I think that the Germans could not have not declare war on Russia.
Germany was anti communist and hated Russia. Even if they had not Russia would have. And if they had not the would allways be on the brink of war. And problebly if Germany had one the war and took over Britan and the USA and other Allies, Russia would still be on Germany's "HIT LIST". But Germany would have been so spread out around the world that had Russia had attack Germany they would be anielated.

I believe you're right in that both Hitler and Stalin recognized privately that their two systems could not co-exist for long. IF 1) Hitler had not invaded Russia in 1941 and 2) had seen the useless Japanese alliance for what it was and NOT declared war on the USA in that year, the war might have been very different.Germany would have had more resources available and could have built an impregnable defense on the Atlantic wall. Invasion would have been much more difficult if not impossible. and after Pearl Harbor, there might have been pressure from the american public to "stay out of European wars" and focus exclusively on its declared enemy, Japan.

I think if Russia had been so foolish to attack Germany first, with time they would have been soundly beaten back. during Barbarossa, it took the Russians several years to learn how to fight the Germans effectively. And that was with four times the available manpower and much greater resources. On the attack, i believe they would have been beaten even worse then they were in Finland in 1940.

In the end, though, in spite of everything, the only really decisive, war-winning weapon was the atom bomb. Whoever developed that first, would win. The U.S did, and won the war.

[quote=marc780;330783]) Had America stayed out of the war, North Africa could have been different, possibly resulting in a stalemate, since their was no torch landings, meaning no Americans. Overlord, would never had been able to happen, the English forces were to few to be able to launch a successful invasion by herself, considering the amount of men and weapons, aircraft and mainly the Higgins assault boats the American deployed.

From what I understand, America never wanted to join the war against Germany, they always say it as 'Europe's war'

Possibly, but why would the man power of Russia be less this time? If anything it would be greater due to no losses be sustained by the German invasion.

The A-bomb was never deployed in the European theater, so this was not the war winning weapon there, only in the Pacific. It was tanks and men, and the fact that Germany was essentially fighting a 3 front war, that caused her to loss, not the A-bomb.

__________________

[QUOTE=Tomcat;333172]It was much more complicated thatn that. The isolationit groups, and the German sympathisers had the publicity. And the isolationists had a well developed organization in the America First. Conversely there was a large part of the population that was either pro British, sympatheic to the USSR, anti Facist, or who were concered by their loss of business revenue due to nazi economic policys in occupied Europe. These disparite groups did not and have not since recived the same degree of attention or analysis as the isolationist factions.

The fundamental problem of the isolationit stance was that its beliefs were at odds with economic reality. North America & the US had never been economically independant or self contained since early colonial times. The economic prosperity of the preDepression era folks in the US sought to return to was dependant on robust imports and exports, and on renewed investment from forigen capitol. that was not going to happen while the nazis and Japans imperialists continued to wreck Europes and Asias economys with their incompetence.

__________________
I forgot my password, can I use yours?

[quote=Carl W Schwamberger;333224]The American economy was originally bouyed by the aftermath of WW1 (roaring twenties), since we (America) were loaning money to Germany so they could pay their reparations to Britain and France, and they were in turn sending the same money back to the US government for repayment of our loans to them. A totally screwed up system in which America was paying itself with the pie shrinking as it went through each set of hands. In essence, America ended up paying Germanys reparations tab in reality.

The isolationist concept and America First party was in decline by 1940, eventhough they were still making headlines they weren't representing as many as they had been. Not too surprisingly those people on the coasts were worried about wars, those in the mid-west weren't. Guess where the highest level of isolationists lived?

I have posted this next before, but it seems apropos for this thread too. Looking at the Gallup polls from directly before Pearl Harbor, and these were polls taken from voting age Americans, male and female. They show that by 1941 the bulk of the American public were no longer strictly isolationist, but caught between stay out of the war completely in every way (isolationists), only defend America (America Firsters), or get more involved.

By this time Poland had been attacked and absorbed, the western European nations had been attacked and over run in spite of both stated neutrality and strong defenses. In Asia Japan had invaded and brutally subjecated many of the local peoples, and extended their occupation by aggression into Indo-China, even though the Japanese had been "handed their hats" by the Soviets in the Mongolian/Manchurian border clashes. Even an Imperial Prince had surrendered and been captured by the Soviets, much to the dismay of the Royal Family.

These now discredited positions had been the mainstays of the isolationist and America First proponents; staying neutral like Norway, Belgium and Denmark (didn't work), a strong defensive posture like France (didn't work), and simply responding to aggressive stances with appeasement (didn't work). So by mid to late 1941 the polls showed this:

Gallup Poll #248, Question 3 (mid-Sept 1941), 55% of Americans believed that the country was already involved in the war. As shown in Question 5K and 5T of the same poll, a little over 1/2 of all Americans believed FDR was doing the right thing with his actions (that 55%), while about another 20% believed he hadn't gone far enough. A near complete reversal of the numbers from early 1941 when only about 17% favored going to war!

Furthermore, in Question 6 of Poll #248, 60% of Americans approved of the decision to fire on German submarines. Finally, a great majority of Americans answered in Questions 11K and 11T that American democracy and German fascism could not co-exist. Now, while in that same poll the vast majority answered they did not want to declare or go to war unilateraly at the time, they approved of FDR's actions (you can also check out Gallup Poll #248, Question 13 to see that 2/3 of Americans support FDR's policies in general as well as his foreign policy specifically).

In Gallup Poll #250, Question 3K (conducted October 7th, 1941), now 66% of Americans believed the US should continue to help the UK even if it risked war in Europe. In Question 3T of that poll, the same 66% ratio of Americans now stated that it was more important to defeat Germany than to stay out of the war.

Additionally, according to Gallup Poll #254, Question 3 (conducted in late November 1941), 73.58% of Americans now believed the United States should "take steps now to keep Japan from becoming more powerful, even if this means risking a war with Japan."

Pearl Harbor obviously wasn't the only reason America went to war with gusto. It was "the straw that broke the camel's back", it was end result of an ongoing built-up of straw after straw which America as a whole finally saw the Axis as a necessary evil which had to be addressed sooner or later.

FDR proved that he was a skillful politician by not "ignoring or exaggerating" the actions of the Axis powers. FDR was only exploiting the Axis own failings, aggressions, and mistakes to rally Americans out of their "not our problem" mentality.

That is why I mentioned that not too surprisingly, the mid-west of America were the most "isolationist", while the coasts (east and west) were the least. Those not on the coasts had less personally at risk did they not?

But at any rate, the Gallup had exposed a shrinking not growing isolationist movement from mid-1941 on, and after Hitler invaded the USSR, the membership began to shrink even further as the American Communist and Socialist parties saw their "workers paradise" under attack, and even the outspoken Senators Nye (North Dakota) and Wheeler (Montana) had begun to tone down their "stay out" of the war speeches.

__________________
Happy Trails,
Clint.

I didn't see any mention of "Stalin's missed chance" so far, but I may have missed it. I read about it in wikipedia a few weeks ago. It was a good read, and thought provoking for me at least. For those in the dark, a brief Reader's digest version of the "missed chance" claimed that Stalin was planning to attack the Germans sometime in July 1941, but the Germans beat him to the punch with Operation Barbarossa. It makes a good "what if" topic anyway.

Moderator Edit:

This post was moved from a nearly five year old, undiscussed thread to this thread.

I'll jump in on this Framer ... the general scenario you advance was expressed in mid 2008 by Putin's pundits - suggesting that Stalin could have stopped WW2 if Britain and France had only given him (Stalin) permission to occupy Poland right up to the German border. This is pure opportunistic rhetoric from Russia.

Hitler and Stalin each knew exactly who the 'other' was and the hatred was so great - and the (idealogical) stakes were so great that they couldn't have kept their hands off each other. If France and Britain had (in the summer of 1939) abandoned Poland to Stalin, he would have used the advanced position to launch a pre-emptive strike on Germany. Read "Operation Icebreaker", a ex-soviet-authored account of Stalin's plans to attack Germany in the fall of 1941. While the Icebreaker book is discounted by most traditional Eastern Front experts, it's worth a serious read. It, for example, expains why so many troops and equipment were overrun by German advances - in the early days after June 21 - and why all troops had no DEFENSIVE battleplans. They were in the Ukraine (and elsewhere) ready to be used in a pre-emptive stike by the Soviets.

Even in 1939 immediately after the M-R non-aggression pact, Stalin tried to make a grab for Roumanian oil fields - to deny Hitler. The grab failed and Roumania became a member of the Axis.

So - while interesting to debate - I believe the idea of WW2 without a Soviet Eastern Front - is unrealistic. More likely whatif possible scenarios to propose (I respectfully submit) are:

(1) Hiter postpones (even longer) operation Barbarossa because of Crete and Stalin stikes first (Icebreaker) in September 1941.

(2) The Japanese and not the Russians are successful in the June-September, 1939 Kulkin Gol (sp) border incident. Therefore supporting those in the Japanese high command who wanted to go further north and east for expansion rather than turning out to the Pacific. In this case, Marshall Zhukov prevailed (getting his first opportunity to manoever massed troops, tanks and airpower). The Japanese didn't digest the meaning and lessons from their loss - they just sued for a peace that gave the soviets security on their Asian frontiers until August 1945 when Operation August Rain was unleashed on Japan.

I'd love to hear what posters have to say about both Icebreaker and Kulkin Gol and Icebreaker.

Cheers,

MM
Toronto

If the Third Reich wouldn't attacked the Soviet Union, we would attack them! Also, we would have much lesser losses.

__________________
"The fall of the Soviet Union is the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of XX century!"

Vladimir Putin

Interesting statement. Can you provide more detail? & please do not worry about bad English. Few here use good English grammar.

__________________
I forgot my password, can I use yours?

Yes. Please do enlighten us. When would this happen and why?

__________________


For the first time I have seen "History" at close quarters,and I know that its actual process is very different from what is presented to Posterity. - WWI General Max Hoffman.

Stalin wanted to attack Third Reich. There is video about it in youtube's channel RussiaToday, but I don't remember the name of it. Well, they said that Stalin attacked Poland, because he wanted to attacked Nazi Germany after that, but Gitler passed him and attacked the USSR first.

__________________
"The fall of the Soviet Union is the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of XX century!"

Vladimir Putin

It's amazing how many people believe that anything appearing on YouTube must be the veritable truth.

LOL YouTube??? Thats even worse then Wiki. I agree with you DA. One video does not make it a fact.

__________________


For the first time I have seen "History" at close quarters,and I know that its actual process is very different from what is presented to Posterity. - WWI General Max Hoffman.

I will show you another sources.
Youtube's video (not the video, about which I talked):
YouTube - Stalin wanted to stop Hitler in 1939 - report
Wanna other sources? Okay.
éÎÏóíé.Ru | óÔÁÌÉÎ ÈÏÔÅÌ ÎÁÐÁÓÔØ ÐÅÒ×ÙÍ ×Ï ÷ÔÏÒÏÊ ÍÉÒÏ×ÏÊ ×ÏÊÎÅ

Do you know that two weeks prior to beginning of Second world war, Stalin said to british and french delegation in Moscow, that he will attack Nazi Germany with his million's army, if this will be the best choice to convince France and Britain to be against Germany? But they didn't listened it. After two weeks the world war 2 has began.
But it wasn't the last case when he wanted to attack nazists with the help of allies. After the Poland invasion fascists offered a pact that USSR and Germany will be not attack each other for 10 years. Stalin said "yes" to this pact and he made it specially. He wanted to attack them with the help of Western allies, but as usually they didn't listened. They wanted to be neutral. Later, Stalin began to make a plan to attack fasicsts without West, but Gitler passed him.

__________________
"The fall of the Soviet Union is the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of XX century!"

Vladimir Putin

That more or less covers the discussions between the British, French, and Soviet Union in 1939. Why that failed depends on which version read.

On the Soviet side there was a lack of confidence in the ability of the western Allies. France's war plan was for a build up of two or more years befire undertaking serious offensive operations. The French thought it necessary to requip with modern weapons first and train their 'A' & 'B' echelon reservists. The British could not even deploy a combat ready corps to the continent. All that left the Soviet leaders feeling like they would be fighting alone.

The British government was dominated by anti communists and does not seem to have taken the discussions seriously. The French were either very willing or unwilling depending on whos version you read. The Poles feared the USSR as much as Germany and wanted nothing to do with such an alliance.

In all a mistake by all.

__________________
I forgot my password, can I use yours?

If Germany doesn't declare war on Russia they (Germany and Russia) win the war.

__________________
"This is the day which the lord hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it." Psalms 118:24

Regards, Christian/SMLE shooter.

However Edvard Radzinsky noted that a document about the Soviet surprise attack on Nazi Germany was actually found and preserved in the Military-Memorial Center of the Soviet General Staff. That was a draft drawn up by Georgy Zhukov, dated May 15, 1941, and signed by Aleksandr Vasilevsky and Nikolai Vatutin. The plan of preemptive attack on Germany stated:

"In view of the fact that Germany at present keeps its army fully mobilized with its rear services deployed, it has the capacity of deploying ahead of us and striking a sudden blow. To prevent this I consider it important not to leave the operational initiative to the German command in any circumstances, but to anticipate the enemy and attack the German army at the moment when it is in the process of deploying and before it has time to organize its front and the coordination of its various arms".

The plan drafted by the Soviet command included a secret mobilization of the Soviet forces at the Western frontier. The objective of the offensive operation was to cut Germany off its allies, and especially Romania with its oil required for Germany to conduct the war. The document about attack on Germany and Romania was also mentioned by Dmitri Volkogonov who however did not consider it as a final proof of the Soviet intentions.

One of views was expressed by Mikhail Meltyukhov in his study Stalin's Missed Chance.[22] The author states that the idea for striking Germany arose long before May 1941, and was the very basis of Soviet military planning from 1940 to 1941. Providing additional support for this thesis is that no significant defense plans have been found. In his argument, Meltyukhov covers five different versions of the assault plan (“Considerations on the Strategical Deployment of Soviet Troops in Case of War with Germany and its Allies” (Russian original)), the first version of which was developed soon after the outbreak of World War II. The last version was to be completed by May 1, 1941.[24] Even the deployment of troops was chosen in the South, which would have been more beneficial in case of a Soviet assault.

In Stalin's War of Extermination, Joachim Hoffmann makes extensive use of interrogations of Soviet prisoners of war, ranging in rank from general to private, conducted by their German captors during the war. The book is also based on open-source, unclassified literature and recently declassified materials. Based on this material, Hoffmann argues that the Soviet Union was making final preparations for its own attack when the Wehrmacht struck. He also remarks that Zhukov's plan of May 15, 1941 has long been known and analyzed. Colonel Valeri Danilov and Dr. Heinz Magenheimer examined this plan and other documents which might indicate Soviet preparations for an attack almost ten years ago in an Austrian military journal (Österreichische Militärische Zeitschrift, nos. 5 and 6, 1991; no. 1, 1993; and no. 1, 1994). Both researchers concluded that Zhukov's plan of May 15, 1941, reflected Stalin's May 5, 1941 speech heralding the birth of the new offensive Red Army.

In 2006, a collection of articles (entitled The Truth of Viktor Suvorov) by various historians who share some views with Suvorov was published.[26] It was followed by two more books, called The Truth of Viktor Suvorov 2 and 3
Several politicians have also made claims similar to Suvorov's. On August 20, 2004, historian and former Prime Minister of Estonia Mart Laar published an article in The Wall Street Journal titled When Will Russia Say 'Sorry'?. In this article he said: "The new evidence shows that by encouraging Hitler to start World War II, Stalin hoped to simultaneously ignite a world-wide revolution and conquer all of Europe". Another former statesman to share his views of a purported Soviet aggression plan is Mauno Koivisto, who wrote: "It seems to be clear the Soviet Union was not ready for defense in the summer of 1941, but it was rather preparing for an assault....The forces mobilized in the Soviet Union were not positioned for defensive, but for offensive aims." Koivisto concludes: "Hitler's invasion forces didn't outnumber [the Soviets], but were rather outnumbered themselves. The Soviets were unable to organize defenses. The troops were provided with maps that covered territories outside the Soviet Union."[

From my own extensive readings on the subject.
The Soviet military suggested several times to Stalin they would not be at full strength until 1943.
However it was best as Stalin did to prepare a large invasion force to exploit and opportune moment if Hitler is engaged elsewhere.

Care to provide a source?

Surely your not talking about "Icebreaker" written by Vladimir Bogdanovich Rezun, AKA Victor Suvorov are you???

Every major historian from, Gabriel Gorodetsky (Israel) to Dmitri Volkogonov (Russia) to David Glantz (U.S.) have all discredited Rezun and on numerous occasions have pointed out that Rezun's entire thesis is based on circumstantial evidence. In fact his books are so widely referred to as "fiction" and NOT "fact" while at the same time labeling him as a failed historian; that for anyone to use his books or name when discussing historical fact, has become a sign of ignorance.

You might want to check this out.

The Failed Historian - THE RUSSIAN BATTLEFIELD

While his books are an easy read and might point out some interesting info or insight, they are far from the truth. If this is your source of information, then I am afraid that no one (who is educated) will take you seriously here.

All the best.

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

Well, the question is very complex. One discussion could go in debating over invasion of England during 1941/1942. The other could go in debating whether Wehrmacht could survive onslught in 1944. These debates presume no A-bomb occured.

Regarding the first one, I think that with direct or indirect control of most sea countries in Europe, Kriegsmarine would eventually built up capacities to invade England and counter any action by Royal Navy. Let us not also forget that RAF was on brink of collapse in September 1940 (or so) and that Luftwaffe was damaged but not badly.

Presuming that Luftwaffe is on parity with RAF and that Kriegsmarine managed to unload best German armies (6th Army) and Divisions (Waffen SS, Grosdeutschland and Lehr ) there would be quite some panic going on on this tiny island (compared to vast expansions of Russia on -40 degrees celsius...). Further more, BEF took huge beating in France during 1940 and Royal Army was really in no shape to match Wehrmacht's tactical excellence. If Germany managed to unload 1 million men London would be captured and game would be over- that's for sure, at least for that part of story.

Now, onto the second debate, due to never ending conflicts and frostbites Wehrmacht lost better part of it's 150+ divisions that initially invaded Russia and that were of far better quality than those in 1944. Not only of better quality but numerically stronger than those in 1944 (9 batallions in 1941 opposed to 7 bataliions in 1944, 240 tanks in 1940 opposed to 100 tanks in 1944 etc...). And if we look at one principal force that stopped the Allies at Caen for almost 7 weeks that was 12th SS Hitler Jugend and Panzer Lehr. 2 bloody DIVISIONS !!! Others did not prove their worth at Normandy beachhead although there were 50+ divions in France altogether (oldtimers forcefully drafted, divions formed from sailors or lulftwaffe personel etc...).

Of course, Liebstandarte and Das Reich were also deployed but were at that point in time mere shadow of their former self. Mentioned 2 divisions principally stopped English and Canadian Armies for 7 weeks around Caen despite continuous air raids and it's consequences. Others were lost at Fallaise due to poor comand of uncle Adolf. On western front there were some 1 million German soldiers - of quite poor quality if I may say. That were ground forces. As regards to air forces Allies attacked with 10.000-12.000 aircraft. Germany deployeed 1000 (some in need of repair and desperately lacking fuel which was principal problem Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe faced at the time).

In 1944 Germany managed to built 20.000 aircraft staggering feat by the likes of Albert Speer but most of them were wasted on Eastern front. Think how many would have been built in period 1940-1944 ? The invasion would not be executed during 1944 in the first place because Allies, at worst, would certainly have much harfer time in Africa and Italy but probably MUCH later or even more probably never because they, in my opinion, would be beaten in Africa - but that's another discussion.

So, the situtation is now completely different in 1944, Allies still have green divisions as they come while Germans are veterans in experience and leadership and unscaved in Russia that is and there are 3.5 million of them as opposed to 1 million as history knew them. Another plus would be that parity or supremacy in air is achieved. Luftwaffe could easilly deploye 20.000-30.000 thousand fully fueled planes in air, and for example 6th Army with it's 20 best divisions the world has seen (only 6th Army without the likes of Liebstandarte, GrosDeutschland, Totenkopf or Das Reich which each could easilly beat 2-3 Allied divisions) and it's game over for Allies. With Rommel, Guderian, Von Kleist, Von Rumsted, Manstein and even Richenauer (T34s gave him heartattack in 1942) at helm, parity in air and on a ground, the invaders would be swimming without a shadow of a doubt.

Well, Hitler attacked Russia because he couldn't break through Egypt at the time. He wanted to get to Russia, and then he wanted Rommel to run north from the Suez Canal to meet up at Moscow and crush Russia. If so, Germany would've been one of the biggest empires ever seen. With that amount of land and industrialized power, he could've easily crushed Britain, and later take out the US with japan, and make even destroy Japan itself.

The invasion of Russia had nothing to do with Egypt. Hitler never wanted Egypt. Mussolini did and when he failed, Hitler reinforced him with Rommel. Rommel suffered his first loss in July 1942, by this time Germany and Russia had already been at war for a year.

Can you please explain as to how Rommel would have reached Russia let alone Moscow from Egypt?

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

What nobody wants to comment my post ?

I misquoted number of German aircraft deployed in the west. It was 400, not 1000. It makes no difference to discussion though.

Nope, you are full of obvious mistakes. Why bother commenting?

__________________
Happy Trails,
Clint.

I'll have to ride with Clint on this one.

Here's one example (of many):

Twenty thousand may seem like a good number, but according to John Ellis in Brute Force, Viking Press, 1990, the Germans produced 33,804 combat aircraft in 1944. Sounds like a good number? In the same time period, the Allies, Western and Eastern, produced 125,718. These numbers are further represented in front line strengths for the Germans of 5,041 in Dec 1944 vs 42,787 for the Allies. For those of you keeping score at home, that is greater than 8:1 Allied numerical superiority.

Explain how the Luftwaffe will be able to produce and maintain these 20-30,000 aircraft.

Map out how the Royal Navy is to be defeated by the Kriegsmarine and how the KM is going to land and support forces on Great Britain? Wait, no don't do that, it has been beat to death in multiple threads already.

There is no Royal Army in the United Kingdom. I beleive the term you are looking for is British Army.

Cite sources.

__________________
Best Regards,
JW