Was there ever a chance it might succeed?

File: 1479886708839.png (123KB, 1189x1062px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 1189x1062px

>>2153789
Yes. They were doing extremely well in the beginning. What they needed was a few more quick, decisive blows to knock the Russians out of the war. Lend lease was what really stretched it out and probably won the war for the Soviets along with the loss of over 200,000 Axis troops at Stalingrad.

>>2153789
Not under the given strategic situation with Britain and America bombing their industry and supplying the Russians.

>>2153789
stalin actually twice tried to initiate peace talks. i imagine if hitler had accepted and solidified his gains instead of pushing on ahead to moscow and stalingrad, he would have held quite a lot of territory and turned all his power towards the western allies.

File: Lend Lease to USSR dates.png (278KB, 3168x4094px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 3168x4094px

>>2153789

How are you defining "success"?

>>2153814

>Lend lease was what really stretched it

Not really. The German offensive stalled before the vast majority of Lend Lease arrived. See pic related. While it was enormously important, it was moreso for enabling the Soviet counterattacks.

>>2153818

>Americans
>IN the war during Operation Barbarossa

>Britain
>Effective strategic bombing before the Pathfinders

>>2153844

To be fair, even if he accepted; the peace would be uneasy, both sides would almost certainly keep large forces near their border for fear of war breaking out again.

Also,"Turned all his power towards the Western Allies"? And do what exactly? He didn't really have the logistical means to go on the offensive in North africa in a big way, and Sealion, let alone an invasion of America, is just laughable.

If the Panzer forces hadn't been diverted to the Kiev battles and moved carelessly to the North and South then back again, they could've done it. And by 'it', I mean capture Moscow. Stalin refused to leave the city as I remember it, he probably would have been captured. With the loss of the capital and central command of the Soviet Army, I think they might have surrendered or at least ceased effective military resistance.

Would they have been able to maintain control over such a huge area? With serious effort and a lot of mass murder, maybe.

The REAL failure of Barbarossa was making an enemy of the civilians - though that was core to the Lebensraum ideology, had they come in as liberators I think many formations would've been freed up for actions at the front.

>>2155398
Even if those people weren't oppressed, and fought on the Germans' side, there wouldn't have been enough of them to make a notable difference on the frontlines. The areas they lived in weren't really that industrialised or well-developed in general either.

I think part of the reason they were so good at conquering France was because they could keep rushing at a faster pace than the French could react well too. That was true for Russia too early on, but then it became super muddy and the German blitzkrieg got stuck in traffic jams. I know bad traffic conditions doesn't destroy armies, but if your country's only hope is a quick victory before the enemy's war machine gets back on its feet...

>>2155398

>If the Panzer forces hadn't been diverted to the Kiev battles and moved carelessly to the North and South then back again, they could've done it.

Unlikely, as

A) Without the disaster of the Roslavl-Novozybkov Soviet offensive, Soviet defenses are extraordinarily thicker in and around the route to Moscow.

B) Those forces in Kiev aren't just going to sit around and masturbate while you dive for Moscow. Whether by a counteroffensive against the weak AGS, or just redirection backwards to threaten the south flank of your offensive, they're going to make trouble, and almost certainly stall any offensive, especially a quick one.


>Stalin refused to leave the city as I remember it,

He also had a private train out, and could have evacuated on pretty short notice. Even during Barbarossa, taking cities was the process of weeks, plural, and places like Minsk and Smolensk and Pskov were way smaller and less defended than Moscow.

>With the loss of the capital and central command of the Soviet Army

Central command of STAVKA had evacuated, to Kuybuyshev.

>>2153789
No. There was almost no chance it would've worked out, even with weather aside, the German war machine was falling apart outside the gates of moscow due to equipment losses and nightmarish logistics for supplies.

Other problems included piss poor intelligence on what equipment the Soviets were packing and how much was available. the KV-1 tank in particular was something the Germans had no idea even existed, and had no weapons to effectively combat it.

There's actually a few videos made about the true logistics and details about barbarossa, and how Germany's advance to Moscow's outskirts was a miracle in itself with the invasion force falling like a house of cards by mid-November

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_3R-Rkn_98

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3zFG14CqB8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ft-dYaZKxwU