Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Barbarossa in reverse

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Barbarossa in reverse

    Post I found on warships1.

    Subject: Barbarossa in reverse
    Posted By: Admiral Beez - Registered User
    Posts: 1498
    Posted At: (1/27/04 9:43 pm)
    Reply

    What if, as Germany was finishing up its invasion and occupation of France in late 1940, Russia attacks the eastern front of the Reich?

    Russia sends everything it has historically in autumn 1940, with the goal to take all of Poland, seize the Balkans, Czech. and Hungary. Objectives for Spring and Summer 1941 are to push to Berlin and force Hitler to recognise Russian supremacy and Stalin as the chief dictator of Europe.

    Could the Germans logistically tackle the Russian attack in late 1940? Did Russia have the means to attack in 1940? If not, what if the attack took place the day before Germany's historic Barbarossa, thus trumping the Weirmarcht?
    "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

  • #2
    I think that the Krauts would be able to fight back effectively, being that they were at the height of their power. Aside from that, Hitler's final solution wasn't being implemented seriously yet, so the traisnw could have been used for the war effort.
    Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

    Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

    Comment


    • #3
      I think the Russians would have made some initial advances into eastern Prussia and the "corridor", but the Germans would have been able to quickly muster enough forces to bring the invasion to a halt, then within a month, two at the most, muster a force large enough to flank Russian forces and utterly destroy them.

      If Russia truly threw everything it had into such an operation, the road to Moscow and other major Russian cities would be by and large clear after its forces were destroyed. Of course, Germany was finishing up France in summer 1940, so they'd only have a few months of good weather in which to counterattack, if the counterattack were to be similar in scope to the real Barbarossa. The Russians would then have a few months to muster more forces to fight the next spring.

      If any of you guys are really interested in the Barbarossa campaign, I'd recommend "Barbarossa" by Alan Clark. I believe it's one of the most comprehensive books to date on the subject, it can be had in paperback for about $15.
      "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

      Comment


      • #4
        The problem I have with these scenarios is that it ignores everything else. Would have Great Britain made peace with Nazi Germany to deal with the Bolsheviks?

        If so, then the PTO would have ended much earlier with the full might of the US coming down on Japan.

        Comment


        • #5
          I don't think russia was in any position in 1940, or 41 for that matter to invade Germany
          Ain't No Rocket Scientists In The Firehall

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Barbarossa in reverse

            Originally posted by Ironduke

            What if, as Germany was finishing up its invasion and occupation of France in late 1940, Russia attacks the eastern front of the Reich?

            Russia sends everything it has historically in autumn 1940, with the goal to take all of Poland, seize the Balkans, Czech. and Hungary. Objectives for Spring and Summer 1941 are to push to Berlin and force Hitler to recognise Russian supremacy and Stalin as the chief dictator of Europe.

            Could the Germans logistically tackle the Russian attack in late 1940? Did Russia have the means to attack in 1940? If not, what if the attack took place the day before Germany's historic Barbarossa, thus trumping the Weirmarcht?
            This thread is a bit old, but I just want to post my opinion.

            Russia couldn't attack Germany neither in 1940 nor earlier in 1939.

            After Stalin 1937-1938 repressions, there were no skilled officers in Red Army, regiments were led by yesterday sergeants. Army had to learn how to fight from zero.

            Winter War with Finland started in october 1939 was first lesson. Having great advantage in soldiers, guns, tanks, planes, Red Army wasn't able to finish the war quickly. War continued without any success until january. But first experience came, and after all war was victoriously finished in march, 1940. Losses were enormous. SU lost 130 000 soldiers against 20 000 Finns.

            After that war Stalin had understand weakness of his army quite well. That's why SU didn't attack Germany. Stalin tried to delay inevitable war with Germany by Molotov-Ribbenthrop Pact and hoped that Germany wouldn't attack USSR before summer 1942. (But Hitler also had understand that Red Army is weak and that's why he break pact in 1941 trying to crush USSR in a few months.)

            Comment


            • #7
              Also to if russia did invade Germany from the east, the German forces would have really been dense unlike the larger front that eventually needed to fall back. Plus Yugoslavia may have even wanted to join the germans if it was not yet occupied. and if russia wanted complete control of the balkans, Greece to may have also joined, but only if Italy had not invaded it. BTW how old id this thread
              The conquerer mourns, the conquerer is undone.

              Comment


              • #8
                The Red army was in no position to launch any attacks in 1940/41. I think Stalin was hoping to get to 1943 without being attacked. The army that the USSR was trying to build to was actually quite modern, mechanized, and capable.

                -dale

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by dalem
                  The Red army was in no position to launch any attacks in 1940/41. I think Stalin was hoping to get to 1943 without being attacked. The army that the USSR was trying to build to was actually quite modern, mechanized, and capable.

                  -dale
                  Agreed. 1942 and 41 were too early, but as I am saying in the If Germany won WWII thread, by 1943 or 44, the Soviet Union would have been in a position to successfully challenge Germany for mastery of the continent.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by lwarmonger
                    Agreed. 1942 and 41 were too early, but as I am saying in the If Germany won WWII thread, by 1943 or 44, the Soviet Union would have been in a position to successfully challenge Germany for mastery of the continent.
                    The reformed Red Army would have probably been equal or superior to the Germans in technology (yes!), definitely in numbers, but the horrible damage to the officer corps would have most probably severely hampered their planning and doctrinal abilities, and may have been masked without the Winter War to highlight weaknesses.

                    So yeah, a helluva fight, I think you're right.

                    -dale

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      old threads are my favorites

                      If Germany is busy moping up France, it means that less than a 1/3 of the German army is guarding the Eastern front. Perfect oportunity in my opinion. Moving a single division from the west to the est takes times.Airpower could be shifted more rapidly but the oportunity for the ground destruction of the soviet airforce does not exist in this scenario.
                      Amunition and fuel for german forces would be very scarce after the batle for France.Continental Europe is no Finland and the comparation does not stand. In my opinion the russians would roll. Actualy the Finland campain could be compared with the batle for Moskow, does it make the german army illprepared for war in general ?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        i think there's been some evidence uncovered lately that had russia not been backstabbed by the germans with operation barbarossa, they would have taken it upon themselves to do the same, probably in '43 or '44.

                        it would be (theoretically) interesting to see how that would play out, especially as the russians wouldn't be enjoying the mobility given to them by lend-lease...but would have the numbers that they didn't have, thanks to the early days of the german invasion.
                        There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          [QUOTE=astralis;393382]
                          it would be (theoretically) interesting to see how that would play out, especially as the russians wouldn't be enjoying the mobility given to them by lend-lease...QUOTE]

                          asuming that in 1940 the russians would be seen as agressors...
                          remember that in 1940 The UK was fighting Germany both on air and sea, the US was not commited to a war on the continent,( that comitment came only after december 1941). At that time any allied against hitler would be apreciated, both from UK and US.The perception of the russians as a agressor was formed during the cold war, however this peception did not exist during wwII despite the ocupation of the baltic states and the war against Finland.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Strangely enough when Hitler occupies Poland everyone declares him the aggressor. When Stalin occupies Poland Baltics, Bessarabia, and tries to invade Finland nobody declares war on him. About the damage to the officer corps of the Red Army, it does not seem to be as extensive as we have been made to think.

                            Âèêòîð Ñóâîðîâ. Î÷èùåíèå. Ãëàâà 3 - ÏÐÎ 40 ÒÛÑß× ÏÎËÊÎÂÎÄÖÅÂ

                            This is out of the book "Purges" by Viktor Suvorov. The whole text is on that site. The book thoroughly tears apart what kind of people were purged and how many were actually purged.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Feanor
                              for those of us who do not speek russian ( me included ) could you translate?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X