WWII, what if Hitler only invaded Russia?

Discussion in 'The Okie Corral' started by ithaca_deerslayer, Apr 1, 2010.

  1. ithaca_deerslayer

    ithaca_deerslayer

    Messages:
    25,140
    Likes Received:
    14,171
    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2000
    Location:
    Upstate NY, USA
    Hey, I've seen so many WWII movies, so I usually start thinking what if.

    Anyway, what if Hitler only invaded Russia, maybe through Poland, but didn't mess with France and England nor those other little countries on the West side?

    I know Hitler was just plain crazy. But let's for a moment suppose there was actually some sort of logic, like just getting more land, more natural resources.

    1. Would he have needed to go through Poland? And if he did,
    2. Could he have beaten the USSR?
    3. Would France, England, and the US have gone to war against him?

    I'm thinking, even if he went through Poland, he could have created a truce with France and England (maybe if he preserved part of Poland). And then he could have beaten the USSR. Not easy for him to win, but he could have done it.

    He probably would have had to be a lot nicer to the people, and then maybe they'd turn against Stalin.

    What do you think?
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2010
  2. Ol Timer

    Ol Timer ↓ hog hunter ↓ Millennium Member

    Messages:
    9,402
    Likes Received:
    8
    Joined:
    Jan 20, 1999
    :headscratch:
     

  3. ithaca_deerslayer

    ithaca_deerslayer

    Messages:
    25,140
    Likes Received:
    14,171
    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2000
    Location:
    Upstate NY, USA
    You know, because of treaties and sympathies.
     
  4. HKUSP45Css

    HKUSP45Css

    Messages:
    3,969
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2007
    Location:
    Houston, by God, Texas
    I've always thought Hitler would have had no difficulty defeating the Russians if he had concentrated on dismatling Europe first. Just go country by country until everyone was marching under the Nazi flag.

    The Americans would have no place to land to help anyone, Hitler would have gained huge amounts of resources, conscripts (and genuine converts) as well as a tremendous amount of manufacturing capacity. He could have sat back, regrouped and walked into and over Russia with ease, at his leisure, with proper supply lines and logistics firmly in place.

    I've never considered a move to the Eastern front first. I doubt the Allies would have ever banded together had Russia been the first casualty. Honestly, if Japan had kept out of Pearl Harbor we might have let Hitler take Eroupe anyway. My understanding is we were tired of fighting little German tyrants on their own soil after WWI.
     
  5. ithaca_deerslayer

    ithaca_deerslayer

    Messages:
    25,140
    Likes Received:
    14,171
    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2000
    Location:
    Upstate NY, USA
    This is interesting, too. If he didn't attack Russia, and instead put more effort into defeating England?

    I don't know what the US would have done if England was invaded.

    The English had a lot of sea power, but if Germany won the air war, and then used that to cover a sea invasion?

    Hmm, interesting.

    It has always seemed insane to me that in both WWI and WWII Germany had 2 fronts. I just don't see how any sane leader, or group of leaders, could imagine beating both Russia and France/England at the same time.

    Jeepers, that must go back the Napoleon school of thought. :rofl:
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2010
  6. HollowHead

    HollowHead Firm member

    Messages:
    25,973
    Likes Received:
    5,113
    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Location:
    Where the buffalo roam
    My theory is that Germany's total lack of strategic four-engined heavy bombers sealed it's fate. It simply could project enough destruction far enough away to really matter in the long run. HH
     
  7. aviator0402

    aviator0402

    Messages:
    421
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2009
    Location:
    St. Luis
    he would have been flatened just as he was. It may have taken longer but hitler would have been flatened. the problem with invading russia period is its shear size. russia is so massive that it's armys can keep reatreating and moving there production back that eventualy the enemy supply lines become untenable. pluse you have the russian winter that only the natives are truly prepared for and when they turn the tide you have a lot of realy pissed of russians to deal with and thats no joke. Both napolian and hitler learned this the hard way and payed dearly for there mistake.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2010
  8. Hines57

    Hines57 Simple Member

    Messages:
    6,419
    Likes Received:
    2,379
    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2001
    Location:
    On the road
    I don't think he could have beaten Russia, but he might have been able to hold the strategic parts, Moscow, Stalingrad etc. No real need to beat them, all he really wanted was control of the oil fields which he might well have been able to do.
     
  9. moeman

    moeman

    Messages:
    17,266
    Likes Received:
    20,504
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2004
    Location:
    So CA
    I've thought about this in the past and even made a simular post a couple years ago here... My bottom line is that Germany could have taken Russia if the Russians didn't have the US's manufacturing and the other allies fighting with them.

    The Germans would have not had the drain of men and materials from North Africa and the bombers out of England hammering them so they would have rolled up the Russians and got to their oil before the Commies had a chance to regroup. Game, set, match.

    With the US's manufacturing support alone (and no allies fighting w/ them) it's pretty even in my mind w/ German's superior tactics and infrastructure offsetting Russian man power.

    With the actual way WW2 occurred, I'm certain that the Russians would have hammered Germany even if we never opened up the second front after D-Day. It would have taken longer but by the end of the war the Russians factories were kickin *** in production and all their arms designs, whether we are talking about small arms, tanks or airplanes, were competitive to superior to the German designs once one factors in ease of production
     
  10. Critias

    Critias Freelancer CLM

    Messages:
    9,789
    Likes Received:
    8
    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Location:
    Garland, TX
    Whether he started with Russia or not, the two of them going at it was inevitable. And I think once the Russian Bear got to swinging, those claws were gonna end Germany one way or the other. The casualty rates from the East are staggering, even by today's jaded standards. Whether there was a second front or not, I genuinely think Russia would have -- eventually -- just drowned the Germans in bodies. Hitler was gonna lose there, someday, no matter what he tried, even if Russia just had American industry and not American soldiers backing their play.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2010
  11. Tingle

    Tingle

    Messages:
    151
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2005
    Location:
    Las vegas
     
  12. HollowHead

    HollowHead Firm member

    Messages:
    25,973
    Likes Received:
    5,113
    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Location:
    Where the buffalo roam
     
  13. 390ish

    390ish

    Messages:
    747
    Likes Received:
    12
    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2004
    Location:
    virginia
    crazy guy messed up going south, particularly toward baku. if he had concentrated on petersburg and moscow without splitting off armies to go south, he would have taken those cities and pushed toward the urals. unlike anyone since about the 15th century, hitler was not worried about the dangers facing an occupying force. he simply killed everyone in the areas the conquored russian areas. if he were not so intent on killing the ukranians, they would have revolted at the expense of the soviets. stalin had starved about 20 million of them to death years earlier. the western front was more or less a non-event until well after stalingrad. england bled the soviet union because they were evil. made for easy police work. hitler seemed fine with isolating the brits. nothing i read really showed that he was intent on invading that island. in the end, he would not have won, because he was just awful and crazy, regardless of the path he chose.
     
  14. HollowHead

    HollowHead Firm member

    Messages:
    25,973
    Likes Received:
    5,113
    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Location:
    Where the buffalo roam
    I believe he had every intent on invading England. Operation Sealion was well underway until the Luftwaffe failed to eliminate the RAF. HH
     
  15. Elmer Fudd

    Elmer Fudd

    Messages:
    369
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    No. The US declared war against Germany because Germany declared war against the US after Pearl Harbor. If Germany had not done this, I doubt the US Congress would have declared war against Germany, although FDR might have tried to get it to do so. After all, in actuality and in the eyes of the public, Japan attacked us, not Germany. Hitler was not obligated to declare war on the US under the terms of the Tripartite Pact that bound Germany, Japan, and Italy in the Axis. Japan was not attacked by the US, rather Japan attacked the US. Germany had an out, especially since Japan did not consult it about attacking the US, IIRC.

    France and England would not have, if Germany had not invaded Poland. And even after Germany attacked and overwhelmed Poland, their response was pretty lame aside from declaring war. They did nothing practical to help Poland.

    France, England, and the US had no treaty obligations to come to the aid of the Soviet Union in the event of an attack. Of course, Hitler and Stalin (or rather their foreign ministers) signed a non-aggression pact in 1939. Keep this in mind every time some politician waves a treaty about their head, touting its virtues.
     
  16. jeager

    jeager

    Messages:
    2,033
    Likes Received:
    5
    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2003
    Location:
    Calaveras Station, California
    Try "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich"
    There may be many revisionist readings of that era,
    but 'dolph shot himself in the foot long before Barbarossa.
     
  17. geminicricket

    geminicricket NRA Life member

    Messages:
    6,560
    Likes Received:
    28
    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2001
    Location:
    Lewisville, TX USA
    If after September 1, 1939 the western powers including the U.S. had remained indifferent,
    it is possible that Germany could have reached the Urals in the initial invasion.

    Hitler's extermination policy would have made it impossible to have gotten any benefit from the occupation of Russian territory.

    Berlin would have fallen in 1945 anyway, and Russian forces would be spread from Vladivostok to the Rhine. There would have been no cold war, and we'd be speaking Russian now.
     
  18. kirgi08

    kirgi08 Watcher. Silver Member

    Messages:
    37,067
    Likes Received:
    6,275
    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2007
    Location:
    Acme proving grounds.
    Crit,he shoulda went west only.Consolidate his grip and never messed with Russia, till he could commit all his attention that way.Hitler coulda won Europe,his insanity got in the way.'08.

    His arrogance was his downfall.:wavey: and Mrs Crit also.
     
  19. drew4691

    drew4691

    Messages:
    1,928
    Likes Received:
    6
    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2009
    Location:
    West-Central, OH
    Hitler invading Russia was about as stupid as Japan attacking the USA. Had those two things not have happened, WW2 would have been an whole different ballgame.
     
  20. Ragnar

    Ragnar

    Messages:
    6,539
    Likes Received:
    3
    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2002
    Location:
    Sometimes here, sometimes there

    Wasn't gonna happen any way but how it did.

    Hitler needed to take Poland first both as an "exercise" for the army and to remove a potential thorn in his side. It is also important to note that the part of Poland Hitler was interested in was mostly old Prussian territory (Danzig for example had been a German city for 1000 years before becoming Gdansk).

    France was next, not the USSR, because France had the biggest and best army in Europe (supposedly). He would not have been able to leave an ancient and traditional enemy of such power in his rear.

    As for the USSR, his best chance of beating them was the first 6 months. After that, the German army lost power every day while the Soviets gained. Its debatable whether or not Hitler's generals could have won without his meddling, mainly because they wouldn't have invaded in the first place.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2010