During World War 2, Hitler was fighting a war with Great Britain, but while fighting that war, he attacked the Soviet Union. Everyone knows that having to fight on two opposite fronts at once is bad... and it's also a well known fact that every European country which tried to invade Russia has always been thoroughly beaten.

So apart from the standard "he was a crazy guy bent on taking over the world" answer, what was the rationale behind launching a full-scale attack on the Soviet Union while still actively fighting the British Empire?

  • 18
  • 8
  • 39
  • 41
  • 26
    "every European country which tried to invade Russia has always been thouroughly beaten" - Poland in 1611 has encompassed Moscow, after that Russian tsar paid tribute to Polish king, Sigismund III Vasa. – enedil Jun 15 '14 at 15:22

34 Answers 34


I'm not sure there is any direct evidence that it was strategically a bad idea. Strategically it made sense to attack the Soviet Union while they were weak and unprepared for war. Hitler knew that as he made progress on the Western front that Stalin grew more and more nervous every day about the growing power of Nazi Germany.




It's hard to find actual strategic proof of what was going on through Hitler's mind and his advisors to take on this risky operation. We do know however that these had been a part of Hitler's plans for years. In my opinion, it was probably thought at the time the odds were in Nazi Germany's favor. In all reality, the Germans had a pretty good chance of winning the war within six months, perhaps if just a few variables had changed they might have actually pulled it off. If they could have gotten there a month earlier, they probably would have won.




Edit: I just today found some great and rare recordings of Hitler actually talking about his exact thoughts on the invasion of the Soviet Union. I can think of no better source of information to answer this subjective question other than the words of the man himself. This recording is a truly incredible piece of historical record.

Hitler Speaking Normally (YouTube): The Hitler-Mannerheim conversation

Edit 2

Here is a link to an English translation transcript of that recorded conversation between Adolf Hitler and President Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim of Finland.

Transcript of the Hitler - Mannerheim Conversation

In this translation Hitler describes his absolute disbelief of how well armed the Soviet Union was at the beginning of the war. Hitler describes how German tanks were not well equipped for winter fighting. He also describes what he calls the weakness of Italy, where the Germans helped them in North Africa and in Greece and Albania.

Directly quoting Hitler on his fear of an early war with Russia and the loss of valuable petroleum wells in Romania.




-Adolf Hitler

Another Voice In Background: Without petroleum...

  • 68
  • 23
  • 9
  • 9
  • 10



Reasons to attack the Soviet Union include:

  • To exterminate Communism
  • Capture oil fields and other strategic resources.
  • 12
  • 8
  • 4
  • 4
    Understanding the timeline of events is very important. The U.S. was not involved, although Hitler understood it eventually would be. Great Britain on it's own could not do anything against Germany. Hitler probably attacked the Soviet Union in the east so when the U.S. came in from the West the German's could focus on one front. Hitler had plans for a long time to attack the Soviet, and was probably afraid the Soviets would take advantage of the U.S. attacking on the western front. – Caimen Oct 12 '11 at 16:39
  • 9

Germany always wanted to attack and defeat Soviet Russia. There is an ideological battle between fascism and communism. Germany really thought that Russia was the enemy of the world. Some Germans believed, such was the evil of communism, that when they started the eastern front, the English would come over to their side to fight communism rather than continue fighting.

The western front was secure. Invasion of England was off the cards, but equally a counter invasion by England was thought unlikely, and at that time it was not possible for England to counter-attack in Europe. There was some expectation that the English would make a deal for the status quo in the west and not fight on further.

Russia was getting stronger. Every month delayed saw Russia prepare better, building more tanks, more airplanes and stockpiling arms. Any delay would have made the war in the east more difficult. Russia knew a major war was coming, either with Germany or Japan, and it had been working as fast as it could to rebuild its armies.



  • 4
  • 8
  • 2
    @Rincewind42 The Germans were big on territorry. They wanted to exterminate the Slavic population of Russia and colonize it with German settlers. Of course, the desire to wipe out the Jews in Russia was also a big factor. – quant_dev Oct 16 '11 at 14:51
  • 6
  • 3
    @DavidThornley Unfortunately it took Communism a little longer collapse. – Dale Oct 18 '11 at 1:56








I recommend that anyone interested in this issue read Adam Tooze's "Wages of Destruction". This book is on the economic aspects of the 3rd Riech, from the economic history before the 3rd Reich, to how it conducted the war. But the book also engages in other aspects of German conduct of the war, including tactical and strategic reasons for this and that.

Tooze's book is the best explanation of the entire war, and it is fairly recently written history too.

Tooze' begins with what life was like for young Germans growing up in the last quarter of the 20th century, including a popular series of books that mesmerized German youth on tales of the American West, the conflict between cowboys and indians and the conquest of the West. Hitler would have had a hard time growing up and not being familiar with this. The period from 1870 to 1914 was a period of unprecedented economic growth and transformation of Germany, to the point where it eclipsed the United Kingdom in total economic output, (but not per capita output) especially in Steel, Electronics and Chemicals. This engendered pride for the German youth of Hitler's time. Germany constituted a sterling example of Western Civilization in many spheres of life, save politics. But when Hitler and people of like minds thought about the future, and looked at maps on the globe, it became clear that to continue to be a world power, Germany would have to take on continental proportions like China, Russia, perhaps Canada, India or Australia, and most definitely that of the United States, which as the Cowboy an Indian books illustrated, was taken forceably from the primitive people in the Native American Indians by an advance civilization, which increasingly was populated by ethnic Germans immigrating from Germany - at a rate of over 200,000 a year in the last third of the 19th century. To Hitler, for Germany to be a world power, it would need to have continental proportions, like that America got from the West. To this Hitler proposed Germany doing to the area east of its frontiers, what America did west of its frontiers, taking that land from what Hitler, and what many other uber-German nationalist viewed as an inferior peoples, the Slavic peoples of Poland and the Soviet Union.

What was driving this was long term, strategic economic interests and needs for economic resources. Russia had these.

The economic resource calculation drove events and decisions as even the discussion that Hitler had with Mannerhiem demonstrates, although I'm not sure if that discussion was not forthrightly honest, but taylored to Finnish ears.

Germany's strategic situation was little different than the UKs. It was an over crowded nation, that had a diet heavy in animal fats, that was too small to produce enough food of the kind it liked to eat. Prior to WWI, Germany had some Iron Ore to feed its industry in Alsace Lorriane. After WWI, those territories were lost and so all Iron Ore consumed by Geman Industry required foreign exchange reserves gained through manufactured export, only now, saddled with heavy reparations payments, such foreign exchange reserves were dear, hiegtening the strategic considerations Hitler's mind was already attuned to. So like England, Germany had an over crowded land, that had to export manufactured goods to pay for raw material imports. Unlike England, now Germany lacked a world class navy to ensure the steady flow of raw materials and food stuffs - meaning Germany was subject to interuptions to their economy, among others, by a British navy.

Much is made of Chamberlains concessions to Hitler at Munich. Tooze addresses some of this too. Prior to WWI, Europe was the center of the world, and the center of world power, and global economics. After WWI, the British and French were in massive debt to the United States while Germany's economy was highly dependent upon American loans. It was feared by both the British, Chamberlain specifically, and the French that another outbreak of a general war in Europe would have no other effect other than to make the European powers more fully pushed into 2nd rank powers dependent upon the flanking powers: the United States or Soviet Union/Russia. Chamberlain assumed that Hitler realized this too, and so at heart was not really interested in a new general war. Furthermore, Chamberlain fully believed that the Germans could once again be defeated by sound defence on land, and economic blockade that would bring Germany to its knees as what had happened in WWI. So to avoid a war that would render Britian a 2nd class power and satelite to the U.S., Chamberlain was prepared to sacrifice the Sudentenland as a way of throwing Hitler a bone and saving face. It was a crucial mistake. If Munich had not happened and Hitler had gone to a general war over the Sudentenland the German generals were ready to overthrow him. The outcome of Munich made that impossible. Shortly after Munich, Hitler cajoled the rump Czech state to request help in putting down an internal revolt, which gave Hitler legal pretext to send in troops, in effect conquering Czech without firing a shot. Stalin and the Russian saw the sell out of the Czech republic as firm evidence that the Western powers couldn't be trusted, so instead he chose to cut a deal with Hitler, the Nazi-Soviet pact. This pact was mostly economic, but it also divided up Poland which both powers saw as Repugnant. The Nazi-Soviet pact in a single stroke eliminated the threat any blockade would have on the Germany economy. Chamberlain's diplomacy was a total disaster.

Hitler's Germany, in Napoleon's parlance, occupied the central ground and proceeded to take on all surrounding powers in series, much the way Napoleon did in Italy and Germany during his day. He did this counter clock wise: First Poland, then Norway and Denmakr, then France and the Low countries, ideological friendly with Franco in Spain in the Southwest, alliance with Italy to his south, then invasion and attack of the Balkans to his Southeast. That brought him back to the issue of Russia.

Several things are added to Hitler's calculation. A sheer hatred of Communism and a belief it was decadent. The recent, massive purge of the Soviet officer corp. The demonstrated failure of effectiveness in the Soviet attack on Finland. Russia's poor performance during WWI, when it had what he would have thought of as a superior political system. Hitler's highest risk had been diplomatic move on the Sudentenland and Czech, Poland (because a more aggressive Western powers could easily roll into the Rhineland while the bulk of Germany's forces were in Poland), and then the attack in the West where the Germans faced superior numbers in men and material, even in tanks. What the Germans had going for them however was a superior battle doctrine, an excellent battle plan in the Manhiem plan, courtesy of the German general staff (and thanks to the original plan being exposed by a German plane accidentally landing in Belgium). All these other invasions, going into them, seemed like and probably were on the surface, higher risks. By the time Russia came along invading Russia seemed proportionately a much, much, much lower risks. Hitler had no idea that the Soviet people would react almost in unison to strive against him, this manifested in the miracle in the massive removal of Soviet industry to the Urals, nor could anyone know that the Russian's had a new tank, about to be produced in huge numbers that was superior to any that the Germans had. The reaction of the Russians was to fight and die in appauling conditions.

A side note is that, one possible reason Stalin refused to believe that the Germans would attack him in the run up to barbarossa, was that there had been no inflections in the price of wool in international commodities markets. You don't invade Russia without going out on world markets and purchase enormous quantities of wool for equiping your soldiers for Russian winters.

The reason Tooze gave for German declaration of war on the U.S. after Pearl Harbor, was because Hitler always believed that the U.S. would come in on the side of Britain sooner or later. Hitler had no antidote to the combined navies of Britain and the U.S., but Japan did have a substantial navy that could tie down one or even both. So Hitler continuously encouraged Japan to attack the U.S., and promised that Germany would declare war, as a sweetner, immediately after if Japan did. Japan did at Pearl Harbor, and Germany followed suit, as Hitler had promised.

One other side note is that, in the short run, instead of attacking Russia in 1941, a third of the resources used there, could have been applied to attacking Egypt, and a break through there, would have opened up the entire resources of the Middle East to Germany, most specifically, Oil. It would have required some accomodation with Turkey to best get the oil to Germany, but it would have rendered the entire Eastern Mediterranean to the Axis powers. This would have been nothing more than a continuation of the war with Britian. This is one of the big "ifs" of WWII.

German conquest of the Middle East would still have been a side show. Hitler's main strategic, long term plan was to take European and perhaps western Siberian Russia away from the Soviets, and Germanize it. And Russia was perceived as very weak at the time of the German invasion.

As for possibility of conquest: Russia was successfully conquered by the Mongols who controlled Russia for more than 200 years. The Poles had recently won a war over the Soviets in the early 1920s, extracting territory, which is why Stalin agreed to the division of Poland, to get back the land lost in 1920s. Finally, during WWI, Germany was signally successful on the Eastern front, but unsuccesful on the Western front. In WWII, it was just the reverse. Again, all of this made Russia look like a small risk. Too much reliance on hindsight? Perhaps.

Finally I dispute that Hitler insisted on the taking of Moscow. That was the goal of Guderian and the German Generals, but Hitler stalled the assault on Moscow and redirected Guderian south to form a pincer move behind the giant Soviet reserve armies in North Eastern Ukrain, in coordination with German armies of the South (Ukraine) moving north. This was successful, but it did delay the assault on Moscow -- which turned out to be just a smidgeon too far for them.

Production numbers Tooze assembles shows that Russia simply out produced Germany on most strategic weapons, and quite often in enormous numbers. That coupled to Soviet soldiers willingness to fight and die under impossible conditions, conditions that even the Germans shrank from, sealed Germany's fate in Russia.

Please note a few of the points here were not from Tooze's book, but by far most of them are. It's a good read, go out and get it. Economics explains much of the course of the war better than most other explanations.

  • 1
    This is one of the best and most thorough answers I've read here. I wish I could upvote it several times. My only question is about oil. If Germany held North Africa, that includes Libya right? Surely there is/was plenty of oil in Libya for a long war. – DrZ214 Jul 24 '15 at 5:05
  • 1
    "last quarter of the 20th century" seems implausible, given that the books were written almost a century before that time. – Pieter Geerkens Nov 20 '15 at 14:53
  • Tim thanks very much for the recommendation of Wages of Destruction. It is EXCELLENT – mallin24 May 14 '18 at 17:11
  • DrZ: The oil in Libya was in the far, far south, very far and very deep into the Sahara desert. It was not found until well after WWII. So it wasn't available at the time. Even the oil in the Persian Gulf was a fairly new entity in the 1940s. If you read the book on the history of petroleum called "The Prize" (another epic tomb on economic history), you will learn that it was during the latter half of WWII that both Roosevelt and Churchill entertained the King of Saudi Arabia on naval vessels in the Red Sea. – Tim Kane May 15 '18 at 22:10
  • Pieter Geerkens - that's a typo - a result of me typing so fast, I meant the last quarter of the 19th century. – Tim Kane May 15 '18 at 22:11




  • 9
  • 5
  • 7
  • 2
  • 2
    People tend to forget that European and American political culture is far more different than one might think, and words like left, right, liberal, and conservative just don't have the same meaning at all. – Peter Jan 11 '15 at 7:28






  • This was coupled, according to Liddell-Hart, with a serious underestimation of the Soviet army, both its leadership and its numerical strength. – Jonathan Rosenne Jan 13 '18 at 20:16









Their armed forces were generally badly trained and equipped too, while the T34 was available it was only in relatively small numbers and they had only a few modern aircraft and the ones they did have generally did not have trained pilots to fly them



  • 4
  • 1
    -1 "while the T34 was available it was only in small numbers" please check the current research on this! – kubanczyk Jun 30 '14 at 4:47
  • I've edited it to say "relatively" small numbers, the evidence I have seen states around 200 T34s in operation. – davidjwest Dec 16 '15 at 8:35

OK, here is the real answer. The entire purpose of the War was to fight Russia. Russia was Hitlers main foe and ultimate objective from the start. He did not want to destroy the United Kingdom or United States per se, he wanted to build a Germany-centered Europe and trade with them (ironically kind of how it is today). Basically he wanted Germany to become what the English Empire was. He had to take care of the other European powers (France, Poland and the UK) first either through conquest or treaty specifically so he wouldn't be fighting a two-front war with Russia. Something he pretty much accomplished.

Thus he cuts out a deal with the Italians, Fins, Japanese, and Soviets (sneaky sneaky) and takes Poland, France, Norway and a large chunk of North Africa. He runs into trouble with England and has to jump ahead in his plan. Note that after the Battle of Britain, the UK and Germany were at a stand off. Neither could invade the other due to the logistical problems of crossing the channel with an invasion force. Germany figured the UK was no longer a threat by building the Atlantic Wall and moved its resources to the East. It is important to note that Hitler didn't think much of the United States at the time. He did not foresee the production capability of the country when he declared war.





  • @gerdi It depends on which "why" you mean. Why did Hitler want to invade Russia? No one knows. How did he rationalize it? Well, that's largely what Mein Kampf is about. It basically boils down to Hitler thinking that Germans are superior, and therefore has the right to land, and in fact must grab land and expand to protect itself. And Germany should of course do that primarily east, because the slavs were less worthy than "aryans". So Hitler outlined all this already in 1923-1924 or so. – Lennart Regebro Jul 17 '14 at 21:22
  • @bob-know-all This is indeed the correct answer. – Lennart Regebro Jul 17 '14 at 21:22



These studies occurred simultaneous to the heady days of the Luftwaffe's highly successful attacks on British airfields (during the Battle of Britain) and the Kriegsmarine's first U-boat Happy Time, before the initial cracking of U-boat Enigma codes.



Against this background, a decision to invade the USSR before its recuperation from the purges of 1938 could be completed and simply await an inevitable surrender of the UK seems almost sensible. Fortunately the code-breakers at Bletchley Park received the pinches they needed and the UK survived after all.




Basically, Germany had a bare preponderance of strength against Britain. It sought to increase that preponderance by first conquering the Soviet Union, then dealing later with Britain, (and the United States). The idea was that Britain could be "contained" while Germany conquered the Soviet Union, and then beaten afterward by a Germany that was "reinforced" with the proceeds of a Soviet conquest.

The Soviet Union had key resources, Ukrainian wheat, minerals in the Donets basin, and Caucasus oil that could be used in a fight against Britain, and if necessary, the United States. Unlike Britain itself, all of these resources were within the grasp of Hitler's vastly superior land forces. And the Germans had the totally wrong notion that the Soviet Union could be defeat in a few months (unless they came to a "political" solution that would spare Russia, while Germany got the above-mentioned non-Russian territories).

Put another way, the idea was to "recycle" conquered Soviet resources against Britain (and the United States). The reverse was basically unachievable; while the British Islands had considerable manufacturing capability, the colonies, Commonwealth, and the U.S. itself would stop sending raw materials to Britain if it fell into Nazi hands, leaving a shell of a manufacturing power.

This strategy was supported by the so-called "Heartland Theary" of Britain's HJ Mackinder (and Germany's Karl Haushofer). That is, if Germany conquered eastern Europe (including Poland, the Baltics, Belarus, the Ukraine etc.) it would dominate Eurasia's Heartland,(which would also include Russia), giving it a head start on controlling "world island" (the Eurasian land mass).

  • Germany never expected to conquer the US. – D J Sims Sep 24 '16 at 16:05
  • 2
    @Bobb: I said, "in a fight against Britain, and if necessary, the United States." I didn't say that Hitler expected to conquer the United States, only that he was prepared to fight the U.S in order to conquer Britain. – Tom Au Sep 24 '16 at 18:07

Basically, he had no choice. He knew Stalin was preparing for war. The Ribentrop-Molotov Pact was just meant to give Soviet Russia more time.


  • 1
  • 1




In one of the most stunning examples of misplaced over-optimism in history, Hitler blithely assumed the British were a broken force, unable to do him any meaningful harm from where he had them pent up in their little island. Remember, perhaps the singular most important pillar of Hitler’s ideology was the “drive to the East” to obtain “living space” (lebensraum) for the German master race. And that meant conquering first Poland and then Russia. As has been stated elsewhere by respected historians, the only two wars Hitler really wanted were the wars against Poland and Russia. When France and Britain went to war in the name of responding to Hitler’s aggression against Poland, Hitler regarded it as an irritating distraction from his true overriding passion to conquer all that good farmland and natural-resource rich land to the east. Hitler would never have invaded the Low Countries and France, he never would have tangled with the British Empire, if he could have avoided it. But by going to war over Poland, France and the U.K. forced Hitler to invade Western Europe even though he didn’t want to. Hitler felt enormously relieved that France was overrun so quickly and Britain reduced to such apparent impotence because it freed him to refocus on his real target, Russia. When Hitler invaded Russia while Britain was still alive behind him, it was a supreme example of ideology being given precedence over strategic common sense. (It makes one wonder how history would have gone if the French and British had acquiesced in letting Hitler take whatever he wanted as long as he was heading east.)

  • 1
    It is standard practice in SO to not use greetings, salutations, thank yous or other self-conscious clap trap. Just post your question/answer. – Tyler Durden Jun 30 '14 at 21:54

    When they lost in Russia the rest of the war was just formality. That's why Hitler was so persistent on not retreating from Russia, giving up the Russian oil fields ment the fighter aircrafts, bombers, tanks, ships and u boats would soon all stop operating.
    The war was lost.

  • That oil was not usable nor even known in 1940. and regarding stalin its here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…. – user202 Dec 26 '11 at 20:11
  • There was some oil in Romania but it wasn't enough and those fields depleted fast. source: karbuz.blogspot.com/2006/10/… In that article it is pretty much the oil that happened, the tanks and all just ran out of gas. Game Over. – user202 Mar 16 '12 at 19:14

Germany failed to achieve air and naval superiority over the English Channel, which meant that they could not launch a land invasion (Operation Sea Lion). This left both sides in a stalemate. Hitler had been planning to invade the Soviet Union anyway, so with the British seemingly contained the Wehrmacht was free to launch its invasion of the Soviet Union. Hitler also thought that the Soviet Union could be quickly defeated and therefore did not worry about a two-front war.


If we look at WWII from the point of view of resources, we can somewhat justify Hitler's move of invading the Soviet Union even while being engaged in war with the United Kingdom.

Invading the Soviet Union was part of the Hunger Plan. Hitler was always demanding 'lesenbraum' or living space. In this context, greater living space meant bringing more land under agriculture. German economy was already reeling from the Treaty of Versailles and there was an acute shortage of food grains in the country. This meant it was difficult to feed both civilians and soldiers. Also, Hitler wanted to make Germany self-sufficient in terms of agricultural production. Germany had already witnessed what a disaster it could be when relying on trade for food from the naval blockade of WW1.

The question may arise why Germany turned on Russia even while fighting with the Great Britain at the same time. Well, the architects of the Hunger Plan, namely Herbert Backe, envisaged that:


This can provide the answer to why Germany was so desperate to execute operation Barbarossa (in 1941, 3 years after the war began, just like the plan predicted). They simply could not sustain the war effort otherwise.


Germany and Russia were never truly friends, and merely exchanged "agreements" every now and then. They have a history of mistrust. But more importantly it is a myth that it was a "bad idea" to invade Russia when they did. It was actually a very brilliant idea for the time. Don't forget Stalin was totally under Hitlers spell and did not even believe his own advisors Germany was planning to attack. I agree with others who state it was not executed quick enough. And it came down to a few small minor details that changed the out come. It could have just as easily gone in favor of Germany. I think if Germany could do it over again, they would do it again too, but perhaps only sooner :)

  • Interesting thesis. Good answers on H:SE are supported by evidence & references. Do you have any evidence? – Mark C. Wallace Jun 19 '14 at 13:25
  • In my opinion all the evidence and references are used by every argument and totally objective or opinionated, just as mine is. I draw heavily to the timing being a crucial element for Germany to invade Russia, as Russia was perceived in a weak and vulnerable state at the time. There was never a strong alliance there and Stalin was totally fooled or perhaps wanted to avoid a direct battle with Germany and was in denial? If Germany could improve on their plan it should have been done sooner and quicker. – user5004 Jun 20 '14 at 3:06

First of all, I don't think the reason was primarily a political one. I think it was a decision from a military-strategical viewpoint.

In 1940-41 Germany/England weren't able/strong enough to deal each other the final blow. Both sides were in the curiously military situation (because of the might of the "Royal Navy" and the numerous/technically advantage of the continental German "Heer").

To march to Berlin, the UK needed a strong continental/economical power at her side (for example, the Soviet Union or USA). To land in or successfully besiege the UK, Germany needed to build a lot of naval/air vessels (bombers and U-boats), and for that enough resources.

With the elimination of the Soviet Union, Germany would have prevented a potential continental threat (alliance between UK and Soviet) and would have gained enough resources to even fight the sea powers UK/USA.


It boils down to Sea Power, or rather, Germany and Russia's lack of it.

Germany and Russia are both Land powers. They tried to establish sea power, but their navies got destroyed. (Germany in WWI, Russia in the Russo-Japanese War).

As long as the British had free reign in the Mediterranean, Hitler must go east to seek sources of materials (oil, gas, metal).

Hitler also knew Russia is going for him, since they lost badly in the east and there's no power in middle Asia that they'd need to fight anyway.

So he attacked while the Soviet Union wasn't ready. It was a gamble that he ultimately lost, but he had no other choice.


Because Finland was never a puppet state, it was one of the Axis countries. The Red Army invaded Finland in 1941. Secondly, in 1941 there were highs and lows between Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. Thirdly, the Red Army came near the east Polish border. Fourthly, when Greece and Yugoslovia were invaded by the Third Reich, the Soviets supported Greece and Yugoslovia and aided them .


I think it primarily came down to Germany's dwindling oil supply. They were mostly running on a large stock pile that was running out. Invading the Soviet Union meant access to large oil fields which would have fueled the Nazis for a long time.

I think if they had got to the oil, the world would have been in for a hell of a showdown even with the Americans having the atomic bomb. Let's not forget that the Nazis had the knowledge of fission, had some of the greatest scientists of the time and controlled a plant that processed heavy water.

  • 3
    The USSR was shipping oil to Germany right up until June 22, 1941. – Oldcat Jun 30 '14 at 21:45

According to Van Manstein and Admiral Raeder who both advised Hitler to attack Great Britain immediately after crushing France in 6 weeks "they were amazed to observe that Hitler thought Great Britain was his Ally." So that ended any attempt at formally invading Great Britain...probably the only time Nazi Germany's staff was in a hurry to attack and Hitler wasn't actually.

As for Babarossa Hitler stated clearly that as it related to an invasion of Russia "we were peaking miltarily in 1941 yet Russia wouldn't be for at least another year." So you tell me what that means cuz I sure don't understand it.

Anywho David Glantz has written the best History by anyone concerning Generalplan Ost as he accessed the Russian Archives once the USSR fell...which showed on paper at least the Red Army to be overwhelmingly superior to the German Wehrmacht in June, 1941. Even Hitler said to Goebels "the World will hold its breath" when he kicked off the whole thing...so I think it's wrong to say he was delusional...at least initially.

One major economic reason to invade Russia was for slave labor however. The 3rd Reich had massive manpower shortages during both rearmament and in fighting Britain. Since Stalin had incongruosly moved up the totality of his manpower right to the Polish border Barbarossa in theory and in fact did solve the Wehrmacht labor shortage immediately.

In other words while the Army would suffer massive manpower shortages starting in 1942 the German economy would not.

This had devastating consequences for France, Britain and Russia once they began the operational struggle for launching actual offensives against the "3rd Reich."

None of them could have succeeded without the Americans...and the USA knew that.

Since Japan attacked the United States on December 7th, 1941 I think the more interesting question is why the USA thought it could win a War on two fronts actually...which the USA did in fact do.

That might explain Hitler's thinking when it came to a "two front War."

In short Hitler had a very low opinion of American "fighting power"...as he often did of his enemies.



  • 1
    Suvorov may be an interesting read, but should not be considered a reliable source for German intentions in attacking the Soviet Union. – davidfurber Apr 10 '14 at 2:28
  • @davidfurber: the same was claimed by general Jodl. – Michael Apr 10 '14 at 4:04
  • In the Nuremberg trials after the war, when he had every reason to present Barbarossa as a preventive war? – davidfurber Apr 10 '14 at 19:20
  • @davidfurber: yes. :) Therefore I mentioned that as a "possible cause". – Michael Apr 10 '14 at 22:38
  • 2

The direct reason for Germany to attack the Soviet Union was Soviet advanced preparations to invade ('liberate') central and western Europe. The Soviet Union had the most powerful army in the world at that time and began to concentrate the troops along the new Soviet-German border.

Effectively, Germans stopped Stalin's plan to establish communist rule in Europe. This view is not popular among historians, because Nazi Germany committed horrendous crimes against humanity and Soviet Union was a Western ally for some time.

Listen to Hitler's speech dated October 3, 1941.

  • +1 although the argument has long been deemed "invalid" because Nazi used it, and then even more "invalid" because some pseudo-historians used it, it has been shown by Mark Solonin that it is quite well supported by Soviet sources. There is no more question "if Stalin had offensive plans", the only question left is "1941 or 1942?" – kubanczyk Jun 30 '14 at 4:56



  • 5

To add to some already good answers.

It didn't matter hugely.

The most important aspect of having a war on two fronts was having to guard the Atlantic coast. For the most part this meant tying down the requisite number of armed forces to ensure that invasions or raids could not be conducted (or at least without huge risk).

Winston Churchill had made it clear that defeating the UK (a pretty daunting task as it stood) would not mean an end to conflict in the west. His famous speech in 1940 made it clear that the UK government would continue to fight on the island, even after losing land superiority, and even if entirely ejected from the British Isles, would continue resistance within the Empire. Partisan action could also be assumed in occupied territories. As such, a large number of German soldiers would be tied down for a long time in the west, even if the war on that front was "officially" concluded.

The other aspect to note was that it was considered to be a bad idea for Germany to fight a war on two fronts. Stalin did not believe that Hitler would ever invade the USSR while Britain remained a threat. To perhaps lend credence to this idea, the largest air raid against Britain was conducted in the run-up to Barbarossa (10th-11th May). Despite intelligence to the contrary, the USSR (and Stalin in particular) was caught napping when Germany launched an invasion on 22nd June. This had the effect of complete devastation of the Soviet forces in the west. However, as war with Germany had been considered ultimately quite a likely scenario, much of the soviet industry had already been repositioned behind the Urals, meaning that it would be virtually untouched throughout the war.

While fighting a war on two fronts eveutally allowed the Allied to land in France during Overlord, by that stage the war was already decided.

  • 1
    This argument seems contra-indicated by the fact that, even while fighting a bloody and protracted two-front war, Germany had defeated Russia in 1917 only 24 years earlier. – Pieter Geerkens Jan 4 '18 at 13:05
  • @PieterGeerkens Seemingly contradicted. In reality Germany did not conquer Russia in the first world war. It may have militarily defeated Russia, but what forced her from the WW1 was the Russian Civil War. Furthermore, the nature of warfare had changed. The western front was largely static from 1915-17. Subsequent military philosophy would have been largely against the idea that you could have a predominantly static, stable front against an enemy who had any sort of parity of arms. – Stumbler Apr 14 at 10:41

Stalin was likely to attack anyway, and made statements in this direction.

Source: Soviet offensive plans controversy

Danilov and Heinz Magenheimer examined this plan and other documents in the early 1990s, which might indicate Soviet preparations for an attack, in the Austrian military journal (Österreichische Militärische Zeitschrift, nos. 5 and 6, 1991; no. 1, 1993; and no. 1, 1994). Both researchers came to the conclusion that Zhukov's plan of May 15, 1941 reflected Stalin's May 5, 1941 speech heralding the birth of the new offensive Red Army.

The reasons given in the other answers, while well-cited, are not necessarily the actual reasons why Germany attacked. The Nazi leadership probably wanted to frame the war as an aggressive conquest that would be successful, not a desperate pre-emptive strike to slow down a much stronger opponent.

In any case, both sides expected the war to happen. Stalin believed that the war between capitalist nations would create ideal conditions for a Soviet attack. Hitler also expected to fight Russia as stated in Mein Kampf. Given these assumptions held by both sides, the only logical outcome is that Germany would attack first, in 1941, when it had just conquered Western Europe and was at its strongest.


Germany already fought on two fronts. This is the first world war. And Hitler fought in this war. He was not an idiot.

Germany in the 1920s is an outcast country. The same outrage as the USSR. Germany and the USSR helped each other. But... The USSR is the single socialist country in the world. But the "problem" was that this single socialist country was developing rapidly. Industrialization, free medicine, free education, free land, autarky. This is a threat to the entire capitalist world. It is a flag, a symbol for all Communists in the world. Stalin said that "either we will become an industrial power or we will be destroyed." All the Bolsheviks understood that the USSR was the number one target. The question was: who, where and when will kill the first country of people's democracy. The choice was perfect: Germany. In one moment a friend turned into an enemy. Hitler - huge assassin. Hitler received Czechoslovakia. Hitler received Poland. France did not want to fight and actually gave up. Even the Poles defended the capital. The French applauded the German troops. When Hitler became strong, he attacked the USSR. Because Hitler is a hired killer. The USSR is a victim of a hired killer. Everything is very simple.

By the way, there is one more "strange" moment. "Idiot" Hitler did not mobilize the economy. If you are at war, you must mobilize the entire economy. I suppose the master just kept his dog on a leash. The owner was afraid that Hitler could get out of control. The owner put on a muzzle - he forbade the mobilization of the economy.

When the hired assassin missed, the customer organized his destruction.

p.s. In 1941, Hitler controlled more factories and engineers than Stalin. Mobilization + technology = thousands of Panzes, Stugs, Ganomags, aircrafts, artillery, divisions, corps, armies. The USSR could lose, but the German shepherd had a short leash.

  • 1
    "Hitler is a hired killer" (and other statements)? Sources would improve this answer. – Lars Bosteen Jan 5 '18 at 8:55

protected by two sheds Feb 24 '15 at 21:15


Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
