[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Settings Home
/his/ - History & Humanities

Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.

File: Capture.png (680 KB, 840x564)
680 KB
680 KB PNG
Would Barbarossa have been more successful had Germany attacked the Soviets following the fall of France immediately?

Considering the offucer corps had been butchered under the Great Purge, it seems that the Soviet line of command would be even more fucked, and Germany would have an even greater advantage.

Note that I'm not suggesting that Germany could've *won*, since that's basically impossible considering how fortified Moscow and Leningrad was, but could they have done remarkably better?

>in b4 'another ww2 what if thread'

this isn't a butterfly effect alternate history wank off, I'm just wondering how badly the Soviets had been affected by the purge before 1941.
>Would Barbarossa have been more successful had Germany attacked the Soviets following the fall of France immediately?
No, this is an incredibly stupid idea. France fell on June 25th, 1940. In real life, Fuhrer directive 21, the one decreeing the invasion of the Soviet Union, was issued on December 10th, 1940, and the invasion was ready some 6 months later.

Say in your alt-his, Hitler issues the equivalent directive on July 1st. That means the invasion will be ready sometime in the middle of January. You're stuck either invading in winter (for real), or leaving a massive army on the border for months which even Stalin is unlikely to overlook and fail to prepare for. It means that your opening blow is likely to be a lot weaker, or the Soviets will fully mobilized before the war starts, instead of in the middle of it.
Barbarossa would succeed if they treated Slavs better.
Near impossible. Germany was dependent on food imports from the USSR prior to the war between them, and required a confiscatory food appropriation policy both to just make up the raw numbers of calories required to keep their empire going as well as transport it to the front, since their logistics system was creaking badly.

Playing nice with the local population almost ensures that you have people starving either at home or at the front, both of which are disastrous in a far more immediate way than propogating partisan resistance in your occupied regions
They didn't attack France immediately because Poland managed to fight back harder than expected. I don't think they felt any better after the Battle of France.
>fight harder
Pretty much this considering how close they were without their help (Stalin stayed in Moscow remember). But of course Hitler didn't want to capitalize on anti-communist sentiments and perhaps help Vlasov establish a collaborative government.
Did you have any trouble understanding that sentence?
polacks are cowards that ran away from germans
I'm pretty sure the first act of war was German bombing of a sleeping city with no military presence. And the first battle of the war was a siege of a small outpost defended by over 200 soldiers that lasted an entire week (instead of a few hours Germans expected with them using planes and a fucking battleship). Now that's just the first day. Isn't it easy to talk about the difference between cowardice and bravery?
That wasn't the impression of German soldiers who actually fought.
They lasted a month, dude.
Case White predicted a fall of Warsaw by the 21st. I somehow doubt that the week long delay between expectation and reality is what derailed the German plans, of which I have never found any that contemplated an attack into either France or the Low Countries in 1939.
>first act of war
was shelling the Westerplatte
According to my HoI 2 game, yes, much more successful.
All things considered, attacking from 4 directions and facing basically a headless enemy (the logistics were a problem but the entire higher command and the government run away pretty quickly they should've done it faster meanwhile Poland still managed to preserved some of its internal fighting capability and had some impressive accomplishments my favorite being a duel between a Polish tank ace and a Prussian prince.
That's the battle but like an hour before that they bombed a city. Can't think of a more cowardly way to start a war.
I don't know about 1939 but certainly faster than May 1940.
File: henryk_sucharski.jpg (150 KB, 640x480)
150 KB
150 KB JPG
I guess he meant like the memoirs of the German soldiers which would be correct. It certainly wasn't a walk in the park they had expected but most people get their general knowledge about WWII from movies or documentaries. Usually made in the US and they're like "ok so Hitler attacked Poland now let's get to the D-Day" so people don't know much about this side of the war.

The commander of the Westerplatte defense was allowed to keep his sabre for example.
Another picture that shows the situation more clearly.
Why? May is when the weather starts to get good in western Europe. You tend to have lots of rain in March and April. While you won't get the same kind of mud conditions that a true Rasputitsa has, the conditions are hardly ideal for offensive warfare, especially fast moving offensive warfare. Aufmarschanweisung N°1 called for an assault in May. While it was later revised, that was the plan, and was always the plan from the first moments they had a plan.
It was in their interest to resume their operations as soon as possible as they wanted to attack several countries at once. Why wait until May? Obviously they needed time to regroup. Their last conquest before Poland was Czechoslovakia which they won without a fight so they didn't expect Poland to fight for 35 days. After all they left their western border mostly unprotected.
>It was in their interest to resume their operations as soon as possible as they wanted to attack several countries at once. Why wait until May?
Because that's when the weather is good, which is important if your plan hinges around rapid mobility.

>Their last conquest before Poland was Czechoslovakia which they won without a fight so they didn't expect Poland to fight for 35 days
They expected Poland to fight for about 25 days. As it was, resistance after D-14 was almost entirely limited to holding actions in fortified enclaves. The Polish campaign did not tax or deplete the Wehrmacht in any meaningful fashion. https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/Germany/DA-Poland/DA-Poland.html

>After all they left their western border mostly unprotected.
This is completely incorrect. According to the above link, the Germans used 50 divisions to attack Poland.

Waves 1-6 were all mobilized in 1939.

Which give the Germans 98 divisions. You can easily hold the border with France with 48 divisions, especially given the defenses of the Sigfried line.
That's from Jodl who said on his trail "If we did not collapse already in the year 1939 that was due only to the fact that during the Polish campaign, the approximately 110 French and British divisions in the West were held completely inactive against the 23 German divisions"
French didn't mobilize sufficiently to stage an offensive which would force the Germans to withdraw troops.
They had serious morale problems, and they were facing a fortified line. One that wasn't as impressive as Maginot Line, but still a serious obstacle.
Anyway, by the time they were ready to do anything, campaign in Poland was already decided.
In every damn thread there is a polack ranting about poland that poland this, polish soldiers that polish soldiers that. Your county did nothing impressive, polish people are people just like evrybody else and it must be really hard to imagine but this thread and actually all other threads are not about poland, you self loving pricks! So tired about reading about fucking poland
Sorry you feel so intimidated by talking about something outside of those 20 something topics discussed over and over again on History Channel.
>Anyway, by the time they were ready to do anything, campaign in Poland was already decided.
They were ready not to do anything. According to the treaty Great Britain had 2 weeks to respond starting with the declaration of war which would put the end date at September 17th. 5 days before the British and French decided not to honor their end of the deal in the town of Abbeville. Ironically Abbeville would be later liberated by Polish troops in 1944. Basically they dropped the ball big time and the war continued.
>since that's basically impossible considering how fortified Moscow
Until mid October 1941, moscow was defended by the Mozhaisk defence line with 90k poor quality reservists.

Against them were two panzer armies.
Are you actually going to address the points I raised, or just quote a guy who is demonstrably wrong, on both the number of his own forces and the number of enemy forces?

France and Britain between them didn't even HAVE 110 divisions in 1939, let alone ready to attack at the drop of a hat. Germany had mobilized 98 divisions, and they were only using 50 in Poland. Do you really think the others were just sitting around with their thumbs up their proverbial asses?

What the fuck are you talking about? Have you missed the existence of things like the entire Bryansk front?

I swear, WW2 is probably the most well documented war in history. How the FUCK does misinformation about it propagate so far?
Jodl's fault for not asking the folks at axishistory for information.
>like the entire Bryansk front?
General Andrei Yeremenko was designated commander of the Front when it first formed in mid-late August 1941, comprising, in Erickson's words, "on paper two armies, 50th and 13th, with eight rifle divisions each, three cavalry divisions, and one tank division but many of these formations were badly whittled down by battle losses."

No wonder they didnt put up much of a fight
>I'll just IGNORE the embededed citations because they destroy my idiotic narrative.

>Sources used
Arms & Armour Press: German Order of Battle, 1944.
Bauer, Josef: 290. Infanterie-Division 1940 - 1945
Bauman, H.: Die 35 Infanterie Division im Zweiten Weltkrieg
Benary, Albert.: Die Berliner 257- Bären-Division
Beyersdorff, Ernst: Geschichte der 110. Infanterie-Division
Bidermann, G.H.: Krim-Kurland mit der 132. Infanterie-Division 1941 - 1945
Breithaupt, Hans: Die Geschichte der 30. Infanterie-Division 1939 - 1945
Buxa, Werner: Weg und Schicksal der 11. Infanterie-Division
Command Magazine: “Hitler’s Army: The Evolution and Structure of German Forces 1933-1945”
Cooper, Mathew: The German Army: 1933 - 1945.
Deighton, Len: Blitzkrieg: From the Riseof Hitler to the Fall of Dunkirk.
Dunn, Walter Scott Jr,: “Second Front NOW – 1943”
Friessner, Hans: Verratene Schlachten.
Gareis, Martin: Kampf und Ende der fränkisch-sudetendeutschen 98. Infanterie-Division
Geschoepf, Rudolf: Mein Weg mit der 45. Infanterie-Division
Goralski, Robert: World War II Almanac, 1931 - 1945.
Grossmann, Horst: Geschichte der rheinisch-westfälischen 6. Infanterie-Division 1939 - 1945
Hart, Liddell: History of the Second World War,
Haupt, Werner: Army Group Center: The Wehrmacht in Russia 1941-1945
Haupt, Werner: Army Group North: The Wehrmacht in Russia 1941-1945
Haupt, Werner: Army Group South: The Wehrmacht in Russia 1941-1945
Haupt, Werner: Die 81. Infanterie-Division. Geschichte einer schlesischen Division
Heine, Jeas U.: 23. Infanterie-Division (15. Oktober 1935 - 14. September 1942)
Hossbach, Frederich: Infanterie im Ostfeldzug 1941/42 (31. Infanterie-Division)
Jenner, M.: Die 216/272 Niedersachsische Infanterie-Division.
Kammerer, Fritz: Pilzdivision im Einsatz/205. Infanterie-Division Oberrhein-Frankreich-Rußland
Lucas, James: Alpine Elite: German Mountain Troops in WWII.
Madej, W.Victor: “German Army Order of Battle 1939-1945”, Supplement.
Madej, W.Victor: “German Army Order of Battle 1939-1945”, Volume I.
Madej, W.Victor: “German Army Order of Battle 1939-1945”, Volume II.
Melzer, Walter: Geschichte der 252. Infanterie-Division 1939 - 1945
Metzsch, Friedrich-August von: Die Geschichte der 22. Infanterie-Division 1939 - 1945
Meyer-Detring, Wilhelm: Die 137. Infanterie-Division im Mittelabschnitt der Ostfront
Mitcham, Samuel, Jr.: Crumbling Empire – The German Defeat in the East, 1944
Mitchum, Samuel W. Jr.: “Hitler’s Legions – The German Army Order of Battle, World War II”
Mueller-Hillebrand, B.: Das Heer, 1939 - 1945.
Nafziger, George: The German Order of Battle.
Neidhardt, Hanns: Mit Tanne und Eichenlaub. Kriegschronik der 100. Jäger-Division, vormals 100. leichte infanterie Division
Niepold, Gerd: Die Geschichte der 12. Panzer-Division - 2. Infanterie-Division (mot.) 1921 - 45
Pomrehm-Sanger-Schaeffer: Der Weg der 79. Infanterie-Division (Bildband)
Scherzere: Die Geschichte der 113. Infanterie-Division 1940 - 1943
Schimak-Lamprecht-Dettmer: Die 44. Infanterie-Division. Tagebuch der Hoch- und Deutschmeister
Schramm, Percy E. - Jacobsen, Hans Adolf et al.: Kriegstagebuch des Oberkommandos der Wehrmacht, 1940-1945 (7 volumes).
Schulz, Heinz: 34. Infanterie-Division. Einsatz und Gefechtsübersicht 1939 - 1945
Seaton, Albert: The Russo-German War, 1941.
Tessin, Georg: Verbände und Truppen der deutschen Wehrmacht und Waffen SS im Zweiten Weltkrieg 1939-1945
Tessin, George: “Verbande und Truppen der deutschen Wehrmacht und Waffen SS, vol 10, Die Landstreitkrafte 371-500”
Tessin, George: “Verbande und Truppen der deutschen Wehrmacht und Waffen SS, vol 7, Die Landstreitkrafte 131-200”
Tettau, Versock & Selbstverlag: Geschichte der 24. Infanterie-Division 1935 - 1945
Weber, Helmut: 122. Infanterie-Division. Erinnerungen der pommersch-mecklenburgischen GreifDivision
Young, Peter (Editor-in-Chief): The Marshall Cavendish Illustrated Encyclopedia of WWII.
Zeller-Mehrle-Glauner: Weg und Schicksal der 215. württembergisch-badischen Infanterie-Division 1936 - 1945. Eine Dokumentation in Bildern
Zydowitz, Kurt von: Die Geschichte der 58. Infanterie-Division 1939 - 1945

Duits, Piets (correspondence with writer).
Dr.Leo (W.G.) Niehorster (correspondence with writer).
Klages, Ron: Research material and personal correspondences to this writer prior to his passing on 18 Feb. 2007

Andreas Altenburger - Website: “Lexicon der Wehrmacht”
Jan Linzmaier - Website: “Diedeutschewehrmacht”
Jason Pipes - Website: "Feldgrau"
Marcus Wendel - Website: “Axis Historical Factbook”
False and false. I'm not trying to Wehraboo too hard, but tens of thousands of Slavs and Balts ended up dying at Stalingrad alone, not counting the thousands elsewhere or those in the SS.
All that autism because I said that Germany had to wait a month or two longer to regroup after spending over a month in Poland? Anything in that library about the weather in early spring of 1940? Perhaps that would be helpful.
Yes, the Roslavl–Novozybkov Offensive went badly. IT STILL HAPPENED YOU FUCKTARD. It committed forces, forces that still, while heavily battered, existed afterwards.

That's not to mention that the battle of Moscow was a fuck of a lot more than one defensive line. Pic fucking related

But only the southwestern thrust counts, right? Otherwise, you would just be an idiot spouting nonsense instead of someone who can delude himself into thinking he knows an iota about a colossal offensive that lasted months.

None of the OTHER forces in the area existed, am I right? Koniev and Zhukov held phantom commands in the forms of each of their fronts!

Kill yourself.
Still lost so something went wrong. If that makes sense Hitler had a chance to beat the Soviet government but evidently not the entire country.
No, all that autism because either you or people very much like you are all about HURRAH FOR POLAND! WE ONLY LOST BECAUSE OF THE SOVIETS AND/OR FAILURE OF THE WESTERN ALLIES TO PROPERLY ATTACK.

Poland only held out for 35 days because the Germans were interested in complete obliteration of the Polish state; effective, open resistance ceased after two weeks, at which point you had a grand total of zero Polish divisions with a lateral line of communication with another one. They were crushed. Germany won, and won easily, and yes, had enough defenses in place to repel an offensive from the west.

You guys are fucking worse than the Americans, and that's saying something.

> Anything in that library about the weather in early spring of 1940? Perhaps that would be helpful.
No it wouldn't, because they were making their plans in October39 to February 1940, so unless Manstein has a time machine, he can't know what the weather will e like that upcoming spring, and has to go on general weather forecasts.

How about YOU come up with some fucking support for your goddamned position. Let's see how heavy those German losses were and how someone is making an operational plan to delay hostilities in the west because of it.
Of course being THIS close to conquering Moscow it must've sucked to realize that they burnt all the bridges with Poles and Ukrainians and others.
He wasn't anywhere close to conquering Moscow you twit. He was THIS close to having a recon in force unit get past the outer defenses and towards the inner defenses. That's a long fucking way from taking a city.
Im sorry, but none of those other defensive lines had been built in August 1941. There was only one, and the forces facing AGC were a fraction of what were moved there over the next month.

Of course when operation Typoon did start in october,the germans destroyed 8 of the 9 soviet armies trying to stop them. I think their chances were much greater if they had attacked in August, with good weather, air supremecy etc.
>I think their chances were much greater if they had attacked in August, with good weather, air supremecy etc.
And insufficient food, ammunition, etc?
Yes, weve been through this before, they still had enough food and ammo to drive back to Kiev and destroy the soviets there.
Western Allies fucked up horribly yes that's one part of that spergfest I can get behind. They had like 3:1 advantage on the border with Germany. The rest reads like a non-verbal Tourette syndrome or at least unprovoked projecting stereotypes on people. I didn't know that the notion of a military campaign lasting longer than expected and using more resources, thus influencing future actions was so controversial.

>Poland only held out for 35 days because the Germans were interested in complete obliteration of the Polish state
Well fucking duh. If Poland only held out for three days it would be no less true.
And two weeks? That's an odd arbitrary number not counting several smaller towns and outposts fighting until October even Warsaw defended itself until 28th of September. Something isn't right.

>effective, open resistance ceased after two weeks, at which point you had a grand total of zero Polish divisions
That's around the time (and until September the 19th) of the biggest battle of the campaign which was like the only counter-offensive of the Polish side.
File: 604.gif (1.39 MB, 268x278)
1.39 MB
1.39 MB GIF
Let's start by not actively murdering the local population. That's a step forward. If people welcome your troops as liberators there's a good chance to get on their good side if you at least support your potential allies. Would at least more support from Spain help Germany get to Moscow? Ukrainian and Russian anti-communists? Hypothethical army of the collaborative Polish government? Perhaps. It was all a theoretical possibility. Close but not enough. It's such an anachronistic mistake to think of the war between Germans and Soviets in terms of war of nations. Of course it developed into this because Hitler was a slave to his ideology but Germans could've win this or at least depose Stalin though it doesn't mean that Germans would've win against the entire might of USSR in the climactic battle of Vladivostok. Just another revolution would do.
you didn't read the post.

Germany could not afford to both feed their own troops, and feed the local populace. In their retreat the Soviets scorched earth policy meant that those who stayed behind became a drag on the occupiers.

Actively murdering the populace was a short term solution to a problem that would hurt more in the long term.

I'm in the camp that Germany could never hope to beat the SU, and it attacked at the best possible time and got lucky on numerous occasions but, the inevitable still happened and the SU rolled them back to berlin
File: autismo.png (114 KB, 287x474)
114 KB
114 KB PNG
If the first months of the invasion were such a huge success. Record breaking number of enemy soldiers surrendering, not wanting to fight for the dictator they hated, if there people welcoming them as liberators, if the enemy infrastructure was completely destroyed, if they came so close to their biggest cities so fast then obviously if they had bigger numbers or used the sympathy of the local population then the variables would've looked much better for them. Of course for that Hitler would have to not be Hitler.

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.