Would a less greedy Hitler have won?

There is a difference between having something in the plans to be ennacted at the right time, witch Stalin most definitely had, then to have something planned for a few weeks latter, witch Stalin most definitely didn't have.

The Red army was still railling from the purges at this point and in process of reorganisation, witch explain how much of a curbstomp the first weeks of the war where, and its likely Stalin would have likely waited at least a year more if had a free hand.
The duration of service was 2 years and they were drafted on 1 September 1939
 
The duration of service was 2 years and they were drafted on 1 September 1939

We are talking about Stalin USSR, it isn't like he could simply decide to keep them longer if he wanted. Besside, having some level of rotation of your conscript forces in peace time was relatively standart practice to the best of my knowledge. It allowed for a greater pool of your population to have some degree of training, making for more quality in your reserves during war time.
 
The duration of service was 2 years and they were drafted on 1 September 1939

Which proves nothing more then that the Soviets had passed a new conscription law on that date. In the meantime, none of the necessary supporting elements of the Red Army has been mobilized like they would have to have been if the Soviets were to be attacking in a few weeks time. That alone is enough to debunk Suvorov's Icebreaker theory.
 
What's the proof he planned an invasion?
One of the proofs is that the soldiers were drafted for two years until 1 September 1941.Another point(which I am not sure of)is that Stalin helped Hitler rise to power by forbidding German Communists to make common cause with the Social Democrats and win the elections.Then his plan was to invade and liberate(by installing new socialist governments)Europe.
 
Which proves nothing. In the meantime, none of the necessary supporting elements of the Red Army has been mobilized like they would have to have been if the Soviets were to be attacking in a few weeks time. That alone is enough to debunk Suvorov's Icebreaker theory.
Why were they so unprepared?Because they didn't expect that Nazi Germany would attack?
 
One of the proofs is that the soldiers were drafted for two years until 1 September 1941.Another point(which I am not sure of)is that Stalin helped Hitler rise to power by forbidding German Communists to make common cause with the Social Democrats and win the elections.Then his plan was to invade and liberate(by installing new socialist governments)Europe.

Again, none of this is proof. What it is is conjecture with a good dose of Hanlon's razor thrown in.

Why were they so unprepared?Because they didn't expect that Nazi Germany would attack?

Yes, and because they didn't expect to attack either. Had the Soviets actually had the ability to attack out of the frontier region, then they would have had the ability to defend the frontier regions. As events on June 22nd were to show, they couldn't do that. The Red Army in 1941 wasn't prepared for war at all... either defensively or offensively.
 
Yes, and because they didn't expect to attack either. Had the Soviets actually had the ability to attack out of the frontier region, then they would have had the ability to defend the frontier regions. As events on June 22nd were to show, they couldn't do that. The Red Army in 1941 wasn't prepared for war at all... either defensively or offensively.
They weren't prepared for a defensive war,and the Germans took many of their planes, tanks and other weapons and killed many Soviets during the first few weeks of Barbarossa
 
One of the proofs is that the soldiers were drafted for two years until 1 September 1941.

Proof:

a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact
b : the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning

What you are presenting is not proof. Its not even evidence. "Proof" would be some kind of actual document from the Soviet Union saying, "we will attack on such and such day, utilizing this strategy, in order to take this place."

I mean Hitler could certainly bide his time and delay an invasion of the Soviet Union until the 1950s after the Germans are able to develop nuclear weapons.

Oh god, not this nonsense. Hitler wouldn't delay an invasion of the Soviet Union to wait for Germany to invent nuclear weapons because, and follow me on this, H]itler didn't believe in nuclear physics.

The Nazis labeled such things as "Jewish science."

That's not even getting into the utter house of cards (and that's being generous) that was the Nazi economy. Looting the Soviet Union was basically required to keep the state functioning. And of course the acquisition of Lebensraum, and subsequent extermination of virtually everyone who currently lived there, was THE key piller of Nazism. They aren't, and realistically can't afford to wait a decade.

So in answer to the OP, if they don't invade the Soviet Union they aren't Nazis. And, well honestly declaring war on the US in December was probably the best move available. It was still a stupid move, but their policies had long since made sure there were no better options.
 
They weren't prepared for a defensive war

That's the point
: one has to be able to wage a defensive if one want's to then be able to wage an offensive war. If the Red Army wasn't prepared to wage a defensive war, then they weren't prepared to wage a offensive war. But the Red Army wasn't prepared to wage a defensive war, so by extension the idea then that the Red Army was prepared to launch an offensive war on June 22nd, as they would have had to have been if they were going to launch one on July 8th, can be handily dismissed.
 
That's the point: one has to be able to wage a defensive if one want's to then be able to wage an offensive war. If the Red Army wasn't prepared to wage a defensive war, then they weren't prepared to wage a offensive war. But the Red Army wasn't prepared to wage a defensive war, so by extension the idea then that the Red Army was prepared to launch an offensive war on June 22nd, as they would have had to have been if they were going to launch one on July 8th, can be handily dismissed.
They were prepared for an offensive war,it's not the same as a defensive war,but I don't believe that Stalin didn't know about Barbarossa a few weeks(or even days)before it happened
 

Greenville

Banned
One of the proofs is that the soldiers were drafted for two years until 1 September 1941.Another point(which I am not sure of)is that Stalin helped Hitler rise to power by forbidding German Communists to make common cause with the Social Democrats and win the elections.Then his plan was to invade and liberate(by installing new socialist governments)Europe.

Invade who, just Germany?
 
They were prepared for an offensive war,it's not the same as a defensive war

No, a offensive war is not the same as a defensive war. It's actually significantly harder then trying to fight a offensive war. That difference however still means a force which is ready to prosecute a offensive war is also one ready to prosecute a defensive war. The Soviets were not ready to prosecute a defensive war so again it could not have been ready to prosecute a offensive war. And unlike the unsupported assertions about Soviet invasion plans for early-July 1941, there is plenty of supporting documentation for that claim. The unpreparedness of the Red Army for either defensive or offensive operations is extensively documented and candidly admitted in internal Red Army memos throughout the first half of 1941. Stumbling Colossus, by David Glantz, which utterly demolishes any idea that the Soviets were prepared for any sort of war in mid-1941, cites them extensively.

Anyways, as to the OP, your gonna run into a problem that a Hitler who is not a reckless enough gambler to attack the USSR or DoW the USA first is one who is not reckless enough to back Manstein's plan that led to success in France over the rest of the High Command, is not reckless enough to start the war with Poland in the face of Anglo-French threats of war, and is not even reckless enough to pursue the Munich Crisis. That renders the whole question rather moot...
 
Last edited:
As Nuker said, if Hitler isn't reckless, he doesn't get anywhere. Attacking Poland was reckless, attacking France even more so. I mean every gamble had paid off at that point, why stop? You need to kill Hitler after the Battle of France and my understanding is that if they don't attack the USSR, the Germany economy is going to become an economic satellite of the USSR anyway because they were buying lots of stuff from them. I don't see a Nazi dominated Western Europe staying cozy with the Soviets, let alone peacefully co-existing...
 
Last edited:
my understanding is that if they don't attack the USSR, the Germany economy is going to become an economic satellite of the USSR anyway because they were buying lots of stuff from them.

I'm actually rather dubious about that specific point. Although they had the option to do so, the Soviets weren't actually keen on putting the squeeze on and the Germans still had great leverage despite all their fears. I find the conclusion that the Germans were really just being paranoid and greedy inescapable. The Reich, with a conquered Europe beneath it, was rather far too powerful to ever become a true client of the Soviet Union and the same is true for vice-versa... the most likely result would really have been a form of partnership. But the crux of the matter is that the Nazis didn't want partners. They wanted slaves.
 
Last edited:
Suppose Hitler was not stupid enough to go to war against Russia and America, but limited himself to conquering Poland, France and defeating (but not occupying) England. Could he have won such a war?
Nah, it would have been a long war but I am sure Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would have won eventually.
 

ATP45

Banned
In
Suppose Hitler was not stupid enough to go to war against Russia and America, but limited himself to conquering Poland, France and defeating (but not occupying) England. Could he have won such a war?
OTL soviets in 1941 almost lost,becouse soldiers hate communism and surrender amost without a fight.One example.On Belorus,2 soviet panzer and 2 mechanized dyvisions was ordered to attack one german infrantry dyvision on 24.06.41.They had 1200 working tanks,including 114 Kw1,8 artillery and 6 infrantry regiments.german was attacked by less then 200 light tanks without infrantry supported by ONE battery.Rest just run.What Hitler did? throw prisoners into labor camps,when most die.After that,soviet start to fight.
 
Top