If hitler began operation Barbarossa at his initial proposed date

Yes you are correct. The size of the Soviet Union was without a doubt an ally of itself. We can also say that the Soviet people had more to fight for.

 

Winter started early that year and believe it or not, the Russians too suffered heavy casualties as they too had summer clothes in which they froze to death while in German captivity. However unlike the Germans they also lacked, leadership, weapons, supplies, virtually no airforce, food and the element of surprise coming face to face with what at that time seemed an invincible force.

Also attacking earlier would have bugged down the Germans in spring rains and turned the roads into mud. We are talking about a country who at that time only had some 3,000 miles of paved roads.

 

the Nazis gave it their best shot.

 

You are correct....

Fortunately for the rest of the world, the Soviet's shot was better.

 

no the Soviets had their winter weapon is all, the same weapon they used on Napolean. Of course they also had such a large population on their side as well.

 

Unfortunately friend, such arguments or excuses for the German defeat in Russia will not hold much water in this forum. As anyone who is well read on the subject is fully aware that this was not the case.

P.S.

The Germans had 4 summers to beat the Russians.

 

they should have invaded in the summer, but any historian will say it was the winter. I read a story about several Wehrmacht soldiers were walking through a town and the townspeople ran at them with pitchforks/knives and it was so cold that the gunpowder wouldn't ignite rendering their weapons useless.

 

The Germans invaded Russia on June 22nd 1941.... If thats not summer then I dont know what is.

Believe it or not, but the Russians too had gun which jammed and tanks which froze as the Red Army used the same gunpowder and fuel that the Germans were using.

Also... hundreds and thousands of Red Army men suffered from frosbite resulting in many deaths as well.

And please name me one historian which will claim what you are.

 

let me rephrase, they didn't invade Russia in the winter but by time they reached Stalingrad ect... it became winter which slowed them down.

 

Well thats the comment of the century, but the Heer got to Stalingrad in late 1942 at least 16 months after the intial invasion and you are talking about the winter of 42/43 not 41/42, not the original aim of the Marckes plan to reach the A-A Line within 12 weeks or so, no whatever you do the fact is that the Germans dramatically over estimated their capabilities, as pointed out, it is one thing to fight in western Europe with paved roads and available road maps, but it is another to fight in the Soviets Union where a goat track is considered a major highway, and no maps of the area.

What the Germans did achieve was remarkable, but to defeat the Soviets they need at least 3 times the men and equipment and an unlimited amount of fuel to do it, that they neve had and a huge amount of good luck and leadership.

 

I completely agree, plus you cant fight a two-front war. Going back the winter, for example I was watching a documentary on the History channel and it was talking about the Battle of Stalingrad and how close they came to Moscow and the person commenting talked about how the winter/cold effected them greatly.

 

The common conception that the Russian soldier was an improved adversary is vastly overrated, The Russian soldiers bravery and heroism is largely derived from lack of education and due to the fact that Stalin's tyranny was an equal hell for Hitlers Germany.

 

Hitler gave his german a lot, Stalin was a horrible man, if Britan never covered up all Stalins war crimes we could know what Mass Murders stalin did

 

Everyone´s got right for his own opinion. Mine is that the Red Army soldier was a very tough opponent never giving up. Their motto was " take at least one with you!". And even if Stalin´s politics did affect the army early in the war by june 1941 Stalin had created it into a battle for Motherland.

For instance try telling a soldier of a Western Allied nation " attack, die , but take at least one enemy with you!" How many soldiers would continue attacking....

 

I am going to assume that you mean on the battlefield in the first 6 months?

 

the Germans should have defeated Russia, I do not believe Russia did anything clever or intelligent to win, they had sheer numbers and bitter cold on their side is all. -Scorched earth was a good tactic though. We all know Stalin used the Nazi invasion as a excuse to invade Europe and communize it.

 

Well, Hitler disagrees with you here. He personally said in the bunker that the victorious Slavic nations will rule Europe, the Germans don´t deserve to live anymore because their race was inferior and lost. Hitler wanted a battle to the end and got it.

 

This thread seems to have veered a bit off-course from the OP original question...

While I respect the rights of Soviet advocates and German advocates to argue their sides of the age-old question..."Who should have won the war, or who was worse, etc" the reality is that the Soviet Union utterly and completely defeated Nazi Germany (with the help of the Western Allies) and BOTH regimes were inherently EVIL and committed many atrocities against military personnel and innocent civilians. This forum does not seem to be the place to argue these points endlessly...:deadhorse:

Now to the original "what if"...it probably would not have made any difference to the ultimate outcome of the war. The Soviet Union was too strong for the Germans to defeat in a prolonged conflict. The wild card would be if the Germans had captured Moscow because of the earlier start along with the possible capture of Leningrad...would this have caused a political upheaval resulting in the ouster of Stalin and peace overtures being made to Germany? That would have been the only way Germany could have been victorious.