Operation Barbarossa - What if

[ShadesWolf]

Operation Barbarossa started in June 1941. What if Britain/ France etc had not declared war in 1939, and Barbarossa could have been in June 1940 ?

We all know that Russia had a problem with Finland, if Germany had not been fighting on as many fronts as it was might the outcome of the invasion have been different ?

[Kagemusha]

I believe that is very hard question. Soviet Army was at pretty bad state in spring 1940.Also without Western Supplies they got in 1941,they could have collapsed lot easier. But then Also without the experience of the France,Yogoslavian and Campaign in Creece the Wermacht wouldnt have possessed the experience it had.Also without new recruits from younger Generations the Finish army was almost out of fresh blood straight after Winter War.There is lots to speculate in this matter this can turn out to be very intresting thread.

[spmetla]

This is definately abig "what if".

Let's see, the Wehrmacht was fairly well sized and would have had the experience of their Polish conquest but on the other hand the elite Panzers were still very primitive. Lots of Pz Is, PzIIs and Pz35/38s and only a handful of undergunned and underarmored PzIIIs and PzIVs. The MP 40 had only just entered mass production and the MP 38 was still a fairly rare weapon. Most artillery was horse drawn and the same goes for most supply.

The Kriegsmarine though was at it's greatest strength for it's surface fleet at this time and the U boot arm was still small but very effective.

The Luftwaffe was also very large at this point and for the time very well equipped for blitzkrieg warfare.

Taking this into consideration the Germans would probably have done very well initially but the advance would have been a fare bit slower seeing as the Panzer forces hadn't had the opportunity to practice true breakthrough fighting as they did in France and the Lowlands so they'd be less experienced and the tactics still rather primitive. The Soviet forces had very few good tanks at the time but they were get their KV series and T 34s on line so once these appeared they would have had total dominace of the battlefield, at least where these tanks could appear. There would probably of still been the huge routs of the 1941 invasion but with a less effective panzer arm encircling would probably have been slower and less soviets would have been captured. These fast yet slower advances might not have made the moving of Soviet industry to the Urals nessasary.

The Luftwaffe with only a single front to cover would have been able to maintain it's air superiority much longer than in the 41 invasion and with german industry not threatened by allied bombing the quick replacement of llost equipment could have allowed air dominance instead of just superiority. Without the losses of Ju 52 transports in an invasion of Crete the Luftwaffe would also have had it's elite Fallshirmjaeger to deploy in advance of Wehrmacht units and to capture bridgeheads and other strategic locations which if done properly could have made up for the weakness of german panzer forces at the time and also have allowed for an effective abiltity to supply forward units from the air to keep the momentum going.

The Kriegsmarine would have again had dominance over the Baltic sea but without the losses of the Norway invasion would have been perhaps able to better support the advance of units near the shore and if done correctly to help in a siege or encirclement of Leningrad. And without the heavy losses the U boot arm took from British destroyers and convoys the Germans might have been able to spare more U IIs for transport to the Black sea in greater support of Romanian operations.

All in all I think the Germans would have achieved great initial success just like in 41 and with the Soviets morale having lowered do to their poor performance in the Winter War with the Finns the USSR might have actually collapsed like it was predicted in 41. On the other hand without the experiences learned in France the Germans would probably not have been near as daring as they were with their strategic objectives in 41 so perhaps they would have been prepared for the winter and had a successful spring offensive in 41 to take Moscow or perhaps this would have enabled the Soviets to retain more control strategicly and to put the war into a stalemate much sooner than 42-43

[Franconicus]

If Britain and France would have decided to give the Germans free hand in Poland then the Poles would have accepted the German requests. Parts of Poland would have become German; the bigger part, however, would haveremained Polish, although a German protectorate. There would have been a German dominated alliance between Germany, Poland, Hungary, Rumania and Yugoslavia. In the end this is what France and Poland would have had to agree with.

If we pretend they did it, then there would have been no tensions between Germany and its Western neighbors. I assume that at least the British would have supported the German invasion of the SU, because they were anti communistic. Maybe not with troops, but politically and with supply. Same for the US.

Other countries, like Spain and Italy would have been involved directly in the military operations. Maybe even volunteers from all Western countries, including Britain and France; just like during the Spanish civil war.

German industry would have had no problems getting natural resources (not only oil!).

So we talk about an alliance of Germany, Spain, Italy, Finland, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia, probably Turkey, with support of Britain, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden and Norway.

Maybe Britain would have even invaded Afghanistan and the Caucasus republics.

No doubt that the SU would have lost the war.

[English assassin]

I'm not sure an invasion in 1940 wouldn't have been harder than in 1941.

The SU had a truly vast tank park, but of mostly obsolete models. But as Spmetla points out, the German tanks of 1940 vintage were not that superior. The extra years production of PZKFW III and IV may have been very important (though you'd need to compare it with the figures for the T34 and KV1).

Russian tactics would no doubt have been as poor in 1940 as in 1941, but the German Army would have lacked the battle experience it had in 1941.

Most fundamentally, on the political front, surely a large number of divisions would have had to be retained in Germany for fear that France and Britain would declare war in support of the SU (ie as they did in fact for Poland). I forget how many divisions the French fielded compared to the Germans but I recall that the French army was (rightly) perceived as a formidable force, and the fact that historically it fell quite quickly to a blitzkreig attack doesn't, IMHO, make an undefeated french army on the western german border in 1940any less of a threat.

So unless some sort of diplomatic scenario is being assumed whereby French and British neutrality is guaranteed I'd think the invasion was impossible.

[Louis VI the Fat]

What if Germany invaded the SU in 1940? The Germans would've penetrated deep into Russia. They would've penetrated deep into Russia before the winter. Severe cold and Soviet counterattacks would take their toll. In the spring of 1941, they would've advanced to the outskirts of Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad, stretching their supply lines and keeping the bulk of the German army occupied.

Then, on the first of may 1941, France crosses the Rhine, Britain lands at Bremen and Hamburg. Three days later, French and British troops play rugby underneath the Brandenburger Tor.

[Franconicus]

What if Germany invaded the SU in 1940? The Germans would've penetrated deep into Russia. They would've penetrated deep into Russia before the winter. Severe cold and Soviet counterattacks would take their toll. In the spring of 1941, they would've advanced to the outskirts of Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad, stretching their supply lines and keeping the bulk of the German army occupied.

Then, on the first of may 1941, France crosses the Rhine, Britain lands at Bremen and Hamburg. Three days later, French and British troops play rugby underneath the Brandenburger Tor.

Who wins?

[Louis VI the Fat]

France, with 31-6.

Oh, you didn't mean the rugby match but the war? Well, while the entire German army was engaged in a war on the eastern front, France / Britain occupied Germany in a textbook blitzkrieg. Dazed and confused, cut off from their occupied homeland, the German army goes 'uh, now what?' and decide to just run rampage in the Ukraine. They spend the rest of the year fighting a war of attrition on Soviet soil.

France and Britain spend the rest of 1941 in occupied Germany, waiting for the Germans and Russians to exhaust each other. By spring 1942, France / Britain attack from the west, America lands in Vladiwostok. Six weeks later, they meet at the Ural mountains. Having annihilated Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, they now turn their attention towards Japan. In one swift overland campaign staged from occupied Russia, they drive them from mainland Asia. Under threat of the huge allied force ready to stage an invasion from Korea, Japan surrenders. By the summer of 1942, WWII is over.

[Kraxis]

Since the winter of 40-41 was comparably mild compared to 41-42 it wouldn't have had as hard an impact on the Germans.

In 1940 the KV-1 and T-34 hardly existed. A few trial vehicles existed of course, and I believe a few combat tanks as well. But not the 1000 each of 41. Thus the Germans wouldn't have had to contend with them, but would still learn the lessons when they faced the very few there were.

But I think the Soviets had a number of Armoured divisions at this time, that only got broken up late in the year. Kind of ironic that they were broken up.

[Avicenna]

What if Germany invaded the SU in 1940? The Germans would've penetrated deep into Russia. They would've penetrated deep into Russia before the winter. Severe cold and Soviet counterattacks would take their toll. In the spring of 1941, they would've advanced to the outskirts of Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad, stretching their supply lines and keeping the bulk of the German army occupied.

Then, on the first of may 1941, France crosses the Rhine, Britain lands at Bremen and Hamburg. Three days later, French and British troops play rugby underneath the Brandenburger Tor.

Louis, they would still be stuck with Russian winter. June 1940 or June 1941...

The Russians still had a lot of land and Stalins modernisation of the USSR past the Ural mountains though, and the Germans would have very very stretched out supply lines.

The Russians would have one less year to modernise though, and their military (ie tanks, AF and weapons) weren't that great even in 1941.

[Aenlic]

A lot of what-if's in WWII. As we've been discussing in the Sealion thread, what if Hitler hadn't insisted on the civilian target Blitz and continued instead to destroy Britain's military and industrial capacity, having essentially put the RAF out of action? Sealion would have gone on; or, as has been suggested by some historians, Churchill would have been out and Halifax would have been in and ready to come to terms. This would have freed the Luftwaffe for Barbarosa before the destruction wrought by the RAF during the Battle of Britain, might have kept the U.S. out of the European war, and would have made things much more favorable for Barbarosa in 1941. A strong Luftwaffe, Britain out of the conflict, the U.S. out of the conflict, no supply from either to the USSR, the threat of Japan from the East: all these things combined make Barbarosa a different matter.

Then again, Hitler would still have been in charge. His seeming inability to allow his generals to do what they knew how to do would still have been there. This is the man, after all, who essentially grounded the ME-262's by insisting that they be made bomber capable. If not for Hitler, Germany might have won WWII. But, if not for Hitler, there probably wouldn't have been a WWII.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Operation Barbarossa started in June 1941. What if Britain/ France etc had not declared war in 1939, and Barbarossa could have been in June 1940 ?

We all know that Russia had a problem with Finland, if Germany had not been fighting on as many fronts as it was might the outcome of the invasion have been different ?

I wouldn't be so sure. Stalin killed a lot of his best generals and disbanded his more elite units, for fear of treason in the ranks. If Germany invaded earlier, they would have had better generals and better troops to deal with. I'm not positive though, because a war on fewer fronts, would also free up great German generals and troops.