How much less successful would Operation Barbarossa would've been if it would've been launched a year later?

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
13,833
SoCal
#1
Had France fallen in one year instead of in sex weeks and Operation Barbarossa would have thus been delayed by a year, how much less successful would Operation Barbarossa have been?
 

redcoat

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
7,534
Stockport Cheshire UK
#2
Due to the fact that German oil reserves would have been smaller in 1942 it's probable that an operation the size of Barbarossa couldn't have been launched.
 
Likes: Futurist
Aug 2015
2,328
uk
#3
Hitler's main purpose in WW2 imho was to 'win' the war that was lost in 1918, hence why the French were forced to sign the surrender in the same carriage as had been used to end WW1. The fact that the war in the West had been won so quickly and so relatively easily must have come as a shock to Hitler.

Would he have committed to a war against Russia whilst still fighting France and Belgium? Unlikely, but it all depends on how much he suspected Stalin. Would his nemesis use the war in the West to strike a surprise blow against Germany? I suspect that Hitler would think 'yes' and it made perfect strategic sense to strike out against Russia before they struck out against Germany.
 

starman

Ad Honorem
Jan 2014
3,814
Connecticut
#5
Due to the fact that German oil reserves would have been smaller in 1942 it's probable that an operation the size of Barbarossa couldn't have been launched.
They were smaller but largely because Russia no longer exported oil to the Reich after Barbarossa began. Had peace lasted until ‘42, Germany probably would still have been importing Soviet oil.
Had war with France lasted a year, German losses might’ve been too high for Barbarossa just a year later. But what if Barbarossa was postponed just so the Reich could finish with Britain. In the likely event the US was drawn into the war by 1942, it would’ve been unwise to attack in the east.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
13,833
SoCal
#6
They were smaller but largely because Russia no longer exported oil to the Reich after Barbarossa began. Had peace lasted until ‘42, Germany probably would still have been importing Soviet oil.
Had war with France lasted a year, German losses might’ve been too high for Barbarossa just a year later.
What about two years later?

But what if Barbarossa was postponed just so the Reich could finish with Britain. In the likely event the US was drawn into the war by 1942, it would’ve been unwise to attack in the east.
That depends--is the Soviet Union going to be a participant in the war against Britain in this scenario? As in, are the Nazis going to ally with the Soviets to finish Britain off? If so, the British Empire is likely going to get screwed even if the U.S. enters the war.
 

redcoat

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
7,534
Stockport Cheshire UK
#7
They were smaller but largely because Russia no longer exported oil to the Reich after Barbarossa began. Had peace lasted until ‘42, Germany probably would still have been importing Soviet oil.
The Soviet oil imports only totalled 4.5 million barrels in 1940 a similar amount in 41 would not have altered the situation to any great effect, German oil stocks would still fall because demand exceeded supply.

In 1938, of the total consumption of 44 million barrels, imports from overseas accounted for 28 million barrels or roughly 60 percent of the total supply. An additional 3.8 million barrels were imported overland from European sources (2.8 million barrels came from Romania alone), and another 3.8 million barrels were derived from domestic oil production. The remainder of the total, 9 million barrels, were produced synthetically. Although the total overseas imports were even higher in 1939 before the onset of the blockade in September (33 million barrels), this high proportion of overseas imports only indicated how precarious the fuel situation would become should Germany be cut off from them.

At the outbreak of the war, Germany’s stockpiles of fuel consisted of a total of 15 million barrels. The campaigns in Norway, Holland, Belgium, and France added another 5 million barrels in booty, and imports from the Soviet Union accounted for 4 million barrels in 1940 and 1.6 million barrels in the first half of 1941. Yet a High Command study in May of 1941 noted that with monthly military requirements for 7.25 million barrels and imports and home production of only 5.35 million barrels, German stocks would be exhausted by August 1941. The 26 percent shortfall could only be made up with petroleum from Russia. The need to provide the lacking 1.9 million barrels per month and the urgency to gain possession of the Russian oil fields in the Caucasus mountains, together with Ukrainian grain and Donets coal, were thus prime elements in the German decision to invade the Soviet Union in June 1941.
 
Likes: Futurist

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
12,572
#8
They were smaller but largely because Russia no longer exported oil to the Reich after Barbarossa began. Had peace lasted until ‘42, Germany probably would still have been importing Soviet oil.
Had war with France lasted a year, German losses might’ve been too high for Barbarossa just a year later. But what if Barbarossa was postponed just so the Reich could finish with Britain. In the likely event the US was drawn into the war by 1942, it would’ve been unwise to attack in the east.
Incorrect.... The USSR exported less than 1 mio tons of oil to Germany in over a year, while Germany consumed some 10 mio tons yearly (most of it from Rumania, until synthetic oil was produced in larger volumes)..... The luftwaffe alone consumed between 2 to 3 mio tons a year.
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
12,572
#9
Had France fallen in one year instead of in sex weeks and Operation Barbarossa would have thus been delayed by a year, how much less successful would Operation Barbarossa have been?
The more likely (and favorable for germany) scenario -sex nothwistanding- is for Germany to continue low level of operations against the UK in 1941 while building up its forces for a 1942 "super Barbarossa"

Both sides would have been stronger, so its hard to say how it would have gone.... However with the entry of the US in war in end 41, germany would eventually be able to engage less forces on the eastern front and the soviets would get more lend lease early on (presumably)....

Also , perhaps surprise would not have been achieved (but again , hard to say) on the same scale......

If however as you propose Germany had taken a year to defeat France, I dont see barbarossa happening..... First Germany would have taken significantly more losses.. .Second illusions of quick victories would be gone and a barbarossa would be a hard sell.......