Started By
Message

re: Did Operation Barbarossa ever actually have a realistic chance of succeeding?

Posted on 7/7/16 at 10:19 pm to
Posted by Tigertracks
Houma La.
Member since Nov 2007
765 posts
Posted on 7/7/16 at 10:19 pm to
The Germans should have ignored the Ukraine and pushed to Moscow. Taking Moscow and Leningrad would have pushed the Russians so far back they would not have had a useful road network to attack the Germans, not even counting the psychological effect if losing their capital and the material effect of losing so many factories.
Posted by lsuroadie
South LA
Member since Oct 2007
8393 posts
Posted on 7/7/16 at 10:20 pm to
bingo.

take Moscow and Stalin falls. Hitler makes deals with opposition and gains control of the southern oil fields....war could have been very different.

instead, Russia is allowed to recover from the opening blows.
Posted by Tortious
ATX
Member since Nov 2010
5132 posts
Posted on 7/7/16 at 10:34 pm to
Yes take Moscow and you have a Bastogne situation. Amongst all rail lines lead through Moscow if I recall correctly. Shut that down and all the men, equipment, etc. that was moved East while fricking around down south wouldn't have happened. They could've dealt with it because the Russians then would've been the ones with exposed and overextended supply lines.
Posted by Jtigers99
Holly Beach, USA
Member since Dec 2014
1841 posts
Posted on 7/8/16 at 3:03 am to
Y'all make good points. I just feel like the Soviets were never going to give up and would throw wave after wave of millions of soldiers at the Nazis until they finally overran them. They gave no value to life and that's the main reason they won the war while losing so many millions of men.
Posted by montanagator
Member since Jun 2015
16957 posts
Posted on 7/8/16 at 3:30 am to
quote:

tell the Russian people that they will be free from Stalin's rule and will be able to run their own country. If the Russians are guaranteed independence then they wouldn't care about fighting against Hitler.





Would have been a hard fricking sell after raping, murdering and pillaging for thousands of miles on the way to Moscow. Why on Earth would the Soviet people have believed that shite for a second?
Posted by Mars duMorgue
Sunset Dist/SF
Member since Aug 2015
2816 posts
Posted on 7/8/16 at 6:25 am to
No.
Posted by mauser
Orange Beach
Member since Nov 2008
21453 posts
Posted on 7/8/16 at 7:06 am to
I don't think taking Moscow would have done it. Napoleon took Moscow and his invasion was just as big a failure as Hitler's.

Russia was too big and the roads were too primitive for Hitler's tank and truck blitzkrieg. The technology wasn't there yet. He could have used a few thousand helicopters.

I think he lost too many planes and pilots over England. I think they could have made a real difference in Russia.
Posted by Tchefuncte Tiger
Bat'n Rudge
Member since Oct 2004
57150 posts
Posted on 7/8/16 at 7:28 am to
Didn't the Germans get delayed because they had to go rescue the Italians in the Balkans?
Posted by soccerfüt
Location: A Series of Tubes
Member since May 2013
65533 posts
Posted on 7/8/16 at 7:36 am to
To the OP, yes it did have a chance to succeed but luckily some strategic mistakes by the Germans, Soviet resistance, random chance events and weather conspired to defeat it.

Sidebar-To a couple of earlier posters here, don't say "THE Ukraine", there's no such thing. It used to be incorrectly used that way, it's much rarer to see it done now. It'd be like saying "the America".
Posted by bhtigerfan
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2008
29412 posts
Posted on 7/8/16 at 7:41 am to
Read "The Forgotten Soldier" by Guy Sajer. It's a memoir by a German soldier who fought and survived the Eastern Front.

The conditions and experiences were unbelievable.
Posted by ChewyDante
Member since Jan 2007
16916 posts
Posted on 7/8/16 at 8:19 am to
quote:

Would have been a hard fricking sell after raping, murdering and pillaging for thousands of miles on the way to Moscow. Why on Earth would the Soviet people have believed that shite for a second?


Well in the early stages of Barbarossa, there were a great number of peoples who viewed the Germans as liberators. The "Soviet people" were a hodgepodge of many different ethnic nationalities that didn't necessarily relish being ruled by the Soviet Union. And btw, the Soviets had brutalized and murdered a tremendous number of people both in peace time and especially during their invasions of Poland and the Baltic states.

The widespread German campaign of harshness really didn't begin until things began turning badly and the partisan war began wreaking havoc behind the front lines. Prior to that the extrajudicial, nonmilitary killings of civilians were generally relegated to Einsatzgruppen operations targeting Jews and political enemies. This was not a major impediment to winning over the support of local populations against the Soviets. In fact, had Alfred Rosenberg been able to convince Hitler to adopt his policies of treatment regarding the Eastern peoples, the Germans may well have had much greater success on that front, though again, the partisan fighting made things very difficult in the vast occupation areas.
first pageprev pagePage 2 of 2Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram