could the nazis won the European Theatre if they delayed/canceled the invasion of the soviet union
- Thread starter bart56912
- Start date
No. They were unable to invade Britain after "The battle of Britain". After defeating the Luftwaffe, all possibilities of an invasion on the British shores was lost. Also if you do research on the defences which were erected from 1939 - 1941 all over the British country side you will see that an invasion would have been countered and then cut off when The Royal Navy ( At the time, the most feared Navy in the world ) cut off the English channel. So, without conquering Britain, they could not "Win" The European theatre. Infact, if they did they would have lost sooner, because the full might of the Soviet Union would have been marching on Germany. Out of all the Countries involved in World War 2, The Soviet Union ( Russia ) Contributed the most.
My thought is that a lot of people joined the German army to fight the Communists, not sure how many did, but I know there were some.
So question is how would that affect the rest of the war if they didn't have those men in Europe?
But I do think that the Nazis would have been stronger in Europe, but I doubt the Soviet would have let Germany get as big. I think a war between Soviet and Germany would have been inevitable.
So question is how would that affect the rest of the war if they didn't have those men in Europe?
But I do think that the Nazis would have been stronger in Europe, but I doubt the Soviet would have let Germany get as big. I think a war between Soviet and Germany would have been inevitable.
I think Germany would have won, if hitler had almost no say in the military side of things.Dectomax said:
For one they wouldnt have invaded Russia, which means they wouldnt have been fighting on two fronts, so for us D day would have been impossible.
Also as for the Battle of Britain, the only reason we won was because Hitler ordered that the bombing of the RAF bases to cease, and instead ordered revenge bombings on London. If he hadnt done that the RAF would have been wiped out.
And again earlier in the war, if Hitler had listened to Rommel and given him the Reinforcements and supplies he needed, we would have lost Egypt and with it a large ammount of our fuel supplies, which we wouldnt have won the war without.
There are literally countless possible what-if scenarios for WW2. Many seem plausible at first but turn out unrealistic, others are make too many assumptions to keep any integrity, and yet others are just downright stupid and are often based on misunderstandings, urban myths or conspiracy theories.
There are a few factors that turned out (in hindsight) to be important for the turn of events as they in fact unfolded:
The discontinuation of Luftwaffe's campaign against RAF air bases, fighter plane factories and radar installations. Much evidence point to the pathetic state of the RAF in the autumn of 1940. If the campaign had continued, RAF would have faced a very real risk of collaps. However, Luftwaffe was also in a pretty bad state, and would have risked losses that could have proven too serious for any lengthy continuation of hostilities.
Unternehmnen Barbarossa. Attacking the Soviet Union was a bold move, but also a futile one. Of course the OKW didn't have the data we have today, but with the benefit of hindsight it appears fairly obvious that the German undertaking was doomed from the start. This was actually partially realised by segments of the Nazi leadership, who viewed the invasion essentially as a gamble (albeit with appearantly better odds than what turned out to be the case).
The full entrance of the US into the war, and more particularly their committment to the European theatre, marked the beginning of the end for Germany. Even the inner circle of Nazi leadership knew that having the world's most powerful military and economic power as its enemy, Germany would from that point be fighting a loosing battle, even long before the Western Allies had set foot on continental Europe.
When one compares the data that is avaliable to historians today, it is striking how outmatched Germany was even from the very beginning of the war. If one disregards factors such as ideology, politics and the personal wills of powerful individuals, it seems uncomprehensible that Germany would have gone to war at all. Even though their economy had been growing rapidly, it was not nearly strong enough to cope with the stresses of a total war, and based itself on modes of supply and distribution that was not sustainable or effective enough.
Of course, I have just mentioned a few factors that influenced the outcome of the war. There are several other important factors to consider, like the role of ideology, but my post is already turning out longer than I had anticipated. To answer the initial question in this topic, I would guess that Germany would have lost the war anyway. Perhaps they could have negotiated an agreement which might well have granted them substantial gains, but a quest for continental dominance would have been doomed from the outset.
There are a few factors that turned out (in hindsight) to be important for the turn of events as they in fact unfolded:
The discontinuation of Luftwaffe's campaign against RAF air bases, fighter plane factories and radar installations. Much evidence point to the pathetic state of the RAF in the autumn of 1940. If the campaign had continued, RAF would have faced a very real risk of collaps. However, Luftwaffe was also in a pretty bad state, and would have risked losses that could have proven too serious for any lengthy continuation of hostilities.
Unternehmnen Barbarossa. Attacking the Soviet Union was a bold move, but also a futile one. Of course the OKW didn't have the data we have today, but with the benefit of hindsight it appears fairly obvious that the German undertaking was doomed from the start. This was actually partially realised by segments of the Nazi leadership, who viewed the invasion essentially as a gamble (albeit with appearantly better odds than what turned out to be the case).
The full entrance of the US into the war, and more particularly their committment to the European theatre, marked the beginning of the end for Germany. Even the inner circle of Nazi leadership knew that having the world's most powerful military and economic power as its enemy, Germany would from that point be fighting a loosing battle, even long before the Western Allies had set foot on continental Europe.
When one compares the data that is avaliable to historians today, it is striking how outmatched Germany was even from the very beginning of the war. If one disregards factors such as ideology, politics and the personal wills of powerful individuals, it seems uncomprehensible that Germany would have gone to war at all. Even though their economy had been growing rapidly, it was not nearly strong enough to cope with the stresses of a total war, and based itself on modes of supply and distribution that was not sustainable or effective enough.
Of course, I have just mentioned a few factors that influenced the outcome of the war. There are several other important factors to consider, like the role of ideology, but my post is already turning out longer than I had anticipated. To answer the initial question in this topic, I would guess that Germany would have lost the war anyway. Perhaps they could have negotiated an agreement which might well have granted them substantial gains, but a quest for continental dominance would have been doomed from the outset.
Possibly, but I think they may have won the war if Valkyrie was sucessful. After all, many of the defeats Germany suffered late into the war were because of Hitler killing his best generals and making insane battlefield strategies.
War between two idealogies?Aurgelmir said:
It would happen, Nazism and Stalinism (that's basicly what people call them because those two butchered the idealogies so much) are polar opposites and both are out to conquer the largest mass of land they can. That said the USSR was grossly under prepared for attack and the early German campaign into Russia reflects this.
Also I thought most nations at the time had the draft and I don't see why Nazi Geramny wouldn't.
If instead of invading Russia the Nazi's decided to consolidate their gains they may have managed a draw. However even if the war was over the Nazi's wouldn't have been in a very good position: they had no real allies, various local resistance movements were gaining strength and popularity, and I suspect the entire power structure would have rapidly collapsed in on itself.
The Nazi's gained power by improving the economy and working up a strong sense of national pride - it would have been hard to keep the Go Aryans! fever pitch after halting the war so far from the supposed goal of uniting Europe, and without the war I suspect their economy would have slumped.
The Nazi's gained power by improving the economy and working up a strong sense of national pride - it would have been hard to keep the Go Aryans! fever pitch after halting the war so far from the supposed goal of uniting Europe, and without the war I suspect their economy would have slumped.
I thought some research was found that showed that the Nazi's were dangerously close to creating a nuclear bomb, but then stopped. It's speculated that they wanted to have a better way of deploying it and that the Americans got hold of it due to the Nazi scientists they captured. I don't know it's something I heard.TestECull said:
the amount of people who joined the army was very low, the vast majority were drafted(every male who finished school was drafted for at least 2 1/2 years, unless your parents could pay enough, then you could get out after basic training).Aurgelmir said:
Also, if Germany hadn't surrendered the Americans would have nuked Germany, not Japan. I think there way have been a good chance, the Eastern front swallowed massive amounts of resources but since Hitler still would have been crazy and and still would have been in charge i vote not.
This is somewhat true - the Americans did take custody of many German scientists involved in the Nazi nuclear program, but the politicisation of science in Nazi Germany caused many physicists to flee the country and the Nazi nuclear program was generally behind that of the USA's as a result, I believe.Blatherscythe said:
some people have theorised that the war wouldn't have started if the trains to Munich had been running on time... hypothetically, yes, and hypothetically the fate of the world could have changed if 200 cavalry in a roman civil war hadn't routed...
my point is, the infinite complexity of causality can do some funny things, it's best not to screw with it
my point is, the infinite complexity of causality can do some funny things, it's best not to screw with it
Possibly.
Yeah, they couldn't invade Britian after one battle- but they were alone.
If the Nazis didn't invade the soviet union, and kept in good ties with the soviets, they could have. They had to defend two sides, not a easy job. If they had only one side to defend, that would have made the job a lot harder on the U.S, but it could still be won, even without the soviets.
They really could have one if it wasn't for Pearl Harbor.
Yeah, they couldn't invade Britian after one battle- but they were alone.
If the Nazis didn't invade the soviet union, and kept in good ties with the soviets, they could have. They had to defend two sides, not a easy job. If they had only one side to defend, that would have made the job a lot harder on the U.S, but it could still be won, even without the soviets.
They really could have one if it wasn't for Pearl Harbor.
assuming the solviets kept the 10 year non-agression pact then maybe. while Brittain had great defences, they were unlikely to attack. But the pact was made between Hitler and Stalin. not the two most trustworthy guys in history. chances are that the solviets would have used the time to build up a better army and struck when Germany was throwing all of it's resourses at England.
The Russian forces did more than the Americans in bringing down the Nazis(imo). and instead of being the reason we all don't speak german are probably more like the reason we don't speak russian. so no, the nazis wouldn't have won the war either way. it's just that their attack made it so that the alies could mass their troops and strike from one end while russia hit them from another.
and assuming Russia didn't attack at all, then Brittain could have still held out. They had the help of the Canadians after all.
The Russian forces did more than the Americans in bringing down the Nazis(imo). and instead of being the reason we all don't speak german are probably more like the reason we don't speak russian. so no, the nazis wouldn't have won the war either way. it's just that their attack made it so that the alies could mass their troops and strike from one end while russia hit them from another.
and assuming Russia didn't attack at all, then Brittain could have still held out. They had the help of the Canadians after all.
I'd say yes they could have won with ease! Germany had the best military, some of the most advanced weapons technology in the world and absolutely superb generals. Britain on the other hand was still broke after the First World War, our ground forces were pretty much a joke in the very early war, I mean come on 2lb guns and tanks that caught fire when they got shot (seriously look up early war english tanks). Bearing in mind that the best of German military were sent to the Eastern Front (like the 6th Army who were destroyed in Stalingrad)also it wasn't Russia who beat Germany on the Eastern Front, it was General Winter and Hilter's interfering. The forces that we fought on the Western Front were second rate at best.Dectomax said:
It's also arguable Stalin would NEVER have invaded Germany, the Soviets hated the Western Powers honestly hated them for their small part in trying to crush the Reds in the Russian Civil War.