>>18370110
Hitler's reasoning for Barbarossa was that he believed his only hope of defeating the Russians was in their home turf
>Our one and only chance of vanquishing Russia was to take the initiative, for to fight a defensive war against her was not practical. We dared not allow the Red Army the advantage of the terrain, place our Autobahns at the disposal of its swiftly on-rushing armour, and our railways at the disposal of its troops and its supplies. But if we took the offensive, we could, indeed, defeat the Red Army on its own ground, in the swamps and in the vast and muddy expanses; but in a civilized country we could not have done so. We should simply have been providing it with a springboard with which to leap upon the whole of Europe and destroy it.
>Why 1941? Because, in view of the steadily increasing power of our western enemies, if we were to act at all, we had to do so with the least possible delay. Nor, mind you, was Stalin doing nothing. On two fronts, time was against us. The real question was not, therefore: "Why 22 June 1941 already' but rather: 'Why not earlier still?' But for the difficulties created for us by the Italians and their idiotic campaign in Greece, I should have attacked Russia a few weeks earlier. For us, the main problem was to keep the Russians from moving for as long as possible, and my own personal nightmare was the fear that Stalin might take the initiative before me.

>>18370110
The whole scale of this will never stop to blow my mind. The front is as wide as fucking Russia is wide. Let that sink in.

Barbarossa was the most spectacular thing that ever happened on this planet and its not even close.

>>18370136
we will never have a war this kino again... let that sink in... no titanic struggle for the future of the direction that european civilization will take
the future is truly bleak

>>18370136
Hitler's feats were overshadowed by Alexander the Great the only man to ever succeed at conquering Persia! The Arabs don't count because we all know that they obviously were significantly weakened by their recent disastrous war against Alexander's Macedonian heirs that ruled the Greek city-state of Byzantium the replacement of the Roman Empire that was victorious against the Sassanians who succeeded where the Parthians failed at restoring the glorious empire of Xerxes

File: macron-slapped-macron.gif (463.9 KB)

463.9 KB GIF

>>18370198
Because now that England abandoned the European Union and decided to become America's Jewish dog in it's Iranian war due to to Yemen the only member state with nuclear weapons is France the country led by that clown who's getting slapped by his own wife he's not half the man that Hitler was and Putin will eat him for breakfast

>>18370110
Well a huge part of why Barbarossa went so badly was because military reforms and restructuring and armament and expansion and training were still in progress. They weren't ready in 1941.

Its also unclear how necessary the experience of the war was to the level of proficiency the soviets would reach. If they initiated the war at a later date, yes they'd have infinitely more men and material to attack with, yes they wouldn't be getting blindsided, yes they'd have had time to train more officers, but would they use all that anywhere near as effectively pound for pound and man for man as the Germans taught them to in our timeline? No doubt they would still win, they would no doubt win taking vastly fewer casualties than they did due to the clusterfuck of barbarossa, but I don't know if I see them advancing anywhere near as fast as the Germans did from day one. Barbarossa was a case of almost everything going right for the attacker as almost everything went wrong for the defender. To reverse it, the Soviets don't just have to have to have big advantage and use it well and get lucky, the Germans have to fuck up badly and/or get very unlucky.