Operation Barbarossa Ever Winnable?

[Probus]

Operation Barbarossa was a longshot at best. I learned in a WWII college class (in the 80s) that if Germany had done a few things different, they may have been able to get the Soviets to sue for peace. Here are the top arguments. Do you agree?

• If Barbarossa had started earlier (bypassing Yugoslavia for one), the Soviets may not have had the time to move the control of their forces out of Moscow. The Germans could have surrounded Moscow before mud and winter stopped them. Then turned South. 
• When Barbarossa started, German forces were actually treated like liberators in many areas. If they had maintained the image that they were liberating the country they would have had many less logistical problems and a pool of new recruits to pull from, possibly mass defections. (Note, this is 180° against the political goal of Barbarossa, but this is all hypothetical)
• Switched encoding methods before each new campaign (not relying on Enigma being completely secure). Much easier to win a war if the enemy doesn't know your every move. Not sure if Stalin actually used the information the Allies fed him, so who knows. 
• Or if Barbarossa's primary objective was to secure the Southern oil fields first before concentrating on Moscow (this is actually what Hitler wanted before he was 'betrayed by his generals', believe it or not). This would have significantly reduced logistical problems. 

  So, what do y'all think? This would be sweet if this scenario was playable in a future Red Thunder DLC campaign. 

[Zveroboy1]

At the beginning of Colossus Reborn, Glantz discusses several what ifs and historical controversies such as the myth of Stalin's preventive war, Guderian's turn south etc. Concerning the timing of Barbarossa, he claims that the weather would have hampered any major armoured breakthrough had it started at an earlier date because of the rasputitsa. Moreover he adds that the forces involved in the Balkans were just a small portion of the overall force involved in Barbarossa. And incidentally most of them returned in time for the invasion.

I am not aware of the primary objective you mention so I am not sure how accurate it really is but it is my understanding that Moscow wasn't even the real objective :

"The mass of the red army stationed in western Russia is to be destroyed in bold operations involving deep penetrations by armoured spearheads and the withdrawal of elements capable of combat into the extensive Russian land spaces is to be prevented."

From directive 21, Fall Barbarossa also quoted from Glantz, When Titans Clashed.

So it was clearly focused on the red army rather than any political or geographical objective.  Now the oil fields in the Caucasus are not exactly next door from Germany. Going straight for them at the start of Barbarossa would have presented colossal logistical issues and offered dangerously exposed flanks. If you were talking about Fall Blau in 1942, that would be a different story maybe; it is still a bit iffy but debatable.

Really the only way the Russians might have sued for peace would be if Germany had somehow restrained herself to the conquest of territories limited in scale beyond the border. When it became a war of annihilation or Vernichtungskrieg that possibility completely flew out the window imo.

 

[dbsapp]

5 hours ago, Probus said:

The Germans could have surrounded Moscow before mud and winter stopped them.

In all modern historical literature it became a commonplace to stress that "mud and winter" is a myth. 

It's quite obvious - Russians are no more immune to cold or snow than Germans. What really crushed Wehrmacht was the level of casualties - about 800 thousands dead and wounded (not counting ill) on Eastern front in 1941.

German general stuff made grave mistakes in military planning. They absolutely failed intelligence gathering, by the order of magnitude understimated the strenghs of Soviet army. For example, they didn't know about t34 or KV until they met them in battle.

The deeper they went into Soviet territory, the more nightmarish their logistics become. In winter they couldn't supply enough ammo and reinforcements to the front via broken railroad lines in Russia. Basically they were forced to choose between ammo and warm clothes for the troops. 

Hitler and Halder also made strategic mistakes. They were so confident in the ability to defeat USSR in several months that they ordered to move workforce from producing tanks and infantry equipment to navy, anticipating naval warfare with Britain after they delt with Russia. 

So basically all the issues you mentioned couldn't play a major role in the outcome of the war. Simply put USSR made a better job in transforming itself to wartime economy and conscription mode than Reich. 

If we dive into alternative history, I would say that the involvement of Japan could have been a decisive factor. If Japan have opened 2nd front on the East and didn't go to war with US the ending of Barbarossa could be quiet different. 

 

 

[Warts 'n' all]

Someone should have bought Mad Addy a book about 1812. And then smacked 'im around the 'ead with it repeatedly. Not, to knock any sense into 'im, but just for the fun of it. As the old saying goes, "Never trust a man who goes into a beer hall and drinks mineral water".

[dbsapp]

[Probus]

@Zveroboy1& @dbsapp,

I like your arguments but you seem to have not considered my third 'Liberator' hypothetical. That point would have a major impact on logistics and replacements (both green and veteran troops), possibly even reduced casualties. Vernichtungskrieg would therefore, have not been implemented. 

Also, Halder wanted Moscow (from his experience in France), Hitler wanted oil. They both wanted to destroy the Soviet army. 

5 hours ago, Zveroboy1 said:

Moreover he adds that the forces involved in the Balkans were just a small portion of the overall force involved in Barbarossa. And incidentally most of them returned in time for the invasion.

I was taught that Barbarossa was delayed so that these forces could be utilized in the campaign. Bypassing the Balkans may have pushed the schedule forward by a month. If this would have let the Germans surround Moscow, then the Russian winter would have hampered Soviet counter attacks and exasperated the situation inside the besieged Moscow. 

4 hours ago, dbsapp said:

If we dive into alternative history, I would say that the involvement of Japan could have been a decisive factor. If Japan have opened 2nd front on the East and didn't go to war with US the ending of Barbarossa could be quiet different. 

I don't remember this scenario being mentioned. Do you think the Japanese had a large enough army to start a second front? Were there any resources Japan wanted in Eastern Russia? No doubt that if Japan had done this, no matter what the outcome, it would have delayed or kept the USA out of the war. Might need to add Japanese DLC to RT.

[Centurian52]

I think they were always going to run out of steam before Barbarossa could "succeed". I'm not convinced that starting earlier would have helped (they still would have taken heavy casualties and started running low on fuel after a few months). And I'm not sure prioritizing the south would have changed anything in their favor (prioritizing the center was quite helpful in outflanking the Soviet forces that were expecting them to concentrate in the south). And treating the local populace better certainly would have helped, but that's essentially asking the Nazis to not be Nazis (ethnic cleansing was kindof the whole point).

If they made a serious mistake in Operation Barbarossa it was in thinking they could defeat a country as large as the Soviet Union in a single stroke. If they should have changed anything at all then perhaps they should have halted their advance a month or two earlier, be happy with more limited successes, save some fuel and some casualties. Save some energy for Fall Blau, where they really did make some serious mistakes that might have cost them the war (or maybe the whole operation was logistically unfeasible from the beginning).

[Erwin]

The mistake that may have been the worst was treating the peoples of the countries that the Nazis conquered as "untermensch" rather than co-opting the manpower who wanted to fight Russia.  The Ukrainians hated Russia due to the massive deaths (around 10 million according to "Bloodlands") caused by Stalin in the 1920's and 30's and could have provided the manpower to replace German losses.  

[A Canadian Cat]

11 hours ago, Probus said:

• Switched encoding methods before each new campaign (not relying on Enigma being completely secure). Much easier to win a war if the enemy doesn't know your every move. Not sure if Stalin actually used the information the Allies fed him, so who knows. 

While changing up encoding of orders on a regular basis is a good idea on two separate occasions (if I recall correctly it was the kick off of the invasion and the beginning of Fall Blau) Stalin and his commanders revived excellent intelligence and nearly a full accounting of the German plan. Both times the information was dismissed and not used. So, if the Germans had done this it would not have changed the out come.

 

5 hours ago, dbsapp said:

German general stuff made grave mistakes in military planning. They absolutely failed intelligence gathering, by the order of magnitude understimated the strenghs of Soviet army. For example, they didn't know about t34 or KV until they met them in battle.

Plus their own analysis and war gaming showed that their logistical situation and ability to supply the invasion had no margin for error and likely would not even have been enough if everything went as planned. We all know things don't go as planned. I think this alone was enough to indicate that the invasion was not a good idea.

 

47 minutes ago, Probus said:

Do you think the Japanese had a large enough army to start a second front? Were there any resources Japan wanted in Eastern Russia?

May be who knows. This is really a non starter. Japan was much more focused on access to resources that were present in South East Asia. That was what they wanted in an empire. Invading the USSR in the time frame we are talking about was not at all on the table.

[dbsapp]

18 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

I think they were always going to run out of steam before Barbarossa could "succeed". I'm not convinced that starting earlier would have helped (they still would have taken heavy casualties and started running low on fuel after a few months). And I'm not sure prioritizing the south would have changed anything in their favor (prioritizing the center was quite helpful in outflanking the Soviet forces that were expecting them to concentrate in the south). And treating the local populace better certainly would have helped, but that's essentially asking the Nazis to not be Nazis (ethnic cleansing was kindof the whole point).

If they made a serious mistake in Operation Barbarossa it was in thinking they could defeat a country as large as the Soviet Union in a single stroke. If they should have changed anything at all then perhaps they should have halted their advance a month or two earlier, be happy with more limited successes, save some fuel and some casualties. Save some energy for Fall Blau, where they really did make some serious mistakes that might have cost them the war (or maybe the whole operation was logistically unfeasible from the beginning).

That's true. In fact, they couldn't even afford to enjoy limited success and save some fuel, because they were constantly under Soviet counterattacks. If you read German officer's diaries it strikes you how they acknowledged that Barbarossa has failed already in August-September. There were a lot of arguments that "Yugoslavia" delay or "Turn to Kiev" were fatal mistakes, but if the whole picture is taken into account any changes on German side couldn't save the day. 

32 minutes ago, Probus said:

Do you think the Japanese had a large enough army to start a second front? Were there any resources Japan wanted in Eastern Russia? No doubt that if Japan had done this, no matter what the outcome, it would have delayed or kept the USA out of the war. Might need to add Japanese DLC to RT.

Japanese occupied China and kept the so-called Kwantung Army of 1 mln people there. The Russian-Japanese relations were tense, to say at least. In 1938 and 1938 Japan undertook 2 attempts to invade Soviet and Mongolian territory that led to large scale conflicts which were tantamount to undeclared war with employments of tanks and planes that resulted in Japanese defeat and about 20 thousands dead on their side. Japan together with Germany and Italy was the member of anti-comintern pact. The threat from the East was one of the major factors contributed to the signing of Molotov-Ribbentrop pact (in fact Soviet and Japanese troops were engaged in large scale fighting during the visit of Ribbentrop to Moscow).

In 1941 when Reich invaded USSR Russia and Japan were already bound by the neutrality treaty. But as soon as German army crossed the Soviet border Japanese foreign minister Matsuoka, who personally signed the treaty, rushed to persuade Privy Council to seize the opportunity and invade USSR. There were heated debates that - to make long story short - resulted in decision to turn South to European colonies and eventually to the war with USA. 

Little known but very important  fact is that during the whole war USSR kept about 20% of its army in the East in case Japan would attack. That severely reduced the strength of armies fighting Nazis. 

 

[dbsapp]

6 minutes ago, IanL said:

While changing up encoding of orders on a regular basis is a good idea on two separate occasions (if I recall correctly it was the kick off of the invasion and the beginning of Fall Blau) Stalin and his commanders revived excellent intelligence and nearly a full accounting of the German plan. Both times the information was dismissed and not used. So, if the Germans had done this it would not have changed the out come.

job inst

The Barbarossa invasion was an open secret. Almost everybody in Europe knew it was coming, including British, Americans, Spanish, Romanians etc., including Soviet intelligence. Quite ironically the only person who dismissed this information as British provocation was Stalin. 

Americans and British discussed if they should pass the information on Barbarossa to Soviets (they had very detailed info on dates and numbers) but eventually decided not to do it, because it could reinforce Stalin's idea that they want to drag him into a war with Germany. 

As far as I know, Western Allies were very constrained in sharing intelligence with Moscow during the war, it almost never happened (Cambridge five did the job instead).

[DerKommissar]

This scenario could be a short term victory, but a long term fiasco.

1. Bypassing Yugoslavia means that the British and their Allies would retain their foothold in Southern Europe. This would buy them time to reinforce and launch air raids (possibly on Baku oil fields).

2. If the Axis aren't allowed to steal from civilians, this would mean more supplies need to be shipped across a longer route. Raising auxiliaries further increases the demand for food, ammo, oil, etc.

3. Stalin rejected Allied intelligence, prior to both Barbarossa and Case Blue. He didn't believe his own spies either, who said the exact same things. Fake news!

4. The road to the Caucasus is long, narrow and rough, a mother of all traffic jams is guaranteed. Any supplies for the Battle of Moscow would have an even longer journey. The Red Army has the bulk of their Western forces untouched and ready to counter-attack, across a long Axis front.

Let's assume that Ukraine, the Caucasus and Moscow are taken, before winter. The Red Army is to the East, to the West and to the North. While the British and Allies, remain in Southern Europe -- just across the Black Sea.

I can't speak for the Council of Soviets, but I wouldn't surrender when I have surrounded my enemy. I'm sure Churchill wouldn't want that, either. It's difficult to fight a war of encirclement with just one pincer.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

I believe they could have taken Moscow if they had concentrated on it, instead of ignoring Army Group Center's call for help (which is exactly what they wargamed out beforehand as happening) but it wouldn't have ended the war.

[Warts 'n' all]

Given the fact that Georgy Zee and the Balalaika Beat Boys had already given Japan a damn good thrashing in August '39, they were hardly likely to come back for another one in 1941. Just my tuppence 'ha'pennyworth.

[grungar]

   all these truths were doubled because of german staff rivalry and other problems brought on by halder and guderian. the germans had no real plan everyone agreed with ie okw and okh had two different ideas about what to do after reaching the dnepr river. the politics got maddening in august when halder had a nervous break down due to gudererians double crossing him in his meeting with hitler. check out brian fugates operation barbarossa strategy and tactics on the eastern front 1941. published in 1983 it was the first book of its kind

[dbsapp]

Found interesting part in Robert Kirchubel's "Operation Barbarossa":

"On the last day of April, Hitler officially set Operation Barbarossa’s start date for June 22. Some historians falsely believe Germany’s Balkan invasion fatally delayed the launching of the campaign. Von Lossberg wrote that Hitler always planned to conquer Greece prior to Barbarossa. 

Indeed, invading the Balkans was discussed at the Führer conference of December 5. The main causes for deferring Barbarossa’s start date from May 15 to June 22 were incomplete logistical arrangements and an unusually wet winter that kept Central European rivers at full flood until late spring. 
Besides, to have started much earlier would have only meant that Barbarossa began during the infamous rasputitsa (spring and autumn rainy season, “time without roads”)".

[Probus]

12 hours ago, dbsapp said:

On the last day of April, Hitler officially set Operation Barbarossa’s start date for June 22. Some historians falsely believe Germany’s Balkan invasion fatally delayed the launching of the campaign

Very interesting! When was that book published? I'm just curious if it was before '89 which is when I took the course. 

[dbsapp]

11 hours ago, Probus said:

Very interesting! When was that book published? I'm just curious if it was before '89 which is when I took the course. 

It was published in 2015 or something by Osprey Publishing. It's a nice edition (but with some suspicious parts in my opinion).

I would recommend this one:

 

[Zveroboy1]

Yeah this is a good book, the ones on Kiev and Typhoon as well.

[Freyberg]

I would say that Operation Barbarossa was extremely winnable, that Hitler came within a hairsbreadth of winning the war, not just then but the next year, and it was only by the grace of God, and the immense sacrifice of our forebears, including millions of brave Soviet troops, that he didn't.

[Bufo]

39 minutes ago, Freyberg said:

I would say that Operation Barbarossa was extremely winnable, that Hitler came within a hairsbreadth of winning the war, not just then but the next year, and it was only by the grace of God, and the immense sacrifice of our forebears, including millions of brave Soviet troops, that he didn't.

More likely thanks to the NKVD units.

[Aragorn2002]

41 minutes ago, Bufo said:

More likely thanks to the NKVD units.

The grace of God most certainly had nothing to do with it. Rather the luck of the devil.

Edited August 7, 2021 by Aragorn2002

[dbsapp]

2 hours ago, Freyberg said:

I would say that Operation Barbarossa was extremely winnable, that Hitler came within a hairsbreadth of winning the war, not just then but the next year, and it was only by the grace of God, and the immense sacrifice of our forebears, including millions of brave Soviet troops, that he didn't.

Yeah, I agree that in retrospect 80 years later it's much easier to speculate that Hitler couldn't win than being that confident while lying in a trench somewhere near Kiev in 1941.

Edited August 7, 2021 by dbsapp

[chuckdyke]

A smart dictator would engineer a war between the US and Russia. What did he do instead? He invaded one and declared war on the other.

[Aragorn2002]

38 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

A smart dictator would engineer a war between the US and Russia. What did he do instead? He invaded one and declared war on the other.

It's a lot more complicated than that. I recommend to read Stalin's Secret Agents: The Subversion of Roosevelt's Government and Operation Snow. Also The war that had many fathers. The US practically was already at war with Germany in 1941. Hitler just made it official, so to speak, which was indeed very stupid, but didn't change much. He was a reckless gambler and Barbarossa was his biggest gamble. The war was lost from the very start. Germany never stood a chance. Never. Not at any moment.

Edited August 7, 2021 by Aragorn2002