Speculative History

[OIFvet]

Seeing how there has been a lot of talk of "what if?" going on in the forums today, I thought we could start a thread to discuss these.

What if Germany invaded the Soviet Union before they invaded the west?


My thoughts on this are the UK (as well as the US) would not have been so eager to ramp-up their war machine. The threat of communism was great back then to the "free world". 2 Super Powers going toe to toe would have had the "allies" sitting on the sidelines watching to see what would happen. And I believe that Germany had the military might in 1939-1940 where they could have marched to Lenningrad, Stalingrad, and even Moscow with maybe about 40% casualty rate.

But hey, that is just my "what if"...:D

[Nalleman]

It is good that you started a thread for "what if" scenarios.
But I do not agree with you in this scenario. I think Wermacht and German army in whole were quite unprepared for prolonged campaing, which invading soviet union would have been, even within that timespan.

[komichido]

Yeah I tend to think that the mind set of the Russians simply would not allow them to just roll over...
They would of fought to the very end, man, woman, and child alike. Though I do believe Germany would of eventually been victorius and I agree that we may of just sat and watched.

Question though....what would Japan have been doing during Germanies early invasion of Russia??? Maybe helped the Germans directly, i.e. with troops and equipment?

Komi

[Uncle_Joe]

But I do not agree with you in this scenario. I think Wermacht and German army in whole were quite unprepared for prolonged campaing, which invading soviet union would have been, even within that timespan

This is definately true. Look at all of the logistical problems they had in Poland. Everyone remembers the crushing victories, but in many cases the Germans were running into supply and maintenance problems.

The Germans learned valuable lessons in Poland, the Low Countries, and in France. Had they attacked Russia in 1939/1940, I think they would have run out steam far too quickly. Russia was totally unprepared for that type of war too, but the size and depth was still there and I believe that would proved insurmountable for Germany at that time.

[horacus]

I like the "What if" scenarios.

[Heir_Ludendorff]

Time for an easy one... What if the Allied Invasion of Norway for March/April 1940 occured before the Germans sailed.

[horacus]

Question though....what would Japan have been doing during Germanies early invasion of Russia??? Maybe helped the Germans directly, i.e. with troops and equipment?

Komi

Or invade the russians from the back.

[OIFvet]

Back to my original post:

If the Itallians did not go to Africa and Mussolini listened to Hitler, the Axis forces and Rommel would have been drinking Vodka by '41 and the whole DAK would not have been needed as a speed bump for the UK and US just yet...

Side Note
It would have been really impressive if Zhukov and Rommel went toe-to-toe in the steppes :rolleyes:

[angelofdeath]

Rommel was all about quick advances. But I think the Soviet steppes would have been more then he could handle. Even in North Africa he suffered major logistical problems. You cant blitz all the way to Moskou.


I think Germany shouldnt have attacked the USSR at all. Hitler should have advanced into the middle east. Cut off India, break the colonies, take the saudi oil. Then again, we'd all be speaking german if he did. (I live 1000 meters from the German border, so its quite literal for me :) ).

[Heir_Ludendorff]

Germany most likely would have been pounded quickly by the Russians for multiple reasons.
A) With the attack planned for immediately after Poland the Molotov-Rippentrop Pact would not have occured and Russia would not have been caught with her pants down.
B) The basic light tank for the Soviets carried a 45mm gun compared to the 20mm on the Pz II with compareable armour even better tactics wouldn't have made up that many deficiancies.
C) Russia would have been on the defensive to start so the failures in Finland most likely would not have occured.
D) The large resource pools captured from Norway/Benelux/France would not be in German control so supplies would start low.
E) Industry would have had 2 less years of production for war materials so Germany's smaller industry base would be at a disadvantage.

The only plus I can see for the Germans is that the Luftwaffe would still be intact since the Battle of Britain has not occured.

[Uncle_Joe]

Time for an easy one... What if the Allied Invasion of Norway for March/April 1940 occured before the Germans sailed.

Then England would have effectively 'invaded' a neutral country (which was the plan) and Germany would likely have been the 'ally' of Norway instead.

From there, who knows what the ramifications would have been?

[Muenchausen]

The US may have ended up supporting Germany. There was more support for facism than communism.

[Ninja3030]

This is a very difficult 'what if' scenario to accurately speculate on. I am not sure how the Germans would get to Russia without invading Poland, thus precipitating the War that happened.

If the Germans found a way to invade the Soviets with 100% of their vast military resources, not having any Western powers to contend with, I believe that the Germans would have ulitimately been victorious. The Germans would have solved any logistical supply line issues that may have crept up in the early parts of the war. The Germans had the Napoleonic War experiences and the WWI experiences to draw wisdom from in dealing with the Russians. You know what they say, "Three times a charm".

[Uncle_Joe]

Whereas I dont think the US would have actively supported Germany, I do think they would have remained in a more neutral stance (perhaps a true neutrality rather than the 'pro-British' neutrality that actually occured).

There was a sentiment that the US shouldn't be going to war to protect the colonial empires of countries like England, France, and Netherlands. If Britain had embarked on invasions of neutral nations, it might have done substantial damage in the eyes of the American public that England was truly 'fighting for her life against tyranny' and all the things that Roosevelt was spinning to try and rouse the US to war with Germany.

And actually, Hitler didnt really even want to fight Britain. He felt there was room for a continental power (Germany) and for a colonial power (England) and that they were both the natural enemies of Bolshevism (Russia). I believe he was quite put out when Britain refused to make peace after France had been knocked out.

[Muenchausen]

This is a very difficult 'what if' scenario to accurately speculate on. I am not sure how the Germans would get to Russia without invading Poland, thus precipitating the War that happened.

If the Germans found a way to invade the Soviets with 100% of their vast military resources, not having any Western powers to contend with, I believe that the Germans would have ulitimately been victorious. The Germans would have solved any logistical supply line issues that may have crept up in the early parts of the war. The Germans had the Napoleonic War experiences and the WWI experiences to draw wisdom from in dealing with the Russians. You know what they say, "Three times a charm".

The Germans had a way to invade. France and England both declared war on Germany when Germany and Russia invaded Poland, but nothing happened between the fall of 1939 and the spring of 1940. They were quite literally in a non-shooting war for about 6 months.

[OIFvet]

This is a very difficult 'what if' scenario to accurately speculate on. I am not sure how the Germans would get to Russia without invading Poland, thus precipitating the War that happened.

If the Germans found a way to invade the Soviets with 100% of their vast military resources, not having any Western powers to contend with, I believe that the Germans would have ulitimately been victorious. The Germans would have solved any logistical supply line issues that may have crept up in the early parts of the war. The Germans had the Napoleonic War experiences and the WWI experiences to draw wisdom from in dealing with the Russians. You know what they say, "Three times a charm".

Not to mention the already battle tested troops of the Spanish Revolution.

[Y2UAsk]

A. Using DAK in the USSR instead of North Africa would have made no difference at all, IMO. Rommel only had two divisions there, and two more divisions would hardly have been noticed on the German-Soviet front. It would have made more sense to shift two divisions from there to North Africa, because with them, Rommel might have had the force he needed to seize Alexandria and the Canal -- provided they got their supply problems ironed out. And Rommel would have been just one more aggressive general on the Eastern Front, overshadowed by the likes of Guderian and Manteuffel. He shined in Africa because he was the only light there.

2. Poland had to be taken before the USSR could be attacked. And attacking Poland triggered war with England and France. If France wasn't taken, the frontier would need to be garrisoned. I don't recall how many divisions were tied down occupying France, but I suspect it was less than would have been needed to bar the door against a possible French/English counterattack in the west. That would have created precisely the two-front war that Hitler wanted to avoid at all costs.

3. Implicit in the assumption is that Barbarossa would have been launched in '40 instead of '41, but the Wehrmact was too small to pull it off then. It needed another year to build up to the point where a war against the Red Army was conceivable. IMO, Germany didn't have the numbers to contend with those Soviet masses in 1940.

So I think the war would have ended a year or three sooner had Germany jumped the gun into the USSR. But it's still an interesting question.

Steve

[Uncle_Joe]

If the Germans found a way to invade the Soviets with 100% of their vast military resources, not having any Western powers to contend with, I believe that the Germans would have ulitimately been victorious.

In 1939 and even early 1940, Germany certainly didnt have 'vast' military resources. A lot of her 'strength' was paper strength that didnt translate into real military power (ie, a sizeable percentage of her 'tanks' were MG-armed PzI's and very weak PzIIs). Most in the German military werent even convinced that they would have been able to subdue Czechoslovakia had they called Hitler's bluff a few years earlier. This was certainly one area where Nazi propaganda worked heavily in their favor!

I think a lot of people have this vision in their heads of some finely tuned war machine that Germany possessed in the 1939/1940, but the reality was quite different. Germany was critically short of many resources needed for modern warfare. German industry couldnt even sustain mass production of AFVs until they co-opted the Czech industry. Even the Uboat fleet was pathetic at the war's outset and Germany's surface fleet consisted almost entirely of nothing but commerce raiders and disguised merchants.

Only in the air did Germany possess a thoroughly modern combat arm. But even there is was solely a tactical air force, with no long range strike capability and even limited capacity for deep interdiction. For the initial attacks on France, the Low Countries and Russia a year and change later, that tactical air force was a huge benefit, but its limitations were also exposed as the war progressed (as early as the Battle of Britain in mid 1940).

At any rate, suffice it to say that as much as people like to throw around the concept that if a few things had gone their way, Germany could have won, the opposite was certainly true in the early war too. I think Germany would have been WELL over her head had she rolled straight from Poland into Russia regardless of whether the Western Allies sat it out.

[horacus]

The US may have ended up supporting Germany. There was more support for facism than communism.

That's a good point.

[Y2UAsk]

The US may have ended up supporting Germany. There was more support for facism than communism.Sort of like saying, "I'd rather be beaten than robbed," isn't it?

Steve ;)

[Muenchausen]

Sort of like saying, "I'd rather be beaten than robbed," isn't it?

Steve ;)

I didn't say it was a good thing, just the way things were shaping up back then. Of course this was all before the "final solution".

[Rick]

Seeing how there has been a lot of talk of "what if?" going on in the forums today, I thought we could start a thread to discuss these.

What if Germany invaded the Soviet Union before they invaded the west?

But hey, that is just my "what if"...:D

I think Germany would have been beaten even faster. Once Germany invaded Poland, England and France declared war. If Germany had gone into the Soviets full bore, they would have left open their western front very vulnerable to a French invasion.. If Germany had left enough forces behind to guard their industrial heart, then that would be all the fewer forces to invade the Soviet Union, the largest land mass nation on the planet.

If the industrial heart is gone out of a nation in a mechinized war, then, it's game over.

[Colonel_Coo]

the better question is:

What if Italy didn't invade Greece?

What if the Luftwaffe was not bled out on the battle of Britain? How much of difference would those extra 1000 tactical bombers make in the East in the first year?

[Sheppard1972]

OK, what if Hitler would have spent the 5 years instead of 9 months in prison for the Munich Beer Hall incident. What if Ernst Rohm had seen Hitler as a threat early in the party and move on him and the SS. What if Hindenburg had moved to stop Hitler. I wonder how this would have changed history?

[Heir_Ludendorff]

What changes to the war in Russia would have occured if Erich Ludendorff hadn't left the Nazi party bcause of their cowardice.

[Tyree67]

I didn't say it was a good thing, just the way things were shaping up back then. Of course this was all before the "final solution".

What if Hitler would have used more women in the factorys like we here in the USA and used the men in battle that a large amount of forces that could have been used or if Hitler helped the russia people instead of killiing them all when he got a chance kinda of a liberator than a tyant.

[Qmark]

What if the Allied Powers hadn't made a point of brutally sodomising the ecomomies of the Central Powers at the end of the first World War? That's something I muse about on occasion.

[Diamondback]

Or what if we had been able to separate the Austro-Hungarian (justified) war with Serbia from the Kaiser's (unjustified) invasion of the Low Countries and France?

What if the rest of Europe had just taken a rational look at things and said, "Serbia, you made the mess, you gotta clean it up?"

Austro-Hungary gave Serbia numerous opportunities to make restitution for their boy whacking the Archduke and his family--Serbia didn't take them.

Think about British reaction when Diana died--now imagine if a national of a country in a state of high tension with the UK had been found to have deliberately caused such death... Just a little mindgame to think about. (I'm not insinuating anything, that one appears to have been a freak accident, but the theoretical serves to illustrate my point.) That kinda reaction's what was going through the average Austro-Hungarian's mind then.

[Rick]

What if Hitler would have used more women in the factorys like we here in the USA and used the men in battle that a large amount of forces that could have been used or if Hitler helped the russia people instead of killiing them all when he got a chance kinda of a liberator than a tyant.

Hitler did use some German women in factories. BUT, he was quicker to use slave labor from occupied countries to provide labor for arms production. The village in the Netherlands where my mother grew up still has the church where about 60 men and boys were taken on Sunday morning. When the men in the church protested (including the pastor) the German soldiers fired their machine guns in the building to get them silent. The congregation decided at the end of the war to keep the bullet impact marks in the building itself as a testimony to the lost lives represented.

[OIFvet]

WHAT IF ?:

What if the IJN accomplished their mission in '41 of destroying all of the USN's Pacific Fleet carriers? Would the US still have rushed into WWII or would they be set back 5 years and Hawaii would never became a state but a satelite outpost for the Japanese.

Please feel free to muse :cool:

[Muenchausen]

I think it would have set the US back a year or so. The attack infuriated the US to the point that there was no way war could have been avoided.

[komichido]

LOL you guys have given me a lot of What if ideas. I found myself trying to fall asleep last night and could not stop thinking about two or three what if's that were brought up. When I finally fell asleep I tossed and turned all night cause I dremt I was in combat during WWII. As a Marine of course!:D

Great thread though..Thanks OIFvet for starting it and thanks to all who keep stuffing these ideas into my head. ;)

Komi

[Qmark]

I think it would have set the US back a year or so. The attack infuriated the US to the point that there was no way war could have been avoided.What if Hitler hadn't declared war on the US right after Japan? Would Roosevelt had still jumped on the chance to get America involved in Europe?

[mattertoenergy]

What if Hitler hadn't declared war on the US right after Japan? Would Roosevelt had still jumped on the chance to get America involved in Europe?

Roosevelt would have found some way to at least increase U.S. involvement in the European conflict as he actually wanted to enter into a war with Germany, not Japan. It was actually quite difficult (or at least more difficult than one would expect) to convince the U.S. population that they should also go to war with Germany. Regardless though, Roosevelt wanted war with Germany, not Japan.

[Qmark]

A massive expansion of lend-lease, surely, but I doubt the populace would have been sold on the European war 'just because'.

[carl_brisgamer]

What if the French and British had opposed the German re-occupation of the Rhineland in 1936? The Wehrmacht had orders to withdraw if attacked, Hitler would have lost face and may have been sufficiently cowed to tread more carefully in the following years, or even been deposed by the Wehrmacht as a dangerous gambler (which he was!).

What if Luftwaffe Chief of Staff General Walther Wever the Luftwaffe heavy bomber proponent had not been killed in an air crash in 1936? The Luftwaffe may well have put more resources into heavy bomber production, which could have tipped the balance in the Battle of Britain or given the Germans the 'Ural' bomber needed to cripple the armament factories deep inside the Soviet Union.

What if Yugoslavia had not gone over to the Allies in early 1941, requiring Hitler to put back Operation Barbarossa by 4-6 weeks? Army Group Centre may have indeed captured Moscow by late September 1941, before the autumn rains slowed offensive operations. With the Soviet capital taken the north-south rail and road network would have been cut, preventing the Red Army from moving troops easily from one front to another. Stalin may have been deposed by disgruntled subordinates and a peace sought with conditions similar to 1917. The Japanese may have even been emboldened to attack the eastern Soviet Union instead of the US, a plan favoured by the Army faction. Makes one wonder....

What if Hitler had agreed with a plan submitted to OKW in November 1940 to land two Panzer Korps (4 panzer divisions) in North Africa to take Suez and the Arabian oilfields. I doubt Wavell's 30,000 could have done much to prevent an Axis victory.

The list is endless.

[carl_brisgamer]

For speculative history scenarios involving WW2 and other historical periods, check this out -

http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/forumdisplay.php?f=16

[Nalleman]

Very interesting "what ifs". Most interesting was the strategic bomber issue. I don't think it would have tipped the scale in Battle of Britannia, becouse Luftwaffe would have been able to win that fight even with their medium bombers, it was the way their forces were distributed and where those forces were ordered to strike.

In Africa I do think that 4 panzer divisions would have done the trick. Suez would have been occupied but for how long?

[horacus]

What if the French and British had opposed the German re-occupation of the Rhineland in 1936? The Wehrmacht had orders to withdraw if attacked, Hitler would have lost face and may have been sufficiently cowed to tread more carefully in the following years, or even been deposed by the Wehrmacht as a dangerous gambler (which he was!).

What if Luftwaffe Chief of Staff General Walther Wever the Luftwaffe heavy bomber proponent had not been killed in an air crash in 1936? The Luftwaffe may well have put more resources into heavy bomber production, which could have tipped the balance in the Battle of Britain or given the Germans the 'Ural' bomber needed to cripple the armament factories deep inside the Soviet Union.

What if Yugoslavia had not gone over to the Allies in early 1941, requiring Hitler to put back Operation Barbarossa by 4-6 weeks? Army Group Centre may have indeed captured Moscow by late September 1941, before the autumn rains slowed offensive operations. With the Soviet capital taken the north-south rail and road network would have been cut, preventing the Red Army from moving troops easily from one front to another. Stalin may have been deposed by disgruntled subordinates and a peace sought with conditions similar to 1917. The Japanese may have even been emboldened to attack the eastern Soviet Union instead of the US, a plan favoured by the Army faction. Makes one wonder....

What if Hitler had agreed with a plan submitted to OKW in November 1940 to land two Panzer Korps (4 panzer divisions) in North Africa to take Suez and the Arabian oilfields. I doubt Wavell's 30,000 could have done much to prevent an Axis victory.

The list is endless.


The list is effectivly endless, and those are very nice ideas.

[mattertoenergy]

A massive expansion of lend-lease, surely, but I doubt the populace would have been sold on the European war 'just because'.

Sorry if my first post was a bit garbled, I need to remember not to post when tired:o .

It would not have been "just because". It was known that Germany and Japan were allies of one another, and from there Roosevelt could have made a Europe First argument. One could point to the admittedly minuscule material assistance between the two, but more importantly, one could make the claim that putting pressure on Germany would relieve pressure from Great Britain and possibly the USSR allowing them to send more troops to the Pacific theater which would be in a "better position" than U.S. troops to strike Japan. (Yes I know that the USSR and Japan weren't at war, but the go the war with Germany and USSR goes to war with Japan argument could have been made at the time).

Perhaps even more importantly, Roosevelt could have made the claim that if the British loose in North Africa, then Germany and Japan could link their forces in India.

Whether or not these events could have actually happened is not important. Whats important is that at the time Roosevelt could have claimed that these events were not only possible but probable if the U.S. did not go to war with Germany. The late Stephan Ambrose makes clear in some of his work that Roosevelt wanted war with Germany and not Japan, I wouldn't be surprised if others agree on that point. If Roosevelt wanted a war with Germany he would have used every fact to support a strong German-Japanese alliance and make that a justification for war. Especially after the victory at Midway, the American public, I feel, would be more than willing to accept some of these arguments. Cases for war have been built on lesser claims, even in democratic (or semi-democratic) countries, France and Germany in WWI for example.

Now for another what-if: What if the U.S. had lost the Battle of Midway?

[Heir_Ludendorff]

What if the Battle of Verdun didn't change French military thinking fo years to come? The Battle for France may have lasted far longer, or the superior French armour would have ripped holes through the Sarr in 39-40.

[Pasalades]

What if the Battle of Verdun didn't change French military thinking fo years to come? The Battle for France may have lasted far longer, or the superior French armour would have ripped holes through the Sarr in 39-40.

Actually, that raises an interesting question. What if the French mobilized much faster and counter invaded Germany while they were occupied in Poland or shortly thereafter?

[horacus]

Actually, that raises an interesting question. What if the French mobilized much faster and counter invaded Germany while they were occupied in Poland or shortly thereafter?

If that happened, the Germans should have collapsed.

[Richter von Manthofen]

I don't think that mobilisation could have been possible fast enough to prevent the fall of poland.

I also don't think that France and UK were too eager to fight.

The turning point in the early war was when UK and France declared war on Germany - If they had waited a few weeks and had seen the german tactics they "might" have let it happen.

Without this a few things would not have happened.

1.) No invasion of BENELUX, Norway and Denmark
2.) No invasion of France

an thus
3.) NO immediate war between Italy and UK - No GErmany in Afrika

Italy could have attacked Greece and maybe UK wooudl have supported greece, maybe not and Greece would have beaten Italy, because Germany was NOT threated by a possible UK foothold in Southern Europe (no war with UK)

Remember: there were no original German plans to go to the Balkans.

Hungary, and Bulgaria woudl possibly have aided Germany in an attack on Russia, Romania would certainly have done this (Rusia forced the cession of Romanian territory. Finland might have gotten UK and French support in the Winter war (Germany certainly would have let allied convoys pass into the Baltic sea)

Most importantly Germany would have waited with the invasion of Russia. The main Reason why the attack was 1941 was the stunning sucess the Wehrmacht had with Fall Gelb.

1944 was the year Germany was hoping to be war ready against Russia. In 1944 Germany would possibly have had the technological advantage it would have needed to cut deeper into russia. 4-6 weeks more time (and a later winter - don't know for sure about the weather in 1944) woudl have made an difference.

Sure also Russia would have had better equipment, but also in 1941 the russians had the better tanks.

Additional factor are that Germany would have some more divisons available (no Garrison duty in the occupied countries)

Probably no lend lease for the Russians

An interesting match.

If the UK would not have used so many resources to battle GErmany Japan probably would NOT have attacked the Allies in late 1941 and have backed down. This would have been a serious blow to the IJN - loosing support and thus teh IJA woudl hve gotten many resources (technological support and possinly more money)

1942 woudl have seen an Chinese-Japanese peace treaty possibly with favorable terms for Japan (keeping much territory, reparations...) and more important renewed influx of raw materials for Japan.

in 1944 Japan could have jumped the German train and attack Russia hoping to gain territory and resources there.

the allies would probably not have opposed this and beeing the patrons of China would have extended their influence there.

Thus the attack on Rusia would probably have been sucessful in 1945.

Later years would have seen the collapse of the colonial powers (as it happend in our timelime) leaving two powers opposing each other

Germany and the US - thus the cold war would be still effective because I doubt that Germany had collapsed like the Soviet Union.

It is also possible that the German sucess against Russia had "forced" France and UK to side with Germany...

[horacus]

Nice review sir.

[OIFvet]

What if Rommel's summer siege of Tobruk in the summer of '41 was successful? Would the Italians be able to help support the battles of the eastern front? Would the Axis have the supplies they needed from the Middle East to launch enough armor for a true blitzkrieg on the eastern front?

... Just a few more thoughts to ponder (as I am doing at 0455 in the morning :p).

[Richter von Manthofen]

Itally had (ill equiped troops) on the Eastern front, but I doubt more would have made any difference (no gain for Italy in Russia) Italys interest was the Balkans and in Afrfica - bringing them in confrontation with the UK - and I doubt that Italy had attacked the UK if UK was not desperatly battling Germany. In "my scenario" Italy would only play a minor role in Germanys efforts (maybe only sending supplies - mainly food) - possibly building ships for the Kriegsmarine.

A tweak was a possible alliance between Sweden and Norway to gain influence in northern Russia.

[horacus]

A tweak was a possible alliance between Sweden and Norway to gain influence in northern Russia.

That's an interesting theory.