Operation Herkules

Most definately. However, the Germans lacked the capacity (and will too) to exploit Crete's posibilities. In reality, they had controll over most of the Eastern Mediterranean, at Crete and the Greek Isles. But in the end, British naval traffic and operations were not affected by German presence there. In fact, Germany only got more land to occupy and more partisans to fight…

 

Eben Emael, what a story. Less than a hundred engineers defeated a fort and the 1000 troops that garrisoned it.

If Italy hadn't attacked Greece and forced Germany to intervene then Hitler would have ample time to invade Malta and still start Barbarossa a lot earlier than he did historically. That may have meant avoiding the Russian winter (for a time) and also winning the Africa battles because of better supply. Greece would have probably remained neutral and the Crete Brittish base (among others) could have even allowed Hitler to seek alliance with some Greek elements maybe.

 

This actually wouldn't have affected the outcome… the logistical crisis, the lack of a defined strategy (bad high level leadership) and Soviet resistance are still there…

 

Barbarossa started in June 1941. It could have started easily at March. Soviet resistance only regrouped after the first winter. The first phase of the war was mostly running back. If the Germans had 3 more months to push their early advantage they may have destroyed too many Red forces for them to recover or have left to regroup. That first surprise advantage was never again there in the 1942 and 1943 German campaigns in Russia. The fighting was much more fierce. Also the winter of 1939/40 was the worst of the century and it had even taken its toll on the Russians. If there was no Greece (and then Yugoslavia) then Germany could even attack right after France. The first winter would come soon, but the supply lines wouldn't be too long and then in 1941 the big push could reach Moscow easily as the Russians couldn't possibly mobilise. It could even have forced the Russians to sue for peace on Hitler's terms.

 

NOT AT ALL.

Defrost came very late that year. Russian roads weren't dry enough until early June. Also, the equippment of German mobile units simply took too long. As German industry was unnable to supply as many lorries and cars as needed, the Army started confiscating civilian vehicles.

Had 'Barbarossa' been launched on March, the German units would have faced a sea of mud with 40% of their motor vehicles.

Now, attacking the USSR right after the defeat of France? That's impossible. Air and land units had to be re-organised, re-fit, re-equipped, new units had to be formed (7 more Panzer units and 10 new motorised divisions), staff planning had to be made, and 150 divisions had to be transferred to the east. That, without counting on the occupation and disarming of France and a little detail called Great Britain.

 

You got a point there.
So what is the sooner it could start? May? April? How is terrain at the start of the campaign compared to the next? I mean is Baltic countries and eastern Poland better (and faster defrost) accessible (roads?) than the rest of the Russian push?

 

Sorry… DP

 

Mid-June.

The Baltic countries had relatively good motorways and made the armoured thrust easier, unlike the rough roads of Bielorrusia and the Ukraine, or the Don and Caucasus steppes, which didn't have roads at all!

That's one of the things about the Germans earning their defeat: they expected to have another Blitzkrieg like France's, in which their tanks rolled on some of the best motorway networks in the world and where they got their petrol from local gas stations…

 

I think the Germans did make several or more huge victories, and any other country in the world would have probably given up after their losses, but it just wasn´t going to be the "kick in the the door and the roof collapses"...