What if Hitler Directly Invaded the USSR?

True off course, it would be a brief campaign season. I asssumed an objective for the Fall of 1939 would be to annihilate the exposed Soviet army within Poland and then start again when the mud freezes.
Not too fine a plan though.

That can work on the game board, tho the German player had to be very careful. Even Minsk or Riga were over extensions. If Britain and France are still in the war, the 1940 is largely a year of defensive ops, and a few select offensives. Some notable tactical & operational victories can be run, but the German military is spread to thin to achieve any decisive strategic victories. Maybe once the game went on into 1941, but in the other cases defeat was clear before the end of 1940.

If Britain & France are neutral for the moment, then A alerted and mobilized Red Army could be driven further east in 1940. The games we used realistically showed the smaller potential size of the 1940 Red Army. In these few games we kept the German player honest by requiring a minimum garrison in the west, to prevent a strategic surprise by the French. By the end of 1941 the French rearmament & training programs made the army and air force strong enough such garrisons were no longer a deterrent. Exactly how strong the French military is depends on if the US repeals the earlier Nuetrality Acts and sells arms to the French as OTL.

Anyway, its possible on the game board to capture as the German player a lot of eastern European farmland, and a scattering of Medieval urban architecture.
 
Gudenstein is on this thread, so you can probably find some implausible excuses to help the Nazis do better. These possibly involve handwaving free extra German food and coal.

But seriously, Alien Space Bats forum is over *that* way. Look at who made up the governments of the UK and France. Then explain why, with Germany attacking past Poland into the USSR, they don't join Stalin in crushing the Nazis.
Is that a challenge?
You are obviously right that the British and French will not aid a greater threat in destroying a lesser threat.
You have to change that assesment of Germany and SU to make the pod work. A communist Spain, red Finland and no break of post 1933 treaties by Germany? Wonder if Stalin or Hitler could supply such pre-conditions though.
Maybe an aggressive trotskist SU which I’ve learned is not an easy POD either.
 
Would the rest of Europe send aid to combat the red menace and if the Soviet Union is overrun by Germany with a possible coalition, how will the world see Hitler? Could he become the greatest man of the century?

I have this visual of Hitler spending his last days in his bunker doing the Brando/De Niro "I could have been a contender but now I'm just a bum" routine. Only in this version he's going "I could have been the greatest. Now I'm nothing but genocidal maniac".

If you're legitimately asking these questions, your short a few details here and there. Just a few.
 
I have this visual of Hitler spending his last days in his bunker doing the Brando/De Niro "I could have been a contender but now I'm just a bum" routine. Only in this version he's going "I could have been the greatest. Now I'm nothing but genocidal maniac".

If you're legitimately asking these questions, your short a few details here and there. Just a few.
When I say this, it is because I find interest in how we perceive history. Had things gone differently, a terrible individual could be seen as the ideal person.
 
But what if the English and French were actually aiding the Germans battle the Soviets?

Yeah only Harry Turtledove thinks that's plausible...

If I may propose a different POD...

Churchill doesn't become PM. Halifax convinces who ever is PM to sue for peace during or after Dunkirk. Hitler in OTL thought that the UK would eventually sue for peace so this suits his plans. He takes a year to prepare for Operation Barbarossa in 1941.

Except the PM isn't a dictator and good luck getting any deal past parliament regardless of how generous the terms are. Churchill getting the nod over Halifax wasn't an accident, it was a matter of who all the parties would support for a coalition government and Halifax was a non-starter.

When I say this, it is because I find interest in how we perceive history. Had things gone differently, a terrible individual could be seen as the ideal person.

By the time war broke out Hitler had already implemented measures that would prevent him being seen as anything less than a thuggish dictator and the Central Government and mass deportation of Poles after 1939 have had him seen classed as a monster even without the events of 1941-45
 
Last edited:
When I say this, it is because I find interest in how we perceive history. Had things gone differently, a terrible individual could be seen as the ideal person.

This is an interesting discussion when it comes to Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Thomas Jefferson, Woodrow Wilson, and Winston Churchill - among others, mostly pre-19th century. The only people who genuinely think this about Hitler are people who are ignorant of key facts and/or Nazi apologists. I assume you are the former but, pro tip here, its generally not an idea you want to leave open to assumption.
 
When I say this, it is because I find interest in how we perceive history. Had things gone differently, a terrible individual could be seen as the ideal person.
In Hitler's case, two key things that should have gone differently to not been seen as a terrible individual were:
1) not starting a world war (and losing it, but Germany would almost always lose it)
2) not killing millions of people in concentrationcamps or otherwise, or not getting the word out that it happened (and the latter would be kinda hard)

So: pretty much ASB
 
This is an interesting discussion when it comes to Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Thomas Jefferson, Woodrow Wilson, and Winston Churchill - among others, mostly pre-19th century. The only people who genuinely think this about Hitler are people who are ignorant of key facts and/or Nazi apologists. I assume you are the former but, pro tip here, it's generally not an idea you want to leave open to assumption.

I am neither. I am fully clear on the evils commited by the Hitler and the Nazis but one other thing I also know is that people can be perceived differently in history. With Julius Caesar and the others, you listed, we have people who are not seen as evil by almost everyone. I myself think Churchill was a terrible person but the mainstream opinion is that he was a great hero. I understand why this opinion is held (him fighting the Nazis and all that). However, had he never become prime minister, he would have been remembered as a sexist, drunkard who couldn't remain financially stable. What I want to do is see how humans could perceive those regarded as evil differently. Hitler is a good option for this since he is seen as the devil himself by many and even though I prefer him over figures like Stalin I still agree that he was more than bad. But had things gone differently, this man, who is seen as the devil himself, could become the 'German Hercules'.
 
In Hitler's case, two key things that should have gone differently to not been seen as a terrible individual were:
1) not starting a world war (and losing it, but Germany would almost always lose it)
2) not killing millions of people in concentrationcamps or otherwise, or not getting the word out that it happened (and the latter would be kinda hard)

So: pretty much ASB
I believe Hitler had a chance of winning world war 2. If the Madagascar Plan happened, Jews could be transported there instead of being killed and this might inspire similar ideas of sending other 'undesirables' to different lands.
 

nbcman

Donor
I believe Hitler had a chance of winning world war 2. If the Madagascar Plan happened, Jews could be transported there instead of being killed and this might inspire similar ideas of sending other 'undesirables' to different lands.
Shipping multiple millions of Jews and other undesirables to Madagascar that only had a population of 4 million in 1940 may as well be considered as a death sentence for the majority of the population of Madagascar. How would they be housed or fed? The only way to do it would be with the UK and French providing the shipping and the support for the overpopulated Madagascar island while being at war with Germany.
 
Shipping multiple millions of Jews and other undesirables to Madagascar that only had a population of 4 million in 1940 may as well be considered as a death sentence for the majority of the population of Madagascar. How would they be housed or fed? The only way to do it would be with the UK and French providing the shipping and the support for the overpopulated Madagascar island while being at war with Germany.

If Britain and France were not at war with Germany, they might accept. In a very unlikely TL this could take place. Also would the Europeans care about the native Madagascarians? Many today support the Israelis despite the Palestinian claim to the land. How are they housed and fed? Land and food taken from the natives, maybe rich Jews might invest in the settlements to make the situation better for Jews there and increasing their own reputation (though this seems a little unlikely).
 
I feel like these discussions are mostly caused because a lot of people who have a lot of interest in WW2 and even a lot of understanding of the war itself, they commonly forget to look at what happened before it, what important decisions and events happened that defined the attitudes of the many countries involved during WW2. Usually its the political and moral events that some people might find boring, but are so important to understand the whys and what ifs.
 
Shipping multiple millions of Jews and other undesirables to Madagascar that only had a population of 4 million in 1940 may as well be considered as a death sentence for the majority of the population of Madagascar. How would they be housed or fed? The only way to do it would be with the UK and French providing the shipping and the support for the overpopulated Madagascar island while being at war with Germany.

Yeah the Madagascar plan was just slow murder rather than quick and Germany never had the means to carry it out. Also this assumes that the Jews were the only group marked for annihilation by Hitler's plans. If Barbarossa succeeded 10s of millions of Slavs would have been liquidated.

If Britain and France were not at war with Germany, they might accept. In a very unlikely TL this could take place. Also would the Europeans care about the native Madagascarians? Many today support the Israelis despite the Palestinian claim to the land. How are they housed and fed? Land and food taken from the natives, maybe rich Jews might invest in the settlements to make the situation better for Jews there and increasing their own reputation (though this seems a little unlikely).

The 'rich jews' is little more than Nazi mythology. There was no cabal of Jewish bankers with vast fortunes at their command. There is no food to take from the natives and if there were it would be on the ships going back to Germany not fed to Jews. The intention in sending the Jews to Madagascar was to have some place where they could quietly starve to death away from the gaze of the international community, the Nazi's had no interest in the Jews survival.
 
Top