Alternate History- What if Hitler had not invaded Russia, would Germany still control Western Europe today?

[wendist]

6 hours ago, Nobu said:

Lend-lease to Britain would continue unabated, but if the Germans marching up Whitehall in 1940 would not be enough to provoke US entry into the war, it seems unlikely (with the grassroots sentiment represented by the America First Committee in mind) that a North Atlantic provocation would be enough to do so.

The moment of greatest danger for Britain politically WRT to the USSR appears to have been Winter 1940-Spring 1941, when its relations with the USSR reached their low point after its successful effort to expel the USSR from the League of Nations in December, and growing support for military intervention in Finland against the Soviet invasion in the months afterward. The irony is that had the Finns held out for a month or 2 longer, war between Britain and the USSR may have been inevitable.

IF the British ever decided to cross the Swedish-Finnish border that is. Chanses are they would not since at the moment the Allies land in Norway the Germans would have to react, most probably by invading Sweden. The British forces then occupying northern Sweden would soon be fully involved in fighting the Germans somewhere in Sweden the way they did in Norway, Belgium and Greece in the real war.

[seahawk]

16 hours ago, RichTO90 said:

It only requires Hitler to not be Hitler and Nazis to not be Nazis.

Sure, but then we not even need to discuss the idea, because "Lebensraum im Osten" was the main goal of Hitler.

[RichTO90]

9 hours ago, Nobu said:

Lend-lease to Britain would continue unabated, but if the Germans marching up Whitehall in 1940 would not be enough to provoke US entry into the war, it seems unlikely (with the grassroots sentiment represented by the America First Committee in mind) that a North Atlantic provocation would be enough to do so.

Um, the Germans did not march up Whitehall in 1940 and were not going to march up Whitehall in 1940, 1941, 1942...

Continued German and American provocations in the Atlantic are unlikely to lead to anything other than war, regardless of what America First wants.

 

Quote

The moment of greatest danger for Britain politically WRT to the USSR appears to have been Winter 1940-Spring 1941, when its relations with the USSR reached their low point after its successful effort to expel the USSR from the League of Nations in December, and growing support for military intervention in Finland against the Soviet invasion in the months afterward. The irony is that had the Finns held out for a month or 2 longer, war between Britain and the USSR may have been inevitable.

It's also the same moment pf greatest danger for the USSR. The Winter War and Soviet threats to Romania and Hungary infuriated Hitler and more than likely affected his final decision for BARBAROSSA.

[RichTO90]

30 minutes ago, seahawk said:

Sure, but then we not even need to discuss the idea, because "Lebensraum im Osten" was the main goal of Hitler.

Yep.

[wendist]

IMHO but having a "what if" were Hitler must be Hitler does not make much sense. One or two of his decisions have to be different for a "what if" to make sense.

[glenn239]

On 1/9/2021 at 10:12 AM, RichTO90 said:

The notion that a Germany at peace with the USSR could produce significant quantities of aviation gasoline from Soviet crude is delusional. 

Soviet frontline air strength peaked at about 18,000 aircraft, IIRC.  That's x3 the LW's peak strength.  Where did the Soviets get the avgas for that large an air force?

(Edit - Wiki says that 58% of the USSR's high octane was provided by Lend Lease, so the other 42% will I assume have been domestically produced?)

This article outlines the history of German Tetraethyl lead production in WW2,

Appendix A. Strategic Air Attack on the German Chemical Industry (angelfire.com)

 

Edited January 14, 2021 by glenn239

[R011]

11 hours ago, Nobu said:

Lend-lease to Britain would continue unabated, but if the Germans marching up Whitehall in 1940 would not be enough to provoke US entry into the war, it seems unlikely (with the grassroots sentiment represented by the America First Committee in mind) that a North Atlantic provocation would be enough to do so.

The moment of greatest danger for Britain politically WRT to the USSR appears to have been Winter 1940-Spring 1941, when its relations with the USSR reached their low point after its successful effort to expel the USSR from the League of Nations in December, and growing support for military intervention in Finland against the Soviet invasion in the months afterward. The irony is that had the Finns held out for a month or 2 longer, war between Britain and the USSR may have been inevitable.

American public opinion was shifting in favour of war.  Polls just before Pearl Harbor showed a clear majority believed the US would go to war with Germany and were in favor of risking war to do all possible to help the Allies.  At some point sooner or later, there would have been a tipping point - a U Boat too many for the Germans, another USN destroyer or American passenger ship, something.

[RichTO90]

23 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

Soviet frontline air strength peaked at about 18,000 aircraft, IIRC.  That's x3 the LW's peak strength.  Where did the Soviets get the avgas for that large an air force?

(Edit - Wiki says that 58% of the USSR's high octane was provided by Lend Lease, so the other 42% will I assume have been domestically produced?)

The Wiki is incorrect...go figure. It was not 58% of "high octane" that was shipped via Lend-Lease, it was 58% of the Soviet aviation fuels and 100% of the Soviet 100/130 octane aviation gasoline. The Soviets, like the Germans, had no catalytic cracking refineries and could not produce a 100-octane aviation gasoline domestically.

Prior to the signing of the First Protocol in Moscow on 7 October 1941, between 22 June and 30 September 1941, the U.S. shipped on a cash basis 156,335 short tons of aviation gasoline to the USSR, of which 25,185 short tons were 100 octane, 130,729 tons were 87-99 octane, and the rest was under 87 octane. During the course of the Lend-Lease program, the U.S. delivered a further 1,197,587 short tons of aviation fuels, of which 558,428 tons were 100 octane. In addition, the U.S. shipped 732,295 tons of octane boosting additives and the British another 102,132, which when added to Soviet domestic production, most of which was under 70-74 octane, could boost it to 87-octane, equivalent to German B-4 aviation gasoline.

To put things in perspective, the entire Soviet refined production of aviation fuels in 1940 was 883,600 tons, only 4% of which was 87-octane or c. 35,000 tons. In other words, the U.S. shipped in three months the equivalent of more than four years production of the best grades of Soviet aviation fuels.

Non-aviation POL deliveries included 267,088 tons of automotive gasoline; 16,870 tons of kerosene; 287,262 tons of fuel oil; 111,676 tons of lubricating oil; 5,769 tons of paraffin; 4,788 tons of chemical additives; and 999 tons of other products.

[R011]

1 hour ago, wendist said:

IMHO but having a "what if" were Hitler must be Hitler does not make much sense. One or two of his decisions have to be different for a "what if" to make sense.

The problem is that theatre was more to the decision than a whim on Hitler's part.  Ideology, international politics, and economics are drivers here.  The Nazis want to eliminate Jews.  They, the Army and many others want to end Communism.  Lebensraum.  The security of buffer states and Stalin's opportunism.  The rebuilding of the Red Army.  The fact they couldn't pay for their imports, but could steal them instead ( if they won.)

IMO, unless Hitler is convinced war would be a disaster, and at the time there is nothing to indicate they had no chance, then they would go to war more or less when they did in real life.

[glenn239]

On 1/13/2021 at 2:57 AM, Stuart Galbraith said:

Yes, but how can the Africa Korp take Africa, when they tried that in reality and failed? Germany is a land power, at sea its a bit crap. It could try to deny the sea to the Royal Navy, but they never had anything that could dominate it, but for a short while. All they have left is airpower.

Malta is the first step.  The LW could dominate the air over Malta because without Barbarossa they have the airpower to do it.  For Hercules in 1942, the Italians had built a bunch of MFP's, and the Germans had a bunch from Sealion which would not be needed on the Black Sea if there was no Barbarossa.  The Italian Navy would be better supplied as well, and since Spain will be an Axis Power if there is no invasion in the east, the German navy could also throw some of its surface forces into this region.

With air domination and contested at sea, Gozo and Comino fall and the Germans can set up heavy artillery there to cover landings on Malta directly.  Between all these things, the defenders would not have a chance.

Quote

In fact, throwing in all the Luftwaffe into the Med is just what we would have liked. It would have made it much easier to kill it, as it was historically.They throw all their airpower in the Med, we throw all ours in, and its the same result.

Yes, and if the Luftwaffe uses the RAF's absence from Britain to launch Sealion, I would assume that the Germans would be sporting enough to allow the British to stage home from Egypt via German French air bases.   "Interior lines" is an interesting google search.  Maybe try it and read the first hit.  :^)

Quote

Without a significant seapower injection, the Axis/Italian's are just not winning the Med.

Once the Germans have Spain, the problem is that the German fleet can base there and be in a position to operate in the Atlantic and the Med.  That's a real bitch - that interior lines thing strikes again.  The Germans historically had two heavy cruisers, two pocket battleships, two battlecruisers able to operate from Gibraltar, if Axis.  In addition to that, the destroyers routinely crawled down the French side of the English Channel, so those going from Brest to Axis occupied Spain would have been child's play.

[wendist]

1 hour ago, R011 said:

The problem is that theatre was more to the decision than a whim on Hitler's part.  Ideology, international politics, and economics are drivers here.  The Nazis want to eliminate Jews.  They, the Army and many others want to end Communism.  Lebensraum.  The security of buffer states and Stalin's opportunism.  The rebuilding of the Red Army.  The fact they couldn't pay for their imports, but could steal them instead ( if they won.)

IMO, unless Hitler is convinced war would be a disaster, and at the time there is nothing to indicate they had no chance, then they would go to war more or less when they did in real life.

Fully agree with all of the above, Germans not going east is an unlikely turn of events. But I have enjoyed following this thread very much, much interesting facts have been presented regarding fuel production, Soviet/German relations and so forth. All this would never have happened had our thread starter decided that the basis for this what if was to unlikely, Hitler being too much not Hitler, and then not starting the thread. We had some time ago a Kaiser Wilhelm what if that gave me the impetus to buy a couple of books to read up on a subject I did not know that much about before, we had quite recently a Sealion what if (probably the 22'nd on this Grate Sight) that generated a lot of posts. All very interesting and fun to follow.

IMHO it's worth it to let Hitler not be Hitler every now and then just to see what happens. Granted there are limits to all of this, if someone were to start a thread on whether the Nazis would have benefited from basing their flying saucers in Antarctica instead of on the dark side of the moon I don't think I would have spent much time following that thread.

[RichTO90]

1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

Malta is the first step.  The LW could dominate the air over Malta because without Barbarossa they have the airpower to do it.  For Hercules in 1942, the Italians had built a bunch of MFP's, and the Germans had a bunch from Sealion which would not be needed on the Black Sea if there was no Barbarossa.  The Italian Navy would be better supplied as well, and since Spain will be an Axis Power if there is no invasion in the east, the German navy could also throw some of its surface forces into this region.

With air domination and contested at sea, Gozo and Comino fall and the Germans can set up heavy artillery there to cover landings on Malta directly.  Between all these things, the defenders would not have a chance.

The first step to what? German and Italian fortunes in North Africa are unlikely to change with or without Malta in British hands. It increased losses to German and Italian shipping in route to North Africa, but had little to do with the starting lack of adequate shipping, escorts, and ports.

Sure, they can build MFPs, but why is the Italian Navy "better supplied"? Better supplied with what?

 

Quote

Yes, and if the Luftwaffe uses the RAF's absence from Britain to launch Sealion, I would assume that the Germans would be sporting enough to allow the British to stage home from Egypt via German French air bases.   "Interior lines" is an interesting google search.  Maybe try it and read the first hit.  :^)

Why is the RAF absent from Britain? Did someone forget to leave the lights on?

 

Quote

Once the Germans have Spain, the problem is that the German fleet can base there and be in a position to operate in the Atlantic and the Med.  That's a real bitch - that interior lines thing strikes again.  The Germans historically had two heavy cruisers, two pocket battleships, two battlecruisers able to operate from Gibraltar, if Axis.  In addition to that, the destroyers routinely crawled down the French side of the English Channel, so those going from Brest to Axis occupied Spain would have been child's play.

Oh, right, Spain again. The Germans do not "have Spain". They either have to acquire it as an ally or subjugate it as a foe. Neither prospect is really sunny for the Germans.

Nor is German possession of Gibraltar and naval vessels necessarily a combination guaranteed to work out in German favor.

I'm not sure if its child's play or childish thinking going on here.

[RETAC21]

1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

Malta is the first step.  The LW could dominate the air over Malta because without Barbarossa they have the airpower to do it.  For Hercules in 1942, the Italians had built a bunch of MFP's, and the Germans had a bunch from Sealion which would not be needed on the Black Sea if there was no Barbarossa.  The Italian Navy would be better supplied as well, and since Spain will be an Axis Power if there is no invasion in the east, the German navy could also throw some of its surface forces into this region.

With air domination and contested at sea, Gozo and Comino fall and the Germans can set up heavy artillery there to cover landings on Malta directly.  Between all these things, the defenders would not have a chance.

Yes, and if the Luftwaffe uses the RAF's absence from Britain to launch Sealion, I would assume that the Germans would be sporting enough to allow the British to stage home from Egypt via German French air bases.   "Interior lines" is an interesting google search.  Maybe try it and read the first hit.  :^)

Once the Germans have Spain, the problem is that the German fleet can base there and be in a position to operate in the Atlantic and the Med.  That's a real bitch - that interior lines thing strikes again.  The Germans historically had two heavy cruisers, two pocket battleships, two battlecruisers able to operate from Gibraltar, if Axis.  In addition to that, the destroyers routinely crawled down the French side of the English Channel, so those going from Brest to Axis occupied Spain would have been child's play.

They don't need Spain, they now have MFPs, they can cross the channel and conquer Britain!

 

Haven't we been over this before enough?

[RichTO90]

Just now, RETAC21 said:

They don't need Spain, they now have MFPs, they can cross the channel and conquer Britain!

😁 Nobody needs Spain, we have MFPs, unlimited supplies of aviation fuel from the USSR, and an invincible military that can walk on water!

Quote

Haven't we been over this before enough?

Evidently not, the desire to repetitively post misinformation is too strong with some.

[seahawk]

No, we do not have a Germany able to defeat the UK, the interesting part is the British position and how much blood they are willing to shed for Poland, if this does not turn into WW2 but just another continental war between France and Germany mostly with Russia on the sidelines and waiting to improve its strategic position against all other European powers.  

[Angrybk]

4 hours ago, wendist said:

IMHO but having a "what if" were Hitler must be Hitler does not make much sense. One or two of his decisions have to be different for a "what if" to make sense.

Yeah completely. Somebody needs to write a “what if Hitler died in a car crash in 1942” alt history, that’s a lot more plausible.

[R011]

21 minutes ago, Angrybk said:

Yeah completely. Somebody needs to write a “what if Hitler died in a car crash in 1942” alt history, that’s a lot more plausible.

Then the Army would take over.  Several senior Nazis would be fired - some executed.  Crown Prince Wilhelm would be crowned Emperor Wilhelm III as his dad died in 1941.  A senior general, like von Rundstedt, would be Regent, and he war would continue until the Red Army closed in on East Prussia.

[Angrybk]

52 minutes ago, R011 said:

Then the Army would take over.  Several senior Nazis would be fired - some executed.  Crown Prince Wilhelm would be crowned Emperor Wilhelm III as his dad died in 1941.  A senior general, like von Rundstedt, would be Regent, and he war would continue until the Red Army closed in on East Prussia.

I was honestly just whimsically tossing out 1942 as a date somewhere between 1939 and late 1943 but I do think that a more reality-based German leadership could have changed the course of the war even by 1942. 

Edited January 14, 2021 by Angrybk

[alejandro_]

Quote

Sure. They could have blown their wad on Malta instead of on Crete...which leaves Crete as a major problem. Unless "not attacking the Soviet Union" somehow creates additional Luftwaffe pilots and transports, more Fallschirmtruppen, an amphibious fleet in the Med, and a Regiamarina capable of defeating the RN...all in 1941. By 1942 it is probably too late.

I remember this being discussed a few years ago in another forum. It seems Germany had a window of opportunity in the summer of 1940. At this time Italian 10th Army had 100,000 men and controlled Cyrenaica, including the harbour at Bardia.

The British Army had 90,000 men in all of the Middle East, 50,000 in Egypt. If Germany could have provided some reinforcements and Luftwaffe support maybe it could have been done. As a note, Jodl presented his memorandum on 30th June 1940.

Edited January 14, 2021 by alejandro_

[Detonable]

Stuart - I’m away from my sources so I’ll reply to your comments later.   
 

  I’d consider December 6, 1941 the last day that Britain will  sign a peace treaty. So all this has to play out before 1942. 

[R011]

1 hour ago, Angrybk said:

I was honestly just whimsically tossing out 1942 as a date somewhere between 1939 and late 1943 but I do think that a more reality-based German leadership could have changed the course of the war even by 1942. 

Before 1940, they might have just bogged down in a long WW1 style war of attrition, though they'd more likely do about as well as real life.  Other than that, they details would change, but generally they'd do much the same stuff Hitler did.  The biggest changes would come once they they losing, and they'd likely not push the Holocaust, but keep the Nuremburg Laws and Commissar Order.  Note that it was the Army who were in charge of the POW camps in which two thirds of Soviet prisoners died.

Remember that Generaloberst Franz Halder was in charge of the US official history of the German war effort.  From him and his fellow generals we got the idea that Hitler was the only ting keeping them from victory and the Myth of the Clean Wehrmacht.

[RichTO90]

59 minutes ago, R011 said:

Remember that Generaloberst Franz Halder was in charge of the US official history of the German war effort.  From him and his fellow generals we got the idea that Hitler was the only ting keeping them from victory and the Myth of the Clean Wehrmacht.

No, he wasn't. That overstates the case. Halder eventually was in charge of the German Section of the Historical Division USAEUR. He was able to "sanitize" much of the histories written by former German officers, but mainly from the 1948-1954 time frame. The early works were unsupervised and were essentially interrogations.

[Nobu]

13 hours ago, RichTO90 said:

It's also the same moment pf greatest danger for the USSR. The Winter War and Soviet threats to Romania and Hungary infuriated Hitler and more than likely affected his final decision for BARBAROSSA.

What is interesting as well is that Moscow was flirting with London in search of a political understanding even while it was exchanging proposals with Berlin regarding Tripartite Pact entry in 1940-41.

Stalin apparently craved security anywhere he could get it in this time frame (hello April 1941 Japanese-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact), and was suspicious of British intentions to a paranoid degree right up to the eve of Barbarossa. 

Correction on my part--the moment of danger in question WRT Anglo-Soviet relations was Winter 1939-Spring 1940 (not 1940-41), when the British and French drumbeat for war in Finland against the USSR was steady and growing.

13 hours ago, RichTO90 said:

Um, the Germans did not march up Whitehall in 1940 and were not going to march up Whitehall in 1940, 1941, 1942...

Continued German and American provocations in the Atlantic are unlikely to lead to anything other than war, regardless of what America First wants.

They did march down the Champs-Elysees that year, leaving Britain with a German knife at its throat, and with no resultant American entry into the war, "Lafayette we are here" or otherwise.

Re: the underlined above, I don't necessarily disagree (although no Barbarossa means no fear-creating American headlines reinforcing the myth of the Wehrmacht's invincibility to the American public in 1941) with the likely inevitability of American entry into the war. What this inevitability of US entry into the war implies, however, is that the whole "Japan and Japanese awakened the sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve" narrative may be somewhat inaccurate at best. At worst, self-serving--a.k.a. bullshit.

[R011]

5 hours ago, RichTO90 said:

No, he wasn't. That overstates the case. Halder eventually was in charge of the German Section of the Historical Division USAEUR. He was able to "sanitize" much of the histories written by former German officers, but mainly from the 1948-1954 time frame. The early works were unsupervised and were essentially interrogations.

Fair enough.  The point was, though, that there is something of a tendency to blame losing the war solely on Hitler and overestimating the generals.

[Stuart Galbraith]

12 hours ago, RETAC21 said:

They don't need Spain, they now have MFPs, they can cross the channel and conquer Britain!

 

Haven't we been over this before enough?

And the Swedish Navy. Dont forget the Swedish Navy.

8 hours ago, Detonable said:

Stuart - I’m away from my sources so I’ll reply to your comments later.   
 

  I’d consider December 6, 1941 the last day that Britain will  sign a peace treaty. So all this has to play out before 1942. 

There are very few circumstances in which I can see us giving up, simply because we just didnt trust any agreement we could make with Hitler. He had broken at least 2 he had made with us up to this point. I dont see anyone post Lord Halifax being eager to reexamine it.

To win, Germany either has to,

1 March up Whitehall. That couldnt happen because the RN and the RAF was simply too strong for Germany to overcome.

2 Conqueor the middle east. That couldnt happen because the RN and the RAF was simply too strong for Germany to overcome.

3 Defeat Britain in the North Atlantic. That couldnt happen because etc etc etc.

Yes, there is a certain amount of retroactive perception here going on in those remarks. I think Churchil understood how strong we were in the vital areas which is why he stayed strong. But I think a LOT of what Churchill was doing in 1940 and 41 was designed for the US market in mind. 'Poor weak Britain, fighting against the might of the fascist horde on our own. Oh where, oh where, shall we find a saviour?'. Yes, we were clearly on the skids when Japan invaded the far east, but so was everyone else at that point till Midway came along.

The point is, we have bought a lot of this 'Britain alone' bollocks, but how alone were we when we still dominated the seas and we had reliable allies in the rest of the Empire to fight with us. And the Czechs, and the Poles, and the Free French....

The only means the Germans had of defeating us realistically is our losing our nerve politically and somone like Halifax putting out peace feelers. Churchill faced at least one back bench rebellion, so its just about conceivable, but not very likely (after all, it didnt happen). If we just trusted in what we had, they were not going to beat us. They might eventually bankrupt us, but hey, lets leave that till the 1950's to worry about.

Edited January 15, 2021 by Stuart Galbraith