Was Hitler right to invade Russia in 1941?

Welshy said:
Oh and nobody likes Murray because he's a grumpy bar-stool :p
Click to expand...

lol welshy...as i said, you guys did help us and im not on about the war really, your post just sort of triggered me looking at your sig...non english, British people who use forums or w/e often make sigs with their flag...just like how you always wave it, i agree with the phrase 'Britain is strongest when in need', but im getting anoyed at how i keep seeing scottish and welsh people say 'im scottish, im welsh' English people say 'im british' far more often than you guys...anyway enoughs!
 
Last edited:
Interesting article. It isn't an area of history that I know in any huge depth but it seems that Hitler made some fairly glaring tactical errors throughout the war (spreading the forces too thin, not pressing home advantages and ignoring sound advice when given) and we should be thankful that he did.
 
I think as people have said he was spread to thinly on multiple fronts

he woudl have been better of consolodating is gains in western europe after signing his non-aggression pact with Stalin...he could have then concentrated his full resources in North africa to secure the oil he really needed. Then he could have switched his eyes back to the east and instead of rushing for the balkan oil fields he could have concentrated ona rush to moscow to capture the capital..and hopefully Stalin..the speed he coudl done this at means the russians may not have had time to move all their production facilities further east

the only thing you would have to take into account is the timeline..if he had waited another 2 years would the russians have already researched and built the generation of tanks that ultimately defeated the germans..would they have been more prepared for an invasion?

nobody can really predict..but it was his downfall whichever way you look at it..the eastern front bled the germans dry in terms of manpower and materials...the russians sacrifices helped the whole war against hitler...too many people forget this
 
Ultimately the fact he lost the war due to strained resources meant the attack on a passive Russia was a poor decision.
 
Russia's military wasn't all collapsing in 1941 either, they made several localised counter-attacks (doomed as they were with poor leadership below divisional level) and individual tank commanders held up German columns with KV-1s until the 88s were brought up to deal with them.

Finland had joined the Germans in the North as well, in fact if they hadn't stopped short of attacking Leningrad it would have been obliterated (the Russians lost half a million men during the Finnish reconquest of their lost territory from the 1939 winter war).
 
No not in 1941,Whilst the campign in Russia started well for Germany it was always going to be a throw of the dice for Hitler and he knew or at least his generals knew that.I suppose the Germans had new confidence after beating the French and Brit army and maybe this made them feel that they could win any battle.

Germanys only chance would have been a quick decisive victory before the winter of 41 but even this is questionable debate.

If Hitler hadnt of attacked at Kursk in 43 which for that attack at the time comprised of stripping the front of practically anything remotely useful just to build another forces to attack, let alone reserve forces which were now impossible for the Germans.It is likely that the Germans could have used the extra forces to maybe fight off the western allies in 44,and then sue for peace with the Soviets.


Hitler said he had only to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure would come down, what a hard door that eventually turned out to be .
 
Fothsn said:
Britain was not effectively defeated, far from it
Click to expand...

Britain, without the support from the U.S., was effectively defeated and thats my point.

Would D-Day have happened without the U.S.? No.

Anyway, three cheers for the good ol' U.S. of A !
 
Last edited:
yeah i think if he had left it to his generals and just gone after the oil, rather than Stalingrad (sheerly for vanity) then it might have worked out better.
 
R124/LA420 said:
Britain, without the support from the U.S., was effectively defeated and thats my point.

Would D-Day have happened without the U.S.? No.

Anyway, three cheers for the good ol' U.S. of A !
Click to expand...

Personally, I think the role of the US is a little overstated. Without Russia and the US together, the Third Reich couldn't have been stopped.

Rhys said:
Ultimately the fact he lost the war due to strained resources meant the attack on a passive Russia was a poor decision.
Click to expand...

Surely capturing the vast bulk of the Russian industry and resources would have remedied that?

Fothsn said:
Britain was not effectively defeated, far from it
Click to expand...

We did a good job in defending on our own terms, but we were powerless to stop the German advance on the mainland, which without the Russians would have lead to our eventual defeat.

AcidHell2 said:
Very good read, but I still think Hitler made a huge mistake. He needed to stop advancing, secure himself and rebuild and secure his army and resources.
Click to expand...

Doesn't this go against the whole principal of the blitzkrieg which proved so successful?

IMO, if Hitler listened to his generals and actually committed his Panzer divisions to Moscow, he'd have every chance in consolidating his power, which would have left the UK and US open to defeat.

Burnsy
 
Last edited:
Tefal said:
yeah i think if he had left it to his generals and just gone after the oil, rather than Stalingrad (sheerly for vanity) then it might have worked out better.
Click to expand...

Wasn't so much vanity, Stalingrad developed into a kind of battle by proxy between Hitler and Stalin. Hitler made a mistake, and it was his mistake, some bloke whose name I can't be bothered to look up said to Stalin at the start of the invasion "you can retreat to the Urals, you'll still win in the end" and he was right. Add the resolve and suicidal determination/hatred of the enemy of the USSR and Ze Germans were doomed from the word go. Hubris I think is the term.
 
The article in the op smacks of pointless revisionism, the fundamental historical framework of the Nazi/Soviet conflict is well covered and accurate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom