Mussolini... why Operation Barbarossa failed?

[RegentMan]

Because of Mussolini's failed invasion of Greece, Hitler had to invade it to protect his southern front. As a consequence, Operation Barbarossa had to be pushed back from spring 1941 to June 22, 1941. In real life, Hitler got to Moscow just as General Winter began destroying the German Army. My question is: is Operation Barbarossa's failure Mussolini's fault? Without his ally's misadventure, Hitler would have faced a less prepared enemy and reached Moscow by autumn. There's no doubt in my mind that the Reich would have prevailed in the Soviet capital. What are your thoughts?

 

[rilnator]

The main reason Hitler turned to the Balkans was because Yugoslavia changed camp on him and he wanted to punish them. If the Italians had of been able to take care of Greece on their own it may have shortened the German intervention in the region.
Hitler had his chance to take Moscow in July or August but decided to head south into the Ukraine.
The thought of the Italians capturing Greece and Crete really stretches my imagination.

 

[Case]

Germany's Balkans campaign didn't delay Barbarossa by a single day.

While the Germans had originally hoped to jump off before June 22, this proved to be infeasible due to logistical preperations taking longer then expected (logistics were always the German Army's weakest point) and bad weather hampering the construction of airbases in Poland. By the time the stockpiles had been moved up and the airbases completed all the units sent to that Balkans were back in position in Poland and Rumania.

Claims that the Balkans campaign delayed Barbarossa seem to have stemed from the British government's justifications of their disarsterous intervention in Greece. In reality, it made no difference.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

The spring rains and mud in the USSR had lasted later than usual that year. Even so, the berman forces would have been a bit more fit without the campaign in the Balkans.

 

[Zardnaar]

Hitler also changed his plans with a thrust into the Ukraine. Delayed the advance by a couple pf months.

 

[rilnator]

Originally posted by Case
Germany's Balkans campaign didn't delay Barbarossa by a single day.

While the Germans had originally hoped to jump off before June 22, this proved to be infeasible due to logistical preperations taking longer then expected

.

So your're saying the Germans couldn't have moved against Russia until the date they did due to supply problems. What of all the supplies used during the Balkan intervention? Wouldn't have this delayed the Germans even further?

At Nuremburg several German gernerals said Barbarossa was put back by a month because of the Germans attacking Greece and Yugoslavia.

 

[Case]

Originally posted by rilnator
. So your're saying the Germans couldn't have moved against Russia until the date they did due to supply problems.

No I'm not. I'm saying that the Germans didn't have what they believed to be sufficant logistical reserves in place untill late June. They could have invaded earlier, but would have gotten bogged down earlier then they historically did (say, Smolesk instead of Moscow).

What of all the supplies used during the Balkan intervention? Wouldn't have this delayed the Germans even further?

The Balkans operation was essentially a road march, and didn't use up a great deal of supplies (comparitively speaking). While it slowed German preperations in Poland, this didn't make much of a difference, especially given the situation with the weather delaying the construction of vital air bases.

At Nuremburg several German gernerals said Barbarossa was put back by a month because of the Germans attacking Greece and Yugoslavia.

Yeah. Which is a good reason to believe that the Balkans operation made no difference. The German generals did everything in their power after the war to rewrite history in order to blame everything on Hitler and shift the blame of themselves and the German armed forces.

In reality, June 22 was the earliest date the invasion could be launched. And even then the Germans could have done with a longer time to stockpile supplies.

Hitler also changed his plans with a thrust into the Ukraine. Delayed the advance by a couple pf months.

While it delayed the attack on Moscow, it resulted in the capture of some of the most important argicultural and industrial centres in the USSR and the destruction of a huge Soviet force (which in itself would have been able to cripple any all-out attack on Moscow). To win in 1941 The Germans needed to capture Leningrad and Moscow and the Ukraine. This was totally beyond the capabilities of the German military and constitutes the central reason why Barbarossa was doomed from day one.

 

[Anubisdk2]

Originally posted by Case


Yeah. Which is a good reason to believe that the Balkans operation made no difference. The German generals did everything in their power after the war to rewrite history in order to blame everything on Hitler and shift the blame of themselves and the German armed forces.

In reality, June 22 was the earliest date the invasion could be launched. And even then the Germans could have done with a longer time to stockpile supplies.

Case, Everything I have ever read or been taught in upper level college classes tells me that the Balkan invasion DID delay the invasion. Have you ever read Operation Barborossa or Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. Both long, but very interesting books on that cover this topic.

I am not going to break your whole argument down, because you have some valid points, however I do have one question. How can you say that it would NOT delay it when they wanted to invade in late April/early May and then didnt invade until June because the Italians could fight their way out of a wet paper bag (insert Italian tank joke here). Hitler had to delay the invasion because of this invasion. He had to break off some of the troops needed to invade Russia to go off and help the Italians in the Balkans. I want to know where you get June 22nd as the earliest date? I dont see how that is the earliest day without an invasion of the Balkans. I agree with the airbases, etc...but I dont get where you get this exact date.

Also, I am going to agree and disagree with you about the German generals. However, I am reading a book on Ribbentrop and he had a huge role in Germany affairs (obviously), but at the end of the war, they all said stuff in their defense, including Ribbentrop, at Nuremburg and at other trials. People tend not to self incriminate themselves no matter what the occassion.

However, I think this may be a moot point. After reading, When Titans Clashed I also saw how Hitler's Generals and Military advisors had underrated USSR's Military might. When looking at that book, I see how no matter when Germany had invaded the Soviet Union, it seems that Germany was going to lose anyway.

 

[RegentMan]

Originally posted by Anubisdk2
...I also saw how Hitler's Generals and Military advisors had underrated USSR's Military might.

Yeah, I read a book that said the Germans thought that they would win because the lightly equipped Finns managed to take out a lot of Soviets in the Winter War.

I have also read that Hitler's invasion of the Balkans delayed Operation Barbarossa. Something like from April to June.

 

[tossi]

Two months might be less but you have to remember that russian summer was the best time for such an operation - unlike the russian winter.

 

[rilnator]

Originally posted by Case

The German generals did everything in their power after the war to rewrite history in order to blame everything on Hitler and shift the blame of themselves and the German armed forces.

I agree with that statement to a certain extent.
After the war Paulus,, as well as von Rundstedt both told the allies they were delayed 4-5 weeks. The cheif planner of Barbarossa and an army group commander would be 2 people in the know.
The German Navy War Dairy also attests to the delay.

 

[Case]

Originally posted by Anubisdk2
Have you ever read Operation Barborossa or Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. Both long, but very interesting books on that cover this topic.

I've read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich and a number of works with the word Barbarossa in the title. However, other books put a different argument forward (for instance Corelli Barnett's classic The Desert Generals is highly critical of claims that the British intervention in the Balkans slowed the campign in Russia).

I want to know where you get June 22nd as the earliest date? I dont see how that is the earliest day without an invasion of the Balkans. I agree with the airbases, etc...but I dont get where you get this exact date.

Simple: it was the date the invasion was launched. Neither Hitler or the military high command were so foolish as to willingly throw away campaigning time. Barbarossa was launched as soon as everything was in place. That date happened to be June 22.

While I'd certainly agree that the Balkans campaign didn't help accelerate Barbarossa, and certainly had the potential to have delayed it, I contend that in light of the unavoidable delays in preparing the invasion the Balkans campaign made no difference.

After reading, When Titans Clashed I also saw how Hitler's Generals and Military advisors had underrated USSR's Military might. When looking at that book, I see how no matter when Germany had invaded the Soviet Union, it seems that Germany was going to lose anyway.

Yeah, Glantz's work is certainly leading to a major (and long overdue) re-evaluation of the Soviet war machine. While the Soviet Armed Forces had critical problems in 1941, the Germans never had a realistic chance of inflicting a truely fatal defeat on them.

 

[rilnator]

I dunno, I think maybe capturing Moscow- with Joe vowing to remain in the city regardless, could have bought Russia to her knees.
Capturing the important communications and transport hub, as well as the psychological impact on the Russian people could have also caused a revolution or strikes against the government.
Also, Army group Centre could have diverted some of her forces to the other 2 Army groups and the German army could have had a nice cosy winter indoors. Attacking again in the spring.

 

[nonconformist]

Wasn't Operation Sealion also responsible for a slight delay?

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

No, Sealion was "Postponed indefinatley" in late 1940/early 1941 I believe, so I dont think it would have got in the way.

But if Britain had surrendered during the blitz then Hitler would have moved east earlier, probably in spring 1941. Maybe late summer 1940 if the Brits surrender after Dunkirk? Most probably too late even for Hitler by then though.

But it depends I suppose. When were the barbarossa plans made? How quickley could Germany transfer its forces east?

 

[nonconformist]

I was under the impression that the Seelowe training, and aasembly of barges etc. meant that Hitler turned his eye from the USSR to Britain.

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

No, Hitler got bored of watching the Luftwaffe throw itself at Britain, thats why he went for Russia.

If the blitz had been a success (which it very nearly was) then maybe Hitler would have ignored Russia in favour of invading Britain. But maybe not, we all know how mych ol' Adolf hated the Ruskies...

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

Originally posted by rilnator
I dunno, I think maybe capturing Moscow- with Joe vowing to remain in the city regardless, could have bought Russia to her knees.
Capturing the important communications and transport hub, as well as the psychological impact on the Russian people could have also caused a revolution or strikes against the government.
Also, Army group Centre could have diverted some of her forces to the other 2 Army groups and the German army could have had a nice cosy winter indoors. Attacking again in the spring.

I dont think 'Uncle Joe' would have stayed in Moscow if the Nazis gained even just parts of the city, despite his promise. It was a nice propaganda tool, but I think Stalin valued his own life more than a propaganda tool.

 

[nonconformist]

Hitlers fooish mistake of focusing on Stalingrad and Leningrad were his downfall. The reasons for this were not strategical or tactical but ideological. Stalingrad and Leningrad were named after Stalin and Lenin. They were Communist. Hitler hated communists. So he tried to destroy the cities named after them.

By the way the blitz was not nearly a success. Just as the bombing of German cities was not a success. Saturation bombing of cities was a waste of resources, and murder of the civilian population. It was very dangerous. However, Adlerangriff, Eagle attack, the attempted destruction of the R.A.F was almost a success.

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

The blitz was going very well for the Nazis until Adolf ordered the Luftwaffe to stop bombing airfields and radar sites.