What if Operation Barbarossa were planned to be a long campaign

Operation Barbarossa was planned from the beginning to be a short campaign (highlighted mainly by the words of Hitler:
The Soviets are like a rotten house, we just kick the door, that the whole structure collapses
If Hitler had reflected, and realized that it would not be easy to make the Soviets surrender, so the Germans should prepare for a long and violent campaign, would there be any change?
 

Deleted member 1487

Operation Barbarossa was planned from the beginning to be a short campaign (highlighted mainly by the words of Hitler:
The Soviets are like a rotten house, we just kick the door, that the whole structure collapses
If Hitler had reflected, and realized that it would not be easy to make the Soviets surrender, so the Germans should prepare for a long and violent campaign, would there be any change?
Then Barbarossa doesn't happen, because the only reason it was really planned at the time it was was because the assumption it could be won quickly and would force the Brits to quit the war before the US could join in. Hitler and his generals got that fighting a long war of attrition was not something Germany could win, so assumed it would be a short war so it was winnable. A long grinding two front war (really multiple fronts) would be a guaranteed loss for them, but a quick campaign that collapsed the USSR and left Germany in control of Soviet resources and no continental power that could threaten them would present a domineering front which it was assumed the British would have to just accept; that would not be the case if they planned on a long, violent, costly campaign.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Towelie

Banned
It is possible that if the Germans focused more on the north and capturing Leningrad in 1941, with AGC taking up positions around Smolensk and resting and refitting their vehicles for the winter while likely swatting away silly and stupid Soviet counterattacks with ease, and expending minimal effort in the South after Kiev, they could have had the makings of a successful campaign. The diversion at Kiev was needed to clear the flanks of AGC. That is fine, and should be done, as OTL it was a massive success and one of the greatest achievements in military history in terms of casualties inflicted.

Basically, don't advance on Moscow and allow AGC to be exhausted and vulnerable to counterattack, but rather resting and refitting around Smolensk and ready for a fresh offensive once the Rasputitsa diminishes in late May 1942.

As for Leningrad, getting the Finns to advance along the west bank of Lake Ladoga and cut off it from the city would have been huge. But with more troops in the north and an attack in early September while the Soviets were disorganized and in a state of panic, the city could have been taken.
 
Last edited:
Top