What if for Europe had Hitler not declared war on U.S.

I believe that had Hitler not taken the maniacal decision to declare war on the U.S. ,it would have been very difficult if not impossible for FDR to convince the American public to enter the European theatre.
We shouldn't critisize America too much for their neutrality, after all it was a European affair and they were doing everything they could short of declaring war to help.

However, it has always been up to debate as to why Hitler took this insane decision and release FDR to fully commit to defeating Germany.

It was four days after Pearl that The Fuhrer took this step and during this time the overwhelming opinion of the American public was that the Pacific was their war, not Europe.

FDR was of course delighted, he knew what the consequences of neutrality in Europe would mean.
Ask yourself this, FDR put the defeat of Germany first, far more important than winning in the Pacific. Far more resources were directed to Europe than Japan, why?

FDR and Churchill both knew that by December 7th 1941, Barbarossa had failed and The third Reich was doomed. Russia was going to win, period. Not by 1945, maybe '46 or '47 but the outcome was now certain.

With their production plants now way out of range of the Luftwaffe and with an almost inexhaustable supply of men, there could only be one outcome, victory.

Remember, Britain was still undefeated, certainly in no position to invade France alone, at least not in the forseeable future. I believe that our resources would have been in the air war, bombers and fighter aircraft, after all, it would have made no sense to build tanks or artillery that couldn't be used. An invasion of Britain virtually impossible. Having lost the battle of Britain Hitler knew that 'Sealion' was dead and buried.

On December 5th Zhukov, perhaps the greatest commander of the war launched the Siberian divisions. Superbly trained and equipped this elite army smashed into the German lines and from that day on Hitlers fate was sealed. There was simply no other outcome.

So, did Hitler know this? did he declare war on the U.S. simply out of hate for America and wanted to see dead Americans in Europe, we will never know, but thank god he did because this is what would have happened alternatively.

As I said, not by '45, maybe '46 or 7 but a Russian victory was now inevitable.

So imagine this, Germany is defeated without British or American troops in Europe. All of Germany and Austria become communist States, like Poland, Hungary etc. but France? Remember, almost all members of the Maquis were ardent communists and supported by Stalin, who would have stopped them taking power. How long do you think Franco would have lasted? Supported by French and Soviets a Socialist uprising in Spain would have deposed Franco in Months if not weeks.
The same would have happened in Greece and Italy. The Low country's? I can't imagine them putting up much resistance being surrounded by communists.

Then of course Britain what would have been our fate? Would Stalin have invaded? I don't know, probably not, remember by this time America had the bomb and that may have deterred him, we will never know.

However, a left wing labour party defeated Churchill in the polls so there would have been sympathy for Russia but at the very least our country would have been severely influenced by the rest of what would have been a communist Europe.

Brave American soldiers died in Europe not to defeat Hitler but to stop Western Europe from becoming a communist block and for that I thank them from the bottom of my heart.

 

If you kindly help me understand on which ground Zhukov been made greatest commander ... [army commanders/European Theater]

I admit his ability and his men really fought their best, there ..

 

NO, look at the time line, if germnay did not declare war on the US, all of our resoruses would have be on japan and the war would have been short, say around 1944. There would have been NO invastion of france and the atom bomb would never have been used (was not ready).
As far as Zhukov he was no where on the leavel of patton, Rommel. or even montgomery, see you have to remember the attack on dec. 5 worked but only gained about 100 miles, sure moscow was saved but the attack was halted. Russia would not have won if all resorces were not dranded away to fight america. All germnay would have needed was about another year or so and there bomb would have been ready.
Ok, Rommel would stilll have lost in the desert, but no invasion of italy would have taken place. Another number here; for every german soilder killed 31 russians died, do the math, another year or so at that rate no russian would be alive.

 

I, sorry but all this is speculation. Germany was jnot even close to developing the bomb, Amercia employed over 250,000 people on manufacturing it and spent billions doing so.
Hitler had twelve scientists devoted to it and the supply of heavy water from Norsk Hydro had been cut, so where your reasoning comes from is absolute fantasy.
As to Zhukov, he never lost a battle, ask the Japanese army why they asked for an armastice after fighting him for only two weeks in 1938.
I would also remind you that the Battle of Kirsk, which most historians consider to be a major turning point after which no German summer or any offensive tooke place afterwards was in July 1943. And this was after the huge losses at Stalingrad. Sorry my friend but you are way off the mark.

 

Zhukov brought some numbers of searchlights, Katyushas, lots of field guns etc...etc.... along with his men. Does these few things made him greatest there in the Theater, I astonish !!

Why his military excellence took long 4 days to cross Seelow [Seelower Hohen] Heights ?? Or simply He made greatest for his 1st entering !

I keeps commander Horrocks alone in higher position comparing him;not mentioning others ..

 

Perhaps, 'Who was the greatest commander' would make another discussion.
It's all a matter of opinion, Zhukov, Patton etc all have a claim. I just think that his role in Moscow, Leningrad and not least Kirsk make him a forerunner and in my opinion, the greatest, after all, he never lost a battle.
Maybe we should open another thread to discuss it further?

The main point of my thoughts is would Russia have defeated Germany without Hitlers declaration of war on America. Or indeed, Overlord had failed!
As I've said, I believe they would have. It's all speculation and everyone is entitled to an opinion.

 

Well, it would be nice to discuss .. ' Who was the greatest commander ' ... in another thread. It 'll be a good exchange of thoughts, there.

Another thing, As I believe, Germany could have own somehow but it was really difficult to retain.

Again, what I believe is, it was necessary there for Hitler to attack Stalin to stop the invasion of communism, from the East.

 

Making assertions rather than probabilities is always dangerous and the game of who was best is always tinged with National favorites and national myths. Zhukov was indisputably one of the more successful general of World War Two, but others were equally competent with fewer resources.
As for the USA not entering the war. Five weeks before Pearl Harbor and Washington’s subsequent declaration of war on Japan, a German U-boat torpedoed and sank the American destroyer USS Reuben James in the North Atlantic. The American vessel was steaming from Newfoundland towards Iceland on Oct. 31 1941 when the British convoy she was escorting came under attack by a pack of German subs. Just before dawn, the Reuben James was herself hit near the forward magazine by a torpedo. The ensuing blast tore the bow section right off the destroyer. She sunk in minutes, taking 115 of her crew down with her. Forty-four survived the attack. The media in the US played this down. The anti-war movement was strong prior to Pearl Harbor, but once war was declared it was logic that took the US to war with Germany.

 

A good point that has not been brought up is that without U.S. involvement Germany had the resources and the ability to defeat the Soviets, the war with England would not have hampered the Russian front, and the bombing campaign that cut production of needed material would not have happened. Remember that Stalin felt U.S. involvement was necessary to get Hitler off his back, and if the U.S. was just concerned with Japan there would not be the second front needed to break Hitler. The potential threat from the west demanded a splitting of resources, without the U.S. involvement those resources would not have been split, and the attention of the Germans would have been solely on defeating Russia.

 

The whole point is that Russia was winning by the time America became involved.
Prior to D-Day June 1944 the red army had already defeated the Wehrmacht at Stalingrad, Leningrad, Moscow and Kirsk.
The Russians tore the heart out of the German army long before 1944.
If you read 'Barbarossa' by Alan Clark, a very well respected military historian, it is absolutely clear that by 1944 Germany was well and truly beaten.
As to America's entry, you may be right, perhaps the U.S. would have entered it at their own accord but equally, they may not have. Public opinion was certainly totally against it.
Remember, it was fully four days after Pearl that America was still sitting on the fence before Hitlers decision.
The point I'm trying to make is what would have happened in this scenario?
As to the bombing war, the RAF were bombing Germany before 1942 and would have continued to do so. As I stated that's where our resources would have been aimed.
Don't get me wrong, America's contribution in blood, arms and materials was enormous, I just saying that without an invasion of France, Russia was on the road to victory.
By the wars end, Russia still had 10 million men of military age, yet to be trained. They had 20 times as many tanks, 40 times the artillery pieces and 50 times the aircraft when Hitler was recruiting old men and boys to defend Berlin. YOU do the maths.

 

A couple of things to point out here.

Firstly, American support for the British was at best equivocal in the 20 odd years after the First World War.

The American refusal to join the League of Nations.

The ridiculous limitation on fleet sizes they imposed by the back door, with the cringing acquiescence of some of the more incompetent politicians in modern history in the UK, which meant that Britain lost a long standing ally in the shape of Japan, turning the Japanese into a threat ( which in itself was a contributory factor in Japan becoming, in effect, a military dictatorship ) whilst simultaneously robbing the Royal Navy of the ability to usefully defend the British Empire's holdings in the Far East against this newly created enemy, as well as defending the home waters.

Not the best of scenarios when Britain was totally reliant on overseas trade, but goodness, didn't it suit the Americans?

When the British stood alone against the Germans in 1940, Joe Kennedy was hardly optimistic about the chances of Britain's ability to continue to fight the war and pretty well yelled his head off about it to anyone caring to listen about it – although this attitude eventually cost him his job.

In fact, although obviously this was not known at the time, Seelowe would have resulted, almost certainly, in a staggering defeat for the German forces ( see the war games repeatedly played at Sandhurst in the 70's to see the likely outcome of an invasion attempt ).

Yes, FDR was probably pro British.

But FDR wasn't America.

But let's face facts, shall we?

American aid to Britain before Hitler's declaration of war was hardly given freely, was it?

In fact, the rule was, if you came and collected it, and paid cash, any nation could buy arms and equipment from the 'States.

Germany couldn't, but the British could, and did – in return for some fairly major concessions to the US.

Paid through the nose for it, too.

America sat by and watched its major rival – the British Empire – get kicked in the stomach for over two years without lifting a finger to help – except in exchange for cold, hard, cash.

Why?

Because it suited America to do so, thank you very much.

So, let's not place too much emphasis on American altruism, shall we?

Given those points – if you accept them, of course - Hitler's decision to declare war on America was a deeply, deeply stupid thing to have done, especially without first concluding a peace with Britain – which he probably could have managed and which would have been to the long term benefit to the UK, as well as to Germany ( remember, the 'moral' reasons for fighting Germany had not yet become apparent in 1940, the Wannsee conference only happened in January of 1942, and, in any case, Hitler had only just come into possession of lands containing the sufficient numbers of Jews and Slavs on whom to wreak his disgusting policies, following the invasion of Poland and, on a far greater scale, following the execution of Barbarossa ) if only his diplomats had been even remotely competent – and, it has to be said, if Churchill had not become Prime Minister instead of Halifax, whom I am fairly sure would have been more open to more or less reasonable peace terms perhaps controversial, but certainly not outside therealm of possibility.

Churchill banked on the eventual entry of the US to 'save' – and I use inverted commas advisedly – the UK from the Nazi menace.

Without the potential of the huge industrial capacity of the US being brought to bear on the European Theatre, the situation could only end in stalemate – Hitler had no designs on the British Empire's possessions whatsoever, as far as my reading has shown.

Indeed, he is on record as saying that he admired the British Empire and referred to the British as ' Germany's brothers ' to Albert Speer and other leading Nazis on many occasions even after the outbreak of war – Hitler simply could not see why the British kept fighting.

In any case, without fear of American involvement hanging over Hitler's head, and the hope of American intervention giving hope to the British, the British and the Germans would have faced each other across the English Channel in a classic stalemate, neither able to invade the other – a situation that neither would have endured for very long without coming to some sort of compromise.

Barbarossa got off to a delayed start because of the need for the Wehrmacht to get involved in the Balkan and Mediterranean theatres – which mainly flared because of the presence of British Forces, a campaign that had the effect of severely depleting the Luftwaffe's transport arm and iits parachute units.

The Western Desert campaign would not have happened – horrible it may be to say it, this was never more than a sideshow in Hitler's grand plan, but its non existence would certainly have freed up yet more troops and mechanised vehicles for the later stages of Barbarossa.

The Luftwaffe would not have lost so many of its experienced crews, or so many of its aircraft, had the Battle of Britain not occurred – this would also have benefited the British, cementing the stand off mentioned earlier, because by the end of 1940, British aircraft factories were producing more aircraft than the German factories.

Briatain would have been able to rearm, without enduring the German bombing of 1940 to 1943.

So.

I think this is the scenario;

Barbarossa would have been launched fully six weeks before it actually was launched.

The initial German push would, I think, have taken Moscow, before the winter set in, before reserves could be rushed to the front from Siberia.

The Soviet relocation of munition and engineering machinery could not have been accomplished in the time it was granted in real life.

The German forces, would, in essence, have been fighting on one front, with no disruption to industrial output over the next three or four years from Allied bombing.

There would have been no Royal Navy intervention to prevent – probably – the sale of American goods to Germany.

No Royal navy to prevent German forces pulling a 'Narvik' on Archangel.

And so it goes and so it goes.

I think the winter of 1941 would have seen the first phase of Barbarossa pushing much, much further into the Soviet territories, with perhaps a nasty counter attack or two causing a defensive stance to be taken up, but much further East than in our time line, until the campaigning weather recommenced in early 1942.

Remember – no American involvement.

No Lend- Lease to either the UK or the USSR.

No cans of SPAM, no boots, no lorries, no aircraft.
No chance of a massive Russian counter attack.

Not good for Uncle Joe.

I think mid 1942 would have seen the Germans reach and establish themselves on the Volga, which is about as far as Hitler intended to go in the first place.

No Stalingrad.

No chance for lend lease supplies to arrive via the Persian route.

The war in the East would have been effectively over by mid 1942 at the latest.

As for Communism?

Well, I rather think that would have been more or less the end of that, and certainly the end of Stalin.

Much stronger German forces would face much weaker Soviet forces across a barrier that would render an effective offensive well nigh impossible for the Soviets to accomplish.

Maybe an ongoing frontier war lasting years, maybe decades, maybe an armistice, maybe a fully fledged peace.

Ultimately, a German victory.


Equally – a peace in Europe between the UK and Germany would free up sufficient Royal Navy warships and more effective RAF aircraft, not to mention troops, and enable them to be deployed in the Far East to rendering a far more effective deterrent against Japanese aggression, which, in itself may have been sufficient to stop the Japanese undertaking, or, indeed even being in a position to launch their attack on Pearl Harbour ( Harbor ).

And, if the Japanese had been prevented from heading though South East Asia by the threat of a larger Royal Navy bolstered by the US Navy - where else do you think they might have gone?

Even Zhukov couldn't be defending Moscow and the Siberian front at the sametime, with the same troops, could he?

That, in itself, would have probably deterred Hitler from taking the, frankly suicidal, step of declaring war on the US.

Would the US itself, have declared war on Germany in December of 1941 under these circumstances?

I think not.

Even if the Senate had voted for war, what on Earth were the Americans going to do about it?

No British Isles on which to to base aircraft.

No British Isles from which to launch any kind of sea-borne attack on Festung Europa.

American forces could be concentrated in the Pacific Theatre either to repel a Japanese attack, or to add to the Royal Navy deterrent against Japanese expansion, as outlined above.

Which neatly leads us to the final question.

Would the Germans have invented and deployed the atom bomb before the Americans?

Short answer is no, under the situation that happened in history.

The Germans were 'barking up the wrong tree' in their efforts to produce a workable A-Bomb, as has clearly been demonstrated by post war investigation.

But

Would the AMERICANS have invented the bomb in the same time frame that they did in real history?

No.

Tube Alloys, anyone?

No exchange of information between the UK ( and Poles, of course ) and the USA.

No Manhattan Project – what would be the impetus behind such a project if the US were not at war?

I rather think it would have been the British - with the knowledge, the facilities in Canada that were closed down and merged and / or shared with Manhattan, without the sustained need to concentrate on not losing the war, nor with disruption caused by sustained bombing by the Luftwaffe - I think it would have been the British that would got there first.

And in the Avro Lancaster, they would have had an aircraft capable of delivering it.

 

4 Days to cross the Seelow was a testament to the bravery and determination of both Zhukov and his men. This was a very strong position a virtual fortress of steep banks and pill boxes. It is ok not to like Zhukov but to compare him to the very ordinary Horrocks is ridiculous. It is a fact the underachieving Britt never commanded anywhere near the size of formations of Marshal Zhukov. Nor did he engage anywhere near the size of formations Zhukov defeated. His claim to fame was having tea while his own countrymen were getting defeated with huge causalities by German forces superior in tanks men and guns. Horrocks had the guns and tanks the British needed so desperately and it is well documented his effort to bring them into the battle and engage the Germans slaughtering his comrades was feeble to say the least. Zhukov would have had Horrocks shot for incompetence and cowardice for that sorry excuse of leadership.

Zhukov without a doubt did more to bring about the end of the war than any other person. That should be enough to cement him as one of history's most effective generals. In the battle of Moscow he was outnumbered by army group center in men tanks and guns but still won a great victory so great in fact the Germans themselves say was the turning point of the war.

Operation Uranus was a masterpiece. If only Montgomery could have followed up his victory at El Alamein in the same manner Zhukov closed the show at Stalingrad we could make comparisons with someone in the British army but that was unfortunately not the case and the Monty needed American divisions to close the show in Africa a year latter.

Kursk was another victory for Zhukov which he quickly followed up with the liberation of Belgorod and Kharkov and the defeat of army group Kempf. His powerful attacks after the Germans had spent themselves were well coordinated and successful. The Germans had a very hard time recovering after the shock of the powerful counterattacks out of the Kursk salient. The attacks were well timed, conducted with skill and well supplied thanks to US made trucks.

Operation Bagration resulted in the destruction of army group center laying open Germany to the Red Army in 44. This attack was in support of the British and American armies on D-Day. When you look closely at the operation it is clear the operational capability of Zhukov's fronts were formidable. This was a double pincer attack conducted with all arms. The result was the total destruction of the most powerful army group of the German army. Only Patton was tearing up the German army and achieving results like Zhukov but against smaller formations.

Zhukov was in the thick of it from beginning to end he fought both defensive and offensive actions with very large formations. He engaged the bulk of the German army including almost all the SS Panzer formations. At the end of the day he took Berlin. What more do you want? If he worked for me I would say good job despite some of the blunders he did make over the course of the war. The problem here is the Anglo Americans simply cannot admit that they were playing second fiddle to a Russian. More of a problem wit the Britts than the Yanks but not a problem with me. I just look at the facts. The results simply speak for themselves.

 

And I agree with bniziol.

The Germans never concentrated less than 90% of their forces after 1941 against the Soviet Union.

The sheer number of troops Zhukov had under his command must be taken into account, of course, in any historical view of his qualities as a general.

Yes, he beat the Japanese comprehensively at Khalkhin Gol.

However...he didn't do quite so well on the South- Western Front, did he ( although I fully accept this was more attributable to the sheer incompentency of his subordinate commanders. ) ?

And....quite a few people died in Leningrad, didn't they?

Uranus was a masterpiece.

Sixth Army shouldn't have been in that position, but Zhukov made damn sure they didn't get out of it.

Finally relieving Leningrad after 900 days of siege, wasn't the greatest of victories, but at least he managed to save those citizens, at whom I can only gape with admiration at their tenacity and stoicism, who had not starved to death under the German cordon.

Kursk. Hmmm. Bit of a slogging match, that one, don't you think?

It was always going to be Kursk, there wasn't anywhere else and it didn't take that much imagination to bring the Germans to a standstill, I'd say.

Sorry about that, but that is the way I see it.

From Ukraine to Bagration, I'd suggest Zhukov earned his place in the pantheon of the world's greatest generals.

However, he was in a position, certainly after the summer of 1943, to massively outnumber his opponent in almost every area - except the expertise and discipline of his soldiers - I EMPHATICALLY AM NOT DISPUTING THE BRAVERY OF THE SOLDIERS OF THE RED ARMY - and was thus able to conduct his operations with a disregard to casualties that would have certainly cost a Western general his command.

The Soviets and the Western Allies fought the war in a different way, due to the massive differences in the attitudes to casualties - and in mobile battles of attrition, which most of the combat on the Eastern front could be reasonably described, I think - he who brings the most meat to the table leaves it the fatter man.

That being said though, I agree, in essence, with the above post, given the real life events that occurred during 1939 to 1945.

The UK stopped the war being lost, the Americans financed the victory, and the Soviet forces paid for their victory in blood - but it was a Soviet victory.

Footnote:

Horrocks was a good general. Very difficult to get a column of tanks up a single road when one's opponent is quite capable of slowing down one's advance. Give the man some credit, he was put in an impossible position.

Montgomery was a careful ( and very, very vain ) general. With the limited resources he had, he made sure of his battles. Except, of course, Market Garden.

He wasn't afraid of casualties either - but he never threw men away in the way Zhukov did.

Patton....hmmm, shall we say a lucky and brave general?

Wasn't Cobra only possible because Montgomery was engaging the better divisions of the SS and Heer at the time?

Clark? Ordinary.

Other Soviet generals deserve a mention, too, Rokossovsky and Chuikov in particular.

I may be biased here - I am British - but the best Allied general of the Second World War?

Slim.

 

Yes Kursk was a slogging match but a slogging match the Russians expected and were prepared. But it was the way the Red Army attacked out of the Kursk salient the was impressive. As soon as the German northern pincer was stopped they were attacked in strength and had to retire the field or be destroyed in place. Zhukov got a little ahead of himself at Karkov but by that time his subordinates were competent enough to deploy correctly to meet the inevitable German counter attack.

You can only work with the tools you have. Zhukov had for the most part scores of half trained men and a industrial base that by late 42 could supply almost unlimited quantities modern weapons of decent quality. His only problem was trucks the red army never had enough of those. Trade offs had to be made and tanks and guns were priority one. His men who were for the most part brave beyond what most armies would expect fell short in tactical skills. As the war progressed that changed and more complex operations were planned by the Red Army. Training matters and it was not until the summer of 43 that the Russians had enough breathing space to actually spend some time training their recruits. Before that the men were getting sent to the front as soon as they could find weapons for them sometimes before. It is like apples and oranges comparing their situation to that of Britain and America. The Russians were not operating out of a secure base they were being over run. As such you feed men into the line as soon as they can be found.

Horrocks made a huge mistake by not being seen as giving his all to relieve his comrades, we will never know the details of the events as they actually took place. But clearly the blame must fall where it is deserved. On Monty. But in Monty's defence lets not forget from the beginning he wanted to mass his troops both British and American and drive straight to Berlin. IMO this was clear headed thinking based on sound military doctrine and the right course of action. To bring the German army west into a battle that they would not recover from and end the war 6 months early. So with that in mind I may be unfair to some simply because they were never given the resources Zhukov was given. If Monty had been given a free hand with all available resources at his command we may have seen him take Berlin. Would we have ever heard the end of it? Lets be thankful it did not happen.

Cobra was made possible by Monty literally grinding down his own army against the more powerful panzer divisions. Full credit to Monty he stayed the course as planned and was not put off by some unfavorable results early in the battle. But at least some of the credit for the success of Cobra must be given to the use of the bomber fleet which made a huge effort to assist the ground forces break through the German lines. American ingenuity played a part in that success story. The manner in which the victory was exploited also deserves some mention. The Germans had little time to recover the Americans stayed in contact with the retreating Germans. It was a well run operation with a lot of green troops.

Zhukov was helped by unlikely allies. The German High Command. To almost a man they were scornful of the Russians ability to fight. From June until December 41 the German high command never required it field commanders to submit reports of Russian capabilities and intentions. These planners of the master race were oblivious to any limitations of the German army. As for the Russians they could only react to German intentions they were not in the eyes of the German high command capable of developing their own intentions. Sleeves rolled up these German planners for the most part yes men and butt kissers planned their previous battles of encirclement against soft targets believing they were inventing something new. They were not and this time the Russians were not soft, this should have been apparent to the Germans from the very beginning. It was to the front line grunts but this flew right over the heads of the high command.

By early 43 the Russians knew how to deal with large scale pincer movements. The battle at Tula in 41 had been the blueprint to defeat Blitzkrieg. Defeat one arm of the pincer and there is no encirclement. But the Germans stuck with it like clockwork doing the very same thing over and over again with little imagination as to where the action would take place. They became predictable just like in north Africa. IMO this was a classic case of underestimating your enemy. In 42 the German high command underestimated the Russian order of battle by almost a million men. This was the work of Reinhard Gehlen who was head of intelligence on the eastern front. He was so out of the picture he did not realize the Russians had powerful reserve armies facing both army groups in the south even after the 6th army had been engaging them in and around the Don bend for over a month. How do you explain this? It may go some way to understanding this mess knowing a officer who I believe was named Kimmel got himself fired and replaced by Gehlen for unfavorable reports. After he was fired Kimmel told von Paulus when reporting for duty in the 6th army that Germany was in deep trouble in the east. The Russians were much stronger than believed and were producing over one thousand tanks per month. These yes men who seemed to have the final word at high command only liked to be told what they wanted to hear. kimmel with his rep0orts was not going with the flow and had to be replaced. This was a recipe for defeat and is often over looked when trying to put together a picture of the Russian front.

 

Did you ever read Horrocks' own account of the campaign with XXX Corps bniziol?

I recall it being titled 'Corps Commander', but you'll forgive me if am wrong - I read it when I was in my teens and I'm afraid my brain really isn't as sharp as it once was.

Worth a read, if only to hear it straight from the horse's mouth as it were.

Had 'Market Garden' succeeded - and it bloody nearly did - it would not be unreasonable to suggest that the war in Western Europe would have been over by the winter of 1944, more or less.

I'm not sure you are entirely justified in your treatment of the overall standard of German generalship during the Second World War, you know.

When you consider the overwhelming odds the German forces were facing in the East, particularly after the summer of '43, I consider the German generals put up an incredible resistance to the Soviet armies, outfighting hugely superior numbers again and again.

Of course they were steadily falling back on their own lines of supply, but even so.

Of course, this doesn't take into account the remarkable ability of German forces to adapt to a local situation, forming ad hoc battle groups and using them with a tactical fluidity that no allied army seemed ever to be able to equal.

I do, however, totally agree with you on the subject of German military intelligence.

Throughout the war, the standard was appallingly bad.

Not that Stalin was exactly well informed, and when he was, he disregarded information if it didn't co-incide with his own beliefs - no one was more surprised when the Germans rolled over the border than he, I should think.

The man went to pieces for a good few days, went and hid in his dacha and, basically, soiled his pants.

Sorry about that, but it is true.

Another slightly unpalatable fact is this: In the opening weeks of Barbarossa, the Germans absolutely, totally, completely, smashed the Soviet defences. Yes, there were instances of very spirited defence, and acts of amazing bravery by individual soldiers and small units, but as an organised entity the Red Army was totally outclassed, beaten, destroyed.

If one decides to shoot most of one's officers above the rank of colonel three years before a war breaks out, including the one man who actually had a vague inkling about armoured warfare - one really isn't going to do very well against an experienced, well trained, ideologically motivated enemy, led by experienced, motivated commanders.

In July 1941, the Red Army was starting a major rearming and restructuring programme that would have taken until at least 1943 - 44 to complete.

T34 and KV1 tanks were available, in small numbers, which must have caused a few brown trouser incidents for the Pzkpw III crews, but they were very badly deployed and controlled by the Soviet forces.

Whether you like it or not, Hitler's forces very nearly pulled off Barbarossa.

My opinion, for what it is worth, is that had the operation been carried out according to the original timetable - I rather think the Germans would have pushed the Soviet forces beyond the point of no return, regardless of numerical superiority, before the winter set in.

Given a peace treaty with the UK, and the promise of American non- intervention, as postulated by the originator of this thread - from which we have strayed, somewhat - I cannot help but think this would, indeed, have been the case.

I'm going to say something really contentious here, as well.

Personally, I do not think there is a cigarette paper's width of difference between Hitler and Stalin.

I do not think there is a cigarette paper's width of difference between Stalinist Communism and National Socialism.

I find it deeply disturbing that the Western Democracies found it expedient enough to get into bed with one totalitarian dictator in order to destroy another.

I find it deeply disturbing that Churchill - the man that wanted to strangle the Soviet Union at birth - should have delivered such huge chunks of Eastern Europe into the hands of the Soviets at the war's end, or that both Roosevelt and Truman should have been so utterly taken in by Stalin's 'promises', and felt 'justified' in condemning so many peoples to Soviet rule for the next forty odd years.

Well, there it is.

 

I find a number of assertions in this discussion to questionable. The Germans never had less than 90 percent of forces déployés vs. USSR? What about other fronts? N. Africa, Balkans (Yugoslav partisans), French coast, Scandanavia etc. etc. After start of invasion of Russia Hitler was always overextended.
Why would Hitler have invaded USSR six weeks earlier? Invasion of Russia was delayed by coup de'tat in Yugoslavia.
Comparing Zhukov to Patton and Rommel (don't forget Top notch Guderian) but Montgomery? Only major leader of war I hold in lower esteem was Mark Clark in Italy.
As to FDR concentrating forces against Nazis, Had Germans beaten Russia in 1942-43 what next? Most likely with all that oil from Caucusus England would have been easy. Imagine what 20 to 30 German divisions could have done to underarmed Brits.

In my opinion Hitler's declaration of war on US was his biggest mistake of war. Why did he do it? Hubris. He had a pact with Japan and his megalomania allowed him to declare war on US. Idiotic.

Another opinion I must disagree with is Russia's certain victory. If Hitler had an additional 30 or so divisions in the East I think Russkis would have been dead meat.

This is a very entertaining discussion boar (my first foray) and I look forward to more.

 

Stephen,

Firstly, German forces in North Africa were - negligible, as I mentioned earlier, it was a sideshow for Hitler, no matter how important it seemed to the British and we are talking 1941, not 1942, remember.

And yes, about 90% of total German forces, were, at any one time, deployed on the OstFront.

The delays to Barbarossa were mainly due to Mussolini's total inability to subdue the Greeks, which in turn caused the Germans to become embroiled in Yugoslavia....which in the scenario postulated, would not have happened, due to Gt Britain at least calling for a cease fire with Nazi Germany.

Additionally, 20 - 30 divisions at the bottom of the Channel would have been rather useless.

I do not believe that Germany, an essentially land based power, would at any point have been in a position to invade across the English Channel, a scenario where the Royal Navy would have quite cheerfully drowned them all - even if the Germans had come up with a way of transporting the troops.

Personally, I agree with you on this - I think the Germans came within a whisker of defeating the Soviets - and I do think ( as long as Hitler WAS actually able to launch Barbarossa according to the original timetable, which may or may not have been the case ) the Germans would have squeaked it into and beyond Moscow and chopped Zhukov into fois gras.

I don't think they'd have managed a complete victory up to a easily defended line on the Volga by the end of 1941, but I do think they'd have done so by summer of '42.

On the subject of generals - I only mentioned Allied commanders, partly because the Germans produced so many competent commanders, and ( I cringe at this ) even the less good were vastly superior in their 'grip' on their troops and certainly in tactical fluidity than any allied commander I can think of - again, with the possible exception of Slim.

And yes, I reiterate : Hitler's declation of war was a very, very, very, dumb thing to do - because I do not believe the US would have declared war on Germany - in almost every respect, to have done so would have been against US interest.

 

I still must disagree on your 90% figure for percentage of German land forces deployed to Russia. The first web source I found (lies, damned lies and statistics) claims the following:
1941 - 84%, 1942 - 74%, 1943 - 72%, 1944 - 40% If you want the url it's as follows:
operationbarbarossa2.wikispaces.com/Statistics+of+Invasion‎

I wouldn't bet my life on these stats but they seem logical to me. This link shows the following as the population of the two countries in 1941:
Population of USSR: 194 million
Population of Germany: 78 million

From my reading and general knowledge on the topic I would guess these are at most 10% off. I actually have no reason to doubt them.

As to the question of whether the Soviets would have won regardless of US involvement you have to keep in mind the quality of the Russian Army at the time. They had purged thousands of higher and middle ranking officers beginning in 1938. (Tukachevsky?) Added to that you had an officer corps that was afraid to act on their own initiative, something the Werhrmacht excelled at. It took two full years of tremendous losses for the Soviets to adopt the right command structure and tactical thinking. I think Kursk shows that the Germans played the same old game and the Soviets had finally wised up by then.

As to those German divisions at the bottom of the English Channel, well... With a superior air force all those British warships would be at the bottom of the Channel first. Despite the Stuka being obsolete at that time it was still a terribly accurate dive bomber. And the distance from France to England isn't all that great. Look how tough it was for the Allies to land at Normandy. And that was with what amounted to TOTAL air superiority.

This is the great thing about history, the what ifs.

 

Stephen,

I'm going to bow to your superior knowledge regarding the percentage of German forces serving on the Eastern Front - that will teach me to check my figures, rather than rely on my aging brain!

Again, I'm going to come down on the side of a German advance resulting in a new frontier being established essentially along the Volga, running from Archangel to Astrakhan by the summer of 1942, if Barbarossa had been launched according to its original time table, and without the delays imposed and losses imposed by the 'side show' operations ( again, not denigrating the courage of any of the soldiers fighting in these campaigns ) which resulted from the presence and activities of British forces in the Mediterranean and Balkan theatres, and without the British supplies dropped to anti- German forces operating in Yugoslavia after June 1940 ( as above, I consider that without the hope of American 'rescue' the British should and probably would have at least have agreed to an armistice with Germany - in fact, in terms of the long term advantage to both countries, it would have made far more sense have done so anyway....but that is another and highly contentious subject altogether ), then believe the Germans would have taken Moscow before the winter of 1941, which would have given them the where withal to defeat Zhukov's counter attack operations, to have certainly reduced German losses over the winter and which would have given the Germans a much better jumping off platform for the spring / summer campaign of 1942 - which would, I think, have sealed the deal.

Without American Lend - Lease aid, ( which in any case could not have arrived via the 'Persian Route' given a German command of the Volga ), given the construction of a strong defensive German line by Autumn of 1942, by the construction of airfields and permanent lines of supply to such a position, ( incidentally enabling much of the remaining Soviet land holdings to come within range of German air attack ), to be served by a much larger transport fleet than was actually available in real life ( no Crete, remember ! ), I believe Soviet forces would have been physically incapable of breaching the German defences, regardless of the size of forces available to the Soviet command.

Hard to say beyond that time, but it would make sense for the Germans to have launched limited offensives from the new frontier in 1943 ( remember, no Kursk, no Italian campaign, no Western Desert campaign ) to take and defend the east coast of the Caspian and consolidate an 'OstWall' on a line from the western tip of Turkmenistan - Astrakhan - Stalingrad - Archangel.

( EDIT : I forgot to post that this line would have fully protected the oilfields at Baku, which for the sake of argument, I am going to include as German territorial gains in either the inital assault in 1941 ( doubtful ) or more likely, in the follow up campaign I describe as probably taking place in Spring / Summer 1942 )

I doubt whether this would have allowed the Germans to switch many forces back to the Western ( I suppose we should call it the Channel Front, really ) Front, especially if we assume an armistice with the British.

But for the sake of it, let's assume the OstFront CAN release 20 or 30 divisions for a 'Super Seelowe'.

The same practical problems would face the Germans as in 1940. The English Channel may be narrow, but it is still a hell of a long way to tow barges full of troops and equipment, especially when those troops are under the noses of the world's strongest navy.

You argue Luftwaffe strength would be such that it would be able to provide sufficient local air superiority to defeat the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force and still be able to land and supply enough troops and equipment to establish a bridgehead stable enough for breakout operations into the British mainland?

Stephen, if they couldn't do it in 1940 - and they couldn't have done so, when the Luftwaffe was at a comparative zenith in terms of strength against the RAF, ( again, see the Sandhurst wargames of 1974 ) with only one front to deal with, why do you think they'd be able to do so in 1941 / 2/3 ?

In 1940, the RAF was battered, the British Army had little heavy equipment following their defeat in France ( Dunkirk was, however much the propagandists like to paint it, a miserable defeat for the British, costing them most of their heavy equipment ) and were facing the full strength of an undefeated Wehrmacht.

But.

In the scenario we are dealing with, Germany is fighting, or consolidating in the East for at least two years, maybe three.

Ok, no lend - lease, but the British are still able to buy what they need from the US to rearm.

By the end of 1940, British domestic aircraft output had eclipsed that of Germany and continued to do so throughout the war. Of course, in the scenario we are discussing, there is no Allied bombing campaign to disrupt German production, but you see my point, I hope.

Given German preoccupation with their campaign in the East, given the diversion of troops and materiel to the East, given the vast area of territory to be garrisoned ( not to mention subdued...with all the ghastly undertones that implies ), given the technical difficulties of crossing the Channel, given the increasing relative strength of the RAF vs the Luftwaffe, in terms of aircraft and trained crews, given the Kreigsmarine was dwarfed by the Royal Navy, given the Sandhurst wargame results, I have to say, I cannot see how the Germans could possibly have invaded the UK at any point.

As you say 'what ifs' are fun but, they have to be plausible.

EDIT

Stuka. Within range of land based eight machine gun, or two cannon, four machine gun, 350 mph fighters?

Death trap.

They were by mid -1940, which is why they were essentially withdrawn from operations over England in mid - August.

Regards,

Stuart

 

I'm definitely of the opinion that the original timetable for Barbarossa would've seen the Germans in Moscow before the onset of Winter. But would it have meant the end for Russia? Perhaps. Moscow was THE strategic nerve point of Russian communication, and a major industry centre. But industry was moved to behind the Urals as the Germans invaded, they could still produce fleets of tanks, weapons, planes, etc.... Russian industry was on the verge of full modernisation thanks to rigorous reforms ongoing from the late 1920s and 1930s.

The Fatherland scenario from the book is arguably most fair in its assumption that, had the Russians agreed to a cease-fire agreement once Moscow fell, Germany and Russia would've been fighting an unending guerilla war in the Urals for years to come.

I love these 'what if' debates.