What if Hitler Invaded the Soviet Union Earlier?

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
atkif
Member
Posts: 455
Joined: 31 Jul 2002 23:26
Location: canada

Post by atkif » 22 Aug 2002 19:02

History proves !
Throughout the Russian history whoever had been invading Russia after initial victories was eventually defeated.
Yes I agree that the Europeans don't have any chances against Russia.

User avatar
MVSNConsolegenerale
Member
Posts: 274
Joined: 23 Apr 2002 06:34
Location: Ontario, Canada

re: initial victories?

Post by MVSNConsolegenerale » 22 Aug 2002 23:29

well, how do you invade someone without an initial victory?

w.h.d.

User avatar
Siegfried Wilhelm
Member
Posts: 744
Joined: 17 Jun 2002 15:19
Location: Kleinkleckersdorf, NC, Confederate States of America

Post by Siegfried Wilhelm » 23 Aug 2002 16:44

Another thing that wouldn't make any difference for the Germans even had they made it to Moskow. Because of secret information (supplied mainly by a spy named Sorge) the Soviets learned that they did not have to fear Japan which had been an old enemy. Thus they freed up around 100 divisions of cold weather trained troops from the East. Zhukov hit the Germans with these in early December 1941 when the Germans had been already bogged down even facing the remnants of second line troops becuase of the onset of winter. Disaster for Germany.
Had they made even as far as the Urals, they might have used the mountains defensively, but still the logistics problems in the face of that onslaught would have still spelled disaster.

Miss Nimitz
Banned
Posts: 275
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 00:53
Location: San Jose Califirnia

Post by Miss Nimitz » 23 Dec 2002 07:04

Yes Hitler should of attacked Soviet Union 6 weeks earlier in the year, but a year later...His economy needed a little more time to be that little stronger.

Caldric
Member
Posts: 8077
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:50
Location: Anchorage, Alaska

Post by Caldric » 23 Dec 2002 07:58

Miss Nimitz wrote:Yes Hitler should of attacked Soviet Union 6 weeks earlier in the year, but a year later...His economy needed a little more time to be that little stronger.
It was raining.

Miss Nimitz
Banned
Posts: 275
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 00:53
Location: San Jose Califirnia

Post by Miss Nimitz » 23 Dec 2002 08:30

I'm sure the 3 million troops had a Regenscherm each! :P

User avatar
Gyles
Member
Posts: 236
Joined: 02 Dec 2002 16:01
Location: Surrey, UK

Post by Gyles » 24 Dec 2002 00:28

Germany would still lose. They could never, never win a war of attrition against the SU. Even if moscow was penetrated or even captured it could never be held and Russian reinforcements would inevatibly push them back. They'd still suffer from most of teh handicaps of OTL such as large scale, partisan warfare, (even more) overextended logistics, exhausted troops, incapacity fromcold, WA etc. The list just goes on and on.

User avatar
nasdaq7
Member
Posts: 289
Joined: 07 Dec 2002 17:18
Location: South Africa

Russia

Post by nasdaq7 » 24 Dec 2002 05:29

Perhaps Hitler should have invaded Poland and Russia first
instead of France. Even if France and England declared war, I
don't think the French army would have gone onto the offensive -
they were relying on the defenses of their Maginot Line and were
perhaps expecting a WWI trench type of war.

I'm sure Hitler would listen to this advice if he was alive and could
do it over again.

User avatar
WTW26
Member
Posts: 1289
Joined: 13 Mar 2002 12:30
Location: Russia

Post by WTW26 » 24 Dec 2002 15:33

He'd be beaten anyway.

User avatar
Angelo
Member
Posts: 624
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 04:11
Location: Italy

Post by Angelo » 01 Jan 2003 06:04

Gyles wrote:Germany would still lose. They could never, never win a war of attrition against the SU. Even if moscow was penetrated or even captured it could never be held and Russian reinforcements would inevatibly push them back. They'd still suffer from most of teh handicaps of OTL such as large scale, partisan warfare, (even more) overextended logistics, exhausted troops, incapacity fromcold, WA etc. The list just goes on and on.
Well, Gyles,

Though I usually share your comments, in this case I have a slightly
different vision.
If Moscow fell in 1941, that would have meant much more than just a
symbolic or ideological victory. Considering that Moscow would have
been subject to a pincer maneuver as they tried to carry out historically,
that would have meant the pocketing of a huge number of Russian Divisions between the northwester Klin salient and the southeastern bulge
around Tula. If we draw a line from Kalinin to Tula passing through
Volokolamsk, Kubinka, Naro-Fominsk, Serpukov, Tarusa and Alexin, we
are actually past the Mozhaisk Line.
Those portions of the Kalinin and Western Front included at least 11
Russian Armies which would have been subject to either destruction or
captivity.
Notice that would have meant losing at least 1.200.000 to 1.500.000 soldiers.
Moreover, such a victory would have posed a very serious threat on
all of the units covering the line up to Staraja Russa with a concrete
possibility that the Northern Front from Leningrad down to Moscow
would have been dismantled and necessarily retreated to avoid losing the relatively few units (if compared to the Western Front) still defending it.

Without entering too much detail, I would say that the loss of Moscow
would have been an actual catastroph for Stalin. It would have deprived
the Russians of a most useful pivotal knot to get both of their northern
and southern wings easily supplied and maneuvered. Logistics would have
certainly suffered a terrible blow.
In that case it would have been exactly the opposite of Stalingrad where
a rather strong ram's head suffered from too weak lines on its flank and
virtually nothing at all in the rear; in this case the situation would have
been reversed, with a powerful German group in the Moscow-Gorki area,
backed up by a sturdy western flank and a strong eastern line extending
from Tula down to the Voronesh area.

While I do agree that the other factors you mentioned would have been
still there, I wouldn't be so sure that the epilogue would have been the
same.

As I'm right in the middle of an unconceivable mess, with bricklayers
going back and forth and a lot of my books spread out even under my
bed, I could only draw from past memories, and am not in a position to
supply sources or come up with more detailed "what if's". Let's hope
I'll have that chance in a couple of months from now. :D

Regards.

Angelo

Spitfire Bob
Banned
Posts: 18
Joined: 27 Dec 2002 23:54
Location: Birmingham UK

Post by Spitfire Bob » 02 Jan 2003 01:33

Major Robert J. Harrison here, ex R.A.F, If that Damn Hitler had invaded earlier, I;m afraid old chaps he would of captured Russia and not a Jolly thing we could of done to get him out. He would of enlisted millions of Slavs to fight for him, I doubt they would of resisted and all the military hardware he would of captures as well..my god old chaps, to think of the horrible Hitler winning...

User avatar
Nagelfar
Member
Posts: 1102
Joined: 08 Sep 2002 06:31
Location: Pacific Northwest

Post by Nagelfar » 02 Jan 2003 04:49

spitfire bob wrote:my god old chaps, to think of the horrible Hitler winning...
then why'd you vote for germany in the "what country do you believe should have won WWII?" thread?

Spitfire Bob
Banned
Posts: 18
Joined: 27 Dec 2002 23:54
Location: Birmingham UK

Post by Spitfire Bob » 02 Jan 2003 06:46

Major Robert J. Harrison here, Ex R.A.F, well its true that I voted for Germany, they should of won, Bit of bad luck they had, old son wouldn't you say?

User avatar
Nagelfar
Member
Posts: 1102
Joined: 08 Sep 2002 06:31
Location: Pacific Northwest

Post by Nagelfar » 02 Jan 2003 07:15

spitfire bob wrote:well its true that I voted for Germany, they should of won, Bit of bad luck they had, old son wouldn't you say?
well, bad luck or misplaced application of skill, yes.

I just found it odd that you find the subject "horrible" to contemplate, if you believe that should have been the proper arrangement of things outside of circumstance

User avatar
Angelo
Member
Posts: 624
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 04:11
Location: Italy

Post by Angelo » 02 Jan 2003 09:03

That's quite contradictory, to say the least!

I'll be too naive, maybe, but I just can't dig it.

Angelo

Return to “What if”