Let's kick the can around about the 1941 invasion of Russia. Several questions come to mind. What was/were Hitler's goal(s) ? Did the invading force have the strength and ability to accomplish these goals? He obviously failed. What caused and contribute to his failure?
thanks
DJ

One of the reasons were that he wanted "Lebensraum" (living-space) for the German people.
One reason that the Germans failed was the same reason Napolean failed. Unprepared for the Russian winter. And also turning his forces away from Moscow didn't help either.
My 2 cents

Invading Russia was an error of monumental proportions propelled by enormous hubris. Russia has never been overrrun from the west. The Mongols did it from the east, but htey were also vicious enough to make your average Nazi look like a boy scout.

BC touched on a couple of good points, including unpreparedness for Russian winter. No excuse for that; as a purported historian Adolf should certainly have known about Napoleon's misfortune there. Logistics were also given insufficient attention. European Russia is a truly vast expanse of land, and moving troops and equipment across it is time-consuming under the best of conditions. And in 1941 conditions were hardly that, with many unimproved dirt roads and a rail net that was purposely designed not to mesh with the rest of Europe to make life harder for an invader.

Nazi ideology was the motivator behind the invasion, and also a chief reason for failure. Many Ukrainians and others were disaffected with the Soviet regime and welcomed a change. But the Germans turned out to be worse oppressors; their ideology ensured it and blinded them to other posssible political arrangements.

And personally, to end my rant, let me state that I think that there was no truly defensible frontier for the Wermacht to defend. Even assuming that Nazi territorial ambitions were limited to, say, the Don River line it would not have been possible to build impregnable fortifications to keep vengeful Russians out indefinitely. The Atlantic Wall fell in a day, and Festung Donets would likely have met the same fate. just my .02...

Greg

I believe that Hitler had to invade Russia because of who he was, what he and the National Socialist party stood for and the history of what the Communists were trying to do in Germany. If you remember, the Riechstag fire was blamed on a Commie. The Commies were creating all kinds of problems in the 1920's and 1930's in Germany and the Germanic hubris was such that they felt the Russians were less than humans and a plague and scourge to humankind.

Now, despite the Russian winter the Germans could have won if:

1. They enfranchised the people in the territories they did conquer like the Latvians, Estonians, Ukranians, etc. Instead they terrorized and brutalized them and lost the opportunity to turn around people who had no love for the Russians either.

2. The Germans moved so fast in the beginning they created a re-supply nightmare for themselves. Goering promised much but delivered little in terms of air supply and despite the mechanization of Blitzkrieg, the Germans were heavily dependent on horse and mules for conveying materiel thousands of miles.

3. The Germans should have planned for a long campaign of strategic seize and hold allowing time to build and strengthen interior lines of communication. With the help of the people from the conquered territories he could have had better forage, a better spy network, and better local support including manufacturing. Hitler could have also learned some flexibility in giving up territories when it was tactically the right thing to do instead of getting his forces trapped as a result of his amateurish, intractible and dogmatic concept of never yielding ground.

4. The Germans should have pressed the Japanese to sustain their campaign in Eastern Russia. This sustained two pronged attack would have prevented Stalin from moving hordes of seasoned vets to Western Russia and possibly threatened the manufacturing that had been relocated away from Moscow, Stalingrad, etc.

5. Hitler would have done better to control Goebels and eliminate the anti-human propoganda about the Russian people and used whatever disaffected contingent there was in Russia to work with them against Stalin. Stalin was NOT a popular guy if you remember. The Russians would have rallied to their German saviours in droves. It is tough to win a war when you piss off everybody.

6. Most of the above would have gone over better with the US and and UK if Germany had not invaded France first and had postponed his UK invasion plans to keep Brit sentiment on his side or at least laissez-faire. Churchill and Roosevelt both disliked Stalin but Hitler went out of his way to make himself a bigger menace. Not too artful politically.

Should Hitler have invaded Russia? Well, yes!

Here's why; that's what Hitler wanted to do! That was the goal.

BC has already mentioned Lebensraum as a "reason" for this. Actually, not an original idea of Hitlers, it had been kicking around for sometime in Germany.

Hitler always wanted the war with Russia, that was his objective. The National Socialists HATED the Communists and feared communism (and, so did most of Europe and the world).

Now, if Hitler had not invaded Russia, he would not have been able to fufill what he saw as his charge and even as his destiny.

So, I don't think there ever was a question of invading Russia. But, it is the timing that is in question. Hitler did not want to invade in '41. In fact, I think the timetable would have been many months or even years later.

Going back to the defeat of Poland and France (major and stunning victories), this may have affected the thinking of the Gremans. The 'hey, we're good' principle! But, what happened with Britain in '40 had lots to do with the decision. Hitler could have just sat where he was, but that wouldn't have fufilled the ideals of National Socialism.

Did the Germans have the strength and ability to defeat Russia? Certainly they had the ability. Certainly they had a great army. Certain circumstances aside, the Germans could have defeated Russia.

Why did they fail? I guess that's asking why Hitler lost WWII!

We can talk about air power and long supply lines, the inability to take Moscow and possibly the Russian government, and the weather, etc. But really it comes down to a few big things:

Economics - near the end of '41 Germany only had 1/3 the production of the Russians (lets not even mention the contributions of the Allies!).

Manpower - here's a 'fun' statistic, Germany loses 4 million in the war, Russia loses 25 million, no need for further explaination;

Leadership - OK, when Germany first invaded, Stalin hid under a table (very close to the truth) but managed to pull himself together. The Russians had good leadership, good commanders and savage fighters. The Russians used everryone to fight against the Germans. Remember, it was race that mattered in Germany (and the rest of Europe!). In Russia, it was economics. Didn't matter what color you were, who your ancestors where or even if you were a man or woman.

Here's an interesting fact, by July 16, '41 the Germans were already a couple hundred miles into Russia and their losses were 102,000 men. That's 33% fewer than in the French campaign. Russian losses were 1, 569, 000. Pretty good. Problem is, Russia would just keep throwing an endless supply of fresh troops into the fray and grind the Germans down...

WWII - The U.S. supplies the money and materials, Britain supplies the unsinkable aircraft carrier, and Russia supplies the blood. WWII begins and ends with Adolf Hitler.

Steve

Hitler's personality, and wants has nothing to do with the fact that he should NOT have invaded Russia. It was stupidity. What made him think that he could conquer, or severely mame a country whose leader killed millions of them and were still able to crank out the men?
Hitler could have waited for a more secure European theatre before attacking, or waited for Japan to encroach on Russian borders, or even tried further diplomacy with the Russians until any of this was accomplished. Lebenstrom or no, he should have waited, then he could have had all the room he wanted. His blitzkrieg mentality was too much to handle.

I must reply further to BobTravis' commentary. Sir, your reaoning is couched in terms of "they could have won if..."

I respectfully submit that arguing from that position is essentially pointless. The conditions that you recommend changing--all of them excellent points, BTW--are completely integral to the situation. The racial doctrines of Nazism underpinned their political and military behavior, so humane treatment was simply not in the cards. We see a lost political opportunity because our reaoning isn't driven from a racial perspective.

The issue of mechanization of the supply chain is valid, if also a bit clouded. For all the propaganda then and now, the German army was never as mechanized as our's was in '44-'45. Not even close. Nor did their TO&E even call for it, unlike ours. In short, they never planned for a long war with anybody and structured their forces accordingly. Very poor strategic planning, but not something that could have been changed. The Fuhrer decreed that conquests would be fast and cheap, so that is the force structure his military built. This applies especially to the Luftwaffe, which was doctrinally never intended to be more than flying artillery.

Ther Germans never tried to cover what we see as strategic weaknesses because they DIDN'T see them as weaknesses. That's why I say the line of argument is flawed: Unable to see the situation as we do for racial and doctrinal reasons, the Germans could not have created conditions that would have given them better odds. Imperial overreach, indeed!

Greg

Well, I don't understand why you say that Hitler's personality has nothing to do with invading Russia or not. It has everything to do with it! Do you really think he should have invaded Poland, or France? Was any of it unfoolish?

As I mentioned above, Hitler originaly planned to invade Russia at a later date. But, we're looking back on events with the benefit of hindsight. We can't expect people to act how we think they should.

The war is not rational to begin with. If you want to blame WWII on Versailles on WWI, fine. Fact is, it was Hitlers war. It was his vision and his motivation that gave it the impetus.

National Socialists would not have been National Socialists if they did not invade Russia!

Steve

Could the Germans have defeated USSR? Probably, but as mentioned above, it would require major changes in the Nazi philosophy - treat liberated peoples (as oppossed to conquered masses) as equals, and trade space for time and use superior German tactics and training to defeat USSR counterattacks and counter offensives. They also failed to keep there eyes on main targets - destroy teh enemies military first, then worry about terrain. When Hitler failed to capture Moscow the first year, he failed to capture the major transportation junction in the USSR - would have made transfer of Russian forces all but impossible. He also failed to clear northern flank - he could have conquered Leningrad and Murmansk, but went after wide-open steppes.

Now for higher level strategy - Hitler had promised the Navy he would not start a war until 1944 - when a major surface fleet would have been available to challenge British control of North Sea and Bay of Biscay. Instead he started in 1939 and German Navy was fed piecemeal to its destruction. Second, Germany was not in full war production until late '43, they were still producing cars and trucks for civilians up till then along with other luxuries, while infantry divisions were still horse-drawn.

Actually, I'm glad it went the way it did. My Dad might had gotten sucked into the war (he was in high school at the time) and I might have never been

I respectfully submit that arguing from that position is essentially pointless.

Greg, I was debating whether to even post here since alternative "what if" history to me is pretty pointless unless you are using it as lesson for what you want to do yourself. I will restate my position and say, If I was to have invaded Russia it is what I would have done and leave it at that. However, my ambitions in life are slightly more modest and genteel.

The whole Hitlerian venture across the board was hopeless in every aspect and the end was inevitable. It just created so much agony, misery and shattered lives as it wound its way through to its inexorible conclusion.

But for the sake of speculation, "What if Stalin had invaded Germany first?"

Why sould Stalin have chosen a course like this?

Steve

Stalin could have listened to the military and spy network and done a first strike. He chose to ignore those voices and even had them purged because it was not news he wanted to hear. I mean, was or wasn't Stalin surprised by the invasion? If he was then it was in defiance of what his military and spy network was telling him. If he wasn't he lost the opportunity and momentum of a pre-emptive strike.

You apparently have missed my point. Strategically, Hitler should have waited. That was my point. Personality or not, he should have waited, it would've benefited. Don't tell me not to use hindsight. That is how it was. Hitler could have seen that as well as his advisors could have seen it. To not see it is not like them. He wanted to attack the because of the hatred for Commies.
Look, we don't need to fight this war over like some of you want to. No offense. This is a forum to discuss opinion, not to rail on each other.

Reminds me of Dr. Strangelove..."there will be no fighting in the War Room."

Well I don't think that disagreeing with you is starting a war or trying to be offensive. It may be a lively discussion but not a personal attack.

The fact is sure, we look back now and say it was wrong to move when they did. But, you have to look at events at the time and know what people were faced with. Actually, the Germans made amazing advances in Russia and maybe if they had gotten to Moscow and captured the government, we'd be speaking German today. But, that's specualtion and ultimately meaningless.

I think what I disagreed with in your post was the fact that you said Hitler's personality had nothing to do with any of this. Well, my argument is that it was Hitler's personality that had everything to do with WWII as it occured. Now if there had been no Hitler, maybe WWII would have been started by some other leader, but we can only look at what we have...

Perssonally, I'm glad he didn't wait and I'm glad the winter was the coldest in history and I'm glad that the Nazi's got their asses kicked eventually.

But, I don't think we will learn anything new or gain any new insights as to what actually happened if we keep saying 'what if'. It's certainly fun, but were not going to understand the war any better.

Steve

Yes, it would have. There was too much bad blood brewing between France and Germany. The military now controlled Japan and they were plundering China. Just a matter of time. Now as someone previously stated, if Germany and Japan had won the hearts and minds of the people, appearing as liberators (from colonial oppression) instead of marauding conquerors. The maps would look much different now.

Just a thought ..isn't it funny how Communism and Nazism were supposed to be polar opposites...when in fact and theory they are much the same. They both rely on a strong central leader...everything is done for the good of the state at the expense of the individual...there is little or no free market economy( I know some German industrialists prospered in the war). Their political organizations & social clubs etc., had different names but similar goals....namely political indoctrination at the earliest age and glorification( almost godlike idoloization) of the leader ,i.e. Stalin Lennin, Hitler. Whereas communism,as someone already mentioned, accepted everyone..Nazism was based primarily on the Germanic race...I wonder what would have happened to all of those foreign volunteers,Lavians, Ukranians, Croations, Slovakians,Russians..had Germany won the war?

Guys---just a great exchange of thoughts here. Let me try to summarize your inputs:

Invasion of Russia---not necessarily a bad idea, but lacking in preparation and execution

Leadership---propelled by a lunacy seldom seen on the face of the earth

Economic disparity between Germany and Russia played heavily on the campaigns in Russia

Anyone want to add, please do.
thanks
DJ

i'm glad he did,it let the rest of us off the hook.
Arthur
Am Alba Mannich

Art---until the Germans invaded Russia, the British were never going to be buddies with the USSR. Stalin was a bigger butcher than Hitler.
DJ

I agree. I think the US even felt that USSR was a greater threat to the US than Nazi Germany (being right next door and all that). Although both leaders were despots, Stalin was stil consolidating his resources within his borders and Hitler was the one grabbing land from our allies.

Absolutely.

Before the war, Communism was considered a greater threat than the National Socialists or Fascists were.

In fact, many in Europe thought Hitler was good for Germany. They thought that he may be a little uppity but time in power would temper him and he would not be a great threat.

Remember, Mein Kampf was no bestseller when it was published. It was not a well read book, so many of Hitlers extreme views were not know to the average person or even the average ploitical. Of course, Churchill is one big exception to this. Churchill was always fearfull of the Nazis and hated Hitler.

We also have to talk about racism and in particular anti-semitism. People at that time believed it was race that determined position in life. You have to look to the science, social science, and philosophy of the early 20th century to see this. (The Nazis carried these ideas to their extreme. )

Remember, the British and French were colonial empires that really didn't do great things for many of the people they controlled, though it is never fair to compare their wrong-doings with the Nazis!

As far as a hatred of Jews, trust me this was not just a Hitler idea. There's plenty of evidence that when news of what was happening to the Jews in Germany in the late '30's, nobody really was prepared to do much about it. Of course there's still plenty of this going on in the world today...

One more thing, Monarchy's were in fashion at the time. Many considered Hitler and Mussolini to be justified rulers because of the way power had been conferred or handed them by existing rulers in their countries.

Steve

Well, these people were to be the workers for the Master Race. These were the guys and gals who would be essentially slave labor for the Nazis. (They would build the really bad looking architecture and monuments that the Nazis seemed to enjoy.)

These 'lesser peoples' would be livestock. (No, the Nazis weren't canibals!) Again, not a new idea cooked up by the Nazis, slavery has long been a part of European (and world) tradition...

Here's a great question; why is all the art in state's like Nazi Germany so bad? Look at that stuff, crap. Maybe when Hitler either jailed, killed or drove out all the intellectuals and Jews there was no one left to think of anything decent!

Steve

My Friends---What continues to amaze me is the number of authors who advocate that the German drive on Moscow could have succeeded. I believe it was doomed to fail from the start. There was just too much Russia and not enough Germans to mount a sustained winter campaign. The supply lines were streched and breaking. The weather was awful and the vehicles just could not survive in that environment. So, materially and physically the Moscow push was as big a waste as the entire concept of invading so vast a country as Russia.
DJ

Well, it didn't work so I see your point! :-)

But, we are saying 'could' have worked and sure, it was possible. But, there would have had to have been different circumstances. Like the weather, like leadership, like air superiority, etc...

It didn't work and that's the reality we are left with. Still, the Germans were within sight (or so they say) of the city...

We can look back on the entire war Germany started and say it was doomed from the start. Unfortunately, many people at the time couldn't do the same.

Steve