WW2 what if hitler went East?
Discussion
One of the greatest misconceptions of the German army is that is was a fully mechanised force. Newsreels of 1939/40 showed the steaming ahead of Panzers but behind them the majority of the army were using horses and push bikes.
With 20/20 hindsight, Hitler should have kept to the non-aggression pact with Stalin after splitting Poland, even negotiating a dmz along their shared border(s). Take France and Greece as they did, then take Crete, Malta and Gib. Forces used in reality against the Soviets then used to take Egypt and the Suez, the Brits would be significantly out numbered and out gunned. North Africa split between puppet France and Germany, support the Middle East to revolt against the Brits. All the time keeping the US sweet with full diplomatic ties and no aggression against the British mainland, any attacks on the Britain turning public opinion against efforts to set up a puppet here.
With 20/20 hindsight, Hitler should have kept to the non-aggression pact with Stalin after splitting Poland, even negotiating a dmz along their shared border(s). Take France and Greece as they did, then take Crete, Malta and Gib. Forces used in reality against the Soviets then used to take Egypt and the Suez, the Brits would be significantly out numbered and out gunned. North Africa split between puppet France and Germany, support the Middle East to revolt against the Brits. All the time keeping the US sweet with full diplomatic ties and no aggression against the British mainland, any attacks on the Britain turning public opinion against efforts to set up a puppet here.
s2art said:
How? The Germans had no plausible way to invade the UK.
That's not quite correct. Hitler did have enough manpower and mechanical power to invade the UK...but for how long could he retain his grip on the UK is the real question as the US would have certainly come to our defense. Of course, Hitler foolishly chose to spread his military strength too thinly by invading communist Russia with losses of 750,000 men. But, and it's a big but, he knew that Russia needed attacking...this irrespective of their co-joint treaty...and that it wouldn't be too long before the US joined the bun fight. The OP's question is, in fact, a very important one...what if the Nazi regime did go East? Where would China and Japan stand? China with huge manpower, Japan with strong military might. The real answer lies with Kim Philby, Dr Richard Sorge [Stalin's personal spy in Tokyo] and Eugen Ott [German ambassador in Tokyo and close friend to Sorge] Stalin too was in a difficult position...was Russia to be attacked from the East, were the Japanese going to attack Russia's eastern front? It was Sorge and Philby who independently assured Stalin that Japan were not going to attack which enabled Stalin to withdraw Russia's Far Eastern Army to secure Moscow...some eighty divisions, that's 1,000,000 men plus the far superior T34 tanks...far superior to the German Panzer Divisions...and force the German's retreat. Ironically, Hitler had studied Napoleon's failed invasion of Russia yet fell into the same trap, hesitating for some 4-5 weeks before pushing on into Moscow...at one stage German forces were only 16km from the Kremlin; he suffered for this hesitancy and most historians agree that December 1941 was the turning point of WWII as it proved the Nazi war machine was not infallible.V8 Fettler said:
The Germans didn't need to invade the UK to win. The German U-boats could have starved the British into the defeat 1940 - 1941 when the RN couldn't sink the U-boats quickly enough (there was a period of approximately three months when the RN didn't sink any U-boats) and the U-boats were sinking merchant ships quicker than the British could replace them.
I doubt we would have been beaten by 1941. That was a bit too early. Also, if Germany had been committed to an all out offensive against Russia then U-Boat construction might not have been seen as a priority. Also, if Hitler had opted for an eastern front before attacking the rest of Europe, then it is doubtful he would have had a victory in Russia by then so would not have declared war on France and the UK. I'm doubtful Germany would have defeated Russia in any case. It is quite big. Communications would have been all but impossible over anything west of Moscow/Stalingrad if there was a resistance, and there would have been.Then again, Stalin might well have been deposed/killed if there were a series of defeats and his replacement might well have sued for peace.
If Hitler had taken Moscow and Stalingrad then the winter still would have been a particularly bad one and he'd probably have made no further progress, and might even have set up a defensive line once he had the oil fields.
Russsia was 'safe' from their eastern flank as they had enough problems with the Japanese.
What is remarkable is that the war developed the way it did. Japan's attack on the USA was a bit of a godsend for the Allies. But what if we weren't at war with Germany? Would we have rushed to America's side with the threat of Germany attacking? There was a pact between Japan and Germany, although I doubt it would have been enough to start a western front if they were struggling in Russia.
JagLover said:
Joey Ramone said:
He went west first because he couldn't contemplate attacking the Soviet Union with Britain and France simultaneously poised to assault his western border, Simple as that.
The west had already declared war on him after he went East by attacking Poland. So attacking the Soviet Union, rather than France, in the summer of 1940 would have meant leaving the western allies free to attack him in the west and by necessity would have meant splitting his forces.MarkRSi said:
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?
You've got a Chronosphere haven't you? 
vonuber said:
I'd say more Dunkirk. Had the Germans pushed properly and not left it to the luftwaffe I'd say it would be very likely Britain would have put out peace feelers, with most of their army as POWs.
I'm not so sure. It was not an army as such but a light expeditionary force. My father, a regular in the RA, was to be sent out as artillery support. He was going to start, or had started, training on the specific guns that he'd used. The move was cancelled when the German advance started. The training was cancelled but later it restarted as, he thinks, a method of slowing a German advance into Britain. They did not use live ammunition for any of the training as, he says, there wasn't any.
So he was trained on various field guns, from light to massive, but the first one he fired in anger was an anti-aircraft gun he'd never seen before and that didn't have any instructions with it, this for the bombing raids that started after the retreat from Dunkirk.
The main British Army was kept for the defence of Britain, which some suggest it what miffed some French leaders, not to mention DG unhappy with not being credited with the liberation of France.
If Germany had delayed their attack on France, there's a chance that we might have been better prepared, and it is probably we'd have committed a significant proportion of our army to the mainland.
The problem with blitzkrieg was that once your supply columns became too long, you couldn't keep up the pace. You needed railways and heavy airlift - the former took time to lay and the latter didn't really exist in a meaningful manner. By the time your replacement tanks reached the front line, they needed a damn good service.
Russia has always used a scorched earth strategy - withdraw, extend the enemy's supply columns, then attack when the conditions are right. Those drawing Ukraine into the west would do well to note the visceral desire of Russians to keep their enemies at a decent distance.
Any scenario where Hitler invaded Russia involves him losing the war. If he had not invaded Russia, IMO we'd all be speaking German now, and British Leyland would never have happened.
Russia has always used a scorched earth strategy - withdraw, extend the enemy's supply columns, then attack when the conditions are right. Those drawing Ukraine into the west would do well to note the visceral desire of Russians to keep their enemies at a decent distance.
Any scenario where Hitler invaded Russia involves him losing the war. If he had not invaded Russia, IMO we'd all be speaking German now, and British Leyland would never have happened.
Newc said:
Only if he had invaded Poland in the first place. If he had gone through Ukraine instead it would have been a whole different story.
Ukraine bordered Poland and Romania in 1939.So if Poland is out that would mean moving most of his army into Romania and then supplying his entire army through a supply line that extended back up through the balkans.
It would also I suggest be a bit hard to maintain the element of surprise by massing 1.5 million men in Romania.
The relative strength ratio would also have been much the same in 1939
1939 the German army had 98 divisions at the time of the invasion of Poland and front line forces of around 1.5 million men.
By June 1941 it had 3 million men organised into 142 infantry divisions and 17 panzer divisions
The Soviet Union had only 1.8 million men in Sep 1939 in contrast to the far larger forces available in June 1941. But they had far more tanks and planes than the Germans in 1939.
rxe said:
The problem with blitzkrieg was that once your supply columns became too long, you couldn't keep up the pace. You needed railways and heavy airlift - the former took time to lay and the latter didn't really exist in a meaningful manner. By the time your replacement tanks reached the front line, they needed a damn good service.
Russia has always used a scorched earth strategy - withdraw, extend the enemy's supply columns, then attack when the conditions are right. Those drawing Ukraine into the west would do well to note the visceral desire of Russians to keep their enemies at a decent distance.
Any scenario where Hitler invaded Russia involves him losing the war. If he had not invaded Russia, IMO we'd all be speaking German now, and British Leyland would never have happened.
That's about the crux of it. Hitler should never have attacked Russia but divided the spoils between the Third Reich and Stalin the Red Czar. Hitler gaining the West, Stalin the East. Though how long these two regime's borders would have remained at peace is anyone's guess; certainly less than the en passe of the cold war/iron curtain era.Russia has always used a scorched earth strategy - withdraw, extend the enemy's supply columns, then attack when the conditions are right. Those drawing Ukraine into the west would do well to note the visceral desire of Russians to keep their enemies at a decent distance.
Any scenario where Hitler invaded Russia involves him losing the war. If he had not invaded Russia, IMO we'd all be speaking German now, and British Leyland would never have happened.
The thought of no Lord Stokes, Triumph Acclaims and TR7's is quite warming. The thought of adding at least three syllables to each of our English verbs is abhorrent. Thank you to the boys and girls of Bletchley Park, the RAF, Army and Navy, the US, the Poles...and to Herr Hitler and Co' for making such dumb decisions.
vonuber said:
jmorgan said:
Thought the BOB had that honour?
I'd say more Dunkirk. Had the Germans pushed properly and not left it to the luftwaffe I'd say it would be very likely Britain would have put out peace feelers, with most of their army as POWs.The Kriegsmarine had taken a battering during the Norwegian campaign and only had something like 10 servicable destroyers left whilst the RN had large numbers of them, something like 150 spread along the South and East coasts IIRC.
Couple of other things to take into account...
The Normandy landings had the benefit of LST's that could drop tanks right on the beach whilst the infantry were landed on small, powered 'Higgins' boats and relatively benign tides.
The Germans were planning on crossing much further East across the narrowest part of the English Channel where the tides are fearsome, rising and falling by 15-20 feet, treacherous sand banks and very strong currents to fight against.
Not much fun when you're in a small, unpowered barge being towed along with a couple of other barges by a tugboat with barely enough power to fight the tides and currents.
It has been estimated that a German invasion force would have to have set sail between 24 and 36 hours prior to the landings fighting the English Channel before they could even reach the English coast. The German infantry would have been so seasick after the crossing that they would be next to useless as a fighting force.
At Normandy the Allied airforces had total control of the skies, the French resistance were blowing up train lines and Hitler thought the Normandy landings were all a diversion as he knew that the real invasion was going to be at the Pas de Calais anyway and Adolf never got it wrong!!
In 1940 we still had a rail network capable of getting fighting troops anywhere in a matter of hours, the infantry that had been evacuated from Dunkirk had spent the intervining months re-arming and re-training and most disturbing of all was the fact that Churchill was prepared to order the use of chemical weapons on any invasion force.
Germany could have invaded in 1940 but it would have ended very badly for them.
This begs the question...
When the German invasion failed would this have been enough to topple Hitler from power?
v8250 said:
s2art said:
How? The Germans had no plausible way to invade the UK.
That's not quite correct. Hitler did have enough manpower and mechanical power to invade the UK...but for how long could he retain his grip on the UK is the real question as the US would have certainly come to our defense. Of course, Hitler foolishly chose to spread his military strength too thinly by invading communist Russia with losses of 750,000 men. But, and it's a big but, he knew that Russia needed attacking...this irrespective of their co-joint treaty...and that it wouldn't be too long before the US joined the bun fight. The OP's question is, in fact, a very important one...what if the Nazi regime did go East? Where would China and Japan stand? China with huge manpower, Japan with strong military might. The real answer lies with Kim Philby, Dr Richard Sorge [Stalin's personal spy in Tokyo] and Eugen Ott [German ambassador in Tokyo and close friend to Sorge] Stalin too was in a difficult position...was Russia to be attacked from the East, were the Japanese going to attack Russia's eastern front? It was Sorge and Philby who independently assured Stalin that Japan were not going to attack which enabled Stalin to withdraw Russia's Far Eastern Army to secure Moscow...some eighty divisions, that's 1,000,000 men plus the far superior T34 tanks...far superior to the German Panzer Divisions...and force the German's retreat. Ironically, Hitler had studied Napoleon's failed invasion of Russia yet fell into the same trap, hesitating for some 4-5 weeks before pushing on into Moscow...at one stage German forces were only 16km from the Kremlin; he suffered for this hesitancy and most historians agree that December 1941 was the turning point of WWII as it proved the Nazi war machine was not infallible.Tango13 said:
vonuber said:
jmorgan said:
Thought the BOB had that honour?
I'd say more Dunkirk. Had the Germans pushed properly and not left it to the luftwaffe I'd say it would be very likely Britain would have put out peace feelers, with most of their army as POWs.snip
Tango13 said:
When the German invasion failed would this have been enough to topple Hitler from power?
Interesting the way they clung to him even when it was well past getting out of Dodge. One of the great plots wanted a takeover but it was not to free the oppressed, it was the losses at the time and wanting to keep the gains. If he was replaced, then you would have had capable commanders in charge and still belligerent.jmorgan said:
Interesting the way they clung to him even when it was well past getting out of Dodge. One of the great plots wanted a takeover but it was not to free the oppressed, it was the losses at the time and wanting to keep the gains. If he was replaced, then you would have had capable commanders in charge and still belligerent.
If Hitler had been replaced because of a failed invasion attempt prior to Barbarossa then it probably wouldn't have gone ahead. The Generals were pragmatic whereas Hitler was a fanatic and the war against Russia was a war of ideology. If he had been replaced after the invasion of Russia had started then I think the war in the East would've dragged on with even greater losses on the Russian side until the Americans dropped an atomic bomb on Berlin.
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?
He did go east, he invaded Poland which is why we and the French declared war on him. Google the Phoney warv8250 said:
That's not quite correct. Hitler did have enough manpower and mechanical power to invade the UK...but for how long could he retain his grip on the UK is the real question as the US would have certainly come to our defense.
No he didn't, Operation Sealion was never a plausible plan though there was a real fear it was at the time. It failed at the first hurdle, defeating the RAF in the BoB. While we were replacing each lost aircraft with two, the Luftwaffe was replacing only half their loses. If (11 Group) Southern fighter command had collapsed in the BoB, it could have been rotated with the 12 Group from the Midlands or 13 from the North. The Battle of Britain was an important Propaganda/Moral victory but was never in serious doubt.
Bomber Command was destroying the Rhine Barrages as fast as they were arriving. These would have been a death traps and were not in slightest suitable, even unopposed. We had more than enough RN destroyers stationed in the South to prevent any Large Scale landings without even committing the Home Fleet.
Sandhurst War Gamed Operation Sealion which saw the German forces allowed to land unopposed and they were still decimated in short order.
Edited by 4x4Tyke on Sunday 21st August 18:24
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff