Lets say Germany attack a few weeks earlier, lets say Germany does not fight the stupid Battle of Britain and instead uses those Luftwaffe planes for Barbarossa and lets say the German fleet does not lose as much ships in Norway and does one concentrated invasion of Murmansk, cutting off the allied supplies to Russia, could Operation Barbarossa have succeded?
To be honest, I am not quite sure if this type of question is allowed.. But I just had an interesting discussion with a friend about this hence I asked.
EDIT: And if Africa maybe wouldnt have happened.
I know this is alot of what ifs and I understand if you guys cannot or dont want to answer this or if its against the rules.
Hi there! I (as well as many others) have answered this question before. The answer is no, Operation Barbarossa was fatally flawed from the outset, and its prospects of "success," if we consider success to be the destruction of the Soviet Union's capacity to wage war, were remote. That it was as successful as it was in spite of its numerous, crippling shortcomings is as much or more a testament to the disheveled state of the Red Army on the eve of Barbarossa than to the efficacy of the German invading force. I discuss this in detail here.
We won't address the hypotheticals you pose, however, as AskHistorians does not allow hypothetical questions.