# Why Operation Barbarossa failed



## Brian G Turner (Mar 14, 2017)

A video on why the German invasion of Russia - Operation Barbarosa  - failed, which underlines German overconfidence after success in France:


----------



## RX-79G (Mar 14, 2017)

Has there ever been an invasion of Russia that didn't fail? Bad weather and disposable citizens are a powerful defense.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Mar 14, 2017)

Well, you could argue that the Mongols successfully invaded in the thirteenth century - although I'll admit there could be a debate about the state of 'Russia' at the time. It was still a Slavic people and Rus was up and running...

Going back even further the Vikings were very successful and didn't really fail when they pushed into the territory and a bit like their influence in the UK they helped form and develop future Rus. Possibly it would be wrong to call them an 'invasion' in the same way that Napoleon's march was.  

In more modern times the German/'Austro-Hungarians forced Russia to capitulate in 1917 which I would definitely count. Of course they had no time to capitalise on their victory as they had more pressing matters in the West to try and deal with.


----------



## BAYLOR (Mar 14, 2017)

There is simply no way Germany could have conquered and occupied Russia, it's way too big,  even had they captured Moscow , It would made no difference at all.  They were  stretched to thin as it was from the conquest of  Europe.  And once the Russian winter set in , they were done because they made no preparations for it.  Their tanks, trucks , weapons and soldiers didn't operate well in the extreme cold . The Russians and their equipment did operate and they far greater manpower then did the Germans.

One the biggest  shocks to Wehrmacht and the German high command   was the Soviet  T34 Tank which packed more firepower and was ore robust then anything the Germans had at that time. And the Russians could out produce the Germans in factories that were out rage Germany's bombers.

What also didn't help was the fact that the Luftwaffe after the Battle of Britain  had lots many of it best pilots and was weakened.


----------



## Boneman (Mar 16, 2017)

If you want to be given shivers that last for months, read 'Stalingrad' by Antony Beevor. The best account I've ever read of Barbarossa - phenomenal research, but reads so easily.


----------



## Foxbat (Mar 16, 2017)

Boneman said:


> If you want to be given shivers that last for months, read 'Stalingrad' by Antony Beevor. The best account I've ever read of Barbarossa - phenomenal research, but reads so easily.


Then read the same author's book on the fall of Berlin for the other side of the coin. Harrowing stuff.


----------



## Boneman (Mar 16, 2017)

Foxbat said:


> Then read the same author's book on the fall of Berlin for the other side of the coin. Harrowing stuff.



Brilliant, thx. Didn't know there was one. He's a phenomenal writer.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Mar 16, 2017)

For a first hand account of Blitzkrieg and Barbarossa you might be interested in Heinz Guderian's account of the war - _Panzer Leader. _

It's a bit dry in parts _and_ it's written with hindsight with an eye to the US, so I do think he fudges some important issues and perhaps expands the importance of others, nevertheless it is still first hand. I'd go and get Von Manstein's memoirs, but I have at least 15 history books next to my bed that need to be read, maybe sometime in 2019...


----------



## Foxbat (Mar 17, 2017)

Boneman said:


> Brilliant, thx. Didn't know there was one. He's a phenomenal writer.


Berlin: The Downfall 1945 eBook: Antony Beevor: Amazon.co.uk: Books


----------



## Justin Swanton (Mar 17, 2017)

My own take is that WW2 was essentially a battle of factories. Blitzkrieg is fine as a quick-kill technique provided you don't have too large an enemy and much terrain to cover. The Wehrmacht did brilliantly in Russia during the first few months - caught the enemy napping, lots of pincer encirclements, hundreds of thousands of prisoners bagged. But German tanks could move only so far and so fast before wearing out. By the time the Germany army reached Moscow it had lost half its armor through sheer wear and tear. And no matter how much the Germans took, the Russians still had millions of recruitable citizens in the rear along with most of their factories. This gave them time to learn Blitzkrieg tactics, counter them (no Russian army was encircled during the 1942 German offensive) and eventually master them. In the end it came down to a slugfest, who could outproduce who, and once the US entered the war it was all over for Germany.

On the subject of the battle of Berlin, The Last Battle by Cornelius Ryan is well worth a look.


----------



## Foxbat (Mar 17, 2017)

Justin Swanton said:


> My own take is that WW2 was essentially a battle of factories. Blitzkrieg is fine as a quick-kill technique provided you don't have too large an enemy and much terrain to cover. The Wehrmacht did brilliantly in Russia during the first few months - caught the enemy napping, lots of pincer encirclements, hundreds of thousands of prisoners bagged. But German tanks could move only so far and so fast before wearing out. By the time the Germany army reached Moscow it had lost half its armor through sheer wear and tear. And no matter how much the Germans took, the Russians still had millions of recruitable citizens in the rear along with most of their factories. This gave them time to learn Blitzkrieg tactics, counter them (no Russian army was encircled during the 1942 German offensive) and eventually master them. In the end it came down to a slugfest, who could outproduce who, and once the US entered the war it was all over for Germany.



I agree with your assessment and would simply add that, as soon as Russia was attacked, the country went into a total war footing. It was 1943 before Germany reached that status (Hitler felt it important that the Home Front be as unaffected as possible by the war) so, not only was it a war of factories, it was also a war of priorities.


----------



## reiver33 (Feb 27, 2018)

I'd recommend _Lost Victories_ by von Manstein. It's a tad self-serving in places but his description of how Hitler conducted 'grand strategy' (it was neither grand nor strategic) makes it clear Germany could never have won under his leadership. If nothing else his wilful disregard for (or inability to grasp) the limitations imposed by logistics exacerbated an already precarious supply situation.


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 27, 2018)

Even had Hitler taken Moscow and the oilfields in the south , there is just no way he could occupied the vast expanse that his Russia.


----------



## Foxbat (Feb 28, 2018)

I read an article a while back (can't remember where) about the psychological effects advancing through Russia had on the German infantryman. From what I remember, the vast, unchanging terrain in the south in particular had a pretty detrimental effect on their mental health. So, even if everything else went well for Hitler, the plummeting morale (and susequent loss of unit efficiency) may have been something that was impossible to predict or plan for.


----------



## reiver33 (Feb 28, 2018)

BAYLOR said:


> Even had Hitler taken Moscow and the oilfields in the south , there is just no way he could occupied the vast expanse that his Russia.


Check out the Landkreuzer P1000, obviously the inspiration for some of the monsterous vehicles in Thunderbirds. (It was to be powered by 2 U-boat engines)


----------



## Venusian Broon (Feb 28, 2018)

Foxbat said:


> I read an article a while back (can't remember where) about the psychological effects advancing through Russia had on the German infantryman. From what I remember, the vast, unchanging terrain in the south in particular had a pretty detrimental effect on their mental health. So, even if everything else went well for Hitler, the plummeting morale (and susequent loss of unit efficiency) may have been something that was impossible to predict or plan for.



It hadn't been planned for, because they (honestly, or perhaps more accurately awash with the glow of massive hubris after conquering most of Europe) expected to knock Russia out of the war after about 10 weeks. Despite quotes from many stating that they would not repeat the same mistakes as Napoleon....this is exactly the same reason Napoleon failed in 1812, he too expecting Russia to captivate quickly after an overwhelming invasion.

And perhaps the biggest failing was an almost total lack of correct strategic thinking - their intelligence on other nations was bad or just plain wrong. By their original expectations and understandings of the capacities of the Soviet Union, they should have wiped out the Soviet air force, armoured forces, armament production, troop morale etc. Yet they had severely underestimated Russian production as well as the length's the USSR would take to relocate factories. This was also a function of the level of determination of the Soviets, which again they badly underestimated.

In 1942 the invasion of the Caucasus looked reasonable on paper - it's purpose was to take Soviet oil resources for their own - yet again it was with little understanding of the actual extent of Soviet natural resources. They did indeed manage to overwhelm a great deal of the region, hence stopping a lot of the areas oil production, yet actually total Soviet oil production rose during the same time period despite the disruption. Added to this fact was the extremely effective action the Soviets took in destroying their own oil wells in the region. I believe in the end, over the entire campaign period, the Germans only managed to extract ~4000 tons of oil - a piddling amount for the vast effort and sacrifice.


----------



## Edward M. Grant (Feb 28, 2018)

Foxbat said:


> I read an article a while back (can't remember where) about the psychological effects advancing through Russia had on the German infantryman.



While I'm sure that's true, I doubt it was as bad as the psychological effects of so many of them being addicted to crystal meth (I forget the name the Nazis used for the drug they were feeding to soldiers, but the contents were pretty much the same as the drug modern meth addicts use).


----------



## The Ace (Mar 1, 2018)

I still remember an historian discussing the contrast between the two campaigns;

In France, the separate forces involved converged on Paris, in the USSR, the three Army Groups diverged as they advanced, denying mutual support.

German tanks ran on petrol, and in France, just about any village had a petrol station - if they got low on fuel, the crew could easily acquire it.  In the USSR, fuel had to be transported to the Front, with attendant logistical problems.

Coupled with this, the invasion of France was feasible (if difficult), while over-confidence and slapdash planning made invasion of the USSR a *very *different proposition.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Mar 1, 2018)

The German high command chose to believe their own propaganda and thought the Soviets were so inferior that they would simply roll over. There was also the paranoia that Stalin would sneak attack Germany if they game him time and that now was a great time to attack seeing as Stalin had murdered all of his experienced officers. Besides, Germany desperately needed the oil.

And they almost pulled it off. Stalin was on the verge of fleeing Moscow and if he had and perhaos fled East across the Urals then Western Russia would have been at the mercy of the Nazis. But the Soviets dug in , and a freezing winter coupled with an enormous effort on behalf of the Russian people to produce tanks and planes in vast quantities turned Barbarossa into a war of attrition from which there could only ever be one winner.


----------



## BAYLOR (Mar 1, 2018)

paranoid marvin said:


> The German high command chose to believe their own propaganda and thought the Soviets were so inferior that they would simply roll over. There was also the paranoia that Stalin would sneak attack Germany if they game him time and that now was a great time to attack seeing as Stalin had murdered all of his experienced officers. Besides, Germany desperately needed the oil.
> 
> And they almost pulled it off. Stalin was on the verge of fleeing Moscow and if he had and perhaos fled East across the Urals then Western Russia would have been at the mercy of the Nazis. But the Soviets dug in , and a freezing winter coupled with an enormous effort on behalf of the Russian people to produce tanks and planes in vast quantities turned Barbarossa into a war of attrition from which there could only ever be one winner.



Then there was the T 34 Tank which outclassed to the Panzers mach I though 4. The Germans didn't believe the Russians could come with such a tank  or how many of them that they could turn out in a month.


----------



## WarriorMouse (Mar 2, 2018)

The T34/76 out classed the Mk 1,2,3 Panzers but is considered equal to the Mk4/75
The T34/85 was better than the Mk4 but arrived  in the field in 44.
The T34/76 was cheaper and easier to produce plus the Russian Generals had no problem with sacificing as much cannon fodder as they could. 
Germany had a limited supply of everything.

Barbarossa and the war failed because of the belief in the loonie ideology (Aryanism)of the Nazi Party.


----------



## BAYLOR (Mar 2, 2018)

WarriorMouse said:


> The T34/76 out classed the Mk 1,2,3 Panzers but is considered equal to the Mk4/75
> The T34/85 was better than the Mk4 but arrived  in the field in 44.
> The T34/76 was cheaper and easier to produce plus the Russian Generals had no problem with sacificing as much cannon fodder as they could.
> Germany had a limited supply of everything.
> ...



And the Tiger 1 was a very good tank, one the best of WW II . It outclassed the T 34 in terms firepower  with its 88 Millimeter gun and had good armor protection. Unfortunately, at 56 tones , It guzzled fuel and wasn't quite as agile as the T34, It's  Maybach engine and fuel pump had breakdown issues . In contrast, to the T 34 Tank was simple and far easier to produce  in great numbers and was  easy to fix on the battlefield. The tiger I was complex and  battlefield repair was problematic.  And the Germans  were never able to produce them in great numbers.


----------



## Edward M. Grant (Mar 2, 2018)

The Ace said:


> Coupled with this, the invasion of France was feasible (if difficult), while over-confidence and slapdash planning made invasion of the USSR a *very *different proposition.



Another big difference was that Stalin knew he'd die if he lost, and didn't give two hoots about sending millions of Russians to their deaths to save himself. The French could surrender and had a strong incentive to do so rather than let many of their people die. Stalin couldn't and didn't.

And let's not forget the Russian railway line gauge, which required all cargo from Germany to be swapped from German trains to Russian trains at the border. That alone must have had a significant impact on logistics.


----------



## BAYLOR (Oct 11, 2020)

Edward M. Grant said:


> Another big difference was that Stalin knew he'd die if he lost, and didn't give two hoots about sending millions of Russians to their deaths to save himself. The French could surrender and had a strong incentive to do so rather than let many of their people die. Stalin couldn't and didn't.
> 
> And let's not forget the Russian railway line gauge, which required all cargo from Germany to be swapped from German trains to Russian trains at the border. That alone must have had a significant impact on logistics.



Beria or one the other politburo members would have eliminated Stalin had he lost. Most likely Beria.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Oct 11, 2020)

It was a brave person who took on Stalin. Anyone with even the remotest possibility of challenging him he eliminated. To be overthrown it would have likely taken a collaboration of conspirators, and I'm not sure those close to him would have trusted others with such a task. In all honesty with just how badly the fist few months of the war went for Russia, if he was to be removed in a coup it would have been then. I think it's quite likely that - just like Hitler - he would be more likely to have shot himself than be assassinated.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Oct 11, 2020)

paranoid marvin said:


> It was a brave person who took on Stalin. Anyone with even the remotest possibility of challenging him he eliminated. To be overthrown it would have likely taken a collaboration of conspirators, and I'm not sure those close to him would have trusted others with such a task. In all honesty with just how badly the fist few months of the war went for Russia, if he was to be removed in a coup it would have been then. I think it's quite likely that - just like Hitler - he would be more likely to have shot himself than be assassinated.


To a certain extent this was of Stalin's own choosing. He carefully surrounded himself at the top with yes-men, those he had control over and virtually all of them feared him. Whilst he removed those he feared or may have been an alternative leader - the Great Purge of 1937-39 being one of the most obvious signs that was what he was doing. But he got rid of rivals all the time. 

So at the time of the initial thrust of Barbarossa and Stalin had 'loss of confidence' and he left for two days, no-one stepped up to lead, even temporally for some obvious orders - in case Stalin would misconstrue them when he returned. When they went out to find him it was to ask him to come back and led them.


----------



## BAYLOR (Oct 11, 2020)

paranoid marvin said:


> It was a brave person who took on Stalin. Anyone with even the remotest possibility of challenging him he eliminated. To be overthrown it would have likely taken a collaboration of conspirators, and I'm not sure those close to him would have trusted others with such a task. In all honesty with just how badly the fist few months of the war went for Russia, if he was to be removed in a coup it would have been then. I think it's quite likely that - just like Hitler - he would be more likely to have shot himself than be assassinated.



Sergei Kirov  who was Stalin's best fired but had the misfortune of being more popular than Stalin.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Oct 11, 2020)

Venusian Broon said:


> To a certain extent this was of Stalin's own choosing. He carefully surrounded himself at the top with yes-men, those he had control over and virtually all of them feared him. Whilst he removed those he feared or may have been an alternative leader - the Great Purge of 1937-39 being one of the most obvious signs that was what he was doing. But he got rid of rivals all the time.
> 
> So at the time of the initial thrust of Barbarossa and Stalin had 'loss of confidence' and he left for two days, no-one stepped up to lead, even temporally for some obvious orders - in case Stalin would misconstrue them when he returned. When they went out to find him it was to ask him to come back and led them.



Yes Stalin made a rod for his own back. He was more bothered about staying in control than he was about anything else. Which can work when you're a dictator and in peace time, but when things really get tough and the survival of your very country is at stake it's a recipe for disaster.

Even when things were going badly, even  in old age, even in ill health (and even apparently even when he had died), Stalin was greatly feared to the point were it was almost impossible to plot a conspiracy against him.


----------



## BAYLOR (Oct 11, 2020)

paranoid marvin said:


> Yes Stalin made a rod for his own back. He was more bothered about staying in control than he was about anything else. Which can work when you're a dictator and in peace time, but when things really get tough and the survival of your very country is at stake it's a recipe for disaster.
> 
> Even when things were going badly, even  in old age, even in ill health (and even apparently even when he had died), Stalin was greatly feared to the point were it was almost impossible to plot a conspiracy against him.



Did you ever see the 2017 film *The Death of Stalin*?  It was darkly comic take on the events surround Stalin death in 1953 and the jockeying for power of all his various cronies.  It's a terrific film.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Oct 11, 2020)

BAYLOR said:


> Did you ever see the 2017 film *The Death of Stalin*?  It was darkly comic take on the events surround Stalin death in 1953 and the jockeying for power of all his various cronies.  It' a terrific film.



No, but I remember seeing it advertised at the time. Thanks, will have to check it out!


----------



## BAYLOR (Oct 12, 2020)

Venusian Broon said:


> To a certain extent this was of Stalin's own choosing. He carefully surrounded himself at the top with yes-men, those he had control over and virtually all of them feared him. Whilst he removed those he feared or may have been an alternative leader - the Great Purge of 1937-39 being one of the most obvious signs that was what he was doing. But he got rid of rivals all the time.
> 
> So at the time of the initial thrust of Barbarossa and Stalin had 'loss of confidence' and he left for two days, no-one stepped up to lead, even temporally for some obvious orders - in case Stalin would misconstrue them when he returned. When they went out to find him it was to ask him to come back and led them.



Purging the Russian  Military of all his best Generals and military officers  was by far the stupidest thing Stalin could have done . Had he not done any of that , far fewer Russian civilians would have died because a competently run Army  would have  stopped the Germans dead in their tracks far sooner.

The politburo should have executed  Stalin for his  thunderous Incompetence.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Oct 12, 2020)

BAYLOR said:


> Purging the Russian  Military of all his best Generals and military officers  was by far the stupidest thing Stalin could have done . Had he not done any of that , far fewer Russian civilians would have died because a competently run Army  would have  stopped the Germans dead in their tracks far sooner.
> 
> The politburo should have executed  Stalin for his  thunderous Incompetence.



Actually I disagree. Would a more competently run Army would been able to hold against Barbarossa? The Germans started with more men, armies with a lot of experience and an initial plan they knew how to implement and had the element of surprise. The Russians were asked to hold on at all costs and this caused a large number of 'cauldrens' or pockets forming as German panzer armies surrounded them. But also this dogged defence really hurt the German war machine and did effectively blunt it by October. Then logistics, the Russian Winter and the Soviet reponse in finding fresh troops, stopped them. 

Yes, a more competent commander might have allowed fronts to fall back before they were cut off, saving more men and putting up more resistance later, but it took a while for the Soviets to learn how to fight effectively and get their industry back firing on all cylinders. 

Stalin was 'the poltiburo' surely.


----------



## Justin Swanton (Oct 14, 2020)

Stalin's biggest error was not to put the Red Army on high alert when Soviet intelligence was clear the Germans were about to attack. That would probably have saved their air force at least and allowed more units to pull back before being surrounded, but it would not have been enough to stop the Wehrmacht dead in its tracks. It would require over a year of warfare before the Soviets finally understood blitzkrieg and were properly equipped and organised to fight it. What really saved them was the huge size of their country, which meant the Germans could not seize all crucial areas before running out of steam (half their tanks out of commission by the time they reached Moscow), and the size of the Russian population, which meant the Soviets could make up their massive losses in a way the Poles and French could not. Blitzkrieg only works on smaller countries that can be knocked out before they have the chance to reorganise and refit their army.


----------



## Foxbat (Oct 14, 2020)

Stalin’s biggest error was not reading Mein Kampf. It’s there in black and white from 1925


----------



## Justin Swanton (Oct 14, 2020)

Foxbat said:


> Stalin’s biggest error was not reading Mein Kampf. It’s there in black and white from 1925



Considering its original title: "A Four and a Half Years' Struggle Against Stupidity, Cowardice and Lies; Settling Accounts with Enemies of the National Socialist Party", he probably decided to give it a pass.


----------



## Foxbat (Oct 14, 2020)

Hitler did like a rant and that book is one massive rant


----------

