What if........Hitler never invaded the Soviet Union?

One has to wonder if Bomber Commnads would have had any measurable success what so ever in this "What if" scenario.

C. Sundin and C. Bergstrom in the book "More Luftwaffe Aircraft in Profile" show that 1/3 of the Luftwaffe was lost on the Russian Front. (Noting many months records are lost to posterity and far too many Luftwaffe histories were never written.) Again, these were the cream of the crop.

Further to this scenario, whilst the USAAF is credited with creating Air Superiority over the Continent, the first escort mission for the bombers was not flown until December 5 1943, and it was only apparent closer to D Day that the Luftwaffe was notable by its absence.

But this was due to the fact that by the end of January 45 the Luftwaffe had been ordered to switch to protect of the eastern side of the Reich with Berlin the priority.

So factor in, in this "What if"
a) all the freed up squadrons from the eastern front
b) with some additional 4000 aircraft and highly trained crew losses (primarily fighter and front line ground support units.)

I mean: Bomber Command (both RAF and USAAF) both had to stop several times as it was to overhaul their entire approach. 10 - 20% losses of bombers and crews on an occasional basis was sustainable albeit painful. Imagine if 20% mission losses were the norm.

The Allied strategic bombing campaign might well have been totally abandoned at least from UK bases.

A bombing campaign based out of North Africa would rapidly run out of strategic targets, nor would it have any significant effect on Axis war production. (Given again Luftwaffe total air superiority north of Switzerland...)

This "what if" stuff can get quite scary!

Aside:
Someone started a "What if?" thread http://www.ww2f.com/what-if/32618-allied-strategic-bombing-offensive-called-halt.html
- but then very unfortunately limited it, in the initial post, to the Wasserfall Ferngelenkte Flakrakete (one of the world's first guided SAM missiles.)
I sure would have liked to have seen this thread as an open ended one since no war can be won with one weapon (excluding Nuclear holocaust.)

 

Good posts Fred. Taking a plunge into the "what-if" thread can get a little chaotic but you seems to be doing well.

If I may nit pick a little.... It has been pointed out by some that as many as 9,000 planes were lost in the East.

http://www.lesbutler.ip3.co.uk/jg26/thtrlosses.htm

 

What about German Jews, homosexuals, criminals and senior citizens?

 

Yes: it is sad that so many records were lost in WW2. On a personal note all the RAF records of squadrons in Greece were destroyed during the evacuation in 1941 so I have no way of tracing my neighbour's victories as an Ace in 33 Squadron including their history in Nth Africa. Most frustrating. If it were not for Italian recording keeping (Thanks!) next to nothing would be known. Mackie Ormsby

To carry on with the "What if" scenario:
The Allies would have been forced to stage multiple simultaneous sea invasions in the Mediterranean to split up overwhelming Axis forces - likely southern France and the Balkans through Greece in addition to Italy. The question is: how could they possibly have dealt with tank battles on this scale?
- with overwhelming numbers of vastly superior German tanks etc. not otherwise lost.

Boggles the mind.

 

I would guess that eventually yes they would. The Luftwaffe should be able to put up 3-4 times the historical fight with its increased resources. But there is something awe-inspiring about a Superpower that can crank out 100,000 (or more) aircraft in one year. If nothing else, by shear mass of numbers, the Allied air attack should eventually gain successes.

By choosing to fight in locations that stretched the German capacity to react with powerful forces. Norway, for example, would be a theatre that would naturally (severely) constrict German logistics.

 

But many of the advances in German tank development was as a response to relatively heavy armored Soviet tanks. Would the German have invested heavily in heavy tanks like the Tiger or Panther tanks if their greatest success(Battle of France was accomplish with an armored force that consisted in great part tanks that were quite inferior to Allied ones(Panzer I/II)?

 

I wonder this scenario a lot. I mean, attacking the Soviet Union does not seem to be a good option at first, however we must consider other factors.

First of all, if Hitler will have to attack Soviets in future, then 1941 was the right (maybe even late) time. Soviets were slowly regenerating from the Great Purge, where most of the experienced army officials were executed due to the charge of treason, and they had problems with the army resources (planes, ammo etc.) So basically, Soviets were in a weak state and every minute passed, they were gaining power.

Secondly, Soviets were "untermenschen" in the eyes of Nazi ideology, meaning they were not equal to Germans as a race. Moreover, Germany declared the anti-Comintern pact, stating that Communism is a threat to peace. So two countries were ideologically very different.

And we are talking about two super powers of Second World War. Their sphere of influences will eventually coincide and this will lead to conflicts between countries. Actually, it even started in countries such as Finland and Bulgaria.

We should take into consideration that Soviet Union and Germany had negotiations about joining the Soviets to the Axis in an Unholy Alliance against Capitalism. However these negotations stalled due to current sphere of influence conflicts therefore we can conclude that the two countries either be allied or at war.

So, the option of Hitler's neutrality is becoming less strong due to these facts and also the fact that Hitler's politics were much more aggressive than Stalin's. However, we can say that if Hitler did not attacked, the Soviets will eventually gain the economical and military upperhand and attack.

 

Was Norway of such vital strategic / material value that the Axis would squander vast resources on it? Would they not just abandon it? Axis shipping would be really vulnerable - so would not it have been a very difficult battle front for them to support?

But what then, given this scenario?
Sweden was neutral. No where to go for the allies. I still say that no matter which way you see it, a Normandy invasion would have been suicide, though this would open up the possibilities of a front opening up through Denmark or nearby, with a very short channel to cross.

Interesting "what if" I had not thought of, the more interesting the more I think about it. Thanks!

 

Norway's was vital because of the ice free port of Narvik which allowed Germany to import iron ore from Sweden during the winter months(Sweden's port on the Baltic sea froze during the winter). Because of this Germany actually stationed about 400,000 men in Norway.

 

Agreed.

Norway falls to the allies, then what?

Sweden, Finland and Russia are still in the way and Germany still holds mainland Europe.

 

In this scenerio, Germany would be getting all of what she needed from Russia.

 

True. Although Donitz had been asking for more U-boats since mid 1930's, he got little if any new U-boats. He had very few at the start of the war.

But if he had had enough at the start of the war, when they were needed most, he would have inflicted horrendous losses on the British. It was only later that Hitler stepped up submarine production, and by that time it was too late. The British radar was in place, to detect vessels on the surface, while asdic covered below the water. In short, by that ime, the U-boats were goners.

Going a bit off topic, Hitler could have also inflicted greater losses on America when the U-boats attacked the East coast. There was no blackout or escorts, so the U-boats would have been able to destroy many ships. But there were not enough in that area, which was a mistake on Hitlers part.

 

ok ok now i havent read all of the replies but has anyone considered how many technical achievements would not have been made if war between the 2 never happened? think if it never happened the germans probably wouldnt need to upgrade any of there tanks. there wouldnt be a pressing need for PaK 40s, tigers. the panther probably would not even been thought about until german designers see a T-34 in comabat against a reasonable tank. 3/4 of all equipment we talk about stemmed from the need at the eastern front. the list of machines and equipment that would not be thought of for longer is endless....

 

hey centurion interesting remark about the east coast of USA but i beg to differ because i read and i quote "A period of great success for U-boats opened with americas entry into the war at the end of 1941... many coastal ports had no black-outs, while loacal radio stations continued to braodcast making submarine navigation. Doenitz launched operation "drumroll" right up to the front door of the united states in what the U-boat crews termed a "happy time".

true if there were more u boats at that time the effect would have been worse but still if hte crews reffered to it as a happy time it must have been devastating for the amis and pleasure for u boats.

 

hi centurion, i read a book that said U-boat crews referred to january 1942 as a "happy time" because of no black outs and believe it or not but the radio stations were still broadcasting so u boat navigation was made all the more easier!

 

Considering U-Boats effects on the war,
Statistics show us that U-Boats, at their peak, stroke a serious blow to the English, however even in those times, the English maintained more ships in tons. This production gained speed as the time passed. Apart from that, if we add the ship production of USA too, I think U-Boats alone can not manage a blockade to the English. Maybe if there were enough U-Boats on Atlantic, Germany would strike a serious blow however I don't think it'll be enough. Wartime production of Allies gained incredible improvement afterward.

 

i agree i read that out of 75000 only 574 were sunk by u boats, as a staristic this doesnt mean they only made 75000 ships.

 

That's not quite right. Indeed the latter were specifially recruited. While initially blacks weren't assigned to combat units they were still recruited and drafted and as the war progressed that changed.

 

I am adding this to point out that the Native Americans were overly represented in the US armed forces even before the attack on Pearl Harbor. Population to enlistment ratio in specific. Another thing to remember, the Tribes are still considered independent entities, i.e. nations, and those person who live on the reservations cannot be involuntarialy drafted. Instead, they enlisted and after Pearl Harbor stood in line to get their draft numbers registered. Here is an interesting portion of a site dedicated to those Amerindians who were NOT specifically sought out for their language skills (codetakers), and it wasn't just the Navajo either. One of the first voice messages from the beaches of Normandy was sent in Sioux (I believe). There were Choctahs in both World Wars used in this capacity, in fact the Choctah experience is the core reason the Navajo were sought out.

During World War II more than 44,000 Native Americans saw military service, out of a total population of about 350,000. They served on all fronts in the conflict and were honored by receiving numerous Purple Hearts, Air Medals, Distinguished Flying Crosses, Bronze Stars, SilverStars, Distinguished Service Crosses, and three Congressional Medals of Honor. Indian participation in World War II was so extensive that it later became part of American folklore and popular culture.

A 1942 survey indicated that 40 percent more Native Americans voluntarily enlisted than had been drafted. The annual enlistment for Native Americans jumped from 7,500 in the summer of 1942 to 22,000 at the beginning of 1945.

The Iroquois Confederacy, having declared war on Germany in 1917, had never made peace and so automatically became party to World War II. The Navajo and other tribes were so eager to go to war that they stood for hours in bad weather to sign their draft cards, while others carried their own rifles so they would be ready for battle when they joined up.

Unwilling to wait for their draft numbers, one-fourth of the Mescalero Apaches in New Mexico enlisted. Nearly all the able-bodied Chippewas at the Grand Portage Reservation enlisted. In a story that has been attributed to many other tribes as well, Blackfeet Indians mocked the need for a conscription bill. "Since when," their members cried, "has it been necessary for Blackfeet to draw lots to fight?"

According to the Selective Service in 1942, at least 99 percent of all eligible Indians, healthy males aged 21 to 44, had registered for the draft. War Department officials maintained that if the entire population had enlisted in the same proportion as Indians, the response would have rendered Selective Service unnecessary. The overwhelming majority of Indians welcomed the opportunity to serve. On Pearl Harbor Day, there were 5,000 Indians in the military. By the end of the war, 24,521 reservation Indians, exclusive of officers, and another 20,000 off-reservation Indians had served. The combined figure of 44,500 was more than ten percent of the Native American population during the war years.

This represented one-third of all able-bodied Indian men from 18 to 50 years of age. In some tribes, the percentage of men in the military reached as high as 70 percent. Also, several hundred Indian women served in the WACS, WAVES, and Army Nurse Corps. (emphasis mine)

See:

Native Americans in World War II

The African-Americans have been addressed, as have the Asian-Americans by others. While we were a segregated military (not in the Hispanic area believe it or not), we were not a completely "white" one either.

 

Thanks for the info. I knew a lot served but had no idea that it reached the levels you've indicatd.