If the Germans never attacked USSR

Discussion in 'World War 2' started by vashstampede, Jul 27, 2012.

  1. vashstampede

    vashstampede Active Member

    What would have happened if the Germans did not invade USSR, and if they have continued to focus on the west front with British?

    Bulk of German military forces and economy productivity were used to invade USSR. Over 3~4 million soldiers were fighting on the east front. Most of them were killed eventually by the Russians. When Normandy landing took place, there were fewer than half a million German forces in entire western Europe. (One source said there were only 400,000 of them in western Europe).

    If the Germans had continued to engaging the British in a bombing and submarine warfare with 100% of their military and economy powers, do you think British can hold off the Germans forever? Without engaging the USSR, Germans would have had much more materials and productivity to build planes and ships instead of tanks. The Germans could also have send reinforcement to Rommel in North Africa, sending him more troops and tanks. He wasn't getting any supply and replacement tanks for each of his loss later in that campaign. Without diverting most of their forces to the east, the Germans could have had enough planes in North Africa for Rommel too, they did have air superiority there earlier on until the Americans helped the British. If the Germans capture the oil fields there, they would have had unlimited fuel for the war too.
    cavtrooper likes this.
  2. sniper

    sniper Active Member

    Firstly, the American's didn't come into the N. Africa campaign until towards the end when the Commonwealth already had Rommel on the run. Our Med fleet would of destroyed the supply ships sent as we had been doing this right through the campaign.
    Hitler was always going to invade Russia, he wanted to stamp out communism. Once the Luffewaffe were destroyed during the Battle of Britain in 1940 there was no way he could of invaded the UK, his navy was way to small to protect the supply ships it would of taken to keep his army supplied after any invasion attempt.
    The reason why the D-Day invasion was such a success was the huge logistics support from the Navy and the Merchant Navy. You have to have this in place before even thinking of invading an island. His Navy was way to small including his merchant shipping. The Home Fleet would of massacred them in the English Channel while the Med Fleet massacred the few ships he had in the Med.
  3. vashstampede

    vashstampede Active Member

    From what I read a while ago, the U.S. moved some fighter planes from China to North Africa. Before they did so, the Germans had local air superiority in North Africa. Once the American planes arrived, the German planes were outnumbered and they soon lost the air cover all together.

    I just watched some videos on Rommel's battles in North Africa. He was on the run for a while, yes. But near the end, he was in fact on the offensive even when he was short on supplies and he had way less tanks than the UK. He was able to get really close to Egypt before he had too few tanks left, then it battle was stalled. I just remembered the show I watched was about tank battles. It talked about how all the sudden Sherman tanks arrived on the battlefield. And UK were getting hundreds and hundreds of new tanks, while Rommel was getting 0 replacement. He lost the campaign due to he was outnumbered, lost air superiority, not enough supply, and no replacement tanks. Three of the above were achieved with the USA support.
  4. Susan Kelly

    Susan Kelly New Member

    Well if the Germans never attacked USSR, USSR might of attacked Germany or if not attacked became powerful enough to have good leverage on Germany.

    Hitler was trying to unite Europe in some fashion, If Russia became powerful enough his plan would never gotten completed. We might of seen a long cold war style arms race as USSR was building up their army at that time. Why shouldn't they as Germany was attacking anyone and everyone.

    So my prediction if the attack wouldn't of occur would be:
    a) Cold war until the empires crumble from within
    b) USSR took the initiative as they had attacked nations before
    c) USSR became powerful enough that Germany wouldn't dare to attack anyway and Hitlers life goal would of been in shambles
  5. vashstampede

    vashstampede Active Member

    The Russians were in no position to attack Germany. They had the largest air force but with all outdated planes. They had T-34 but it wasn't mass produced yet. They had large army but many of the equipments were also not up to date.

    Basically by the time the Germans invaded USSR, the Russians were just started to modernize their military and it wouldn't be completed any time soon if wasn't for emergency (ex: invaded by Germany). Yes, the Russians were getting stronger, so it was probably one of the major reasons that Hitler think he should hit them "now" before it become too late. On the top of nobody predicted his move since he was already at war with UK on the west side.

    If Germans didn't invade USSR, it is possible that the world could develop into a US/UK vs. Germans/Italians vs. USSR. That is just one of the possibilities. I am sure if Hitler could live for a long time (didn't die in 1945), with his aggressive foreign policies, no way there could be long last peace between him and Starlin. Hilter was always itch for battle and believe his superior German race would prevail.

    If Germany was able to occupy the entire Europe for long term, their power could grow beyond USSR could handle simply due to the population and productivity difference. Sure USSR might still be larger in land size, but they don't have the population to make use of the land and resources and turn them into weapons to match the entire Europe under German control.

    So eventually Germans will attack USSR since they are the stronger one and the gap will be larger as time pass by. I am sure UK/US would do everything to make sure both sides sustain heavy casualty and weaken each other.
  6. Jameson

    Jameson History Repeats Itself

    You raise some great points in reference to the German invasion kicking the Russians into gear. I believe the Russians likely would have remained neutral had they not been invaded by the Axis powers. They still had far too many domestic policy issues to address and the masses were already exhausted from years of internal strife and war. It is safe to assume that the German invasion actually did more to unite the Russian people under Stalin than any other single event.

    With the rise in nationalism and national unity, Stalin had a foothold that he could use to spur on the massive military industrial complex that was eventually created in Russia. While it took a fairly long time for them to modernize (though they still never reached a level of complete modernization), it had a great effect in moving them in the right direction.

    Had the invasion never happened, who knows where Russia would be today. Would the Soviet Union have lasted as long as it did? Would Stalin have been able to maintain his control without a common foreign enemy?
  7. vashstampede

    vashstampede Active Member

    @ Jameson,
    If you are talking about Soviet Union by itself, then my prediction would be (if Germans didn't attack USSR for a very long time), Soviet Union would become much stronger than they used to be during Cold War. During WWII, the level of damage they took was high to both their econmy and their population. If without WWII for USSR, they would become a much more powerful superpower. But as I said earlier, if no war took place between USSR and Germany, then the Cold War rivals could be totally different.
  8. CuriousJ

    CuriousJ New Member

    Well that is up for debate really.

    Like Jameson said, the German invasion actually helped unite the Russian people, who were otherwise a very disorganised and backward society even during the WW2 times. If the invasion didn't happen, Russian society may not have developed to the extent it had, which might actually mean a weaker nation during the Cold War.

    That's alternate history for ya. ;)
  9. vashstampede

    vashstampede Active Member

    I disagree on the part Russia would be weak if wasn't for German invasion. USSR was indeed falling behind on military technology before the war, but they were going through a major military modernization right when the Germans attacked. One of the reasons that Hitler had to hit them right at that moment was due to the fact in a few years the Russians' equipments would have been through major upgrade (yes, even without any war). So Hitler see an opportunity to hit Russia while they are still not strong enough to be a major threat.
  10. pilot2fly

    pilot2fly Member

    Germany got too greedy and it hurt them. If that hadn't attacked Russia, they might have been able to become stronger. Hitler wanted the world, and it was his downfall. Russia was a force to be reckoned with and he turned against them.
    Vladimir likes this.
  11. Domoviye

    Domoviye New Member

    I agree, but disagree with you.
    You're absolutely correct that the USSR wasn't in a good position to attack for the reasons you listed. They had some very good units which were modernized, not up to the German standards, but they were modern. Unfortunately these units got overrun in the first days of the war due to Stalin's insane orders to not prepare for the German offensive.
    Where I disagree with you, is that this would stop the USSR from attacking Germany. Stalin realized he was next the moment Britain fell. He was preparing for war, but believed the Germans would wait until they had defeated Britain. He was mostly hoping Britain would hold out long enough for him to complete his own preparations. From documents and reports, Stalin was going to order an attack on Germany within a year, possibly sooner.
    Stalin and his advisers knew the German army was better, but quantity has a quality all of its own.
    Now who would win in this fight is up in the air, but if Hitler kept his nose out of it long enough, the Soviet army would be badly maimed and the aircforce destroyed, even if the USSR won.
  12. pilot2fly

    pilot2fly Member

    They had a few good planes, but not enough of them. The IL-2 actually wasn't a bad aircraft at all. The YAK is probably the most famous of all Russian WWII aircraft and it could hold its own as well.
  13. Domoviye

    Domoviye New Member

    The initial German victories were devastating because they caught the modernized units directly on the front lines and completely unprepared.
    I've seen some people say that the lose of the obsolete vehicles and weapons was ultimately helpful as it allowed the Russians to rebuild with a clean slate. But the lose of those core units and experienced troops was a disaster.
    If the Russians had attacked first, their outnumbered modern units would have been lost or badly mauled anyways, but they would have made the Germans bleed first.
  14. pilot2fly

    pilot2fly Member

    It's always a double edge sword, I agree. Russia was strong, but they didn't have the required power and training to defeat Germany on their own. I don't think anyone really did.
  15. Domoviye

    Domoviye New Member

    That's giving the Germans a bit too much credit, at least early on. A decent push in 1939 would have sent the German reeling as they still didn't have all the necessary weapons and armaments to fight a very long or hard campaign. The Phony War was a godsend to them, allowing them to produce enough decent and good weapons to face off against the Allies.
    Even in 1940, if France had had better generals, and some luck with the weather, such as a few more rainstorms to limit the dive bombers and turn dirt roads to mud, they could have potentially stabilized the lines. The Germans still didn't really have enough supplies to sustain their operations, and within a few months of bogged down fighting they would have been running out of replacement parts. Again the waiting period between the fall of France and the heavy fighting in Russia was a blessing.
    But once Germany had Poland and Frances industrial might, along with the other conquests, there was almost no way a country could defeat them alone.
  16. vashstampede

    vashstampede Active Member

    I know France was always a strong industrialized country, but I thought Poland was a weak country. Was their industrial output significantly increased Germany's war production?

    Sometimes it's not all just about the generals. From what I have heard that the French had better tanks than the Germans at the beginning of the war. In fact the French tanks were the best until 1941~1942. The Germans simply better at war tactics. They had radios in every tank and that enabled real time coordination between different tanks on the battlefield. Think about when you play a video game with your entire team on voice chatting to communicate with one another real time, while the other team couldn't, you have the advantage. The French's failure was more than just one reason though.

    As for the Russians, I believe it would take more than just one year before Stalin feel comfortable enough to take on the Germans.
  17. Montage

    Montage New Member

    Well the are no ''ifs'' in the history. Like an old joke says ''if a gradma would have balls, she would be a grandpa''. There are dozens of scenarios what could be if Hitler would not attack USSR. The problem is that he couldn't not attack USSR, because USSR was a primary aim of Hitler since he came the power, and the whole European conquest was done in order to attack USSR, if he would not have any intentions to attack USSR, the entire European campaign would never happened.

    As well as Kaiser, Hitler wanted to get some colonies and create great German empire. Dealing with France and Britain required strong fleet to get their colonies and not really positive expirience of WW I showed that it's too difficult task. While vast Soviet lands with decent climate before Ural, high amount of resources and so on, were within a stone's throw and didn't require building any powerful naval forces, plus USSR of 30s was on the stage of industrization, and was quite vulnerable, so Hitler's view turned on the East.

    However in order to go to the East, he needed 3 things:

    1) Guarantee that won't be backstabed by the West after very tough and draining campaign on the East.

    2) Swedish ore.

    3) Romanian oil

    4) Clear the way to USSR by invading or cooperating with Poland

    So he did everything by the textbook. Invaded Poland to clear the path. Invaded France to clear the rear securing itself from backstabing. Absorbed industrial parts of Czechoslovakia. Captured Norway and Denmark to cut Sweden from possible UK invasion. Got Romania as an ally. Helped to Italy with Greece so Italy could help to Germany with the Soviet campaign. Tried to bomb out Britain and compel them to make a peace treaty. Most of the tasks were achieved except for UK, however it was basically irrelevant since UK couldn't hinder seriously to his Soviet journey.

    So the whole question ''what would be if Hitler would not attack USSR?'' is a bit misleading. Because if he would not attack USSR, he would not attack the rest of Europe, since there would be no sense in it. There would be no World War II then, simple as that.
  18. Montage

    Montage New Member

    There are no such documents, and if ask you to show me the text of such documents you won't show me, cos they simply don't exist. The only so-called ''evidence'' that Stalin was planning any attack on Germany was written book by Victor Suvorov (the real name Vladimir Rezun) called Icebreaker. However Mr. Rezun hasn't provided a single reliable reference or evidence in his book, only subjective rants with no factual background or any underpinned statements. His rather dubious theories about Stalin's plans to attack Germany have been refuted by many scholars from Russia and the West, including prominent Western WW II historian David Glantz.
  19. vashstampede

    vashstampede Active Member

    @ Montage,
    If Hitler was really just trying to grab USSR, why would he plan Operation Sea Lion?
    Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought he wanted to create an empire that includes entire Europe and USSR, on the top of Africa colonies.

    He really did not secure his rear (or the west side) before he launched invasion on USSR.
    I thought somewhere I have read that there was a map for "new" South America, and the whole place was rearranged for how Hitler wanted them to be (after he conquer it). As far as he was concerned, he wanted pretty much the whole world. USSR was just a part of the plan, but he made his move too early and dug his own grave by fighting an outnumbered two fronts war.
  20. Steed

    Steed Member

    But Hitler didn't "plan" operation Sealion until the fall of France.

    His bold thrust into France through the Ardennes, together with the attack on the Netherlands and Belgium, were all carefully planned and rehearsed with typical German meticulous detail well before they actually carried them out. Sealion, on the other hand, was a last minute makeshift plan to punish a maverick Britain that refused to surrender to what Hitler considered an invincible Germany. Hitler had originally seen GB as an ally against Bolshevism.

    But Hitler had always wanted to go into the USSR, he had a plan of "Lebensraum" -living room- for the Arian race which he considered superior, and Fascism was always philosophically the archenemy of Communism.

Share This Page