I’d strongly recommend reading the reactions and critiques section of that page as well as the historian’s views section of Icebreaker here. 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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
The “Siberian troops saving Moscow” bit is a myth, I recently wrote a post about it here. Japan also had it’s ass handed to it by the Soviet Union at Lake Khasan and 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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) to de-industrialize Germany turning it into an agricultural state and thus permanently removing its ability to wage war.
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 EASTon page 45:
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.
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.
Tanker or infantryman?
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.
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.
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.
– Yes, Minister
Germany wasn’t under any treaty obligation to declare war on the US because of the Japanese attack, the Tripartite Pact only required military aid in the event one of the nations was attacked by a third party:
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 depth charged a U-boat on April 10, 1941 and the first loss of a US vessel occurred when the USS Reuben James 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 as it was called by U-boat crews, bolding mine:
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. 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 during the war, only about half were conscripted, the rest were volunteers.
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.
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.
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.