Was Operation Bararossa a pre-emptive attack?

>Was Operation Bararossa a pre-emptive attack?
yes, that is one reason it was so easy at the start. Commie fucks were preparing for invasion, not defense.

there was no stabbing, your bolsjevic warmongering genocidal maniac warlords wanted to destroy europe and the rest of the world and you got caught redhanded while the world was played like a fiddle by the jews

>ally with a highly untrustworthy nation because it is the only one on the world stage that actually wants anything to do with you
>get attacked by that same nation 1 year later bacause this "alliance" (that never even existed) is no longer needed
>FUCKING NAZI SCUM WHY YOU BETRAY US WE BEST FRIENDS WHY YOU DO THIS DIE NAZI SCUM REEEE

Russian "politics" right here.

Yeah, yeah, Hitler was just a pacifist and a good guy. We've heard it numerous times. The fact is - he did attack and broke the non-aggression pact, so basically stabbed USSR in the back when the Union was least expecting it. And even with this dick move he got btfo. Thank him for ruining Europe, he did a pretty good job at bringing its demise.

Yeah, when you sign a non-aggression pact with a nation, you don't usually attack it, that's kinda the whole point of the pact. Its not that hard to understand.

Yes, definitely. It was obvious that the USSR and the Axis will have a war at some point in the future. However I do not believe in Suvorov's "Ice Breaker" (the book most people cite as proof of this) who says the attack was imminent. Stalin was planning an attack, but that attack was supposed to come years later. He though that France and Britain would put up more of a fight like in ww1. He was more surprised by Germany's victory than anyone else, hence why the Soviet military was such a mess in 1941. They were desperately trying to reorganize.

It was a moronic war of conquest that was based on wishful thinking. If the Germans wanted to perform a defensive pre-emptive strike, they would've actually listened to their own logistics experts and they would've stopped upon completing the initial encirclements.

Attached: death-to-various-things.jpg (218x218, 7K)

No. There is ample evidence of belligerent intent of the Nazis, and no particular aggression on the Soviet part.

And I regret that such a delusional maniac as Hitler became the leader of Germany.

Let's say Strasser is the German leader. WWIII would not have happened. There would be Cold War with 3 superpowers, and it would never end, as as soon as 1 of the 3 becomes too powerful, the other 2 coordinate. Golden age of humanity, prosperity and progress.

This non-aggression pact was just for show. Neither Germany nor USSR actually cared for it. It seems only Stalin autistically believed that he actually allied with Germany which costed millions of soviet soldiers.

Hitler had his full intent on paper since 1933, and the lebensraum thing was very clear.

No, Stalin wanted Hitler and the west to continue fighting indefinitely. The Soviet military was in no shape to fight either so there were no plans to attack germany

both parties knew exactly that piece of paper ment jack shit, only a (for the russian party desperate) action of buying time to be the first

and yes, a good lie is easier to believe than accepting the truth.
and since communists only can do is lie, well..

>He though that France and Britain would put up more of a fight like in ww1
That's why he was accelerating plans.
He started to bring back officers sent to gulag or on death-row after the Winter War disaster AND the German western campaign in 1940.
Look up the deal with Rokossovsky, for example.

Stalin felt that his alliance with Germany was only a stalling tactic in order to get his troops into shape becuase he knew the purge had taken a great toll on the red army.

It's why he invaded Finland because he wanted to create a buffer zone to leningrad and hopefully align Finland towards the soviet union to remove a potential threat and German ally.

The war was preemtive in the sense that it was started when it was in order to preemt the Russians but it was also a long standing plan to conquer lebensraum in the east.

Oh Jew.

this

>no particular aggression on the Soviet part.
Soviet Union was in a perpetual mode of expansion&agression from the 17th September of 1939 until 22 June 1941.

Yes. The entire Soviet army was geared towards attacking and Stalin was still mass producing weapons solely for the attack. Hitler realised this, saw that he was running out of oil and so decided to launch a pre-emptive strike in the hopes of beating the USSR. It was his only chance at victory, be it slim.

I've also done a dissertation on this topic and loads of actual research so take what I'm saying to be true.

His chances would have been better, had he chosen not to genocide the locals. Maybe the partisan activity wouldn't have been that much of a problem then.

Wrong. Hitler planned the invasion of the USSR since the 1920’s; you make it sound like he did it out of necessity after war with the West.

I read somewhere that Germans would call out Soviet border guards and just mow them down. Made the Germans seem cold as fuck

Your shit country was the one who ruined Europe, you fucking retard. You destroyed and everything that stood in your way as soon as you went on the offensive. And Russia didn't win alone either, faggot. Without us and the bongs giving you massive amounts of aid, and if Japan would've actually attacked your Eastern territories instead of being a bunch of fags, you wouldn't even exist today.

That's a good thing you were so generous helping us ruin Europe. Nice teamwork.

Technically, Germany ruined Europe. I do not know how you can deny it unless you are german american which you probably are.

Commies aren't people. They did nothing wrong

soviets would invade, but not so soon. They would probably strike some time after 1945, they were far from ready, as seen in start of operation barbarossa and winter war. Stalin wanted to buy time with Molotov Ribentrop pact

If Germany knew about this before the war why didn't they wait for a Soviet attack, then bring in the rest of Europe as allies. Where they so confident in their Blitzkrieg that they thought they could capture all of Europe, or did the USSR only begin planning for the attack after WWII had started?

Lol russia would have still won without the lend lease. You dumb nazis need to realize that ussr was unbeatable because of their huge manpower, large geography, and on par military tech.

It was a moot point regarding the genocide of the locals.

If he opted not to, he could have replenished the Wehrmacht's forces/acquired new labour, however, he would have been stuck in the same situation the German army was in 1918 after the Brest-Litovsk Treaty wherein millions of soldiers would have been needed to control the region, if not more.

He had planned to invade them later in the 1940s but realised that he had no functional way of defeating Britain. The war in the West could not be won.

He couldn't beat the RAF nor RN in a war of attrition beyond the Battle of Britain because Germany simply lacked the oil. It wouldn't matter how many aircraft they build as the oil production within the Reich was simply inadequate to match the imports Britain received from its colonies and the US.

It didn't matter if he did plan to invade the USSR in the 1920s as by the time the Battle of Britain was over, it was very apparent that he'd need to invade the USSR early in order to avoid a complete collapse.

>His chances would have been better, had he chosen not to genocide the locals. Maybe the partisan activity wouldn't have been that much of a problem then.
Germans did a lot of retarded stuff during the war, and especially at the Eastern Front.

Stalin broke the MR pact with the invasion of Bukovina, which Hitler specifically stated he would not allow and considered to be in the German sphere of influence.

Thank you. Fascinating stuff.

You are not even trying, kike.

Attached: 1523426638957.jpg (963x1024, 82K)

He could have focused on the middle eastern oil fields. That would have been a more intelligent move. You make it sound like oil was the main objective of barbarossa but it was conquest and extermination. I dont know one can deny it especially since Hitler made it more than overtly clear he wanted Lebensraum in the east. As for uncle joe invading, it was likely but realistically more toward late 1940s.

>he would have been stuck in the same situation the German army was in 1918 after the Brest-Litovsk Treaty wherein millions of soldiers would have been needed to control the region
Even if (and that is a big IF), Hitler had no Western Front opened at that point.
And considering hundred of thousands of SU citizens that flocked to Germans anyway, I think that governing those occupied regions would be much easier without openly declared genocide on the table.

I spelled it out moron; look up the population of the ussr and then compare that with the axis population. There is just no way, even if Hitler took moscow the soviets were adapt at moving infrastructure eastward.

Would the Germans have done better if they waited for the Soviets to invade and then counterattack?

Yeah, but funnily enough, he was also the person that had the biggest doubts about the scope of Barbarossa. In the end, his generals basically said YOLO and he listened.

German retardation and autism were pretty much at their peak during World War 2.

Attached: funtown.jpg (839x469, 46K)

The way he handled genociding the population spawned a lot of hatred for German invaders. He was literally pushing people in the corner, where they had to either fight in spite of the odds or perish along with their families. I think he would have had better chances just controlling the population, especially since people like Ukrainians weren't too fond of USSR in the first place.

>He could have focused on the middle eastern oil fields.
And then he would be backstabbed by Uncle Joe, with flat Poland ideal for mechanized assault Red Army was prepared for.
If Hitler dropped the "extermination" part from his plan, Barbarossa could roll very differently.

>I think that governing those occupied regions would be much easier without openly declared genocide on the table.
I think it's hillarious that Poles still believe that Katyn massacre was done by the Germans. Those decades of communist occupation have given you such a ridiculously convoluted narrative. You were being genocided by the Soviets, then the Soviets tried to blame it on the Germans. In the end, most Poles believe both narratives, that everyone was trying to genocide Poland, despite the fact that during ww2, Hitler was openly exposing Soviet genocides to neutral observers.

You're a beginner to modern history if you think that manpower wins wars.

Pro-tip: Industrial power wins wars.

Not to mention that by pushing the Red Army so hard, he actually forced it to drop most of the political/outdated bullshit and to adapt to modern warfare, turning it into the most formidable fighting force on the continent.

The whole thing was so fucking retarded it's actually unbelievable.

Such a shitty composite job. Even if done back then by film techniques. Unless the dead people are 15 feet tall. Fake as the holocaust.

>If Hitler dropped the "extermination" part from his plan, Barbarossa could roll very differently.
This. Also the sheer scale of his genocidal actions brought about the whole stigma of any form of nationalism being an abomination of hell.

Uncle Joe needed to wait awhile before he could make a move, because he had a disorganized officer corps and wanted the west and hiter to fight some more before he invaded which would have been somewhere in the late 1940s.

>The way he handled genociding the population spawned a lot of hatred for German invaders
The only thing worse than holohoaxers is generalplan ost believers.

Generalplan Ost has literally 0 evidence. At least holohoaxers can point to a delousing chamber and claim it was an execution room.

Actually, it was British and Soviet propaganda that did this. So you only have your jewish masters to blame.

You are a retarded leaf IF you think the ussr did not have industrial power AND manpower. I didn’t mention industrial power because I took that as a given already known.

Most that died in the “holocaust” were plague victims created from the Soviet bioweapons program and it got out of control.

Yet Jow Forums will defend this, cause "subhumans and stuff". Or even outright deny anything of that sort ever happened.

Just gonna be that guy and say that despite the overview looking bad for Germany, details matter and IIRC there were a few critical battles won by the Soviets that heavily relied on the lend lease supplies. I can't remember which they were though

That's the thing though, the Red Army wasn't prepared for any kind of assault. They learned that shit while fighting the Germans, the discrepancy between the 1941 and 1943 performance is so massive that it's not even funny. Soviets had many misconceptions regarding war at that time, their push would've most likely been a catastrophe.

This. At the start of the war the ussr’s military was a joke. Red Army adapted by 1943 and became even more terrifying than the Wermacht; they became so terrifying that the allies had to use nukes to scare the soviets.

>German retardation and autism were pretty much at their peak during World War 2.
And after the war all those generals pushed all their stupid decisions on Hitler.

One of the most persistent myths of WW2 is how supposedly super-competent the German general were.
You know why? Because most of the historical research about the war in Europe for Western Allies was done by said German generals themselves (Hadler for example) or based on their books and memoirs (Manstein, Rundstedt, etc.).

Take Guderian for example.
Oh, what a great panzer commander he was, right?
Well, he completely fucked up as a person supervising the panzer development during the war.
And writing about the last German offensive in the war, in spring 1945, he wrote something like that: "oh, how silly and idiotic decision by Hitler, to push in Hungary, when Russians were standing at Oder banks!" and then, several lines later "the attack in Hungary was the only rational one, it was the only way for us to change strategic situation of the whole front and to get some oil from the Hungarian oil fields"
So either Hitler was idiot or the rational on, you cannot have both, Heinz.

Attached: 1313786272264.png (500x500, 12K)

>I think it's hillarious that Poles still believe that Katyn massacre was done by the Germans

Attached: 1296994979855.png (236x176, 3K)

> He could have focused on the middle eastern oil fields.

They were impossible to reach. What remained of the British army/RAF roamed around North Africa constantly harassing Axis forces while the Mediterranean was closely guarded by the RN. The only other route would have been through the Black Sea but that was guarded by the Soviets and understood to be a Soviet sphere of influence.

Even assuming that the Axis forces did somehow reach the Persian oil fields, then what? The oil had no machinery to get it out nor did it have any refineries nearby, meaning all this crude oil would need to be somehow transported across the Middle East (remember, there aren't major train routes or anything at this time), back across either the Mediterranean or Black Sea (both under watch by the British and Soviets) and then refined in the Reich.

It was simply an impossible feat that if attempted would have yielded enormous losses for very little gain. Had a route been secured between the Reich and Middle Eastern oil fields, so many Axis resources would have been spent getting it that the Soviets would literally just roll into the Reich.

> You make it sound like oil was the main objective of barbarossa but it was conquest and extermination.

It was.

In 1941 there were roughly 100,000 soldiers occupying France. By 1944 that number was between 2.3-3m. There was always a major expenditure in soldiers to hold the rest of Europe throughout the war.

> And considering hundred of thousands of SU citizens that flocked to Germans anyway

The same thing happened in 1918.

> I think that governing those occupied regions would be much easier without openly declared genocide on the table.

The impacts of culling 10-30% of the population of Eastern Europe would have been equal if not greater in terms of making the region easier to control as opposed to just occupying.

Probably Kursk; sowjets needed rubber for their motorized divisions and we supplies a lot of combat trucks. Not saying we were useless to the ussr, because we helped them immensely. It’s just that we accelerated the soviet victory which was inevitable given their industry and manpower.

This

Soviet Union were preparing to invade Western Europe after they already annexed the baltics, there was no other option than to attack to save the west from bolshevism. thanks to the backstabbing allies we live in this dystopian nightmare now.

Aye it did, but the mental impact in ensuring that the surviving population was subservient was potentially better in terms of resources that just occupying the region and holding it with millions of soldiers.

> especially since people like Ukrainians weren't too fond of USSR in the first place.

The nationalisms of various groups in the region was precisely the problem for just occupying. Without being crushed, they would have resisted.

I know about that. They also trolled western historians by feeding them false casualty ratios or even information pertaining to manpower.

The Germans excelled at moving stuff around and coordinating their maneuvres with their airforce, but they essentially gave up on both of those advantages when they pushed too deep into Russia. The whole war in the east unfolded just like Wehrmacht logistics people said it would.

nah, it's bullshit.

hitler was whining about soviet union being threat to europe long before, and after that he allied with soviet union to destroy half of europe. he was a jewish plant

Yeah, just look at the USSR in the Winter War. It was a total disaster, the same scenario would have probably occurred had the USSR invaded Germany.

nigga your own NKVD agents killed those people to stir hatred against germans. read some fucking history book.
20thcenturytruth.wordpress.com/stalins-order-0428-a-picture-is-worth-a-thousand-words-is-it-really/

>because he had a disorganized officer corps
It never prevented him from anything. If you look how he managed his generals, you will see how some extremely incompetent ones were kept right at the top right to 1945. And deficiencies of lower cadres were always blamed on sabotage, spies, etc.
>and wanted the west and hiter to fight some more
That's the point, Stalin hoped for long, bloody war between Hitler and Western Allies. The rapid fall of France made him to accelerate his plan of "liberating" Europe, since the Germans seemed to rule unopposed and gsined strenght.

>British and Soviet propaganda that did this
>Generalplan Ost has literally 0 evidence
There are million of real victims as evidence, asshole.

They should just have build a wall and then continued developing nukes and rocket technology.

>Soviets had many misconceptions regarding war at that time,
That's the point.
It would be probably be a disaster, but it doesn't mean Stalin would not do it.

Hate to say it, but that guy is right. The Axis, as well as the Western Allies btw, massively underestimated the size of Soviet industry and the ability of the Soviet government to mobilize their resources both in industry and manpower. The youtube channel "Military History Visualized" is a very very good eye opener when it comes to this. Just an example: the German High Command before Barbarossa estimated that in the worst case scenario, the USSR would not have been able to mobilize more than 160 divisions, while at the end of the war the USSR had 880 army divisions. They also had very little accurate intelligence about the more advanced Soviet tanks, airplanes and artillery systems.

Sure Lend Lease played an important role in that, but even without it, it would still have exceeded all German expectations. Also Moscow was at the limit of German logistics, every km further east cost the Germans exponentially in oil, spare parts etc. With what we know now about the size and armament the of the Red Army, it's industrial power, the limitations of German logistics, the conquest of the USSR by the Axis was simply not doable, especially without Japan.

There's no way around it, Barbarossa was only given the green light because of a massive German military intelligence failure. I don't blame them, Stalin's USSR was the most closed off society in history, most Soviet military officers and government officials did not know the full strength of the Soviet military industrial complex. It was all done on purpose by Stalin.

>Soviet Union was planning an invasion of Western Europe
hahaha no
Reds were planning to take over the WORLD.
Just like during the Spanish civil war, the main objective was to stir up the shit and make fascist states clash with democratic states. Make them eat each other so then the Soviets can "liberate" what's left of Europe.
You can read about USSR arming pre-Hitler Germany and training their troops etc.
And about the 3rd year of WW2, it was a backstabbing contest. Stalin lost.
If the soviets were planning on defending (and not attacking the Germany), they'd never move this many planes so close to the border.
Victor Suvorov's "Icebreaker" is a good read on the subject. He has everything to prove the formation of a GIGANTIC soviet assault force massing on the new border with Germany.
Pic related.
this

Attached: Icebreaker.jpg (310x475, 48K)

Germany could have requested transit rights from turkey. Even without logistical lines of supply such as train tracks in North Africa, the Germans only needed the barrels on the east which is close to the middle east, and even closer to Romania, who was an Axis member with an oil refinery. As for the machinery, the Germans could have easily manufactured oil extractors. I will nod to you — the RAF was indeed superior to the Luftwaffe, good show lad. However, airforce is not everything, and Armor mattered more in the desert terrian of NA; airfore was more or less a nuisance not an impediment. Also, I was not necessarily referring to Persian oil fields but saudi and Kuwait. My point is taking mid east would have been easier than taking russia. It was just dumb opening a two front war.

The Winter war is a perfect example of many why politicans should not be army generals

>denies facts
>read some fucking history book.
Are you being serious right now?

Why are you even on this board you 40IQ tartar, go vodka yourself to death faggot.

Our whole country was turned into a giant war factory in two decades, you dumb nigger.
Do you still have unrestricted access to google in your libshit college?

Attached: 1dxet4.jpg (670x377, 51K)

100 000 soldiers is not a "major expenditure".
And 2-3 millions were needed because the war in the east was going badly and whole conflict was dragging out.

>The same thing happened in 1918
And? You are actually supporting my point here.

>

>The impacts of culling 10-30% of the population of Eastern Europe would have been equal if not greater in terms of making the region easier to control as opposed to just occupying.
Not during the war itself.
Germans had to protect their supply lines from the borders of the Reich itself.
"Pacification" actions were a sponge for manpower and disrupted the operational space behind the front.
Same with the administration and occupation of those enormous territories.

Germany was trying to secure peace with Britain (and fumbled it under the impression they could beat them into submission instead of offering a way to save face) but ultimately couldn't rely on them or anyone enough to risk hoping for their support while Russia scaled up war production.

It was a "now or never" play. Time was on Russia's side and Germany could only win by taking it out ASAP. Had they launched a few weeks earlier, they just might have.

Well, Zhukov was certainly competent. We agree ln the same points that stalin wanted longer war. I also think stalin knew his army was weak in comparison to germanys in 1941 and wanted to delay around 1945 or 46. This is all speculation however. Even without war in the east, USA would definitely enter war on the allies side. So either way there was no way germany could have won; he should have stopped at Czechoslovakia

Daily reminder to filter German and Canadian flags.
Improves your f0urchen experience TENFOLD.

>hate to say it

Why is that haha glad you agree with me tho

>details matter and IIRC there were a few critical battles won by the Soviets that heavily relied on the lend lease supplies
Not few.
The defense of Moscov itself and the counterattack in Winter 1941/1942 was possible thanks to british tanks (Germans wrote about their surprise when the encountered Matildas II).
The whole motorization of Red Army was based on American trucks delivered via Persia, and one of the main reasons it was incomplete even in 1945, because the demand was so vast.

No, those five million Soviet soldiers they captured in the initial invasion were just peacefully gathering on the Eastern borders of Soviet territory for a picnic.

THIS
HAHAHHAHAHA

You did not read my post. I am well aware of soviet industry. But does that does not mean you were ready in 1941.

Oh, he most certainly would, but it would've ended like all the other pushes to the west.

Russia has always had this weird dynamic with its leaders. They were really tough on the population, but the population was kind of okay with that as long as they made Russia look like a major power. This often led Russia to start shit with its neighbors, but poorly treated people usually aren't good soldiers, so these campaigns were never really dangerous to their neighbors. Russian military would get a bloody nose and then get recalled to deal with the disappointed peasants who'd threaten the rule of the current Tsar. I mean, that's precisely what happened when the USSR invaded Poland - they had the means to fuck us over, but there was no political will to press the issue that hard. Same with Finland. It was always more about internal politics than real conquest.

The Soviet expansion and the creation of the Warsaw Pact was an anomaly, and it happened because Hitler gave the soviets the will and the means to conquer their neighbors by fucking with them so much on their home turf. He created a Red Army that would've never been created if the Soviets were left to their own devices.

Attached: trench spurdo.gif (535x660, 69K)

> Germany could have requested transit rights from turkey.

No way Britain, the Soviets or the US allow that in any circumstances.

> However, airforce is not everything

It is when you're trying to transport things across the Mediterranean.

> And? You are actually supporting my point here.

My point is that even when the conquered territories were not genocid'ed by the Germans, as they hadn't been in WW1, the territories still required millions of soldiers to occupy and extract any sort of value out of them. Through genocide, the Germans were able to have fewer soldiers occupy the regions.

Right.... zero evidence... just tell that to any Russian because their entire families have pictures and stories on what the Germans did to them. All my family does and every Russian family does is remind them of the war and what Germans did. They have entire schools dedicated to reminding them how vile Germans were. Every fucking year they have a victory day parade over Germany with millions watching.

Every dumbass kraut thinks Russians are their friend when in reality every Russian hates Germany and enjoys seeing Germany getting islamified.

And a friendly reminder to Krauts, any attempt at even looking bad at even Poland, guaranteed nuclear strike upon Germany and wiping your nation and civilization out for good. Russians may have sour relations with the v4, but most Russians would take up arms to defend them regardless.

>Russian in America

Germany is pretty much finished. Your only actual hope is to break up your country back to what it was before the 1800s if you really want any kind of future for your people.

Stop insulting people who disagree with you like calling them dumb nazi/moron like you did earlier itt. Most people both left and right believe this non-sense about the Wermacht being the most powerful and advanced army in history and the Soviets being drunken animals armed with axes and bayonets who won because Hilter was crazy and lend lease. This is the result of both ww2 AND cold war propaganda.

Fact is, with what we know now, the Axis had already lost the war by december 1941. I wish more people understood this.

>Sure Lend Lease played an important role
It was a major factor in the development of deep battle and keeping the average Soviet soldier from starving to death. Without it the Soviets would have been dead in the water. Yes, military good were only a fraction of what was given to the soviets but the industrial and food supplies were critical to the Soviet war effort. The USSR as an industrial power was terrible. They couldn't produce high quality fuel for their aircraft and the average T-34 would only operate for 70 hours before the engine and transmission ate themselves alive. Before major offences Soviet tank crews would change out engines that only had 20-30 hours because of concerns of breakdowns.

This subject of many historians, even the Russians conclude that the war would have been lost without Lend Lease. There was no possible way for the Soviets to have win without it.

rbth.com/business/2015/05/08/allies_gave_soviets_130_billion_under_lend-lease_45879.html

Attached: 1534259146548.png (1000x663, 542K)