Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Operation Barbarossa: The Failure of Nazi Ideology at the Eastern Front
The Student Historical Journal 1989-1990 ^ | Paul Fleming, Jr.

Posted on 06/22/2003 10:09:56 AM PDT by SAMWolf

On June 22,1941, German troops invaded the USSR, thus beginning one of the most violent and devastating wars ever. The German army (Wehrmacht) had begun planning this invasion in July 1940, under the code name Otto, then Fritz, and finally Barbarossa. In planning the invasion, the Wehrmacht basically had the choice of two strategies: the first was to wage a war of attrition, while the second was to win by military annihilation in the tradition of Napoleon. In choosing, the Germans would have been wise to consider the consequences the latter strategy had in the invasion of Russia for Napoleon. However, the Germans and their Nazi leaders felt that defeating the Soviet Union would be fairly easy, and thus chose the strategy of military annihilation. One reason for this is that the Nazis had been stressing such traditional German concepts as Lebensraum (living space) and Drang nach Osten (push to the East), as well as promoting racism and anti-Semitism. All four concepts "justified" a war of annihilation.

The reasons Germany undertook such an invasion are simple. First, in the 1930s the Nazis had made the "struggle" against Bolshevism a "central theme in domestic and foreign policy." Thus a war against Bolshevik Russia was merely the logical outcome of this belief. Secondly, Germany was still at war with Britain, and Hitler believed that if the Soviet Union could be defeated quickly, the British would be more willing to accept peace terms. Moreover, the Germans had had great success and felt that the USSR. would be "one more lightening victory, particularly fought against the inferior races of the East. Author Alan Bullock gives a much more practical explanation. He states that, "Hitler invaded Russia for the simple but sufficient reason that he had always meant to establish the foundations of his thousand-year Reich by the annexation of the territory between the Vistula and the Urals." These reasons justified, at least in the minds of the Nazi and Wehrmacht leadership, tactics which are today still considered barbaric and immoral.

In the end, the Germans were defeated in Russia, which bore the brunt of German aggression in World War II. It is generally accepted that the German army had the bulk of its troops, as well as its best troops in the East. For these reasons, many consider it Communist Russia who really "won" the Second World War. If the Soviet Union would have fallen quickly, Britain really might have sued for peace with Germany, for the United States had not yet entered the war (and would not for six months after Barbarossa was underway). Thus, the reasons Germany did not achieve victory in Russia are of great importance. One reason is of course, the determination of people of the Soviet Union; another is the problem of fighting a war on two fronts. However, the biggest problem for Germany in the East was the Germans themselves. Germany lost the war in the Soviet Union through bad military planning, much of which was the result of Nazi ideology. The Germans failed to fully exploit the discontent with Stalin and Communism amongst the indigenous population, and even diminished what support they (the Germans) did have since they were convinced they could achieve victory through annihilating the enemy.

One reason the invasion failed is that Hitler himself got too involved in the decision making (especially for one whose military experience consisted of running messages as a corporal). The Army High Command considered the capture of Moscow essential. Former General Wladyslaw Anders, of the Polish army who fought both Soviet and German troops between 1939 and 1945, states categorically that the capture of Moscow, which was the center of railway and communications networks, and of Soviet authority, would have made the Red Army tactic of retreating into the interior "impracticable." Despite this, Hitler did not heed their advice, and put Moscow on a level of secondary importance. Hitler, extremely overconfident, felt the German army could defeat the USSR. in two or three months, and therefore did not adequately prepare for a winter campaign. As Bullock notes:

From early November the Germans were fighting in sub-zero temperatures, intensified by a bitter wind, the few hours of daylight and the long nights, and fighting in an unfamiliar land against an enemy inured to the conditions, warmly clothed and equipped for winter operations.

Here it is easy to see that not only was Hitler's military strategy faulty, but his planning (or lack of it) forced the army to endure conditions which were extreme, to say the least.


TOPICS: History; Military/Veterans; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: comminists; germansovietwar; germany; hitler; nazi; operationbarbarossa; russia; stalin; wwii
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-50 next last
To: SAMWolf
All I've got to say is remember Thermopylae. 20,000 Persians died failing to disarm 300 Spartans.
21 posted on 06/22/2003 8:29:38 PM PDT by Sparta (Tagline removed by moderator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SAMWolf
MOLON LABE!!!!!
22 posted on 06/22/2003 8:30:19 PM PDT by Sparta (Tagline removed by moderator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Sparta
189 Texans cost the Mexicans quite a few troops too.
23 posted on 06/22/2003 8:30:49 PM PDT by SAMWolf (There's plenty of room for all God's creatures..... right next to the mashed potatoes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SAMWolf
The question is when its time to for the Texans to stand at the Alamo, this time against Aztlan reconquistas, will they have the guts to stand
24 posted on 06/22/2003 8:35:20 PM PDT by Sparta (Tagline removed by moderator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Sparta
I think Russia is probably the one nation that is impossible to conquer.

The Mongols did it.

25 posted on 06/22/2003 8:46:04 PM PDT by NovemberCharlie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: NovemberCharlie
I mean by a modern army
26 posted on 06/22/2003 9:12:58 PM PDT by Sparta (Tagline removed by moderator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Sparta
The Mongols attacked from the east.
The Mongols were used to the harshness.
27 posted on 06/22/2003 10:35:08 PM PDT by John Will
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Sparta
Who needs to conquer all of Russia, or what was then the Soviet Union? If Hitler had just contented himself with the Ukraine and the Crimea and not wasted his forces at Moscow, he would have been able to extract the raw resources he needed. His supply lines and interior lines would have been much more easily defended againt a Soviet conter-offensive
28 posted on 06/22/2003 10:46:34 PM PDT by eeman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Sparta
"I mean by a modern army."

Treaty of Brest-Litowsk.

I know the Imperial Army was old-fashioned, but I think they still classify as "modern" by 1917 standards.

29 posted on 06/22/2003 11:18:06 PM PDT by Goetz_von_Berlichingen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: PhilDragoo
Whistle while you work,

Hitler is a jerk,

Mussolini bit his weenie,

Now it doesn't work!

=^)

30 posted on 06/22/2003 11:59:57 PM PDT by rockfish59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SAMWolf
One of the bright days against the Nazi's (barring the later reprisals) was when they chucked a grenade into Heydrich's car!
31 posted on 06/23/2003 12:02:36 AM PDT by rockfish59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PhilDragoo
Looks like he's saying 'Fuggeddaboudit'
Which is what the left does anyway!
32 posted on 06/23/2003 12:06:10 AM PDT by rockfish59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Sparta; Squantos
Great article. In 1941, the USSR was ripe for revolution against the Bolsheviks. The Germans could have armed the captured armies and sent them forward to wipe out the commissars, but then, they would not have been Nazis if they had behaved intelligently humanely. Acting humanely was just not in the Nazi repetoire, even where it would have had spectacular results.
33 posted on 06/23/2003 12:10:51 AM PDT by Travis McGee (----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
Makes one remember that history repeat's itself.......Stay Safe !
34 posted on 06/23/2003 1:12:33 AM PDT by Squantos (Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: SAMWolf
I hope you realize I was being facetious.

There was never any doubt.

35 posted on 06/23/2003 7:31:38 AM PDT by Tijeras_Slim (I am not a prime demographic, I am a MAN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SAMWolf
However, the Germans and their Nazi leaders felt that defeating the Soviet Union would be fairly easy, and thus chose the strategy of military annihilation. One reason for this is that the Nazis had been stressing such traditional German concepts as Lebensraum (living space) and Drang nach Osten (push to the East), as well as promoting racism and anti-Semitism. All four concepts "justified" a war of annihilation.

Not quite true...Nazies yes but Wehrmacht officers many of top generals opposed and hated Hitler and cronies.

36 posted on 06/23/2003 7:59:22 AM PDT by RussianConservative (Hristos: the Light of the World)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SAMWolf
One reason the invasion failed is that Hitler himself got too involved in the decision making (especially for one whose military experience consisted of running messages as a corporal).

Understatement...all decision even where individual battalion move went through Hitler.

37 posted on 06/23/2003 8:01:26 AM PDT by RussianConservative (Hristos: the Light of the World)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SAMWolf
Not quite: Stalin kill 30 million in about 30 years. Hitler: 20 million Russian civilians, 1 million Czeck, 12 million in camps (Jews/Poles), 1 million in Serbia, million or so own country men and couple million here/there in rest Europe and N. Africa...all in 6-7 years.
38 posted on 06/23/2003 8:15:12 AM PDT by RussianConservative (Hristos: the Light of the World)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: eeman
So...most industry and heavy resources in East and so oil, which Germany always short on. Partisans would always be problem and continued attack by much large population with more resources and ever growing armies....in end Germany still loose.
39 posted on 06/23/2003 8:17:05 AM PDT by RussianConservative (Hristos: the Light of the World)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Goetz_von_Berlichingen
Only because Russia in Civil War...not much win...most territory "seeded" to Germany not occupied and German soon face partisans for same crap as in '41.
40 posted on 06/23/2003 8:18:21 AM PDT by RussianConservative (Hristos: the Light of the World)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-50 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson