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

[æRLO]

---

tan awa ng movie nga Tora! Tora! Tora! .. ge detalye man y ala naka prepare ang Pearl Harbor og ngano naka clustered up ang mga planes.

They cluster them for fear of sabotage. But my question is if they knew of the impending attack, why would they go with protocol to cluster them up and not give the Americans a fighting chance, when all they needed was an 'attack' from the Japanese provoke them. Does the American military have a penchant for sustaining maximum amount of losses to achieve an 'objective'? That's why I don't buy into this conspiracy. Too many loose ends.

[erwin_rommel]

Let's say everything transpired as it was (Germany commencing Barbarossa, Stalin stopping them in their tracks at Stalingrad and Kursk) except, the Roosevelt did not heed Churchill's advice and opted not to get in the fray in the European campaign. I'd say the Soviets would still beat the Nazis, though much later than May 1945, and at a costlier price for the Soviets. This would also allow the Soviets to march into Central Europe unopposed. D-Day in Normandy was pretty much the operation that, incidentally or deliberately, spared Central and Western Europe from USSR domination. I think Churchill knew that the Red Army would eventually rout the Wehrmacht, so (being a staunch opponent of the Soviets, despite being allies) he tried to get the U.S. into mainland Europe and prevent the Red Army from advancing past the Elbe.

i dont think the soviets stand a chance against the nazis. if not of the russian winter, moscow would have been doomed. soviets may have the resources but the nazis have the tactics and the experience. d day became successful because the nazis already have been crippled by the irreplaceable losses in operation barbossa. we should be thankful to the americans because without them, britain would have been in german hands though delayed a bit and we might become slaves of the nazis today. britain was in a brink of collapse before the united states aided them. there were also some luck involved during the war like the sinking of the bismarck and hitler's disapproval of the production of the best and the most advanced assault rifle during that time and is also the father of the russian AK47 which is the stg43 later named stg44. the stg43 was secretly produced by some nazis until hitler found it out when he asked an army what they want. they demanded the stg43 which hitler didnt know it existed. hitler's approval came too late to make the stg44 a big impact in the war. the stg43 assault rifle could have been demorailzing for the allies because no allied small arms could match it, not even their BAR. As for the the bismarck, it would have been unstoppable had it breakthrough the atlantic and could damage the british supply lines from the US far more than the u boats did. the bismarck is faster and more powerful than any other british navy during that time.

But i still believe the A bomb will still change the course of the war though.

[æRLO]

Nope, Paton was the real Hero in Europe. MacArthur in the pacific. not some red commos

Throughout the war, Germany has committed no less than 60% of it's force on the Eastern Front. It is the theater of the war with the most casualties for both sides and biggest battles. It was definitely the fiercest front for the Germans.

[Deadstring67]

Hook line and sinker... American propaganda...

USSR destroyed 80% of Nazi Germany's army.

What did Patton do?

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.

Patton commanded the Seventh Army until 1944, when he was given command of the Third Army in France. Patton and his troops dashed across Europe after the battle of Normandy and exploited German weaknesses with great success, covering the 600 miles across France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany, Austria and Czechoslovakia. When the Third Army liberated the Buchenwald concentration camp, Patton slowed his pace. He instituted a policy, later adopted by other commanders, of making local German civilians tour the camps. By the time WWII was over, the Third Army had liberated or conquered 81,522 square miles of territory.

[erwin_rommel]

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.

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

[æRLO]

i dont think the soviets stand a chance against the nazis. if not of the russian winter, moscow would have been doomed. soviets may have the resources but the nazis have the tactics and the experience. d day became successful because the nazis already have been crippled by the irreplaceable losses in operation barbossa. we should be thankful to the americans because without them, britain would have been in german hands though delayed a bit and we might become slaves of the nazis today. britain was in a brink of collapse before the united states aided them. there were also some luck involved during the war like the sinking of the bismarck and hitler's disapproval of the production of the best and the most advanced assault rifle during that time and is also the father of the russian AK47 which is the stg43 later named stg44. the stg43 was secretly produced by some nazis until hitler found it out when he asked an army what they want. they demanded the stg43 which hitler didnt know it existed. hitler's approval came too late to make the stg44 a big impact in the war. the stg43 assault rifle could have been demorailzing for the allies because no allied small arms could match it, not even their BAR. As for the the bismarck, it would have been unstoppable had it breakthrough the atlantic and could damage the british supply lines from the US far more than the u boats did. the bismarck is faster and more powerful than any other british navy during that time.

But i still believe the A bomb will still change the course of the war though.

Stalingrad and the Kursk happened before Normandy, and they were considered the turning point in the East. By the time the Americans broke through the Ardennes, Germany was running on fumes, mainly because it had lost its industrial workforce from sending too many troops to the Eastern Front. Yes, the Western front was significant in speeding up the defeat of Germany, but most historians will point out, the only reason Stalin was not able to repel phase one of Barbarossa is because he had a military (and very large pool of manpower) that was not quickly and efficiently mobilized. But by late 1941, he had enough tanks, planes and munitions for the Red Army that he could mount a counterattack and make the superior German weaponry moot.

By early 1944, he had enough troops, tanks, guns, aircraft, resources etc. to rampage into the entire western Europe, and then some. Nazi's timeframe for a victory closed after 4-5 months of its campaign against Stalin, after then Hitler could no longer sustain a successful large-scale offensive in the east, and started going on the defensive. One reason he attacked the Soviet Union is because his strategy involves a lot of resources (like oil) and he gunned for Russia's oil fields (and resource pools) in the Black Sea/Caucuses. That is also the reason Hitler opened the African campaign and put Field Marshall Rommel to the task, to take control of the British controlled Arabian Peninsula and East North Africa. Hitler's Panzers maybe the best tanks during that time, but they use up a lot of oil compared to its Allied counterparts.

it would have spelled victory for the allies even if the Western front had not opened, but it would take longer and costlier for the Soviets. The soviets were willing to throw several million Russians for their "Patriotic War", something that the Germans could not match even with their state-of-the-art Sturmgewehr firearms or Fokker aircraft. They were exhausted by the time the Americans, British and Canadians landed in Normandy, that they used Ostengruppen foreign conscripts and Hitler Youth to watch their Atlantic Sea Wall.

I'm a fierce opponent of Communism, but Soviet Union was definitely the real reason why the Nazis failed. Had there been no Operation Barbarossa OR any provocation for Germany and USSR to go into a long drawn out conflict, French people would be speaking German right now, and maybe Prince William and Prince Harry would be "Prinz Wilhelm und Prinz Heinrich"

[Deadstring67]

i dont think the soviets stand a chance against the nazis. if not of the russian winter, moscow would have been doomed. soviets may have the resources but the nazis have the tactics and the experience. d day became successful because the nazis already have been crippled by the irreplaceable losses in operation barbossa. we should be thankful to the americans because without them, britain would have been in german hands though delayed a bit and we might become slaves of the nazis today. britain was in a brink of collapse before the united states aided them. there were also some luck involved during the war like the sinking of the bismarck and hitler's disapproval of the production of the best and the most advanced assault rifle during that time and is also the father of the russian AK47 which is the stg43 later named stg44. the stg43 was secretly produced by some nazis until hitler found it out when he asked an army what they want. they demanded the stg43 which hitler didnt know it existed. hitler's approval came too late to make the stg44 a big impact in the war. the stg43 assault rifle could have been demorailzing for the allies because no allied small arms could match it, not even their BAR. As for the the bismarck, it would have been unstoppable had it breakthrough the atlantic and could damage the british supply lines from the US far more than the u boats did. the bismarck is faster and more powerful than any other british navy during that time.

But i still believe the A bomb will still change the course of the war though.

Red Army- Lack of training and leadership.
Nazi- Good training and leadership.

Ala man gani sila ka pilde sa mga taga Finland. Nazi na ba kaha.5 times... tsk2x

Finland = 25,904 dead or missing, 43,557 wounded, 1,000 captured
Russia = 126,875 dead or missing, 188,671 [wounded, injured or burned] , 5,572 captured

[erwin_rommel]

Stalingrad and the Kursk happened before Normandy, and they were considered the turning point in the East. By the time the Americans broke through the Ardennes, Germany was running on fumes, mainly because it had lost its industrial workforce from sending too many troops to the Eastern Front. Yes, the Western front was significant in speeding up the defeat of Germany, but most historians will point out, the only reason Stalin was not able to repel phase one of Barbarossa is because he had a military (and very large pool of manpower) that was not quickly and efficiently mobilized. But by late 1941, he had enough tanks, planes and munitions for the Red Army that he could mount a counterattack and make the superior German weaponry moot.

By early 1944, he had enough troops, tanks, guns, aircraft, resources etc. to rampage into the entire western Europe, and then some. Nazi's timeframe for a victory closed after 4-5 months of its campaign against Stalin, after then Hitler could no longer sustain a successful large-scale offensive in the east, and started going on the defensive. One reason he attacked the Soviet Union is because his strategy involves a lot of resources (like oil) and he gunned for Russia's oil fields (and resource pools) in the Black Sea/Caucuses. That is also the reason Hitler opened the African campaign and put Field Marshall Rommel to the task, to take control of the British controlled Arabian Peninsula and East North Africa. Hitler's Panzers maybe the best tanks during that time, but they use up a lot of oil compared to its Allied counterparts.

it would have spelled victory for the allies even if the Western front had not opened, but it would take longer and costlier for the Soviets. The soviets were willing to throw several million Russians for their "Patriotic War", something that the Germans could not match even with their state-of-the-art Sturmgewehr firearms or Fokker aircraft. They were exhausted by the time the Americans, British and Canadians landed in Normandy, that they used Ostengruppen foreign conscripts and Hitler Youth to watch their Atlantic Sea Wall.

I'm a fierce opponent of Communism, but Soviet Union was definitely the real reason why the Nazis failed. Had there been no Operation Barbarossa OR any provocation for Germany and USSR to go into a long drawn out conflict, French people would be speaking German right now, and maybe Prince William and Prince Harry would be "Prinz Wilhelm und Prinz Heinrich"

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

[erwin_rommel]

Stalingrad and the Kursk happened before Normandy, and they were considered the turning point in the East. By the time the Americans broke through the Ardennes, Germany was running on fumes, mainly because it had lost its industrial workforce from sending too many troops to the Eastern Front. Yes, the Western front was significant in speeding up the defeat of Germany, but most historians will point out, the only reason Stalin was not able to repel phase one of Barbarossa is because he had a military (and very large pool of manpower) that was not quickly and efficiently mobilized. But by late 1941, he had enough tanks, planes and munitions for the Red Army that he could mount a counterattack and make the superior German weaponry moot.

By early 1944, he had enough troops, tanks, guns, aircraft, resources etc. to rampage into the entire western Europe, and then some. Nazi's timeframe for a victory closed after 4-5 months of its campaign against Stalin, after then Hitler could no longer sustain a successful large-scale offensive in the east, and started going on the defensive. One reason he attacked the Soviet Union is because his strategy involves a lot of resources (like oil) and he gunned for Russia's oil fields (and resource pools) in the Black Sea/Caucuses. That is also the reason Hitler opened the African campaign and put Field Marshall Rommel to the task, to take control of the British controlled Arabian Peninsula and East North Africa. Hitler's Panzers maybe the best tanks during that time, but they use up a lot of oil compared to its Allied counterparts.

it would have spelled victory for the allies even if the Western front had not opened, but it would take longer and costlier for the Soviets. The soviets were willing to throw several million Russians for their "Patriotic War", something that the Germans could not match even with their state-of-the-art Sturmgewehr firearms or Fokker aircraft. They were exhausted by the time the Americans, British and Canadians landed in Normandy, that they used Ostengruppen foreign conscripts and Hitler Youth to watch their Atlantic Sea Wall.

I'm a fierce opponent of Communism, but Soviet Union was definitely the real reason why the Nazis failed. Had there been no Operation Barbarossa OR any provocation for Germany and USSR to go into a long drawn out conflict, French people would be speaking German right now, and maybe Prince William and Prince Harry would be "Prinz Wilhelm und Prinz Heinrich"

yeah i agree that the russians was the biggest factor of the nazi's defeat but even without them, the war will still be won by the allied forces because of the atomic bomb the united states has produced.

[æRLO]

Red Army- Lack of training and leadership.
Nazi- Good training and leadership.

Ala man gani sila ka pilde sa mga taga Finland. Nazi na ba kaha.5 times... tsk2x

Finland = 25,904 dead or missing, 43,557 wounded, 1,000 captured
Russia = 126,875 dead or missing, 188,671 [wounded, injured or burned] , 5,572 captured

The reason the Red Army failed initially in the Winter War is:

1. Stalin killed had just killed off a lot of his veteran senior and junior officers (at least those who aren't aligned with him) re: Great Purge of 1937
2. Finnish terrain is easy to defend and the Finish conscripts are generally well-acquainted with their wilderness. They were also well-equipped.
3. Stalin used conscripts as well. ill-trained ones.
4. General Mannerheim
5. Soviet audacity

And Finland had to agree to Soviet terms in the end, ceded 11% of it's prewar territory and a substantial fraction of it's economic assets.