What If Germany Had Not Gone To War With Russia?

I would like to hear opinions on what people believe would have happened if Germany had declared war on the US but never invaded Russia. Could the Allies have beaten Hitler?

 

Interesting topic indeed. Hitler believed that a war with the Soviet Union was an inevitability, this belief stemming from the earliest days of the NSDAP. Despite Hitler's continued obsession with the great "showdown" with "Jewish Bolshevism", it's my opinion that Stalin had no interest, short term at least, in a war with Nazi Germany, as proved by his approval of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact, and also his hesitation and almost disbelief at the launching of Barbarossa in 1941.

Before Barbarossa, Germany had closer links to Russia(no matter how contrived) than the US, so there would have been no question of Russians declaring war on Germany simply in support of the Americans. This would certainly suggest a more favourable outcome to the conflict from a German point of view.

I think the Allies would have had the strength and manpower necessary to defeat Hitler, but whether they would have wanted to participate in such a conflict without the Russians keeping the Wehrmacht busy on two fronts is highly doubtful in my mind. I vote a more favourable German outcome, if not quite the one Hitler desired. So, "Negotiated Peace", but with the Germans negotiating from the position of power, and subsequently making gains.

 

Originally posted by Obri@Sep 13 2005, 07:56 AM
Interesting topic indeed. Hitler believed that a war with the Soviet Union was an inevitability, this belief stemming from the earliest days of the NSDAP. Despite Hitler's continued obsession with the great "showdown" with "Jewish Bolshevism"

Are you saying that Hitler believed that the Jews were behind Bolshevism? If so, is that factual or is it part of Hitler's blaming them for everything?

 

Originally posted by jimbotosome@Sep 14 2005, 03:01 AM
Are you saying that Hitler believed that the Jews were behind Bolshevism? If so, is that factual or is it part of Hitler's blaming them for everything?
[post=39000]Quoted post[/post]

I can't say for sure exactly what Hitler believed about Bolshevism(I have not read Mein Kampf), but he frequently coupled the Jews with Bolshevism in speeches. I would certainly not call it factual, but to Hitler, the two were inextricably linked.

 

Good question. I put down "stalemate and drawn out war," because I think that had the Germans not broken the Non-Aggression Treaty, but concentrated on cutting off the Mediterranean and finishing off Britain, the distance of the Atlantic would have created a massive stalemate situation for a long time.

 

Good topic. I think Hitler felt he had little choice in attacking Russia in 1941. The Soviets had emmense forces, and were rapidly modernizing their equipment. The T-34 tank gave the Soviets superiority over German armor and would have been present in greater numbers in 1942, the same for the Yak fighter.

The purges of the 1930s left the Red Army almost headless, but a new officer corps was being created that Stalin felt he could trust. This would make the Soviets much more effective as time went on.

I think its probable that with his superiority in numbers and equipment(didn't even mention the Il-2) Stalin would have attacked Germany in 1942 or 1943. The war might have lasted longer than it did, but with its superiority in population and resources Russia, along with the Western Allies, would have defeated the Germans.

 

I believe that war with Russia was going to happen sooner or later whether Hitler attacked Stalin or Stalin attacked Hitler. The war I feel would maybe have lasted a bit longer but in my opinion the result would have been the same, Germany defeated and the allies victorious.

 

Interesting topic indeed. First of all you have to assume that the US stepped into the war at some point also in this scenario, even if the likehoodness of a german war declaration would probably be lower. (if you see the actual declaration as a hint to the japs to do the same for their allies with soviet). But Britain alone would never have stand out in the long run. In one way or another, they would be forced to sign peace.

With the european war mainly between USA/Commonwealth and Germany/Italy/, it would be between very evenly matched, and more importantly, without direct chanses for anyone to put the other out of the game. On almost all fronts, there would be ocean separating the combatants. The basic scenario we would see is the germans dominating the ground and allied superiority on the sea. With the eastern borders open, a blockade would be less painful for the germans. I think we are down to two options. A long drawn out stalemate war or soviet intervention against germany.

The u-boat war could possibly be the decisive front. With higher priority on resources and air support, who knows what them boats could have achieved. Maybe enough to make the allies feel they have to end the war. However I dont find it likely. They were never close to cutting off the lifelinfe over the Atlantic in real history, why now?

Atomic war? Maybe, but not at all nescesarily. How many cities would the allies have to bomb before Hitler allowed his untouched armies to surrender? How many were the allies prepared to drop? How would the rest of the world react?

my 4 cents

 

Hi Strumpfabwehr,

Look forward to some more loose change!

 

There was a science-fiction film made just before WW2 called "The Shape of Things to Come" (or something like that, and I may be getting the title confused with another film). It ends with total war, starting about the time that WW2 actually did but going on for many decades and ending in the complete collapse of civilization. Clearly this is what many people thought might happen - a very long-drawn out stalemate.

But of course no-one before the war predicted the Atom bomb, and this would probably have been the decider. If the Nazis had fitted the V2 with a nuclear warhead we would have been stuffed.

In reality, for Hitler to invade the Soviet Union was such a major decision that it is difficult to believe that it was not something he always planned, and therefore pretty well inevitable.

Another interesting question would be what would have happened if Hitler had not declared war on the USA when they declared war on Japan? This was much more of a snap decision on his part, and therefore not inevitable. How long would it have taken the US to come in on our [the Commonwealth's] side, if at all, and could we have opened a second front with only lend-lease support from the US and not hands-on support?

Adrian

 

Originally posted by adrian roberts@Sep 19 2005, 05:59 PM
Another interesting question would be what would have happened if Hitler had not declared war on the USA when they declared war on Japan? This was much more of a snap decision on his part, and therefore not inevitable. How long would it have taken the US to come in on our [the Commonwealth's] side, if at all, and could we have opened a second front with only lend-lease support from the US and not hands-on support?

That's an interesting question. I personally believe that Roosevelt would have lobbied Congress to get a war declaration under the grounds that Germany who is Japan's ally poses a greater threat to the US's defeating of Japan than Japan's forces do themselves and must be dealt with first.

Maybe this is slightly off topic, but as you probably know, there is a conspiracy controversy over whether or not Roosevelt knew about the attacks on Pearl. I am getting ready to study this subject to see what the debate is about. From books I read about the friendship between Roosevelt and Churchill, I believe that Roosevelt was desperate to get into the war with Germany before it was too late. With 5 carriers moved to the Atlantic, and the all 3 Pacific carriers scheduled to be docked in Pearl but all three "strangely detained", it is a little too coincidental to be ignored. I suspect that if it was true, that Roosevelt’s gambit was a lot more costly than he had estimated. One thing that was sure. The US “lost contact” with the largest Japanese task force ever spotted (possessing 4 carriers). Ok, this can happen. But expecting an attack and losing a task force of that size, why would you call back the Navy patrols around Pearl? Would a bizarre risk like allowing Pearl to be attacked, be more believable than gross incompetence of even basic security procedures of a port “not suspected of the probability of attack” by Adm. Kimmel? Also, the planes parked wingtip to wingtip on Hickam field were done so to “protect them from sabotage”. Knowing that airplanes are basically flying gas tanks, why would they be protected better from saboteurs being parked side by side? I a few grenade and you could lose them all. This would not have been possible if they were parked at normal distances. Has anyone hear of guards patrolling an airfield? Wouldn’t that be a better idea? I hate to go into a study with a bias but its very hard to accept that a Navy under fear of attack would be that incompetent. But, I digress.

 

Originally posted by adrian roberts@Sep 20 2005, 08:59 AM
There was a science-fiction film made just before WW2 called "The Shape of Things to Come" (or something like that, and I may be getting the title confused with another film). It ends with total war, starting about the time that WW2 actually did but going on for many decades and ending in the complete collapse of civilization. Clearly this is what many people thought might happen - a very long-drawn out stalemate.

But of course no-one before the war predicted the Atom bomb, and this would probably have been the decider. If the Nazis had fitted the V2 with a nuclear warhead we would have been stuffed.

In reality, for Hitler to invade the Soviet Union was such a major decision that it is difficult to believe that it was not something he always planned, and therefore pretty well inevitable.

Another interesting question would be what would have happened if Hitler had not declared war on the USA when they declared war on Japan? This was much more of a snap decision on his part, and therefore not inevitable. How long would it have taken the US to come in on our [the Commonwealth's] side, if at all, and could we have opened a second front with only lend-lease support from the US and not hands-on support?

Adrian
[post=39233]Quoted post[/post]

In a previous thread "Biggest mistakes of WW2" Hitler received my vote by declaring war on the United States.

Roosevelt needed a reason to engage the total axis and may have been able to convince the American people "eventually" that in fighting the Japanese they must also fight the Germans and Italians etc.

Hitler was goaded into it by words and deeds from Roosevelt and by request of the Japanese and it literally altered the course of the war.

If you have not read Hitlers speech of the declaration of war against the US 11/12/41, it is in the link below

http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1941/411211b.html

 

Geoff,

I read the speech of Hitler’s declaring war on the US from your link. Good post, it is very relevant to the subject. Of course it was full of Hitler’s rhetoric and hyperbole justifying his actions in invading countries, but it also shows that Roosevelt was constantly baiting Hitler into war by all of the aggressive actions the US took. Since an American president cannot declare war, this is the next best thing. The funny thing is that Roosevelt was not a war monger and very much a live and let live person. From the books I have read about Roosevelt, such actions were out of character for him, and I would conclude from the texts that because of his great admiration for Sir Winston, that it influenced his behavior. This point bleeds into several topics I have read on this forum lately like, could Britain have won without Churchill. I don’t think it is a given because the US may not have warmed to another leader, at least not to make such bold moves as FDR did. Add that to the fact that Churchill often charmed the sox off of the US Congress and Senate as well as the Canadians, he made the nations seem like family members.

You can make a case that the actions (many of which I had heard of) such as the incidents of the US Navy leading British and Dutch warships to German ships operating in international waters in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic and attacking German warships in international waters are acts of war. I have to believe that war with the US was the last thing Hitler wanted and why he never retaliated to these acts and never declared war until he figured Roosevelt could have convinced the American people and more importantly Congress to declare war on Germany. FDR gave Britain so many weapons that it could not reasonably be considered neutral. Scads of WWI rifles and machine guns, 50 Destroyers, 20 torpedo boats, escorting shipping across the Atlantic with US destroyers, and the Lend Lease act itself where Britain could request what it decided it needed, all of these were overtly hostile toward Germany, there is really no other way to look at it. It was like an undeclared unilateral war.

Had the US and Australia have carried out the war in the Pacific, I believe that Britain and Russia could have eventually overcome Germany, especially if FDR’s activities of shoveling arms under the table and the Lend-Lease act were sustained even after Japan was destroyed. The Pacific war would have been over a lot faster if the brunt of the US forces had been used there.

Knowing this, it then leads one to conclude that it probably would have saved more Aussie soldiers and US Marines who died fighting the Japanese, but I do believe it would have cost many more Brits and Russians and carried the MTO and ETO on a lot longer, but I have come to believe they would have still managed to overcome Germany, though it would have been anything but a foregone conclusion. The choice of taking on Germany first I am sure provided a "net gain" in the reduction of Allied lives lost. The Aussies and the US Marines, as we say here in the states, “took one for the home team” by having to fight a nasty and insane enemy without the benefit of the strength of the US Army and USAAF. Shamefully, they get very little respect for what they did compared to the press the boys in the ETO and MTO got and still get.

You mentioned one time about John Curtain pulling the forces back to Australia, and I can’t remember if you stated it with some reservation, but the help of the Aussies in the Pacific was of greater service to the overall cause in WWII than if they had remained deployed in the ETO and MTO. I can’t believe that their contribution in the ETO would have been anywhere near as important as helping the Marines keep the Japanese at bay so the brunt of the American forces could be deployed in Europe and North Africa. Had the Japanese have conquered Australia, it would have been a mess trying to root them out costing many additional soldiers (of all Allies) lives as well as so many citizens that would have been subjected to the savage and brutal soldiers of Japan. It retrospect, there is little doubt that Curtain made the correct decision. Under a topic of "Best Decisions of WWII", you would have to add this one by Curtain.

 

Originally posted by adrian roberts@Sep 19 2005, 06:59 PM
There was a science-fiction film made just before WW2 called "The Shape of Things to Come" (or something like that, and I may be getting the title confused with another film). It ends with total war, starting about the time that WW2 actually did but going on for many decades and ending in the complete collapse of civilization. Clearly this is what many people thought might happen - a very long-drawn out stalemate.
Adrian
[post=39233]Quoted post[/post]

Yes, that was the film. Ralph Richardson and Raymond Massey. The interesting part of the film for me was its view of England in 1966, as a ruined nation, with "Everytown" ruled by Richardson as a feudal baron, with an ox-drawn Rolls-Royce. Wells did not predict atomic weaponry, but fell into the common view of the time that bombing and poison gas would wreck cities, the denizens' morale, and lead to political collapse. Everyone missed the actual lesson of Spain, which was not from Guernica, but Madrid: the bomb damage was not as bad as expected, and the Madrillenos' morale actually went up under the bombing. They were all "in it together," and all part of the battle.

 

One thing that was sure. The US “lost contact” with the largest Japanese task force ever spotted (possessing 4 carriers). Ok, this can happen.

In what sense did the US lose contact with the task force? Were they actually shadowing it from when it left Japan? I thought the only contact made with it was by two PBYs that were shot down before they could radio back to base. (Though I wonder if their fate was ever proven, given that none of the crews survived). If this was the only contact then the US can hardly be said to be expecting an attack, on that evidence alone.

I'll be interested to hear any more on this theory, though I've tended to favour cock-up explanations rather than conspiracies.

The interesting part of the film for me was its view of England in 1966, as a ruined nation, with "Everytown" ruled by Richardson as a feudal baron, with an ox-drawn Rolls-Royce.

I wonder if this inspired the Mad Max films?

but fell into the common view of the time that bombing and poison gas would wreck cities,

With the technology of 1939 it wouldn't have been possible to destroy whole cities. But from 1943 and the Hamburg raid, using 1000 bombers and with greatly increased accuracy, the fiction was starting to become truth.


Adrian

 

Originally posted by adrian roberts@Sep 20 2005, 06:54 PM
In what sense did the US lose contact with the task force? Were they actually shadowing it from when it left Japan? I thought the only contact made with it was by two PBYs that were shot down before they could radio back to base. (Though I wonder if their fate was ever proven, given that none of the crews survived). If this was the only contact then the US can hardly be said to be expecting an attack, on that evidence alone.
Yes, a US submarine spotted them and tailed them but lost contact (subs were not that fast). There was quite a bit of confusion as to where they were headed. But one would naturally think that Pearl would be secured especially since it was on the list of probable war starting targets. Conspiracy theories are usually a bunch of hoo-ha but Robert Stinnett recently wrote a book about the setup at Pearl after he had obtained declassified documents (after 60 years they were declassified) from the National Archives, spent a year digging through them and found what he says is definitive evidence. I saw him on C-Span giving a lecture on the book and I recently ordered it (I haven’t gotten it yet). Right after he published the book, the government took the documents out of the National Archive and put them out of reach of the public. He made copies of the ones he saw but said he could not get to some of them even back then. Here is the link to the book at Amazon http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=books&n=507846 you out to read some of the reviewer comments. It is quite a controversy.

For me, it’s not that I have proof of a conspiracy or even want one. But it is beyond reason to me to think that with Roosevelt’s constant provocation of Hitler and Hitler refusal to bite, that his hostile actions against Japan were not for the same reason. It’s possible that he thought that the Japanese were going to hit the Philippines, but that would not necessarily cause war. Why stop patrolling the perimeter of Pearl? Why weren’t at least one of the carriers in port? But I will reserve judgment until I have read more on it.

You point about the PBY is a valid one. If they were shot down over the ocean they would have not survived to testify that they saw the fleet and were never able to communicate it. Sounds a little fishy.

 

Here are another couple of conspirancy theory efforts.


Pearl Harbour: Mother of all Conspiracies by Mark Emerson Willey

http://www2.xlibris.com/bookstore/bookdisp...sp?bookid=11491

and

A piece on the "Sacrifice" of Bataan.

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/bataan.html

Roosevelt egging Hitler on further??

Make up your own mind!

 

Originally posted by jimbotosome+Sep 20 2005, 08:36 PM-->(jimbotosome @ Sep 20 2005, 08:36 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-adrian roberts@Sep 20 2005, 06:54 PM
In what sense did the US lose contact with the task force? Were they actually shadowing it from when it left Japan? I thought the only contact made with it was by two PBYs that were shot down before they could radio back to base. (Though I wonder if their fate was ever proven, given that none of the crews survived). If this was the only contact then the US can hardly be said to be expecting an attack, on that evidence alone.
Yes, a US submarine spotted them and tailed them but lost contact (subs were not that fast). There was quite a bit of confusion as to where they were headed. But one would naturally think that Pearl would be secured especially since it was on the list of probable war starting targets. Conspiracy theories are usually a bunch of hoo-ha but Robert Stinnett recently wrote a book about the setup at Pearl after he had obtained declassified documents (after 60 years they were declassified) from the National Archives, spent a year digging through them and found what he says is definitive evidence. I saw him on C-Span giving a lecture on the book and I recently ordered it (I haven’t gotten it yet). Right after he published the book, the government took the documents out of the National Archive and put them out of reach of the public. He made copies of the ones he saw but said he could not get to some of them even back then. Here is the link to the book at Amazon http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=books&n=507846 you out to read some of the reviewer comments. It is quite a controversy.

For me, it’s not that I have proof of a conspiracy or even want one. But it is beyond reason to me to think that with Roosevelt’s constant provocation of Hitler and Hitler refusal to bite, that his hostile actions against Japan were not for the same reason. It’s possible that he thought that the Japanese were going to hit the Philippines, but that would not necessarily cause war. Why stop patrolling the perimeter of Pearl? Why weren’t at least one of the carriers in port? But I will reserve judgment until I have read more on it.

You point about the PBY is a valid one. If they were shot down over the ocean they would have not survived to testify that they saw the fleet and were never able to communicate it. Sounds a little fishy.
[post=39280]Quoted post[/post]
[/b]
Stinnett's work has been pretty well discredited by many other historians, including Stephen Budiansky in "War of Wits."

 

Originally posted by Kiwiwriter@Sep 21 2005, 09:51 AM
Stinnett's work has been pretty well discredited by many other historians, including Stephen Budiansky in "War of Wits."

Yes Kiwi, I am aware that he has critics and I haven’t read the critiques personally. Then again, there is no such thing as a conspiracy without a number of "informed" naysayers, otherwise it would cease to be a conspiracy and be simply a historical gambit. Some of these critics have made blunders in their critiques as well that makes you think they too have an agenda, these are pointed out in some of the reader commentaries. This is also why I wanted to get the book and see what his arguments are. I realize that there is a lot of conjecture and it comes down to Stinnett's opinion as far as that book is concerned.

The thing that has me curious is not that there is a “purported” conspiracy or even a “factual” conspiracy but that there should have been one from the circumstances I have read of Roosevelt's provocation activity before the attack and this is admitted to in Hitler's speech, that spidge linked to, declaring war on the US and it also mentions how Japan was also provoked. Maybe it turns out that Roosevelt was not baiting Japan with Pearl or the Philippines, but that would be a switch from his tactics of trying to get the US in the war before it was too late. The US had its own "Chamberlains" that were convinced that Hitler was a good old boy just having to crack a few heads to get things straightened out in Europe and we should remain forever neutral. This created a precarious position for an American president that is responsible for the security of the country, especially one who is a notorious pragmatist and was close buddies with another leader that was also a notorious pragmatist. Churchill was without question, a man for his time, but guess what? So was Roosevelt. The facts seem to be clear that the US expected to be attacked by Japan. Intercepts from the Japanese embraceries were giving details about which ships were in Pearl and their movements. As a matter of fact they intercepted one, on December 6th telling that the carriers were not in port, the ambassador said during the phone call that he was looking out in the harbor as he spoke. Since they had lost a touch with the big Task force (why does one need a large carrier task force to attack the Philippines?) why would Pearl not have at least been on alert? Everyone knows they expected the Japanese to sabotage Hickam field as this was the reason they gave for moving the planes close together. You don't sabotage an entire airfield with one Japanese commando (except in a Hollywood movie) assuming sabotage was imminent was also saying an invasion was imminent. So, it is indisputable that an attack was suspected if not expected. Then on top of that level of tactical insanity you pull the destroyer screens patrolling around Pearl back into harbor the day before the attack and leave yourself strangely vulnerable to any type of seaborne attack, knowing what the Brits did to the Italian navy at Taranto?

You know it goes along with the comments I made on Operation Market garden. The notion that the Germans would not have defended their country from a Belgium attack, which was assuming that they didn’t realize that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, was the huge mistake in the thinking of the Allies. Likewise the US had very aggressive sanctioning policies against Japan, and the constant rumblings of an attack on Pearl that they were acknowledging up until the attack. Just as Market Garden was an insult to Hitler and his staff's intelligence down to a point you are assuming they were absolute imbeciles that can’t even read a map, so it is to think that with the war drums of imminent attack of Pearl should illicit a “stand-down” order and an overt drop of security and alert when a huge Task Force is headed your way and lost contact with. To me, it makes far more sense that it was a setup that went horribly wrong, than to think that the entire US Dept of Defense from the President down did not understand the most basic principles of security of their bases down to a level they too were imbeciles.

As far as the situation of pre-WWII entry by the US and the fact that we can now say Britain would not have fallen or that Russia would survive the Germans as well, those were not things that they could have assumed back then. In fact, on paper, Britain should have fallen in the Battle of Britain, and Russia came very close to collapse. How was Roosevelt to know that they were going to dig in and stand since he saw France capitulate so easily? Britain had lost with the French and their “formidable defenses” what are the odds they would survive on their own island? If we can barely believe that the Brits stood their ground in retrospect, how could we have expected Roosevelt to have known it prospectively and therefore not be concerned with the consequences of Britain having capitulated? So, if you put yourself in Roosevelt’s shoes back in that time frame, knowing that fighting on the North American continent without Britain’s Army, Navy and Air Force as well as those of the other Allied nations, would be unthinkably worse than fighting from Britain and points elsewhere, then you get a true feel for the level of pressure he must have felt. It’s not hard to see the term “gambit” diminish into the term of “tactic”, even more so as time went on. If you compound that with the facts that Russia looked like it would fall in 1941 and that Hitler would have all the resources he needed for global conquest, and the fact that efforts to bait Hitler for almost two years had obviously failed, you begin to see the desperation of the situation. There is probably no more difficult of a decision known to man than to choose to sacrifice one set of men to save another, especially when it is based on compounded inferences.

If the hypothesis I have laid out here were indeed factual and Roosevelt had sacrificed a “part of Pearl”, then what would be the ethics of this? Would it be more ethical to allow the nation to risk ruination because of their apathy toward Europe and the ignoring gravity of the situation there, assuming that in this ruination that unfathomable losses of life would be incurred, or else would it be that sacrificing some ships and a relatively small quantity of men have been justified? Then on the other hand, if my hypothesis is incorrect, then did Roosevelt fail his nation by failing to find a solution to prevent its ruin and was simply saved by the basic tactical ignorance of his Navy and DoD? I would like to hear what people here believe about that.

 

Jimbotosome
You may well be right about Roosevelts thinking about the need to enter the war sooner rather than later. But how would withdrawing the destroyer screen around PH and lining up the planes at Hickam achieve this? The Japanese wouldn't have known these things had happened until they arrived and if they were going to attack they would have done so anyway. The attack might have been less devastating (e.g if the USAAC had time to get more fighters into the air) but it would still have been all the excuse Roosevelt needed to declare war. So until there is further proof, I would still think the US orders were a mistake rather than conspiracy, and the theory about Roosevelt is possibly right but not for those reasons.
Adrian