Had Hitler maintained peace with the Soviet Union and focused his efforts on the United Kingdom...

Stalin was planning to backstab Hitler, so Hitler's only chance was to backstab Stalin first.

>self threading faggot

I'm not OP, I didn't thread my own post.

You people just have to realise that not all Veeky Forums posters are slow repliers.

I'm a very fast replier, and I can prove it.

OP, you there? Please respond to my post.

Nobody said you were OP, retard.

But if you made post , you fucking threaded your own post.

I highly doubt that considering the Soviets were supplying the Germans right up until the Germans invaded AND the utter shock Stalin was in when Hitler attacked.

Also Germans could have forced peace with the Brits if they captured the Suez.

Oh fuck, I am stupid.

>Also Germans could have forced peace with the Brits if they captured the Suez.
Or if they captured London and Liverpool, probably.
Silly Germans why didn't they think of that.

It's ok user, at least you didn't thread your own post

Could be worse, you could have threaded your own post

>No, but they could have bombed it into submission

with what, the luftwaffe was losing the air war when it was targetting the RAF directly, and proceeded to get curbstomped when it switched to city bombing, they had no decent strategic bomber, no decent escort fighter and bollocks all in terms of suitable pilot training programs.

>maintained a naval blockade.
against a country that was self sufficent in food and quite rapidly rendering the Uboat merely a nuisance as opposed to a deadly threat.

Regardless of whether germany could've won north africa without a second front, Japan would still have provoked US into joining the war.

Because of this they would lose, because Germany would not be able to defeat America before the invention of the atomic bomb.

Even if Germany devoted itself to the atomic bomb, all the best theoretical physicists were in America thanks to Germany's anti-semitic policies.

Even if the nuclear bomb wasn't invented, Germany had no means to attack American soil, or even England.

Germany attacked Russia early because of a lack of fuel resources. The lack of fuel would still lead to Allied air superiority.

America would still outproduce Germany in all military aspects with no fear of mainland attack.

If Germany defeated England and was drawn into a war of attrition with America, then Russia would mobilize and attack the weakened Europe, opening up the second front anyway.

So probably not.

Every month the Nazi's didn't attack the USSR the stronger they got.

Hitler could've ended the war with the USSR before the allies opened up a new front in North Africa. It wasn't even truly a two-front war when he invaded in 1941.

No. He was losing the war against Britain on all fronts.

>but they could have bombed it into submission
They'd have to develop a new air force for that and it would take years.
At the start of the war german planes simply didn't have the operational range to fly over canal and then participate in fighting efficiently before going home.
Brits had a massive home soil advantage

>No, b/c the USSR was planning to invade Nazi Germany even after Hitler and Stalin signed a non-aggression pact.

Anyone know where this theory, right or wrong, came from?

The Red Army reorganized units after observing the German victory in France, forming their own mechanized "Panzer units." Is it just someone extrapolating from that?

Stalin and the USSR hadn't shown any desire for expansionism until Poland, in fact they vehemently opposed it openly and ideologically.

Pretty sure it comes from Victor Suvorov's fantasies. He seriously claims that the Soviets planned to attack in July 1941

soviets were controlled by jews, so no.

>"four human lives are wiped out"
>why don't the soviets just let us kill them?

kill yourself wehrmachtboo

Red Army did not form mechanized formations in reaction to german victory in france. It was just something every major country did at the time.

Only if they can pull planes and pilots out of their ass faster than they get shot down.

Didn't Hitler tell meme master Guderian that if he had read the part in Guderians book "Achtung Panzer" about the Soviets that he wouldn't have invaded Russia?

>t. Guderian

The source is suspect.

I assumed Guderian was one of the more trustworthy fellows in the German army. At least, more so than the other power hungry people on the Eastern front with him

It's primarily from a guy named Victor Suvarov, based on the observation that the bulk of the Red Army was in a long, shallow formation right at the border, which is one of the reasons Barbarossa was so devastating. That line had huge chunks of it pocketed and eliminated.

That may be so, but I am immediately inclined to disbelieve anyone who makes the claim of Hitler telling them he wouldn't have invaded Russia if he had only listened to them.

He even looks like a movie villain.
At least Rommel has the look of a decent fellow even if he was also a self-promoting opportunist.

On the other hand, Guderian was relieved of his command several times for voicing his objections to Hitler. Unlike guys like Raeder and Manstein who also wrote extensive post-war about how they were right all along.

Rommel praised Guderian whilst in Normandy, they were both good guys compared to a lot of the Germans at the time.

>In Germany the elements of modern armoured warfare had already crystallized into a doctrine before the war—thanks mainly to the work of General Guderian—and had found practical expression in the organization and training of armoured formations.

Raeder wasn't relieved because Hitler didn't care that much about anything to do with water.
Manstein was relieved of command.

>Guderian was relieved of his command several times for voicing his objections to Hitler
He was relieved of his command once for acting out in front of his direct supervisor, Kluge.

Yea that isn't why Stalin massively increased production of rifles, tanks, soldiers uniforms, ammo etc before ww2

Probably not. The air war would have escalated to the use of WMDS at some point.

If somehow the USA doesn't join the war and uk's on the verge of starving churchill would probably authorize operation vegetarian, the planned anthrax bombing of german farmland, and basically render central europe inhospitable to human life.

If we ignore the fact that this isn't true:

How is everyone thinking a soviet attack wouldn't have ended in an utter disaster?

Why would it? Don't forget that much of the Soviet failures during Barbarossa wouldn't come into play in a scenario like this. E.g. not being prepared/expecting anything.

Don't forget that even more factors that were beneficial for the soviets wouldn't come into play.

If the soviets recieve lend and lease they win in the end no matter what ofc but apart from that:

1. Logistics: its now the soviet logistical System that is overstretched and has to Deal with a different System of trains etc.

2. Performance in early war soviet offenses: yeah just look how the soviet counter offensives in 41 and 42 played out, only this time its against a well rested, not overstretched Wehrmacht that hadn't endured the losses of barbarossa. (Assuming the Nazis are not getting caught parts down which i think is likely due to Hitlers paranoia and misstrust)

Mental/psychological: this wouldn't be a great patriotic war.

Ofc Barbarossa caused massive casualties for the soviets but early war Performance of the soviets strongly implies that a Red army attack would have ended in a clusterfuck (if the Wehrmacht is prepared) and after that it is open what would have happened.

Oh and i forgot partisans. There would be no supporting partisans which were often crucial for soviet success.

The initial attack almost certianly would have ended in utter disaster. But assuming the Soviets aren't complete retards (Which isn't 100% in 1941), they'll leave themselves room to retreat and disengage when things go belly up.

The bulk of the disastrous losses in Barbarossa was because of how entire Fronts got enveloped and squished without their rear echelon support. You just don't get stuff like that when you're on defense, and by the time the Germans would be able to roll the Soviets back (make no mistake, they would), the Soviets would be able to pull out the tail of their units, and start the more or less historical war from better positions and less of a surprise footing.

They simply werent ready in 1941.

Who's to say they'd attack in 1941? They'd ship over their veteran units who had been fighting the Japs and would be able to deal a decent blow to Germany given their monumental industry

I can easily see a soviet retreat ending in a complete disaster. I mean your point of view is valid and certainly not wrong but given german performance im stalingrad i could easily see a much bigger soviet blunder especially if stalin gets involved with hold your ground orders.

>If somehow the USA doesn't join the war and uk's on the verge of starving churchill would probably authorize operation vegetarian, the planned anthrax bombing of german farmland, and basically render central europe inhospitable to human life.
wut

Hitler DID maintain peace with the SU and focused on the UK. And his efforts failed. So he was looking at a war he can't win, and a peace that one of both parties would eventually break (so went the thought process anyway, who knows what would have happened).

So to answer your question, he did and by doing so failed to win the war.

The REAL question is; would Sealion have had more effort put into it had it not been for the Haltbefehl before Dunkerque?

>atomic fire over Berlin
Unlikely since allied cities were within reach of German nerve gas attacks.

No way in hell. Even assuming closing the pocket

A) actually works without excessive losses (operational losses among the advancing Germans were close to 50%, they needed a break to rest and refit)

B) doesn't give the French time to reorganize a real defense on the main front and costs you more than you gain

Then you at best destroy 10 British divisions or so. You hurt the land forces in the UK, but you don't eliminate them, and still have air inferiority and no real way of transporting more than about a division at s time, even if you can get through the RN.

Even if the USSR remained impossibly neutral throughout the entire war, the USA would be dragged in eventually. Germany would never have been able to mount an effective invasion of the British Isles prior to US assistance making that a complete impossibility, and Germany could never have overcome the US and Britain together in the long run, even if the war stretched on long past 1945.

>Even if the USSR remained impossibly neutral throughout the entire war

What's so impossible about it?

It's simply not believable that Uncle Joe would let the Germany-Italy alliance gobble up all of Western Europe and North Africa when the opportunity to join a USA-UK coalition against them existed.

I'm not even talking joining the war in the first few years, either. I simply don't see a situation where it's not advantageous for the USSR to dogpile on a weakened Axis and eliminate a huge threat to the exertion of Soviet power in the future.

It's not particularly credible that the German Italy alliance would advance into the heart of British Egypt either. And this is a guy who got a bit of a bloody nose trying to take on tiny little Finland.

>I'm not even talking joining the war in the first few years, either. I simply don't see a situation where it's not advantageous for the USSR to dogpile on a weakened Axis and eliminate a huge threat to the exertion of Soviet power in the future.

If the Axis are that much weakened, he'd just be trading an old menace in Germany for a new, stronger one in the U.S. and UK. IT might even be in his interests to surreptitiously support the Germans even more than the MR pact was giving them, try to keep a buffer going between him and the West. I mean for fuck's sake, Pike was only abandoned because with the loss of bases in France, it was too hard to get to the Soviet oilfields.

>for a new, stronger one in the U.S. and UK.

Difference being their proximity to Russia, and the fact that UK and USA were fighting to reset the European status quo, rather than take additional land, as with Hitler.

Given Stalin's historical interest in acquiring further territory in Europe, it's very difficult to imagine a situation where he would completely refrain from further opportunity to do so while neutering Germany, his closest regional competitor, in the process.

>Difference being their proximity to Russia,

If they knock out Germany, they'll likely occupy it and set up a friendly state in Poland, which is right on their front door.

> and the fact that UK and USA were fighting to reset the European status quo, rather than take additional land, as with Hitler.

A status quo that is hardly friendly towards the USSR.

>Given Stalin's historical interest in acquiring further territory in Europe,

What historical interest? When he took over, the USSR stopped expanding, and would not expand for 17 years. It's only opportunistically, as a result of agreements first with Germany, and then with the Allies, that he does expand. For the overwhelming bulk of his tenure as General Secretary, you'd be hard pressed to show expansionist policy in the USSR.

>If they knock out Germany, they'll likely occupy it and set up a friendly state in Poland, which is right on their front door

Which is all the more reason for Russia to enter the war and gobble up the rest of Poland, plus a chunk of Germany. Supporting Germany's war effort simply doesn't make sense, since any kind of peace where Germany retains most or all of its warmarking capability would be far worse for USSR than a buffer zone resembling that of the actual Cold War.

>A status quo that is hardly friendly towards the USSR.

And yet one that's vastly more advantageous than a resurgent, expansionist Germany which remains a powerful state actor.

>(Citation Needed)