It required huge number of workhours, complex components (Tiger gearbox is fine-mechanical watch grade) and a lot of resources. Its maintenance and logistical tail demands were huge, it was expensive, needed strong bridges and had short operational range. And in the end, once you analyse kill claims of Tiger battalions, you suddenly wake up to the fact that Tiger I wasn't actually good at destroying tanks (no, kill claims should never be taken at face value), and was actually inferior in that role compared to StuG III with L43/48 guns. But that shouldn't come as a surprise, because some idiot decided to make a dedicated offensive breakthrough tank into isolated, separate "elite" tank destroyer formations.
Grayson Cruz
Comparing Moscow to Stalingrad is not realistic. Stalingrad was a well planned trap with pincer moves once the bait had been take. The fluid situation in 1941 Moscow was much different. While the entire Metropolis was rigged to blow there was no manpower to fight a siege of the city and/or run a pincer operation such as Stalingrad.
Ryan Jackson
They didn't have anywhere close to the manpower needed to take and occupy the Caucuses.
A straight run at Moscow was their best chance of winning and ending the war as early as possible.
Blake Lopez
I'd say correct. Not so much taking Moscow, but the rail/logistics corridors around it, including highways and canals. It would have effectively cut Russia in half, starved out Leningrad, and caused a complete collapse of the Northern Front.
Henry Anderson
Are you for real?
>No manpower to defend Moscow
I guess General Winter, bears and spirit of the proletariat stopped Axis before Moscow and then launched the counteroffensive. Which was supposed to be a pincer movement. But failed. Because Hitler issued the no retreat order.
Elijah Wood
Hitler's flaw was he thought England would be reasonable, and negotiate rather than lose their empire.
If only he knew, the Eternal Anglo was willing to destroy itself utterly, for just a single drop of Aryan blood. The addiction is incurable and irrational.
Austin Hill
I love how anglos have so shit knowledge from fighting in Eastern Front. Mostly because your cold war propagande still prevents you from actually studying it without ulterior motives.
Nicholas Jones
Your entire post is undercut with bad assumptions.
For starters, you're still going to need to redirect rather large forces down to Southern Europe in order to deal with the Yugoslavs.
Secondly, Barbarossa was at the end of its operational tether. Typhoon stalled even before the weather turned bad. In fact, you might get it worse, if the weather's still good when you get the equivalent of the Vyzama counteroffensive, and you're overextended and in terrible shape.
>So I ask Sup Forums: hypothetically, if Germany had not needed to bail out Italy, either through a lot of successful Italian operation, or Italian inaction, would Hitler have won ww2?
No. To even ask the question reveals profound ignorance about WW2.
> If he had bailed out Italy but postponed Barbarossa until the following year, would he have been victorious?
Again, almost certainly no.
>Hitler's hatred of slavs is well documented, from Mein Kampf onward. In the 1930s, he ended a mutual rearmament treaty with Russia. What, if any difference, would maintaining that treaty until Barbarossa have made?
It was updated with a number of treaties that kept mutual training, armament, and trade, culminating with the Molotov Ribbentorp pact. For all intents and purposes, he did keep the treaty.
Jaxson Thomas
USA alone could have defeated all of them. Not invade and capture immediately, but once the start churning out their planes and ships, it would be game over. Built 120 fleet an escort carriers, dozen battleships, several hundred cruiser and destroyers. Hundred thousand excellent fighters and bombers, some of which, like P-38/47/51, were absolute best in their designated role/altitude. All they would have to do is start targeting electric power generating facilities, and oil production/refining ones immediately after. And there goes any industry, because without electricity and oil products everything grinds to a halt.
Easton Parker
Don't forget the nuclear weapons that are going to start rolling off 3 a month come October 1945.
William Nelson
Also, troops earmarked for invasion of Yugoslavia, Greece and Crete immediately after, were actually accounted for, and would make no difference for Barbarossa outcome. Pushing several hundred kilometres into hostile territory, there is no longer the luxury of bringing everything you would like to, but only that which can be supplied and kept in battleworthy condition.
Jace Nguyen
They literally did a counteroffensive with some 1+ mil men as soon as germany reached moscow and pushed them back quite far lol...
Jonathan Reed
Don't cherry pick, read what I said. They did not have the option to defend or counterattack like they did at Stalingrad. It was a completely different operation, Germany was still numerically superior at the time both in men and material, the Soviets weren't.
Daniel Myers
Not fair, that is cheating. Nazi genius scientists have conclusively proven that atomic bomb is unfeasible and completely unsuitable oft aerial deployment.
Lincoln Smith
Not the guy you're responding to, but look up the Vyzama-Rzhev counteroffensive. The Soviets DID launch a massive counterattack at the close of 41, and they did very much attempt a similar double envelopment. It didn't trap any large units the way Uranus did, but they rolled the Germans back and bloodied them up quite a bit.
So yes, they did have the option to defend and counterattack, and exercised it.
Camden Brooks
Play Decisive Campaigns Barbarossa to role play as Halder.
Easton Sanders
Either that or nukes.
It really seems like Britain was looking for any excuse to start another war. I think they would have found some reason to fuck over Germany even if Hitler hadn't started absorbing countries. It's not like he didn't try to ally with them, either.
Connor Rogers
Sure, and what did they achieve and what did it cost the Reds? By the time winter was over and the Germ supply lines caught up to them losses were erased and territory gained. Soviets were still losing the KIA ratio by a large margin, and still giving up territory.
So to square this back to the original post, would those million Wehrmacht and Italian troops wasted away in Greece made a difference in late 1941 at the gates of Moscow. Quite possibly.
Camden Rivera
The Germans never re-took the areas lost around Moscow, they opted to attack in a different region entirely, in large part because they didn't think they could break through the defenses up north.
Do you have any idea what you're talking about?
Robert Gray
Sure, and if you look at the stats there the Soviets got their ass handed to them in KIA ratio and material lost. In fact the battle itself is coined the Rzhev meatgrinder for the absolute slaughter the Soviets suffered taking back miles they later gave up months later.
Joseph Harris
>"million troops wasted" in Greece >A fuckin' leaf
Do you have any idea when did the invasion of Balkans take place, and when did Panzers and artillery arrive to Barbarossa staging areas? Because you clearly don't know the numbers involved in both campaigns.
Brandon Johnson
> those million Wehrmacht and Italian troops wasted away in Greece
What? Greek campaign was over in like april. Moscow was in october. So they had time to bring those soldiers to moscow
>By the time winter was over and the Germ supply lines caught up to them losses were erased and territory gained.
They never regained that territory. In 1942 they went in the south to stalingrad.
Justin Sanchez
And if Japan didn't attacked the US
And If Italy didn't went for greece
I mean, even with the troubles with the mayor state they could have won
Henry Harris
The Rzhev Meatgrinder was an attempt to close the salient left by the offensive. It is a separate operation entirely. The Soviets never gave up the miles they took months later, I have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.
Blake Russell
The germans never re-took areas around Moscow because they shifted the whole entire Russian Front south and decided on the Caucasus gambit. That was Hitler being persuaded by his generals, I think Hitler should have pressed on with his original intention.
Jace Ortiz
>So yeah, can't really blame us for Hitler's loss. Well, it wasn't mud, it was the river flooding, but that wasn't something the Italians knew beforehand. Also, the rivers were fordable, the delays would not have been so long without the Italian "diversion".Once they commenced to get their asses handed to them by Greeks Hitler had no choice because Churchill reinforced the Greeks and he couldn't start a war with USSR when the Brits had a foothold in Europe - so it was all your fault nigger, whether the rivers flooded or not, your shameful incompetence delayed Barbarossa. If Hitler had captured Moscow the USSR may well have capitulated - it was only held together by fear of Stalin - a leader in flight is not so scary and there were many still alive at that time who would gladly have taken him out and resurrected White Russia.
Gavin Russell
Poor Finland.
Christopher Lopez
this
you can play what if all day, but it doesn't really mean anything.
Matthew Sullivan
hitler's army was too small. It was over at that point.
Andrew Wilson
> I think Hitler should have pressed on with his original intention.
Why? Up north you have heavier static defenses, more wooded terrain, a greater concentration of Soviet troops, and little in the way of seizable strategic resources, all the while facing a supply situation so bad that you're losing almost 50% of your fuel to shipping costs.
How on earth could continuing the northern offensive in 1942 possibly be considered a good idea? Hell, if anything, it was probably a mistake to go after the first time around.
Austin Mitchell
If Hitler got into Moscow it would be like Stalingrad. And then Stalingrad would happen to.
Logan Mitchell
wtf, why is switzerland so damn high? aren't they supposed to be rich? money doesn't solve problems?
Austin Bailey
If you read my previous posts you would understand. Hitler didn't want Moscow because it was a Capital, he wanted it because it was the logistical junction of the whole country. Railroad, Highway, Canal. Cutting it severed all links in all directions.
Camden Diaz
If I recall correctly it took almost nine months just to refit and transport XL Panzer Corps from Greece to the East Front. These things just don't happen in a month.
Adrian Wood
>>So I ask Sup Forums: hypothetically, if Germany had not needed to bail out Italy, either through a lot of successful Italian operation, or Italian inaction, would Hitler have won ww2? >No. To even ask the question reveals profound ignorance about WW2.
Your an asswipe - you have no idea. You'd have been saying the same about Hitler defeating the French and making the same arguments in 1939 - you can't know.
The USSR was not a stable government, if Stalin was deposed and assassinated it's likely there would have been peace and that might very well have followed the loss of Moscow - the administrative center of the USSR. Russian manpower and industrial plant might have been intact but there were hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers (Hiwis) who served with the Germans and would have gladly taken up arms against the Reds under a White Russian leader like Vlassov.
The forerunner of the volunteer formations was a voluntary auxiliary service, of a para- military character, which was started in the autumn of 1941 by the German Commands on the front. On their own initiative, they organized auxiliary units of various services, made up of Soviet deserters, prisoners, and volunteers from among the local population. These so-called "Hilfswillige," or "Hiwi," were employed as sentries, drivers, store- keepers, workers in depots, etc. The experiment surpassed all expectations. In the spring of 1942 there were already at least 200,000 of them in the rear of the German armies, and by the end of the same year their number was allegedly near 1,000,000.(2)
If you thought Stalingrad was hell for Germany, Moscow would've been just as well or better reinforced.
If we want to talk about a moment Germany could've won the war, it would be on the beaches of Dunkirk in 1940, not at the gates of Moscow in 1941.
Nolan Stewart
Not in 1941. Encircling Moscow in 1941 was a real possibility, the basis of this thread actually. The situation was lost more fluid and a lot less static than the build up to Stalingrad. Moscow was wired with explosives and Plan B was to leave it to the Germans if they couldn't hold them. Stalingrad was a trap from the start.
Adam Robinson
Soviets knew about the hunger plan, they knew germans were starving POWs to death. While it might not have been stable prior to barbarossa. It surely was very stable shortly thereafter.
Why would Stalin be assassinated? He'd just flee moscow to Kuybyshev, like the rest of the government. Him being there was for show and morale.
Vlassov barely managed to get what 1 division up and running, and even then, shotly after they were armed, they changed sides again and liberated prague lol.
