PDA

View Full Version : OT:What would happen if Hitler didnt pursuit Fall Barbarossa



alert_1
04-03-2007, 01:44 AM
and used resourses for puting a roof on fortress Europe instead - more/earlier fw190D, Me262, he219 and so on with no wasting resourses on eastern front..and if Stalin did assaulted he would be in much better political situation as defender of Europe against kommunism...your opinions please?

MadRuski
04-03-2007, 02:22 AM
Originally posted by alert_1:
if Stalin did assaulted he would be in much better political situation as defender of Europe against kommunism...your opinions please?


Stalin and the USSR was communist, you may mean defender against the nazis.

StG2_Schlachter
04-03-2007, 02:33 AM
He means Hitler http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

bazzaah2
04-03-2007, 02:40 AM
I think that not having an invasion of the USSR was never in Hitler's plans. Barbarossa in some ways was the culmination of everything Hitler believed in. Hitler's goal was the destruction of the USSR and - his words - Jewish Bolshevism with it, and the enslavement of the Slavic peoples.

I'm inclined to think that on some levels, it didn't matter to Hitler what the outcome was, more that it was the act of invasion, massacre and destruction that was important.

Read the psychoanalytical profile of Hitler that was made during the war and you will see what I mean. Granted it was made at a distance but it is an insightful document and has the ring of truth about it.

MadRuski
04-03-2007, 02:53 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Sergio_101
04-03-2007, 03:12 AM
Ok, what if.....
In August 1945 Berlin gets nuked as a result
of a stronger Germany lasting through the summer of 1945.

Japan surrenders soon after Germany after learning of the
power of a nuclear weapon.

What if?

Sergio

alert_1
04-03-2007, 04:10 AM
In August 1945 Berlin gets nuked as a result
of a stronger Germany lasting through the summer of 1945.

Thank you for your opinion.

tigertalon
04-03-2007, 05:23 AM
Have we forgotten? When Hitler invaded Soviet Union, nazi propaganda sent a message to the world:"We stopped them in last momemt! Our brave german army destroyed thousands and thousands of tanks and airplanes and caught millions of soviet soldiers that were ready to invade the free world!" Pictures of fields of destroyed antique russian military assets were broadcasted along. To cut it short, in nazi point of view, it was a "preemptive strike" (dare I use this expression), nazis tried to picture themselves as a saviours of the rest of the world from communist evil.

To answer the innitial question: No, if there was no clash between Soviets and Nazis, there was no way western decadent democracies defeated the nazis (they'd collapse as a card-house as soon as the losses started mounting). For that job, another gigantic regime, comparable in cruelty to the nazi one, was needed.

MadRuski
04-03-2007, 05:44 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif for briliant wording!

i am also amazed at how elderly people in Russia support what Stalin did for them back in the war, i was talking to an elderly man who basicaly described him as a god to Russia.

I admit the war would of been worse if Stalin did not do what he could to against the Nazis, but it makes you think if he could of done it any other efficient way?

Bewolf
04-03-2007, 05:49 AM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Ok, what if.....
In August 1945 Berlin gets nuked as a result
of a stronger Germany lasting through the summer of 1945.

Japan surrenders soon after Germany after learning of the
power of a nuclear weapon.

What if?

Sergio

In that case London and other cities probably would have been attacked with huge amounts of some of the worst biological and chemical weapons, which Germany had large stockpiles of.

Chris0382
04-03-2007, 06:39 AM
Stalin was a god to those he treated well as he took from others and killed others so certain population of his choosing could prosper.

Stalin had taken part of Romania and was threatening the oil rich region of Romania and would have grabbed it had hitler not invaded. Stalin would have kept fighting with mineral rich Finland also had hitler not invaded. Both were evil IMO and were destined to fight for former Prussian territories and the surrounding areas.

Jutocsa
04-03-2007, 07:00 AM
If Hitler hadnt attacked the Sovietunion, well...quite frankly it wouldnt have make much difference at all. Stalin planned to invade Europe, and prepared for it as well as for a German attack he just thought it would be a bit later. Anyway...what doest it matter to live under nazi rule or communist rule ? Does it matter that you die in a concentration camp by strict and well known "laws", or just disappear during the night just to die in Siberia after much suffering, while no one knows a thing about you ? If you think there is a difference, ask any Central-European ppl.

Oh and for a second possibility, there is a Hungarian game I worked for,it just has been released. Named War Front, the Germans are the good guys in it, accompanied by the USA, fighting the Sovietunion (although its after a successful assasination of Hitler). So..who knows what would have happened...i think the first option...Russian occupation.

Suedwester
04-03-2007, 08:11 AM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Ok, what if.....
In August 1945 Berlin gets nuked as a result
of a stronger Germany lasting through the summer of 1945.


I don´t think, this is very likely. If Germany wasn´t at war with the Soviet Union in late 1941, there would have been no reason for Hitler to declare war on the US after Pearl Habour. The reason for the declaration of war was, that he hoped, that Japan would in return declare war on the SU and open a second front in Asia (Siberia), which did not happen. I don´t think, that the United States would have declared war on Germany by themselves. The public opinion was to beat up the Japanese, Germany was not on their radar (the common people that is).
So - no war between Germany and the United States - no A-bomb on Berlin...

Suedwester
04-03-2007, 08:16 AM
Originally posted by Jutocsa:
If Hitler hadnt attacked the Sovietunion, well...quite frankly it wouldnt have make much difference at all. Stalin planned to invade Europe...


That is a rumour, that goes around for quite a time. Even after the fall of the Soviet Union, there has been found no proof of that. Stalin might have thought of attacking Poland (he hated the Polish since the war of 1919/20), but there is no evidence, that he planned to attack Germany or the rest of Europe.

jensenpark
04-03-2007, 08:29 AM
Originally posted by Suedwester:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jutocsa:
If Hitler hadnt attacked the Sovietunion, well...quite frankly it wouldnt have make much difference at all. Stalin planned to invade Europe...


That is a rumour, that goes around for quite a time. Even after the fall of the Soviet Union, there has been found no proof of that. Stalin might have thought of attacking Poland (he hated the Polish since the war of 1919/20), but there is no evidence, that he planned to attack Germany or the rest of Europe. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I had thought it was way past the rumour stage. Soviet troops at jump off locations at the very front, etc...

In the book "Stalin's Folly, the first 10 days..." it covers in a fair amount of detail the discussions, plans of a western invasion.

Jutocsa
04-03-2007, 08:35 AM
Originally posted by Suedwester:
That is a rumour, that goes around for quite a time. Even after the fall of the Soviet Union, there has been found no proof of that. Stalin might have thought of attacking Poland (he hated the Polish since the war of 1919/20), but there is no evidence, that he planned to attack Germany or the rest of Europe.

Even if it is a rumor, he well knew Germany will attack...and what great power let another great power that threathens him in peace ? Even if Hitler hadnt wanted to attack...Stalin wouldnt let such a strong Germany grow even stronger. Just think about recent politics, you can find many examples. And since Europe doesnt end in Austria, I still say it would have been the very same for half of it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Bewolf
04-03-2007, 08:37 AM
Actually there are a lot of indications for this, like the placing of soviet troops and equipment near the border in an offensive pattern rather then a defensive one. But no definitive proof, no smoking gun for that theory. Added to that comes the russian military plans for that time, calling for an offense beeing the best defense. In case of beeing attacked an immidiate counteroffensive was planned. So that may explian it as well. There still is a lot of debate about this topic, and nothing really cleared up.

Considering Stalin's power hunger though, and seeing how he treated Poland and the Balkans, I'd personally not wonder at all if he planned to wait for a weak Europe before striking himself.

Bearcat99
04-03-2007, 08:45 AM
Originally posted by tigertalon:
Have we forgotten? When Hitler invaded Soviet Union, nazi propaganda sent a message to the world:"We stopped them in last momemt! Our brave german army destroyed thousands and thousands of tanks and airplanes and caught millions of soviet soldiers that were ready to invade the free world!" Pictures of fields of destroyed antique russian military assets were broadcasted along. To cut it short, in nazi point of view, it was a "preemptive strike" (dare I use this expression), nazis tried to picture themselves as a saviours of the rest of the world from communist evil.

To answer the innitial question: No, if there was no clash between Soviets and Nazis, there was no way western decadent democracies defeated the nazis (they'd collapse as a card-house as soon as the losses started mounting). For that job, another gigantic regime, comparable in cruelty to the nazi one, was needed.


Hmmmm I can't believe I am saying this but... that sounds familiar.....

but..... IMO If Germany had followed through with it's stroke in the BoB and if they had not invaded Russia when they did and consolidated thier hold.... I think things would have been different... but they made so many tactical blunders..... Invading Russia without long range bombers... shelving obviously superior technology... due mainly to cokiness.... after all... most Germans thought that the Eastern war would be over by the fall.....

Suedwester
04-03-2007, 08:50 AM
It is true, that during the spring of 1941 a lot of Soviet troops were deployed at the western border.
Most historians consider this - as Bewolf mentioned - as the force for a planned counterattack, following the initial - German - punch. The Soviet knew of "Barbarossa" since late december 1940.

S.P. Ivanov wrote about, what happened onthe the Soviet side during the weeks before "Barbarossa" was launched:
"Approximately a month before the start of the war, when the deployment of the fascist forces along our border was actually being carried out overtly, our command still had an opportunity to complete at least the deployment of the first strategic echelon... It was assumed that initially the aggressor would invade our country with only part of its forces; border engagements would take place, under the cover of which ...the deployment of the main masses of troops ...would be completed. ...this assumption was not justified.... Thus, the fascist German command, literally during the last 2 weeks before the war, was able to preempt our forces in completing deployment." (source: The Initial Period of War-Moskau 1974. pages 182 and 183 - translated and published by the US Air Force as "Soviet Military Thought", no date)

So - they thought: "Attack is the best defence." Well - it wasn´t...

Hkuusela
04-03-2007, 10:25 AM
The question of Soviet invasion:

It's been indeed argued, that the Soviets were planning to invade Europe. The argument can be substantiated to some extent. Stalin stopped the invasion of Finland in what we call Winter War, because there was a risk of allied intervention. That would have lead the USSR to the "wrong" side of the war and brought the USSR to the war prematurely. Stalin had stated in his speech to the army officers (although this is controversial) that his strategy was to let the western powers fight each other and weaken each other, so that they can no longer resist the USSR invasion taking Europe. In his speech to the high command of the army after the catastrophical Winter War, Stalin reasoned, that it was necessary to start the war as fast as they did, because the western powers were "at each other's throats" and could not intervene. So Stalin payed a lot of attention to the war in the west and that had an effect in his policy.

I think that the theory of Soviet forces being ready to attack in June 1941 has been shot down. That does not mean that Stalin did not have long term plans to invade. It is well known, that Russian communism was rather aggressive and expansive. Unfortunately we have no certain proof of this, because the Russian archives are closed from public. That could imply, that there is something there, that the current regime does not want to get out in the open. Then again, it could not...

The outcome of the war if Hitler hadn't attacked:

That's a tough one. Hitler would have had his hands free with England, which probably would have fallen initially (Brits, plese don't shoot me...). The Americans would not have had a base from where to operate in Europe and that would have forced them to attack via Africa. If German submarines would have had free hands in the Atlantic, that might have had a decisive effect on the US war effort in Africa and subsequently in Europe.

Then again, I firmly believe that friendship between the USSR and Germany wasn't gonna last. There was no chance of those two totalitarian powers living in peace and harmony with each other. They were both suspicious about each other. When the Finnish delegation was in Moscow to negotiate with the Russians, they asked why Stalin needed Finnish soil to protect Leningrad. After all the USSR and Germany had a non-aggression pact. "Anything can change in this world", replied Stalin. A Russian diplomat, named Jartsev, started to laugh, when the Finnish delegates talked about the peace and happines between the USSR and Germany. In this perspective it can be argued, that Germany would have ended up fighting the same enemies anyhow and her economy was not up to the challenge. The economic power of the USA was just overwhelming.

German declaration of war to the USA:

I think the declaration had also something to do with cutting American supplies from being shipped to England. Germans couldn't (wouldn't) attack American ships since they were not at war. And the situation on the Atlantic was close to war anyhow. The American warships were attacking German u-boats before the declaration.

Finnish minerals:

The USSR was pressuring the Finnish government to give them a consession on the nickel mine in Petsamo, Lapland. The pressure was so hard, that the Finnish government was about to fold, when the Germans (I think it was Goering) instructed them not to give in. Even though Finland would have fought, the fight would have been a desperate one. Weakened from the Winter War, fighting without the winter slowing the Russian operations, with no military or political support... You do the math. Russians would have taken at least the Petsamo mine, which was crucial for the German war effort. On the other hand Germans planned to lauch an attack from Norway in case of Russian invasion in Petsamo, but by their succes (rather lack of...) in attacking in the north later in 1941, I'm not so sure the "Operation Silberfuchs" (?) would have been a succesful one. This was again one factor that probably would have lead Germany and the USSR to war with each other.

major_setback
04-03-2007, 11:24 AM
God knows how he thought. He couldn't beat Britain so he took on Russia!!!?????

Bewolf
04-03-2007, 12:52 PM
It does not need God to know what he thought. Just read "Mein Kampf".

Hkuusela
04-03-2007, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by major_setback:
God knows how he thought. He couldn't beat Britain so he took on Russia!!!????? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Sounds odd, doesn't it. But attacking Britain was never the main goal. Hitler tried to make peace with the UK to have freedom to operate against the USSR. When the Brits turned the offer down (Bertie Wooster's voice: Jolly good show!), it was necessary to attack. Luckily for the rest of the world, Hitler was assisted by the greatest strategist of all time, Mr Goering. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

Attacking the USSR may seem crazy in hind sight. But was it really that far from succeeding? If Hitler hadn't messed the offensive him self, who knows...? There were some terrible mistakes made along the way. One was naturally the treatment of the Russian civilians, who initially treated the Germans as liberators. The Leningrad siege tied German forces that might have been decisive in the battle for Moscow. Of course the declaration of a crusade against the bolshevism and the herds of eastern subhumans was good to boost the morale on the other side of the front too as well as the atrocities committed on the prisoners. The list goes on...

Hoatee
04-03-2007, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by Suedwester:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jutocsa:
If Hitler hadnt attacked the Sovietunion, well...quite frankly it wouldnt have make much difference at all. Stalin planned to invade Europe...


That is a rumour, that goes around for quite a time. Even after the fall of the Soviet Union, there has been found no proof of that. Stalin might have thought of attacking Poland (he hated the Polish since the war of 1919/20), but there is no evidence, that he planned to attack Germany or the rest of Europe. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What happened to "workers of the world unite"? It was a lie all these years?

Sergio_101
04-03-2007, 04:42 PM
Mein Kamph is not clear about much.
I have read it several times.
It's a tough read.
What is clear is......
Hitler did want revenge on the Allies
the destruction of the Jewish race and
the Bolshiveks.

No matter how you cut the pie, Germany was to loose.
japan had chem and bio warfare, the nuclear attacks
were so far beyond a reasonable defense it gave
the Emperor the leverage to force the surrender.

The extermination of a couple of large cities would
have had the same impact in Germany as Japan.
one B-29 or B-36 could destroy a whole city or several cities.

Sergio

ViktorViktor
04-04-2007, 12:08 AM
Hitler's decision to attack the Soviet Union was a calculated gamble, and seems reasonable to me. It was easy the Germans to conclude that the war in the West was over (at least for the next couple of years). Germany had pretty much taken everything in the West, though the isolated UK was gamely holding out on their island. Just look at a map of Europe in 1940. The only problem in the West seemed to be that the UK didn't yet realize the war was over.

So there was a standstill in the West. Meanwhile, the butt-kicking Germany military was well-experienced and well-equipped - and sitting idle. Even when idle, it had to be fed and maintained, which costs a tremendous amount of money. And one must take into consideration that expericnced armies don't last forever. They get old and the vets eventually demand to go home. After a couple of years the military would have to replace the vets with new troops and re-equip with new weapons, which cost even more than using current troops and weapons.

So Hitler decided to finish off his enemy in the East while he still had the manpower and equipment AVAILABLE to do it. (Who knows if he would be able to pull off an invasion of the Soviet Union if he waited another 3 years, he was probably thinking). It was not a bad decision, and the Germans in fact came very close to shutting the door on the Soviet Union.
But as we know, Hitler failed in his gamble, so we think of him as foolish today.

Bewolf
04-04-2007, 12:25 AM
Pretty much spot on Viktor. There is a tendency nowadays that nothing really matters and the outcome of the war was clear from the start on. Be it the battle of Britain, the fight over russia, the Atlantic Battle, they all don't count anymore.
Ppl back then were far away from thinking in the same lines, on both sides. It really would not have taken that much, there were a lof of "really really close" cases.
Also, taking Stalins second peace offer in 1941, Treating the civilians in the occupied terretories a bit differently and thus taking full advantage of the industrial capacities located there and also going to full war production way earlier, Germany would have had enormous industrial capacities to its use. There was a huge topic about this once in "Der Spiegel" a few years ago.
It came to the result that if Germany made better use of its assets, the conclusion of the war would have been far from decided.

Luckily for all it's leadership was just way too stupid.

Badsight-
04-04-2007, 12:52 AM
Originally posted by ViktorViktor:
some type. well put

i would only add that Russia was planned from the start

Poland first - & then the invasion of russia , which would have started earlier than it did if Hitler didnt get diverted sorting out elsewhere

stathem
04-04-2007, 01:33 AM
Originally posted by Hoatee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Suedwester:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jutocsa:
If Hitler hadnt attacked the Sovietunion, well...quite frankly it wouldnt have make much difference at all. Stalin planned to invade Europe...


That is a rumour, that goes around for quite a time. Even after the fall of the Soviet Union, there has been found no proof of that. Stalin might have thought of attacking Poland (he hated the Polish since the war of 1919/20), but there is no evidence, that he planned to attack Germany or the rest of Europe. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What happened to "workers of the world unite"? It was a lie all these years? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, you're thinking of Trotskyism and the Internationale. Stalinism is quite different...

Chris0382
04-04-2007, 07:04 AM
hitler has planned in the late 20's to fight communism and Judaism. His destiny and plan was to take land to the east (Russia) and destroy communism with the aide of the UK. France was also disliked and he wanted to take France also. It was only a matter of time but hitler had a need to attack Russia while he was in power and attacked UK only because UK allied with Poland and declared war on Germany. I think the UK attacked Germany first (bombing) after Germany took Poland (correct me here).

BBB_Hyperion
04-04-2007, 07:19 AM
Some literature .)

http://militera.lib.ru/h/stolfi/index.html

Hoatee
04-04-2007, 01:39 PM
What's the difference between Trotskyism and Stalinism? Is it equal to the difference between Fascism and Nazism? The goal is always the same - global domination.

stathem
04-04-2007, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by Hoatee:
What's the difference between Trotskyism and Stalinism? Is it equal to the difference between Fascism and Nazism? The goal is always the same - global domination.

No, no, no.

Trotskyism states permanent global workers revolution - that Communism can only work on a global scale, and with the pre-requisite that Capitalism is wholly defeated.

Stalinism reckons that Commuinism can work in a single country. This appears to be a false premise. Stalin was more interested in totalitarian control than global revolution. Any expansion was as buffer control of Capitalism.

Trotsky and Stalin were mortal enemies.

Unfortunatley Stalin won.*

*(by the way I'm a bit pissed from watching the CL QF so the accuracy of my post cannot be verified)

Blutarski2004
04-04-2007, 07:31 PM
Many people believe that Hitler was insane to have attacked the USSR. I believe they hold that view because they know that Hitler was defeated by the USSR.

But view it from Hitler's perspective at the time. He served in the First World War, in which Germany had militarily crushed Imperial Russia, collapsed its government, and dictated a humiliating peace. He had some precedent to believe that victory against the USSR was possible.

People today can quibble over whether or not the precedent was meaningful after a lapse of twenty-odd years, but Hitler was nothing if not a calculated risk-taker.

As far as a Soviet attack upon Germany, and perhaps Europe in general, is concerned, I see Stalin as an opportunist who would take what he felt was vulnerable. Finland and the Livonian states are cases in point, although he was rebuffed by the Finns. Soviet forward positioning of its armed forces might have been a preparation to exploit a possible German defeat in the Battle of France.

leitmotiv
04-04-2007, 07:57 PM
Today London's Cockneys would be speaking German with a Cockney accent.

Bewolf
04-05-2007, 01:14 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Today London's Cockneys would be speaking German with a Cockney accent.

oh gawd, the agony of the mental image

leitmotiv
04-05-2007, 02:48 AM
Pretty terrifying, innit?

DeerHunterUK
04-05-2007, 02:59 AM
I think it could be even worse than that. Cockneys speaking with a **** Van **** ala Mary Poppins accent. I'd never go to London again. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

*EDIT*
You see, even the forum hates that accent in the film!!!

leitmotiv
04-05-2007, 03:51 AM
Walk Disney Cockney---wot?!!!