Hitlers Reich closer than you think?

Site Issues 2006 Archive Room
#1

Just throwing this out there for thoughts.

If Hitler had followed the 10 year non aggression treaty he signed with Stalin imagine for a minute how different things would have been for Europe. The 3.5 million Wehrmacht soldiers and 1000’s of tanks and artillery pieces sent to the Russian front would have been pointed in the other direction. Imagine for a minute how daunting a task it would have been for the Allied assault (approx 150,000 men) on Normandy to be successful with Panzer division after Panzer division waiting on the shores. The Allies had trouble overcoming even sparsely defended beaches.
I would have to think any kind of Allied advance into Europe would have been impossible if not suicide. Was it that close?
Thoughts?

#2

Good point.

Why would the Allies invade then? You change history and history will be changed. There would br no Normandy in your timeline. Germany would be happy not to attack the Soviets. The US would be free to take on the Japanese, but if Hitler had still declared war on the US, they would still have built up a considerable force in the UK.

North Africa would maybe have been the same.

However, you seem to think that Hitler was sane and would satisfy himself with France etc.

Why do you think this?

#3

I am just putting this up as food for thought. Had Hitler not invaded Russia, the world would have looked very different today. The Atlantic wall the Wehrmacht was building would have been impenetrable with the additional forces and equipment and purely suicide for invading forces. Had Hilter been ‘satisified’ with Europe he would have had it, and maybe his 1000 year Reich as well. It might have been that close. Food for thought no? Imagine for a minute Guderian, Palaus and Rommel’s armies waiting in France with fully stocked and ready Panzer divisions and 100’s of tigers. It could have been different. Fortunately it didnt go that way.

#4

Assuming the peace treaty with Stalin held (a VERY dodgy assumption IMHO - Stalin appears to have been planning to invade Germany in 1942 or 1943) Germany either gets hit by a few nukes in 1945 or is given a terminal does of instant sunrise in 1947. If the latter, “Germany” is gone forever and there is a smoking poisoned wasteland in the middle of Europe for the next decade or so, followed by a largely agrarian society. The Panzers in France are frankly irrelevant.

#5

  1. IMO: With most of the german troops available in the west, Allied assault would have failed, even with air supremacy.

  2. But would Stalin have attacked 1942, or 1943, or after possible Allied assault? Stalin showed his aggression towards Finland and other countries, when he had a decent chance.

  3. Hitler wanted to create a strong Germany, he told that year after year, in Mein Kampf etc. Historically, there has been too little food for germans, and too little resources like iron. Any country can bring Germany down at the any moment just by blocking the import of these resources to Germany. Hitler knew that the only solution was to capture natural resources (food, iron, etc) for Germany - Only place in the europe/asia from where he could get enough of them was Ukraine. Thus, attack to Soviet Union was a ‘must’ he could not get around.

#6

Please don’t enter another era of thread after thread of “what if” scenarios.

They prove nothing and just annoy, changing the odd tactic or event on a small level maybe a fun excursion from the truth, but to even think about the changes that would be introduced by such a large change as not going to war with Russia would make your head boil

Anyway, as pointed out, the move East was always going to happen.

#7

Why is it ok to have thread after thread on 'what was the best, gun, tank, battleship, airplane…etc" I dont see the difference. I started this thread to spark some conversation in an otherwise dead forum.
Sorry, lets all remain silent…and not post any thoughts…

#8

AM- I thought the same thing many times. But like you said why bother to mention it around here? :shock: :? :slight_smile:

#9

  1. Without deploying 1000’s of planes to the eastern front, Germany would have maintained air supremacy over Europe and would have been in better postion to launch pre-emptive strikes on Great Britiain and knock out airfields there.

  2. Stalin showed aggression towards countries that couldnt defend themselves, he wanted no part of Germany and was not ready for a large scale war. He didnt even trust his higher ranking generals, its surprising he wasnt killed by his own people after the purge. Russia really was in a poor postion.

  3. Invasion of the Soviet Union could have happened much later, after peace was reached with the USA and GBR and boundaries re-drawn. Remember Hitler didnt want a war with Britian, he stated that on different occasions.

#10

If you look in around the forum you will find my comments on the “best of the best” type threads too.

In actual fact they have become a great deal more interesting of late. When I first came on it was acceptable just to throw up a list and not give any reasons.

Anyway, like I say what ifs are not bad per se, if kept on the small scale but massive changes such as russians not being in the war would have totally changed the whole scheme of the war.

I will enter this thread for shits and giggles mainly.

The beaches attacked were by no means sparsely defended. In comparison to the beaches where the Nazis thought the attack would come maybe, but I wouldn’t use the word sparse unqualified like that to describe the Normandy beeches.

If the Atlantic wall was impregnable we would invade via somewhere else, where it would be less suicidal. That is the problem with changing one facet of history, you change everything. Have never watched Back to the Future?

Spain for example could have offered a suitable start line for the invasion of France. Or Norway, and in to Denmark. Or come in the back door all the way through Italy.

Even with hundreds of planes extra, the fact remains, during the Battle of Britain the Luftwaffe had the RAF on their arse. Yet instead of delivering the Coup de grace they moved to bombing the cities instead. This descision would probably have been made regardless of the number of aircraft available to the Nazis. The RAF had been able to punch well above their weight with such aircraft as the Spitfire, Hurricane and of course the added bonus of effective Radar and control systems.

No matter how many planes they had, the Nazi’s only had a limited time over the UK or they would not make it back. Range was a key part of their failure.

No one would take on Stalin because anyone with the balls or the brains had been purged. That was the whole point of the exercise. Saddam used to do the same thing, you don’t want competitors when you are ruthless dictator, they may take over and dictators don’t usually pick up their pension in such a scenario.

There also lies a flaw in this what if scenario. The purges were actually helped along by the Nazi propaganda machine. This machine led Stalin to remove practically all officers of General Rank that were competent. Not to mention a fair few of the junior grade officers that would perhaps be able to ad lib in their place.

The Russian army was left with the dross. Stalin never gave the order to defend Russia until very late, because he didn’t believe the Germans were attacking, they fed him lies and he believed them. Alot of equipment was destroyed on the ground and in barracks in the first few days of the attack, because of this.

Hence the simple designs of equipment today. Dani will back me up ont this, but even the Mig-29 Fulcrum can be largely if not entirely repaired in a car garage. Why? Because of the lessons learnt from having your factories and forces destroyed whilst you watch!!!

Germany didn’t want war with Britain and tried to make peace during hte conflict. But they invaded Poland. We were in the rumble from that point on. Shit bust.

As mentioned, the war would probably last longer, with the RAF bombing the buggery out of Germany. Maybe without hte eastern front they would make descent bombers with long range, maybe not.

Nukes in Europe? Can’t say it wouldn’t happen. It might.

And as mentioned before also. The whole point of the Eastern attack was to gain extra space and resources. It could be argued to be THE reason the war started.

Edit to add.

Why are these what ifs generally based on the Nazis being in a better position than they allowed themselves to end up in?

#11

The Manhattan project effectively kicked off as soon as the US was in the war, and from that point on it was effectively inevitable that the US would use nuclear weapons on anyone they were still at war with when they became available. Strategic bombing was after all the policy of all countries at the time, and nuclear weapons are merely the ultimate expression of that policy.
Germany declared war on the US rather than the other way around, and largely because of the Japanese attack. Any alternate German plans in Europe involving not invading Russia mean IMHO that Germany is more, rather than less, likely to declare war on the US.
The US was technically capable of hitting Germany from the continental US with extremely high performance bombers (the B-36 started development before the US entered the war and was uninterceptable until the mid-1950s).

Thus, in such a situation the only remaining question is whether the US launches a large attack (200+ weapons) or a small attack (1-2 weapons). This will probably depend on how well Germany is doing at the time - the better it does, the worse things get for Germany.

#12

This is what waited for the Allies ‘on the beaches’ on d-day. Any decent divisions were miles inland and not invovled.

“The Germans had extensively fortified the foreshore area as part of their Atlantic Wall defences, causing the landings to be timed for low tide. It was guarded by four divisions, of which only one (352nd) was of high quality (in fact, the only quality was from a cadre of 321st Division—the core of 352nd). The 352nd had many troops who had seen action on the eastern front and on the 6th, had been carrying out anti-invasion exercises. The other defending troops included Germans who, usually for medical reasons, were not considered fit for active duty on the Eastern Front, and various other nationalities such as Soviet prisoners of war from the southern USSR who had agreed to fight for the Germans rather than endure the harsh conditions of German POW camps.”

This is what i referred to as sparsely defended, so i will disagree with you on this point. Notice the ‘unfit for duty’ part in there. Hardly a crack defensive juggernaut i would say.

I have seen quite a few what ifs in respect to Russia as well. I guess what it comes down to is, in hindsite its easy to see the obvious mistakes Hitler made and had he not been so mistake prone Germanies fortunes may have turned out differently.
Ok i answered your question now here is one for you: Do you discuss your favorite sports team the day after it has won/lost a big game? If so, why would you, you already know who won.

#13

Guys, in my humble opinion, any aspects can be discussed here that cover the scope of ww2 or other subjects (in the appropriate rooms of course). While I agree a little with 1000 yd stare I also agree with RAD.

There is more than enough room for many debates here so feel free to bang out the what-ifs. However be prepared to have those what-ifs debated out.

Cheers.

#14

Well AM if you feel that the Normandy landings were a walk in the park because of a few biff chits, a nicely timed exercise and a few turn coats that is up to you.

As for my favourite team. Nope. Don’t support any team so thus don’t feel the need to evaluate with the what if scenairos

Although to be fair if I was evaluating a match like you are doing here i would be saying “yeah, what if right, Man U turned up and instead of Chelsea it was Crewe Alex, and they were all blind.”

#15

Its like asking, what if Britian was invaded.

#16

This is exactly why your forum is dead. Too many trolls that feel it necessary to scrutinize instead of conversate. Of course you know this because it seems you have all the answers.
Normandy wasnt a walk in the park, but was nowhere near what you make it out to be. A handful of rag tag personnel defended those beaches, the efforts on both sides were admirable, but the truth is the defense was inept and incapable of dealing with the task before it even started.

#17

The forum isn’t dead.

It passes lots of good sensible info all the time.

It is just the occaisional nutty thread that really attracts attention.

I don’t claim to have all the answers. But if you say that the Atlantic Wall is impenetrable and it would be suicide to attack, then the Op Overlord planners would know this and thus change the whole thing. If you change one part of history then the whole thing will changed. Therefore off the top of my head I suggested several different starting points.

Likewise the Luftwaffe’s offensive against Britian and the RAF suffered from more complex difficulties than lack of aircraft. Also bear in mind that throwing more aircraft in to the West may actually have made things worse.

Was the Logistics train capable of sustaining this sort of load for example? If the roads and rails are packed with aviation stores, what about the Army? Are they sucking on hind tit? What if there is a major crash on a key road? Would the operation be able to carry on? For 12 hours? 24 hours? Would there be higher instances of air collision with so many planes in the sky? What about munitions dumps for the bombs? They would be bigger and thus be very nice targets, would they be little and spread everywhere requiring more guards? Who would feed them?

Large numbers of troops would still be required in the East to occupy Poland, Ukraine et al. And I think Hitler would still require a large force of soldiers to the East just to act as a deterrent should the Reds think comeing west is a good idea.

Anyone see any glaring errors or omissions in the above scenarios? If so let’s Conversate!!! This is the problem with historical “What if’s” they go in every way except the one that you thought or wish they would. That is why the are used so much to brain storm plans and thrash out problems. The are not, however, conducive to historical

On subject of the beeches.

From http://members.shaw.ca/junobeach/juno-5.htm

The Germans used millions of slave labourers during four years of occupation to construct the ‘Atlantic Wall’ - a modern fortification system along the coast of France. The fortifications consisted of a series of reinforced concrete gun emplacements supported by well protected infantry strong-points and heavy machine gun nests overlooking the beaches. These were surrounded by trenches with mortars and machine guns. The beaches were strewn with obstacles and mines. Tetrahedral obstacles - three iron bars intersecting at rights angles had been constructed on the beaches. Fields of barbed wire and mines covered the land past the beaches. Also the seafront houses provided excellent observation and firing positions for snipers. There were 32 static infantry Divisions of widely varying quality defending these fortifications along the French and Dutch coast.

This first line of defence was backed up by Panzer Divisions (armoured and motorized divisions) positioned inland from the Atlantic wall. The strategy was, if the Atlantic wall were breached, theses elite formations of crack mobile troops would strike as soon as possible after the landing and throw the Canadians and the Allies back into the sea. Within striking distance of the coast were five first-class divisions: the 21st Panzer Division with an estimated 350 tanks, the 12th SS with 150 tanks, the Panzer Lehr Division in the Le Mans area and two more tank divisions in the Seine. The proximity of 12th SS and 21st Panzer Divisions made it difficult for the British and Canadians to capture their objectives of Caen on D-Day.

The coastal defences along Juno beach were defended by 3 battalions of the 716th Infantry Division with a strength of 7,771 soldiers all ranks. Although the division was made up of ordinary second rate troops, they proved to be strong defenders when concealed and protected by the coastal fortifications. The German plan was for the 716th Division to delay the Allied advance with artillery, mortars, mines and anti-tank guns until reinforcements from the 12th SS and 21st Panzer Divisions positioned near Caen could arrive.

A balanced report can also be found here. http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/dday/foothold.aspx

Yes the coastal defenders were in the main 2nd rate, but they were still well armed, well protected and were in strong numbers. They were backed up by a formidable reserve.

#18

Guys lets have a decent debate and not a slanging match. The Forum isnt dead.

Now, we are talking about troops on the beaches. The German forces on the beaches werent there to throw the Invasion back into the sea. They were the first line of defence.

The Panzer and Infantry Divisions in the rear were to be moved to the landing zone and fight the battle. Normandy as a whole was a horrendous slog for all involved, basically a battle of attrition and logistics that the Allies were bound to win in the end. Also if we factor in naval Gunfire support from the ships in the Channel, the Germans had no chance of reaching any beach with an armoured force, even though intitally 21st panzer did make a good attempt.

What you are essentially saying here is what if the Soviet Union was not in the war.

Then the situation would not exist for the Allies to land in Normandy. If the Germans hadnt attacked Russia, I dont think the Japanese would have attacked the US. Therefore the US wouldnt have gone to war with Germany? Why would Germany declare war on the US before the Soviet Union?

So, I think that under your proposal a sort of early Cold War would have existed between the Germans, Russians and possibly the US. The UK would most likely have come to some sort of arrangement with Germany and Italy.

But without the war to spur the nuclear technology for the US all sides would have no detterrent to attacking each other. Also, the weapons used in 1944 would most likely have not been adapted or invented as it was the war that drove the technology to develop them.

#19

Sometimes really good discussions come of the ‘what ifs’. For instance our side discussion on the defences at Normandy was an unexpected turn that I am finding interesting to discuss.
I was thinking, is “conversate” a word?? I was quite drunk when i posted that word last nite! LOL :wink: Its always fun to get up in the morning and look at what you said the nite before when you had the beer goggles on! :stuck_out_tongue:

I will agree.

#20

Conversate isn’t a word I know of but I quite liked it. :smiley:

Firefly not too sure about the Japanese and their entry in to the war. They had already be quietly gazumping territories around them for some time before attacking Pearl Harbour.

Although, I am pretty sure that the Nazi’s were encouraging the Japaneses descision to attack the US, I am also pretty sure it would have happened anyway due to the tensions between the two countries.

Maybe it would have happened later, or earlier than it did. And if so it is highly plausable that they could have caught the carriers in dock. Which would have altered the navel power balance in the Pacific greatly!!!