Why were there never other invasions the scale of Barbarossa

Because nobody was quite that butthurt and ideologically driven.

>>2279169
There were, and successful ones too.

>>2279240
Examples..?

>>2279169
Absolute shit ton of resources needed

>>2279251
There was a period in time when a lot of European powers travelled around and colonized large parts of the world.

>>2279169
Because population levels and logistics weren't there to enable them. You have to remember mankind only achieved 1 billion mark in 1804 but by 1960 it was around 3 billion.

>>2279257
>a bunch of happy merchants spending hundreds of years slowly getting a stranglehold on various foreign polities is the same as a full mechanized invasion across land.

>>2279257
This is hardly the same. Most shit holes were probably colonized with like 20 000 "soldiers" (if even that, mostly it was just armed civilians).

Hitler mobilized spectacular 3-4 million men. That's because Russia was almost a superpower and stronger than Germany.

That's really the unique thing about Barbarossa. Almost never in history has a weaker power tried to invade a lot stronger power, it was always the opposite.

The Invention of the atomic bomb mainly. Wars had continually been increasing in manpower scale throughout history until nukes came along and completely invalided conventional warfare.

A clash between the US and USSR would have been massive.

File: 1461453518316.jpg (293KB, 1024x777px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 1024x777px

>>2279169
As >>2279275 said, Barbarossa was the last time humanity could attempt such an invasion.

Than there's the Macedonian and Mongol invasions of ''Persia'', but those took a few years.

Because there aren't a lot of countries on the scale of Russia to invade.

>>2279169
look up "Mongol invasion"

>>2279169
>Why were there never other invasions the scale of Barbarossa in history?

Barbarossa involved the following assets on the day of the start of the invasion:

-3.8 million men
-3,350 tanks
-2,770 aircraft
-7,200 artillery pieces

The American-led invasion of western Germany involved, by on the first day of the invasion, the following:

-4.5 million troops
-17,000 tanks
-40,000 aircraft (28,000 armed)
-63,00 artillery pieces

(not counting Italy)

The force involved in the offensive from Paris to the Rhine was also about that large. Then there was the other direction: in Jan 1945 the USSR had 6.5 million men committed to the invasion of Germany, with 2.5 million committed to Berlin and the surrounding area alone. They had slightly more tanks and artillery than the Americans and co did as well.

So, there have been, in terms of men and materiel committed, larger invasions than Barbarossa. Much more successful too.

>>2279274
>Almost never in history has a weaker power tried to invade a lot stronger power, it was always the opposite.

Dunno about this one lad, there are many examples of a lesser power invading numerically superior forces.

You should specify what you mean by stronger power.

Gaul had larger armies than Rome during the Gaelic wars, Alexander with Persia, etc.

>>2279274
>That's because Russia was almost a superpower and stronger than Germany.

Germany dwarfed Russia in every area except population and had over twice its GDP, the fuck are you talking about.

>>2282005
Shu was also inferior to Wei during 3 kingdoms period and kept trying to invade before Wei's pop advantage swallows them up.

>>2282003
>>2279239
>>2279169
Operation Overlord was pretty fucking huge. Maybe not as big as Barbarossa, but still fucking huge especially when you consider the fact it was done by sea

>>2282265
The numbers Mason, what do they mean?

>>2279169
>What is the Grande Armée

>>2279266
>mechanized
>implying

>>2282265

Operation Husky actually had a larger landing zone and put more divisions ashore on the first day.

Overlord was originally planned to be much larger though, had more landing craft been available Patton would have landed at Pas de Calais and Operation Dragoon would have been simultaneous.

File: German-supply-line-1941.jpg (221KB, 1300x928px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 1300x928px

>>2279266
>full mechanized invasion across land

Shit looked like the Oregon Trail, actually. The Eastern Front was primitive as fuck.

>>2283629
German army was primitive the entire war regardless of front.

>>2283837

Their advanced fighters, radar and signals tech, and navy were all dedicated to the west though.

>>2283968

+ rocketry

>>2283968
You mean smoke and mirrors designed to serve as propaganda to convince Britain to early surrender whilst the majority of the German army was horse drawn?

Super weapons are great for convincing autists to jerk off to you 70 years later but they're useless for WINNING THE WAR.

>>2283990

>5 year battle of the atlantic
>6 years of air war
>smoke and mirrors

Be retarded elsewhere.

>>2284023
>battle of the atlantic

Leads to Germany getting BTFO'd at the seas and the Bismarck at the bottom of the ocean.

>6 years of air war

Leads to the fatuous V2 project which accomplished fuck all but looked real pretty, battle of Britain was a failure, got BTFO'd by the SAF.

Smoke and mirrors.

Cry harder wehraboo. Try spending the money on WINNING THE WAR next time.

>>2284035

Germany spent their money in the West, it's not a matter of debate, we have the numbers from their defense procurement.

You're linear understanding of the fronts isn't even History Channel tier.

>>2284080
>Germany blew a lot of money on shit it didn't need, I have the documents to prove it!

>You're

/his/ tier argumentation