What if Hitler hadn't invaded Russia?
 

Had Hitler not invaded Russia, he could have focused his troops completely into Europe. He would most likely have succeeded at the Blitzkreg taking England over time. So many factors should be put into consideration too, would Hitler have been assassinated? Would the US have stayed neutral against Germany? Post what you think would have happened.

I think that had that happened, America would have just got involved sooner than we did. I also think Russia wouldn't have just sat there, but would have attacked. Stalin wasn't stupid, and wouldn't let hitler take over a continent before doing anything.

Well thats always seen as Hitler's greatest blunder - not finishing off Britain before invading Russia. Hitler assumed too much - he assumed he would have moscow by winter - he assumed Russia would fall easily. Of course, as we have found out, that wasn't true and guess who ended up kicking his ass in the end anyways :rolleyes:

I doubt the U.S. would've been involved earlier Nimbletoe. The U.S. saw no reason to be involved in Europe, and it was really only Pearl Harbor that completely changed public opinion to go 150% for the war effort (not to mention Hitler was the one who declared war on the U.S., not the other way around, and his declaration was really of no reason and only gave FDR the war he wanted).

As for Stalin... I don't know whether or not he would have attacked Germany. Stalin was HARDLY in a position to invade the best military in the world at the time.

A few reasons:

a) Stalin believed that Hitler would keep the non-aggression pact. While its hard to predict what Stalin would do, files found in the recent years have suggested that Stalin wasn't thinking war would occur.
b) The military and economy was hardly ready for war. The military had 3/5 of its officer core 'purged' by Stalin so it was severly lacking.


Stalin was NOT in a position for a war - hence in the first year of the war, he was nearly defeated by Germany. You don't lose 1 million troops in the first month or two of fighting if yo uare prepared - much less do you invade if you are in such a bad position.

Agreed. Stalin wouldn't hesitate to attack Germany if he felt Hitler was going to attack him eventually. Hell, maybe Stalin was planning on Hitler not going after him, so he could backstab Hitler as he was going full force at Britain. Stalin wasn't exactly a boy scout himself.

The U.S. has gone against public opinion on more than one occasion. I would hope they would have had the common sense to help europe before it was COMPLETELY taken over.

You would also have to take into consideration that had no aggression been taken against Russia, Hitler could have brought them to the axis alliance. Russia, Italy, Japan, and Germany could easly take over Europe, Asia, and possibly the Americas. You should also consider that the war would be drawn out much longer. Giving the US time to change its mind on many things.

Like I said - stalin was not in any position in '41 for a war against Hitler - '41 because that would be the year Hitler would've invaded Britain had he had the chance.

Stalin's own policies had destroyed its military. It was when they got their asses handed to them by the Finns the first time around that they realized the shit they were in. They did eventually beat the Finns but not without humiliating losses.

And even if Stalin tried, had Hitler defeated Britain, Stalin would have a very very hard time in a war against Hitler. Hitler would then have control of immense production ability, possibly capturing ships of the Royal Navy as well, and have control of the seas.

Stalin is a puzzle though - check out some books out there on the diplomacy at the time. Most historians say that Stalin's actions then went in the direction of believing Hitler.

Another question, what if Japan hadn't bombed Peral Harbor?

Not entirely true Nimbletoe.

Realize that at the time the Depression was still there.

The reason America came out and kicked mucho ass in WW2 can be credited with the fact that public opinion was entirely behind the war because of Pearl Harbor.

Isolationists and pro-war were about split at the time. The final nail in the coffin for the isolationists was Pearl Harbor - to quote one of the most isolationist senators after pearl harbor - "Lets give em Hell."

Theres a reason why 12 million people served in the military. Why over 30,000 ships were made. Why hundreds of thousands of planes built.

The U.S. hardly cared about the affairs of Europe. They would never have been involved in Europe anyways had Hitler not declared war on the U.S.

FDR wanted the war with Hitler. A good portion of Congress, however, was against it. As was much of the public - it wasn't their war until Japan decided it was so.

Ballzor: the problem with that is that Hitler would *NEVER* agree with Russia in an alliance - except for short temporary agreements.

Hitler hated Slavs and other people he considered "inferno" and "sub-human" and Russia was one of those nations which held a great portion of those he hated.

Italy isn't even a key player in the war honestly - they got invovled in battles they couldn't handle so the Germans had to go and back them up.

Had Britain fallen, the situations would occur here:

-Colonies across the world would be in peril - the colonies such as Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, India, would've fallen to Japan. Africa could easily be under German rule. The Mid East would've seen Arab uprisings and be under Germany as well.

If you have a country dominating that much of the world's resources and economy (as Britain once did) they would be in a position that would be very very good against a war with Russia.

not to mention that Germany at the time easily had the most advanced technology - in tanks, planes (jets and rockets were there), weaponary, etc.

Its tough to say Russia inflicted 88% of Germany's casulities. Had Hitler never invaded Russia, Russia might not have gotten involved.

Russia would *always* have been involved, simply because of the differences in political system. The Nazis were actively opposing the spread of socialism/communism, and this was one of the cornerstones of their idealogy. Had Hitler defeated the UK (which he nearly did), he would have invaded Russia anyway. He needed the "lebensraum", and had no reasons not to attack.

As for Russia being able to attack Germany: in '41, they weren't. In '42, they might have kicked some arse, even without the experience defeat gave them. Stalin was actively trying to improve his military, especially after he saw how stupid his purges were. This can be illustrated by the T-34 tank, which was vastly superior to anything the Germans had at the time.

The reason the Russian army was almost destroyed is simple: they weren't able to communicate properly during the blitzkrieg (which is one of the cornerstones of that tactic!), when an army *needs* to communicate in order to react to an invasion. Also, Russia's army had been told *not* to fight the Germans, or to be more specific: they had been told not to react to German "war games" prior to the invasion, for fear of prompting such an invasion...

Britain would not have fallen.

Plain and simple. You americans don't know what it means to be British.

Hitler could not cross the English Channel even if he wanted to. The British had 10 times the navy the Germans had and had been using it successfully in battle for a hundreds of years.

The RAF was outgunned 3 to 1 but the British pilots fought with their backs to the wall and never waivered. Never has so much been owed by so many to so few. (With a bit of help from the free polish (the most vicious and the highest kill ratio of the war) and the Canadians) The British had also cracked the Enigma Code (and NO, it was not Harvey Kietel and Jon Bon Jovi who did that, it was British mathematician Alan Turing)

The battle of Britain was in 1940. At that time, America was still selling weapons to Hitler. (Read "Trading with the Enemy" about how guys like Ford and Prescott Bush were doing business witht the Nazis.) Hitler had not yet attacked Russia. He was able to concentrate his air power on Britain but FAILED.

Then he decided to attack Russia cause he (very incorrectly) figured if he couldn't beat Britain, maybe the Russians would be easier.

Besides, you didn' t have to cross the English channel with Huricannes and Spitfires buzzing all around your head.

Zeld2.0 - don't forget Hitler hated communism as well.


There are several things hitler could have done to either ensure victory or prolong his reign. Not invading Russia where they would have to fight in the winter was one of them. napoleon made the mistake first, Hitler should have learned. Russians are better suited for it, and they will inflict heavy damages on the germans, which they did.
If hitler didn't invade Russia, he could have focused on Britain and tried to take over the island(which hasn't been done since 1066), which would have hurt america's chances in helping when they got invovled.
He just over extended his forces creating two fronts.

The war between russia and germany was inescapable, because of the already differences in the political systems and the fact that hitler saw the eastern people as "subhumans".

But OK, lets play "what if"....

Germany wasn't able to invade Britan, the Germans didn't had the equipment to make an "d-day" style invasion. It was planned to use some "rhine barks" for the invasion wich weren't able to sail over the channel during bad weather making the supply routs a "bit" unsecure.
Also the Britians were able to withdraw their plaes to the north, to scotland, out of range of the germans bombers. The German lacked a big bomber to attack those airfields
(although there were some plans to build one: http://www.luft46.com/prototyp/me264.html have a look at the penetration depth chart at the bottom of the page, it is quite impressive). So even if the Germans were able to destory most of the aitfields in the south, they would still not have the air superority to succssesful invade england

But on the other hand the german army would not suffer they way it did in russia, so they would have been able to defend themself against the allied invasion. D-Day would surely have been a defeat for the allied.

So this war would have been a stalemate. Germany not able to deliver the final blow to completly invade europe.

Ah, but would it have been necessary to invade the UK to win the war in the west? Germany would have been secure on the mainland, while the UK would have had an increasing problem with supplies (and government debt!). Remember that Hitler didn't want to fight the British anyway - he respected them, and would have been content with them staying on their friggin' island...

Imagine the massive army needed in Russia, and think about how one might use it elsewhere... With Russia out of the war for at least another year or two (or indefinately), the Germans could have focused on Africa, to eventually capture the Arabian oil fields (long shot). Africa would have been the only way out of Europe anyway - the UK on the west, the Russians on the east, everything in the north captured or friendly already (except Sweden), and only Africa to the south as a potential target.

But all of this is just very unlikely, precisely because of that whole political thing between Hitler and communism. He *had* to invade, simply because of his personality, ideas and ambitions.

Yeah, agreed.

Again thats exactly why the 'what if' scenario is simply just that - 'what if.'

Hitler isn't a very rational man and he would've done it not just because he hates communism but because he hates those he considers 'sub-human' to which the Russians were.

Hitler wanted the UK and the US to join his side. He would've much preferred it that way. And yes if he didn't attack Russia he could've swept into N. Africa and the Middle East. The Middle East was already friendly towards Germany for they resented the British. Control of the oil fields + another area to stage into the Caucusus would've given the Germans a huge advantage.

One thing that always amazes me is how essentially one country (Germany) the size of New York State could succeed in taking on the Russians, the British, the Americans, the Canadians, the Australians, and put up one hell of a fight.

Say what you want about the Germans, they weren't pussies.

Another one of Hitler's mistakes was not ordering winter uniforms for his troops for the battle in Russia. That's the one thing not to do never start a land war in Asia (but slightly less well known is....) well, you get the point. See, Russia has the greatest general available to her, General Winter. Sure, the Germans may have been able to adapt a little bit, but with Hitler trying to control the war himself instead of being a politician, they wouldn't have been able to do squat. Cuz the Russians would have just sat in Siberia and wait for the Germans to become popsicles. Remember, the United States was already starting to gear up for war a whole year before Pearl Harbor, so we had resources gearing up. JTK, you're completely right, Britain would not have fallen, because they have the intangibles of defending their homeland and being completely unified in the war effort. "Never have so many owed so much to so few." I pretty much agree with the stalemate theory, altho, the United States with it's manufacturing techniques and technologies would have bombed all hell out of Germany (and possibly used the H-Bomb) to end Hitler's reign. If Japan hadn't bombed Pearl Harbor? Well, I don't really think that they wouldn't have, a better question would have been, what if the aircraft carriers were in Pearl Harbor at the time of the attack? What would happen then? I personally think that the US would have been quicker to use the H-Bomb than it did, prolly would have done some more negotiating with Russia to invade Mainland Japan.

First of all, get it straight, its the A-bomb the H-bomb was not developed until the very early 50's.

Second of all, had there been no war, we would not have had the money to develop the Manhattan Project for the bomb. It was the fact the war came about and we wanted it before Hitler that the US authorized the most expensive and largest project in history.

And had the Japs bombed Pearl Harbor w/ the carriers there, shit would've been different.

We would have lost Coral Sea which may mean an invasion of Australia by the Japanese. We would have lost Midway which would've meant Hawaii could be bombed.

We would have had no ability to strike back before they could consolidate their resources and build.

Not to mention that had NO pearl harbor occured, we would not have been in a war w/ Japan or Germany.

Oh and the Russians were not in a war with Japan the entire time until the last 2 weeks of the war - they had no reason to fight Japan.

Jesus Zeld, I'm human ok, I make mistakes. Remember tho, FDR/Truman were tryin to get Russia in on the war with Japan to limit US casualties. I do think that we would have entered the war eventually because the Japanese would have started to invade Alaska, Canada, and so on. So I think the entrance of the US into the war was an inevitability, PH or no PH.

One of the bigger lessons to be learnt from the defeat of the german armies in Russia is the effect of deranged civilian intervention in military affairs.

The turning point of the campaign came during Stalingrad. If the Germans had not focused on Stalingrad, but instead focused their attentions and armies on the southern oilfields in the Caucasus, and perhaps even the middle east, the german war effort would have been greatly boosted.

Of course, Hitler couldn't resist throwing all of his forces into a big battle to capture a city named after Stalin. Even after Leningrad and Moscow, the German armies in Russia could still have a decisive effect. They were far from defeated at that point.

Even after Stalingrad, the outcome of the war in the east was far from decided. I believe that Kursk was the crucial battle that turned the tide. It was also the battle where the Germans, abandoned all the principles of blitzkrieg, which was to attack through weakpoints, and avoid strongpoints, and decided to attack the dug-in Russians head-on. DUH....

And of course, Japan had to attack Pearl Harbor and bring the US into the war. I doubt that the US would have joined the war if Japan (and thus the Axis) had not declared war on the US.

The Japanese had no reason to invade Alaska and never intended to. Its resources it needed were aplenty in South East Asia (oil, rubber, metal, etc.).

The only reason the Japanese even bothered invading the Aleutians in the war was in an attempt to divert U.S. forces away from Midway - thus weakening the U.S. forces or decieving them and so they could claim Midway easier.

As for civilian intervention... thats not entirely true.

A good leader of a country can also be a good military leader. They can also be a bad one as well.

The key here is that Hitler was too irrational, too controlling, paranoid, and had a midn that was easily changed.

For instance:

-The no surrender or retreat order : no troops on the Eastern Front were allowed to retreat or surrender, thereby causing thousands of casualties that were unnecessary and also they demoralized troops
-Controlling the industry's direction : instead of going for 4 engine heavy bombers, or better longer range fighters, Hitler decided to do his little pet terror projects such as the V1 and V2 and concentrate its already tight industry on jets taht were too little too late


Those are just two examples of places where Hitler controlled things that were unnecessary and because of his opinion and his own mind / biases, they costed the war.

OH and a reason that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor is one, that in hidnsight, is stupid and unecessary.

Japan felt the embargo the U.S. was doing for their war in China was hurting the economy. They saw war as inevitable. They thought the attack on Pearl Harbor would push us *out* of the war. They were obviously wrong.

They could hve easily gone out diplomatically, thereby keeping the U.S. neutral in its affairs. Instead of confronting the U.S. forces, it could have gone around and continued its conquests until it was ready for war.

The U.S. would never have gone into the war without the attack on Pearl Harbor honestly. Think of 9/11 and how many people wanted war just 2 years ago. And think of just a month before 9/11 and how NO ONE even cared about terrorism or who Bin Laden was.

The same held true to Pearl Harbor. A large portion of the country and the government simply didn't care.

Oh believe me, the Japanese know this was a mistake and they view World War II as a period of shame and it is hardly mentioned in their textbooks. What I am trying to get across to you is the fact that somehow, some way, Japan would have attacked the United States. That was the mentality of Japan at the time, the only Japanese REMF that had an idea of what PH would do was Yamamoto "I fear we have only awaken a sleeping giant." I believe that war was inevitable, it's just that PH pushed us over the edge, once every other nation fell to the German Machine (assuming that they waged a perfect war and won) the U.S. would have had to fought someone! You think Hitler or Tojo would sit on their thumbs with the United States still there, able to oppose them, I think not. War would have come to the U.S. either with allies still remaining or with no allies still remaining, I just thank God that it was the former and not the latter.

Well I don't doubt at all the US would've entered the war in the long run. After all, if the entire world cept the US was taken, why not move on the US with the world's resources?

I don't doubt that at all. The only people who ever thought war with the US was inevitable was the military of Japan. Unfortunately for them, the military also ran Japan. However, their assumptions were wrong. The short run goal was a crippled US fleet for 6 months. The real goal however was to force the US to follow Japan's demands or remove the embargo or to sue for peace for without a fleet, the US would've been crippled against the Japanese.

You have to realize the gamble was close tho. Had the carriers gone down and had the Japanese targetted the submarines AND the oil depots @ pearl harbor, the US would have had literally no chips to play in the Pacific. The forces in the Atlantic would have to be split up and a lot of it would be needed to merely fight hte U-Boats. The Japanese navy also would have dominated the Americans if the US Navy had no flattops.

It was close but the result was the least valuable goal achieved.

Excellent post.....

Kursk was truly the mother of all battles.

Imagine a battle of a million or so Germans against a million or so Russians. Each knowing that there would be no prisoners taken and it was truly a fight to the death. The Germans didn't take Russian prisoners since they considered them sub-human, and the Russians returned the treatment.

I can't imagine what your average foot soldier felt like knowing that.

I don't think the missing winter uniforms had a big effecton the german troops. It was the sheer number of russians and the fact that russia has adapted to the german tactics that defeated germany. And of course the fact that hitler wanted to apporve every little command given to the troops, Hitler had too much influence on the command line. His commanding officers were the best in the world, he should have left them do their work.

Without Hitler Stalingrad would have been not such a big defeat and Kursk would have been a success (perhaps ;))

Hardly, without the front in Russia, the german luftwaffe would have had all the time and equipment to defend the homeland against the bombers. The development of new technologies would have been much faster (When it comes to bombing runs, have a look at the "wasserfall": http://www.luft46.com/missile/wasserfl.html).
And remember Germany was also working on their A-Bomb.

No, both Japan and the USA wanted the war. Japan needed it to free themself from the economic thread and the USA wanted to make clear who is the Boss in the Pacific.

"The question was how much we should manoeuvre them into the position of
firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves."
(Roosevelt's Secretary of War, Henry L Stimson, dated November 25, 1941 - about two weeks before the Pearl Harbour attack.)

Stalin was devastated when Germany invaded. The story is that he was in solitude for a good 4-5 days afterward, before coming out to meet his generals. One of the most cunning leaders of the century, but he didnt see that one coming.

Well, Stalin did see it coming, he just didn't expect it to happen *this* quickly... :)

As for the UK... could Germany have won after Dunkirk? Perhaps, if Hitler hadn't intervened. You see, after some lone German bomber attacked London (mistake), the Brits attacked Berlin. That led to Hitler getting angry, and ordering an all-out attack on London.

Had he not done that, the Germans might have succeeded in gaining air-superiority in the south of the UK. That would have allowed a landing on the coasts there, with U-boats, surface ships and simple mine-fields defending the flanks. They might have driven far enough inland to shatter the British defences.

The UK was *not* ready to fight at that time - they had left most of their heavy weapons back in France during the Dunkirk evacuation. Their defences were also very static, which is exactly what you shouldn't do during a blitzkrieg. Only later did they implement a system of mobile defensive army groups.

Even with most brits supporting the troops, and even with the British navy being very strong, Germany might *still* have succeeded. After all, the British fleet would have had to choose between not doing anything and being safe, or going south to attack the invasion fleet, and being open to air/naval attack. The outcome would not have been certain for either side...

Be serious!

Never in a bazillion years would the Royal Navy have sat by in safety and watched Britain invaded. They could have been out gunned 100 to one and they would have fought till the bitter end. It simply isn't what it is to be British to forgo a fight whatever the odds.

It would have taken the british admiralty about 1 nanosecond to fire up all boilers and make for the English Channel.

technically that should be a few hours but whose counting :P

germany had a chance but it blew it big - dunkirk was a huge blunder

letting 300,000 troops leave to fight another day = you're screwed in the long run

if one thinks about it, had all those troops been captured/killed, UK would be in a bad state when it comes to the ground war

yes the Royal navy would've defended the Channel but one cannot forget a few factors:

a) Air power at the time was in Germany's favor and ships don't do you any good if they're great big juicy targets for bombers
b) Germany was already building a large fleet (it was one of Hitler's dreams anyways) and could have challenged Britain later in the long run
c) U-Boats can strangle Britain in the long run, and should've been put into more effect

Germany had its chance but as usual Hitler screwed things up. Anyways, he failed to see history, and repeated it.

And the winter uniforms is an understatement (or should be) IMO because its not just that - the germans weren't prepared for fighting in the cold of Russia which could go below 20 daily.

The Russians were adept at the fighting in the cold, it was their home terrain, they knew the land, and they could fight much more effectively.

Why must every little messenger debate we have turn into a TF thread ballzor :). It is hearsay that Germany was even thinking about building an atomic bomb. Hitler did not think that atomic energy was at all feasible, and was more concerned with building better chemical/biological/terror weapons than The Bomb.

I believe that although war with the U.S would come sooner or later, the difference between those years could be 10's if not hundreds. If Hitler took the U.K, it would be almost impossible for the U.S to plan any sort of invasion of Europe. The entire U.S force would have to cross the Atlantic at the same time (there would not be as much island to island combat as there was in the pacific, because there isn't as many islands). There would be no surprise D-Day assaults, the German's would have ample warning to defend their coast lines, not to mention sending their U-Boats and the luftwaffe.

Eventually technology would improve enough for the sides to fight it out, and the winner would be a toss up. Sure Hitler would control a continent of resources..but so does the U.S.A and Canada. Of course Russia would have fallen long before this (although by all rights they should have in the first place, but they had the grit and resolve to fight in the direst circumstances).

if russia and japan had not agreed to fight each other during the war im sure russia wouldve lost because when japan agreed not to attack russia that allowed russia to move their armies in the east to the west in time to stop the german advance but thats what i think...

also if germany wouldve allowed the people of russia to help him fight stalin he couldve beaten him ....

Given the nature of Germany, Russia, and America at the time...the same outcome was preordained. I would have preferred different natures for all three... I think some small differences in the 100years previous could have altered history, but after WWI, it just had to play out.

Had Hitler not invaded Russia he still would have lost. Germany did not have the fuel reserves to fight a protracted war (which is one of the reasons he did attack Russia).

There are a couple misconceptions here. First, Hitler did not want to invade Russia when he did. Second, Russia was preparing to invade Germany. This is not to say that Stalin was ready with the plans to start not too long after Hitler invaded, but it is to say the preparations were already going.

Another misconception has to do with Hitler's fast advance into Russia. All the way to Moscow. You know why? Stalin was in such a hurry to get his army trained for the invasion that very little was spent on the defensive side. Very little. Think about Stalin's ten year plan for the industrialization of Russia.

Read this somewhat recent biography of Stalin and you will learn a LOT.

"Stalin" - Edvard Radzinsky

Jdoe

Edit: I forgot to point out the obvious. The reason Hitler invaded Russia was that he realised Russia was doing everything to prepare for an invasion of Germany. Building airstrips near a country is only one of many signs.

This is a cool thread :D

*sits back and smiles*

I hate to burst anyone's bubble, but being british doesn't make you bulletproof (remember the American Revolution?). Hitler was 2-3 weeks from completely destroying the RAF when he ordered the Luftwaffe to stop going after airfields and concentrate on population centers. Once you lose air superiority you're fucked.
If Hitler had concentrated on going after the political leadership of Russia instead of a PR victory by taking a city named after Stalin, Russia would have been fucked before winter was over. Had Russia been taken, a lot more concentration camps would have been built in Russia to silence anyone who objected to German rule (the camps weren't only for Jews).