What if: Hitler let the German generals plan and execute Barbarosa without interferin

It Hitler had more faith in his generals and let them do their job without interfering (no movement of troops from the center to help the drive in Ukraine, army group north is allowed to take Leningrad instead of trying to encircle and starve the city, etc) can they get Moscow in late November?
 
It still wouldn't have the logistical support to cripple the Soviets in one season, nor the industrial production backup to maintain Wehrmacht strength.
 
No, not at all.

In fact lots of people I respect quite a lot think that Germany's brilliant generals would have lost the war even faster if left to their own devices.

That and mud is no better than snow.
 
The ensuing winter counter attack would hurt them a lot less to be certain. I believe it was Guderian who wanted to withdraw when the initial campaign failed to take Moscow and winter was kicking in.

That would put Germany in a better position logisticly, certainly saving some lives and put them in a better position for the next campaigning season. They probably wouldn't have lost too much more ground with an early withdraw than they did from the counterattacks anyways.
 
"The Moscow Option" covers this by having Hitler knocked into a coma in a plane crash not long after Barbarossa started. Basically, the Germans did somewhat better, taking Moscow and driving down into the Caucasus, but they still run out of steam and lose the war. The author also had the Germans do better in Africa, and drive clear into Palestine, trying to link up with the Caucasus column. But those insufferable Brits manage to defeat both columns (with some aid from the Yanks)...
 
"The Moscow Option" covers this by having Hitler knocked into a coma in a plane crash not long after Barbarossa started. Basically, the Germans did somewhat better, taking Moscow and driving down into the Caucasus, but they still run out of steam and lose the war. The author also had the Germans do better in Africa, and drive clear into Palestine, trying to link up with the Caucasus column. But those insufferable Brits manage to defeat both columns (with some aid from the Yanks)...

Wait, what the hell? Where do the logistics come for the Germans to enter Palestine? And how would the Soviets win with no oil to fuel their tanks since the Caucasus is surrounded? Wasn't Moscow the central railway hub of the Soviet Union, how would the Soviets be able to even fight effectively after this?
 

Tellus

Banned
Wait, what the hell? Where do the logistics come for the Germans to enter Palestine? And how would the Soviets win with no oil to fuel their tanks since the Caucasus is surrounded? Wasn't Moscow the central railway hub of the Soviet Union, how would the Soviets be able to even fight effectively after this?

I doubt also that the Soviets could fight anything but guerilla if they lost both Moscow and the Caucasus oil.

Regarding Palestine, though, owning Suez, Cairo and Alexendria (basically winning in north africa) would put the Eastern Mediteranean into Italian Lake status, ensuring that supply can easily reach a frontline anywhere in the near-east. Axis logistics would probably stretch only if they tried to push inland, towards Iraq and Kuweit for exemple. But I dont see how the Allies really prevent the fall of Palestine if they cant hold on to the vital egyptian ports and sealanes.
 
I doubt also that the Soviets could fight anything but guerilla if they lost both Moscow and the Caucasus oil.

Regarding Palestine, though, owning Suez, Cairo and Alexendria (basically winning in north africa) would put the Eastern Mediteranean into Italian Lake status, ensuring that supply can easily reach a frontline anywhere in the near-east. Axis logistics would probably stretch only if they tried to push inland, towards Iraq and Kuweit for exemple. But I dont see how the Allies really prevent the fall of Palestine if they cant hold on to the vital egyptian ports and sealanes.

What, are the British mentally retarded in this scenario? How would Germany even reach the Suez Canal? Assuming they actually win at the El Alamein, how would they win the battle of Alexandria. Already the Axis were outnumbered and under supplied at El Alamein, so how would they be able to win following battles. With the success of Barbarossa in that scenario it is obvious that the Germans wouldn't be able to divert enough resourses to make themselves reach Palestine. And what about Operation Torch? Frankly, this book is ASB.
 

Tellus

Banned
What, are the British mentally retarded in this scenario? How would Germany even reach the Suez Canal? Assuming they actually win at the El Alamein, how would they win the battle of Alexandria. Already the Axis were outnumbered and under supplied at El Alamein, so how would they be able to win following battles. With the success of Barbarossa in that scenario it is obvious that the Germans wouldn't be able to divert enough resourses to make themselves reach Palestine. And what about Operation Torch? Frankly, this book is ASB.

Well, I read the book; its been awhile, but im fairly certain that they get to Palestine through Egypt, yeah.

Its a stretch, but so is calling it ASB. An Axis victory in Egypt, on paper, was very probable in 1940, likely in 1941, and extremely hard to pull off in 1942. The reason why we feel Suez was safe all along is simply because 1942 is the only time that they actually pushed as hard as they should have when they still had the chance. A properly supplied Rommel wouldnt get stuck at Toubrouk in 41.
 
Wait, what the hell? Where do the logistics come for the Germans to enter Palestine? And how would the Soviets win with no oil to fuel their tanks since the Caucasus is surrounded? Wasn't Moscow the central railway hub of the Soviet Union, how would the Soviets be able to even fight effectively after this?

I doubt also that the Soviets could fight anything but guerilla if they lost both Moscow and the Caucasus oil.

Regarding Palestine, though, owning Suez, Cairo and Alexendria (basically winning in north africa) would put the Eastern Mediteranean into Italian Lake status, ensuring that supply can easily reach a frontline anywhere in the near-east. Axis logistics would probably stretch only if they tried to push inland, towards Iraq and Kuweit for exemple. But I dont see how the Allies really prevent the fall of Palestine if they cant hold on to the vital egyptian ports and sealanes.

Guys, the answer to all these questions is a simple one: the author set everything up that way so he could have the damn Brits save the world :)
 
A more realisitc alternative would be what if the troops from Army Group Center weren't diverted to assist Army Group South at Kiev? Use those same troops to push on Moscow before reinforcements get there...

Moscow was pretty much the lynchpin of the Soviet government, economy and army command. Everything was centralized there and having to move it would be an utter disaster for Stalin. He might not even be able to pull it off.
 
"The Moscow Option" covers this by having Hitler knocked into a coma in a plane crash not long after Barbarossa started. Basically, the Germans did somewhat better, taking Moscow and driving down into the Caucasus, but they still run out of steam and lose the war. The author also had the Germans do better in Africa, and drive clear into Palestine, trying to link up with the Caucasus column. But those insufferable Brits manage to defeat both columns (with some aid from the Yanks)...

Dave is correct, I have that book. However, I'd point out that if Hitler were really out of the picture, Siegfried would be aimed at the Volga Bend instead at the Caucasus. Stalin would never agree to peace, but if the Wehrmacht can get to Kazan and Kuibyshev, you have the worst case Scenario in Europe--Fortress Europe is simply too hard to crack.

Japan opportunistically attacking in the Far East might even get tilted to a success if the Soviets wind up having to pull forces from the Far East to (desperately) hold onto their center.

In any case, even if Barbarossa turns into a stunning success (which it might have been, given the PoD), and is followed up with a Fall Siegfried of equal skill, it would take Tactical Nukes to beat the Wehrmacht. That said, the US and UK will hold on for that long, anyhow.
 
sl

But the Germans never declare war on US (why would they) and the Africa Corps was meant as a defensive force (Germany didn’t want Egypt, Italy did, Rommel was Hitler favorite the German general staff wont send him to command Africa Corps).
So basically Germany has more troops and resourses for Barbarosa.
Taking Moscow would have tipped the balance for the Germans there is the point were the Soviets start to crack, Moscow is a major rail hub and the Soviets heavily rely on trains for transport.
The German general staff doesn’t care about exterminating the Jews or colonizing Russia, or treating the East Europeans (Lithuanians, Estonians, Letonians, Ukrainians) like subhuman. That means les partisan activities on this territories so less German troops to control and keep the supply lines open and in a possible future even “volunteers” to help control the conquered territories.
US will not declare war on Germany if they don’t see Germany as threat in the North Atlantic, so for this to happen Germany has to scale its U-boat campaign in the Atlantic, even if Roosevelt wants to declare war he has to go through congress.
I don’t think the US congress is going to declare war on Germany after already being in a war with the empire of Japan.
GB by itself can’t invade West Europe and by the time that they will be ready and have enough troops to even start planning for it Germany will be in control of most of European Russia.
 
Top