First, what additional details can you shed on this fascinating possibility? Are there any books, recent, or old, that explore this? Frankly, in my view this is a more pivotal point than the decision to resume the Russian war in 1942 and secure Stalingrad.
Second, feel free to speculate on what had happened HAD Hitler followed through on this very reasonable recommendation by his generals.
The war would have dragged on much longer and it would have been bloody beyond imagination. Once we developed the atomic bomb Berlin would have went up as radioactive ashes and dust. Repeat as necessary.
If Hitler thought a Russian attack was likely, then might not the supposed inevitability of war with Russia suggest to him that he might as well get in the first strike and attempt to defeat Russia before it mobilized fully?
The Wehrmacht was an offensive military force. Its successes relied on blitzkrieg (lightning war surprise attacks with overwhelming numerical superiority) and deep thrusts by Panzergruppen. They were ill prepared for a prolonged siege OR a defensive standoff.
Additionally, both the Germans and the Soviets used a scorched earth policy during the initial drive on Moscow. Unless they retreated to pre-Barbarossa lines, there wasn’t anywhere the Germans COULD establish fortifications and hope to have adequate means to feed and resupply their armies.
Finally, Defensive or offensive operations would not have mattered. German was running out of oil. Rommel couldn’t let his tanks romp in Africa because of oil rationing. The Luftwaffe was essentially grounded by the time of the Normandy invasion because of the oil shortage. The whole point of Operation Barbarossa was SUPPOSED to be seizure of the Caucasus oil fields. Hitler changed the plan on the eve of the attack to send the brunt of his forces against Moscow and Leningrad.
The war would have dragged on much longer and it would have been bloody beyond imagination. Once we developed the atomic bomb Berlin would have went up as radioactive ashes and dust. Repeat as necessary.
actually the key was the Japanese
They never should have attacked the US...
Other than the Philippines all the Japanese main strategies interest in the Pacific really in British, French and Dutch colonies
As an ally of the Germans they could go after those, steered clear of US interests, etc it in the Philippines..
and leveraged US isolationism and anti colonialism against the French and British to keep the US out of the war and not be that giant “arsenal of democracy”..pumping out all those tons and tons of war material that kept all the Allies afloat
Once the British French Dutch colonial interests in the far east were secured and Japan had the raw materials needed ..then could then join Germany against Russia....
Again keep the US out keep the war and isolated in the Americas ......keep the war focused on Asia aka Russia and China and and leverage the Gandhi pacifism, anti British movement to neutralize India .with a Japanese coming from the east and the Germans coming from the west..
It was truly the Japanese thinking the lost the war
They focus so long on the US being main enemy in the Pacific they didn’t really notice the political landscape change with Germany and the war in Europe...and Japan being ally of Germany and heavy US isolationism at the time stay out of the wars
The Japanese could go on after all the European colonies in Asia..under an anti colonialism pretext...and where vast majority of all the raw materials they wanted were ..and leverage US isolationists and anti colonialism sympathies to keep the US out
Germany versus USSR without Lend-Lease?
What if Hitler had a B-52?
that could have kicked off the Jihad 70 years earlier
remember, muslims dont believe in national boundries, if they felt oppressed, they are all oppressed if the mufti said to unite against the NAZI crusaders
Hitler could have beaten the Soviets (Germany had in 1917); the problem (ignored by many historians) was that Japan and the USSR had a truce that lasted into 1945. This allowed the Soviets to move most of their troops from the Far east to defend Moscow and drive the Axis back.
Hindsight is 20/20, but if the Japanese had used their troops against the USSR instead of China it would have collapsed (on one front or the other). Instead, at the time of the surrender in 1945, Japan had over a million troops in China accomplishing nothing at all.
That was fun, thanks…I’m a big WW 2 buff.
FYI, The Russian Winter offensive began prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor.
If Hitler had taken his generals advice, it would have given him the time to develop the atomic bomb (which Germany was working feverishly towards). This would have changed everything.
“turning the Mediterranean Sea into a ‘German Lake.’”
Could only have been done with the aid of Vichy and Italian warships.
Which exactly is why the scuttling of the French fleet at Toulon was critical. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scuttling_of_the_French_fleet_in_Toulon
And the British sudden attack on the (then neutral) French fleet at Mers-el-Kébir was necessary. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_the_French_Fleet_at_Mers-el-Kebir
Germany and Japan were never going to be able to compete with a United States that was going to just keep producing Tanks, Boats, guns, airplanes, munitions, etc with no interruption in supply.
War is as much about logistics and supply.
Start running out of stuff at critical moments and you lose important ground.
We were always going to have the ability and will to bomb everything into oblivion with no interruption in supplies and very good logistics or at least logistics that would eventually meet demand.
Germany was only going to lose that battle and Japan never stood a chance, as they have nothing.
No metals, Oil & Gas, gunpowder, etc. They were an overly ambitious island nation, who could only gain supplies for logistics by taking over peoples.
Germany had the same problem but, the ability to simply annex a few more yards of real estate.
They were never, ever, ever going to be able to keep up a pace sufficient to attrite us and ultimately the war ended on Atrrition, as most do.
Run out of supplies, you run out of men.
Finally, the war was about avarice for the Axis and about liberty for American and the Allies.
The Axis could only conscript men, who were motivated by bayonets at their back.
America had men volunteering in droves to help their fellow man and were willing to kill for their liberation and then simply go home.
One set of values has a more enduring and lasting motivation than the other...
With endless supplies one set of values was going to win over another no matter what.
This will help you understand why Hitler went south instead of east to Moscow and why he had Rommel and his group in North Africa.
Nazi Palestine: The Plans for the Extermination of the Jews in Palestine
http://www.amazon.com/Nazi-Palestine-Plans-Extermination-Jews/dp/1929631936
Just use asset forfeiture to steal a few existing parking lots. You know you want to.
Hitler had already conquered Greece before he declared war on the US.
There were plenty of things Hitler could have done differently. Once he was in Russia, if the Russians were counterattacking, though, there would be limits to how many troops he could siphon off to fight in Africa.
Sure, he could have skipped declaring war on us and let us take that step, promoted rebellion in the Middle East and India, and gone for Moscow (or the Caucasus?), instead of Stalingrad, and that could have helped him. I'm glad he lost in the end, though.