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

Nazi Germany wuolde have wone ww2! There wuolde be no seconde front fore thee Germans!
Thee second front doomed nazi germany.

 

there is much evidence that the ussr were 10 days away from launching their own invasion of germany when barbarossa beat them to it

 

If you are thinking of that discredited book Icebreaker I would say the bulk of the real evidence actually shows the opposite. Stalin was certain that Hitler wasn't such a "fool" as to open a second front without making peace or defeating the British before attacking the Soviet. Stalin was almost in denial when the reports started coming in, so he was far from launching his own invasion, he was in fact doing the opposite.

While there are some neo-Nazi sites (ihr.org for example) which dearly love Icebreaker by Suvorov, the bulk of the more academic historians reject it, and its supposition. The neo-Nazis embrace the idea since it makes Hitler appear to be "only defending Germany from the god-less Communist hoards"! These next statements aren’t all my own, I read them elsewhere; that said it (Icebreaker) flies in the fact of numerous truths, i.e.:

Marxist Theory:

In traditional Marxist theory, militarism is normally seen as a form of social control and a component of imperialism, delaying the emergence of a class-conscious international working class or proletariat. The activities of the Communist International in the period preceding the First World War show clearly that Communist parties and the political Left in general were opponents of militarism. Once the first communist regime took political power in the Russian Revolution and survived the Russian Civil War, a major line of debate in the USSR during the 1920s was how the world's first socialist state should relate to other nations.

The view of Trotsky was that a communist revolution could succeed only by continuous revolutionary activity in other nation-states. The notion of socialism surviving in a single nation-state was considered ridiculous and self-contradictory. The remaining capitalist powers would swiftly move to crush the USSR (the experience of western intervention on behalf of the Whites in the civil war was not forgotten). Since the bourgeois nations would be more powerful, they would probably succeed in destroying socialism. However, if the working classes of these countries could understand that a war of conquest in support of capitalism was not in their class interests, they would not support such a war and socialism would survive through the process of revolution abroad.

Stalin, on the other hand, argued that 'socialism in one country' was feasible if properly managed. His subsequent program of militarizing the whole Soviet economy was simultaneously a means of maintaining his totalitarian power and ensuring the survival of the Soviet state without regard to the internal politics of other nations.

It is important to note that Stalin's approach flew in the face of most Marxist thought up till that point, but that neither the Trotskyist view nor the Stalinist view can be reconciled with Suvorov's thesis. Neither approach envisioned the use of conventional armed forces to wage an aggressive "first strike" war.

Soviet Diplomacy Under Stalin:

Under Stalin, Soviet foreign policy in the late 1920s through at least 1939 was essentially defensive and very cautious. The USSR sought alliances with western powers, in particular seeking to re-establish the traditional anti-German alliance with France. For a multitude of reasons, these efforts failed. One of the main reasons was that the USSR was considered a pariah state prior to June 22, 1941, and the other European powers were reluctant to enter into any serious negotiation with the Stalin regime. Also, one effect of the Great Purge was that western militaries came to regard the Red Army as a worthless ally. They were thus not eager to reinstate the traditional east-west coalition against Germany.

Prior to the rise of the Nazis, joint military training facilities existed in the USSR, in which German and Soviet soldiers developed nascent versions of the tactics and weapons that would come to prominence in the Second World War. However, these joint endevors occurred during a period when Germany was weak, under the Weimar Republic, and were shut down once the Nazis came to power.

The Soviet view was that as efforts to 'surround' Hitler failed, and as the western powers seemed to allow Nazi expansion in Central Europe (as long as it was not aimed westward), some accommodation had to be reached with Germany in order to buy time. Stalin knew the USSR was not ready to fight Germany, but the massive rearmament and reorganization programs begun in 1939 might begin to bear fruit by 1942. The goal of the Nazi-Soviet nonagression pact was primarily to buy time and space which the USSR could use to prepare for the German invasion they feared was inevitable. The rights of the populations of Central Europe were trampled as a result. This was not, of course, fundamentally different from the Franco-British approach up until Munich.

There is thus nothing in the basically opportunistic diplomatic record to support Suvorov's thesis, and much to contradict it.

The Historical Record:

Suvorov's view that a Soviet invasion of Germany was imminent in 1941 is not shared by the majority of the historian community.

A noteworthy refutation of his thesis is contained in COL David Glantz's work Stumbling Colossus: The Red Army on the Eve of World War. Glantz views Suvorov's argument as "incredible" on a variety of fronts: 1. Suvorov rejects without examination classified ex-Soviet archival material, and makes highly selective picks from memoirs. There are thus basic methodological problems. 2. Suvorov's thesis is strongly contradicted both by ex-Soviet and German archival material. The facts simply do not bear out any argument that the Red Army was prepared to invade Germany; on the contrary, the appalling lack of readiness, poor training level, and abysmal state of deployments show that the Red Army was unprepared for static defense, much less large-scale offensive operations. A proof for unpreparedness is naturally the combat experience of Red Army throughout 1941. Glantz's conclusion is that "Stalin may well have been an unscrupulous tyrant, but he was not a lunatic".

On the other hand, one may point at certain certain methodological problems concerning Glantz' study, too: it depicted only Red Army's lack of readiness, not comparing it to its enemy's. One can hardly say Germany was ready for war in 1939 (the conscription was re-established 1935 and real tank production began only after the seizure of Czech Skoda factories), but it didn't prevent Hitler from unleashing major military conflict.

Although Suvorov claims that an attack date of July 8, 1941 had been selected, this is contradicted by the overwhelming mass of evidence. There were no stockpiles of the fuel, ammunition, and other stores held in forward areas as would have been needed if an invasion was about to be mounted. Major ground units were dispersed into small garrisons rather than being concentrated at railheads, as they would have been had they been preparing an invasion. Units were not co-located with their own transportation assets, leaving, for example, major artillery units immobile. Air Force aircraft were parked in neat, tightly-packed rows along their airfields rather than dispersed. Over 50% of all Soviet tanks required major maintenance on June 22, 1941. If an invasion were being planned, these maintenance tasks would have been completed. Most Soviet armor units were in the process of re-organizing into new Tank Corps; the German invasion caught these units in the midst of this reorganization. Such a large-scale reorganization is inconsistent with an impending invasion.

And in order to get a better idea of who this fellow is, remember that is his nom d’plume. Victor Suvorov’s real name is Vladimir Rezun. If you look up Rezun, you will find out who we are dealing with here.

 

Hmm, If Hitler never invaded Russia, I guess NA would have been given more help, Say a proper complete battle force, 3 Pnz Div's, aswel as some motorized/cavalry/infantry divisions, Oh And a 100+ Fighters, NA would have been over in less then 6 months, A year by the time they have the NA, Middle East, Malta, Gibralter, Red Sea under there control, Oh and the West wall that received so little attention would have been very formidable, Persia (Now Iran) Who had close ties with Germany and supported them for a very short time, Would Allie with the Axis, And a posibility or Turkey as well (Dont hold me to it, Just a theory). Italian East Africa may have been re-taken, With possiblities of various battles takeing alce throught out Africa in British colonies. I think the German generals would talk Hitler into building defences in the east for protection against Russia, Other then that i see D-Day not so much happening in 1944, and NA would be completely secured aslong as the Axis hold just 2 Points, Seuz canal and Gibralter, And they could muster more then a 2 million young fit well trained well equipt men to defend against D-Day. And Russia invading Germany in 1942-43.. Possibly, But i delt it will achieve much, There massive numbers proved futile early on in the war, Poor equiptment and poor training, And they will just open up attacks from there flanks via Caucasus's.


Oh and as for SeaLion.. A German invasion force Getting there would be a problem, But once landed if they Got AA units down soon enought, Then i dont see it being to hard, As the British had only 1 Operational division after Dunkirk, They might have saved alot of soilders, ut with out trucks, Jeeps, Motorcycles, Tanks, Artillary, ammo, guns etc, They no good. Matter of fact, Forget who it was, A couple German generals while Dunkirk and France was steal fighing, To airlift in 2 divisions to Britain, Securing a beach head, How ever Hitler turned it down becouse he hoped that Britian would surrender, Really bad mistake by him, Could Have Had The North, West, and South secure of any major threats, Only have Russians in the East.
In short, It could have had us all driving VW's now

 

I think it is really hard to say what would happen if Germany never invaded the Soviet Union.

Clearly they would easily have the manpower and supplies to defeat the British in North Africa. But after that it is really hard to say what Germany would have done. Would they have tried to conquer all of Africa? They probably would have advanced into the middle east and seized Iraq, Iran, Syria etc. etc.

It would have taken a long time for Germany to establish the sea power it needed to invade Britain but it is possible that they could have forced Britain out of the war by conquering so many of its colonies and bombarding it so much, but it is hard to speculate.

It is very unlikely that Operation Overlord would have ever happened for a few reasons: First, Overlord partly came about because of the urgings of Stalin for the Americans and British to open up another front. Secondly, it is possible that the Allies wouldn't have tried to invade Europe without the other fronts being fought, thinking that they would just not be able to overpower Germany.

Also, if America was not tied up fighting the Germans they would have most likely eliminated Japan much faster.

 

There is no, nor has there ever been any evidence which shows Stalin's intention for an attack on Germany and certainly not 10 days before Barbarossa, this is the reason why not a single legitimate historian agrees with such a claim. In fact, making such a statement or claim and using "Suvorov's" Icebreaker as a source, has become a sign of ignorance.

 

This is certainly true.
It's my understanding that Stalin was actually appeasing Hitler at the time in order to buy as much time as possible to build up his military machine to withstand an invasion from Germany. At the time of the German invasion, he was absolutely unprepared which is why Germany advanced so quickly and Stalin was paralyzed with panic.

Bob Guercio

 

Ditto!

What a great way to start of in this forum!

Welcome!

 

The War was already in full swing when Barbarossa started. The Germans had already spread across Western Europe by this time.

 

The success's of Germanys Invasion should be proof enough that Russia was NOT 10 days away from an Invasion of Germany.

Where were the "front line" Invasion divisions? The resistance that the Germans did meet hardly had enough ammo and rifles to fight. Stalin was completely and shockingly caught off guard.

The Russians may of have had an operational plan or an "In Case" scenario for Invasion. However they were far from ready to launch an Invasion across Europe, and attack the Third Reich. Pre Barbarossa strength of the Wehrmacht and Waffen SS were Massive. The German Army in 1939 was the best trained and equipped in the world. The world knew it and so did Stalin.

 

Except much of the German problems in NA were logistics related. Rommel couldn't get enough supplies across the Med to supply the force he had. Now you are talking about a much larger force going much further (so the consumption of the log units themselves becomes problematic). And if they do take Egypt now they have to defend or attack on 3 fronts in North Africa.\

"not bloody likely" again they just don't have the log structure. Indeed the one in the Mid East and NA makes the one in the Soviet Union look well developed.

I'll agree with that.
[/quote]


Oh and as for SeaLion.. A German invasion force Getting there would be a problem, But once landed if they Got AA units down soon enought,
[/quote]
AA units aren't going to do much to the RN. And how are you going to get them and their massive quantities of required ammo across?

Niether correct nor relevant. They rebuilt and reequipped very rapidly.

With what? And how are you going to support them?

 

here's how it would have happened, in my head:
June 6, 1941: Germans take Paris (this is just a starting point)
June 6, 1942: V-E day, the wrong way. Sealion has taken Britain, and only the Ruskies and a handful of Allied forces in North Africa stand in their way.
Meanwhile, in the Pacific...
Entire War: Japan wins. Without British support (since they were taken), islands fall like dominoes, and pearl harbor is not necessary (The assets siezed were recovered by the Germans as they took over Britain.).
After the Pacific theatre ends...
Germany steamrolls over Moscow like, well, a steamroller. Japan catches the factories that the Soviets moved east to protect them by surprise. Needless to say, the entire world (almost) is in Axis hands. Only the U. S. stands in their way.
Sometime later...
While Japan is still on their blitz in the west, the Germans go British and storm up the Chesapeake, taking heavy losses. Eventually they reach the American capital, but are so beat up they don't have the manpowere or ammunition to capture or even burn it. Eventually the invaders are pushed back. Next, the Germans face a horror unseen. Truman drops the bomb on Tokyo AND Berlin. And if that isn't enough, they pretty much destroy pretty much everything important under an atomic hail. War ends, everything is happy again.

 

Your location sums up your post quite well.

 

Me reading your post......anic: :headbash:

 

alright... Sealion would have failed. After looking at it over and over, The Kriegmarines simply didn't have the naval muscle to overwhelm the Royal Navy, and the RAF, would have made crossing the Channel nearly impossible. I think personally had Hitler not launched Barbarossa, Stalin simply would have invaded Germany, with far superior numbers. It was common knowledge that they wanted each other dead, it just so happened, Hitler threw the first punch, with him being cocky from his effortless victory in France and Poland. Had Stalin decided to be happy instead of going to war with Hitler, we would have a Soviet Union, a United States, and a Nai Germany, and Japan that would have comprised the Cold War

 

Hitler was willing to give Donitz more U-boats but it takes time to build them and to train the crew ;I think the importance of Ultra is exaggerated ;a total U-boatwar :FDR waited for it to convince Congress to declare war.

 

Barbarossa was the only option Hitler had to win:in WWI germany was defeated by 4 opponents(3 if you count the withdrawal of Russia) in 1940 UK was alone but said no peace. Why ?because they expected help from USA and USSR ;Hitler would not win against those three but they had to be three:without the USA UK and USSR could not win,idem without UK or without USSR .Thus if Hitler eliminated one of the three,he won. Which one? He could not eliminate the UK nor the USA thus the USSR before it was ready.

 

You are forgetting that the Kaiser's Germany, and the Central Powers had 6 opponents in WW1, Great Britain, France, Russia, Italy, Japan and eventually the US. When the Russians withdrew that still left 5, because the US came in when the Russians left.

Hitler saw and derided the military for getting into a two front war, and that was one of the reasons Stalin was so disbeliving when Barbarossa was launched. He couldn't imagine that Hitler was such a fool as to open a second front before he had come to terms in the west, either by defeating Britain, or forcing it into a truce of some sort. If Hitler didn't strike east, Stalin MAY have attacked at a later date, but that seems less than a "sure bet".

A popular position taken by some is that Hitler struck a "pre-emptive blow", and that Stalin was planning on invading him, all documentation from the former Soviet Union seems to show this to be incorrect.

 

Japan profited from the war in Europe to fortify her position in China ;Italy was a burden for the allies(and in WW II for Hitler) ;Hitler had to open a second front;he had no alternative:he could not eliminate Britain and they would not negotiate ;yes Stalin May have attacked but that was not the reason for Barbarossa ,if Hitler eliminated the USSR he won :without a Russian front ,no Overlord because the bulk of the german army beying in France. The USSR beying "the continental sword "of the UK ",the Russians had to become allies or they had to be eliminated (=Hitler's point of view and it is not a foolish one .Concerning the"pre-emptive blow" you are rightnly speculation without proof. ................If the US remained neutral and-or-the UK made peace,then there was no NEED for Hitler for Barbarossa in 1941 ,maybe-probably-Barbarossa would follow later but at a time CHOSEN by Hitler . Last point:after the Republican convention the next president of the US would be an enemy,Willkie or Roosevelt ,Hitler could not eliminate the USA and lastly in 1942 there would be a war with the USA,thus:Barbarossa ,the Wehrmacht beying ready or not-it was not.

 

Your logic is a little off. Before Barbarossa was launched Hitler was only at war with the UK (only out of the big three you mentioned). Neither the US or the USSR were openly waging war against Germany, and the USSR had signed a non-aggression pact with Germany. Therefore, Hitler certainly wasn't thinking he needed to eliminate one of the three. As was already mentioned, it is unlikely the USSR would have attacked Germany, and if it did it wouldn't be until 1943 at the earliest. So according to your need for Germany to eliminate one of the powers, that is settled by never bringing one of the powers into the war against them.