Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
WW2...In Case Russia Was Not Invaded.  
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31679 posts, RR: 56
Posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1869 times:

The other day at work during spare time,we were discussing wars & a thought occured.
In case Germany had not invaded Russia.Would the result of WW2 have been different.
Would the Japanese Attack on Pearl habour not occuring until later changed the course of War.
regds
HAWK


Think of the brighter side!
32 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSonic From Lithuania, joined Jan 2000, 1670 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1859 times:

I believe that if Germans wouldn't have attacked Russia, Russians would have attacked Germany, albeit probably later.
If Japanese wouldn't have attacked Pearl Harbor, than USA would have still joined the war, but later. Not sure if than it would be possible to destroy Germany. It would depend mainly on how succesful would've been Russians and British at containing Germany. It would be the best (for axis) if Japanese would have striked USSR in far east (this, by the way, was one of possibilities Japan planned) instead of USA. Than Russians would have to fight on two fronts and probably it would've been much harder for them to fight Germans.


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1849 times:

The invasion of Russia was Hitler's downfall. If he had not done that, and had the entire resources of continental Europe to concentrate against England, as well as consolidate his defences against an eventual U.S. entry, I think he could have won the war. By 1941, the British were bankrupt, having spent all there treasury and having gone heavily into debt over the previous two years. The British people were close to kicking Churchill out of office. U-boats were taking huge chunks out of England's lifelines to the rest of the world. Had Hitler simply waited another year or so, I don't think Britain would have held out.

But what he do? He sent his armies into the Soviet Union, which soon became a meat-grinder of unprecedented proportions. He drained the rest of Europe to fight that beast. But still, it took 11 full months for American, British and Canadian troops to drive through France and Germany, at great cost. Imagine how long and costly that effort would have been had the Germans been at full strength, and did not have the Russian Bear knocking on the back door. Germany would have been fighting with "home-court advantage", whereas Britain and the U.S. had to deal with long overseas supply lines. Frankly, I think Germany would have beaten the allies off.

I don't think the invasion of the USSR had any impact on Japan's plans. They were not after the USSR - they were after South-East Asia. The U.S. stood in its way. Remember that, on Dec.8th, when FDR made his famous "Day of Infamy" speech, he only declared war on Japan, not on Germany or Italy. Hitler expected that by his declaring war on the U.S. after Pearl Harbor (against whom he himself had no reason to go to war with), the Japanese would feel honor-bound by the Tripartite Pact to reciprocate by declaring war on the USSR, giving Stalin a second front in Siberia to worry about. He would have had to pull troops away from the Germans to fight the Japanese. As it was, Germany came damned close to defeating Russia, and a second front for Stalin maight have tipped the scales enough.

Charles


User currently offlineQb001 From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2053 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1840 times:

If he had not done that, and had the entire resources of continental Europe to concentrate against England, as well as consolidate his defences against an eventual U.S. entry, I think he could have won the war.

I disagree. The resources of continental Europe are nothing compared to those of North America. Stalin knew that Hitler wanted to attack the USSR; he was preparing for it. Had Hitler not attacked the USSR, then Stalin would have attacked Hitler in due time. A USSR/North America one-two punch would have been too much for Hitler to prevail for a long time.

And remember, just as what happened in France, I can't imagine the proud Brits not setting up some sort of resistance.

USSR on the east, North America on the west, French, British resistance within; no way Hitler could have scored any long-term, meaningful military victory.



Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory.
User currently offlineGc From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2003, 356 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1837 times:

Hitler was actually repelled from invading the UK (operation Sea Lion) because the RAF had won Air Superiority over southern England in 1940. The German fighter ability was severely disabled. Hitler then chose to turn his attentions East. In order to successfuly stage an nvasion of Britain it would be necessary to rule the skies over the channel.

User currently offlineTexan From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 4275 posts, RR: 52
Reply 5, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1830 times:

Japan actually did make small incursions into the USSR in the Far East, but did not do as much as Germany had wished. Russia was mobilizing and preparing for war, but Stalin had recently finished one of his infamous purges, killing off a good amount of the general staff. Russia would have entered the war even if Germany had not attacked her, but it would have taken a while longer.
Japan, in its mind, had to do something to disrupt the United States. It figured that the US would enter the war at some point, so it would be smarter to make a preemptive strike and try to decimate our Pacific Fleet than to wait around and be slaughtered.
Now the fun part begins! FDR wanted badly to enter the war, but American popular opinion was against meddling in Europe and Asia's affairs for a second time. FDR was looking for a reason to declare war, and Japan's bombing of Pearl Harbor and subsequent declaration of war against the US gave FDR the room he needed to go to war with Japan. However, American opinion was still against going to war with Germany. He had to figure out a way to go to war in Europe, but was having a difficult time. Thankfully for him and the rest of the Allies, Hitler solved that problem by declaring war on the United States first, meaning that Congress would then declare war on Germany and allow US military forces to go to Europe first. FDR's entire plan rested on defeating Hitler first and Japan second. Especially since he got the necessary concession out of Churchill, that an American would be the Allied commander in the European conflict.
The next call of action was to get the USSR involved in the war in the Pacific. Roosevelt offered Stalin various incentives in terms of European land and money in return for Stalin's entering the Pacific War. What Roosevelt did not know was that Stalin was going to enter the Pacific War with or without the concessions in Europe. Stalin still felt the stings of the Russo-Japanese War of 1894-5 and wanted to retake the land Japan had won, as well as punish Japan for so soundly defeating them.
A real interesting question is when would the United States have entered the war against Germany had Hitler not first declared war against us? I do not believe that Roosevelt would have been able to convince Congress or the American public that Germany was a bigger threat than Japan or that we should finish off the Third Reich before we commit to Japan had Hitler not have declared war on us first. It would have likely resulted in a delay of a sizeable time period.
But, to get back to the original question, even had the USSR not been invaded they would have entered the war against the Axis powers: they would have been given land and monetary concessions and certain other rights to pull them into the conflict, much as what occured in the Far East with Japan.

Texan



"I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library."
User currently onlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13987 posts, RR: 62
Reply 6, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1816 times:

Don´t forget, it was Hitler´s plan since the 1920´s (check it in "Mein Kampf") to invade Eastern Europe to make it a colony in accordance with his "Volk ohne Raum" (People without space) concept. The attacks in the west were a bad copy of the WW1 Schliefen plan, which proposed a sweeping attack into France while breaking the neutrality of Belgium and the Netherlands to win fast in the west to keep his back free for the big attack on Russia. The German military got so hyper after their initial successes in Poland and Scandinavia, as well as about the total confusion within the French military ( mind, down on battalion level French troops fought and won battles, but the defeat goes back to a whole series of bad planning and bad leadership still from the 1930s (see Maginot line). Rivalities between the Army, Navy, Air Force and respective intelligence added to the confusion). The point was that a German invasion of Britain was only possible during a few weeks in summer due to weather conditions.
For an invasion the Germans needed the superiority over southern England´s sky. Due to the RAF they never won it. Also the German Navy was less than enthusiastic to take on the Royal Navy on their home turf. About the US entry in WW2, there were American ships sunk by German U-boats long before December 7th, for example the destroyer Reuben James in summer 1941 while on patrol duty off the US coast. For Germany any country trading with Britain was automatically an enemy.

Jan


User currently offlineFDXmech From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3251 posts, RR: 34
Reply 7, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 1800 times:

No, I don't see the USSR declaring war on Germany in the timeline we know as WW2.

As far as Stalin preparing for a German invasion prior to Barbarossa. Stalin was in total denial of the impending attack even after specifics were layed out by Soviet intellegence.

The only way I see Stalin going after Germany was if allied victory (sans USSR) appeared likely and Stalin wanted his share of a postwar landgrab.



You're only as good as your last departure.
User currently offlineTexan From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 4275 posts, RR: 52
Reply 8, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1775 times:

But if the USSR had attacked Japan, which as stated earlier they wanted to do, Germany would have declared war on Russia, bringing her into the ETO. Great Britain, the US, and the rest of the Allies wanted to end the ETO first, then concentrate on Japan, and the Soviets most likely would have agreed with the plan. The USSR was going to get into the war in some way. They wanted to get back at Japan for the schalacking given to them in the Russo-Japanese War, and they wanted more territory in Europe. Just like with the US, I believe that it was not a question of if the USSR would enter the war, but when.

Texan



"I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library."
User currently offlineNorth County From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 712 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1767 times:


The prevailing thought in Eastern European counties after 1939 and before the invasion of the USSR was that if Germany did not strike at the USSR first then the USSR would at some point strike at Germany.

Politically these two "allies" by way of carving up Poland, were at opposite sides of the political spectrum, both Hitler and Stalin were totalitarian leaders.

It was not a matter of "if" they would go to war against each other but a matter of "When"

Germany need oil - they had two ways of getting it: Middle East or in Southern USSR. If Germany could have taken the Russians oil fields then the war would have dragged on a few years longer.

But in the end it was simply a matter of numbers .... you could not fight the Russians when they would throw division after division of troops into the fight.

Germany simply could never have stopped their numerical superiority....unless they had developed the A-Bomb.



User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (10 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1738 times:

Had Hitler listened to his own advice-that a two-front war was bad Military strategy (Mein Kampf), and he had not invaded Russia, I think he might have turned his full attention to Britian and tried to occupy the British Isles so the U.S. and Canada couldn't stage from there, if the U.S. would enter the war.

But I think it was inevitable that Germany and the USSR would be at war-Hitler wanted the "ebensraum" for the German folk, and Russia provided that in his mind. Would the USSR had attacked Germany? Maybe in the future, five or six years down the road, but not immediately. The Red Army was in no real shape to invade anyone in 1941.

What would have happened without Pearl Harbor? Hard to say. There's no doubt Roosevelt wanted the U.S. in the European war, and I think, eventually, the U.S. would have entered the war to liberate Europe. But without Pearl Harbor, it's entirely possible that the U.S. would have, at least for the short term, accepted the Japanese Hegomy over vast parts of the Pacific Rim. Eventually, as with the USSR and Germany, I think a conflict would have been inevitable, but not until the mid or late 1940's.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29795 posts, RR: 58
Reply 11, posted (10 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1736 times:

I to this day think that Japan attacked in 1941 in the wrong direction.

The Soviet Union would not have survived if Japan had attacked from the East and Germany attacked from the west. The Soviet Union would have been fighting a two front war, and the lend lease route from the United States would have most likely been cut off.

Siberia held most of the raw materials that Japan was looking for in the sout pacific.

The only reason why the South Pacific would have held the advantage to the Japanese would be due to the superiority of the Japanese Navy.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineTsv From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 1641 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (10 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1718 times:

Sorry L-188 I can't agree. I don't know what you are basing your assumptions on but there was no way that a Japanese invasion of the Soviet Union would have been successful.


"I told you I was ill ..." Spike Milligan
User currently offlineGoose From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 1840 posts, RR: 15
Reply 13, posted (10 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1715 times:

Russia was supplying oil to the Reich up until the eve of the German invasion of the Soviet Union. The supply trains to Germany from Russia were still running when the Wehrmacht crossed into Soviet territory.

Provisions in the Non-Aggression Pact made the Soviets a de facto Axis power..... and it's an interesting footnote that the Soviet invasion of Poland in September 1939 was essentially ignored by France and Great Britain, while the same act by Germany two weeks prior brought a declaration of war.

The Russian military was largely ineffective when Barbarossa started in 1941. Their leadership was in shambles after years of purges, the Red Army morale was rock-bottom, and they were inadequately armed and equipped. Stalin refused to believe that Hitler would attack him.....

Politically these two "allies" by way of carving up Poland, were at opposite sides of the political spectrum, both Hitler and Stalin were totalitarian leaders.

Hitler's and Stalin's regime had much more in common than not. Both men had ambitions abroad. And both were anti-Semites.... Hitler to a more extreme degree than Stalin, but alas.....



"Talk to me, Goose..."
User currently onlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13987 posts, RR: 62
Reply 14, posted (10 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1708 times:

TSV,

Imperial Japan was after the oil fields of Borneo and the rubber plantations of Malaya. The rest of the region was mostly occupied to protect the supply lines. Another goal was the occupation of northern China back in the 30´s as a colony, with massive restlement of Japanes to this are, a move similar to Hitler´s Lebensraum ideology.
The oilfields in Siberia, as well as much of Siberia´s wealth were only discovered in the 1950-1960´s.

Jan


User currently offlineGoose From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 1840 posts, RR: 15
Reply 15, posted (10 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1705 times:

MD11Engineer;

.... French Indochina's massive oilfields also figured prominantly into Japan's designs for south-east Asia.....



"Talk to me, Goose..."
User currently offlineTsv From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 1641 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (10 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1701 times:

Jan :

I think your statements should be directed to L-188. As I stated all I am disagreeing with is L-188's belief that a Japanese invasion of the Soviet Union would have been successful.

Remember : Japan was entwined in China (and even though they had made some large territorial gains some modern historians classify it as a stalemate and compare this involvement to the US in Vietnam); and Stalin held the (well trained and equipped) Siberian forces in the East as long as he could and only moved them to the West for the offensive to save Moscow in December 1941 after Richard Sorge assured him Japan was not going to invade the Soviet Union. Either of these factors alone combined with the simple fact that the Japanese feared the Soviet Union would be enough to ensure that any invasion would fail.



"I told you I was ill ..." Spike Milligan
User currently offlineBobrayner From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2003, 2227 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (10 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1688 times:

I believe that if Germans wouldn't have attacked Russia, Russians would have attacked Germany, albeit probably later.

Stalin was scared of German power. Through Stalinist eyes, the partition of Poland looked like a glacis to protect against future German aggression. For Russia, the first few days of Barbarossa were made much, much worse by Stalinist attempts to "avoid provocation" (ie orders not to fire, withdrawing ammunition from front-line units, &c); by attempts to "buy time" or mollify Germany; and finally by refusal to accept the bad news when it came.

Either Germany or Russia could have "won" more easily, if one of them was ruled by somebody sane and competent. Both rulers some made terrible decisions.

I disagree. The resources of continental Europe are nothing compared to those of North America.

What response did Molotov get when he begged for a second front?

Stalin knew that Hitler wanted to attack the USSR; he was preparing for it.

He feared it, perhaps. However, the USSR was completely unprepared for Barbarossa.

Politically these two "allies" by way of carving up Poland, were at opposite sides of the political spectrum, both Hitler and Stalin were totalitarian leaders.

It was not a matter of "if" they would go to war against each other but a matter of "When"


Dixit J M Roberts, totalitarian rulers can enjoy some very flexible diplomacy. The partition of Poland is a good example.

Germany simply could never have stopped their numerical superiority....unless they had developed the A-Bomb

Germany very nearly did.

The Soviet Union would not have survived if Japan had attacked from the East and Germany attacked from the west. The Soviet Union would have been fighting a two front war, and the lend lease route from the United States would have most likely been cut off.

Siberia held most of the raw materials that Japan was looking for in the sout pacific.


I disagree. The USSR appeared to expect an attack from Japan shortly after barbarossa was unleashed; hence divisions in the Far East were not moved west (to where they were desperately needed) for a long time. They may not have been perfectly-equipped or trained, but the Japanese could have fought a bloofy advance for 6 months before reaching any major industrial region in the USSR, and by then they would have even bigger problems with stretched supply-lines than Germany ever did.

The Russian military was largely ineffective when Barbarossa started in 1941. Their leadership was in shambles after years of purges, the Red Army morale was rock-bottom, and they were inadequately armed and equipped. Stalin refused to believe that Hitler would attack him.....

Agreed.



Cunning linguist
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31679 posts, RR: 56
Reply 18, posted (10 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1654 times:

Wasn't there a treaty signed between Russia & Germany for non agression against each other prior to the Attack.
regds
HAWK



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 18
Reply 19, posted (10 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1651 times:

Stalin certainly planned to attack Germany in a preemptive strike.
The date was probably to be 1943, as the Soviet military was still badly gutted from the purges it had suffered when Stalin took over (which in part explains the huge successes of the German forces early on).

Had Germany not invaded when they did, they'd therefore have had a front in the east at most 2 years later.
By that time they could very well have had time to neutralise the UK completely and win the desert war in Africa.

That would have denied the US any capability to launch an effective strike on Festung Europa as an amphibious invasion over transatlantic distances was at that time just about impossible (at least at the scale required) and the Germans would have completely free reign to patrol the Atlantic with submarines housed in Norway and Scotland.

If the destruction of the British resistance had come before the Soviet attack, a strike east would have been unhindered by any forces left to guard the western front. This could well have meant a swift victory (especially if the attack from the west could have linked up with a simultaneous strike from the south using forces from the desert army marching up through Palestine. Greece and Yugoslavia would be no problem as the resistance movements there were only maintained through massive British support (which would have ended on the neutralisation of the UK). This would have freed several more divisions as well as the entire Italian army to join the southern front in the USSR and cut off the Soviet oilfields completely, thus causing the Soviets the same fuel problems suffered in 1944 and '45 by the Germans.

Combined with a Japanese strike in Siberia and through China the Soviet Union may well have collapsed, leading the way for the invasion of Alaska via the Bering Strait.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineZak From Greenland, joined Sep 2003, 1993 posts, RR: 8
Reply 20, posted (10 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1638 times:

someone could argue that hitler, if he hadnt been a insane lunatic nationalist racist, could have achieved alot more strategically and militarily in ww2 then he did. for example finishing off the uk before doing any move with russia, eliminating the needed foothold for the u.s. miltiary power in europe.
but quite frankly if he hadnt been the insane lunatic racist he was, he wouldnt have had the goals he had and would have never gotten as much power, so its more or less a moot point.
its like saying "why didnt saddam make iraq a democratic country" or "why didnt bush just give lip service to big business to get into office to now actually do something for the ppl".
things dont work that way usually people get into a position by certain interest groups and movements or force only with full determination to whatever cause they support. if full commitment is not given, someone with full commitment will usually take the aspired place instead.



10=2
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13186 posts, RR: 77
Reply 21, posted (10 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1622 times:

Hitler ended up, from his view, fighting the wrong war.
He never thought, (with good reason) in the 1930s that his advances in Europe would eventually lead to war with Britain.
France was another matter, as a WW1 vet he probably considered attacking France as unfinished business, after all, Nazi ideology made much of a mythical 'undefeated' German army being stabbed in the back by Communists and Jews in 1918.
And the French army in 1939 was the largest in Europe, the French state had at some time to be taken out.

But with the UK, Hitler thought he had a natural ally, he admired the Empire.
Some gullible people on sanitized Nazi approved 'tours' of the new Germany gave this impression credence to him.
Hitler had originally planned attacking Russia much later, but the declaration of war by Britain and France in 1939 upset things, he probably would have favored a knockout blow to Russia, when he was absolutely ready (German war production was not in full swing until around 1942), then deal with France.

By the mid/late 1940s, German naval power after the 'Z Plan' programme would have allowed the offsetting of the Royal Navy. in case Britain did come to France's aid.
That's important, as if the UK did need to be invaded, he'd need air and naval power, in 1940 he tried to bomb the UK into surrender, Sealion as a plan was not taken seriously by the Wermacht, as they had no amphibious transport, just large numbers of modified civilian barges, even a Luftwaffe with air superiority sinking many RN ships, probably would not have stopped the RN decimating a German invasion force stuck on barely sea worthy barges.
A few RN cruisers and Destroyers anywhere near fleets of barges packed with men and material, with only some German Destroyers and E-Boats to protect them, would have been a massacre, the Luftwaffe would have had to sink or disable every RN warship in the Channel to really protect the invasion.
Just a few RN ships surviving this could have been fatal for the invasion.

Now if he could have attacked the UK at his choosing much greater German Naval power could have tipped the balance.
If you are invading an Island, or just trying to fully subdue it, you need very substantial Naval power.

In 1940, having stumbled into war with both Britain and France the previous year, Hitler had a problem, how to make the British 'see sense' and sue for peace.
Goering said the Luftwaffe could do it, but the Sealion invasion was not a really thought through plan, had the Luftwaffe won the Battle of Britain most likely the main effect would have been to make resupply of Britain more difficult, as ports, railway lines, all the infrastructure in fact now easy targets for the Luftwaffe, the U-Boats would do the rest, the UK would eventually sue for peace as starvation loomed.

When it did not go that way, Hitler turned to his real target of Russia.

But in keeping some control of the Mediterranean, by kicking the Italians all across North Africa, the UK was far from passive and licking it's wounds, Hitler had to come to Italy's aid.
Resources that would be needed in Russia, were in Africa, no doubt Hitler thought that it was worthwhile as if the oil supplies could be seized, it could be a potential knockout blow to Britain.
After early German success, the defeat of Germany in North Africa by the Desert Rats was a turning point, though worse was to come at Stalingrad.

Nazi ideology always was about making large parts of European Russia a new German empire, by miscalculation, misunderstanding of his potential enemies, belief in his own supreme tactical prowess, Hitler made his own dreams impossible to realize.

He must have been concerned enough about the UK still being in the war, even at Britain's low ebb of 1941, by sending his deputy Rudolf Hess, on a crazy mission to Scotland to it seems, cut a peace deal.
When it failed, he just could not resist taking the risk of attacking Russia, as the Red Army was in disarray and Stalins terror ripped through Russia, Hitler must have thought that the hour had arrived.
He was big on his believed 'destiny' after all.




User currently offlineBN747 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5613 posts, RR: 51
Reply 22, posted (10 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1601 times:

"Had Hitler listened to his own advice-that a two-front war was bad Military strategy (Mein Kampf), and he had not invaded Russia, I think he might have turned his full attention to Britian and tried to occupy the British Isles so the U.S. and Canada couldn't stage from there, if the U.S. would enter the war.

But I think it was inevitable that Germany and the USSR would be at war-Hitler wanted the "ebensraum" for the German folk, and Russia provided that in his mind. Would the USSR had attacked Germany? Maybe in the future, five or six years down the road, but not immediately. The Red Army was in no real shape to invade anyone in 1941."


If this were the case, and then Russia's military machine would have remained pretty much intact. And Japan, while increasing it's land grab in Asia, might have saved much of it's might for a possible Russian advance vs a run on Pearl Harbor. With a few more years to organize and galvanize his forces, Hitler's scenario may have played out in this fashion...

A few years more would have yielded a defanged Britain (peace with Germany)

A luftwaffe with the world's 1st jet fighter corp.

Bases in Greenland (with compliance from a willing Denmark)

And to prove a point, 'german atomic' bombs dropped on New York,Washington, Moscow and St. Petersburg (Leningrad).

BN747





"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (10 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1594 times:

Hitler went too fast. He did not think that France and the UK would declare war over Poland. The German Navy (Adm. Raeder) had been given to expect war by 1948, and Raeder had started construction of a navy that would REALLY have given the Royal Navy a bad time., including two full carrier battle groups and several super-dreadnaughts similar to the Japanese Yamato class, and lots more submarines.

The Army was told to be ready by 1943 or 1944.

The Luftwaffe thought it was ready, but it wasn't. No long-range bombers, even in serious development, like a B-17 or Lancaster. The He-111 was too small. Fighters were also far too short ranged. Had the Luftwaffe had another 5 years to get ready, the allies might not have had such an easy time getting air superiority.

I believe it is a matter of record that when they heard that the UK and France had declared war on Sept. 3rd, 1939, the heads of the German Army and Navy muttered a collective "Oh Shit, I'm not ready yet!". Goering on the other hand was so full of himself he encouraged Hitler on.

Charles


User currently offlineBN747 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5613 posts, RR: 51
Reply 24, posted (10 years 6 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 1587 times:

I believe it is a matter of record that when they heard that the UK and France had declared war on Sept. 3rd, 1939, the heads of the German Army and Navy muttered a collective "Oh Shit, I'm not ready yet!". Goering on the other hand was so full of himself he encouraged Hitler on.

LOL...you're probably right!!!

BN747



"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
25 L-188 : Well the Luftwaffe was heavily designed to be a tactical air force, supporting rapidly advancing armies, rather then a stratigic one. And has been men
26 Danialanwar : If he hadnt invaded the USSR then he might have opted for an invasion of England despite their air superiority - or at least the D-Day invasion would
27 BN747 : "The German bomb was nowhere near functional. It would have rather meant US atomic bombs on an already battered Germany killing hundreds of thousands
28 Texan : Not only was the German atomic bomb nowhere near functional, they had given up on the project as a vast improbability. They were still using the conce
29 L-188 : In fact the Allies took special care to hit "heavy water" targets in Norway to give the impression to some of those scientists that the allies thought
30 Cfalk : Danialanwar, Just a couple of comments: Japan did not attack Pearl Harbour out of kindness towards Germany. They attacked it to break the oil blockade
31 Danialanwar : BN747 ... yeah that's what I mean. Even if Hitler had a few more years to work on the nuke, the Americans would have used theirs on Germany in 1945. A
32 GDB : Interesting programme on Channel 4 in the UK the other week. After the mass raids on Germany really swung into high gear, Hitler wanted revenge, there
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
WW2 - If Germany Had Not Invaded Russia posted Thu Jan 6 2005 13:51:25 by HAWK21M
Why India's N Tests In 1998 Was Not Forseen posted Thu Feb 10 2005 13:14:11 by HAWK21M
In The End, Was Bin Laden Captured Or Not? posted Mon Aug 26 2002 06:16:39 by Jgore
"This Message Was Not Written" posted Sun Aug 6 2006 07:08:15 by AerospaceFan
What To Do In Samara, Russia? posted Sun Jul 23 2006 18:34:47 by OV735
Keeping In Touch With Girls/not Be Annoying posted Tue Apr 18 2006 16:52:49 by KLM672
Youth Minister In Case Of Dodgeball Rage posted Sat Apr 1 2006 00:46:02 by Bushpilot
New Orleans, Gulf Coast Was Not Ready. posted Wed Aug 31 2005 02:37:01 by FlyMIA
ICE: In Case Of Emergency posted Wed Aug 24 2005 00:16:26 by Braybuddy
In Case Of Emergency posted Mon Jul 11 2005 21:49:12 by Saintsman