If Hitler didn't attack Russia, would we all be speaking German today?

[L J]

Pandemonium:I can't reply with quote :Iam still recieving the message that my reply is to short(it must have 10 characters ?);very interesting photos ;concerning the transport ships:my oint is that what the had was totally unfit to cross the channel:Rhine Barges that had to be dragged by tugs;their speed was lower than the east-west current of the channel .Cheers

[Kitsune]

It seems likely that, if Germany hadn't attacked the Sovietunion, the Sovietunion would have attacked Germany. Perhaps not in summer or autumn 1941 (like the Nazi leadership claimed) but rather in 1942 or 1943. The Sovietunion was arming since 1927, and since the mid thirties was doing so with enormous speed. Since 1938 they had an largely offensive doctrine and Stalin's purges had ensured that their officer corps was young and utterly loyal to their leader. In summer 1941 they already had more than 5 million men under arms, 24.000 tanks and a number of airplanes and guns far exceeding that of any other army on the planet (usually by some multiplying factor).

It seems that in 1941 they were apparently still in the midst of a restructuring process, but one or two years later they would have been done with this. If the Red Army had then pulled off an attack on Germany in 1942 or 1943 with more than 30.000 tanks (and a higher percentage of T-34s and KV-1s) the resulting war would in all likelihood have been a short one indeed. So, it is quite possible that Hitler's attack on the Sovietunion wasn't completely stupid but rather the best available bet (although even a good bet does look stupid after you have lost it).

As far as Switeks idea about a Nazi created European Union is concerned, the idea of a Pan European Superstate existed already in the 1920ts. Hitler states his (negative) opinion about this in chapter nine of his planned "Mein Kampf" sequel (written in 1928, the book was never published, however). One can find it here: http://web.archive.org/web/200306080...es/zweites.htm
In the same chapter one can also find what Hitler thought about the USA - which may be a bit surprising to some.

[L J]

In WW I Germany was defeated in a war of attrition by UK,France ,Russia (fell away in 1917 )and USA . In june 1940 uk was alone but decided to carry on.Why ? Because they were counting on the USSR and the USA . Germany could not win against those three . But if one of the threefell of,the other two could not win:without the UK no Overlord,without the USA the UK would fall of,without the USSR no Overlord . Thus Hitler had to eliminate one of them;impossible to eliminate the USA,the UK :impossible in the short run ;remaining :the USSR ,but Hitler had to hurry:1942 would be to late:the USSR was rearming:only possibility :Barbarossa in 1941 ,but he failed already in september:he was to weak and the Sovjet Union was already to strong . Barbarossa was no blunder,but the only option Hitler had .

[commanding]

Polish historicians are pointing date about 1942.

If Polish historians are correct and Stalin had engaged the German military machine in 1942, I think that would have been well before any possible land invasion of the European cont. by US forces (they could not have been put in place that fast and the bombing campaigns would not have had time to destroy German military factorys, military airfields, civilian centers sorry to say, etc). So basically the end game would have been same as far as Germany goes, except that the Russians may not have held as much of Germany after the war as reality ended up.

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

I'm just wondering if the USSR could have successfully invaded Germany in 1942. Remember that the Russians were run over in the first part of 1941. In 1942 they were run over again before winning at Stalingrad. Could they have successfully carried out an offensive in 1942? Remember that without Barbarossa they would have not had the combat experience by then, meaning problems that were revealed in 1941 would not have been corrected.

[cbreedon]

I don't believe the Soviets would have been able to successfully invade Germany. The Russians have always had trouble with offensive operations at the beginning of most of the wars they have been in. They would have had a failed offensive the Germans would have countered and eventually a peace would have come about if just those two fought. Maybe a separate Ukraine would have come about or the end of Soviet communism.???

[Kitsune]

This is how I see it:

When the Germans attacked in 1941, the Soviet "war machine" was in many ways far larger than the German one: more tanks (many more), more guns, more planes, more men, more reserves...but the German offensive managed to completely unbalance the Soviet forces. As a result they were brought down part for part, often offering simple defense where they stood, sometimes trying counter attacks, but overall the Wehrmacht had the initiative and was in control - until gradually running out of steam towards the end of 1941, but by then the Soviet armed forces had suffered downright gargantuan losses and had almost lost the war. Almost.

If on the other hand the Red Army had attacked in summer 1942 (assuming no German offensive had taken place), they could have been the ones possessing the initiative. The difference in overall number of tanks would have been even larger with virtually all tanks being combat-ready as well, more KV-1s and T-34's would have been available - with the Germans still having no Panthers and Tigers coming up since they would have not made the experiences with Soviet tanks so far.

As far as geography is concerned, the countryside from Russia over East Prussia and Poland to Berlin is pretty flat and thus quite well suited to a massive armored offensive. Also, I somehow doubt that it would have worked for the Germans to draw the Soviet armed forces into the "vastness" of German and Polish space and try to turn the tide after the Red Army has been stopped by the next Winter...Even worse, one of the first other targets of a Soviet offensive would have almost certainly been Romania, whose oilfields were extremely important to any German war effort.

As for tank warfare, the Soviet military was, if anything, even more advanced than the German Wehrmacht - well, atleast as far as its theoretical part was concerned. That leaves the generally higher combat efficiency of the German troops as the only plus the German side had - and even that goes only so far. As for the problem of "lack of combat experience of the Russian troops"...that would have been remedied over time, all by itself. I cannot help it, but I would suspect that the Sovietunion would have fared much, much better in this scenario than in the one with the German attack. The outcome would have probably been that the whole war would have been over within eight to ten months, after that Stalin would have controlled most of Eastern Europe, Poland, Germany and, on top of it, would have gotten France for free.

[hank2222]

let say Britain had made peace with Germany right after the fall of Europe ..so how do you think that would have turned out in the long run with france and rest of the low counties would acted in the low run..
plus henry ford and a couple of other americans leaders in the auto and steel makeing plants had help Hilter with the pre war build up of the industry there ..for henry ford hated the jews and wrote a series of books on them ,,
with England out of the way and not have to fight a two front war ..i think Germany would stood a better chance in Russia at the time for all man power and weapons and ships could have been reprostion to deal with Russia at the time

[INAT]

When in 1941 Yugoslavia signed a pact with Hitler, General Mirkovitch, on March 27, 1941, unseated the government, ripped up the pact and brought Yugoslavia in on the side of the allies. The importance of this move was tremendous, and directly affected the course of the Second World War. That this was so was proved at the Nuremberg Trials:

It became crystal clear that the decision of March 27, 1941, to choose certain destruction of their country by Hitler, rather than the dishonor of being his accomplices, had a decisive effect upon history.

Hitler's war plans were totally upset. Hitler reacted immediately. He at once summoned a meeting of his generals and the commanders of his satellites. In the secret report of this meeting, held on the same day, he underlined that the beginning of the Barbarossa operation would have to be postponed by up to 4 weeks. The 4 weeks delay forced upon Hitler by General Mirkovitch was decisive for the whole war according to Carl Ritter, German Foreign Office Liaison Officer with the Nazi High Command. This delay he stated:

Cost the Germans the winter battle before Moscow.

[L J]

When in 1941 Yugoslavia signed a pact with Hitler, General Mirkovitch, on March 27, 1941, unseated the government, ripped up the pact and brought Yugoslavia in on the side of the allies. The importance of this move was tremendous, and directly affected the course of the Second World War. That this was so was proved at the Nuremberg Trials:

It became crystal clear that the decision of March 27, 1941, to choose certain destruction of their country by Hitler, rather than the dishonor of being his accomplices, had a decisive effect upon history.

Hitler's war plans were totally upset. Hitler reacted immediately. He at once summoned a meeting of his generals and the commanders of his satellites. In the secret report of this meeting, held on the same day, he underlined that the beginning of the Barbarossa operation would have to be postponed by up to 4 weeks. The 4 weeks delay forced upon Hitler by General Mirkovitch was decisive for the whole war according to Carl Ritter, German Foreign Office Liaison Officer with the Nazi High Command. This delay he stated:

Cost the Germans the winter battle before Moscow.

A winter battle before Moscow ?? Operation Thyphoon ended before the winter . And the 'battle of Moscow ' =the Russian winteroffensive was a Russian failure

[Atlantic Friend]

I think the two immense mistrakes are :

- Starting the Russian campaign before the UK is defeated.

- declaring war on the US on december the 11th, 1941 - completely irrational decision by any standards.

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

I think the two immense mistrakes are :

- Starting the Russian campaign before the UK is defeated.

- declaring war on the US on december the 11th, 1941 - completely irrational decision by any standards.

I especially agree with the second one. I think that was a bigger strategic mistake for Hitler than invading the USSR.

[L J]

I especially agree with the second one. I think that was a bigger strategic mistake for Hitler than invading the USSR.

1 was no mistake;the other option for Hitler was sit up his a..and waiting while the others became stronger . 2 In Hitlers view,war with the USA was inevitable and approaching ..And if Japan was left alone,the US victory in the Pacific would be quicker and a US intervention in Europe earlier .

[GB_FXST]

When in 1941 Yugoslavia signed a pact with Hitler, General Mirkovitch, on March 27, 1941, unseated the government, ripped up the pact and brought Yugoslavia in on the side of the allies. The importance of this move was tremendous, and directly affected the course of the Second World War. That this was so was proved at the Nuremberg Trials:

It became crystal clear that the decision of March 27, 1941, to choose certain destruction of their country by Hitler, rather than the dishonor of being his accomplices, had a decisive effect upon history.

Hitler's war plans were totally upset. Hitler reacted immediately. He at once summoned a meeting of his generals and the commanders of his satellites. In the secret report of this meeting, held on the same day, he underlined that the beginning of the Barbarossa operation would have to be postponed by up to 4 weeks. The 4 weeks delay forced upon Hitler by General Mirkovitch was decisive for the whole war according to Carl Ritter, German Foreign Office Liaison Officer with the Nazi High Command. This delay he stated:

Cost the Germans the winter battle before Moscow.

I agree that the delay in launching Batbarossa is the pivotal point in the European War.

If Barbarossa started in mid-May (as planned) and not late June (as occurred), Nazi forces would have likely captured Moscow in 1941.

Would the USSR have been able to mount an effective counter-offensive after the loss of their capital city?

If nothing else, the war would have been longer.

[Asheren]

if Hitler had tried sea lion seriously the war would have been over sooner as it would have been an Epic Epic kerb stomp

The German invasion plan relied on barges and capturing a working port even the iraqi's managed to put um qusar out of action.
without a port getting any decent amount of stores ashore is impossible let alone tanks or artillery. without specialist kit landing craft tank landing craft a floating harbour pulto the cross channel fuel pipeline etc etc.
you've effectivly got two or three divsions of light troops with what they jumped climbed out of gliders or climbed out of barges with. plus what they can capture not much.
Against truly impressive fixed defence lines with plenty of artillery and tanks ok not very good tanks but as you have no tanks your screwed.
The Royal navy is going to be making mincemeat of the invasion fleet its simply numbers.
The german plan was to mine the channel to keep the home fleet out slightly impractical.
germany loses all it's forces committed to the invasion.
English channel Choked with german dead.
One warship gets in amongst slow moving barges full of flammable stores game over

Two words air superiority. Without it any home fleet surface ship trying to disrupt invasion would share the fate of HMS Repulse and HMS Prince of Wales.