What if Barbarossa never happened?

[uzi716]

The title says it all, if Hitler actually kept his word and never invaded the USSR what do you think Europe would look like?

I think eastern Europe would look similar to what it did before WW1 with the exception of Czechoslovakia and Austria being part of Germany

I think north France would be German and south would be Vichy France. Britain would eventually be overrun by the Germans. And I think the Germans would eventually turn their eyes toward Scandinavia and take over there.

This is just my opinion but I don't think Hitler and Mussolini would be able to stay allied and I think that Germany would take over all of Italy or parts of Northern Italy while the south would be run by some puppet government like in southern France.

What do you think would have happened?

[Del Valle]

The Third Reich would eventually collapse, if not from Allied invasion, then to the massive corruption and repression it was generating.

The title says it all, if Hitler actually kept his word and never invaded the USSR what do you think Europe would look like?

I think north France would be German and south would be Vichy France. Britain would eventually be overrun by the Germans. And I think the Germans would eventually turn their eyes toward Scandinavia and take over there.

This is just my opinion but I don't think Hitler and Mussolini would be able to stay allied and I think that Germany would take over all of Italy or parts of Northern Italy while the south would be run by some puppet government like in southern France.

What do you think would have happened?

I do not see how Germany would be able to successfully invade Britain. Their navy was nothing compared to Britain's, the RAF had basically won the Blitz, and the U-boats, while doing tremendous damage, were essentially trying to stop a flood with a wall of toothpicks.

Southern France will probably be conquered as that actually happened during the war. Scandinavia is also a likely target as Sweden had significant iron ore deposits that the Germans were dependent on.

There is also little sense in invading Italy. No significant resources and an already friendly ally.

[uzi716]

The Third Reich would eventually collapse, if not from Allied invasion, then to the massive corruption and repression it was generating.



I do not see how Germany would be able to successfully invade Britain. Their navy was nothing compared to Britain's, the RAF had basically won the Blitz, and the U-boats, while doing tremendous damage, were essentially trying to stop a flood with a wall of toothpicks.

Southern France will probably be conquered as that actually happened during the war. Scandinavia is also a likely target as Sweden had significant iron ore deposits that the Germans were dependent on.

There is also little sense in invading Italy. No significant resources and an already friendly ally.

No I mean I don't think Mussolini and Hitler wouldn't be able to stay allied. I think eventually their interests would clash and it would eventually lead to them going to war. Besides Italy was kind of like the weaker link in the alliance.

Also I don't think England would be able to hold out much longer. I mean the Battle of Britain ended around the time Barbarossa began. So if those resources like planes, tanks, soldiers, etc. weren't being committed elsewhere then the Germans could have eventually turned the battle in their favor.

And a lot of money and resources like iron, steel, oil were being used on the eastern front but by not invading those resources were available for the Germans to develop their economy.

[Danny_K_1]

No I mean I don't think Mussolini and Hitler wouldn't be able to stay allied. I think eventually their interests would clash and it would eventually lead to them going to war. Besides Italy was kind of like the weaker link in the alliance.

Also I don't think England would be able to hold out much longer. I mean the Battle of Britain ended around the time Barbarossa began. So if those resources like planes, tanks, soldiers, etc. weren't being committed elsewhere then the Germans could have eventually turned the battle in their favor.

And a lot of money and resources like iron, steel, oil were being used on the eastern front but by not invading those resources were available for the Germans to develop their economy.

I don't think that would have happened, Mussolini wouldn't have had the balls and Hitler would have no reason to invade his incompetent ally.

What, were those tanks and soldiers supposed to swim accross the channel? I don't think it would have happened with the RAF still strong and the yanks getting in the war it wouldn't have happened.

[uzi716]

I don't think that would have happened, Mussolini wouldn't have had the balls and Hitler would have no reason to invade his incompetent ally.


What, were those tanks and soldiers supposed to swim accross the channel? I don't think it would have happened with the RAF still strong and the yanks getting in the war it wouldn't have happened.

I am just saying that I don't think they could remain allies. Italy was getting spanked around in North Africa and the Germans had to come help them. So I think Hitler would eventually realize that Italy is weaker than he thought and not worth helping.

Well I am just saying if the Luftwaffe kept grinding away the RAF, Britain would eventually have to give up. And the Germans had the V2 rockets so they could have easily kept a sustained bombardment on GB. America didn't join the war until Japan bombed Pearl Harbor in December 1941. The US didn't have a reason for going to war with Germany until Japan attacked them.

EDIT: Germany committed over 4000 aircraft to Barbarossa, I think 4000 aircraft could have easily turned the tide in the Battle of Britain

[Del Valle]

No I mean I don't think Mussolini and Hitler wouldn't be able to stay allied. I think eventually their interests would clash and it would eventually lead to them going to war. Besides Italy was kind of like the weaker link in the alliance.

Also I don't think England would be able to hold out much longer. I mean the Battle of Britain ended around the time Barbarossa began. So if those resources like planes, tanks, soldiers, etc. weren't being committed elsewhere then the Germans could have eventually turned the battle in their favor.

And a lot of money and resources like iron, steel, oil were being used on the eastern front but by not invading those resources were available for the Germans to develop their economy.

Why would Hitler and Mussolini suddenly fall out? And why would Italy being weaker militarily mean anything in the decleration? They had a good relationship with each other, Italy had no significant resources needed by the German war effort. There really isn't that much logic behind an inter-Axis war.

The resouces used in the Barabaroosa would need to get to Britian in order to actually become useful.
How is this going to happen if the RAF control the skies and RN has the channel and north sea locked down? Not to mention with the US shipping everything Britian needed to sustain their war effort. The resources from Babarossa would be inconsequential.

[conon394]

Money supply and currency manipulation in early China and the Greco-Roman world

What do you think would have happened?

Seeing as Germany never realized it was behind in Atomic research and never reformed its economy until it was at death’s door – it would have lost.

Japan’s attack on the US would more or less allow the US and UK to cooperate and coordinate even without a German declaration of war on the US. Thus Germany would still face an overwhelming economic disadvantage and even with continued neutrality with Russia always have the need to watch its back. At worst the US and UK would simply vaporize lost of Germans around 45/46 and Stalin would benefit by cleaning up the leftovers of German and Japanese imperialism before the US and UK could occupy them.

Thus no doubt a far more bitter cold war with the western allies seeing the USSR far more negatively sans the actual cooperation to defeat Germany.

[hellheaven1987]

Seeing as Germany never realized it was behind in Atomic research and never reformed its economy until it was at death’s door – it would have lost.

Japan’s attack on the US would more or less allow the US and UK to cooperate and coordinate even without a German declaration of war on the US. Thus Germany would still face an overwhelming economic disadvantage and even with continued neutrality with Russia always have the need to watch its back. At worst the US and UK would simply vaporize lost of Germans around 45/46 and Stalin would benefit by cleaning up the leftovers of German and Japanese imperialism before the US and UK could occupy them.

Thus no doubt a far more bitter cold war with the western allies seeing the USSR far more negatively sans the actual cooperation to defeat Germany.

I highly doubt atomic research would cause Germany lose the war, unless Allies was planning to put all Europe into oblivion. Besides, an attack of atomic bomb would just force Germany to increase its atomic research, and perhaps around 1948 Germany would have atomic bomb and sent UK into oblivion.

The attitude of Stalin was another important factor; whatever it was, if Allies increased its force within UK Hitler could not ignore those and send force to guard its Soviet border. Similarly, Stalin would not attack Germany unless Allies already dealed a considerable damage on Germany, which probably means the reoccupation of France, an operation would not be successed if Wehrmechat did not draw its force into Russia. Overall, the stalemate would probably promote a close economical tie between Soviet and Germany, as prolong the life of Germany in the end (no oil and raw materials problem).

That would probably a worst situation, because in the end both Nazi and Soviet would collapse due to their economical system, but it would not happen until 40 to 50 years.

[OTZ]

I highly doubt atomic research would cause Germany lose the war, unless Allies was planning to put all Europe into oblivion. Besides, an attack of atomic bomb would just force Germany to increase its atomic research, and perhaps around 1948 Germany would have atomic bomb and sent UK into oblivion..

Or more realistically, the complete annihilation of Berlin, including the German government there, would facilitate a quick a speedy conclusion of the a-bomb inspired peace talks.

Germany's atomic program was way off course, even if given another 3 years, or the impetus provided by experiencing the effects of the bomb, they wouldn't stand a chance of equaling the US.

The Americans had few qualms about vaporizing Japan one city at a time - it's doubtful they would have been more "considerate" of the Nazis.

[hellheaven1987]

Or more realistically, the complete annihilation of Berlin, including the German government there, would facilitate a quick a speedy conclusion of the a-bomb inspired peace talks.

Germany's atomic program was way off course, even if given another 3 years, or the impetus provided by experiencing the effects of the bomb, they wouldn't stand a chance of equaling the US.

The Americans had few qualms about vaporizing Japan one city at a time - it's doubtful they would have been more "considerate" of the Nazis.

The problem is that there was no long range bomber that could reach Berlin from British Isles in 1940s, and even that type of bomber existed, Allies would not even do that without air superior, which could not achieve without crushed Luftwaffe (which was crushed because of the winter of Russia).

The somehow more realistic target would be tactic bombing for an amphious assault, but then the radiation would not allow both side to even enter the battlefield (so no point to even drop atomic bomb on that).

Besides, if Soviet could get an atomic bomb in 1949, which had far even less atomic research than Germany, it was rather quite possible Germany could achieve that before 1949. Now, nuking London from France was very realistic and in fact Hitler might even try that if British was too annoying.

And a lot of money and resources like iron, steel, oil were being used on the eastern front but by not invading those resources were available for the Germans to develop their economy.

Indeed, not to mention it was highly possible that Stalin would even provide that to Germany; after all, Stalin's goal was avoiding war against Germany while seeing the enemy of Soviet killing each others (and enjoying it; what is more please than seeing your enemies killing eachothers??).

[Ataraxie]

Ever read Fatherland ?
With a slight tweak - Barbarossa not happening instead of being "75% Successful" - and you end up with the same picture - angry Russians on one side, culutrally and financially stagnant Reich in the middle, and everyone else pecking, cold war style, around the edges.

With regards to Britain, it's worth bearing in mind that the Battle of Britain was won prior to Barbarossa - Adolf would still have had to refight that, over and over, before he could invade the British isles in any realistic sense.

[Boer]

I think that Stalin most likely would have invaded Germany the next spring or perhaps the one after. Stalin and Hitler could not have sat next to each other for long with out a war breaking out. Maybe it would have been triggered by a new Soviet invasion of Finland or a German invasion of Turkey, but I am convinced that the Third Reich and the USSR would have inevitably been at war with each other sooner or later.

[hellheaven1987]

I think that Stalin most likely would have invaded Germany the next spring or perhaps the one after. Stalin and Hitler could not have sat next to each other for long with out a war breaking out. Maybe it would have been triggered by a new Soviet invasion of Finland or a German invasion of Turkey, but I am convinced that the Third Reich and the USSR would have inevitably been at war with each other sooner or later.

I doubt that; Stalin was not a gambler like Churchill, so he would not do anything unless he was sure he could win. Overall, Red Army would not score an easy victory against Wehrmechat no matter what, hence Stalin would prefer to use non-military way to make sure Hitler would not attack Soviet.

Hence, Stalin would probably promote a Soviet-German trading system, which would make Germany and Soviet depended on eachother; the result would be an unofficial, unholy alliance between Commintern and Axis, but Soviet would not join any direct military operation against Allies.

However, Japan, no matter what, would still fall in the end, perhaps around 1945~46.

[Keravnos]

I think that Stalin most likely would have invaded Germany the next spring or perhaps the one after. Stalin and Hitler could not have sat next to each other for long with out a war breaking out. Maybe it would have been triggered by a new Soviet invasion of Finland or a German invasion of Turkey, but I am convinced that the Third Reich and the USSR would have inevitably been at war with each other sooner or later.

Nazi Germany was operating under a "Lebensraum" principle that USSR probably knew about, therefore it tried to strengthen its borders. But going from that point on to full mobilization for war just wasn't planed, from what I have read. There was indeed plans to "export the revolution" but those were on the back burner as "industrializing USSR" was the order of the day as can be seen by the wiki site on 5 year plans. There might have been HQ exercises as to what an invasion on Nazi-occupied Europe, but no real war-planning took place, not in the shape which would create the worlds' largest standing Army, the one who would destroy and defeat the most number of Nazi troops. This happened AFTER Axis attacked.

USSR at the time was a centrally controlled economy, a planned economy, what would be a failure in the future, but which did produce spectacular results in the short term, or to put it mildly on 5 year plans.

The third one was the one that was in the process of being implemented when Nazis attacked.

The Third Plan, 1938–1941
The Third Five-Year Plan ran for only 3 years, up to 1941, when the Soviet Union entered the Second World War. As war approached, more resources were put into developing armaments, tanks and weapons.
The first two years of the Third Five-Year Plan proved to be even more of a disappointment in terms of proclaimed production goals. Even so, the value of these goals and of the coordination of an entire economy's development of central planning has been undeniable. For the 12% to 13% rate of annual industrial growth attained in the Soviet Union during the 1930s has few parallels in the economic history of other countries. Since Russia's economy had always lagged behind the rest of Europe, these increases appeared all the more dramatic. Additionally, this high rate of growth was continued after World War II, as much devastation needed to be repaired, and continued into the early fifties, after which it had gradually declined

As you see there was a sense of imminent danger, but I don't think anything like the scale of mass production that was the case AFTER Nazi Germany leading Axis forces attacked USSR. Therefore, I do believe that it wasn't the Soviets who wanted to enter WW2, but when attacked they fought to win, transferring plants to the Urals and re-building them overnight, having them work around the clock to produce as many weapons as needed to win and more, going into overdrive to save their country.

Hitler on the other hand, cut production of sorely needed tanks as he was sure that the war was won after the initial success of Operation Barbarossa and to those plans which were working, they worked in their pre-war capacity, in contrast to Soviet plants which operated continuously.

(victims of 5 year plans in spoiler)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I don't think anyone can speak of "5 year plans" and whatnot without mentioning its victims. The people who the Stalinist regime consider its enemies, who it killed off with maximum cruelty, for no other crime than owning land and expecting to be paid for the produce they grew. Millions perished, which are conveniently left out of the way, by those idealizing Soviet era.

During this period, Stalin pursued the policy of "collectivization" in agriculture to facilitate the process of rapid industrialization; this involved the creation of collective farms in which peasants worked cooperatively on the same land with same equipment. This was intended to improve the efficiency of agriculture and eliminate the "kulak" class of landowners, which was deemed hostile to the Soviet regime, while improving the position of poor peasants. The disruption and repression associated with collectivization was a primary cause of the famine of 1932, which resulted in millions of deaths.

and, of course, the Great Purge (Stalin's Paranoia grew to unimaginable heights)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge

I believe that the "Soviet imminent attack" threat that post war historians speak of has been vastly exaggerated. Whether that might have happened 2 or 3 or 5 years down the line might be argued, but even that case is unfounded. Stalins' USSR wanted to be left alone, so far as I can understand. Axis assault turned USSR into a superpower and created the Iron curtain and communist Europe. I do believe that had Axis not attacked USSR, history would have taken an entirely different course.

[ccllnply]

To be honest, I can't think of any sort of possible way that Germany that the two wouldn't have gone to war with each other. If Barbarossa had never happened, they would have just invaded each other later on

[Danny_K_1]

Hitler knew Italy was weak but they were worth helping as proven by helping them in the Balkans and the sucessful early ventures of the Afrika Korps and I suppose with the Germans not being spread so thin the North African campaign could have been won so things wouldn't have been so bad between Italy and Germany not to mention I have seen several times that Mussolini was the closest thing Hitler had to a friend.

It was my understanding V-2 rockets weren't operational until the later part of the war, maybe your thinking of V-1 rockets?

Regardless of Barbarossa, Japan would have still attacked Pearl Harbour, Germany would have still declared war on the U.S.

As for your 4,000 planes who knows what would have happened but I wouldn't be so sure about counting the RAF out especially with American support on the way.

[Mr. Pink]

They'd have been pumped, just in a different position, if you will.

[Prodigal]

D-day would have still occurred, even if Barbarossa didn't. It would have ended the regime.

[Tiberius Tosi]

One of two things, either Russia would do what it was planning on doing which was invading Germany. That would cause Germany to devote all of its' resources there, and the war would probably end very similar to how it did in real life, only probably with more Russian casualties and the Germans would not be so undersupplied. Or, Russia would never join, or not join until the Allies landed on D-Day, and the war would have lasted a lot longer, Europe would be bombed to hell, and the USSR would have a lot less influence after the war. A nuke by the allies as a threat probably would have also ended the war in favor of the US and UK.

[hellheaven1987]

One of two things, either Russia would do what it was planning on doing which was invading Germany. That would cause Germany to devote all of its' resources there, and the war would probably end very similar to how it did in real life, only probably with more Russian casualties and the Germans would not be so undersupplied. Or, Russia would never join, or not join until the Allies landed on D-Day, and the war would have lasted a lot longer, Europe would be bombed to hell, and the USSR would have a lot less influence after the war. A nuke by the allies as a threat probably would have also ended the war in favor of the US and UK.

1. There is no evidence Soviet was planning, or even cared about invaded Germany. Hence, the "invasion conspiracy" can be dropped.

2. Again, Allies had no capacity to nuke anywhere beyond France from British Isles, so unless Allies decided to nuke France out of hell, which is highly impossible considering Free France would not even agree that, a nuke war is highly impossible.

3. Lastly, Allies' chance to launch D-Day is slim without Wehrmachet pinned down in Russia; in fact, consider the performance of Wehrmechat during France campaign a roughly calculation of 150 ~ 200 divisions would able to hold Europe like a fortress - which means, Germany did not even need to go war economy to fight the war. Allies' manpower advantage would not be able to use well in amphious operation because no matter how, there is no way to throw a lot of divisions on beach.