Was Hitler right to attack the USSR in 1941?

A useful counter-factual is one in which the conditions stipulated is in fact possible within the historical context. Hitler was Hitler, National Socialists were the National Socialists so imagining a different type of gentler warfare against the Russians doesn't really convince me as possible--if militarily rational.

That said, given Third Reich's goals and their position, there was no way they would not attack Russia. They needed to attack Russia. Battle of Britain was lost. Even if they won that battle, Operation Sea Lion would turn out to be a disaster. Lend-Lease ships as well as Royal Navy's increasingly effective anti-submarine tactics meant the sea battle would be eventually lost. They need the resources, they have already gone too far to stop.

I am not one of those conspiracy theorists who ramble Barbarossa as a preemptive strike, but it is a preventive attack. The Nazi stance towards the communists in Germany, Spain and other occupied territories was a loud and clear signal to Moscow that war was coming, and they were gearing up for battle. Russian Army in 1942 would have been so strong that the Germans would fail before they could see the outskirts of Moscow, certainly the cluster**** kesselschlacht would not have happened.

Third Reich shouldn't have attacked Russia, but it did. Its policy leave it with no other choice and the best time to do it was 1941 (even though Glantz believes it is doomed to failure anyway).

 

Well, I apologise for the uncouthness, I didn't intend it to sound that way, but the fact that you said that Jews were treated in the same way in Nazi Germany as the USSR, and that, well, as sloniksp put it,

.

So that was pretty much it, the only thing I could object to. I actually also said that likening the treatment of Jews it the SU to Nazi Germany intended the building of concentration camps, I mean, if it was truly to be in the same way, with that same amount of hatred etc. So I didn't pull that out of anywhere really.

There was quite a large percent of Jews in the Communist Party after the war with the coming of the Ottepel' and Khruschev, but before the war I can recall Kaganovich, Mehlis, and Lenin himself actually can be considered Jewish, as his mother was a Jew. So, I mean, if Lenin was a Jew, that pretty much cancells it all out. But I think there will be a lotof people willing to argue with me, so we'll drop that out I guess.

Overall, antisemitism persists to exist in many European countries today, unfortunately (as sloniksp had mentioned earlier on), and Russia has a specifically bad history with the Jewish people. I can't deny what history tells me, so to deny the fact that Antisemitism existed in Russia way before communist times and through the first half of the XX century would be totally ignorant and disrespectful.

 

Antisemitism was pretty rife in uk...We may not have put jews to death since days of York but the antisemitism was there for all to see before ww2. As much in thought as in deed maybe but none of us have a clean record in that department. Anti any race is bad enough...No nation is excused their own history...Im Irish..I know well the stories of my parents..And I can still post pics of London and other cities where the window display read NO IRISH HERE. No nation on this earth can claim innocence towarards other races, be they in thought or deed. Germany however carried out the rather biggest deed that we tend to discuss on here. But let no one forget Apartheid, the Irish, the negros of America, Srebenica...Hutus and the rest, all since ww2.

 

Again, I do not know where you are getting these comments. I said that Russia was as antisemitic as Germany...........never said they treated the Jews the same way as Germany. Big difference.

 

I disagree. Many countries were antisemitic but none (in Europe) were as antisemitic as Nazi Germany (IMO). How could one compare Russia's antisemitism VS say France's or Poland's?

If my memory serves me right, Poland actually had anti Jewish laws which came a close second to Germany's. Were the Poles less antisemitic than the Russians? Belarus and the Baltic states were notoriously antisemitic as well. How can one compare one country's antisemitism VS another with out taking into account their policy?

After the war, surviving Polish Jews claimed that the Ukrainians treated them virtually as bad as the Germans. Again, how can a comparison be made?

 

Too true Slioniksp...I have mentioned the polish acts of antisemitism of 1937 in many threads on here. Few seem to want to discuss the threads further when I bring up Polands governmental antisemitism acts enshrined in law in the years preceding ww2. Its nice to ignore some history I know. But we on here certainly should know better than to throw stones at glass houses. Polands laws should be looked at before we shout at Russia or indeed Germany.

 

In 1941 Wehrmaht was more experienced thanks to almost 2-year war in Europe. Red army in 1939 – 1940 years had only 2 war campaign. So Germans got more experience during this time than SU.
Red Army was reorganized in 1939. From other hand, what about the weaponry, transport and other stuff caught by Germans during the previous campaigns? What about the fact that almost whole European economy which worked for Wermaht during its “Osten Feldzug”?

Soviets had advantage not only manpower, but also territory and raw resources. Was Germans more ready to establish their communication better in 1939 than in 1941? What good is manpower and weaponry without suitable logistic?
So if we consider only military factors chances for blitzkrieg were approximately equal both in 1939 – 1941. For more precise answer we need more precise investigation. The result of longstanding war would depend of international situation. German itself had no chance, its economic situation in 1939 year was far from been brilliant. Some scientist (For example Dietmar Suess and Winfried Suess “The Third Reich”) write that it was near the crisis and there were only to variants: to cut military programs or to start the war. Meaning, of course, short and victorious war.
So there would be also alternative diplomacy. There are some questions here:

• What would be position of France and Great Britain? Would they supported any part or stay neutral? To my mind, they would stay neutral. Chamberlain, Daladier and others on the one hand were anti-communists, on the other, they didn`t want to receive “the Great Germany till Ural” with aggressive regime.
• Would be or not previous occupation of Czechoslovakia? If “yes” – less chances for Western support for Germany, if “no” – less recourses. In
• What about Japan? In reality there was in reality military clash in 1939 between SU and Japan near Khalkhin Gol ended with Soviet victory. But it was comparatively small: 57,000 Soviet soldiers, 75 000 - Japan. Would it possible joint Germany-Japan attack in 1939? This would be really serious factor for Hitler to attack SU in 1939 year.
• Would Finland and Romania (with its oil fields) join Germany if there weren`t M-R pact with secret protocols?
• In order to invade SU Germany needed Polish territory – to make alliance or to capture. The last variant is more probable: Lebensraum with a gap is nonsense. Soviet authorities of would noticed either attack on Poland (with a neutrality or approval ofGB&F) or “peaceful” concentrating army on its territory. So it`s possible that attack WOULDN`T BE “SURPRISE”.

I would like to clarify, my previous comment. When I wrote about “less cruel” German politics I didn`t mean that it could be “good” or regarded as “less evil than SU” by popularity. So the result could be smaller resistance, but not wide support. First, in anyway there are very few chances for foreign invader to be regarded as “good”, especially for such racist as Nazi Germany. Second, many Soviet citizens, especially young, really supported Communists. This factor can`t be crucial in anyway.
To my mind in that political-diplomatic situation the 1941 was the best chance for Hitler. But for…
ONLY NO WAR WITH RUSSIA. OTTO VON BISMARK.

 

Not sure from whose perspective the 'right' is meant, but assuming it is Germany's - I voted 'yes'.
As others have written, 1941 was their only window of opportunity, leave till '42 and Russian defences, and weaponry are stronger.
Big danger to that the longer the Germans leave it, more chance the Russians will have a go themselves - Russian dispositions at the time of the invassion could be said to be aggressive - with so many troops near the border. Moreover, Russian demands for their 'pound of flesh' regarding their increasing sphere of influence may have been the final straw!
Germany had a big army, it had to do something with it, other possibilities e.g. Turkey & Near East would entail even worse logistics.

 

Adam Tooze says in his book "Wages of Destruction" that Hitler had no alternative to attacking the SU, as it says in the review.........

Given the disposition of industrial power in the world and his racist ideology, Hitler was correct to act as he did. Aware that it was only a matter of time before the American giant stirred & the Soviet Union got stronger, Hitler had no alternative but to invade the Soviet Union in his quest for Lebensraum in the East and world power status.

Over the winter of 1940-41, despite the dramatic success in France, the regime reached an economic crisis. By that time it had become evident that — even taking account of the capacity of the occupied states — greater Germany, the “European Grossraum”, would not be able to match the combined productive capacity of Britain and its colonies, the US and the Soviet Union, and was likely to fall further behind, year on year.

Even with Japan and the Axis colonies, total GDP was just over $1,400 million, compared to more than $1,900 million, and the US was growing far more rapidly. Furthermore, US manufacturing productivity was significantly greater.

That calculation, was a decisive influence on the decision to invade the Soviet Union in 1941. Unless Germany could gain access to Ukrainian grain and oil from the Caucasus it would eventually lose a war of the continents that Hitler regarded as inevitable.

From the mid-1930s onwards Germany was teetering on the brink of collapse. By 1940-41 it had reached crisis, failing to commandeer the steel and fuel to reverse the unfavourable and fast-degrading balance of power between its underfunded military and that of the Allied powers. For most of the period covered, from Hitler’s rise to power in 1933 to the regime’s downfall in 1945, Germany’s economic policy boiled down to scarcity management. It was this, that dictated the Blitzkrieg nature of the 1940 offensive against the west. The state of Germany’s limited stocks of crude oil and rubber but also iron ore and coal, ammunition's, vehicles and weapons and even animal feed and fertiliser, foreign currency and labour, to attempt an independent industrial and commercial existence in peace, let alone a campaign of European conquest. Once forced into a defensive position after the attack on Russia ground to a halt in the winter of 1941, the war was lost.

 

Well put ANZAC, whether it was "right or wrong" isn't the question really. Hitler and Nazi Germany (a giant Ponzi scheme) had no option other than to attempt to take by force what they couldn't earn by honest trade and exchange.

 

Many Italians have German bloodlines due to the Longobard crusades in the late 500s. I believe Hitler knew this being so fascinated with history especially that of the Roman empire.

 

Having lost his political/military options towards England, he had no choice but to attack Russia, in order to gain access to vital supplies.

I would assume that had Hitler gained a truce with Britain, he would have delayed his attack on Russia maybe for a year or two. On the other hand there seems to be a significant support for Hitler to attack Russia in 1941 due to expecting an attack by Stalin within 12 month. If this is actually based on truth or rather propaganda forwarded to give a viable reason to attack Russia in 1941, I wouldn’t know.

The outcome of a war with Russia at any given time would still be the same IMO, since Hitler simply underestimated the Soviet fighting capability and could not compensate the losses which the Wehrmacht and its allies faced in regards to manpower and material. Furthermore without strategic forces an attack on Russia was doomed from the very beginning. Not to mention his racial policy – which made an occupation of the conquered territories another huge drain towards military resources needed up front.

England was IMHO the decisive factor for Hitler’s doom in the first place.

Regards
Kruska

 

With the advantage of hindsight, he should've concentrated his force in North Africa instead of sending them to the Eastern front. 80% of the German force was fighting against Russia. Had he concentrated them in NOrth Africa, I believe he might've been able to seize the suez canal, and cut off Britain from her colonies, and at the same time, access the oilfields of the Middle East. Stalin thought of Germany as a trustworthy ally, and wouldn't have attacked Germany.
Or he should've attacked Russia in Spring, and that should give him enough time to wipe out Russia before winter arrives.
Fortunately, Hitler didn't make these decisions.

 

Bull, the Suez was of no import to the British as it hadn't been used for commercial shipping since 1940, when over 85% of all shipping to the home islands went around the South African Cape. The Middle eastern oil was a "non-factor" in the UK scheme of things after 1940 as well.

The problem in Africa was NO indigenous fuel, NO indigenous food, NO logistical support ability (rail lines and roads).

Staying OUT of Africa might have been of some benefit, but increasing the pressure there would have been the worst idea of all. Cutting Rommel and the Africa Corps off was likely the best logistical/strategic decision Hitler ever made.

 

Sorry but not even close, Stalin didnt trust Hitler in the slightest, he simply wanted to try to "butter up" the Germans so that they wouldnt find a reason to attack. Stalin's shock was more from the fact that the Russians weren't ready to fight at that point more then Hitlers surprise.

Give the Russians a few more years and they would have done the same, they just needed the time to reorganize.

 

first of all you take no account of Hitler's aims and his ambitions as laid down in Mein Kampf. The British empire was never intended to be the adversary, that happened quite by accident. He was always going to attack the Soviet Union and he got lucky with his timing in that he hit the Soviets as their armies were undergoing a massive reorganisation. Sending more troops to north africa was one thing but supplying them was quite another. Rommel never had enough supplies for his liking. more tanks and troops would have exacerbated the problem. The Mediteranean sea was dominated by the Royal Navy and its bases in Alexandria and Gibralter. After Taranto the Italian fleet could not be accounted for and getting supplies across the med was a hazardous task not made any easier by the fact that the further the Axis advanced the longer the supply lines.

 

You are correct his goal was the conquest of the Western USSR and an alliance with England and Italy according to Mein Kampf.
However to this end the conquest of the Mediterranean and Middle East would have helped him achieve his aim.
With the potential for a new front in the Caucasus and gaining Turkey as an allie.

 

Hitler had to attack the USSR in my opinion without doubt but as the question asks was 1941 the best time?
The only possible other time is 1942 after that the USSR will be to strong and Britain stronger with the USA in the war too.

 

If 1941 is the chosen date of attack there are a number of things that Hitler must change first to improve the chances of success.

Plan 1 would be a plan based on Hitler’s OTL conclusions that Britain won’t come to terms, Britain can’t be invaded, Franco won’t join the Axis in 1940 and Italy needs help.

Plan 2 would be based on Hitler being a total visionary and after the fall of France making the USSR his next target right away.

Plan 1.

Oct 1940 - Hitler warns Mussolini not to attack Greece so it doesn’t spoil his plan for building alliances in Eastern Europe.

Dec 1940 - After Italy’s disaster in North Africa Hitler decides to secure the Mediterranean against Britain.
German troops begin to arrive in Libya.
This time 2 Panzer divisions will be sent right away and much more airpower.
Orders this time are not to hold but to push east.

March 1941 - The Egyptian border is crossed and Tobruk falls.
Rommel tells Hitler he can take the Middle East if he has increased forces.

April 1941 - Axis forces pour into Egypt.
Hitler cancels operation Barbarossa and sends 2 Panzer divisions to Libya.
Hitler has come to the conclusion a 1942 campaign with a second front in the Caucasus will help Germany against the Soviets.

August 1941 - Egypt up to Suez is now in Axis hands.
Eastern Mediterranean abandoned by the British.

Sept 1941 - Invasion of Palestine began, another smaller force pushes South towards Sudan.
Franco enters the war against the British.

Oct 1941 - Gibraltar taken.

Nov 1941 - Malta occupied by the Axis.

Dec 1942 - Palestine falls to the Axis.
Cyprus occupied by the Axis.

Jan 1942 - Invasion of Iraq began.
Greece joins the Axis.
Turkey joins the Axis after been offered Cyprus.
Uprising in Iraq begins.

Mar 1942 - Iraq falls to the Axis forces.
Iran joins the Axis.

Apr 1942 - War in Iran.

May 1942 - Axis invasion of the USSR.

Plan 2 will be posted later.

 

Invasion of Irak and Iran were impossible