Hitler Invading Soviet Union Right Decision?

hasdrubal barca · Mar 4, 2015

Hitler Invading Soviet Union Right Decision, Strategically?

I really don't see any other options.

If he didn't deal with Soviet Union he could never demobilize his army, because of the constant threat, and the Germany economy would collapse due to lack of resources. In addition to this not attacking would allow the Soviets to gain strength and probably threaten German oil reserves in Romania one day. Also by attacking Soviet Union it would eliminate Britain's last potential ally in Europe.

Any alternative plan such as Raeder's Southern Strategy seem unlikely to succeed. Spain is not going to enter the war, any attack on Malta would be a bloodbath and no way is Rommel taking Egypt.

So did Hitler have any other options? Surrender?

Napoleon IV · Mar 4, 2015

I voted yes since Hitler invading the Soviet Union probably hastened his defeat and the fall of the Third Reich.

Tom Colton · Mar 4, 2015

hasdrubal barca said:
So did Hitler have any other options? Surrender?

Given that this would avoid the Holocaust, yes.

jmc247 · Mar 4, 2015

Yes he had another option...

Deepen the alliance with Stalin and get Stalin into the war with Britain. Promise him half of Iraq, Iran, and part of Turkey. Then if Britain decides to toss in the towel to save their Empire you have peace in the West and you can consider double crossing Stalin before he does you.

LongVin · Mar 4, 2015

jmc247 said:
Yes he had another option...

Deepen the alliance with Stalin and get Stalin into the war with Britain. Promise him half of Iraq, Iran, and part of Turkey. Then if Britain decides to toss in the towel to save their Empire you have peace in the West and you can consider double crossing Stalin before he does you.

This could have easily happened when you consider that Britain and France were both considering launching bombing raids on the USSR in order to knock out the oil fields that were shipping oil to Germany.

hasdrubal barca · Mar 4, 2015

jmc247 said:
Yes he had another option...

Deepen the alliance with Stalin and get Stalin into the war with Britain. Promise him half of Iraq, Iran, and part of Turkey. Then if Britain decides to toss in the towel to save their Empire you have peace in the West and you can consider double crossing Stalin before he does you.

I didn't think of that one, thanks for pointing it out.

Anaxagoras · Mar 4, 2015

From the strategic viewpoint of Nazi Germany, no. The smart thing would have been to keep the pressure on Britain until it gave way, then go after the USSR.

riggerrob · Mar 4, 2015

Traditionally, Germany has long looked to the east for Lebensraum. Germany wanted to conquer farmland in Eastern Europe.
The primary motivation for attacking Stalin was to eliminate the threat of invasion from the east, a fear that had repeatedly been beaten into Prussians by repeated Polish, Russian, etc. invasions.
Hitler would have been smarter to build increased trade links with Czechs, Poles, Hungarians, Roumanians, etc.
The real risk was how fast Russia was industrializing and re-arming.

ObssesedNuker · Mar 5, 2015

Anaxagoras said:
The smart thing would have been to keep the pressure on Britain until it gave way, then go after the USSR.

Problem there is that inevitably means war with the US and once that happens, ain't no way you are going to defeat Britain.

Getting Stalin on board with the war would be the best means of knocking the British out, but it is uncertain whether Stalin would go for it (his interests are solidly in Eastern Europe and the Balkans) and is ideologically unpalatable to the Germans.

Cockroach · Mar 5, 2015

From a purely rational POV, assuming an ASB can guarantee that Stalin doesn't have any thoughts of heading west, then yep, avoiding war with the USSR is the right decision.

There's two big howevers, though.

First, noone in history is entire rational, decisions are also shaped by ideology and similar... in particular, eastern expansion and a hatred of communism was pretty much such in stone as part of Nazi ideology. That makes a clash at some point almost inevitable.

Second, there's no ASB guaranteed peace... there's a significant chance that if Hitler doesn't go east then come '43, '44 or '45 Stalin heads west...

When you add those to the mix and look at the trajectory of the post-purges reconstruction of the soviet military, then hitting hard and fast in '41 or '42 to try to knock them out does make sense.

Green Painting · Mar 5, 2015

I don't think Stalin would go west. He may have picked up smaller neighbors like Romania, Poland, and the Baltic states, and might continue to go after countries like Turkey or Finland (Yes, a second round), but to challenge a strong and equally well-armed opponent like Germany was just not what Stalin dared to do. Had he invaded Germany, he would not only put everything he has gained in Europe up until that point at risk, but also may end up losing his own power and his own life.

And the answer was no. Trying to justify Barbarossa with Viktor Suvorov style "the Russians would attack anyway" fallacy just needs to stop.

King Augeas · Mar 5, 2015

ObssesedNuker said:
Problem there is that inevitably means war with the US and once that happens, ain't no way you are going to defeat Britain.

Getting Stalin on board with the war would be the best means of knocking the British out, but it is uncertain whether Stalin would go for it (his interests are solidly in Eastern Europe and the Balkans) and is ideologically unpalatable to the Germans.

This. An alliance with the USSR would gradually leave Hitler and Germany playing second fiddle to their more powerful eastern neighbour. Germany in winter 1940-1941 is in an awful strategic bind and there's no easy way out.

Bhangbhangduc · Mar 5, 2015

AFAIK, Stalin was terrified of offending Hitler, to the point that he originally refused to allow Russian troops to fire on the invading Nazis to avoid giving Hitler CB. If I was Hitler, I'd have bombed London a bit, then signed a ceasefire with England to consolidate and exploit gains in France.

MattII · Mar 5, 2015

Voted no, but by this point there were no right decisions, Britain was unbreakable, the logistics in North Africa insufficient, and the economy on the rocks.

SunilTanna · Mar 5, 2015

jmc247 said:
Yes he had another option...

Deepen the alliance with Stalin and get Stalin into the war with Britain. Promise him half of Iraq, Iran, and part of Turkey. Then if Britain decides to toss in the towel to save their Empire you have peace in the West and you can consider double crossing Stalin before he does you.

Ribbentrop basically offered Molotov that (plus India) when he visited Berlin in November 1940.

Molotov also wanted the Turkish straits, Finland, Romanian border adjustments, and bases in Bulgaria and Denmark!

Maybe the USSR would have been amenable. to give up some of these objectives during negotiation, but the Germans never really tried after that.

Ribbentrop telling Molotov that the British Empire was finished and ripe for dividing up, also came at an inopportune time - in a bomb shelter during a British air raid.

MattII · Mar 5, 2015

The Red Army won't be up to much before 1942, by which point Germany still won't have managed to starve Britain out, they will be massively in debt, and North Africa will have reached a draw. And that's the good way for Germany, the bad way is that Japan gets the US into the war, which means all of that plus later Stalin coming in from behind.

PhilippeO · Mar 5, 2015

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German–Soviet_Axis_talks#Soviet_counterproposal_agreement

that German troops depart Finland in exchange for a Soviet guarantee of continued nickel and wood shipments and peace with Finland;
a mutual assistance pact be signed with Bulgaria in the next few months permitting Soviet bases
The center of Soviet territorial domination would be south of Baku and Batumi (ports in modern Azerbaijan and Georgia, south of which are Iraq and Iran)
Japanese renunciation of rights to northern Sakhalin oil and coal concessions in exchange for appropriate compensation
Affirms that the Soviet-Bulgaria mutual assistance treaty was a political necessity

invading Russia is very bad decision, Stalin counter-proposal is not that bad, if Germany accept, Axis would be a lot stronger.

NiceMonster42 · Mar 5, 2015

I voted 'No' as the worst thing for Germany at the time. I am glad he did invade, which meant the war ended earlier, though.

Dain · Mar 5, 2015

Well, Germany went from a pretty bad but potentially still salvageable strategic situation into an outright unwinnable one in which the only hope for victory lay in wishing for some kind of internal Soviet collapse. So obviously, it was a bad decision.

merlin · Mar 5, 2015

SunilTanna said:
Ribbentrop basically offered Molotov that (plus India) when he visited Berlin in November 1940.

Molotov also wanted the Turkish straits, Finland, Romanian border adjustments, and bases in Bulgaria and Denmark!

Maybe the USSR would have been amenable. to give up some of these objectives during negotiation, but the Germans never really tried after that.

Ribbentrop telling Molotov that the British Empire was finished and ripe for dividing up, also came at an inopportune time - in a bomb shelter during a British air raid.

I think that was the problem - Hitler thought Russia was taking the p*** - with their 'demands' besides he couldn't risk Romania being in danger, otherwise the German 'War Machine' would grind to a halt.
Hence, the November talks set the seal on War.