What if: Hitler didn't attacked Russia? (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Waynos and Mike

Everything in youjr last two posts I agree with, except one....that a breakout of war in 1938 would have doomed the allies to defeat. i beg to differ. in 1938, Czechoslovakia was militarily as strong as Germany. germany in the air was not so overwhelmingly powerful, and she possed just three panzer units with which to fight. The germans, with hitlers blessing were intending to back down if the Britsh and french showed even the slightest signs or military reaction to the takeover of the Sudeten. Hitler has wanted war, but he was eventually persuaded that not to push this point.

In the lead up to the war it was germany that held the lead in military production. This situation continued until the 1st quarter of 1940, when the limits in the "stretchability" of the german economy began to force her to lag behind the allies....
 
This is a good debating point. I am not so sure about the allies overall, only the British position, and that was that war had to be avoided at all costs in 1938.

From the RAF point of view there were only two squadrons of Hurricanes in service and no Spitfires at all. Fighter Command was thus made up mainly with a couple of Gladiator Squadrons (which was itself still brand new), while the main body of the force was flying Gauntlets, Furies and Bulldogs (the latter being just about to disappear altogether). The fighters had no radio's (bar the newest types just being delivered) and there was no radar. The Gauntlets were armed only with 4x303 machine guns, the Furies had only two and none of them could rely on radar control or early warning.

The LW would have been attacking with He 111'S and Ju-86's, possibly also Do-17's. All of which would have presented a daunting target to the defending fighters, most of which were slower than these bombers. Early model 109's were nowhere near as good as the E, but were more than a match for 90% of fighter command.

Bomber Command had not even converted to the Whitley, Wellington or Battle completely yet and there were still Harts, Hendons and Heyfords in frontline squadrons. The mind boggles at how these would fare in combat. When Munich is criticised, this must be borne in mind.

The French had not yet deployed a modern fighter at all, unless you count the D510 as modern, and their larger bomber fleets were painfully obsolete, as they would remain. The Germans had a smaller force, but everything they had was modern, and largely battle proven too.

The German position in regards Blitzkrieg forces is crucial of course and in this area I am not at all well informed as to the position regarding tanks etc.

If Blitzkrieg fails and the Germans are repulsed then my concern becomes academic, but the Germans didn't win out through sheer weight of numbers, as I recall, it was through surprise and rapid movement by forces relatively smaller than those they encountered was it not? I confess I am not at all certain on this point.

If that did happen then we are back to a WW1 stalemate all over again, and how does that play out in the latter 1930's?

Like I mentioned before, I just think that standing up to Hitler earlier, at the Rhine or Sudetenland, just delays the war until Germany feels stronger, it doesn't avoid it.
 
Thanks Parsifal - I understood Waynos to say "... defeat of the RAF" would essentially reduce England to a de-fanged observer.

And I believe he is right - he isn't suggesting a land invasion would have happened or succeeded - just loss of air superiority of the British Isles. If I read Waynos correctly - I think he's right. If the LW had been able to strike at will with diminishing losses - being an island, the UK would have over time had to arrive at a political resolution. We know that air power alone didn't crush Germany - but that said, with it's skies open to the enemy (and that was what was at stake in the B of B) - things would have gotten very, very tough for GB.

Of course one could argue that the USA would have been drawn into the war earlier etc. etc. - but there was no appetite in America for war in 1938 - there was no appetite on Dec. 1, 1941 - nothing short of a 12-7 attack would have brought a united America to the aid of Britain (and democracy), IMHO :)

Proud Canadian,

MM
 
Last edited:
In the conflict that was emerging in 1938 - Britain was buying space with time. Russia would buy time with space (after 6-22-41) :)

Both worked.

MM
 
Yes, that was exactly what I meant. What I believe to have been the real prize for Germany in winning the BoB, neutralisation of Great Britain rather than invasion, would have been readily achievable in 1938.

There are lots of imponderables of course. Would France have held up the Germans long enough for the real timeline to catch up? Possibly, given the relative growth of Germany over the next 12 months compared to France's relative military stagnation. But we cannot know and Britain could not take the chance. The speed with which France did fall came as a major shock to everyone, including the Germans, so that outcome is also equally possible again.

With British acquiescence to Germany by, say, early to mid 1939, the USA would have no interest in Europe at all. Churchill would never have been in the position to whip up the level of support that he did. The American-Japanese war would have been recorded as an entirely separate conflict, although the Japanese may have brought their own plans forward if they were inspire by such a massive German success?
 
:... Would France have held up the Germans long enough for the real time line to catch up?"

Very, very doubtful.

"... The speed with which France did fall came as a major shock to everyone, including the Germans".

Shouldn't have. France was adrift and demoralized - same head-in-the-sand position as the years before the Franco-Prussian war when Bismark's Germany whipped them in record time.

And for stasoid and imalko :) - if you're still following this thread :) in 1938 there were many in Britain who (rightly) feared communism and might ( I repeat "might") have been able to live with a fascism-tolerant government as the price of a war to stop communism. Hope you don't think I'm exaggerating or fear-mongering on this - but if you do - think US relations with Spain and Portugal 1945-55.

MM
 
The creation of a cadre of forces was an essential building block and it is silly to pretend otherwise...
...Or are you saying that Russia allowing the training of the core elements of the new German forces was ok, but we should have declared war as soon as they went back to Germany? That would be remarkably one-eyed if that's what you do mean?

No, I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that training of core elements of new German forces in USSR would count for nothing if build-up of German war machine was not allowed by victors of the Great war, France and Britain. They had the means to stop it but they didn't.

...Also, it was not directly in this thread, but a comment was made in an exchange between stasoid and michaelmaltby which reminded me of another thread on this subject that students in Russia are being taught how Britain and France were entirely to blame for the rise of Nazi Germany and the outbreak of WW2 and I was referring to this. Lastly, that the M-R pact was the greenlight for the invasion of Poland that finally lit the blue touchpaper of war in Europe is indisputable, IMO these were Russias contributions, I do not pretend that the other major European powers did not also blunder badly.

I don't know what are students in Russia being thought and frankly I don't care. However, it would be wrong to say that France and Britain didn't contributed to the rise of Nazi Germany. (Contributing and being blamed for are not the same thing as you put it. :) )

... the M-R pact was the greenlight for the invasion of Poland that finally lit the blue touchpaper of war in Europe is indisputable, IMO these were Russian contributions, I do not pretend that the other major European powers did not also blunder badly.

Then we agree of something. :)

Regarding other posts about outbreak of war in 1938. I believe that Czechoslovakia was capable to defend itself against the Wehrmacht such as it was in 1938. They had strong army and air force, strong fortifications along the border with Germany and mountainous terrain working to their advantage. Blitzkrieg as it was seen in the Low countries would not be possible here. It is testimony to quality of Czechoslovak equipment that their tanks (German designations Panzer 38(t) and Panzer 35(t)) after the occupation were pressed into service with the Wehrmacht and soldiered on well into the 1941 participating even in operation Barbarossa. With support of Western powers and USSR (as it was promised) the fight would be soon over. As weak as these countries individually were at that time together they were far stronger then Nazi Germany (which itself was far weaker then year later). In that context Luftwaffe wouldn't be able to threaten the UK as German armed forces would have been defeated in Czechoslovak mountains.
 
Last edited:
:... in 1938 there were many in Britain who (rightly) feared communism and might ( I repeat "might") have been able to live with a fascism-tolerant government as the price of a war to stop communism. Hope you don't think I'm exaggerating or fear-mongering on this - but if you do - think US relations with Spain and Portugal 1945-55.

Although I don't know what exactly was "rightly" about that I actually agree with you. Fear of Communism was the main reason as to why Western powers failed to recognize Fascism as the greater threat on time.
 
Last edited:
Who then went on to become the commanders and trainers of the resultant forces, plus the prototypes that were secretly flown and tested in the USSR allowing the German industry to perfect its skills with modern design techniques and materials. You cannot simply dismiss this starting point, from little acorns mighty oaks do grow.

The USSR was the only nation to sanction this clandestine activity. How is this episode treated by those who are rewriting history to blame Britain and France for the start of WW2?

There is only one country that is to blame, and that is Germany. Nobody made Germany start a war except the Nazi leaders.


When this contract was signed in 1926, Germany was a democracy. Hitler and his gang was nothing but a bunch of hooligans back then. Noone could predict they would come to power. Goering was thrown in jail.

Russia was a country of pesants, most of whom couldnt read and write. Germany was a technologicaly advanced country with best engineering minds. Russians hired Germans to train them, otherwise make no sense to me. That's at least how I see it. Creation Germany's war machine is a bit of exaggeration.
All contacts were terminated in 33'
 
".... Although I don't know what exactly was rightful about that I actually agree with you. Fear of Communism was the main reason as to why Western powers failed to recognize Fascism as the greater threat on time."

Gosh, imalko, let's just try and imagine why a thinking person living in a democracy might be afraid of communism in the late 1930's. :)

- Destruction of the peasant middle class farmers
- Mass deportations to work-death-camps
- Planning starvation of an entire country
- Purge and execution of highest ranking who disagree
- International intrigue and destabilization of legitimate governments
- Atheism and outright war on Christianity and Christian values

Shall I continue :)

Now you or others - no doubt - will tell me that the same list could be applied to Nazis Germany and Hitler and - for the most part :) you'd be right.

But - I guess - if you're a believer, communism replaces all religious values and the well-being of the proletariat replaces "morality" and ethics - and class consciousness replaces "soul".

All fine I guess but the Nazis had "padres" - the way the Soviets had commissars. Less menacing to Christian Europe - the padres :), I mean.

You make "fear of communism" sound like paranoia :) You're wrong - they ARE out to control our lives.

Just kidding, Not :)

MM
 
"... All contacts were terminated in 33'".

Stasoid, I've often wondered who broke it off. Hitler or Stalin. I read a book on the subject and even it didn't make that clear.

Thoughts :)

MM
 
Imalko
No, I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that training of core elements of new German forces in USSR would count for nothing if build-up of German war machine was not allowed by victors of the Great war, France and Britain. They had the means to stop it but they didn't.

I may be being incredibly dense here but was this agreement (from 1926-33, thanks stasoid) ALSO not in direct contravention of the Versailles treaty, or at least the spirit of it? You could argue, successfully that Russia was not a party to that agreement, but if Russia did not want Germany to rearm, why do it?

The work that was done in Russia in these years was in total secrecy. How were Britain and France responsible for failing to police this action? Like I said, once this was all revealed in 1935 what exactly were GB and France supposed to do? The resurgent German armed forces were presented as a fait accompli.

It was already too late. I don't see how 'country A' can facilitate the secret rearmament of 'country Z' but can then blame 'countries B and F' for not stopping it? Where's the logic?

it would be wrong to say that France and Britain didn't contributed to the rise of Nazi Germany

Agreed, and I think it would be safe to throw the USA into the ring as well. There were lots of things that several countries could have done differently. The most crucial one being NOT making Versailles about revenge in the first place.

Regarding the Czech position, I know next to nothing other the barest facts of history, so, genuine question here, if they were caopable of repelling the Germans in 1938, why didn't they when the Sudetenland was annexed? This was sovereign territory after all, was it not?
 
Last edited:
"... Regarding the Czech position, I know next to nothing other the barest facts of history, so, genuine question here, if they were caopable of repelling the Germans in 1938, why didn't they when the Sudetenland was annexed?"

Very good question.

Possible answers:

- lack of political will. The "country" was not really a country but a creature of Versailles-League of Nations. Once the Iron Curtain came down the country harmoniously dissolved itself into 2 independent republics. Understanding themselves that they were two peoples - not a nation.
- prosperity. Belief in some quarters of the country that they would be economically better-served in Germany-centric Europe than outside.
-differing values-aspirations between Czech and Slovak populations

This should be a good one to get feedback on. :)

MM
 
Gosh, imalko, let's just try and imagine why a thinking person living in a democracy might be afraid of communism in the late 1930's...

But - I guess - if you're a believer, communism replaces all religious values and the well-being of the proletariat replaces "morality" and ethics - and class consciousness replaces "soul".

Getting the impression you are trying to pull me into debate about ideology and religion here. First time I'm called "communist believer" too, even if only indirectly. :lol::rolleyes: (If I misunderstood this part of your post I apologize.)
I was born in Communist country and watched it fall apart as bloody as that was. Being from workers (proletariat) family I believe we have better perspective of both sides of the communism then you as a foreign onlooker. However, I'm first to admit that Communist Yugoslavia was quite a different country then Soviet Union. Here's a bit of personal experience. I come from religious Christian family. My grandfather was active at church at the height of Communist regime in Yugoslavia and never had any problems because of that.


All fine I guess but the Nazis had "padres" - the way the Soviets had commissars. Less menacing to Christian Europe - the padres :), I mean.

Doubt that victims of Holocaust would agree with you about Nazis being less menacing for Christian Europe because they were not openly atheists.

Now you or others - no doubt - will tell me that the same list could be applied to Nazis Germany and Hitler and - for the most part :) you'd be right.

Glad we can ever find points to agree upon.

You make "fear of communism" sound like paranoia ...

I the context of events of the thirties it was paranoia in sense it blinded the western democracies to see where the greatest danger was coming from.

Boy, this thread sure got stranded off topic...
 
Last edited:
I may be being incredibly dense here but was this agreement (from 1926-33, thanks stasoid) ALSO not in direct contravention of the Versailles treaty, or at least the spirit of it? You could argue, successfully that Russia was not a party to that agreement, but if Russia did not want Germany to rearm, why do it?

The work that was done in Russia in these years was in total secrecy. How were Britain and France responsible for failing to police this action? Like I said, once this was all revealed in 1935 what exactly were GB and France supposed to do? The resurgent German armed forces were presented as a fait accompli.

It was already too late. I don't see how 'country A' can facilitate the secret rearmament of 'country Z' but can then blame 'countries B and F' for not stopping it? Where's the logic?

Obviously you missed my point. When said France and UK didn't prevented build up of German war machine I was not referring to training of some 1000 or so of German personnel in USSR at the time when Germany was a democracy as Stasoid pointed out. However, they could have prevented German industry from manufacturing ever greater quantities of modern military hardware. One thousand trained specialists do not make a war machine (although they can be important part of it). Tanks, cannons and aircraft do. You can't seroiusly claim that entire armed forces of a country the size of Germany can be formed without anybody noticing anything and in contrary with international treaties?
 
"... Doubt that victims of Holocaust would agree with you about Nazis being less menacing for Christian Europe because they were not openly atheists."

Of course you're right imalko. Completely right. But lets remember that there was a long history of Jewish persecution in Christian Europe? True? Lets also remember that many, many prominent Jews were Communists. Also true?

I am not trying to draw you into a religious/political debate (said the fox :)) and I am enlightened by details of personal experience - such as yours. I will say that Tito was NOT Stalin though :) and I'm sure you will agree with me.

Sorry if you think the thread has gone awry. Unlike most "what-ifs" which speculate on airplanes that never existed, or time lines than never coincided - this thread has run with the political possibilities that were up for grabs. And I haven't read a post in this thread so far that has been silly or superficial. At the same time the thread is dancing along the line of Moderator censorship - which IMHO would be a shame.

The best thing about the fall of communism has been the "dialogue dividend" :)

MM
 
"... Regarding the Czech position, I know next to nothing other the barest facts of history, so, genuine question here, if they were caopable of repelling the Germans in 1938, why didn't they when the Sudetenland was annexed?"

Very good question.

Possible answers:

- lack of political will. The "country" was not really a country but a creature of Versailles-League of Nations. Once the Iron Curtain came down the country harmoniously dissolved itself into 2 independent republics. Understanding themselves that they were two peoples - not a nation.
- prosperity. Belief in some quarters of the country that they would be economically better-served in Germany-centric Europe than outside.
-differing values-aspirations between Czech and Slovak populations

This should be a good one to get feedback on. :)

Czechs and Slovaks are two different nations, but as Slavs have great deal in common. To say that Czechoslovakia was a "creation" of the Versailles imposed on them would be simplistic and wrong view I believe. Movement for liberation from Habsburg rule and unification had many supporters among Czech and Slovak intelectuals way back. However, the fact that Bohemia and Moravia were in Austrian part of the empire and Slovakia under Hungarian rule had some consequences. Slovakia was underdeveloped, poorer and mostly rural part of the country. Most of industry being located in Bohemia and Moravia. There were some misunderstandings between two nations but I believe they were united in the feeling they should defend their country from the aggression.
So, why they didn't do so?

Here's how I see it. First of all they were told not to do so according to the Munich agreement. I've read somewhere that Czechoslovak high command believed they can fight off Wehrmacht on their own for four months. As mentioned few posts earlier they were counting on the strength of their army and air force, border fortifications and mountainous terrain. However, for ultimate success they were expecting support from their Allies, France in the first place. After Munich agreement they felt betrayed, abandoned and possibly lost their will to fight.
 
Last edited:
Of course you're right imalko. Completely right. But lets remember that there was a long history of Jewish persecution in Christian Europe? True? Lets also remember that many, many prominent Jews were Communists. Also true?

I am not trying to draw you into a religious/political debate (said the fox :)) and I am enlightened by details of personal experience - such as yours. I will say that Tito was NOT Stalin though :) and I'm sure you will agree with me.

Agreed and agreed. :) Unfortunately some of the greatest crimes in history were made in the name of religion.


Sorry if you think the thread has gone awry. Unlike most "what-ifs" which speculate on airplanes that never existed, or time lines than never coincided - this thread has run with the political possibilities that were up for grabs. And I haven't read a post in this thread so far that has been silly or superficial. At the same time the thread is dancing along the line of Moderator censorship - which IMHO would be a shame.

Well, I don't quite think the thread has gone completely awry, just noticed we started to cover many issues not strictly related to the thread title. But that's fine by me. All in the name of good discussion.
Cheers! :D
 
Great input on Czechoslovakia in 1938. And of course they would expect support from their "allies". But it wasn't to be. Sad.
I remember listening to accounts of the Hungarian revolution on the radio and you just knew that they were waiting for outside aid - and it wasn't going to come.

Tell me frankly now imalko, and this is a serious question: in your opinion who produces the better hockey players, Czechs or Slovaks :), (now that's "awry" :))

MM
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back