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

I think we have drifted away from my original thread.
It's not a 'what if' Hitler had followed a different timetable or had he invaded Britain etc. It is a 'what if' in the circumstances on 11th December 1941.
Chronologically, my opinion is based on the timetable, just previous to and following this date i.e. from October 1941 - June 1944.
The major turning points which would have led to Hitlers downfall are I think are these.
October 1941 - Barbarossa has failed, General January has well and truly set in and the Wehrmacht is totally unprepared. Frostbite claims thousands and supplies are severely disrupted. Tanks and artillery are frozen solid and unusable. No winter clothing as the soldiers freeze to death.
December 5th - Zhukov unleashes 50 Siberian divisions, the best of the Russian army and superbly equipped with the new T34's now coming into production from factories behind the Urals, way out of range of the Luftwaffe, he pushes the front back over 100 miles.
August 1942 - Stalingrad Germany loses at least 500,00 men possibly as high as 800,000 killed, captured or seriously wounded. As well as most of it's equipment including 900 aircraft, 1,500 tanks and 6,000 artillery pieces.
July 1943 - Kursk, the biggest tank battle in history and Hitler's last throw of the dice. Once again, that man Zhukov defeats the Germans and never again do the Wehrmacht launch an offensive in the east.
Germany loses a further 200,000 men, 760 tanks and 680 aircraft. By this time, now 250 miles from Moscow, Russia is manufacturing 400 T34's a week figures that Hitler can only dream of. Together with modern aircraft like the Sturmovik (43,000 built), Yak fighters (37,000 built), Russia was now outproducing Germany by an enormous margin. Hitlers fate is now well and truly sealed.

Furthermore, I do not accept the argument that without American intervention, Hitler could release more troops on the Eastern front.
He simply could not withdraw all his forces from France, The Low countries, Norway, Greece and Yugoslavia.
Britain was still undefeated and the bombing war would have escalated via the RAF with it's superb Lancaster heavy bombers. Hitler couldn't invade Britain in 1940/41 and he certainly couldn't have done so in 1943.
All of this took place prior to June 1944. Yes it did speed up the outcome but it did not alter the final result, A Russian victory.

 

Fred, agreed, we've gone off topic, sorry.

However, if Hitler had not declared war, I still think the USA would not have declared war on Germany.

FDR simply could not have pushed a unilateral declaration of war through Congress, in my opinion.

The knock on effect of that would have been the loss of 'hope' of US aid for the UK - which would, I rather think, have led to the UK suggesting an armistice with Germany - probably with the resignation of Churchill.

Frankly, that is what the UK should have done in 1940 - not a surrender, but an armistice.

Such a scenario WOULD have freed up a lot more troops for the Eastern Front, and enabled Germany to better meet the Soviet counter attacks - the German offensives of 1942 were hardly ineffective as things stood, anyway.

Is that more the thinking you would expect?

Regards,

Stuart

 

Hitler's insistence to be the sole decision maker is what sealed his fate and unfortunately the fate of Germany. Hitler's interference with the goals of the Russian front did harm, yet I don't believe it was irreparable. Hitler's declaration of war on the U.S. was the final nail in the coffin. The thing that I keep wondering though is why was Stalin insisting on the opening of a second front against Germany if Germany's goose was already cooked? From what some have said on this thread it would not have been in Stalin's best interest to have the meanevilnasty capitalist armies in Europe if he didn't need them. He would have been able to just take Germany and all the rest of Europe with the numbers and abilities that the Soviets supposedly had, why bother talking to or being a part of the team?

 

You make a very good point.
It's true that Stalin was badgering the Allies to open the second front but we are looking at it with the benefit of hindsight.
It's very possible that he did not realise the precarious situation that Hitler was in.
I wouldn't mind betting he would have been less keen had he known in '42 what the situation would be in early '44.

 

Stalin was definitely insecure, evidence of that being the purges of Soviet command by Stalin. He wanted to insure that he remained in control, and that was not always in the best interests of the Soviets position, and by sheer luck Stalin's insecurity didn't translate into a Soviet failure against Germany as Hitler's pride translated into a German failure against the Soviets. I realize that at times it is sheer luck that brings the victory regardless of ability and resources. I still maintain though that without the comfort zone of U.S. involvement that Stalin, in his insecurity, would have hurt the Soviets and the Germans would have won.

 

You're absoluteley right about Stalin being insecure as proved by the purges of the late thirties and as Napoleon once said 'If I have a choice between a lucky general or a good one, give me the lucky one'.
There is no doubt that had it been a choice between half of Europe under his control or a fully socialist Europe without him, he would have chosen the former, which is in effect what happened.
However, there is a fundamental difference between Stalin and Hitler. As the war progressed, Hitler took more and more control of the army whilst Stalin had more and more confidence in his staff, especially Zhukov and he virtually abdicated from making either tactical or strategic decisions.

 

Horrocks was seen as not showing enough haste in moving to relieve his comrades. Whether or not this is justified is somewhat unclear. THE American version is paints him as both inefficient and irresponsible. It is said you cannot make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear and market garden was that, a pig’s ear. IMO this was Monty's plan "B" and not a very good one. When you have to ignore intelligence to make your plan viable your plan will not succeed. The best course of action was a march on Berlin by the most direct route. The allies were strong enough to defeat the Germans in the west. This was a problem Monty was not suited to solve.

As for German Generals at a field level they were of the highest quality. Their high command was full of ass kissers whose competence was questionable at best. You did not get close to Hitler by thinking for yourself. Barbarossa was a clear example of their collective incompetence. To suggest the Red Army was "destroyed" in the early stages in simply not correct. Even though Gobbles stated they were over running Russia the troops knew something different. This was a tough fight from the very beginning.

While the Russians were reeling from defeat after defeat from July to November of 41 there were signs that Barbarossa was running into trouble as early as August. The incompetence of the general staff was beginning to rear its ugly head. Supply was breaking down under the strain of more wounded than expected. Ammunition was being expended at a rate that was off the charts of their projections and let’s not forget the loot of the administrators had to be loaded on trains. Fascism is the merger of corporate interests and government the cooperate partners of Hitler's Germany need their loot and a lot of cases it had priority.

Troops had to be diverted from army group center to help army group south defeat the strong forces in front of them. It was becoming clear even at these early stages that Germany simply was not strong enough to carry out Barbarossa. Transport was in short supply and ground troops were beginning to show the signs of too much combat and too little rest. They were full of lice previously unheard of in the German army. The Russians were in a bad way but as early as Sept. beginning to form reserve armies.

There are only two people that I know of that do not know it gets cold in Russia. Napoleon Bonaparte and Adolf Hitler. While it is almost laughable that an army would go on campaign in Russia without winter gear. Who in their right mind would allow their troops to be sent into Russia without winter clothes in the supply depots? Ass kissers that found it easier to be wrong with Hitler than right against him. The German General staff betrayed their men.Did they actually believe the sun would come out and the temperature would rise 20 degrees if they took Moscow?The Russians are going to lay down even though they have never done this in the past even when Moscow had fallen. The whole campaign can be summed up by one misguided statement. You only have to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down.Nothing could have been farther from the truth.

The original timetable was broken from the beginning. It was unrealistic to believe it was possible to maintain that timeline. Some misguided historians will try make you believe that it was unsound to defeat the forces in front of Kiev before moving on Moscow. That is simply wrong. Army group south did not have the strength to assault the Russian positions head on they needed help. To suggest they should have left strong Russian forces on the right flank of army center displays a lack of knowledge of standard military doctrine.

It is not an overstatement to suggest the Russians were almost defeated. But do not buy into these arguments that tinkering with the schedule was the overriding failure. The Germans underestimated the Russians and that was the main cause for their misfortune. It took almost 2 years for the planners of the master race to see what they were up against. By that time it was way too late. I can agree that both Stalin and Hitler were murderers but in no way were they alike. Hitler ran with a pack Stalin was a loner. Hitler was a gambler who believed in his lucky star and destiny. Stalin was a realist who left nothing to chance. Stalin was a good administrator very organized and always well briefed. Hitler could not be bothered with details he left that to his subordinates. Hitler and Stalin were as different as night and day.

As for Churchill delivering chunks of Eastern Europe. That is simply not the case. He tried his best to see his man in power where ever he could but the cold hard fact was the Americans and most civilized nations found British imperialism more repulsive than communism and rightly so. His leverage was zero but he did try. One can only sit at the table if he has something to offer. The British had very little to offer but more of the same that got us into this mess in the first place. He had no meaningful input to the discussions. But to suggest he capitulated is simply not true.

 

Horrocks was seen as not showing enough haste in moving to relieve his comrades. Whether or not this is justified is somewhat unclear. THE American version is paints him as both inefficient and irresponsible. It is said you cannot make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear and market garden was that, a pig’s ear. IMO this was Monty's plan "B" and not a very good one. When you have to ignore intelligence to make your plan viable your plan will not succeed. The best course of action was a march on Berlin by the most direct route. The allies were strong enough to defeat the Germans in the west. This was a problem Monty was not suited to solve.

As for German Generals at a field level they were of the highest quality. Their high command was full of ass kissers whose competence was questionable at best. You did not get close to Hitler by thinking for yourself. Barbarossa was a clear example of their collective incompetence. To suggest the Red Army was "destroyed" in the early stages in simply not correct. Even though Gobbles stated they were over running Russia the troops knew something different. This was a tough fight from the very beginning.

While the Russians were reeling from defeat after defeat from July to November of 41 there were signs that Barbarossa was running into trouble as early as August. The incompetence of the general staff was beginning to rear its ugly head. Supply was breaking down under the strain of more wounded than expected. Ammunition was being expended at a rate that was off the charts of their projections and let’s not forget the loot of the administrators had to be loaded on trains. Fascism is the merger of corporate interests and government the cooperate partners of Hitler's Germany need their loot and a lot of cases it had priority.

Troops had to be diverted from army group center to help army group south defeat the strong forces in front of them. It was becoming clear even at these early stages that Germany simply was not strong enough to carry out Barbarossa. Transport was in short supply and ground troops were beginning to show the signs of too much combat and too little rest. They were full of lice previously unheard of in the German army. The Russians were in a bad way but as early as Sept. beginning to form reserve armies.

There are only two people that I know of that do not know it gets cold in Russia. Napoleon Bonaparte and Adolf Hitler. While it is almost laughable that an army would go on campaign in Russia without winter gear. Who in their right mind would allow their troops to be sent into Russia without winter clothes in the supply depots? Ass kissers that found it easier to be wrong with Hitler than right against him. The German General staff betrayed their men.Did they actually believe the sun would come out and the temperature would rise 20 degrees if they took Moscow?The Russians are going to lay down even though they have never done this in the past even when Moscow had fallen. The whole campaign can be summed up by one misguided statement. You only have to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down.Nothing could have been farther from the truth.

The original timetable was broken from the beginning. It was unrealistic to believe it was possible to maintain that timeline. Some misguided historians will try make you believe that it was unsound to defeat the forces in front of Kiev before moving on Moscow. That is simply wrong. Army group south did not have the strength to assault the Russian positions head on they needed help. To suggest they should have left strong Russian forces on the right flank of army center displays a lack of knowledge of standard military doctrine.

It is not an overstatement to suggest the Russians were almost defeated. But do not buy into these arguments that tinkering with the schedule was the overriding failure. The Germans underestimated the Russians and that was the main cause for their misfortune. It took almost 2 years for the planners of the master race to see what they were up against. By that time it was way too late. I can agree that both Stalin and Hitler were murderers but in no way were they alike. Hitler ran with a pack Stalin was a loner. Hitler was a gambler who believed in his lucky star and destiny. Stalin was a realist who left nothing to chance. Stalin was a good administrator very organized and always well briefed. Hitler could not be bothered with details he left that to his subordinates. Hitler and Stalin were as different as night and day.

As for Churchill delivering chunks of Eastern Europe. That is simply not the case. He tried his best to see his man in power where ever he could but the cold hard fact was the Americans and most civilized nations found British imperialism more repulsive than communism and rightly so. His leverage was zero but he did try. One can only sit at the table if he has something to offer. The British had very little to offer but more of the same that got us into this mess in the first place. He had no meaningful input to the discussions. But to suggest he capitulated is simply not true.

 

At last someone who can see through all the propaganda regarding Barbarossa.
When I posted this thread, I knew I would be opening a can of worms about how lend lease, the second front, Americas involvment etc. won the war
It's easy to get jingoistic about our own commanders and 'who won' the war but the simple facts are.
The Red army did, period. They tore the heart out of the Wehrmacht and you are absolutely right.
Hitler totally underestimated the task and by November 1941, maybe earlier Barbarossa had failed.
On December 5th the counteroffensice by Zhukov pushed the front back up to 250 miles and from that day forward Germany's fate was sealed.
I still maintain that Zhukov was the best overall commander and I am British.

 

That is where I will disagree with you, not just out of my national pride but also going back to an earlier point, that being the insecurities of Stalin. The U.S. involvement and Zhukov's victories together were what finished Germany's war. Without the pressure of the real threat of second front from the west, the losses from Africa and Italy, Germany could have regained the upper hand on the Russian front, but with Germany fighting against everybody else there was no chance. I believe that without the U.S. involvement, Stalin would have overplayed his hand as he had in the past, because Stalin was scared. U.S. involvement gave Stalin a safety blanket and battle to fight, which kept Stalin out of Zhukov's hair.
Also another "what if" possibility to throw a monkey wrench into the mix. I realize, after some thought on the matter, that it was Japan's decision to attack Pearl Harbor that was the beginning of the end for both Japan and Germany. If Japan had not made a deal with the Soviets and thus made Zhukov and his Siberian troops available for action on the German front, things would have been very much different. What if German diplomats could have convinced Japan to just "make a presence" in Russia's western front?

 

Please dont get me wrong, America played a huge part in defeating Hitler and many brave GI's paid the ultimate price in his demise.
However, we are both speculating, neither of us really know the truth of what the outcome would have been.
I fully respect your opinion which you have every right to voice but I still maintain that Hitler's fate was sealed prior to 7th December.
As to Japan making a presence in Russia, that was never going to happen. Maybe, Hitler thought that by his declaration of war on America, Japan would be pressured into it, possibly one reason for his ridiclous decision, we will never know.
However, Japan had no reason to spread their forces into Russia and after their humiliation at Khalin Gol in 1938 (Zhukov again) they had no intention of repeating it.
Furthermore, via the Lucy spy ring, Zhukov knew that and was quite prepared to release the Siberian divisions.
Even without American intervention, in no way could Hitler ignore the situation in France, The Low countries, North Africa, Greece, Norway, The Balkans or even Britain.
These countries would still need garrasing.

 

Garrison duty is vastly different from fighting a full fledged war, there is a a drastic difference in the resources expended.
I agree that Japan did not want to tangle with Zhukov again, but they possibly could have been convinced to make a stab at Siberia with a token force, just enough to concern the Russians, I have read somewhere that there was a Soviet spy on the inside of the German embassy in Japan, but I can't remember his name, so the Soviets were on top of that, maybe. I just thew that in to point out the different possibilities that could have changed the outcome. What if scenarios are always purely speculation, so I ain't offended by somebody stating his case with his perspective of the facts.

 

Just remember that WW2 was crippling to all the economies of all the countries that took part apart from one. Of course the US would have declared war on Germany, it made so much buisness sense.

 

In 41 Germany attacked Russia with the best troops it had. It was the largest offensive the world had ever seen stretching the entire length of the soviet union. I would say they hit them with everything they had. No one was in position to take any pressure off the Russians with anything near the kind of offensive needed to cause a redeployment of troops from the eastern front. The Russians were on their own. The only question the world was asking was Germany strong enough to defeat the Russian armies. It was not.

Not only was Germany not strong enough to defeat Russia it had seriously underestimated the Russian will to fight and the scale of their resources. German front line troops were astonished by the Russian ability to feed fresh troops onto the battles and were heard saying many times where are all these Ivans coming from? Of course they were coming from reserve armies that were formed as early as August 41 under the noses of the German high command. It is astonishing that the German intelligence eastern front was so far off the mark for so long. How many times they asserted the Russians were finished. If you did not agree you were fired so they were all in agreement but all wrong none the less. This is a recipe for defeat as history has shown us so many times.

It was over for the Germans after Moscow. Their chances for victory were destroyed in a retreat that cost Germany most of it's transport and inflicted causalities on the army that were not sustainable. There is no way they could mount another offensive on the scale of Barbarossa again. The Russians would have to make some very serious blunders to loose the war after the spring of 42.

The summer of 42 supplies were making their way to Russia in numbers that made a difference. US and English tanks were a factor in the defeat of army group A along with attack bombers. American Boston bombers were very active bombing the Germans in their move to take Baku. But by late august the Russians had facing army group A more men, guns and aircraft than the Germans. the Germans had more tanks but tanks were not as effective as one would believe in this very rugged country.

Lets not deceive ourselves. For the Germans to defeat Russia they would need to defeat their armies in the field. After 42 it is clear by their plans the Germans no longer thought it was possible to achieve this. If they were confident they could destroy the Russian army then they would have attacked Moscow again in 42. This is where the bulk of the Red Army could be found. No one I am aware of was pushing for another attack on Moscow even though the Germans knew full well it was imposable for the Anglo Americans to attack in the west.

I look at this whole question of weather the Russians could have won without timely assistance from it's partners from a perspective based on my assumption that the question of who was going to win the war was already decided before meaning full assistance arrived. But at the same time it is pretty clear the Russians were greatly aided by the materials received from their partners in the summer 42 and beyond. That does not change the fact the Germans were unable to fully recover from the defeat in front of Moscow. For me the battle for Moscow was the deciding battle of the entire war.

 

I think any fair and unbiased Historian today will concur that had not Hitler dragged the US into the ETO war the Soviets would probably still managed to eventually crush Germany in the Great Patriotic War. But it would have taken longer, and cost more lives. Please remember that after Speer became Armaments Minister and put Germany on a systematized war economy production increased. Production peaked early in 1945. One wonders how the efforts of Speer may have done had not the US/UK aero-annoyance.

Also recall that the Soviets did not face the whole of the Luftwaffe. Some 65%-70% of the strength of the aero-arm was kept in the west. Please factor that into the theory.

It was a team effort.

Had not Hitler declared war FDR would have been forced to spend more effort in the PTO.

 

Here is a German made film regarding how some large US corperations cooperated with Nazi in the 1930s and even into the war years:

 

Another thing to consider was the fact that there was much opposition to the US joining the war from the many, many German immigrants and their lineage living in America, in particular the mid-west. There were a lot of US citizens calling for the US to side with Germany. With a different president who knows what would have happened, it is very debatable if Russia could have faced Germany alone and without the aid America sent to them long before the US was dragged into the war.