# Could WWII have settled down into a cold war standoff? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 1, 2013, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-wwii-have-settled-down-into-a-cold-war-standoff/665052 "2013-08-01T03:37:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2013, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-wwii-have-settled-down-into-a-cold-war-standoff/665052/21 "2013-08-01T18:02:35Z")
> [@coremelt](#): > > It’s easy to imagine scenarios in which the US stays neutral, but if Germany hadn’t invaded the USSR then sooner or later Stalin would have invaded instead. Possibly even in 1941 just months after Barbarossa. See here: > [Soviet offensive plans controversy - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_offensive_plans_controversy) I’d strongly recommend reading the reactions and critiques section of that page as well as the historian’s views section of _Icebreaker_ [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icebreaker_(Suvorov)#Historians.27_views). This theory was floated by Vladimir Bogdanovich Rezun (pen name Viktor Suvorov), initially in _Icebreaker: Who Started the Second World War?_ and further in later works. His views are not given any credibility by historians, his methodology is hopelessly flawed and he deliberately use single sentence quotes entirely out of context. From the historian’s views page: > [@](#): > > A noteworthy rebuttal of Suvorov’s thesis is contained in Colonel David Glantz’s work _Stumbling Colossus: The Red Army on the Eve of World War_. Glantz views Suvorov’s argument as “incredible” on a variety of fronts: first, Suvorov rejects without examination classified ex-Soviet archival material, and makes highly selective picks from memoirs. Glantz points to this as a serious methodological flaw. Further, Glantz argues, Suvorov’s thesis is strongly contradicted both by ex-Soviet and German archival material, and the facts do not support the argument that the Red Army was prepared to invade Germany.[1] On the contrary, the appalling lack of readiness, poor training level, and abysmal state of deployments show that the Red Army was unprepared for static defense, much less large-scale offensive operations. Glantz’s conclusion is that “Stalin may well have been an unscrupulous tyrant, but he was not a lunatic.” > > For his part, however, Suvorov not only admits his selectiveness but justifies his methods, recalling his work in the intelligence community: > “If a hundred secret agents are reporting one way, and one sounds out of place and makes no sense, deal with him. No one will trust him or you, they will laugh at you, and they will not believe you. But this is how great discoveries are made”.[2] > Commenting on the existing plans for Soviet preemptive strike Robin Edmonds argues that “the Red Army planning staff would not have been doing its job if it had not devoted some time between 1939 and 1941 to the possibility, at some future date, of a pre-emptive strike against Wehrmacht”.[3] David Brandenberger notes that recently published pre-1941 German analysis of Soviet military readiness also do not support the major _Icebreaker_’s thesis demonstrating that Soviet preparations were assessed to be “defensive” by German intelligence."[4] > > Although Suvorov claims that an attack date of July 6, 1941 had been selected, this is contradicted by the evidence as presented by Glantz and others. There were no stockpiles of fuel, ammunition, and other stores held in forward areas as would have been needed if an invasion was about to be mounted. Major ground units were dispersed into small garrisons rather than being concentrated at railheads, as they would have been had they been preparing an invasion. Units were not co-located with their own transportation assets, leaving, for example, major artillery units immobile. Over 50% of all Soviet tanks required major maintenance on June 22, 1941. If an invasion were being planned, these maintenance tasks would have been completed. Most Soviet armor units were in the process of re-organizing into new Tank Corps; the German invasion caught these units in the midst of this reorganization. Such a large-scale reorganization is inconsistent with an impending invasion. ---
**Author:** ![BlinkingDuck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/eada6e/32.png) [@BlinkingDuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlinkingDuck)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2013, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-wwii-have-settled-down-into-a-cold-war-standoff/665052/22 "2013-08-01T18:02:44Z")
> [@coremelt](#): > > I think the key thing is, after Barbarossa they were screwed no matter what they did. If you diverge from the time line earlier you can create various scenarios were Nazi Germany lasts a lot longer. The one I’ve seen suggested is that Hitler attacks the middle east instead of the Soviet Union and goes directly for the oil fields of Iraq through Turkey. > > eg like this: > [Alternate History: Triumph of Nazi Germany](http://www.unmuseum.org/hitlerwins.htm) > > But in this scenario, the USSR would still attack a weakened Germany sooner or later and the two front war grinds them down even without the US direct involvement. The problem with theories like this is they presuppose that other factors will stay still. The Soviet Union would not have stayed still and postponing Barbarossa for one year means the Soviet Union will be more ready. In addition, they are unlikely to have sat still while Germany overran the middle east and may have struck during this time. All this time the U.S. getting stronger and more committed/desparate to engage Germany and now they have a large field to do it in. ---
**Author:** ![madsircool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madsircool/32/3432_2.png) [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2013, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-wwii-have-settled-down-into-a-cold-war-standoff/665052/23 "2013-08-01T18:04:25Z")
Germany would have easily won had the Japanese attacked the USSR instead of Pearl Harbor. It was the Asian troops that saved Moscow in 1941. Also, without western transport, supplies and especially intelligence the Soviets would have been far less successful with their offensives…think Stalingrad. Also, had the Germans granted Ukranian independence immediately, the Soviets likely couldnt have survived the war. But German brutality took away this option. Remember that the Soviets killed in the neighborhood of 8 million Ukranians during the 1930’s. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2013, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-wwii-have-settled-down-into-a-cold-war-standoff/665052/24 "2013-08-01T18:12:47Z")
Given only conventional weapons, I can’t see much chance of a standoff. Supposing the Axis had developed atomic bombs, and an extension of the V-2 that would allow delivery on London, might it have happened then? Rather similar to North Korea today - sure, they’re assholes, and they oppress their people, and the world would be better off without them, but is it worth it if allied capitals are at risk of being incinerated? I suppose it would have to be a scenario where the Nazis had the Bomb and the Allies did not, which is even more far-fetched, but maybe if Hitler had held off on attacking Russia, had followed thru at Dunkirk, and concentrated on consolidating his holdings at or shortly before his peak of conquest, maybe then? Regards, Shodan PS - if this is not a hijack, and the question of whether it could have happened without WMDs is settled. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2013, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-wwii-have-settled-down-into-a-cold-war-standoff/665052/25 "2013-08-01T18:53:04Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > (Those Soviet manufacturing numbers are impressive, btw. I may have to borrow those for the debate about the supposed inherent weakness of a non-capitalist economy.) There are a few things to bear in mind before doing that. One is that the Soviet Union had no need for a navy during WW2 and was able to forego any naval production and concentrate on land warfare equipment. The US on the other hand produced the largest navy in history during WW2. Another is that lend-lease aid from the US and UK provided ~7-9% of Soviet war production, and allowed them to concentrate on certain items such as tanks as they were being provided with copious amounts of other items such as trucks by the US. For example the domestic production of military trucks by the USSR was 197,100; the US provided over 450,000 trucks to the USSR through lend-lease. A final thing is that Soviet production figures were possible due to the successive five year plans of Stalin to industrialize the nation. While successful in vastly increasing production of pig iron, steel, coal, and other areas of heavy industry, they also produced famine. Finally, nobody ever accused communist economies of being unable to produce war materials (see North Korea for example – the country may be starving but they’re still producing tanks). A look at the domestic economy the USSR and the West would be more illustrative. That said, Soviet production of war materials during WW2 was quite impressive, all the more so when one considers that they had to evacuate factories from the European Soviet Union to east of the Urals to prevent them being overrun by the Germans. > [@madsircool](#): > > Germany would have easily won had the Japanese attacked the USSR instead of Pearl Harbor. It was the Asian troops that saved Moscow in 1941. The “Siberian troops saving Moscow” bit is a myth, I recently wrote a post about it [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16480664&postcount=70). Japan also had it’s ass handed to it by the Soviet Union at [Lake Khasan](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lake_Khasan) and [Khalkhin Gol](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol) before the war and was gun-shy about the USSR. Further, the reason they attacked Pearl Harbor was the desperate need for oil to keep their economy from collapsing in the face of the US oil embargo. Taking oil by force meant occupying the British and Dutch East Indies, which would mean war with the US. Attacking the USSR wouldn’t get the Japanese any oil, and their economy would have come to a grinding halt. > [@](#): > > Also, had the Germans granted Ukranian independence immediately, the Soviets likely couldnt have survived the war. But German brutality took away this option. Remember that the Soviets killed in the neighborhood of 8 million Ukranians during the 1930’s. This almost always comes up in historical what-ifs. The problem is if the Nazis didn’t treat the locals in the Soviet Union so brutally they wouldn’t have been the Nazis, and if the Nazis aren’t the Nazis, there is suddenly no reason for Germany to invade the USSR. The whole point of the war as far as Hitler was concerned was to seize lebensraum in the east. The Slavic peoples who happened to be living there were to be reduced to illiterate slavery or killed off. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2013, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-wwii-have-settled-down-into-a-cold-war-standoff/665052/26 "2013-08-01T19:09:09Z")
> [@](#): > > My scenario is a little different: instead of necessarily making peace with anyone, Germany pulls back to some defensible position while their forces are still strong enough to do so. Maybe it goes all the way back to their own national borders, so other nations find it harder to justify continuing the offensive against them. If they did this before Barbarossa then yeah…that probably would have worked. They certainly could have continued their war with the UK (or forced them to sue for peace) while digesting most of Western Europe. I seriously doubt the Russians would have preemptively attacked the Germans for at least a few years. If we are talking about after Barbarossa, though, then that’s probably not going to be a winning strategy for the Germans in the long run, though it would depend on whether the US was going to continue to heavily support the Russians if the Germans weren’t rampaging around and were in a more defensive posture and perhaps making noises about peace. Of course, it’s pretty unlikely that after Barbarossa that the Germans WOULD fall back and take up defensive positions and sue for peace in any case. > [@](#): > > Could they have held out? One subset of this question could be to hold out long enough to develop nuclear missiles to threaten anyone who attacks their borders; or perhaps the Manhattan Project would have made the point moot. But really, I find it more interesting to speculate whether they could have pulled this off with only conventional weapons available on all sides. It all depends on when on the historical timeline you decide to have them deviate…and how. If before Barbarossa then really all they were left fighting was the UK and cleanup operations in Western Europe. There wasn’t anyone for them to really hold out against except the Brits, and the Brits were almost completely on the defensive at that point. If we are talking about after the Germans invaded Russia, but before the US got involved, then I suppose it’s possible that they could have pulled back after harshly smacking the Russians in the initial campaigns, and then formed a decent defense that could hold out until the Russians really got moving. The Russian army and more importantly the command structure that later became a virtual juggernaut later in the war really didn’t start to materialize until late '42 or '43, and a lot of that came about BECAUSE the Germans had pounded them so hard that they had to forge themselves into such a force to fend them off. Also, the US supplying the Russians helped a hell of a lot. So, if you posit that the Germans would have pulled back in, say, September of '41 to defensive positions from the Baltic to the Black sea (say from western Lithuania to the Carpathians) and fortified heavily then I suppose it would have taken the Russians a hell of a long time and a lot of resources to punch through that. They probably would have had several years to fortify and build up reserves for when the Russians would push, and if they were smart they could have enlisted the locals to fight for/with them against the Russians since most of the folks in those regions were no friends of the Russians. But, the thing is, none of this would ever happen. Why WOULD the Germans have pulled back at that point? They were kicking the Russians asses. And why WOULD the Germans have enlisted the locals, since they thought of most of them as sub-human as well? It just makes no sense and I can’t see any way any of that could or would have played out in reality. ---
**Author:** ![Malden\_Capell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/malden_capell/32/5274_2.png) [@Malden\_Capell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malden_Capell)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2013, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-wwii-have-settled-down-into-a-cold-war-standoff/665052/27 "2013-08-01T22:44:08Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > Yes, thank you! > > I have never bought into the whole, “without Churchill, there would have been a peace agreement after fall of France” argument, since it goes against as **Alessan** points out 250 years of policy (and as England, even before that to Henry VIII and possibly Edward IV time). Just look at all the ceasefire/peace agreements of the Napoleonic Wars. Even if say…Lord Halifax as Prime Minister… had accepted an armistice in June 1940, it would have been temporary at best, the British would have jumped back in when they had the chance. At this time, the Germans stood more or less alone, againt the largest Empire the world has ever seen. > > There would have been “an Empire Strikes Back”. And soon. I’m not so sure. There’s a lot of evidence that the appeasers were…peculiar and rather forgetful of historical British priorities in Europe. To appeasers, avoiding war was ipso facto virtuous, and all sensible people ought to agree. They couldn’t ever understand it was the complete opposite in Germany. Their foreign policy towards Germany, such as it was, was assuming Germany’s argument was just and chucking them bones. At times it crystallised almost into the idea that German domination of Europe would be better than a split one in the face of the USSR. Right up to the breakout of the war, and even beyond, many senior members of the government were waiting for the political atmosphere to change so they could come to a deal. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2013, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-wwii-have-settled-down-into-a-cold-war-standoff/665052/28 "2013-08-01T23:48:35Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Why WOULD they have pulled back at that point? They were kicking the Russians asses. Except based on what most everyone is saying, in the long game, they really weren’t kicking their asses. So my hypothetical supposes that someone powerful in Germany has enough perception and foresight to see this. Maybe it requires Hitler dying and someone else taking over. Would that in itself, come to think of it, change things enough diplomatically that the other powers would let Germany withdraw to its own territory without surrendering? ---
**Author:** ![the\_diego](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7bcc69/32.png) [@the\_diego](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/the_diego)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2013, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-wwii-have-settled-down-into-a-cold-war-standoff/665052/29 "2013-08-01T23:59:25Z")
If Hitler was able to finish off Britain, or have overwhelming defenses in the channel and French Atlantic AND, he didn’t attack Russia. Germany would have been the red menace up to the 90s perhaps. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2013, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-wwii-have-settled-down-into-a-cold-war-standoff/665052/30 "2013-08-02T01:49:48Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Except based on what most everyone is saying, in the long game, they really weren’t kicking their asses. So my hypothetical supposes that someone powerful in Germany has enough perception and foresight to see this. Maybe it requires Hitler dying and someone else taking over. Would that in itself, come to think of it, change things enough diplomatically that the other powers would let Germany withdraw to its own territory without surrendering? They would have had to be able to read the future. In '41 the Germans had incredible success against the Russians, wiping out several armies and basically doing what they wanted to on the battlefield. Even the setback of winter when they were thrown back wasn’t really seen as a defeat so much as a set back. They still had every expectation that they would win in the end, and probably quickly. Through much of '42 it was the same…the Germans dominated, though they took increasing causalities and didn’t achieve their strategic military objectives. Still, it would have taken someone able to read the future to know that the Soviets would turn the tables on them and be invading Germany in less than 3 years. By '43 things were more balanced, but by then I’m not sure the Germans COULD really disengage and create viable long term defenses, especially after Kursk. Through mugh of '44 the Germans TRIED to do this, but were constantly pushed back. So, you’d need some German who could read the future AND, more importantly, convince that lunatic Hitler that this was indeed the future, and you’d need this magical person to be able to do it fairly early on. Again, myself I think they would have had to do it before Barbarossa to have any chance of success. That would have given Germany at least a bit of defensive depth with their half of Poland, with Romania and Hungary blocking a Soviet advance to the south. No way could or would the Russians have been ready to invade much before 1945…even assuming they eventually would have, which I’m unconvinced without German provocation. If they had, they would have gotten their asses handed to them initially, because it’s clear that while the Soviets had decent equipment, their early doctrine sucked ass, and their officer corps would have taken years to get back on track after the purges. Things like the T-34 wouldn’t have come as such a surprise to the Germans either, since I doubt the Russians could keep a wrap on it for that long. The US wouldn’t have been supplying the Russians with anything either if they stayed neutral, and the Brits wouldn’t have been sharing technology with them. Also, Germany would have been able to really consolidate their hold on western Europe and probably make serious inroads into North Africa if the Brits fought on. Even assuming the US comes into the war in roughly the same way (i.e. Japan attacks us and Hitler idiotically declares war on us), I don’t see any way the US and the UK could really take the fight to Germany without the Eastern Front…and I don’t see any reason or need for the Russians to break their neutrality and attack Germany to open that other front either. Of course, as another poster up thread says (to paraphrase since I’m too lazy to scroll up), this all presupposes that the Nazis aren’t Nazis, since they always intended to go after Russia and they never intended to go on the defensive, but instead assumed they would roll right over Russia just like they rolled over France. Their early success simply reinforced this to them, and it wasn’t until '43 that they started even contemplating that they MIGHT lose…and by then, it was far to late to pull back and fort up. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2013, 9:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-wwii-have-settled-down-into-a-cold-war-standoff/665052/31 "2013-08-02T09:37:40Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Maybe it requires Hitler dying and someone else taking over. Would that in itself, come to think of it, change things enough diplomatically that the other powers would let Germany withdraw to its own territory without surrendering? Only in the minds of some of those who plotted against Hitler. Some conspirators hoped to be able to come to a separate peace with the West and continue to be able to prosecute the war against the USSR in the east. The only acceptable outcome to the war for the Western Allies was the complete and unconditional surrender of Germany, full stop. Hitler dying and/or a coup replacing him weren’t going to change that position. There were even ideas being floated around (the [Morgenthau Plan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgenthau_Plan)) to de-industrialize Germany turning it into an agricultural state and thus permanently removing its ability to wage war. > [@XT](#): > > They would have had to be able to read the future. In '41 the Germans had incredible success against the Russians, wiping out several armies and basically doing what they wanted to on the battlefield. Even the setback of winter when they were thrown back wasn’t really seen as a defeat so much as a set back. They still had every expectation that they would win in the end, and probably quickly. Through much of '42 it was the same…the Germans dominated, though they took increasing causalities and didn’t achieve their strategic military objectives. I agree with what you are saying in general, but you’re overstating the case a bit. Hitler, Goebbels and other die hard Nazis might have insisted the first winter counteroffensive was only a setback, but to the generals and soldiers in the field it was a clear defeat. Even before winter set in things weren’t looking so good; for all of it’s dramatic successes Barbarossa had been extremely costly for the Germans, especially in comparison to the cheap victories they had achieved in France, Poland and all other places prior to invading the Soviet Union. From [_MOSCOW TO STALINGRAD: DECISION IN THE EAST_](http://www.history.army.mil/catalog/pubs/30/30-12.html)on page 45: > [@](#): > > The chiefs of staff, for their part, reminded Halder of some things he already knew very well. German casualties stood, as of 1 November, at 686,000 men-20 percent of the 3.4 million, including replacements, committed since June, the equivalent of one regiment in every division. Of half-a-million motor vehicles on the Eastern Front, a third were worn out or damaged beyond repair; only a third were fully serviceable. Panzer divisions were down to 35 percent of their original tank strengths. The OKH itself rated the 136 divisions on the Eastern Front as equivalent to no more than 83 full-strength divisions. By the time of the German 1942 summer offensive most German formations were deeply under strength and they were only able to manage a strategic offensive on the southernmost third of the front, and its goal was only to seize the oilfields in the Caucasus. There was no thought that the '42 offensive would end in the defeat of the Soviet Union. ---
**Author:** ![Ranger\_Jeff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ranger_jeff/32/2065_2.png) [@Ranger\_Jeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranger_Jeff)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2013, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-wwii-have-settled-down-into-a-cold-war-standoff/665052/32 "2013-08-02T17:08:41Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Except based on what most everyone is saying, in the long game, they really weren’t kicking their asses. So my hypothetical supposes that someone powerful in Germany has enough perception and foresight to see this. Maybe it requires Hitler dying and someone else taking over. Would that in itself, come to think of it, change things enough diplomatically that the other powers would let Germany withdraw to its own territory without surrendering? In this alternate universe, had Rudolph Hess made his flight to England or not? IIRC, the line of succession was at one time Hitler - Hess. After Hess left, I think it was Goering. Hess leaned towards a peace with England. Don’t know about Goering though. And with Hitler gone, Himmler might have arranged an accident for whoever replaced Hitler that wasn’t him. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2013, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-wwii-have-settled-down-into-a-cold-war-standoff/665052/33 "2013-08-02T18:45:53Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > Hah - betrayed by my background. When I think of defensive terrain, I think mountains; rivers aren’t even on the table. Tanker or infantryman? ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2013, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-wwii-have-settled-down-into-a-cold-war-standoff/665052/34 "2013-08-02T19:03:00Z")
No-not after June 1941. The Nazi regime wanted and needed conquest-Hitler was always trying to speed up history. THe whole concept of “drang nach ost” was integral to the Nazi mythos-and it would never stop until Hitler was dead. Also, Germany was (at best) a medium-sized power, whilst Russia, the USA, and the UK were assuming superpower status. Through superhuman effort, Germany was able (for a time) to outproduce the allies-but time was not on their side-and no amount of “wonder weapons”(Tiger tanks, jet fighter planes, U-2 rockets) could ever compensate. Had Hitler been overthrown and a civilian government restored (before 1941) things might have settled down. But Germany would always be outclassed, once the Russian and American factories reached full production. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2013, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-wwii-have-settled-down-into-a-cold-war-standoff/665052/35 "2013-08-02T20:02:48Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > Further, the reason they attacked Pearl Harbor was the desperate need for oil to keep their economy from collapsing in the face of the US oil embargo. Taking oil by force meant occupying the British and Dutch East Indies, which would mean war with the US. Attacking the USSR wouldn’t get the Japanese any oil, and their economy would have come to a grinding halt. More likely than the Japanese not invading is the Germans violating their treaty and not declaring war on the US after Pearl Harbor. FDR would have wanted to get in the war in Europe any how, but could he against the why waste resources against someone we are not at war with argument? The Germans would have had to be very circumspect - one torpedoing might have been a trigger. > [@](#): > > This almost always comes up in historical what-ifs. The problem is if the Nazis didn’t treat the locals in the Soviet Union so brutally they wouldn’t have been the Nazis, and if the Nazis aren’t the Nazis, there is suddenly no reason for Germany to invade the USSR. The whole point of the war as far as Hitler was concerned was to seize lebensraum in the east. The Slavic peoples who happened to be living there were to be reduced to illiterate slavery or killed off. I went to the Occupation Museum in Estonia last year, and even today there seems to be an attitude that that the Soviets were worse than the Nazis. The Ukraine might have been a different story. I don’t think the Holocaust would have had any effect. It is not that the Nazis wouldn’t have done what you say eventually - there is nothing except stupidity that wouldn’t have let them wait until after the war was over to do it. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2013, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-wwii-have-settled-down-into-a-cold-war-standoff/665052/36 "2013-08-02T20:05:05Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > Bear in mind that it has been British policy since the War of the Spanish Succession never to allow a single power to dominate Europe. > [@](#): > > **Episode Five: The Writing on the Wall** > > Sir Humphrey: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last five hundred years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it’s worked so well? > > Hacker: That’s all ancient history, surely? > > Sir Humphrey: Yes, and current policy. We ‘had’ to break the whole thing [the EEC] up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn’t work. Now that we’re inside we can make a complete pig’s breakfast of the whole thing: set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch. The Foreign Office is terribly pleased; it’s just like old times. > > Hacker: But surely we’re all committed to the European ideal? > > Sir Humphrey: [chuckles] Really, Minister. > > Hacker: If not, why are we pushing for an increase in the membership? > > Sir Humphrey: Well, for the same reason. It’s just like the United Nations, in fact; the more members it has, the more arguments it can stir up, the more futile and impotent it becomes. > > Hacker: What appalling cynicism. > > Sir Humphrey: Yes… We call it diplomacy, Minister. – _Yes, Minister_ ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2013, 9:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-wwii-have-settled-down-into-a-cold-war-standoff/665052/37 "2013-08-03T09:33:45Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > More likely than the Japanese not invading is the Germans violating their treaty and not declaring war on the US after Pearl Harbor. FDR would have wanted to get in the war in Europe any how, but could he against the why waste resources against someone we are not at war with argument? The Germans would have had to be very circumspect - one torpedoing might have been a trigger. Germany wasn’t under any treaty obligation to declare war on the US because of the Japanese attack, the [Tripartite Pact](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripartite_Pact#Text_of_the_pact) only required military aid in the event one of the nations was attacked by a third party: > [@](#): > > 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. This is also why Japan was under no obligation to declare war on the USSR when Germany invaded it on June 22, 1941. As far as one torpedoing goes, the US was already at war with Germany in the Atlantic, albeit an undeclared one, and had been since spring of 1941. The US Navy was escorting British convoys in the Atlantic with orders to shoot on sight any German U-boats or other forces encountered. The first shot by the US in WW2 was when the destroyer [USS Niblack](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Niblack_(DD-424)) depth charged a U-boat on April 10, 1941 and the first loss of a US vessel occurred when the [USS Reuben James](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Reuben_James_(DD-245)) was torpedoed and sunk by a U-boat on October 31, 1941. Hitler really had nothing to lose by declaring war on the US after the Japanese attack. The undeclared war Germany was already engaged in with the US was sure to become an officially declared war sometime fairly soon now that the US was at war with Japan. Officially going to war with the US allowed Germany to take the gloves off attacking US merchant shipping as Dönitz had been asking to do for some time. The results of Operation Drumbeat were dramatic, especially considering the small number of long range U-boats that were used to carry it out. Shipping along the US coast was still being done by individual sailing rather than forming convoys and it took a long time for blackouts of coastal cities to be taken seriously, allowing U-boats to spot merchant vessels at night silhouetted against the city lights with ease. The results of this [Second Happy Time](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Happy_Time) as it was called by U-boat crews, bolding mine: > [@](#): > > The Second Happy Time lasted from January 1942 to about August of that year. German submariners named it the happy time or the golden time as defense measures were weak and disorganized,[2] and the U-boats were able to inflict massive damage with little risk. During the second happy time, Axis submarines sank 609 ships totaling 3.1 million tons for the loss of only 22 U-boats. **This was roughly one quarter of all shipping sunk by U-boats during the entire Second World War.** Oh, and Estonia was even more anti-Soviet than the Ukraine. The Baltic States had only been incorporated into the USSR against their will as a result of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact on [June 14, 1940](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states). The people of the Baltic States weren’t considered to be in the same category of subhuman people in Nazi ideology as Slavic peoples were, and approximately 70,000 Estonians [served in the German Army or Waffen SS](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Estonia_by_Nazi_Germany#Estonians_in_German_military_units) during the war, only about half were conscripted, the rest were volunteers. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2013, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-wwii-have-settled-down-into-a-cold-war-standoff/665052/38 "2013-08-03T14:15:04Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > No-not after June 1941. The Nazi regime wanted and needed conquest-Hitler was always trying to speed up history. THe whole concept of “drang nach ost” was integral to the Nazi mythos-and it would never stop until Hitler was dead. > Also, Germany was (at best) a medium-sized power, whilst Russia, the USA, and the UK were assuming superpower status. Through superhuman effort, Germany was able (for a time) to outproduce the allies-but time was not on their side-and no amount of “wonder weapons”(Tiger tanks, jet fighter planes, U-2 rockets) could ever compensate. Had Hitler been overthrown and a civilian government restored (before 1941) things might have settled down. But Germany would always be outclassed, once the Russian and American factories reached full production. The more I studied Japanese war policy prior to Pearl Harbor, the more I was convinced that for Japan as well, it was almost inevitable that they would attack the US, and lose. I can’t agree with your assessment of Germany being ranked below the UK economically. From the Combined Fleet where they ranked production capacity as of 1937, Germany was slightly ahead of the USSR. > [@](#): > > Country % of Total Warmaking Potential > United States 41.7% > Germany 14.4% > USSR 14.0% > UK 10.2% > France 4.2% > Japan 3.5% > Italy 2.5% > Seven Powers (total) (90.5%) I’ll go ahead and show my ignorance of the European theater and ask if the German army wouldn’t have gone ahead and attacked the USSR even without Hitler? The debacle in Finland could very well have convinced the Wehrmacht that they could take the war to the Soviets. The USSR was making active preparations for the expected war, and with their increasing industrialization, Germany could have decided it was better to attack while they still had an edge in preparation. This would be similar to the situation in the Pacific where the US was counting on the war beginning in spring of 1942, and Japan knew that the more they waited, the worse the situation would become. Certainly a government without Hitler would have done things differently, and perhaps would have made some better moves, but there was too much territory to conquer and not enough resources. However, even had the Germans sans Adolf sat on their spoils in Poland and dug in, the Japanese would have started the war against the US. The Kriegsmarine would have still pushed to declare war, which made sense as not attacking the US would have allowed all that more material to flow to the UK. For **Shodan** ’s question, it would be unlikely that Germany could have developed both the bomb and the rockets during the period in question. The Manhattan project employed some 125,000 people and cost an enormous amount of money. Nazi Germany also spend a large amount of money on the development of rockets. Without nukes, there wouldn’t have been a standoff between Germany and the USSR. Stalin would not have waited forever either. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2013, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-wwii-have-settled-down-into-a-cold-war-standoff/665052/39 "2013-08-03T14:25:16Z")
In your scenario, if Germany pulled back, would they still continue to develop and deploy rockets? Note that Germany was the only country in the world that had rocket technology and built them. And the V2 had the range to hit England from inside Germany (I don’t think the V1 did). If Germany continued to plaster London with rockets, there’s no way the UK would tolerate that. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-wwii-have-settled-down-into-a-cold-war-standoff/665052.md?page=1)