Did Germany has what it take to single handedly pit against Soviet Union during WW2..?

Question

if Britain and USA left Germany alone for the next one year (to built up their military strength and Germany didn't declare war on USA) and Operation Barbarrosa took place one and a half months earlier? And assuming that they are able to do their task by Winter?

I mean to say if Germany loosen up its western commitment in France and gathered maximum resources in eastern front, will Hitler sacked the communists?

Did you read anything that might suggest Stalin DID had contingency plans in case Hitler take Moscow?

Thus the bottomline is do Hitler got what it takes in term of technological advances, troops discipline, talents, wit to take on the Russian polar bear?

Any insights are most welcome too.

Answer 1

Even with a western front, Germany could've defeated Russia. They needed to fall back during late autumn instead of holding their positions through the winter. This would've shored up supply lines and allowed communication and logistic networks to catch up with the troops meaning th Germans would've been well fed and well supplied to fight the Russians in the Late Spring(after the mud dried up, and tanks could be used again).

Hitler didn't want to do this and refused to let his Generals retreat, because he considerd it treasonous to the front line soldiers.
(A bit of delusional behavior brought on by his WW1 experiences perhaps?)

Answer 2

Napoleon occupied Moscow and it did not do him any good. I think Napoleon had much more substance than Hitler.

Hitler could have easily defeated the USSR by liberating the USSR. But by liberating the USSR it would fracture his racial beliefs. An entire Soviet Army surrendered to Hitler and offered to join the Germans side to defeat Stalin. He turned down the offer and the Nazi proved to be worst than the Soviets. Which was hard to do.

Napoleon learned this lesson he already knew, Never use the military to force a political objective. The Czar was still the Czar but not in Moscow. It is one thing to take and objective another to hold it.

Answer 3

The answer is no. Hitler was an ideologue with no concept of military strategy. He should have taken a leaf from the history of his hero Napoleon, who also launched a disastrous invasion of Russia.

Hitler's big mistake, re Russia, was in opening up that huge second front. It was not his commitments in western Europe that brought disaster to his plans for Russia, but the other way around--his diversion to Russia (intended, I believe, to open up space to warehouse Europe's Jewish population for later destruction) ultimately made victory in the west impossible; Stalin's troops chewed up the best of the German army, and made it easier for the Allies to mop up the rest.

Answer 4

The war was up for grabs after the Battle of Moscow. The fate of the second world war rested on the outcome of the fight along the Volga the next year. Yeah, the Germans had what took to defeat the Soviets, unforturnately (for them) they threw away their winning blitz krieg tactics in the rubble of Stalingrad....

Answer 5

i think that if germany didnt declare war on america and attacked russia during the spring/summer of 1943/44 with more troops than they did, i think that the germans would have been able to beat the russians. a lot of the germans died of hunger and hypothermia. if it would have been in the summer, they wouldnt have run out of food or became a human popsicle. they couldve used the blitzkrieg, or lightning war, and swept through russia in only a couple of months.

Answer 6

No. Sorry, no insight.