Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Wars and ConflictsΒ  permalink

I'm reasonably sure this has come up before

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Sunday, 19th February 2006

  but if so, I've not seen it, ergo herewith a ''what if'' regarding WW2.
  
  Had Hitler not invaded Russia, could he have brought down Britain and completed his conquest of the European community? We have to remember that Rommel was on the brink of taking Egypt and the Middle East with its massive oil reserves. The only reason he failed was because of inanition -- many troops, equipment, and supplies he could have used and might easily have made the difference were withdrawn and sent to the Russian front.
  
  And a corollary to the above ''what if''... had Germany succeeded in avoiding war initially with Russia and managed to conquer all of Europe and the Middle East, was war with Russia ultimately inevitable?

  Link to this forum: I'm reasonably sure this has come up before

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by geezerhello123 (U3260145) on Sunday, 19th February 2006

  i believe russian build ups on the eastern front made the choice of invading russia for hitler
  
  i think he felt if he didn't invade them they would invade him
  
  also the resources for his thousand year reich had to come from somewhere

  Link to this forum: I'm reasonably sure this has come up before

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by Balanchine (U3177050) on Sunday, 19th February 2006

  There wasn't much prospect of Russia invading Germany. The Soviet Army was entirely focussed on defence. It was heresy to propose deep initial thrusts in the Stalin crony dominated Red army at that time. Attacking Russia wasn't a military neccessity but a megolamaniacal political act which many German Generals and more importantly the German people dreaded. The what if scenario of if the Nazis didn't invade Russia and concentrated entirely on sugjugating Britain in 1941 doesn't bare thinking about. It's likely to have been a very close call.

  Link to this forum: I'm reasonably sure this has come up before

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by Local Hero (U3080508) on Sunday, 19th February 2006

  You forget that since the writing of Mein Kampf, the invasion of eastern Europe and Russia for living space, or 'lebensraum', was a key part of Hitler's foriegn policy. He only invaded France and threatened to invade Britain because they declared war on him. After this he was determined to make his Western front safe before transfering his armies to his main venture - the invasion of Russia. That he didn't is down to the RAF and Royal Navy. It is my belief that even if one of these forces was knocked out, the other would have been able to prevent a German invasion, which was an exceedingly risky proposotion. The German Navy was never very keen on it due to the immense risks involved, even though the Wehrmacht insisted on treating like a glorified river crossing.
  
  Churchill obviously recognised the problems facing the Germans, as during the height of the invasion scare, he transfered British troops to Africa to protect interests there. He obviously saw the seizure of Middle Eastern oil as a greater and more likely risk for Britian's interests.
  
  Michael

  Link to this forum: I'm reasonably sure this has come up before

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Sunday, 19th February 2006

  Erik,
  
  No, if the Germans couldn't manage a crossing of the channel in 1940, there is no way they could have managed it any later. You only need to look at the planning for D Day with air supremacy and control of the seas to realise what a hopeless task it would have been for the Germans to attempt a crossing. In this the Kreigsmarine estimate is by far the most realsitic of such an underatking.
  
  Michael has it pretty spot on in my opinion.
  
  Cheers AA.

  Link to this forum: I'm reasonably sure this has come up before

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by Local Hero (U3080508) on Sunday, 19th February 2006

  Thanks AA
  
  If the Wehrmacht had tried to invade in 1940, they would have been mashed before they'd even reached the English shore.
  
  Michael

  Link to this forum: I'm reasonably sure this has come up before

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Steelers708 (U1831340) on Sunday, 19th February 2006

  If we are too assume that there was never going to be in invasion of Russia or from Russia then I would argue that to effectively knock Britain out of the war the Germans would not necessarily have to invade Britain. Here's a few possible reasons why:
  
  1. Raw materials would continue to flow from Russia to Germany aiding the war effort.
  
  2. The Germans would be able to deploy 134 divisions in other theatres, eg. the capture of Malta and Gibralter, imagine the Afrika Korps made up of 7 Panzer and PzGr divisions.
  
  3. U-Boats running wild in the Atlantic as they did.
  
  4. Virtually the entire might of the JagdFlieger arm could be deployed to prevent bombing raids by the RAF
  
  5. The German military would not suffer the losses that they did in Russia therefore units could be kept upto strength.
  
  6. German industry would be able to concentrate on those weapons that were required e.g. U-Boats.
  
  There are others but these will suffice.

  Link to this forum: I'm reasonably sure this has come up before

  Report message7

• Message 8

  , in reply to message 7.

  Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Sunday, 19th February 2006

  Steelers708,
  
  I have to admit that you are correct, in certain aspects.
  
  Now, for the Germans to invade Gibralter, you would I have to say have had the aid of the Spanish. Errrm, not forthcoming despite the aid the Germans gave Franco during the Spanish Civil War?
  
  Now, involving the Spanish would have involved the Portugese?
  
  You also do not give any argument as to the effectiveness of the Royal Navy, although an obsolete arm in an invasion of Europe terms, perhaps more decisive in the Med?
  
  I must say Steelers708, I find this fascinating, thank you. (You do tend to ignore that Hitler was a gambler who rode his luck a little too long).
  
  I think it's a good job that we (you and me) didn't take over the miltary operations of the Germans .
  
  AA.

  Link to this forum: I'm reasonably sure this has come up before

  Report message8

• Message 9

  , in reply to message 8.

  Posted by Steelers708 (U1831340) on Sunday, 19th February 2006

  Hi Arnald,
  
  Well this is why I don't really like 'what ifs', especially at the strategic level, you just have to make too many assumptions and then one what if follows another.
  
  I worked on the basis that if Hitler wasn't going to invade Russia (the ultimate gamble) then maybe calmer influences were at work.
  
  What if's at the level of campaigns or battles are a lot more interesting because the what ifs are fewer and the possible alternatives more logical, that's why I enjoy playing the HPS Panzer Campaigns games so much.
  
  Taking the politics out of the equation it would have been great fun directing the Wehrmacht on a war of conquest.

  Link to this forum: I'm reasonably sure this has come up before

  Report message9

• Message 10

  , in reply to message 9.

  Posted by Local Hero (U3080508) on Sunday, 19th February 2006

  Steelers,
  
  Do you really think that Britain and the British people would have capitulated without the invasion of home soil? I'm not so sure. We were a pretty tough bunch back then.
  
  Michael

  Link to this forum: I'm reasonably sure this has come up before

  Report message10

Back to top