View Topic

So here's a what if: What if Hitler didn't try to invade Russia in WW2 and instead pushed westward?

They would drown in the sea?

I believe this is a serious topic, actually.

You know, I'm not sure it would have made much long-term difference, to be honest. In the end, Germany needed the resources the Soviet Union had...particularly the agricultural areas and the oil fields, and without them their war effort would have crumbled. The offensive definitely led to the war ending much sooner, but I think even if Nazi Germany had focused exclusively in Western Europe they would not have been able to conquer Britain or overcome increasing American support, and without going east or west, Germany really didn't have much else to go to by that point.

At best all they could have done is better defend against Allied invasions, in my opinion...and it's possible the Soviet Union would have eventually launched its own invasion. The two nations were very suspicious of each other to start with, despite previous agreements.

My reply is still better

If you ever want to take over Europe, just remember to never invade Russia. Your army will end up unprepared and ill-equipped no matter what, and the Russians will burn all their food and then everyone will starve and freeze. And no one can beat the Russians at starving to death and freezing. They just have to much experience.

Unless you're the Mongols. Then go ahead.

The problem for Hitler was, like Moot basically said, food for his army. Russia was something that had to happen.

The better question would be what would have happened if he had followed the advice given by so many and timed his invasion where the weather, rather than the Russians themselves, would not be his downfall?

The second question would be what would the outcome have been if he had not antagonized America? We were happily pretending Europe was doing just fine until he pushed the wrong buttons.

That second question is what I had on my mind as well...specifically, what if Japan had delayed Pearl Harbor or it had not happened at all? It's known that Nazi Germany hadn't anticipated the United States joining the war until 1943, and Pearl Harbor moved that up by two vital years. As it turned out, the Axis powers weren't preparing for war with the US as they planned...they were already well on their way to being defeated.

It seems to me that the Soviet Union could have shouldered any delay, considering that they were already withstanding the full brunt of German and Italian forces and defeating them, plus the harsh Soviet winters that served as a natural boon for defense. The question is whether Britain could have withstood continued bombardment and attacks on shipping for that amount of time, and if not, where would Germany turn after conquering them? Again, even capturing Britain, their options were limited...try harder in the Soviet Union, move into the middle east, or focus on Africa...none of which were imminently rewarding courses of action.

I usually like topics with 'what if' thing but when it comes to Hitler and WW2 I only like scenarios where Hitler either wasn't even born or never took power, being a simple artist painting Disney dwarfs. Btw I read conspiracy theories that Pearl Harbor was all planned before as well as the whole Nazi movement. Part of the rich American elite's global machinations. Maybe there's something true in this but claims of Hitler's survival are ridiculous. Or maybe it's more comfortable to think that. And I'm not an expert in the field of 20th century history.

The pivotal question is nuclear weapons. Even if Hitler would have stopped at Soviet Union border, built up mighty defence strategy, quickly tapped into North Sea and North Africa oil, reduced the population of Europe to a level that could be efficiently maintained and even defeated the England, what would anything matter when Americans could eventually level whole cities with little effort?

Now, the interesting question is (if anything related to WWII what if's can be interesting anymore) what if Nazi Germany would have succeeded in developing their own nuclear weapon in time? Their ally, Japan, had developed an airplane-carrying submarine - the perfect delivery method. The war could have suddenly turned a whole lot more ugly.

In the end I doubt Hitler could have succeeded, he just didn't have the muscle to conquer the whole world, and once Americans snapped they probably would have kept doing anything they could to bring both Germany and Japan down, they both had shown that they were not to be trusted so chance for peace was likely completely out of the window.

Japan took the best shot they would ever get, following Hitler's schedule with America would only have served Germany, not Japan who's ass was more directly on the line. Japan you can surround, Europe you can just poke from there and there.

Only subject to change is the price, with how many casualties would the war have ended.

So in the vein of serious replies, I'll do the same.

Hitler primarily invaded Russia because the Ukraine areas of its western borders are amongst the most fertile in Europe. One of his main policies in regards to his own people was that of Lebensraum, or 'living space' that he felt the superior Aryan race was entitled to. What better place to claim as his own than somewhere his people could grow food and provide for their empire? Russia also represented a strategic threat on a scale that most other Western countries didn't pose at this point in the war. A pre-emptive strike, although we now know it to be folly, would have seemed a good idea because it would take one major player out of the war; also remember that Russia was Communist. Invading her most likely seemed a possible way to reduce the aggression of the Western nations who were strongly anti-Comm.

Now, the what if? What if Hitler had pushed westward? Operation Barbarossa began on 22 June 1941, at a point in time where Hitler had already crushed most of the opposition on his western borders, with the only real imminent threat being a beaten and isolated Britain.

Suppose for a moment Hitler consolidated his eastern flank in case of increased Russian aggression and turned his attentions and not inconsiderable forces towards the task that in the real world foiled him: the invasion of Britain. The invasion of Russia utilised over 4 million troops, 42 thousand guns and mortars (artillery pieces), just over 4 thousand tanks and a similar number of aircraft.

Dedicating this volume of offensive capability elsewhere would possibly have been devastating for the Allied forces on the West front. The Soviet Union, due to its vast size, was able to field its own military and airforce in numbers that gave it numerical superiority over the Germans and it's plausible that this is the only reason, apart from the terrible weather conditions, they were able to withstand the assault: throwing numbers into the grinder until the grinder stopped working.

Britain, by contrast, relied heavily on its airforce - one of the best in the world at this time - as its chief defensive weapon against invasion. Should Hitler have committed his previously USSR-focused air units to the Battle of Britain, he would have won. It's that simple. Skill and valour only go so far against numerical superiority, and under the cover of relay bombing runs there would have been little the British forces could do to prevent the landing of millions of German troops. Whilst I'm not saying it's a foregone conclusion, especially with US aid to the British, but it's very likely the British Isles would have fallen by 1943 if not before.

US involvement in the war would possibly have seen a turn-around in Allied fortunes but I personally believe that despite Japanese aggression in the Eastern theatre of warfare the American HighComm would not have gone through with an assault on the massive military machine of the Germans without some form of local support. A lot of the air successes met by US planes was due to their base of operations being in Britain - if this was denied, the chances of destroying the German economy and spirit are far reduced.

Draw your own conclusions from this as you will

One widely forgotten card of the war was Finland. Before the Operation Barbarossa we had already been attacked by Soviet Union, lost over one tenth of our land and been forced into a peace at the brink of collapse. At the Continuation War, parallel to German Operation Barbarossa, we were largely able to fight thanks to German support. We would have been unlikely to receive the same level of support without the German operation, leaving the fate of the Republic of Finland wide open.

I find it plausible that Germany would have been keen to secure the Baltic Sea up to some degree, but I think it's far more likely that they would have let Finland fall. An event that is also unlikely to change any other outcomes of the war.

Another angle is the presumption that Soviet war production would have been just as intense without Operation Barbarossa. Not having to deal with an intense invasion would also have freed Soviet resources to deal with Japan, their old nemesis. With multiple possible results. On one hand weakened Japan could have freed US resources to be put into helping UK, leading Germans metaphorally shooting themselves in the foot by not attacking Russia "in time". With the natural (and human) resources Russia their buildup could have continued far, far (FAR!) beyond the German forces.

What if the topic instead was "What if: Hitler/Mussolini didn't go after Africa", what if they had focused their resources in taking over Europe and Russia?