What if........Hitler never invaded the Soviet Union?

Hmmmm, after the lost of the Battle of Britain and cancellation of both Sea Lion and Barbarossa, if I had been Hitler I would have went ahead with the invasion of both Yugoslavia and Greece, but then I would have the greatest army on earth with no place really to go.
1. The first thing to do would be to continue to put pressure on Great Britain. After the sinking of the Bismarck I would give up on challenging the British surface navy and focus production on submarines, which at this point in the war are still being productive. I would task the Luftwaffe with creation of longer range fighter aircraft as well a heavy bomber that was better armed (50 cal type machines guns vs 8mm machine guns). It wouldn’t necessarily need more range just a bigger bomb load and better self defense. These new weapons would help even the odds in a Battle of Britain Part II.
2. North Africa would be the most logical place to go next by taking Egypt and the Suez more pressure would be put on Britain to come to the peace table. However, with the lost of the Italian Navy at the battles of Taranto and Cape Matapan it is questionable whether a large enough force can be moved and supplied there for a successful campaign.
3. The Soviet Union remains the biggest threat. At this point war is coming it’s just a matter of when and who starts it. As mentioned in above post, Germany is receiving much needed supplies from the USSR but the USSR will only get stronger the longer Germany goes without attacking. Therefore I would keep a strong mobile defense in Poland ready to counter attack any Russian attack. Also, I would begin a public relations campaign on the evils of communism and the right of Ukrainian independence (I know this would be hypocritical coming from Nazis). Politic and military ties with the Finns would also need to be strengthened. The unanswered question is when war does come will the Russian army be a disorganized unmotivated army fighting for something they don’t really believe in or an organized motherland loving killing machine?
4. Oh and no matter what happens don’t declare war on the USA!

 

whoaglan, First off welcome to the forum.

Germany did try to keep pressure on Britain with an expanded U-boat fleet and the Blitz. The problem for the reich is that they could not build and deploy enough subs to overcome the Anglo-American shipyard's and ASW technology. The best the U-boats could do was slow England's build up, not stop it or starve Britain out.

Strategic bombers would be nice, but costly. It takes time to design and produce such aircraft, and Germany could only build so many engines and airframes. To saturate England the Luftwaffe would need more than 1,000 of them with trained crew. A very expensive proposition indeed. It would have done Germany better to build 1st class intercepters to counter bomber attacks on the Reich, considering the resources available.

Your second point is often refered to as the 'Southern Option'. Try inputing that into the forum search engine you can find some interesting debates on the subject.

There are some who believe that the USSR was simply waiting for the best time to strike at Hiter. I am not sure that Stalin would ever pre-emptively attack Germany unless it was clear that it was in imminent collapse. The Red Army was not ready for battle in 1941 and would need time to become an offensive force. Even then they might never be ready as the Russian army in modern history has not been very effective against a determined opponent as a peacetime force. Many of the same shortfalls seen in 1941 existed in the 60' and 70's, and even today. Without the catalyst of a desparete fight for survival I am not convinced that the Red Army would be up too par with the battle tested Whermacht in a Aggressive war.

Britain could never return to the continent without US help, so yes putting off war with the USA is in Germany's best interest.

 

I have read a book. i can give you citation if you like but it said that Hitler met with Molotov in 1940 and was actually trying to negotiate with the USSR. He wanted to discuss splitting British territory with the USSR. Molotov however, refused and asked for Germany to adhere to the Nazi soviet pact, allow the annexation of Finland and access to the Baltic (a very sensitive issue for Germany as it was the only waters they could roam), and to guarantee Bulgarian independence. The book says that at this point Hitler decided that no negotiation was futher possible with russia and ordered OKH and OKW to devise a plan. This plan was rejected, and so was a second version made by brauchtish, and finally hitler accepted his own version. By december 17 1940 he issued Fuhrer directive 21 which was the objectives of barbarossa. His biggest mistake.

 

If Hitler would have continued to negotiate with russia I actually think they might not have gone to war for a long time say 1950. Simply because they had other issues to face and only after these were solved would they conflict again. Britain would of fell to the Germans unless the US entered the war in time to avert it. Germany had several options. Take africa and the middle east would of been the most logical. People say that sea lion was impossible but i dis agree. Germany had only a few U-boats operational but thats because most were being re-fitted for long range operations. long range is not needed for crossing the channel. The british mined the dover straight which prevents the Home Fleet at scapa flow to sail directly to the channel and the fleet has to stay at scapa flow to guard against a force possibly coming from norway. The German Air Force might not have had the range to bomb london but it had the range to compete over the channel and britain did not have alot of operational fighters at this time. Paratroopers and stukas could effectively weaken defenses (and the Bismark was still afloat around this time to offer support) If the German secured a beach head it was over for britain. but thats my opinion.

 

But, without Barbarossa, the WWII would have been pointless: now we have EU on one side of the Channel and UK on the other side without spending a drop of precious human blood. However, UK is now in much better position: Germany must instead bother with problems of Greece, Portugal, Italy, ...

 

Tamino your post makes no sense what so ever. Greece was not a problem for Germany clearly as they were dealt with easily. Italy was fighting with Germany. and portugal? what? EU what? No if russia never defeated Germany then there is no cold war. Barbarossa was not the cause of the cold war. Barbarossa was nothing more than the second of a series of mistakes germany would make to lead to its own demise.

 

Obviously I wasn't clear enough: What I wanted to say is that the conquest of Europe without occupation of Russia would lead into something like the present European Union. And now, in the present EU, Germany bothers solving financial problems of some less developed member countries. I was talking about the present time in Europe.

 

Without the USA invasion (or better, libertion) you would have continued to enjoy a totally corrupt government, not only because of the obssesion to exterminate "inferior races" but also for business as the theft of the Heinkel ... and many other similar... Also have had those annoying RAF bombing... the blockade ...And the unpayable debt of the Reich.

Two things more:

The debt of more developed countries of North implies a higher percentage of the respective GDP than the PI(G)S. Grece is out of case.

I honestly do not understand that much money has been loan to perpetual adolescents, our populist politicians ... I would suggest to get fired the staff of your banks: They have given your money to a bunch of bastards, have got huge fees for doing so, and now you see your savings in jeopardy. I am not aware that anyone has returned their fees.

 

A scenario where Germany remained in control of Western and Central Europe, the Soviet Union Eastern Europe and the US-British Commonwealth looking in from the outside would likely lead to a three player version of the Cold war in the 1950's-1980's era. The two player version was scary enough thank you very much! Actually considering that both the the Nazi and Soviet economy were over-geared forwar and there for unbalanced, would make it more likely one or the other would look at their declining fortunes and decide it was better to use it before the lost it.

 

You're quite right, without the intervention of the USA; Europe was doomed, no matter who would have won the war. At the Continent two ideologies without a clear view on economy have been opposed. To make things worse, effects of the WWII on economy of Europe were of catastrophic proportions.

What I wanted to say is that if Nazis wanted just more power over the Continent they could have attained that goal with purely peaceful political methods. However, Adolf wanted much more and for him the war was the only option.

For the present Western Europe, EU is an optimal outcome of historic tensions at the Continent while less developed European countries will have to obey dictates in the future from Bruxelles … or perhaps … from Berlin?

 

Our Italian and Greek friends will appreciate being called "less developped" .Also Germany is not the only bail out payer. Every EU citizen is and will pay for those who have trouble.

 

That's the scenario Orwell depicted in his "1984" novel.

 

More precisely, I was talking about the new EU nations who are indeed less developed compared to the West. Yet, there is no doubt about that you will agree: Italy and Greece both have financial problems as well as political crisis too. Developed or not.

 

I have read that the Allies were willing to forgive the debt of war against Germany, in fact I think it had suspended payment in 1931 ... after the crash of 29 and deflation is possible that the U.S. had accepted a remission of debt or a waiver of interest (among other reasons because Germany was not going to be able to pay). If Germany had continued its policy of approchement with the Soviet Union may have achieved a reasonable trade deal with Stalin ... public spending on guns could have gone to butter etc. .. Hitler, born as a symptom of the German crisis became more serious illness ... Meanwhile the USSR built 20,000 tanks ...More trouble in the future... When would have been possible some kind of Franco-German agreement .. like now?

Out of topic:

Whenever half of my countrymen, here in the South, seem to believe that government spending is for free ... I guess I would have liked Berlin and Paris have started to rule as now, seven years ago.

 

I usually use the term "less developped" for Somalia or Bhutan, not modern EU countries.

 

You're right Skipper, I should have known that better. That was entirely my fault. Please accept my sincere apologies for such inconvenient use of words. In future I will do my the best to express myself more correctly, to avoid possible confusion.

Once again, thank you very much for this important correction.

 

No apologies needed Tamino, it's just that if I were Greek, Italian , I wouldn't like to be called that way . I would have reacted just the same if you had said that about Germany, Russia, France or the UK etc...

 

Indeed, for obvious reasons we are discussing here subjects which may affect some peoples' feelings. Sometimes it is difficult to tell the truth without affecting peoples' emotions; the truth may hurt. Now, the question that arises is: how far can we go with the truth without hurting someone’s personal emotions? I admit, I have made quite few strong statements here, but that was because I considered the truth more important than to quietly let things go by without mentioning the essentials. In these cases I have attempted to use more neutral words as: Axis, Nazis, Soviets etc. On many occasions we have to »swallow« the bitter truth when the truth itself does matter.

I do apologize if my opinions have hurt anyone’s' feelings; my aim wasn't to hurt anyone; I just considered that telling the truth was more important.

And finally: Are we mature enough to accept difficulties associated with the truth, however it hurts?

 

Where does he say that? I've never heard of Hitler saying that. However, I remember he said something like "If I can't capture the ___ oil fields in Russia, then I must end this conflict." (or something similar to this effect).

I agree that Stalin would've invaded Germany and the rest of Western Europe - it was only a matter of time. Wasn't Hitler's decision to launch Barbarossa supported by the SU's terrible performance in Finland? He thought that the Red Army was still weak as a result of Stalin's purges, and Germany may never again have such a good chance of conquering Russia as it did in 1941. H-man didn't want to allow S-man the time he needed to rebuild the Red Army, and so a preemptive strike was launched to neutralize the threat from the East.

 

Not only Hitler thought that. Churchill himself said " Finland has shown the world the incapacity of the Red Army". Facts were that the Russian winter was even mightier. Hitler should have read the ordeal of Napoleon's army who despite capturing Moscow had to retreat because of the winter.