WW2 what if hitler went East?
Discussion
Pretty random post, but I'll reply anyway. I assume you mean in 1939 at the start of the war?
To go east, he would have had to go through Poland anyway, and as Poland's neutrality was guaranteed by Britain and France, we would have still been at war with Germany (subject to withdrawal) on Sept 3rd, 1939. So, in reality, not much difference.
On balance, more of the USSR's military would have been eliminated, but this would have been countered with French and British assets being fully intact.
To go east, he would have had to go through Poland anyway, and as Poland's neutrality was guaranteed by Britain and France, we would have still been at war with Germany (subject to withdrawal) on Sept 3rd, 1939. So, in reality, not much difference.
On balance, more of the USSR's military would have been eliminated, but this would have been countered with French and British assets being fully intact.
[quote=V88Dicky]Pretty random post, but I'll reply anyway. I assume you mean in 1939 at the start of the war?
To go east, he would have had to go through Poland anyway, and as Poland's neutrality was guaranteed by Britain and France, we would have still been at war with Germany (subject to withdrawal) on Sept 3rd, 1939. So, in reality, not much difference.
On balance, more of the USSR's military would have been eliminated, but this would have been countered with French and British assets being fully intact.
[/quote
I don't think he was meaning towards the end with Hitler planning it from the bunker
To go east, he would have had to go through Poland anyway, and as Poland's neutrality was guaranteed by Britain and France, we would have still been at war with Germany (subject to withdrawal) on Sept 3rd, 1939. So, in reality, not much difference.
On balance, more of the USSR's military would have been eliminated, but this would have been countered with French and British assets being fully intact.
[/quote
I don't think he was meaning towards the end with Hitler planning it from the bunker
slipstream 1985 said:
What would have happened if hitler had gone East into Russia first instead of france say even with Japan attacking from the other side? How would the war have trned out?
Really impossible to say. Its true that the Russian military were in an even worse state in '39 then they were later, but then again Germany had not fully tooled up for an assault on Russia in '39 either. IF Germany had planned for several years to attack Russia immediately, and tooled up appropriately, then probably they would have succeeded, but that is a very big if.There was a book/long short storey on this, although the basis was scifi, suggesting we'd (or rahter they'd) have gone to the Moon earlier, then to the planets. What happened to the Jews and the other groups destined for the concentration camps was not covered in too much detail.
The premise was that whilst invading Poland would have got the allies to declare war, there could have been negotiations to lower Germany's commitment to their western front. It would also have allowed a better time to be chosen for the attack.
My father was always bemused by Barbarossa. He said that when news came of it his unit had a bit of a celebration. They reckoned the war had turned in their/our favour.
The justification for it was the oil fields in the south, but they'd secured an agreement with Russia for the supply of fuel and when the attack started there were other agreements being negotiated.
What could the allies have done to stop the supply of oil to the Wehrmacht? Bombed the oil fields? I'm not sure that would have turned out well.
My dad reckoned that for all their munitions and manpower, what won the war for the allies was Hitler's decision to invade Russia. The Berlin wall might well have been drawn in another place though.
If it had occurred on, let's say, 5 April, 1939 Moscow, Stalingrad and the oil fields might well have fallen. The 'extra' two and a half months might well have been critical. But they had other problems, such as no cold weather gear, and not only clothing.
I think these things have a way of sorting themselves out.
The premise was that whilst invading Poland would have got the allies to declare war, there could have been negotiations to lower Germany's commitment to their western front. It would also have allowed a better time to be chosen for the attack.
My father was always bemused by Barbarossa. He said that when news came of it his unit had a bit of a celebration. They reckoned the war had turned in their/our favour.
The justification for it was the oil fields in the south, but they'd secured an agreement with Russia for the supply of fuel and when the attack started there were other agreements being negotiated.
What could the allies have done to stop the supply of oil to the Wehrmacht? Bombed the oil fields? I'm not sure that would have turned out well.
My dad reckoned that for all their munitions and manpower, what won the war for the allies was Hitler's decision to invade Russia. The Berlin wall might well have been drawn in another place though.
If it had occurred on, let's say, 5 April, 1939 Moscow, Stalingrad and the oil fields might well have fallen. The 'extra' two and a half months might well have been critical. But they had other problems, such as no cold weather gear, and not only clothing.
I think these things have a way of sorting themselves out.
Derek Smith said:
There was a book/long short storey on this, although the basis was scifi, suggesting we'd (or rahter they'd) have gone to the Moon earlier, then to the planets. What happened to the Jews and the other groups destined for the concentration camps was not covered in too much detail.
The premise was that whilst invading Poland would have got the allies to declare war, there could have been negotiations to lower Germany's commitment to their western front. It would also have allowed a better time to be chosen for the attack.
My father was always bemused by Barbarossa. He said that when news came of it his unit had a bit of a celebration. They reckoned the war had turned in their/our favour.
The justification for it was the oil fields in the south, but they'd secured an agreement with Russia for the supply of fuel and when the attack started there were other agreements being negotiated.
What could the allies have done to stop the supply of oil to the Wehrmacht? Bombed the oil fields? I'm not sure that would have turned out well.
My dad reckoned that for all their munitions and manpower, what won the war for the allies was Hitler's decision to invade Russia. The Berlin wall might well have been drawn in another place though.
If it had occurred on, let's say, 5 April, 1939 Moscow, Stalingrad and the oil fields might well have fallen. The 'extra' two and a half months might well have been critical. But they had other problems, such as no cold weather gear, and not only clothing.
I think these things have a way of sorting themselves out.
That's funny as I seem to remember some trailer for a film or TV series too ? Around 6 months agoThe premise was that whilst invading Poland would have got the allies to declare war, there could have been negotiations to lower Germany's commitment to their western front. It would also have allowed a better time to be chosen for the attack.
My father was always bemused by Barbarossa. He said that when news came of it his unit had a bit of a celebration. They reckoned the war had turned in their/our favour.
The justification for it was the oil fields in the south, but they'd secured an agreement with Russia for the supply of fuel and when the attack started there were other agreements being negotiated.
What could the allies have done to stop the supply of oil to the Wehrmacht? Bombed the oil fields? I'm not sure that would have turned out well.
My dad reckoned that for all their munitions and manpower, what won the war for the allies was Hitler's decision to invade Russia. The Berlin wall might well have been drawn in another place though.
If it had occurred on, let's say, 5 April, 1939 Moscow, Stalingrad and the oil fields might well have fallen. The 'extra' two and a half months might well have been critical. But they had other problems, such as no cold weather gear, and not only clothing.
I think these things have a way of sorting themselves out.
It would have worked out much better for him. He could have avoided Poland - he'd already got effective control of Czechoslovakia and Austria, so continue going that way. Take Romania - lots of oil assets - and take or neutralise Hungary. No treaties triggered, no reaction from France or UK who were both under pacifist administrations at the time.
And then Ukraine. Remember that a great number of Ukrainians saw the Germans as their liberators from the Russians. A joint military pact (to start with, anyway; can always come back later and start throwing your weight around), and it's off to Moscow in the summer of 1940. Partition Russia roughly North-South at Kazan, and you now have Poland effectively surrounded anyway without needing to invade.
Essentially a land-air campaign only, so budget can be diverted from the Navy and tank and infantry weapons development gets speeded up. No response at all from the West Europe powers because there's no way to get any popular mandate to respond to a liberation of Russia by Ukraine, which is how it would have been spun by Goebbels.
And then Ukraine. Remember that a great number of Ukrainians saw the Germans as their liberators from the Russians. A joint military pact (to start with, anyway; can always come back later and start throwing your weight around), and it's off to Moscow in the summer of 1940. Partition Russia roughly North-South at Kazan, and you now have Poland effectively surrounded anyway without needing to invade.
Essentially a land-air campaign only, so budget can be diverted from the Navy and tank and infantry weapons development gets speeded up. No response at all from the West Europe powers because there's no way to get any popular mandate to respond to a liberation of Russia by Ukraine, which is how it would have been spun by Goebbels.
Impossible to say with much accuracy but had they not been spread so thinly then they certainly would have been even stronger where they were fighting.
Doubtful that they would have conquered Russia entirely but if they had reached an agreement with Stalin or prompted a more sympathetic regime to overthrow Stalin giving them access to Russian resources then things could have been very different.
Thankfully for all the competence of Nazi Germany Hitler was ultimately a madman whose twisted philosophy and insane arrogance drove him to go all out and destroy himself. So we will never know.
Doubtful that they would have conquered Russia entirely but if they had reached an agreement with Stalin or prompted a more sympathetic regime to overthrow Stalin giving them access to Russian resources then things could have been very different.
Thankfully for all the competence of Nazi Germany Hitler was ultimately a madman whose twisted philosophy and insane arrogance drove him to go all out and destroy himself. So we will never know.
The Germans could have gone through their allied countries, Austria , Hungary and opened an offensive through the Ukraine . This latter could have gained them a large resource of recruits , the Ukrainians hated Stalin.
The offensive would kick off in April/May , this would coincide with a Japanese offensive launched into the USSR's back door via China (The japanese were already there). Whilst you can never be 100% , I can not perceive the USSR surviving such an offensive.
It's surprising the Germans lost anyhow, had they launched Barbarrosa in April/May it may well have been a different story.
The offensive would kick off in April/May , this would coincide with a Japanese offensive launched into the USSR's back door via China (The japanese were already there). Whilst you can never be 100% , I can not perceive the USSR surviving such an offensive.
It's surprising the Germans lost anyhow, had they launched Barbarrosa in April/May it may well have been a different story.
Hosenbugler said:
The Germans could have gone through their allied countries, Austria , Hungary and opened an offensive through the Ukraine . This latter could have gained them a large resource of recruits , the Ukrainians hated Stalin.
The offensive would kick off in April/May , this would coincide with a Japanese offensive launched into the USSR's back door via China (The japanese were already there). Whilst you can never be 100% , I can not perceive the USSR surviving such an offensive.
It's surprising the Germans lost anyhow, had they launched Barbarrosa in April/May it may well have been a different story.
Didn't they delay it a month or so to pour troops into Greece? Bad move!The offensive would kick off in April/May , this would coincide with a Japanese offensive launched into the USSR's back door via China (The japanese were already there). Whilst you can never be 100% , I can not perceive the USSR surviving such an offensive.
It's surprising the Germans lost anyhow, had they launched Barbarrosa in April/May it may well have been a different story.
Hosenbugler said:
The Germans could have gone through their allied countries, Austria , Hungary and opened an offensive through the Ukraine . This latter could have gained them a large resource of recruits , the Ukrainians hated Stalin.
The offensive would kick off in April/May , this would coincide with a Japanese offensive launched into the USSR's back door via China (The japanese were already there). Whilst you can never be 100% , I can not perceive the USSR surviving such an offensive.
It's surprising the Germans lost anyhow, had they launched Barbarrosa in April/May it may well have been a different story.
The moral of the story is never start a war on two fronts with over stretched resources.The offensive would kick off in April/May , this would coincide with a Japanese offensive launched into the USSR's back door via China (The japanese were already there). Whilst you can never be 100% , I can not perceive the USSR surviving such an offensive.
It's surprising the Germans lost anyhow, had they launched Barbarrosa in April/May it may well have been a different story.
Even if they had beaten Russia, America would have turned Germany to dust by 1947 as they had the atom bomb, and could have produced loads by then.
Interesting question though.
Wacky Racer said:
Even if they had beaten Russia, America would have turned Germany to dust by 1947 as they had the atom bomb, and could have produced loads by then.
Yeah, but why would they ? US was very reluctant to enter the European war. Germany invading Russia only wouldn't have swung it.Wacky Racer said:
Hosenbugler said:
The Germans could have gone through their allied countries, Austria , Hungary and opened an offensive through the Ukraine . This latter could have gained them a large resource of recruits , the Ukrainians hated Stalin.
The offensive would kick off in April/May , this would coincide with a Japanese offensive launched into the USSR's back door via China (The japanese were already there). Whilst you can never be 100% , I can not perceive the USSR surviving such an offensive.
It's surprising the Germans lost anyhow, had they launched Barbarrosa in April/May it may well have been a different story.
The moral of the story is never start a war on two fronts with over stretched resources.The offensive would kick off in April/May , this would coincide with a Japanese offensive launched into the USSR's back door via China (The japanese were already there). Whilst you can never be 100% , I can not perceive the USSR surviving such an offensive.
It's surprising the Germans lost anyhow, had they launched Barbarrosa in April/May it may well have been a different story.
Even if they had beaten Russia, America would have turned Germany to dust by 1947 as they had the atom bomb, and could have produced loads by then.
Interesting question though.
Beggars the question though, what would the German Japanese alliance do once the USSR fell?
Stalin would have starved them out just the same, with even more horrifying Soviet losses. Stalingrad would have been the least of it. Hello, we've cut your supply lines. You have 2 million bullets, you say? Well, we have 2.5 million men that we can get on trains, let's see who runs out first.
It worked on Napoleon too, the willingness of the Russian authorities to retreat leaving only smoking ruins behind them never ceases to amaze me.
It worked on Napoleon too, the willingness of the Russian authorities to retreat leaving only smoking ruins behind them never ceases to amaze me.
Newc said:
Wacky Racer said:
Even if they had beaten Russia, America would have turned Germany to dust by 1947 as they had the atom bomb, and could have produced loads by then.
Yeah, but why would they ? US was very reluctant to enter the European war. Germany invading Russia only wouldn't have swung it.And the bomb was a collaboration, read that Churchill realised that we did not have the loot and gave them the Crown Jewels in bomb stuff to crack on with it.
At least from my understanding?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff