If Operation Barbarossa wasn't launched, Would've Nazi Germany won WWII?

[æRLO]

---

the russians had more supplies than the nazis and even had the better tanks (t34's) in operation barbossa. one good thing about the russia is that their land was vast that caused the nazis supply lines stretched too thin. but even with the dwindling supplies of the nazis, they could have conquered russia if not of the winter. hitler also became over confident due to his early successes thats why they attacked. had hitler focused first on the north africa, then attack russia afterwards, the outcome could have been different. the north africa campaign could have been successful if they were properly supplied. with the north africa secured, this would have mean doom to the the british

Oh, I'm not arguing that the Soviets had manpower and supplies during Barbarossa. Blitzkriegs are generally hard to stop. Like I said, Germany's timeframe to complete the objective was a few months, before winter sets in. After that the Soviets was able to mobilize and defend well as well as launch Counter attacks. They could have, but given the circumstances that occurred in Yugoslavia and Hitler's subsequent response, he practically lost the war when he blew off 4 weeks for his pride. After that entire month passed--he had to re-commence Barbarossa into the winter, when he was supposed to be in Moscow before the brunt of the season. Bad idea for him, which Stalin capitalized by mustering his forces at Stalingrad which further delayed his advance. During the siege, the rest of the Red Army arrived to encircle an entire German Army--in the winter. That pretty much sealed it for Hitler in the Eastern front. He tried again in the Kursk, ended up disastrous. He had to go through 2 winters before deciding to fall back and get caught with a third one--forcing what's left of his armies to retreat and leave plenty of its equipment.

[street_of_no_return]

those russians were just lucky that the nazis were fighting in 2 fronts

i agree, most of the Russians soldiers dont know anything about warfare some of them are force to fight without proper training or proper weapon.

[trollolol]

not that much.. kabalo man siguro ka bro unsa nahitabo sa mga countries nga na conquered sa mga RED?
and the way sila mo fight sa war. og ayaw kalimte ang Winter War.mao na d ko ganahan sa mga Red Army.hehe

ayaw kalimte. sila ang pinaka daghan og casualties

og ayaw kalimte unsa ila gepang buhat sa ilang mga civilians like Leningrad and more.patyong ila kaugalingong civilian sa ka gutom og if mo dagan sa gubat. inhumane act.

What does their methods have to do with them being an able army or not?

Patton looked good because he only had to fight a German Army after the battle of Stalingrad. Patton had an easier time because the Soviets decimated the Wermacht to a level where Patton could do what he did. Patton is just a product of American propaganda. Operation Uranus now that was a stroke of genius and not mere propaganda.

The following countries won the war in Europe:
USSR
UK

In that order and that much is fact.

those russians were just lucky that the nazis were fighting in 2 fronts

1.
That's like saying Germany is just lucky the allies did not attack nazi Germany in the 30s. It is completely irrelevant you have to take into consideration every circumstance.


2.
The Germans were not fighting in 2 fronts as you so easily put it. They were losing in 2 fronts. They suffered their first humiliating defeat at the hands of the British. The Battle of Britain proved that Germany did not have the navy or air power to contend with the British. The troops that invaded Russia would have been of little use to Germany in a campaign against the UK. A naval invasion/attack is different.

Best navy before Pearl Harbour = ROYAL NAVY

[Akiokee]

[machinecult]

The American contribution to the war in Europe is exaggerated. The Soviets conquered more land from Nazi Germany in Europe than all other allies combined. American support via equipment represented a mere 7% of the total military production output of the USSR during the 2nd world war.

The USSR is the true hero of WW2.

First off, USSR fought rather well later on. Its quite impressive how they turned the tide of the Eastern Front. But Germany was also fighting on all sides. And about 'the hero of WWII' status. I don't think so. First, they were fighting on one front. Unlike the rest of the Allies which were in Africa, Burma, China, South East Asia, the Pacific and the Atlantic Ocean and of course, Europe. Second, they never liberated any country. They took over it and imposed Communism that lasted in the 1980's and had terrible repercussions to this day, like in Bosnia.

Lastly, American contribution was not exaggerated it was widespread reality even the Soviets were lend-leasing American tanks like the M4Shermans, M3Lees, and aircraft like the DC-3.

List of equipment supplied to Soviet Russia by USA in World War II.

Aircraft.............................14,795
Tanks.................................7,056
Jeeps................................51,503
Trucks..............................375,883
Motorcycles..........................35,170
Tractors..............................8,071
Guns (Artillery)..................................8,218
Machine guns........................131,633
Explosives..........................345,735 tons
Building equipment valued.......$10,910,000
Railroad freight cars................11,155
Locomotives...........................1,981
Cargo ships..............................90
Submarine hunters.......................105
Torpedo boats...........................197
Ship engines..........................7,784
Food supplies.....................4,478,000 tons
Machines and equipment.......$1,078,965,000
Noniron metals......................802,000 tons
Petroleum products................2,670,000 tons
Chemicals...........................842,000 tons
Cotton..........................106,893,000 tons
Leather..............................49,860 tons
Tires.............................3,786,000
Army boots.......................15,417,000 pairs

[erwin_rommel]

1.
That's like saying Germany is just lucky the allies did not attack nazi Germany in the 30s. It is completely irrelevant you have to take into consideration every circumstance.

wala ko kasabot unsay point nimo ani

2.
The Germans were not fighting in 2 fronts as you so easily put it. They were losing in 2 fronts. They suffered their first humiliating defeat at the hands of the British. The Battle of Britain proved that Germany did not have the navy or air power to contend with the British. The troops that invaded Russia would have been of little use to Germany in a campaign against the UK. A naval invasion/attack is different.

Best navy before Pearl Harbour = ROYAL NAVY

germans were almost successful in both russia and north africa until they were caught by the winter in russia and the dwindling supplies against the increasing supplies of the british due to the help of the americans in north africa. the british were lucky because they were in a separate island unlike france. they were also lucky that they were able to sink the bismarck before it went to the atlantic. that bismarck could have caused havoc to the royal navy and terrorize their US supply lines which is their lifeline during that time

[æRLO]

The Americans and U.K. were instrumental in that...

1. They provided good intel from their respective agencies, OSS and MI6 (SIS). They did a good job of revealing a lot of German warplans, and also broke the Enigma code via Ultra.

2. Their mere existence helped the Eastern front because it meant Hitler could not consolidate all his forces in the East.

3. The British were owning the Afrika Korps during and after 1942, after El Alamein. Because the German forces were generally out of fuel.

4. The RN sunk the Bismarck, and its sistership Tirpitz in 1944 (by RAF). It is correct that had the Bismarck made it to the Atlantic, it would have caused problems for the British and Americans. But this ship is overrated, the British had more than enough capital ships that could match the Bismarck. particularly Nelson class HMS Rodney and King George V class BBs (there were 3 of them operating in the Atlantic then)

5. Lend-Lease.

6. Speeding up the conclusion of the European theater in the war (but not necessarily changing the outcome)

It is not mere "luck" that the Nazi were undersupplied, logistics wins wars. I don't know why you use that word loosely. The Nazis were technologically superior but they lost because they could not produce enough. You cannot fuel a warmachine with "technological advances". Dili na luck, because if it is, in that case, Nazis were lucky that Stalin was too busy purging his Armed Forces prior to Hitler breaking the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, the Nazis were lucky that Stalin was too busy with his expansion in the south before it broke into war, and the Nazis were lucky that the Soviets had practically ceased most of its research during Stalin's five-year plan (and Russia had an abundance of researchers). No matter how you look at it, it is a gravely poor miscalculation on Hitler's part when he chose to stall Barbarossa.

[bleedingboi]

.. as much as i want to join in your discussions. but isn't this a bit of wasted time, arguing about something that has already happened ??

We are not creating arguments bro, And this is not about wasting time. The thread is about creating scenarios on what might happen if things have gone in a different way.
I created this thread so " History-Fanatics" can join in and provide scenarios, facts to people who aren't aware of what happened why you are enjoying freedom today.

[skadiboy]

i agree, most of the Russians soldiers dont know anything about warfare some of them are force to fight without proper training or proper weapon.

it reminds me of the movie ENEMY of the GATE!

[unagikabayaki]

Had Hitler focused on the aircraft advancements and not so on his prided Panzer Division...i think that could have changed history