When should Hitler have attacked Russia?

OK, so it was inevitable that Germany would attack Russia in the end ( according to Mein Kampf for example ). But was 1941 the best year to do that? What do you think? Or would you prefer not to attack at all?

 

We don't know what Stalin would have done, but definitely 1941 was the only occasion to attack Russia. Earlier - impossible, and the later, the worse.

So either 1941 or not at all, probably the latter.

 

Spring (May) 1942, Moscow by October, no General Winter factor.

Later

 

June 1941 was the only plausible date. (Those who have cliamed that the attack should have been done in April or May [what if Balcans theory] should read a bit more on the weather...)

Hitler himself knew that the Wehrmacht had reached its point of maximun strenght and utter level of sophistication. From then on its force would decrease. And certainly, attacking later was giving Stalin enough time to rebuild the Red Aarmed forces.

 

What's the problem? Original date of attack would have been 15 May 1941. This month DID have an impact, my dear...

Do you say that attack would have been impossible between 15 May and 22 June, due to the weather... for 40 days??

 

Never had really seriously thought about it...

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/ETO/East/Balkans/Campaigns/Campaigns-5.html

"Operation BARBAROSSA could not possibly have started on 15 May because spring came late in 1941. As late as the beginning of June the Polish-Russian river valleys were still flooded and partly impassable as a result of exceptionally heavy rains ..."

From the same site though:

German military authors state that the diversion in the Balkans had hardly any influence on the course of the subsequent campaign, since Germany's casualties were relatively low and the expenditure of materiel and supplies insignificant. They agree that the invasion of Russia might have started three weeks earlier if there had been no Balkan campaigns. ...

 

I really don't see how Nazi Germany could have conquored the USSR given the situation of the world in 1941. Even if they had gained three weeks, I doubt that would make any significant difference.

 

They finally were stopped 1 hour (!) apart from Moscow...

3 weeks would possibly have meant the fall of Moscow, which had been a BIG difference.
Whether Germany gets the Endsieg in this case, is a different question.

This site however concludes "The three creeks lost by the execution of the Balkan operations therefore seem of minor significance". There is no indication that Barbarossa would have worked any worse if it had started 3 weeks earlier.

Another objection... whether is not predictable. If you take any point of time and let 2 different histories continue, they will soon have different wheather, influencing different history...

Maybe, if the Germans would have attacked 3 weeks before, winter would have come 3 weeks earlier.

[ 19. October 2003, 03:14 PM: Message edited by: KnightMove ]

 

I for one do not think there is any time that is good for attacking the Soviet Union. Whether it being in 41,42 or 43, the Germans would have recognized that they were way over their head because of their underestimating the capabilities of the Red Army. This is going by the same scenario that existed at that time.

Now, the Germans could have possibly done had two things happened.

1. Adolf Hitler staying out of the General Staff's business.

2. The Western Allies not providing Lend Lease to the Soviets.

Both factors must have existed for the Germans to even come close, otherwise.....bad move.

 

But the site says that the reason for this was Hitler´s changing plans all the while.If for instance operation Typhoon had begun three weeks earlier or say, even straight after the capture of Smolensk, the Russians would not have prepared the defence so strong. Truly a whole new ball game than starting Typhoon in October.

AS well even if the Balkans did not take that much time you have to supply the troops and vehicles and leave time for repairs.The distances in the Balkans are huge as well. Simply sending them back to the front in Poland is not enough. The fighting capacity is much lower without a period of rest and supply.

 

Sorru a double post...

 

(quote continued)

... This delay of three weeks might appear of decisive importance considering that the sudden start of severe winter weather turned the tide when the Germans stood in front of Moscow. {Ah, the old, winter-stopped-the-germans-myth, AndyW} To them the validity of this theory seems at least doubtful considering the fact that the German offensive in Russia in 1941 collapsed because of the conflict over the strategic concepts that broke out between Hitler and the Army High Command in the summer of that year. That controversy over the strategy to be adopted after the initial successes had been achieved cost the German Army several precious weeks. Additional time and a lot of manpower were wasted by Hitler's insistence on making Leningrad and the Ukraine his principal objectives until he finally Greed to a drive on Moscow before the outbreak of winter. The three creeks lost by the execution of the Balkan operations therefore seem of minor significance. "

unquote

Cheers,

[ 21. October 2003, 06:44 AM: Message edited by: AndyW ]

 

AndyW,

I think I commented my opinion on this in a later post on this thread on 20th October:

But the site says that the reason for this was Hitler´s changing plans all the while.If for instance operation Typhoon had begun three weeks earlier or say, even straight after the capture of Smolensk, the Russians would not have prepared the defence so strong. Truly a whole new ball game than starting Typhoon in October.

AS well even if the Balkans did not take that much time you have to supply the troops and vehicles and leave time for repairs.The distances in the Balkans are huge as well. Simply sending them back to the front in Poland is not enough. The fighting capacity is much lower without a period of rest and supply.

------------

So Hitler lost more time than the mentioned three weeks with his strategical changes, but yet to have the possibility to start Typhoon three weeks earlier might mean something. I am not saying it definitely would have but that it might. I am full aware of the restrictions to reserves ( men and tanks and ammo )Hitler had for the Army.

Over here though I think the main subject was whether the attack was possible on May 15th and it seems it would not have been possible until June at the earliest anyway due to the flooding!

 

I agree, three weeks could have meant all the difference, but it could have been done in June if Hitler hadn't flip-flopped on where he wanted to go first. The excursion down south by elements of AGC to assist in the assault on the Ukraine wasted valuable time that could have been used to make an earlier and stronger attempt on Moscow. (I believe there was a huge debate over this almost a year to the day ago in the Eastern Front Victory Conditions thread.)

1941 was the best chance for Germany, 1940 saw too few divisions on the eastern front ready to go for a war, 1942 would have meant the Red Army was in a much stronger position than a year previously.

 

Indeed. Weather. The snow melted very late that year (late May 1941) and the fields dried up until mid June 1941... (according to general Günther von Blumentritt's memoirs, who was chief of staff of the IV Army).

Absolutely true!!! THIS was what took precious time from the operation, NOT the winter and NOT the Balcans.

Perfectlt correct. And attack earlier was IMPOSSIBLE.

 

We shouldn't fall into over-simplicistic, either/or resp. black/white argumentation.s..

..of course an earlier attack wasn't "IMPOSSIBLE", it was just, well, more hard to do. On the other hand, it is free for speculation what difficulties would have been worse: A German attack having to deal with the spring-rasputiza or Taifun stopped in the Autumn-Rasputiza?

Anyway...specualation leaves room for all kinds of interpretation.


Cheers,

 

OK, not impossible, but extremely hard to do! Happy now?

 

Friedrich:

Your statement is anyway too rigid, as it implies:

It was impossible to attack June 14.
It was impossible to attack June 15.
It was impossible to attack June 16.
It was impossible to attack June 17.
It was impossible to attack June 18.
It was impossible to attack June 19.
It was impossible to attack June 20.
It was impossible to attack June 21.

I don't think this is true... as Kai's webpage mentioned, three weeks earlier might have worked.

 

That´s interesting!

50% would not attack at all...

Anyway, let´s not stick to the "spring problem".
What year is the actual question for this thread.

Is 1941 the best pick or can you risque waiting for later when Hitler´s army is better but so is the Red Army!

 

Knight, ONE week is not significant at all in a long campaign like that of 'Barbarossa'. At least three weeks more were neeeded to add more time to the invasion and the weather didn't allow it. The main problem was that Hitler allowed his generals to hesitate and argue about the strategic goals of the operation.