Why did Barbarossa fail?

Why did Barbarossa fail?

Attached: 35405078072_e652da9efd_b.jpg (758x1024, 260.51K)

No oil

it culminated at leningrad in the fall. it’s not rocket surgery.

Yankee gibs

Not enough oil when you have a battlefront the equivalent in distance from Boston to Miami. 8kpvw4

Jews

Attached: IMG_20220625_173852_116.jpg (704x1024, 124.97K)

>Halder hijacking Barbarossa to pursue the Moscow meme instead of going all in for the grain and oil of the south from the start like Hitler wanted
>Actually making Ukrainians who originally welcomed you like liberators hate you more than they hate Russians because of uncontrolled autism.

Attached: ukraine.webm (640x360, 2.92M)

Because the Wehrmacht suffered tremendous casualties and overextended their forces so much they went from outnumbering the enemy 3:2 in June to being outnumbered by the enemy 4:1 in December.

The General Winter theory has its merits, but it is mostly a meme. The Red Army inflicted huge losses on the advancing Germans, and since *only* 30% of Germany's GDP was used for the military at the onset of Barbarossa, they couldn't keep up the momentum. Elite troops of the Heer and airmen of the Luftwaffe were killed in great numbers compared to the overall insignificant losses in Poland, France and Norway.
Once they realized the USSR would absorb million of casualties, and the Wehrmacht itself would suffer just as many to reach the A-A line, it was too late. Typhoon failed, Leningrad couldn't be besieged properly and most of the forces were sent to AG Center against the wishes of Hitler himself. This was mostly Franz Halder and Heinz Guderian's fault.

Moreover, the millions of Ukrainians and Balts that could've given a boost to Hitler's forces were ruthlessly hunted down and only a fraction of it were able to join collaborationist forces, mostly Estonians and Lithuanians.

TL/DR:
- overextension
- faulty plan
- underestimating the enemy's strength and resolve
- mistreatement of potential allies

American land lease

>and most of the forces were sent to AG Center against the wishes of Hitler himself.
Forgot to add that Hitler's plan was the South, Halder's was the center. Both are right and both Moscow and the Caucasus are important goals.

Halder's idea was that the morale blow of Moscow falling, concurrently with the most important railway link of the entire Soviet Union falling into German hands would pave the way for an advance southwards and towards Archangelsk, where a lot of USSR lend-lease came through. Hitler on the other hand wanted the south for obvious reasons: resources to fuel the war machine.

As per usual Germoids/Westerners vastly overestimated their superiority on all fronts.

There was no reason to go for Moscow or Leningrad, Hitler didn't even want to but his generals forced him to. If they just stuck with Ukraine and took the Caucasus then they could've got enough oil to win the war and save the world.

The south was the rigth idea. Conquering Moscow with urban warfare would have been a nightmare. The unfortuante truth is that the german people failed Hitler.

>Boston to Miami.
I never paid attention to that.
Yeah, that would be a problem.

>Believing it ever happened
Holy shit you fucking idiots are dumb. The entire thing was a theatrical production but you're so in love with your little bedtime stories you never stopped to ask "does any of this even make sense?" Of course you didn't because you've read so many books and watched so many movies and wasted countless hours playing games that it just has to be real right? Because the media never lied about anything especially the world wars right? Right? Pathetic.

they faced a titan, the USSR

Let me guess your groom... I mean teachers told you that?

There was no right idea, the whole plan was bound to fail since USSR outproduced germans 4x to 1 + lend lease. Also to add to , the airforce had already been greatly reduced against britain so it wasnt as effective as it could be.

black history user here the 3rd and final panzerbattle at kursk was the decisive battle where german tank divisions took huge losses by the russian minefields and fierce russian attacks on the flanks inflicted hige losses on the germans.

Hitler just wasn't radical enough.

>Hey war game this for me paulus
>Ok. Yeah it's not going to work
>Ok let's do it anyway
It's almost like none of it makes sense because it was a lie to begin with

once you look at the figures on production and access to resources the only thing surprising about ww2 and germanys performance is the early years. the whole process was a forgone conclusion

>Both are right and both Moscow and the Caucasus are important goals
Moscow wasn't
Hitler was right
Nevermind depriving the soviets of oil, they would have gotten plenty from burgers, although it would be a blow just from delays
Hitler needed that oil first and foremost
III Reich was hardly every able to run the entirety of it's military apparatus full bore due to lack of oil
Within a matter of months of taking the Caucasus the # of air, u boat, and motorized divisions could have been over doubled
Soviet morale was already bottomed out when the thing started and Hitler gave the commisar order (that they were to be shot on sight)
The reason the Germans were able to get multiple encirclements capturing well over half a million Soviet troops (per encirclement) in the opening months of the war was the guarantee that if the soldiers shot their commissar they'd be clear with the Germans
The commisars were often the only thing keeping them fighting
Thousands of units shot their commissars, surrendered to Germany, and even ended up fighting in the Russian volunteer forces under German command
It became such a problem that Stalin made it illegal to surrender
If the Soviets discovered you had surrendered instead of died your family would be shipped off to a gulag
Taking Moscow would have made little difference in Morale to anyone except those in Soviet high command
The esprit de corps among the rank and file is far more important than that of the high command, which was already non existent on the bottom
TLDR
Halder was a short sighted dildo
Hitler was right
Hitler should have shot Halder the 3rd week of Barbarossa

the whole thing was admirable, but stupid.
i mean, if you can't even cross the tiny English Channel and invade a practically defeated enemy, how you gonna march 1500 miles and defeat a fresh one?

Germany ran out of resources.

>Hey let's attack a fortified Kursk with inferior numbers
>Doh!
The "story" makes no sense. Almost as if it was made up...

ill equipped, forces stretched too thin, ruskies had the numbers, germans fought their heart out, always remember, 'things are bad, but so was stalingrad'

stalin did say he would remain in moscow and had a nervous breakdown when they reached the gates of the city. if he actually did and he died the war would be as good as over

the user is right. both goals make a lot of sense

Newfag

It went perfectly to plan.

Attached: 1656342590323.png (433x377, 202.07K)

>And it all happened just like that! My Rosenberg text books told me so!
>My time at kike university wasn't a total wast!

>The south was the rigth idea. Conquering Moscow with urban warfare would have been a nightmare
yes
>The unfortuante truth is that the german people failed Hitler
No
The generals failed Hitler
Hitler failed to be as brutal as Stalin with his command staff
The common German soldier did what was asked of him and more
Halder should have been shot
Göring should have been stripped of his command and Ritter von Greim should have headed up the Luftwaffe
etc.
Too many mistakes to name
Stalin knew when he started he couldn't trust his command staff, so he shot them all
While he went maybe too far, he was closer to getting it right than Hitler

Because the Italians couldn't beat the Greeks and the Germans had to bail them out - throwing off the entire invasion timeline. If the Germans didn't have to help the Italians then they would have better chances of beating the Russian winter