Ironworks Gaming Forum - View Single Post - Would the Axis have won WW2 if Hitler had not ticked off Stalin?

Thoran · 06-30-2005, 06:09 PM

I think the notion that Russia was planning a pre-emptive attack on Germany is definitely debatable (if not dubious), the general historical stance is that she was working hard to avoid being attacked (including sending gifts to germany), and there are sound strategic reasons for Germany to look east. A second hand report of attack would make me dig deeper, but is nothing close to proof on its own.

As far as the eventual outcome of the war if the Germans had not invaded Russia, I think the Germans (Hitler) had decided that he needed to invade russia eventually. They NEEDED the raw materials (oil especially) that was one of their main reasons for invading Russia. Invading Britain brought them niether land nor resources, it's only value was strategic, and I think they underestimated its strategic value. I think it would have improved their chances of a successful campaign if they had avoided a two front war and eliminated Britain as a staging ground for Allied forces (Air as much if not more than ground). If they could have rapidly defeated Britain (risky) they could have taken the Brits out of the war to free forces for a more powerful thrust into Russia at a later date, and the motherland would have been fairly safe from air attack for the remainder of the war.

With the British island unavailable as a staging point for Allied troops, an Allied invasion of Europe via France would not have been possible... leaving the Med as the only likely venue, improving the Axis defensive posture later in the war.

Of course the real question IMO is this ... could Germany have taken Britain at all? I have my doubts. The channel would be a very tough obstacle for a German force to overcome, and the British navy was nothing to scoff at during that period (not by any stretch, they were the largest naval force in the world at the time), while the German Navy was incomplete (thanks to the early attack as mentioned earlier). Personally I don't think they'd have pulled it off at all, and they'd have needed to do it quick enough to avoid facing a Britain that was being strengthened by US forces on the ground after our entry into the war. I don't think Germany would have had a chance in hell of landing against a combined British/US force (JMO).

Even if they had somehow blitzkreig'd accross the channel and through the island, another thing to consider would be the need to maintain security in conquered lands. The French had an active resistance and I think it likely that the British resistance would have been even more active. How many troops would it take to secure Britain against a large insurgency... a LOT... so perhaps the final result would have been no different had Germany taken Britain before attacking Russia, but IMO it certainly would have been more costly for the allies had it gone down this way.

06-30-2005, 06:09 PM	#26
Thoran Galvatron Join Date: January 10, 2002 Location: Upstate NY Age: 57 Posts: 2,109	I think the notion that Russia was planning a pre-emptive attack on Germany is definitely debatable (if not dubious), the general historical stance is that she was working hard to avoid being attacked (including sending gifts to germany), and there are sound strategic reasons for Germany to look east. A second hand report of attack would make me dig deeper, but is nothing close to proof on its own. As far as the eventual outcome of the war if the Germans had not invaded Russia, I think the Germans (Hitler) had decided that he needed to invade russia eventually. They NEEDED the raw materials (oil especially) that was one of their main reasons for invading Russia. Invading Britain brought them niether land nor resources, it's only value was strategic, and I think they underestimated its strategic value. I think it would have improved their chances of a successful campaign if they had avoided a two front war and eliminated Britain as a staging ground for Allied forces (Air as much if not more than ground). If they could have rapidly defeated Britain (risky) they could have taken the Brits out of the war to free forces for a more powerful thrust into Russia at a later date, and the motherland would have been fairly safe from air attack for the remainder of the war. With the British island unavailable as a staging point for Allied troops, an Allied invasion of Europe via France would not have been possible... leaving the Med as the only likely venue, improving the Axis defensive posture later in the war. Of course the real question IMO is this ... could Germany have taken Britain at all? I have my doubts. The channel would be a very tough obstacle for a German force to overcome, and the British navy was nothing to scoff at during that period (not by any stretch, they were the largest naval force in the world at the time), while the German Navy was incomplete (thanks to the early attack as mentioned earlier). Personally I don't think they'd have pulled it off at all, and they'd have needed to do it quick enough to avoid facing a Britain that was being strengthened by US forces on the ground after our entry into the war. I don't think Germany would have had a chance in hell of landing against a combined British/US force (JMO). Even if they had somehow blitzkreig'd accross the channel and through the island, another thing to consider would be the need to maintain security in conquered lands. The French had an active resistance and I think it likely that the British resistance would have been even more active. How many troops would it take to secure Britain against a large insurgency... a LOT... so perhaps the final result would have been no different had Germany taken Britain before attacking Russia, but IMO it certainly would have been more costly for the allies had it gone down this way.