WI: Hitler never invades the Soviet Union

Vladimir

Banned
What if Hitler realized that he could never conquer Russia and defeat the Western Allies at the same time, so he decides to focus first on Europe, then turn his attention to Russia after he's conquered Britain and secured North Africa.

At this point, I think the only thing that would save the Allies would be intervention by the United States.

EDIT: I understand the sentiments of many of you who believe that Operation Sea Lion would have failed. However, Hitler could have turned his full attention to North Africa without an invasion of Russia. Hitler may also have been able to gradually wear Britain down through U-Boat warfare. Continued attacks on convoys could have created food and fuel shortages, further hampering the British economy, which was already in crisis due to the war and especially the Blitz. Even if Operation Sea Lion had failed, much of Britain would be left in ruins, so a continued Battle of the Atlantic would be even more devastating. In any event, Britain may have repelled Operation Sea Lion, but I believe that a concerted effort over time would force Britain into submission.
 
Last edited:

DakotaG01

Vladimir said:
What if Hitler realized that he could never conquer Russia and defeat the Western Allies at the same time, so he decides to focus first on Europe, then turn his attention to Russia after he's conquered Britain and secured North Africa.

At this point, I think the only thing that would save the Allies would be intervention by the United States.
Click to expand...

Im going tp be nice but pthers won't be because of Britain and you will probably see why. He never would've conquered Britain. I'm guessing you're new here but Operation unmentionable sea mammal is pretty widely accepted as a for sure failure. But as for your post, if it is after the division of Poland, Stalin would've attacked the Germans eventually.
 

Vladimir

Banned
DakotaG01 said:
Im going tp be nice but pthers won't be because of Britain and you will probably see why. He never would've conquered Britain. I'm guessing you're new here but Operation unmentionable sea mammal is pretty widely accepted as a for sure failure. But as for your post, if it is after the division of Poland, Stalin would've attacked the Germans eventually.
Click to expand...

I never said he WOULD conquer Britain, I said what if he tried? And let's keep in mind that he did not necessarily have to conquer England. He could have driven it out of North Africa and the rest of its empire with forces meant for Russia.
 

DakotaG01

Vladimir said:
I never said he WOULD conquer Britain, I said what if he tried? And let's keep in mind that he did not necessarily have to conquer England. He could have driven it out of North Africa and the rest of its empire with forces meant for Russia.
Click to expand...

Well do the Germans win the Battle of Britain? Now what you say about ignoring Russia is possible for a short time anyway. Hitler could've force a stalemate with the British only if he didn't invade Russia. Driving them out of Africa seems unlikely to me as well espically drivong them out pf "the rest of its empire with forces meant for Russia" as you put it. Mind you this means India, Africa, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, seeing as the last three were dominions at the time. As I said before Stalin would've invaded Gemany eventually. He won't just sit by while a war rages.
 
Cook

Cook

Banned
The OP is essentially correct; American intervention is the only thing that did save Britain. Britain came closer to defeat during the Battle of the Atlantic than during the Battle of Britain and was essentially bankrupt by the second half of 1941. With a more prolonged battle alone you have to ask just how long the British will to fight on without hope would have lasted, it had already started to flag in 1941 even with indirect American support.

Prior to the war Hitler had talked about fighting Russia in 1942 or ’43 so Barbarossa in 1941 was by no means inevitable and neither was the Japanese attack that dragged America into the war.
 

Vladimir

Banned
DakotaG01 said:
Well do the Germans win the Battle of Britain? Now what you say about ignoring Russia is possible for a short time anyway. Hitler could've force a stalemate with the British only if he didn't invade Russia. Driving them out of Africa seems unlikely to me as well espically drivong them out pf "the rest of its empire with forces meant for Russia" as you put it. Mind you this means India, Africa, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, seeing as the last three were dominions at the time. As I said before Stalin would've invaded Gemany eventually. He won't just sit by while a war rages.
Click to expand...

First off, a German force bolstered by the forces committed to Operation Barbarossa would be massive. I don't view it as unlikely that they would conquer North Africa. By the rest of empire, that can mean several things. A North African victory would enable a thrust downwards and the capture of the British colonies of Gold Coast (Ghana), Nigeria, and the domain of South Africa. Most of Africa's colonizers had surrendered to the Germans, which could ensure peaceful entry of German forces and allow them to freely grab up supplies, ensuring a steady logistical chain.

Germany could also have driven into Palestine, Transjordan and Iraq with its massive forces, cutting off Britain's oil supply.
 

Unterkopf

Banned
The extermination of the Soviet Union and it's citizens was pretty much central tenent of Hitler's core beliefs. Lebensraum and all that.

Nazism leaving the Soviet Union at peace would'nt well be Nazism at all.
 

The Oncoming Storm

Antony Beevor wrote in Stalingrad that it was the Red Army's shambolic performance against the Finns that helped convince Hitler that Barbarossa would be a quck victory. So perhaps Tukachevsky and co aren't purged and the RA continues to develop his theories, if war with the Finns still happens and it's a clear Soviet win that causes if not Hitler but certainly the Wehrmacht top brass to decide against a two front war? This only delays Barbarossa until Germant has dealt with France, neutralised Britain and ensured the Balkans are going to stay neutral, this would be similar to CalBear's PoD in Anglo-American Nazi War which resulted in Hitler having something like an extra half a million men to throw against the USSR.
 
Last edited:

MattII

Just how much later is a big point though, if I recall Britai,n was close to out of cash by the time America finally entered.
 

The Red

MattII said:
Just how much later is a big point though, if I recall Britai,n was close to out of cash by the time America finally entered.
Click to expand...

I'd say late 1942 at the latest, the US and Germany were essentially already at war in the Atlantic.
 

Alcatur

I'd say late 1942 at the latest, the US and Germany were essentially already at war in the Atlantic.
Click to expand...
Indeed, and remember orders regarding Bismarck: however it would be extremly hard for Roosvelt to justify entering war in Europe as a full scale participant wihout German help. If Hitler does not attack US may declare war, may support England with ships and planes, but sending land forces which will suffer at least hundreds of thousands of casualities? I can't see any democratic leader agreeing to it without prior vast public support for war; and since the Japan will attack anyway, it would be even harder - why are we to send our soldiers to die against Germans who never attacked us fully, if there is war in pacific? Smme kind of support would be passedpossible, but again - I just don't see full US contribution

As to the topic, I think that the most important question is: Will USSR attack Germany? If yes, than when? Disregarding Suvorov claims about july of 1941, I think that such an attack at a later point is almost certain; maybe in 1942 or 1943. Germany could last as long as it did agains soviets because of crippling looses of 1941/1942 and weakening of soviet industry; if it is who Stalin attacks, Germany will fall comparably quite easily and we may have glorified communism as far as La Manche.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Don't feel bad asking the question. And just because people here have strong opinions, does not mean an issue is absolutely settled.

Stalin was a cautious but opportunistic person. The Soviets wanted the land lost in WW1 back, but Lenin/Stalin had not launched an offensive war between 1922 and 1939. I doubt Stalin, himself, could tell you under what exact conditions he would attack the Germans, but he would not have passed up an opportunity at a weak target. Stalin also apparently trusted Hitler for some reason, so it is even possible Stalin would honor the non-aggression pact for the 10 years. I have seen lots of strong opinion on what Stalin would have done, but I have never seen good primary source material. (i.e. Soviet GHQ meetings discussing the attack criteria, Stalin's secret Journal, etc.) Stalin was reorganizing his army in 1941, and important equipment was coming on line in mid-1942, so earlier than 1943 is unlikely, unless it looks like Hitler is losing badly.

Now to Nazi perspective. The have to decide to delay the expansion to the east, live with exposed oil facilities in Romania and live with the Risk of the Soviet surprise attack. The Nazi have to leave large defensive armies in the east to keep Stalin honest. They may need to accept Stalin moving into Turkey. But ok, the Nazi's decide it is the best way forward. What can they do?

1) They lack a navy, and it will take a half decade to build a real surface fleet, if not longer. Invading Britain will not work.

2) Trying the air attacks on England makes sense, since it has not been tried before to that scale. It does not work, cancelled after a few months.

3) Focus on U-boats and air power to try to starve the UK. This plan may work, but it will likely take years.

4) Neutralize/Take Malta. Malta can be neutralized by air power to a large extent. When it was German, not Italian air planes responsible for Malta, the UK had a very hard time. Taking it will be difficult, but even just neutralizing it helps a lot with supply in Africa.

5) Gibraltar - Either this or the Suez needs to be shut down to make the Med an Axis lake. The Suez is not practical unless Malta is taken, which is hard, but not impossible. So the Axis need Spain to join, badly. Franco did/will demand a lot. But Gibraltar is conquerable, and even in a worst case that it is not conquerable, the straights can be closed through mines, air power, and light naval assets to at least freighters. Running a freighter through the straights at 15 knots speed, when the air patrols will spot the convoy 100's of miles out is not possible.

6) Suez - After dealing with Malta and maybe Gibraltar, the Germans have more than enough troops to take the Suez, but logistics still will be hard as long as the British have a Navy in Egypt. It is not clear to me who would win assuming both Malta and Gibraltar are neutralized/captured.

Ok, lets assume a near best case for the Axis in November 1941. Stalin is honoring the pact and has he troops in a defenses in depth deployment. The submarine warfare is going well, better than OTL due to air power in Spain and much greater resources to the U-boat command. Gibraltar is captured. Malta has been captured. The supply situation was much better, and Rommel has 2 to 3 times more forces and has captured the Suez. Half of the German army remains in defensive positions near the Soviet Union to Stalin honest. The Axis is in much better shape, but it is not a clear winner. Japan will still do Indochina and Pearl Harbor. The USA will go on full war fitting, and FDR will find a way to get his troops to Europe, but it might take bit longer. Germany has still has no way to drive England from the war, and the USA/UK will have a hard time with the German land forces. At this point in time, does it make sense for Germany to try to conquer Africa or drive for India. The logistics are horrible. Now with 200+ division available for the Western Front, D-Day would be very hard. (Look at Calbear AA timeline for an idea of how hard.)

Now German is much better off and has a chance to win in this ATL, but it is not certain. The war will last longer than OTL, because the USA will need to train a lot more divisions than OTL, and the great losses on the Eastern Front will be USA/UK troops, not USSR. Not at the same ratio, but millions of American soldier will die, because at the end of the day, to kill a German infantry regiment requires an equal or larger size unit to engage in close combat.

Stalin will likely wait until it is clear the UK/USA have broken the back of the German military, then join in at the end for an easy gain, much like he did in Manchuria. The USA/UK looking at millions of dead, will give Stalin what he wants to join. Stalin non-aggression pact was a good idea for Stalin, if one assumes Hitler would honor it.
 

caloysky

It should be noted that in Hitler's Mein Kampf, he would try to gain the aid of england in his war against russia.


For me Hitler should have won his war against Great Britain and France, have he not attacked russia, USA would have a very few less reason to escalate into war. England would have eventually against Germany should Hitler continued spamming rockets and submarine against the English isle. Why? Because the British Army cannot mount any sort of counter attack against Germany, while Germany continues to send bombers after bombers.


After Hitler is done with the English isles, the Russians would surely attack Germany.
 
Nassirisimo

Nassirisimo

Despite what people say, it wasn't exactly impossible for Nazi Germany to defeat the UK. It would take a massive amount of time and effort however. Firstly, production of aircraft and the construction of a proper surface fleet have to be concentrated on. North Africa will still be difficult, as with British naval superiority in the Mediterranean, any forces there will have to rely on capturing Allied supply dumps for supplies. As long as the Nazis can accept that the pace of the war will be slowed down for a few years, then they shouldn't really have a problem, as they do have the resources to out produce Britain. They just need to harness them enough to outproduce them, which is something they barely managed OTL.
 

Vladimir

Banned
Letum said:
And how does this massive force get supplied with fuel, weapons, vehicles and food?
Click to expand...

With the food and fuel set aside for the Russian invasion. Think. How did the massive force that invaded Russia (most of Germany's available manpower) get supplied? Keep in mind that in Africa, Germany's logistical units would not be stretched to the limit, as in Russia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top