What if Hitler never started the Eastern front or North Africa?

Hey guys! I'm the newbie but I really like the forums so far. Well I'm a huge German supporter and I would like to know what you think about this issue. I think that I germany had only fought on one front and not formed an alliance with Japan then that would have helped their war effort emensly! I also think that Germany breaking the non-aggresion treaty with Russia was a huge mistake! But tell me what you think.

 

If they had no Africa or Eastern fronts, they would have TONS of more troops, for the western front. Unlike what actually happened, he would be able to put more of his elite troops against the Allies. And i think an invasion of Britain would not be fat fetched.

 

A bit of a moot point really as Hitler is always going to invade East, as its the search for Lebensraum at the expense of the diametrically opposed opposite regime. Communism Vs. Facism, at some point there would have been conflict.

Yup it would have helped Germany if they only fought on one front but that didnt happen, as they could not invade GB or knock it out of war and Hitlers ideals of Mein Kampf insisted on the eastwards advance of the Reich.

Sgt Killjoy,

What? So 1st SS Panzer Corps aint one of Hitlers best? LAH and Das Reich not 'elite troops'? Not too mention the Fallschirmjager deployed in the West.

I know there is alot of crap in the west, but the only reason they hold on is the terrain and the hardcore of elite troops...

 

One-front war definitely would have helped Hitler´s cause.

The deal with Japan would have been great if the Japs had attacked Russia in the back in 1941 autumn. Now Hitler declared war in Dec 1941 to the US and personally I think he got nothing back from the Japs.

The ideology, as mentioned earlier, was that Hitler was going to the east one day or the other.So that was not going to be stopped as this was his basic ideas.

 

You make three admissions yourself:

* I think that if germany had only fought on one front ;
* not formed an alliance with Japan;
* Germany breaking the non-aggresion treaty with Russia was a huge mistake

and you still say you're a huge German supporter?

I wonder what your opinion would be if they managed to come up with three correct strategical decisions

[ 01. July 2004, 06:38 AM: Message edited by: Za Rodina ]

 

If you add up the population of the allied cuntries,and there resourses,there was no way Germany could win.Then why did they fought?,the palestinians can answer that question, and Argentinians and Chileans will in a few years...
Survival and desperation have no logic,it`s just there.Fight or be exterminated, or enslaved wich could be worse,if you belonge to the thinking gross minority of the population.
What is the truth...If you had lived in a comunist country you would know that criminal charges,witneses and indisputed pruffs can appeare from nowere.Before you realise it you are gilty without any dought.If you dont beleive me just asck those that have lived it.Or check with prisoners from diferent sides.How did the germans treated there prisoners, how did the allied treated theres...Look for paterns not individual cases.You`l be really surprised.Did the germans killed the ministers and generals of the countries they took when they were winning?Think about it.

 

There is much to be respected of Germany's military machine, technology, tactics, training etc. but aside from their inhumanity when led by the nazis from the 30s to mid 40s it is challenging to say the least to admire their war/military strategy at any level. Incredibly, Hitler and Germany failed to learn the lesson of WW1 which was that the USA had become the dominant global power. Once the USA was involved in the war (which began in 1940 with credit support and exports to the UK/western allies) Germany's defeat was simply a matter of time.

 

Charlie,

are you saying the Germans fought out of fear of extermination by communism?

What is your point about the treatment of prisoners?


As for killing national leaders, I doubt Churchill would have lasted too long if the Germans had got hold of him... Didnt they do in a few?

 

Well Red,from all the US prisoners I,or my father,who fought in the war(US),he or I,never herd of any who said they were badly treated.The Russians were something diferent.Neither the French, or British.But I`ve seen pictures of very badly beaten ss troops captured by the Canadians,and similar cases I've herd from the US.Also troops been simply shot ones they surrendered(Steven Spylberg did to aparently from what he shows in Sargent Ryan And in Band of Brothers).The poles were very well treated at the begining, until they started killing german poles I suspect,but the one I talked to war an erly one.I also talked to a polish forced laborer, he told me he had the best impresion from the germans when he was taken to work there,but the worst from the russians when he went back to Poland.After all,the conduct of troops at war has a direct relation with the cultural level of i`t's country.Germans were urban well educated moustly.Russians were very rustic hillbilies,and from Canada.Australia and the USA,you had a mixture.By the way my father met a bunch of US Rangers in the Ansio(Netuno actually)landing, and he was impresed of what a bunch of thugs they were,a side of there sice, there behavior was terrible,they entered a ball, were there were german oficers(unarmed)and italians, men and woman,they killed them all,no survivors,no prisoners.They reined everything that moved with bulets.And as Spyllberg my father is not exactly what you would call a NAZI.
So,my point is,that democratic goberments act as brutally as dictatorships but, they lie better and more sofisticatelly.After all thats the way they get ellected,they have more practic in it.Or do you actually beleive that in a democrasy you or I have any real chance of electing some one who does not belonge to the golden circle.We choose the one THEY already elected.

 

Red,About the idea that the germans fought for fear of extermination,don`t forget the 20 million rusian peasant Stalin killed,and rusians are preatty "unterwerfung",without mentioning Pol Pot`s millions and Mao`s etc.They are reall experts in mass murder.Or not...

 

White 3,About your "wishing to be in Germany",not to disapoint you,and with the best of intentions and afect,Germany is no longer what it used to be...don`t go there you`d be depresed.It has become the most democratic country in the world,If you say what you think, like you do in these forum,you go to jail.No kidding.Thery`re really tolerant and respectfull...

 

Wormhoudt, May 28th, 1940.

 

The "alliance" Germany had with Japan was tenious at best. Germany had no treaty obligation to back Japan if they were the aggressor (which they were). So, that particular part of your question is moot.
Not attacking Russia only ensures in the long run that Germany cannot gain a victory over Russia. And, as others have pointed out the move to the east for "living space" was a central tennant of Hitler's grand plan. The reason I say in the long run it would have made conquest of Russia far less likely is simply that Hitler invaded at a low point in Soviet strength. Stalin had just purged the military. Much of the obsolete equipment would soon be replaced with more up-to-date materials but, that had not yet happened. To top this off, many units were in a state of transition organizationally, particularly mechnaized units.
As far as the war in the West goes, Germany had only the remotest chance of defeating Britain. So long as Germany could not develop themselves into a sea power that could match Britain the Germans could not achieve an outright victory against them. Air power was no substitute. The Guerre de Course of submarines, as with all Guerre de Course naval strategies not war winning in itself.
So, what we end up with is a Western Europe under the yoke of Nazi domination with the British unable to strike back effectively.
If the US gets involved, Germany loses. In the long run Germany faces a possibly aggressive Russia with more resources than they have. Germany also faces the continued isolation that the survival of Britain brings by limiting Germnay's access to the sea.
On the whole, it really doesn't change things that much. Germany really had to win in the East and make peace with Britain (or keep the British out of the war entirely to begin with) to succeed.

 

What? So 1st SS Panzer Corps aint one of Hitlers best? LAH and Das Reich not 'elite troops'? Not too mention the Fallschirmjager deployed in the West.

I know there is alot of crap in the west, but the only reason they hold on is the terrain and the hardcore of elite troops... </font>[/QUOTE]I didn't say the westwas devoid of his elite, it was just deprived of them, because a majority of the elite were in the east.

 

Not really. The West had a high number of 'elite' or combat value I and II divisions as a percentage to other units.

Many of the so-called 'Fire Brigades' were in NOrmandy.

1st SS
2nd SS
9th SS
10th SS
12th SS
17th SS
3rd FJ
5th FJ
Panzer-Lehr

Not too mention another 5 armoured Divisions... I can write out all the combat value I and IIs if you want...

I wouldnt say the West was deprived of 'elite' troops. Although I think a better description would be 'veteran'. The reason the Allies had such a hard fight was due to these forces.

Dont think it would have mattered if they had put more 'elites' in. It wouldnt have made any difference, but then without an Eastern Front the chances of an invasion are remote as the opportunity for invasion is unlikely as the Germans would have all their resources available.

So it makes this discussion a bit pointless!

But if there is no eastern front, then no combat experience, no tigers and panthers, no 'elite' troops...

If the Eastern Front hadnt happened how would they have any elites!!! They wouldnt have the experience or the development!!!

 

Perhaps if following the fall of France, Germany had offered peace in return simply for Alsace and those areas in the east lost after Versailles ie a return to somthing approximating Germany's 1914 boundaries (perhaps also linked to some form of demilitarisation), this may have been possible. I imagine Britain, France and Poland may well have accepted such a deal. However, Hitler appears to have been an inverate gambler politically/militarily speaking with a grander ambition so the thought is probably mute as others suggest.

 

If Hitler had not attacked Russia, Russia most likely would have attacked Germany. They did have plans put together for an attack on Germany. When & if, I don't know. As for Germany needing a navy equal in size to take England, I would not agree, rather they needed Lst craft loads of E boats & destroyer escort coupled with the Luftwaffe. In other words a more strategically designed navy, not neccessarily one equal in size. But as has been pointed out liebenspraun,( living space ), & defeating the menace of the east dominated Hitlers thoughts, making the taking of England impossible.

 

This too has been gone over in some detail on these boards. Without a real navy, and a few dozen destroyers and s-boats are not going to do it, Germany would lose in any attempt to make and sustain an invasion of England. The Germans needed far more than just properly designed landing craft. They needed a far better appreciation of amphibious warfare than they had. They needed far more merchant transport than they had (all those supplies they would need to more across the channel took up more space than the troops). They needed crews for these vessels that were trained (canoeing on a lake was considered valuable nautical experiance in 1940 when the search for crews to man landing craft started...).
Had the Germans tried a 1940 invasion (mid 1941 it would have been impossible simply on the basis of the vastly improved British Army's condition) one would expect the British to throw 50 to 90 destroyers along with a couple dozen cruisers into the Channel were the invasion fleet would have been turned into one huge disorganized, defeated mess with the survivors landing who knows where and being destroyed in detail.

 

Notice I said "loads" of E boats & destroyer escort, not a few dozen. We're not that far apart strategically speaking. E-boats,( scnell boats ), were very nasty craft, 40 knots & very maneuverable. A bunch of those,( 50-100 ), would have given the British navy a some real headaches. I agree with your statement; they needed a far better appreciation of amphibious warfare than they had. The Z plan was a compromise that made Germany lukewarm in all naval areas. Heavy concentration on pocket battleships or U-boats would have been better. And of course LST craft. As far as sustaining England after occupation goes, this should be no prob as Brit navy would have to evacuate naturally after successful invasion. As to whether the Germans could have succeded with these craft is an open question to me.

 

I would agree that 50 - 100 S-boats would have been annoying , but nothing more. Why you ask? Because they are only a marginal weapon of uneven effectiveness. Against larger ships like destroyers where the armament is controlled and fire uses a stable platform they are virtually worthless. I suggest you read up on US PT boat operations in the Battle of Surigao Strait (part of the invasion of the Philippines). There the US had 45 torpedo boats equally if not better equipped than most S-boats in absolutely perfect weather and yet these failed to score a single torpedo hit (mostly because they were more concerned about saving their hides once the shooting started since that was almost all one way...from the Japanese towards them...). Of 30 that came under gun fire 10 took damage and one was sunk. They caused no damage in return.
In fact, their only real value was as scouts for the "real" ships that engaged in battle.
I would suggest a review of the French idea of the jenue ècole school of naval strategy and the failure of the same. It suggests the same failed strategy...lots of small fast attack craft.
The "pocket" battleship...better described as an imbalanced heavy cruiser...also does Germany little good simply because it can easily be out armored and out gunned by battleships and battlecruisers.
Every time this is discussed those advocating a successful invasion for Germany try to contradict the successful formulas for application of sea power throughout history. There is no substitute for Germany for success to a big 'conventional' navy. Without it they fail.