Customer Discussions > History forum

What if Hitler hadn't invaded Russia?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 51-75 of 76 posts in this discussion
Posted on Apr 8, 2011 11:33:28 AM PDT
L. King says:
I've always felt that invading Russia made very little sense from a strategic point of view. Hitler's grand external enemy was the British Empire. His goal should have been to cut Britain off from Egypt and India and capturing the Arabian oil fields.

He should have been warned off Russia by Napoleon's example. By consolidating a southern position he could have bottled up the Bosporus at a later point in time and attacked from Russia's soft underbelly instead. He could also have profered more support to Rommel. (Not that I wished Hitler any success.)

Posted on Apr 8, 2011 1:58:24 PM PDT
The USSR and Nazi Germany were going to fight sooner or later. If Hitler hadn't jumped the gun in frustration after Seelowe fell through, he would have invaded at a later time with better preperation. If he hadn't, Stalin would have attacked him when he had fixed up his military. Europe wasn't big enough for two expansionist dictators. Yes Stalin believed in the inevitability of the victory of the proletariate, but he was also paranoid about invasion from Western Europe.

As for the Pacific, the Japanese had zero chance of ultimate victory as long as the US maintained the will to fight. Yamamoto always recognized that Japan's only chance was to defeat the US's population's will to fight a long war. He needed to win major victories at low cost to Japan without unduly angering the American populace. What he actually got was the worst of all worlds, a limited string of tactical victories coupled with an American population enraged by the "sneak attack" at Pearl Harbor.

Posted on Apr 10, 2011 12:16:04 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jun 22, 2011 12:48:41 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 10, 2011 9:44:53 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 13, 2012 2:14:00 AM PDT
Ridiculous topic.

Stalin was planning to attack the Third Reich by 1942 at the latest. This notion that the USSR which had the largest army in the world was just going to sit there and do nothing but make kissyface with the Nazi Empire is one of the dumbest fallacies which has ever been perpetuated by the mainstream media (History channel) about World War II.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 8, 2012 3:28:25 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 10, 2012 8:22:44 AM PDT
F. Gleaves says:
Since Stalin seems to have thought Hitler intended to invade Britain in the Summer of 1941, he must have been considering the possibility of Germany having no other opponent in Europe by the Spring of 1942.

Yet at the November 1940 Berlin meeting of Hitler and Molotov he had continued to insist on his right to do as he wished in Rumania, despite Hitler's offer of a share in the dismemberment of the British Empire if Stalin would let Germany maintain control of the Rumanian oilfields until Britain was defeated.

That really drove Hitler up the wall! When Stalin didn't come back with a compromise, Htler gave the order for Barbarossa.

If Stalin had thought there was a risk of Hitler turning on him before finishing Britain, he would have been an idiot not to placate Hitler. But he was so sure Hitler would never fight a two-front war, he figured he was safe till 1942.

Even David Glantz admits Stalin was conducting a secret mobilization and moving his forces towards the border. Shaposhnikov had orders to have the new border defenses ready by October '41.

If Stalin had seized or set fire to the Rumanian oilfields in late summer 1941 after a German invasion of Britain, the Germans wouldn't be able to counter-attack the Soviet Union until the spring of 1942 and they would then be pretty near the bottom of their fuel reserves.

They would be severely limited in their transport and combat operations due to the fuel shortage.

In fact I think Halder wrote in his diary in August 1941 that their fuel reserves were already exhausted and they were relying on Rumanian production to keep going.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 12, 2012 10:00:52 PM PDT
If Hitler hadn't declared war against teh US, I think there was a good chance the US wouldn't have declared war against Germany. Up until Pearl Harbor, ther was a substantial amount of isolationist feeling in the US and most prople were against us getting involved in another European war. FDR wanted to support Britan, but I think the US population would have been satisfied with just crushing Japan in revenge for Pearl.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 12, 2012 10:09:28 PM PDT
Macheath,
As long as the US kept it's will to fight Japan had zero chance of victory. They were outclassed in every way. They started the war at the very peak of their power and still were only able to maintain the offensive for six months. Even if they had destroyed our entire carrier force at Midway, within weeks we could have moved the Saratoga, Wasp and Ranger into the Pacific to replace our losses and within another six months the Independance and Essex carriers could have been coming into service with some expediting on their construction. We simply had more of everything, and after June of 1942 we had better everything than the Empire of Japan. The war would have taken longer and been bloodier, but the result could only have changed if America lost it's will to resist. Yamamoto knew this, that's why his strategy was to destroy our fleet on the first day of the war in order to intimidate us. He knew the US; he told his leaders that they had six months to grab defensible borders before the industrial might of the US made even local victories impossible.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 13, 2012 12:33:38 AM PDT
Jeff Marzano says:
Richard M. Smith says:

[If Hitler hadn't declared war against teh US, I think there was a good chance the US wouldn't have declared war against Germany.]

Germany, Italy, and Japan had were signatories of something called the Tripartite Pact which stated that if one of them was attacked the other two would come to their assistance.

Granted Germany declared war on the U.S before the U.S. attacked Japan. But it was only a matter of time before that happened.

Then again because Japan attacked the U.S. first I'm not sure if Germany and Italy would have been obligated to help Japan.

Jeff Marzano

ARTICLE 3. Japan, Germany, and Italy agree to cooperate in their efforts on aforesaid lines. They further undertake to assist one another with all political, economic and military means if one of the Contracting Powers is attacked by a Power at present not involved in the European War or in the Japanese-Chinese conflict.

Posted on Apr 13, 2012 2:00:26 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 13, 2012 2:10:25 AM PDT
This argument gets brought up over and over again and it is silly because it ignores the very obvious reality that Stalin was himself planning to attack Hitler as soon as the Red Army was ready for the operation (projected date mid-1942)

In the last 20 years numerous historians both of Russian (Suvorov, Pleshakov, etc..) and Western origin (Albert L. Weeks) have discovered that Stalin was planning to attack Germany. Read the book Stalin's Folly by Russian historian Constantine Pleshakov as well as the groundbreaking work Icebreaker by Russian historian Viktor Suvorov. Russian documents reveal that Stalin made a speech to his Generals in early May 1941 in which he said that it was time for the Red Army to switch over to the offensive and that the main enemy was Germany.

Therefore, the popular (endorsed by the History channel) nonsensical view that "Stalin was just sitting there peacefully when Hitler betrayed him" is not even worthy of discussion. Learn and adapt, that view is no longer accurate and it makes no difference whether the conformist historians still cling to it because they fear that "If we admit Stalin was going to attack Hitler then that would make Hitler look good because it would suggest that Hitler invaded Russia because he didn't have any choice in the matter rather than the standard madman taking over the world cliche. We can't allow any change in this perspective."

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 13, 2012 5:56:35 AM PDT
Jeff Marzano says:
James Summers says:

[This argument gets brought up over and over again and it is silly because it ignores the very obvious reality that Stalin was himself planning to attack Hitler as soon as the Red Army was ready for the operation (projected date mid-1942)]

I haven't read those books but what you said makes sense, at least for me.

Jeff Marzano

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 13, 2012 9:25:17 AM PDT
Jeff,
To me that laungage is clear. Germany was not constrained to declare war on the US. Japan wasn't the attacked, it was the attacker.

Posted on Apr 14, 2012 7:52:08 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 7, 2012 11:12:19 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 16, 2012 12:25:23 PM PDT
F. Gleaves says:
About 13,000 Allied POWs died building the notorious Burma-Siam "Death Railway" - which included 'The Bridge on the River Kwai'.

Between 80,000 and 100,000 Asian forced laborers also died building the railroad.

Thais, Burmese and Malays, it didn't matter - the Japanese simply didn't bother to take any measures to look after the health and hygiene of the inmates of their camps. They would just conscript some more to make up for the fatalities.

The Allied POWs were less likely to die simply because they retained some organization and took better care of one another.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 16, 2012 1:15:29 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 16, 2012 1:42:32 PM PDT
F. Gleaves says:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 13, 2012 9:25:17 AM PDT

"Richard M. Smith says: Jeff,
Germany was not constrained to declare war on the US. Japan wasn't the attacked, it was the attacker."

Correct.
Japan had made a Non-Aggression Pact with the Soviet Union in April 1941, and took care not to violate it.

The Soviets always said it wasn't the A-bombs that made the Japanese surrender - it was the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, south Sakhalin Island and the Kurils after Hiroshima.

Before that the Japanese had felt that they could kill enough American invaders to make the US give up on invasion and end the war.

They knew they'd never kill enough Soviets, and their main Army in China, Manchuria and Korea would soon be just a memory.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 16, 2012 2:19:39 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 7, 2012 11:12:23 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 16, 2012 2:59:36 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 17, 2012 6:08:44 AM PDT
F. Gleaves says:
"James Summers says:

This argument gets brought up over and over again and it is silly because it ignores the very obvious reality that Stalin was himself planning to attack Hitler as soon as the Red Army was ready for the operation (projected date mid-1942)

In the last 20 years numerous historians both of Russian (Suvorov, Pleshakov, etc..) and Western origin (Albert L. Weeks) have discovered that Stalin was planning to attack Germany."

My only disagreement with you and Suvorov is on Which month of _1941_ Stalin expected to go to war. His mobilization was a few weeks too late for Sorge's predicted date for the launch of Barbarossa.

Albert L. Weeks seems to have been worn down by two decades of being labeled a 'Hitler-apologist', as his latest book holds that Stalin knew all about Barbarossa but wanted to make sure Hitler attacked first, so the USSR could get US Lend-Lease.

To me that makes about as much sense as FDR wanting the Pacific Fleet to be wiped out at Pearl Harbor so Americans would be Really Mad... just having the enemy fire the first shot would have been good enough, a Disaster really wasn't necessary!

Weeks goes so far as to call the Great Butcher "Stalin the Great", he was so brilliant maneuvering FDR into accepting 'Uncle Joe' as a fellow Democrat and all-around Great Guy.

I guess Weeks has decided to Recant so he doesn't die still branded a Heretic by his fellow historians... Sad!

Of course the Soviets really Did know all about planning for Barbarossa, but Stalin figured that was just pro-British disinformation to get him to attack in time to save Britain.

Or a German ploy to get a promise of more oil and grain before attacking Britain.

Even if he knew Hitler wasn't about to turn his back on him while moving most of his troops west to invade Britain, torching the Romanian oilfields in 1941 would have guaranteed a German collapse in 1942.

All he had to do was to stop the Nazis at the 'Stalin Line' on the old border.

So instead of stripping the 'Stalin Line' and shipping half of the KV and T-34 tanks to the Bialystok and Lvov Salients on the new border where there still wasn't enough Diesel fuel and 76mm AP ammo, he should have maintained the Stalin Line as his main defense and hoarded his new tanks and artillery there.

That's what is known as a Defense in Depth, which is what Weeks now claims Stalin intended.

That is what Red Army Chief of Staff B.M. Shaposhnikov had recommended in early 1940, with just light covering forces and quick, cheap field fortifications on the new border to serve as a trip-wire.

But Stalin 'The Great' agreed with his idiot crony Defense Commissar Klim Voroshilov and Deputy Lev Mekhlis to put their main armored punch in the Salients to take the war to enemy land ASAP, so naturally they didn't wire any bridges with explosives which might be set off by saboteurs to stop their Glorious Advance.

Voroshilov and Mekhlis also ignored the cautious plan for invading Finland prepared by Shaposhnikov and A.M. Vasilevsky because Finland was such a Piece of Cake for Stalin's imminent Birthday.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 17, 2012 2:37:56 AM PDT
briefcandle says:
Absolutely correct. The entire japanese defence posture was based on an south-east coast defence against predictable US invasion. The soviet declaration stripped their plans of credibility

Posted on Feb 6, 2013 12:05:09 PM PST
Hitler attacked Russia because it was created to do their hosts the British.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 6, 2013 12:28:29 PM PST
historybuff says:
The whole raison d'etre for Hitler's Lebensraum was the invasion of Russia as stated in Mein Kampf.
He was not banking on UK/France declaring war when he invaded Poland. That is what Hess was tryng to salvage when he flew to Britain--peace on the western front, knowing that Hitler wanted to strike East. Again, it is strange that UK/France did not declare war on Russia when they occupied the eastern half. In the end it made little difference. God was not on Hitler's side and the Allies were too shortsighted to foresee the Iron Curtain.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 7, 2013 11:26:17 AM PST
Joe Hill says:
The 1939 Nazi-Soviet Pact was a 'marriage of convenience' for both parties. Hitler got a free hand in Poland, and then didn't have to watch his back while he invaded France -both- of which he always planned to do; Stalin got the chunk of Poland that the Bolsheviks 'lost' in 1920, a free hand in the Baltics, and the knowledge that, with Hitler embroiled with France, he wouldn't be attacking the USSR.

Hitler didn't 'get greedy', even a superficial reading of his writings or speeches will show that he always intended on 'rectifying' the Polish situation when he achieved power, and then getting payback on France.

Positing Hitler as not-Hitler has always struck me as rather odd. But, either way, there is no way that nazi Germany could have subdued the UK by 1945 (they simply had neither the time nor resources to build enough ships and a/c to counter both the RN and the RAF to the point of a successful Sealion-style invasion), and Hamburg and Dusseldorf would have been the recipients of the first nuclear weapons instead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Game over.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 9, 2013 2:35:42 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 9, 2013 2:36:23 AM PST
Ambrose is not an expert on Hitler or Stalin, Ambrose is only an expert on D-Day so he's a terrible source for the "why" or "why not" for Barbarossa. Stalin wanted Bulgaria and the Romanian oil fields, Beria's son wrote about this in his book. Ribbentrop and Hitler tried to direct Stalin toward Iran and for him to leave the Balkans for the Germans but Stalin rejected this. War between Hitler and Stalin was a certainty because they both desired the same territory.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 9, 2013 2:39:38 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 9, 2013 2:47:38 AM PST
Joe Hill, Hitler had not "always planned to invade France", he told the French ambassador Andre Francois Poncet in October 1938 that the passages in Mein Kampf indicating hostile action desired against France were now outdated. In 1938/early 1939 Hitler wanted the French to accept German conquest of Eastern Europe and if they did so there would be no conflict between Germany and France. I hope you understand that in the late 1930's Hitler had sought an alliance with Poland that would be accomplished after the Poles had given Germany Danzig. There was no original desire to conquer Poland, Hitler was a huge admirer of Poland's Marshall Pilsudski and he wanted Poland to be allied with Germany in a future war against the Soviet Union. Hitler was even going to offer the Poles a piece of the Ukraine as a reward for making that alliance.

Posted on Feb 9, 2013 2:41:57 AM PST
Joe Hill, Hitler didn't want to subdue the British by 1945 or invade them, he wanted the British to change their government (dump Churchill) and to make peace with Germany while Britain could retain their independence and their whole Empire.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 9, 2013 2:50:21 AM PST
L. King, Hitler never regarded Britain as his main external enemy.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 9, 2013 5:17:22 PM PST
Joe Hill says:
"War between Hitler and Stalin was a certainty because they both desired the same territory."

War Between nazi Germany and the USSR was a certainty because Hitler -always- said he would invade, depopulate, and colonize the land between the German-Polish border and the Urals.

"Hitler had not "always planned to invade France", he told the French ambassador Andre Francois Poncet in October 1938 that the passages in Mein Kampf indicating hostile action desired against France were now outdated."

Hitler was a sociopathic opportunist who said -many- things between 1918 and 1945. Most of what he said has been proven to be lies told in the moment to either gain some momentary advantage or to misdirect a potential victim. The things that he -was- consistently honest about were his hatred for and determination to move against people of the Jewish faith, and his determination to engage in a war of annihilation against nations to the East of Germany.

"Hitler didn't want to subdue the British by 1945 or invade them, he wanted the British to change their government (dump Churchill) and to make peace with Germany while Britain could retain their independence and their whole Empire."

Oh? Then why did Hitler lie (again) to Chamberlain during and after the Munich Agreement? Why did he say that he had made his last territorial demand when that patently wasn't (and was proven not to be) the case. Why did the nazi government refuse British mediation between Germany and Poland in August, 1939? Why did the nazi government create a fictitious incident to start the war? That couldn't have had -anything- to do with Churchill, because Churchill didn't become PM until May 1940, and the war started in September, 1939. And since Hitler stated that he never wanted to dismember the British empire, why did he not only plan to do so, but to encourage his ally Japan to do so?

Adolf Hitler was a man who never met a lie he wouldn't either tell, embellish, or encourage.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  History forum
Participants:  24
Total posts:  76
Initial post:  Mar 27, 2011
Latest post:  5 days ago

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions