Was it possible for the Germans to win Operation Barbarossa?

 Yes, it was possible, and it was closer than many people think.

In 1941, the main factor wasn’t the size of the armies or money; it was morale.

The French surrendered early because they felt hopeless. The Norwegians, Belgians, and Dutch also gave up quickly for the same reason—morale was important.

Looking back, it’s hard to see how low Soviet morale was in the fall of 1941. On September 30, the Germans started Operation Typhoon. Just three weeks later, the Soviets had only 90,000 men and 150 tanks left to defend Moscow. The Ukraine, Byelorussia, and the Baltic States were taken, Leningrad was surrounded, and the Nazis were only 140 kilometers from the capital. The Soviet government was moving to Kuibyshev, and the country was close to collapse.

However, two key things happened in mid-October that changed everything: the autumn rains slowed the German advance, and Stalin refused to leave Moscow. The rest is history.

Who would have blamed Stalin if he had surrendered in October 1941 or accepted a puppet government in the USSR?

I’m not saying the rains defeated the Nazis, but they gave Stalin time, and with time came hope. Winter was coming, strong divisions were arriving from the East, lend-lease supplies were improving, and morale was rising. That hope quickly turned into a belief in eventual victory.

If Stalin had been a different leader—like Pétain in France or Percival in Singapore—he might have made a deal, and the Germans could have won Operation Barbarossa. They wouldn’t have achieved all their goals, but they would have secured their aim of Lebensraum in the east.

It was much closer than many realize. Remember, Stalin had a breakdown when Operation Barbarossa started; he could have easily broken down again as the Germans seemed ready to take Moscow. Faced with losing everything and the end of communism or surrendering to save the regime further east, it must have been a very hard choice.