Industrial-Sized Deals Best Books of the Month Shop Women's Handbags Learn more nav_sap_plcc_6M_fly_beacon Disturbed Fire TV Stick Shop Popular Services tmnt tmnt tmnt  Amazon Echo Starting at $99 Kindle Voyage Disney Infinity 3.0 Shop Back to School with Amazon Back to School with Amazon Outdoor Recreation Deal of the Day
Customer Discussions > History forum

How Would D-Day Have Turned Out If Hitler Had Not Invaded The Soviet Union?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 90 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Apr 5, 2012 5:07:27 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 6, 2012 4:35:26 AM PDT
Many, if not most, Americans do not realize that the heaviest fighting in the ETO took place on the Eastern front between the Germans and the Soviets. The Eastern front was where the majority of Hitler's military assets were deployed. (I am in no way denigrating the sacrifices and fighting skills of the troops of the Western Allies.) Well, suppose that Hitler had not invaded the Soviet Union at all and that all of those military assets would have been available to defend the Atlantic Wall? Would D-Day have failed? Or would Gen. Eisenhower have had to use many more troops, tanks, planes, etc. just to gain a foothold on the Normandy beaches? What do you think?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 5, 2012 6:39:15 PM PDT
Jeff Marzano says:
Your question probably goes beyond just how would D Day have turned out if Germany hadn't invaded Russia. The question is how would World War II have turned out.

Germany's war machine was based on taking what they needed by force since Germany was bankrupted by the Treaty Of Versailles I think. They had to keep expanding, keep invading, etc., to feed this machine.

My understanding is Germany needed raw materials from Russia and there was no guarantee that those resources would continue to be forthcoming in the future. Perhaps Germany didn't have the money to pay for whatever those resources were so they tried to secure them by force. If that is the case the benefits of not invading Russia would have to be balanced with the inability to secure those resources while the war continued.

But I think most people agree that any scenario for Germany would have been better than what actually happened when they invaded Russia. They tied up and eventually lost tremendous numbers of troops and weapons. All of this was good for the Allies on D Day and for the rest of the war.

Hitler's double cross of Stalin provided the allies with a partner who had basically unlimited numbers of troops. Perhaps there are some scenarios where Russia and Germany would have become allies. What a thought. Hitler and Stalin on the same side.

I guess one scenario is not invading Russia could have postponed D Day. That extra time may have been needed by the allies to destroy more of Germany's air force and other things through bombing before trying the D Day invasion.

In the mean time there was a group of people working on something called 'The Manhattan Project'. If D Day had been delayed for a year or so Germany would have undoubtedly experienced the same thing as Japan unless they were smart enough to surrender. In that sense invading Russia may have saved the German people a nightmare beyond words. Truman had the bomb and America was fed up with this war.

The atom bomb changed everything during World War II and forever after. No longer could one country invade a nuclear powered enemy with sheer force of numbers.

Not that the damage that an atom bomb can inflict can't be somewhat duplicated by conventional types of methods like fire bombing. But there's the added dimension of the radiation effects that are very sinister and poison the environment.

Then they created thermonuclear devices which took everything beyond warfare and into the realm of Armageddon. There is no type of conventional weapons system that is anywhere in the ballpark of being able to do what a hydrogen bomb can do. At least no weapons system that the public is aware of.

Jeff Marzano

Haarp: The Ultimate Weapon of the Conspiracy (The Mind-Control Conspiracy Series)

The Philosopher's Stone: Alchemy and the Secret Research for Exotic Matter

Posted on Apr 5, 2012 11:49:41 PM PDT
I don't think D Day would have happened under that scenario. The allies would have made a long overland approach, possibly through Italy, or the Balkans after using the bomber offensive to cripple the Luftwaffe and destroy the Whermacht's ability to move troops without taking prohibitive losses.

Posted on Apr 6, 2012 1:59:58 AM PDT
Assuming that the USA is at war with Germany I dont think D-Day is possible. If the Nazis had not invaded the USSR, the next obvious target for them would have been Malta, Gibraltar and North Africa through to the middle eastern oil in Persia. Probably eliminating all British possessions in North Africa and the Middle East with italian assistance and leaving Britain with no meditteranean possessions or influence. The Mediterranean would be an Axis lake by end of 1941. This would have made D Day a lot more difficult.
Historically Germany lost close to 3 million troops dead and wounded by June 1944 and thousands of tanks and planes. Most of these would be available to meet the D Day invasion. The armed forces of the Wehrmacht were a huge, professional force to take on by the allies unless they were bled dry by the USSR (USSR caused 80-90% of all German casualties) as historically happened. I think the Nuclear bomb would have been the logical and only choice for the allies.
I also cant see Stalin staying out of the war for long either, probably 1942/43 his armed forces would be ready to continue his invasion of the rest of Europe by attacking the Third Reich and its allies. What would the allies have done then?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 6, 2012 4:20:15 AM PDT
ipsofacto says:
Jeff Marzano: "But I think most people agree that any scenario for Germany would have been better than what actually happened when they invaded Russia. They tied up and eventually lost tremendous numbers of troops and weapons. All of this was good for the Allies on D Day and for the rest of the war."

In fact, Stalin deceived the Western Allies by promising a Soviet offensive to coincide with Operation Overlord. Technically he held his promise, but the ensuing Soviet offensive did precious little to relieve pressure in Normandy. Stalin launched his offensive up north, against the Finns, who posed no threat. Except to Stalin's self-esteem, that is.

Jeff Marzano: "Hitler's double cross of Stalin provided the allies with a partner who had basically unlimited numbers of troops. Perhaps there are some scenarios where Russia and Germany would have become allies. What a thought. Hitler and Stalin on the same side."

This statement begs the question what the Invasion of Poland in 1939 was all about. Or, for that matter, the Winter War, which saw the Germans blocking and impounding crucial arms shipments to Finland to counter the Soviet onslaught.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 6, 2012 4:49:26 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 6, 2012 6:10:08 AM PDT
TO: Jeff Marzano

RE: "Your question probably goes beyond just how would D Day have turned out if Germany hadn't invaded Russia. The question is how would World War II have turned out."

No. I don't think there's any doubt that Germany would have eventually lost, given the productive capacity of the United States, its much larger manpower pool, and of course its eventual development of the atomic bomb. I was asking only about possible D-Day scenarios if Operation Barbarossa had not happened.

RE: "My understanding is Germany needed raw materials from Russia and there was no guarantee that those resources would continue to be forthcoming in the future. Perhaps Germany didn't have the money to pay for whatever those resources were so they tried to secure them by force."

That is simply not true. Nazi Germany had several trade and credit agreements with the Soviet Union. In fact, as the German troops advanced into the Soviet Union, they pasted trains headed west that were loaded with commodities being shipped to Germany. Ironically, "Soviet trade with Germany in the pre-invasion period ended up providing the Germans with many of the resources they needed for their invasion of the Soviet Union."

Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union stemmed not from any perceived economic necessity, but from his pathological hatred of communism and Stalin.

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_Commercial_Agreement_(1939)

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 6, 2012 5:07:23 AM PDT
TO: ipsofacto

RE: "Stalin launched his offensive up north, against the Finns, who posed no threat."

I assume that you're referring to Operation Bagration, the Soviet offensive that began on June 22, 1944. This campaign actually involved the entire German-Soviet front, from Leningrad in the north to Odessa in the south.

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bagration

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 6, 2012 5:16:37 AM PDT
TO: Adrian G. Dick

RE: "Historically Germany lost close to 3 million troops dead and wounded by June 1944 and thousands of tanks and planes. Most of these would be available to meet the D Day invasion. The armed forces of the Wehrmacht were a huge, professional force to take on by the allies unless they were bled dry by the USSR (USSR caused 80-90% of all German casualties) as historically happened. I think the Nuclear bomb would have been the logical and only choice for the allies."

You've made some good points. One impetus for the development of the A-bomb was the Allied fear that the Germans might build one first and it was thought that the A-bomb's first targets would be German cities. However, the Germans surrendered two months before the Trinity test, leaving only Japanese cities as possible targets.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 6, 2012 5:20:32 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 6, 2012 5:20:54 AM PDT
ipsofacto says:
Walter R. Johnson:

Operation Bagration didn't pit Soviet troops against Finnish ones and came well after D Day. What I'm referring to is this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuation_War#1944:_Soviet_offensive

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 6, 2012 5:31:19 AM PDT
Jeff Marzano says:
ipsofacto says:

[In fact, Stalin deceived the Western Allies by promising a Soviet offensive to coincide with Operation Overlord.]

Josef Stalin was a very sinister and ruthless man. I think people in the Russian government finally poisoned him, fearing another one of his infamous 'purges'.

He told the Poles that he was going to send reinforcements to help them fight against the Germans but he had no intention of doing that. Rather he left them on their own to die because of his own ulterior motives.

The book I'm showing below indicates that Russia used germ warfare against the Germans during World War II. I forgot what pathogen they infected the German soldiers with.

Jeff Marzano

The First Circle

The Gulag Archipelago Volume 1: An Experiment in Literary Investigation (P.S.)

Biohazard: The Chilling True Story of the Largest Covert Biological Weapons Program in the World--Told from Inside by the Man Who Ran It

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 6, 2012 5:32:44 AM PDT
Jeff Marzano says:
Walter R. Johnson says:

[Nazi Germany had several trade and credit agreements with the Soviet Union.]

At the time yes. But the question is would that have continued.

Jeff Marzano

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 6, 2012 5:58:58 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 6, 2012 9:07:17 AM PDT
ipsofacto says:
Jeff Marzano: "He [Stalin, ed.] told the Poles that he was going to send reinforcements to help them fight against the Germans but he had no intention of doing that. Rather he left them on their own to die because of his own ulterior motives."

I think we can safely dismiss all that as Soviet propaganda. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and its secret protocol clearly show that it was Hitler's and Stalin's intent to gain more "Lebensraum" without having to worry about a premature war between the two countries. If that didn't make them secret allies at the time, I don't know what does.

Stalin left the Poles in the lurch once more during the Warsaw Uprising, which suggests that the "Gardener of Human Happiness" had started on the Cold War during WW2 already.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 6, 2012 6:02:19 AM PDT
TO: Richard M. Smith

RE: "I don't think D Day would have happened under that scenario."

Possible. But why not a delayed and beefed-up D-Day?

RE: "The allies would have made a long overland approach, possibly through Italy, or the Balkans..."

Why there? The terrain there is much worse for offensive operations. Look at all the trouble the Allies had in Italy; the fighting went on from September 3, 1943 until the Germans deployed in Italy surrendered on May 2, 1945.

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_invasion_of_Italy

RE: "...after using the bomber offensive to cripple the Luftwaffe..."

The Axis powers started with 4,389 aircraft of all types. If Operation Barbarossa had not happened, it is reasonable to assume that these assets would have at least hampered any Allied bomber offensive from southern or southeastern Europe, not to speak of the havoc they would have wreaked on ground troops.

References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa
http://sturmvogel.orbat.com/LWJul42.html

Posted on Apr 6, 2012 6:18:23 AM PDT
Operation Bagration began on June 22 1944 and within 2 weeks had practically destroyed ( approx. 300000 casualties) army group centre. Two weeks later the soviets started another offensive in the North Ukraine and severely damaged another couple German armies. In August the soviets launched their offensive against the Rumanian front with great success wiping out 1 German and 2 Rumanian armies within 2 weeks. These offensives ensured there would be no transfer of forces from the eastern front to the western front by the germans in July/August and meant little or no reinforcement were sent to normandy. In fact in Germany, Norway, Greece etc forces were sent to the eastern front that may have been sent to Normandy as these soviet offensives cost Germany close to 3/4 of a million casualties in a couple months of fighting.
It was only with these massive casualties inflicted by the soviets in 3 years of war that the allies had any hope of beating Germany decisively at Normandy, Italy, North Africa or where ever.
I still believe that war between Hitler and Stalin was inevitable regardless of the June 22 1941 date of Barbarossa.
Stalin by 1944 had a Polish army in his order of battle near Warsaw during the Polish uprising, it was ordered to stay put but some units took independent action that failed to achieve anything. The Polish uprising was crushed which suited Stalins plans for Poland after the war.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 6, 2012 6:23:31 AM PDT
TO: ipsofacto

RE: "Operation Bagration didn't pit Soviet troops against Finnish ones and came well after D Day."

Operation Bagration came 16 days after Operation Overlord. I wouldn't call that exactly "well after D-Day." But that's a minor quibble. (Yes, I know - 16 days can be a HECK of a long time if you're in combat!)

RE: the Continuation War

I admit that I don't know hardly anything about that particular Soviet offensive. But I don't claim to be any kind of "expert."

Posted on Apr 6, 2012 6:40:06 AM PDT
AxisBeefyBoy says:
Hitler doesn't invade Russia? He still dies in Berlin, albeit in a nuclear fire rather than a bullet to the dome.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 6, 2012 6:45:07 AM PDT
Ku says:
If you look at the Plan Dog memo of 1940, there was a very clear understanding of the need for a Europe First strategy that entailed strong support for Britain along with a strategic offensive against Germany and Italy in the Atlantic area of operations.

This would eventually have led to ground operations and landings on the European continent. Where or when I wouldn't want to guess. It would depend on the disposition of Nazi forces and the possibilities of deceiving them along the lines of Operation Mincemeat.

While I don't believe that all the German troops would've been available in the West - there would still have been huge mutual distrust between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union -, the fighting would've been very heavy and very bloody.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 6, 2012 6:53:33 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 6, 2012 8:02:35 AM PDT
ipsofacto says:
Walter R. Johnson:

There's no denying that Operation Bagration was a double whammy for the Germans. However, during the crucial first week of the Normandy landings, Stalin chose to launch a major offensive in a conflict that was a mere sideshow of WW2. It must've been a rude surprise to Eisenhower, who was expecting something that would lessen his worries in the west. Operation Bagration arguably did, but all the same Stalin could've done better. He could have used the crack troops to reinforce Bagration right away, and not after they were seriously depleted in what turned out to be a costly stalemate. If I have to speculate, Stalin knew it was his last chance to subdue Finland militarily, before the Western Allies would start demanding a political settlement.

Posted on Apr 6, 2012 7:11:41 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 6, 2012 7:12:46 AM PDT
Stalins offensive against Finland while no doubt costly still ultimately drove Finland out of the war. At this stage of the war I dont really think that Stalin cared to much for the opinions of the allies and did not really care about helping the allies to much in their war efforts. The writing was on the board for Germany and Stalin new it! Stalin only "cared" when the nuclear bomb was used in Japan.
If Normany was a defeat for the allies, I dont think Stalin would have been to "upset" over this as it would have given him more time to swallow as much of Europe as possible.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 6, 2012 7:17:58 AM PDT
TO: Adrian G. Dick

RE: "It was only with these massive casualties inflicted by the soviets in 3 years of war that the allies had any hope of beating Germany decisively at Normandy, Italy, North Africa or where ever."

Are you saying that, without the German invasion of the Soviet Union, the Western Allies would have lost at D-Day or even would have had to come to a political settlement with Hitler?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 6, 2012 7:25:36 AM PDT
TO: AxisBeefyBoy

RE: "Hitler doesn't invade Russia? He still dies in Berlin, albeit in a nuclear fire rather than a bullet to the dome."

Well, that's certainly brief and to the point. But what about D-Day? Would there still have been one? Would it have happened later, perhaps after a larger build-up of troops and equipment? Would the western Allies have succeeded or failed to gain a beachhead, given the additional military assets that the Germans would have had available?

Posted on Apr 6, 2012 7:45:06 AM PDT
To Walter R. Johnson

I said decisively beat the Germans at Normandy! With amphibious invasions nothing is certain or guaranteed. I think it would have been very difficult for the allies to launch an amphibious invasion against the full weight of the Wehrmacht with any great success. Would the allies have beaten Japan before D-day? If so, then maybe the full weight of American military power might have increased the odds in their favor. But unlikely as it still would have taken a considerable time to deploy to Britain for Normandy 1944. In the mean time what are the Germans doing?
The nuclear bomb was the game changer for the allies. Mushroom cloud over berlin, bye bye Hitler!

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 6, 2012 7:45:16 AM PDT
AxisBeefyBoy says:
TO: Walter

It's too hard to tell. There are far too many variables to say yes, an invasion of NW France would've happened, or not.

I lean to the NOT. The sheer number of men and material in the East brought West would've been overwhelming. There's that consideration as well as the fact that the Allies had almost Air Supremacy on D-Day. Had the Luftwaffe not been decimated in the east, Air Superiority would've been a hotly contested issue and, if the battle were fought in the skies over France vs Britain (no radar cvg), the outcome would be very much in doubt.

And then there's the Me262...

But it's all irrelevant. The US was on the right track to an A-Bomb and the Germans were not. In fact, the German's misguided V2 program cost almost three times (!!) as much as the Manhattan Project.

Short of a German invasion of the Home Islands prior to 12/7/41 and thus knocking England out of the war before US involvement, Europe in my estimation was irrelevant - The war would've been fought to a favorable conclusion for the Allies with the coming of the Atomic Age. That was the Super Weapon that would've tipped the scales. And there was little fear of the Germans getting it themselves; their heavy water program was wrong, and we all know how AWFUL German intelligence/counter-intelligence was.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 6, 2012 7:46:45 AM PDT
Jeff Marzano says:
AxisBeefyBoy says:

[Hitler doesn't invade Russia? He still dies in Berlin, albeit in a nuclear fire rather than a bullet to the dome.]

It's interesting how America's direct involvement in World War II started with the Pearl Harbor attack and ended with the dramatic atomic bomb blasts in Japan.

The atomic bomb changed everything.

There are strange statements in the Hindu scriptures that seem to indicate that atomic weapons were used on planet Earth in the distant past. The gods fired flaming arrows that exploded with the brightness of a thousand suns. All the horses were burned. Peoples' skin was blistered and their hair and fingernails started falling out.

Oppenheimer quoted from those scriptures after witnessing the Trinity test:

"Now I am become death, destroyer of worlds."

Jeff Marzano

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 6, 2012 7:57:50 AM PDT
ipsofacto says:
Adrian G. Dick: "Stalins offensive against Finland while no doubt costly still ultimately drove Finland out of the war. At this stage of the war I dont really think that Stalin cared to much for the opinions of the allies and did not really care about helping the allies to much in their war efforts."

Finland had been agreeable to peace for a long time prior, and the Soviets were aware of this thanks to intervention by US and Swedish diplomats. However, the obstacles to peace were Germany and the Soviet demand for an unconditional Finnish surrender. After Operation Bagration, Germany no longer mattered and the Soviets suddenly realised that their demands had been based on a "misunderstanding" -- more likely, they admitted that the cost was too high.

Stalin had to let Austria slip away, too, and largely because of Western pressure.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 Next ›
[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:  14
Total posts:  90
Initial post:  Apr 5, 2012
Latest post:  Apr 8, 2012

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

Search Customer Discussions