Would Germany have won the war if Hitler did not invade Rus

[The Tiger Kingdom]

Wow, where to begin.


Again - this line of reasoning doesn't make sense. The entire Nazi worldview depended on wiping out Bolshevism. That was the whole point.


Which would have entailed sending troop convoys straight into the Mediterranean to be picked off by the Med Fleet and the RAF.


...Why would that be necessary, in this plan?


Vietnam proves how well this would've worked.


Hitler sitting on his hands "consolidating" was not an option. You build up a military that big and that centrally focused in society, you do not sit around to "consolidate" - you've got to use it constantly, otherwise you are wasting a shitload of resources and making a lot of people very, very antsy. To say nothing of the economic strain. PUtting reinforcements into Africa wasn't necessarily a bad idea onto itself, but keep in mind, those troops are vulnerable the whole way across the Med. Convoys were notoriously difficult for the Germans and Italians to secure during the course of the war due to Brit naval superiority.

And building up an airforce was a bit beside the point when the Luftwaffe was such a command nightmare. The leading Richsmarshall's a morphine junkie, the Inspector of the Luftwaffe hates his job and was put there just to absorb complaints (that's Udet), the current designs the Luftwaffe had in 1940 were aging fast and almost all of the new designs turned out to be massive flops...

And this isn't Hearts of iron - building a strong navy takes decades. Especially considering that this is the Med, meaning Germany would have to build the fleet at home, run it all the way past Britain, enter Gibraltar, and then start operating. Not a good idea.


Not really. They basically just said "Let's both agree to drive to the Bug River and not go beyond it or shoot each other when we get there. Cool? Cool."


As to the last point: Nope. In all probability, Nazi Germany would have collapsed under the weight of its inevitable economic failure (seriously, read up on the German economy, it's the most fucked-up thing) or fallen apart into warring fiefdoms within ten years (or whenever Hitler died).

Good argument, but I have some issues with it:

• 1) It was Nazi rhetoric to wipe out Bolshevism, a practical leader (which Hitler fortunately wasn't) would have waited longer to try deal with them.
• 2) If the Mediterranean fleet and RAF caused so many problems with getting troops into Africa, how did Rommel and his army get in? Also if Hitler had focused his military spending on Africa instead of Russia the Mediterranean fleet and RAF would have been less of a threat.
• 3) If Hitler had put more work into his "Atlantic Wall" (or even fully completed it) D Day would have gone a lot worse for the allies.
• 4) Vietnam has much more overgrown and. inaccessible areas than France, Poland, etc. Also I meant more the resistance in the towns than the forests and mountains.
• 5) Point on he couldn't consolidate is good. It would be better if he tried end the war in North Africa and then try seize Africa's natural resources.
• 6) True, Stalin and Hitler only worked together in Poland out of practicality. But then again Stalin never really came rushing to the aid of his "allies" France and Britain until after the USSR was invaded.
• 7) Stealing the natural resources of Africa might delay or even stabilise his economy a little. True the odds were stacked against Nazi Germany (thank goodness) but with a more intelligent and patient plan. they would have lasted longer. And maybe even still be in power today.

I'm going to respond later, when it's not so late and I'm less sleepy.
I'll be back, rest assured.

[New Socialist South Africa]

Good argument, but I have some issues with it:

• 1) It was Nazi rhetoric to wipe out Bolshevism, a practical leader (which Hitler fortunately wasn't) would have waited longer to try deal with them.
• 2) If the Mediterranean fleet and RAF caused so many problems with getting troops into Africa, how did Rommel and his army get in? Also if Hitler had focused his military spending on Africa instead of Russia the Mediterranean fleet and RAF would have been less of a threat.
• 3) If Hitler had put more work into his "Atlantic Wall" (or even fully completed it) D Day would have gone a lot worse for the allies.
• 4) Vietnam has much more overgrown and. inaccessible areas than France, Poland, etc. Also I meant more the resistance in the towns than the forests and mountains.
• 5) Point on he couldn't consolidate is good. It would be better if he tried end the war in North Africa and then try seize Africa's natural resources.
• 6) True, Stalin and Hitler only worked together in Poland out of practicality. But then again Stalin never really came rushing to the aid of his "allies" France and Britain until after the USSR was invaded.
• 7) Stealing the natural resources of Africa might delay or even stabilise his economy a little. True the odds were stacked against Nazi Germany (thank goodness) but with a more intelligent and patient plan. they would have lasted longer. And maybe even still be in power today.

I'm going to respond later, when it's not so late and I'm less sleepy.
I'll be back, rest assured.

Ok lekka man, sure thing. You must be from America or Australia then (EDIT: ok never mind I can tell it's USA from the flag), because where I am it's mid-day. I look forward to your counter argument.

[Kumrann]

Perhaps. It depends what you criteria is for winning? I think you would more likely have a sort of stale mate - or maybe a war that took a lot longer with more casualties.

Also invading the UK would not have been achievable to my knowledge we have only had 2 successful invasions of these islands and the last was almost 1000 years ago

[Ardavia]

1) The Reich was losing the Battle of Britain (or, rather, they had lost it) by the time Barbossa began, and the objective of that, other than seizing Lebensraum and crushing Bolshevism, was to gain access to the oil fields in Caucasus and the food sources there as well.
2)That was why Rommel, in the end, lost. He had few troops, almost no oil, he couldn't get reinforcements or supplies because the Med Fleet and the RAF dominated the Mediterranean.
3)The Atlantic Wall was, in its essence, propaganda. It was undermanned and not finished. Yet, the reason the allies breached the Wall on D-Day was because the German High Command refused to believe that the invasion had actually come, and move the large amount of troops amassed at Pas de Calais to Normandy in time to crush the Allies. It took over a month for them to realize it.
4) Vietnam is one thing, and shouldn't even be mentioned, because, well, it didn't work in France. It didn't work in Poland. It didn't work in the Balkans. It practically didn't work in any Nazi occupied country. The resistance was never broken.
5)The Med Fleet and the RAF's dominance in the Mediterranean made this difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. Malta didn't fall, and if it had, the North Africa campaign could have ended very different.
6)Well, they weren't really his allies. The Reich and the USSR had a non-aggression pact, and the USSR wasn't allied to the Allies until after Barbossa.
7)They wouldn't be in power today. No matter how you place it, the German economy and industrial capacity couldn't stand up to the US and that was, in the end, why the Reich fell. They had two of the largest countries on Earth against them, with superior economies, industrial capacity and manpower. They could possibly have held out a bit longer with someone else than Hitler in command, but without him, it never would have happened.

[New Socialist South Africa]

Perhaps. It depends what you criteria is for winning? I think you would more likely have a sort of stale mate - or maybe a war that took a lot longer with more casualties.

Also invading the UK would not have been achievable to my knowledge we have only had 2 successful invasions of these islands and the last was almost 1000 years ago

Only successfully conquered three times (Romans, Saxons and Normans) and four times if you count the Celts before the Romans. But the number is very low, you are correct there.

[New Socialist South Africa]

1) The Reich was losing the Battle of Britain (or, rather, they had lost it) by the time Barbossa began, and the objective of that, other than seizing Lebensraum and crushing Bolshevism, was to gain access to the oil fields in Caucasus and the food sources there as well.
2)That was why Rommel, in the end, lost. He had few troops, almost no oil, he couldn't get reinforcements or supplies because the Med Fleet and the RAF dominated the Mediterranean.
3)The Atlantic Wall was, in its essence, propaganda. It was undermanned and not finished. Yet, the reason the allies breached the Wall on D-Day was because the German High Command refused to believe that the invasion had actually come, and move the large amount of troops amassed at Pas de Calais to Normandy in time to crush the Allies. It took over a month for them to realize it.
4) Vietnam is one thing, and shouldn't even be mentioned, because, well, it didn't work in France. It didn't work in Poland. It didn't work in the Balkans. It practically didn't work in any Nazi occupied country. The resistance was never broken.
5)The Med Fleet and the RAF's dominance in the Mediterranean made this difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. Malta didn't fall, and if it had, the North Africa campaign could have ended very different.
6)Well, they weren't really his allies. The Reich and the USSR had a non-aggression pact, and the USSR wasn't allied to the Allies until after Barbossa.
7)They wouldn't be in power today. No matter how you place it, the German economy and industrial capacity couldn't stand up to the US and that was, in the end, why the Reich fell. They had two of the largest countries on Earth against them, with superior economies, industrial capacity and manpower. They could possibly have held out a bit longer with someone else than Hitler in command, but without him, it never would have happened.

That's a pretty good argument and I can't really fault anything in it, aside from saying that the Atlantic Wall did some pretty hectic military damage for propaganda, and that if you ever seen it, it is pretty damn intimidating, undermanned or not. Ya Nazi Germany would probably have collapsed anyway, but in truth we will never know, the possibilities are endless.

[Ardavia]

1) The Reich was losing the Battle of Britain (or, rather, they had lost it) by the time Barbossa began, and the objective of that, other than seizing Lebensraum and crushing Bolshevism, was to gain access to the oil fields in Caucasus and the food sources there as well.
2)That was why Rommel, in the end, lost. He had few troops, almost no oil, he couldn't get reinforcements or supplies because the Med Fleet and the RAF dominated the Mediterranean.
3)The Atlantic Wall was, in its essence, propaganda. It was undermanned and not finished. Yet, the reason the allies breached the Wall on D-Day was because the German High Command refused to believe that the invasion had actually come, and move the large amount of troops amassed at Pas de Calais to Normandy in time to crush the Allies. It took over a month for them to realize it.
4) Vietnam is one thing, and shouldn't even be mentioned, because, well, it didn't work in France. It didn't work in Poland. It didn't work in the Balkans. It practically didn't work in any Nazi occupied country. The resistance was never broken.
5)The Med Fleet and the RAF's dominance in the Mediterranean made this difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. Malta didn't fall, and if it had, the North Africa campaign could have ended very different.
6)Well, they weren't really his allies. The Reich and the USSR had a non-aggression pact, and the USSR wasn't allied to the Allies until after Barbossa.
7)They wouldn't be in power today. No matter how you place it, the German economy and industrial capacity couldn't stand up to the US and that was, in the end, why the Reich fell. They had two of the largest countries on Earth against them, with superior economies, industrial capacity and manpower. They could possibly have held out a bit longer with someone else than Hitler in command, but without him, it never would have happened.

That's a pretty good argument and I can't really fault anything in it, aside from saying that the Atlantic Wall did some pretty hectic military damage for propaganda, and that if you ever seen it, it is pretty damn intimidating, undermanned or not. Ya Nazi Germany would probably have collapsed anyway, but in truth we will never know, the possibilities are endless.

Agreed, it was intimidating, but it also fell. It cost the Americans, what was it, about 3000 men in total. The landing fleet was the largest assembled landing fleet in history, and they lost 3000 men on D-Day. If the Germans had realized it was the actual invasion, they could have thrown the Allies back into the sea and delayed the end of the war for years. Well, either that, or the Soviets would have crushed the Reich with the Western Allies still stuck in Britain.

[Ardavia]

1) The Reich was losing the Battle of Britain (or, rather, they had lost it) by the time Barbossa began, and the objective of that, other than seizing Lebensraum and crushing Bolshevism, was to gain access to the oil fields in Caucasus and the food sources there as well.
2)That was why Rommel, in the end, lost. He had few troops, almost no oil, he couldn't get reinforcements or supplies because the Med Fleet and the RAF dominated the Mediterranean.
3)The Atlantic Wall was, in its essence, propaganda. It was undermanned and not finished. Yet, the reason the allies breached the Wall on D-Day was because the German High Command refused to believe that the invasion had actually come, and move the large amount of troops amassed at Pas de Calais to Normandy in time to crush the Allies. It took over a month for them to realize it.
4) Vietnam is one thing, and shouldn't even be mentioned, because, well, it didn't work in France. It didn't work in Poland. It didn't work in the Balkans. It practically didn't work in any Nazi occupied country. The resistance was never broken.
5)The Med Fleet and the RAF's dominance in the Mediterranean made this difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. Malta didn't fall, and if it had, the North Africa campaign could have ended very different.
6)Well, they weren't really his allies. The Reich and the USSR had a non-aggression pact, and the USSR wasn't allied to the Allies until after Barbossa.
7)They wouldn't be in power today. No matter how you place it, the German economy and industrial capacity couldn't stand up to the US and that was, in the end, why the Reich fell. They had two of the largest countries on Earth against them, with superior economies, industrial capacity and manpower. They could possibly have held out a bit longer with someone else than Hitler in command, but without him, it never would have happened.

That's a pretty good argument and I can't really fault anything in it, aside from saying that the Atlantic Wall did some pretty hectic military damage for propaganda, and that if you ever seen it, it is pretty damn intimidating, undermanned or not. Ya Nazi Germany would probably have collapsed anyway, but in truth we will never know, the possibilities are endless.

Agreed, it was intimidating, but it also fell. It cost the Americans, what was it, about 3000 men in total. The landing fleet was the largest assembled landing fleet in history, and they lost 3000 men on D-Day. If the Germans had realized it was the actual invasion, they could have thrown the Allies back into the sea and delayed the end of the war for years. Well, either that, or the Soviets would have crushed the Reich with the Western Allies still stuck in Britain.

[Draakonite]

Germany would have won the war if Hitler didn't survived the year 1940.

Or even before that. What idiot allies with finland and italy and declares war on the US? Most incompetent foreign policy ever.

[The USOT]

Not at all.
The only way they could have won would be to force a stalemate with a very early nuke discovery at the height of their success.

[New Socialist South Africa]

That's a pretty good argument and I can't really fault anything in it, aside from saying that the Atlantic Wall did some pretty hectic military damage for propaganda, and that if you ever seen it, it is pretty damn intimidating, undermanned or not. Ya Nazi Germany would probably have collapsed anyway, but in truth we will never know, the possibilities are endless.

Agreed, it was intimidating, but it also fell. It cost the Americans, what was it, about 3000 men in total. The landing fleet was the largest assembled landing fleet in history, and they lost 3000 men on D-Day. If the Germans had realized it was the actual invasion, they could have thrown the Allies back into the sea and delayed the end of the war for years. Well, either that, or the Soviets would have crushed the Reich with the Western Allies still stuck in Britain.

Ya that's the fickleness of history hey. A single changed decision can change everything.

[Ardavia]

Agreed, it was intimidating, but it also fell. It cost the Americans, what was it, about 3000 men in total. The landing fleet was the largest assembled landing fleet in history, and they lost 3000 men on D-Day. If the Germans had realized it was the actual invasion, they could have thrown the Allies back into the sea and delayed the end of the war for years. Well, either that, or the Soviets would have crushed the Reich with the Western Allies still stuck in Britain.

Ya that's the fickleness of history hey. A single changed decision can change everything.

Exactly. On July 20th, 1944, two feet could have changed the course of the war. If Hitler had been standing somewhere else, not protected by the table, WWII could have ended in another way entirely.

[L Ron Cupboard]

It is interesting to note, also, that the Swiss population was told that, in the event of a German invasion, any announcement of a Swiss surrender was to be considered enemy propaganda and ignored. That gives you an idea of how determined they were to resist to the end.

I think if any nation was going to leap at the chance of being Nazis it would be Switzerland.

[Baltenstein]

Ya that's the fickleness of history hey. A single changed decision can change everything.

Exactly. On July 20th, 1944, two feet could have changed the course of the war. If Hitler had been standing somewhere else, not protected by the table, WWII could have ended in another way entirely.

Any possible scenario that didn't include an uncoditional German surrender was out of the question by that point. Perhaps the Holocaust would have stopped earlier or the post war spheres of influence in central Europe would have looked different.

[Nimzonia]

Hitler was a dipshit to stop trying to invade Britain. The English were on their last few hundred planes, and the Battle of Britain could have resulted in a Nazi victory if they kept pushing. But they didn't, and instead tried to invade the largest country on Earth in the middle of winter.

/logic

Except that Germany was also on its last legs in terms of air forces and there was no way to deal with the Royal Navy except for air forces. Plus, Britain could replace both pilots and planes much more easily (given that Britain was fighting over its own ground, they could rescue shot-down pilots if they survived - and planes could be manufactured more easily because, indeed, Germany had to put a large amount of industrial capacity into building a land force that didn't curl up and die the moment it stepped into the Soviet Union (which it didn't - it lasted a couple of years before curling up and dying).

The story of the Battle of Britain that I most often hear is that the Germans were hitting RAF airfields pretty hard, and the RAF was close to collapse. Then, a german bomber got lost and accidentally bombed some houses in London. The RAF made a tit-for-tat revenge raid on Berlin, and Hitler was so pissed that he had the Luftwaffe switch to bombing civilians in the UK, allowing the RAF to recover. This is usually presented as a series of random events that miraculously saved Britain.

I wonder if that's just a cover story, and what really happened was that the British bombed civilians in Germany as a deliberate ploy to goad Hitler into attacking civilian targets instead of military ones, and the part about the german bomber getting lost is complete fiction to convince the public they weren't used as bait.

[Rio Cana]

The Germans had a plan to invade the UK. called Operation Sea Lion. They could have succeeded if they had not deviated from the plan and had not invaded Russia which took away much resources that could have been used in an invasion of the UK.

http://info-poland.buffalo.edu/britain/airbattle.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea_Lion

[Agder]

No but the war would have lasted longer but in the end Germany would have lost

[Greed and Death]

The Germans had a plan to invade the UK. called Operation Sea Lion. They could have succeeded if they had not deviated from the plan and had not invaded Russia which took away much resources that could have been used in an invasion of the UK.

http://info-poland.buffalo.edu/britain/airbattle.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea_Lion

(Image)

The plan required air and naval supremacy the battle of Britain ended that.

[Baltenstein]

The Germans had a plan to invade the UK. called Operation Sea Lion. They could have succeeded

Erm, no. This should be clear to everyone by now. No naval supremacy, no air supremacy, no transport capacity to get the troops over the Channel.

[West German Empire]

Probably not, though it would have made an eventual Anglo-US victory a lot more costly and more difficult.

[Ardavia]

Except that Germany was also on its last legs in terms of air forces and there was no way to deal with the Royal Navy except for air forces. Plus, Britain could replace both pilots and planes much more easily (given that Britain was fighting over its own ground, they could rescue shot-down pilots if they survived - and planes could be manufactured more easily because, indeed, Germany had to put a large amount of industrial capacity into building a land force that didn't curl up and die the moment it stepped into the Soviet Union (which it didn't - it lasted a couple of years before curling up and dying).

The story of the Battle of Britain that I most often hear is that the Germans were hitting RAF airfields pretty hard, and the RAF was close to collapse. Then, a german bomber got lost and accidentally bombed some houses in London. The RAF made a tit-for-tat revenge raid on Berlin, and Hitler was so pissed that he had the Luftwaffe switch to bombing civilians in the UK, allowing the RAF to recover. This is usually presented as a series of random events that miraculously saved Britain.

I wonder if that's just a cover story, and what really happened was that the British bombed civilians in Germany as a deliberate ploy to goad Hitler into attacking civilian targets instead of military ones, and the part about the german bomber getting lost is complete fiction to convince the public they weren't used as bait.

Doesn't sound too unfeasible. The British cracked the Enigma code and managed to intercept a radio message detailing about the strike on Coventry coming in a few days. What does Churchill do? He allows the Germans to level Coventry to not reveal that they cracked the code, then later on the Allied bombers level Dresden as vengeance for Coventry.

[Rio Cana]

Some posts above say the UK. would have won. If it was a repeat of what actually happened in WW II then yes, But if the Germans had not invaded Russia things would have been different. No need to have generals plan for an invasion of Russia. All would be concentrated on invading the UK. They would have though of something. The UK. cannot possibly watch over all its coast. An invasion could have happened somewhere in the North of Scotland.

The planned invasion of Malta is an example. The Germans wanted to invade Malta. However, the Germans never invaded Malta since they needed to send the troops for the Malta invasion to North Africa. Otherwise, Malta most likely would have been conquered.

Read this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Herkules

Same for the UK.. If the Germans had not gotten involved in Russia they could have most likely conquered the island of Britannia . Once those German tanks started landing and rolling on the island of Brittania it would be hard to stop.

[Ostroeuropa]

Would Germany have won World War 2 ,if Hitler did not invade the Soviet Union?

I think they would have won by invading England. If Hitler would have conquered England he would control 1/4 of the world.(or 1/3?)

NSG what is your opinion?

Hitler could never have realistically conquered Britain.
They tried that once. Their air force wasn't nearly good enough, and their invasion forces had basically zero amphibious capacity.
Plus, it's likely that had Hitler not invaded Russia, Russia would likely have invaded German-held Europe within a few years.

Also, there's no fucking way in hell that if the actual British Isles were occupied, Hitler would get control of everywhere else in the Empire. Churchill and the Royal Family said they'd fight from Canada if they had to.

Not to mention, compared to the other Occupied Nations, the British were EXTREMELY well prepared to resist occupation.
The Brits didn't realize they might not be occupied, so practically every town had a terrorist cell waiting for the day when Hitlers troops came in.
Weapons caches were stored all over the country in secret areas, etc.

Manuals on how to make car bombs, pipe bombs, etc.

We were that prepared because we had a year or two to get all the provisions in place, compared to say Poland, who wasn't prepared (It's not their fault.) and even THEY managed to put up one hell of a resistance movement.



The "Plan" for the terrorists and RAF.

As soon as it becomes obvious that Hitler is going to succeed at invading, bomb the SHIT out of every single harbor and airbase to keep supply trains as strained as possible for occupying troops.

Murder collaberators.
Bomb any supplies of theirs you can.
Keep harassing them, but the emphasis is on bombing supplies and destroying ports/airbases to starve them out/make them run out of ammo

[Ardavia]

Some post above say the UK. would have won. If it was a repeat of what actually happened in WW II then yes, But if the Germans had not invaded Russia things would have been different. No need to have generals plan for an invasion of Russia. All would be concentrated on invading the UK. They would have though of something. The UK. cannot possibly watch over all its coast. An invasion could have happened somewhere in the North of Scotland.

The planned invasion of Malta is an example. The Germans wanted to invade Malta. However, the Germans never invaded Malta since they needed to send the troops for the Malta invasion to North Africa. Otherwise, Malta most likely would have been conquered. Same for the UK.. If the Germans had not gotten involved in Russia they could have most likely conquered the island of Britannia . Once those German tanks started landing and rolling on the island of Brittania it would be hard to stop.

Err, wasn't this clear already? The Germans didn't have a chance of making Seelöwe happen. They had no transport ships (or not enough to make a difference, anyway), no air supremacy, no naval supremacy. In the '70's, former British and German officers from WWII came together in a wargame to test Seelöwe. It didn't (SURPRISE) work.

[Trefeqia]

If Hitler invaded the UK, I think he would only control the UK, not the British Empire, similar to when Germany invaded Denmark, Greenland wasn't under Nazi control, instead the US occupied it for Denmark. I think if he invaded the UK instead of the USSR, then the Eastern Front would have been easier and the Western Front harder.