Why Operation Barbarossa failed

The T34/76 out classed the Mk 1,2,3 Panzers but is considered equal to the Mk4/75
The T34/85 was better than the Mk4 but arrived in the field in 44.
The T34/76 was cheaper and easier to produce plus the Russian Generals had no problem with sacificing as much cannon fodder as they could.
Germany had a limited supply of everything.

Barbarossa and the war failed because of the belief in the loonie ideology (Aryanism)of the Nazi Party.
 
The T34/76 out classed the Mk 1,2,3 Panzers but is considered equal to the Mk4/75
The T34/85 was better than the Mk4 but arrived in the field in 44.
The T34/76 was cheaper and easier to produce plus the Russian Generals had no problem with sacificing as much cannon fodder as they could.
Germany had a limited supply of everything.

Barbarossa and the war failed because of the belief in the loonie ideology (Aryanism)of the Nazi Party.

And the Tiger 1 was a very good tank, one the best of WW II . It outclassed the T 34 in terms firepower with its 88 Millimeter gun and had good armor protection. Unfortunately, at 56 tones , It guzzled fuel and wasn't quite as agile as the T34, It's Maybach engine and fuel pump had breakdown issues . In contrast, to the T 34 Tank was simple and far easier to produce in great numbers and was easy to fix on the battlefield. The tiger I was complex and battlefield repair was problematic. And the Germans were never able to produce them in great numbers.
 
Last edited:
Coupled with this, the invasion of France was feasible (if difficult), while over-confidence and slapdash planning made invasion of the USSR a very different proposition.

Another big difference was that Stalin knew he'd die if he lost, and didn't give two hoots about sending millions of Russians to their deaths to save himself. The French could surrender and had a strong incentive to do so rather than let many of their people die. Stalin couldn't and didn't.

And let's not forget the Russian railway line gauge, which required all cargo from Germany to be swapped from German trains to Russian trains at the border. That alone must have had a significant impact on logistics.
 
Another big difference was that Stalin knew he'd die if he lost, and didn't give two hoots about sending millions of Russians to their deaths to save himself. The French could surrender and had a strong incentive to do so rather than let many of their people die. Stalin couldn't and didn't.

And let's not forget the Russian railway line gauge, which required all cargo from Germany to be swapped from German trains to Russian trains at the border. That alone must have had a significant impact on logistics.

Beria or one the other politburo members would have eliminated Stalin had he lost. Most likely Beria.
 
Last edited:
It was a brave person who took on Stalin. Anyone with even the remotest possibility of challenging him he eliminated. To be overthrown it would have likely taken a collaboration of conspirators, and I'm not sure those close to him would have trusted others with such a task. In all honesty with just how badly the fist few months of the war went for Russia, if he was to be removed in a coup it would have been then. I think it's quite likely that - just like Hitler - he would be more likely to have shot himself than be assassinated.
 
It was a brave person who took on Stalin. Anyone with even the remotest possibility of challenging him he eliminated. To be overthrown it would have likely taken a collaboration of conspirators, and I'm not sure those close to him would have trusted others with such a task. In all honesty with just how badly the fist few months of the war went for Russia, if he was to be removed in a coup it would have been then. I think it's quite likely that - just like Hitler - he would be more likely to have shot himself than be assassinated.
To a certain extent this was of Stalin's own choosing. He carefully surrounded himself at the top with yes-men, those he had control over and virtually all of them feared him. Whilst he removed those he feared or may have been an alternative leader - the Great Purge of 1937-39 being one of the most obvious signs that was what he was doing. But he got rid of rivals all the time.

So at the time of the initial thrust of Barbarossa and Stalin had 'loss of confidence' and he left for two days, no-one stepped up to lead, even temporally for some obvious orders - in case Stalin would misconstrue them when he returned. When they went out to find him it was to ask him to come back and led them.
 
It was a brave person who took on Stalin. Anyone with even the remotest possibility of challenging him he eliminated. To be overthrown it would have likely taken a collaboration of conspirators, and I'm not sure those close to him would have trusted others with such a task. In all honesty with just how badly the fist few months of the war went for Russia, if he was to be removed in a coup it would have been then. I think it's quite likely that - just like Hitler - he would be more likely to have shot himself than be assassinated.

Sergei Kirov who was Stalin's best fired but had the misfortune of being more popular than Stalin.
 
To a certain extent this was of Stalin's own choosing. He carefully surrounded himself at the top with yes-men, those he had control over and virtually all of them feared him. Whilst he removed those he feared or may have been an alternative leader - the Great Purge of 1937-39 being one of the most obvious signs that was what he was doing. But he got rid of rivals all the time.

So at the time of the initial thrust of Barbarossa and Stalin had 'loss of confidence' and he left for two days, no-one stepped up to lead, even temporally for some obvious orders - in case Stalin would misconstrue them when he returned. When they went out to find him it was to ask him to come back and led them.

Yes Stalin made a rod for his own back. He was more bothered about staying in control than he was about anything else. Which can work when you're a dictator and in peace time, but when things really get tough and the survival of your very country is at stake it's a recipe for disaster.

Even when things were going badly, even in old age, even in ill health (and even apparently even when he had died), Stalin was greatly feared to the point were it was almost impossible to plot a conspiracy against him.
 
Yes Stalin made a rod for his own back. He was more bothered about staying in control than he was about anything else. Which can work when you're a dictator and in peace time, but when things really get tough and the survival of your very country is at stake it's a recipe for disaster.

Even when things were going badly, even in old age, even in ill health (and even apparently even when he had died), Stalin was greatly feared to the point were it was almost impossible to plot a conspiracy against him.

Did you ever see the 2017 film The Death of Stalin? It was darkly comic take on the events surround Stalin death in 1953 and the jockeying for power of all his various cronies. It's a terrific film.
 
Last edited:
Did you ever see the 2017 film The Death of Stalin? It was darkly comic take on the events surround Stalin death in 1953 and the jockeying for power of all his various cronies. It' a terrific film.

No, but I remember seeing it advertised at the time. Thanks, will have to check it out!
 
To a certain extent this was of Stalin's own choosing. He carefully surrounded himself at the top with yes-men, those he had control over and virtually all of them feared him. Whilst he removed those he feared or may have been an alternative leader - the Great Purge of 1937-39 being one of the most obvious signs that was what he was doing. But he got rid of rivals all the time.

So at the time of the initial thrust of Barbarossa and Stalin had 'loss of confidence' and he left for two days, no-one stepped up to lead, even temporally for some obvious orders - in case Stalin would misconstrue them when he returned. When they went out to find him it was to ask him to come back and led them.

Purging the Russian Military of all his best Generals and military officers was by far the stupidest thing Stalin could have done . Had he not done any of that , far fewer Russian civilians would have died because a competently run Army would have stopped the Germans dead in their tracks far sooner.

The politburo should have executed Stalin for his thunderous Incompetence.
 
Purging the Russian Military of all his best Generals and military officers was by far the stupidest thing Stalin could have done . Had he not done any of that , far fewer Russian civilians would have died because a competently run Army would have stopped the Germans dead in their tracks far sooner.

The politburo should have executed Stalin for his thunderous Incompetence.

Actually I disagree. Would a more competently run Army would been able to hold against Barbarossa? The Germans started with more men, armies with a lot of experience and an initial plan they knew how to implement and had the element of surprise. The Russians were asked to hold on at all costs and this caused a large number of 'cauldrens' or pockets forming as German panzer armies surrounded them. But also this dogged defence really hurt the German war machine and did effectively blunt it by October. Then logistics, the Russian Winter and the Soviet reponse in finding fresh troops, stopped them.

Yes, a more competent commander might have allowed fronts to fall back before they were cut off, saving more men and putting up more resistance later, but it took a while for the Soviets to learn how to fight effectively and get their industry back firing on all cylinders.

Stalin was 'the poltiburo' surely.
 
Stalin's biggest error was not to put the Red Army on high alert when Soviet intelligence was clear the Germans were about to attack. That would probably have saved their air force at least and allowed more units to pull back before being surrounded, but it would not have been enough to stop the Wehrmacht dead in its tracks. It would require over a year of warfare before the Soviets finally understood blitzkrieg and were properly equipped and organised to fight it. What really saved them was the huge size of their country, which meant the Germans could not seize all crucial areas before running out of steam (half their tanks out of commission by the time they reached Moscow), and the size of the Russian population, which meant the Soviets could make up their massive losses in a way the Poles and French could not. Blitzkrieg only works on smaller countries that can be knocked out before they have the chance to reorganise and refit their army.
 
Stalin’s biggest error was not reading Mein Kampf. It’s there in black and white from 1925 :D

Considering its original title: "A Four and a Half Years' Struggle Against Stupidity, Cowardice and Lies; Settling Accounts with Enemies of the National Socialist Party", he probably decided to give it a pass.
 

Similar threads


Back
Top