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

[æRLO]

---

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.

Any army that allows conscription has this problem. Germany conscripted soldiers from the countries it occupies (Mainly from Poland, Slavic/Balkan regions and Russia)--and many were not fighters. The Red Army had professional soldiers as well as greenhorns, just like the Wehrmacht had professionals and FNGs. But the Russians had a lot to fight for, mainly for its motherland and pure hatred of the Nazis for its preemptive attack and subsequent atrocities. And man, Stalin was just as good as Hitler at fanning the flames of nationalism and fanaticism.

[æRLO]

had britain been in the same geographical location with france, the germans will destroy them in weeks if not days just like france. they are not as big as russia. france was a world power during that time but has no answer to the blitzkrieg onslaught.



if rommel's forces were deployed in the eastern front, that may had created a difference. his unconvetional tactics could surprise or confuse the russian forces. he is not like other generals that were afraid to defy hitler's orders if necessary.

He would be no different from Guderian or Hoth. 3 months of victories and the following years of hell. Heck, he was known to make enemies within the German Army. If he got into the fray, and got himself surrounded--he'd be in trouble as there will be nobody to back him. We'd probably know him as another German commander that ended up in one of Stalin's gulag instead of the Desert Fox, master of North Africa. Or maybe Hitler would have sacked him for disobeying his orders in a theater against his fierce enemy, Stalin. Zhukov vs Rommel would have been epic though.

But note, the Nazis did not lose in the Eastern Front because of tactics, it lost because of strategy and logistics. Also, with the way Rommel brought his troops into battle, he'd be an easy and valuable target to the Soviet snipers. Open desert is completely different Belorussian and urban terrain. I still think Hitler should have given the helm of Barbarossa to Manstein.

[erwin_rommel]

The Luftwaffe was stronger than the RAF as well as leaps ahead of the Soviet Airforce. The Me 262 had seen combat in 1944.



again the Bismarck class was the prize of the Kriegsmarine, and it was possibly the best ship of the line back then. But the ship has been romanticized over and over again that it has become overrated. No matter how you look at it, Germany's "formidable" large warships were swarmed by too many less-sophisticated warships--quantity beat quality (even though the British warships were high-quality). Germany did not fully pursue the advancement of aircraft carriers, which could have changed the course of the Atlantic naval campaign, as it did in the Pacific.

OnT- I stick to my point, the Nazis could have won had Hitler used his "lost" four-weeks into Operation Barbarossa. He could have taken Moscow if he stuck to the plan--but he didn't. Instead he allowed the operation to go into the winter, where his 6th Army was destroyed in Stalingrad, and several others suffered significant losses. Relatively, The Nazis relied in speed, and the Soviet Union relied on numbers. You cannot call the allies "lucky" for taking advantage of Germany's weakness, like not being able to replace every man lost as quickly as the Americans or the Soviets can, as the German's also exploited the Soviet's inability to mobilize fast enough.

had the rudder not been hit... the bismarck wouldnt be fighting alone with the british navy. with a mate, the bismarck would have been terrifying to the british navy just like the battle with the hood. finding the bismarck in the atlantic would be a like finding a needle in a haystack. the bismarck could have ambushed convoys just like the u boats and theres no way escort ships could stop the bismarck except if the british flagship will be the escort. the bismarck is a fast battle ship and would be very good for ambushes. churchill's greatest fear during that time was the u boats because the only reason why they are still surviving the war are the americans. if the u boats terrorized the british, the bismarck could have cut their lifeline.

[android_james]

hehe nang gawas ang mga historians.. nice topic..

sayop daan ang bismarch pag sugod pa lang daan sa mission..

una nabantayan na daan ang bismarch sa british nga reconnaissance plane. wala nalang unta sila nidayon.

kaduha wala mag pondo daan ug gas para sa mission, makaabot pa unta to sa occupied france para sa repair kung naka pondo pa to cya ug daghang gas.


cguro kung wala pa gi launched ang operation barbarossa posibbly nga modaog gyud ang germany sa wwII.. did2 raman sila nadaot nga gitabangan na, toa pa gyud si mossolini nga nagpa rescue, nabahin ug maayo ang mga wehrmacht..

[erwin_rommel]

He would be no different from Guderian or Hoth. 3 months of victories and the following years of hell. Heck, he was known to make enemies within the German Army. If he got into the fray, and got himself surrounded--he'd be in trouble as there will be nobody to back him. We'd probably know him as another German commander that ended up in one of Stalin's gulag instead of the Desert Fox, master of North Africa. Or maybe Hitler would have sacked him for disobeying his orders in a theater against his fierce enemy, Stalin. Zhukov vs Rommel would have been epic though.

But note, the Nazis did not lose in the Eastern Front because of tactics, it lost because of strategy and logistics. Also, with the way Rommel brought his troops into battle, he'd be an easy and valuable target to the Soviet snipers. Open desert is completely different Belorussian and urban terrain. I still think Hitler should have given the helm of Barbarossa to Manstein.

had stalin didnt listen to zhukov, things could have been different. if rommel was in stalingrad during that time, he could have made a breakthrough out of stalingrad against hilter's orders and could have saved a lot of german soldiers

[street_of_no_return]

Any army that allows conscription has this problem. Germany conscripted soldiers from the countries it occupies (Mainly from Poland, Slavic/Balkan regions and Russia)--and many were not fighters. The Red Army had professional soldiers as well as greenhorns, just like the Wehrmacht had professionals and FNGs. But the Russians had a lot to fight for, mainly for its motherland and pure hatred of the Nazis for its preemptive attack and subsequent atrocities. And man, Stalin was just as good as Hitler at fanning the flames of nationalism and fanaticism.

but mostly USSR Soldiers. Those Soldiers that were force to fight without any knowledge or proper training is just like sending them to their own graves. though the nationalism was impressive and it brote them victory.

[æRLO]

but mostly USSR Soldiers. Those Soldiers that were force to fight without any knowledge or proper training is just like sending them to their own graves. though the nationalism was impressive and it brote them victory.

they had a lot because they had a bigger population than Germany. But when the Red Army reached Germany, the Germans were also using inexperienced troops. It's a matter of necessity. Like I said, mobilization is not instantaneous--it takes a while.

[machinecult]

They liberated countries from Nazi rule. liberated = freed so your argument is flawed.

Flawed my ass. Yes, they (technically) liberated it but they imposed their own (Communist) government against the majority of the population. This isn't some kind of conspiracy theory I picked up. It's just common history no one even denies this. Remember the Berlin Wall?

The fronts the allies fought on were like playgrounds. LOL it is stupid to say that the USSR was lucky it was only fighting on one front when it was fighting 80% of the Wermacht. No where else was the rate of casualties higher. The battles in Africa looked good from a technical perspective because they weren't as brutal. The japs wielding their asian sized p3nises weren't as formidable as the Germans.

You're starting to sound more rhetorical than historical.

I was merely stating the point you made about the USSR being the "Hero of WWII". I'm not measuring its brutality, or how many people died in a certain battle etc.. I was trying to make you understand that Russia had a more concentrated war-front compared to the Allies and the Germans but even that, they suffered the highest casualties. (This also confirms with other posters here of Russians lacking training, equipment and discipline.)

Lastly, please don't make a point by belittling other fronts. The Battle of Luzon alone, cost 332,330-345,330, about a quarter of a million causalities and also in the Sino-Japanese front with higher deaths (2 million) than in Stalingrad, the jungles in Burma, Pacific front were not merely 'playgrounds'.
Pacific War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[trollolol]

Flawed my ass. Yes, they (technically) liberated it but they imposed their own (Communist) government against the majority of the population. This isn't some kind of conspiracy theory I picked up. It's just common history no one even denies this. Remember the Berlin Wall?

Glad you agree that they were liberated proving once again the correctness of my position. But they freed them yes from Nazi control thus being liberated? Thanks for agreeing.

You're starting to sound more rhetorical than historical.

I was merely stating the point you made about the USSR being the "Hero of WWII". I'm not measuring its brutality, or how many people died in a certain battle etc.. I was trying to make you understand that Russia had a more concentrated war-front compared to the Allies and the Germans but even that, they suffered the highest casualties. (This also confirms with other posters here of Russians lacking training, equipment and discipline.)

Lastly, please don't make a point by belittling other fronts. The Battle of Luzon alone, cost 332,330-345,330, about a quarter of a million causalities and also in the Sino-Japanese front with higher deaths (2 million) than in Stalingrad, the jungles in Burma, Pacific front were not merely 'playgrounds'.
Pacific War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am not sure if whether you are serious or not. You do understand that the 2 m casualties in the Sino-Japanese war was accumulated throughout the entire theater and not from a single battle? But you compare it to the Battle of Stalingrad. Excuse me but 9m soviet military casualties on the Soviet side from the Eastern Europe conflict makes the 2m look like more humane.

LOL But the Soviets did their part in China. While all western allies were reluctant and scared sh1tless to commit troops to the brutal conflict in China, the Soviet invasion of China and the subsequent destruction of the Kwantung Army proved the mettle of the Red Army. This I believe had much greater influence on Japan's decision to surrender than the bomb. But that is another story. The Red Army's legacy in China continues to live to this day. China being a communist nation is testament to the Soviet effort in World War 2 China.

The Soviets suffered the highest casualties because they naturally had to fight the biggest best well equipped Axis power in the war. They in turn contributed to the single greatest loss of the enemy. Why the need to bring up the emphasis on what the Red Army lacked when the thing that mattered most was that they won? Fact is fact, the Soviets destroyed 80% of the Wermacht. Fck Rommel and his sorties in North Africa. Fck the Asian theater of the war... The real men fought in Europe.

Had the Germans and Soviets kept their pact (which would have never happened anyway), the allies would have surely lost.

[cobraKing]

case close...hehehehehe....CIA files...hehehehe..