Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 8/16/2010 7:25:59 AM EDT
What if the Germans had never invaded Russia? How much different would things have gone if they even waited a year or two? Would they have gotten a better hold on the Med/Italy? Would the allies have been able to invade the mainland at all with all those divisions not in Russia close to France? I'm not an expert on anything, but I was wondering this the other day. Any good books or such along these lines?
Link Posted: 8/16/2010 7:28:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Paulie771:
What if the Germans had never invaded Russia? How much different would things have gone if they even waited a year or two? Would they have gotten a better hold on the Med/Italy? Would the allies have been able to invade the mainland at all with all those divisions not in Russia close to France? I'm not an expert on anything, but I was wondering this the other day. Any good books or such along these lines?

If Germany had held those forces in reserve or used them to strengthen European defenses, D-Day could have been a disaster.

If they'd managed to formulate a realistic plan to invade England, they could have succeeded, which would have either cost us the war or (at best) delayed its end by several years.
Link Posted: 8/16/2010 2:58:29 PM EDT
It all depends on what the Soviets would have done. What if Stalin decided to attack the Germans later while they were busy with Great Britain?

I think the level of Soviet-Nazi distrust was high enough that the extra reserves would most likely not have been pulled out of the east.
Link Posted: 8/16/2010 5:58:52 PM EDT
This subject raises a lot of questions with no firm answers available.

The winter of 1941-42 was the worst in Europe in 50 years. The Germans would have been better off if they had avoided it and invaded in 1942 instead. They would have had another year of receiving grain and oil from their Soviet not-allies, under the Non-Aggression Pact. This would have given Germany another year to prepare, with better maps, more winter clothing, and more security in the Occupied territories in Poland.

On the other hand, many other things were happening during this time frame. Would Germany have gone ahead with Operation Sea Lion (amphibious invasion of Britain)? Would USSR have attacked the Germans in Poland and then tried to attack Germany? Could Germany have reached the Suez Canal with the Africa Corps, given that they also didn't have to supply an invasion of USSR at the same time?

Inquiring minds want to know, but never will....


Steve
Link Posted: 8/23/2010 9:14:48 AM EDT


Germany never would have been able to invade England. They did not have the transport capability, the navy to protect those transports and the air superiority to protect the navy.
Link Posted: 8/23/2010 10:35:33 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/23/2010 10:40:09 AM EDT by Porcine83]
Originally Posted By raizer:


Germany never would have been able to invade England. They did not have the transport capability, the navy to protect those transports and the air superiority to protect the navy.


This is what I've understood as well. Once the Battle of Britain was lost Sea Lion wasn't feasible, wasn't the Kriegsmarine bottled up in Bremerhaven from then on too (with the exception of a couple of failed 'breakouts')?

The Afrika Korps question is interesting though- with a fraction of the enormous resources eventually poured into the eastern front imagine what Rommel could have accomplished? Especially before America entered the war. Without an Eastern Front perhaps Hitler would have become interested in Africa and given it the attention it deserved. Nazi control of the Suez/Middle East may not have guaranteed victory, but sure would have been a nasty complication for the allies. Put the men & material wasted on the Eastern Front back in occupied Europe and it's hard to imagine Overlord or Husky succeeding.

ETA- I don't think it's feasible that 2 epic bastards like Hitler & Stalin could have avoided eventually going to war though.
Link Posted: 8/23/2010 10:43:49 AM EDT
those 2 were destined to cause a world war. Its almost a blessing that they were both alive at the same time-bled each other out. We helped russia thou and prevented that-those jeeps and trucks and food we gave them throughout the war and the shermans and p39s we gave them during the first couple years, really helped make a difference.
Link Posted: 8/24/2010 9:38:43 AM EDT
Stalin would have attacked Germany in 1946 as planned.
Link Posted: 8/31/2010 8:46:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/31/2010 8:46:54 PM EDT by LonChaney]
Originally Posted By Paulie771:
What if the Germans had never invaded Russia? How much different would things have gone if they even waited a year or two? Would they have gotten a better hold on the Med/Italy? Would the allies have been able to invade the mainland at all with all those divisions not in Russia close to France? I'm not an expert on anything, but I was wondering this the other day. Any good books or such along these lines?


Yes.

How Hitler could have won the War

Link Posted: 9/1/2010 5:52:01 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Meadowmuffin:
Stalin would have attacked Germany in 1946 as planned.


Interesting. Tell us more!
Link Posted: 9/1/2010 7:23:25 PM EDT
Hitler was advised at the time by Raeder to make the Mediterranean theatre a priority...Hitler's dream of conquest in the east vetoed the idea.

At the time, Hitler was convinced that the USSR would be defeated in six weeks.

The German air force was shipped east for Barbarossa.

Concentrate on the Med, keep the air war against England strong and tighten the U-boat campaign against England and he very likely could have gotten England to sue for peace.

Then turn against Russia.

Impatience and hubris.
Link Posted: 9/1/2010 7:43:31 PM EDT
Thank God Hitler was an incompetent military leader.
Link Posted: 9/4/2010 6:34:42 PM EDT
If Barbarossa had not happened, the Germans and Italians would have guaranteed their victory in North Africa. The British and Commonwealth forces were extremely close to being kicked out. Considering what the Axis forces had to deal with, an influx of more supplies, vehicles, and troops would have sealed the deal.

We are very lucky Hitler had other priorities.
Link Posted: 9/4/2010 7:00:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/4/2010 7:04:03 PM EDT by ColonelHurtz]
I've been reading a lot of Pacific theater books lately.

Imagine if Hitler had the resources to defend the Western Wall like Iwo Jima or Peleliu.
And a Luftwaffe to join the party on D-Day.

Imagine all that oil in North Africa and the Middle East in Nazi hands.
Link Posted: 9/6/2010 4:47:53 PM EDT
Originally Posted By lew:
If Barbarossa had not happened, the Germans and Italians would have guaranteed their victory in North Africa. The British and Commonwealth forces were extremely close to being kicked out. Considering what the Axis forces had to deal with, an influx of more supplies, vehicles, and troops would have sealed the deal.

We are very lucky Hitler had other priorities.


I'm reading Atkinson's "An Army at Dawn" and it's amazing how imcompetent and unprepared the US and to a certain extent the UK was before, during, and for a long time, after Torch, at all levels. Even when Tunis was captured the Allies were just figuring out a thing or two. I can't imagine if the Germans had focused on the North Africa and actually TRIED to keep it.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 4:01:38 AM EDT
Also lets keep in mind that the Germans NEVER developed the weapons they should have in 1940––41-42 like the stg-44, me262, ect. Also they spent too many resources on tanks that had 4-6 variants. Not to mention the panthers and tigers wich sucked up alot of manpower, even though the mk 4 panzers were more than capable!
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 8:36:51 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Meadowmuffin:
Stalin would have attacked Germany in 1946 as planned.


Ya, this is what I believe as well. I can't remember which book it was in, but the author alluded to the fact that Germany just stumbled on all those troops just sitting in Stalingrad. The amount of troops, the speed of transport, and the fact that they came from the East coast of the USSR might prove that it was a marshalling point for the Soviet Invasion force.
Link Posted: 9/8/2010 10:04:41 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Paulie771:
Originally Posted By lew:
If Barbarossa had not happened, the Germans and Italians would have guaranteed their victory in North Africa. The British and Commonwealth forces were extremely close to being kicked out. Considering what the Axis forces had to deal with, an influx of more supplies, vehicles, and troops would have sealed the deal.

We are very lucky Hitler had other priorities.


I'm reading Atkinson's "An Army at Dawn" and it's amazing how imcompetent and unprepared the US and to a certain extent the UK was before, during, and for a long time, after Torch, at all levels. Even when Tunis was captured the Allies were just figuring out a thing or two. I can't imagine if the Germans had focused on the North Africa and actually TRIED to keep it.


It makes you really glad the Allies cut their teeth there instead of in Italy or Western Europe. We would have been massacred had that been the case.
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 11:01:48 AM EDT
yah at ORAN we got waxed by the Vichy French...they slaughtered the men coming ashore, esp in that converted coast guard cruiser. Torch was a necessary step in introducing our men to war.
Top Top