If in 1940, after the armistice with France, Hitler stayed put

Why the hell won't hitler strike fast with hordes of soviet soldiers amassing at the border? That would just be suicidal. RIP third reich 1933~1941

>>138843255
Faggot

>>138843255

This ist the part of history, they don't tell you in school:

It is proven, and Hitler knew it, that Sowjets wanted to wait until England and Germany destroyed each other and than march in.

Churchill KNEW from several peace offers, that Hitler didn't want to attack England and waited for Germany to attack Russia, lose their soldiers there and than tackle in.

Russia didn't knew that because Britain was very hostile towards Germany.

So Hitler said, well than lets march into russia and so fast and win so fast, that Britain can't react. Until they are ready, we will already have won so Britain has to take our offers.

What would /pol/ do?

>>138843727
Put on my best looking shorts and flip flops and walk towards Moscow in the middle of winter through frozen mud Wim Hof style.

>>138843255
The eternal bong (who is still at war with Germany) will make a pact with russia, and russia (who was undergoing rapid modernisation) would produce military hardware at far, far higher rates than Germany could ever hope to achieve.

>>138843387
Because Soviets suck at offensives, just look at their war with Finland. He would have expended far less resources fighting a defensive battle than a retardedly huge offensive overextending him all the way to Moscow and Stalingrad

>>138843255
In my opinion,he should have secured Yugoslavia(which he did) and Greece,and then finished off UK.
Germany could have conqured Britain.For sure.

The only question is,if the Soviet Union would attack while Hitler was in war with Britain.
I don't think they would.

>>138844122
>Soviets suck at offensives.

The Eastern Front after Kursk don't real.

>>138844122
The germans failed every major defensive operation. Their doctrine focuses on offense. In a war of attrition russia would've won for sure.

Soviet Union was in the middle of re-armament and army expansion, airforce modernization.
Scheduled to end by spring of 1942.

Yakovlevs replacing Polikarpovs, T-34M actually going into production and T-34 being the pre-production batch it was envisioned to be. KV-3 and onwards ready.

RKKA trained, deployed into offensive disposition, not peacetime training, dispersed echelons and minimal supplies and battle readiness.

Soviets were preparing an offensive for 1942.

Germany can't invade Britain because of Royal Airforce propped up by US volunteers, Lend Lease and even more due to vast superiority of Royal Navy ensuring thalasocracy.

>>138844122
>Because Soviets suck at offensives
That's not entirely correct.
Everyone sucks at offensives,if their moral is not high.
Moral is built by belief in righteousness of your cause.

Hitler was an expert at building moral,portraying Germany in every situation as the just one.
Soviets didn't really master that at that point yet.
But when the Germans attacked,and occupied large parts of Soviet Union,it was clear to everyone that they're fighting in a war of self defense,therefor-their morale skyrocketed.

>>138844122
Soviets effected a counterattack at Moscow with less than 600 000 total troops against Army Grup Centre force of 1.5 million men.

Stalingrad strategic counteroffensive.

Post-Zitadelle offensives.

Bagration.

Stomping of Axis in Ukraine, Poland, Romania.

Probably get nuked a bunch is the end result.

>>138844446
>Soviets were preparing an offensive for 1942.
No.
Stalin would never attack Germany back then.
Not only was the perception of Germany at that point that of being military superpower,but Stalin was not the one to gamble.He always went for an easy prey.
What he was preparing however,was defense.

>>138844589
Nope, to achieve success in offensives you need numerical superiority, force concentration, element of surprise or tactical supremacy.

Barbarossa pitted 3.5 million Axis troops concentrated and battle ready, made into armoured and motorized pincers, against 2 million Soviet soldiers in peacetime configuration, dispersed and distributed across 3 defensive echelons.

Maneuver warfare favours the one with initiative and on the offensive, because it gives him the ability to conduct encirclements on tactical and strategical level, turning battles of attrition into battles of annihilation.

Cue early Barbarossa, Kiev, Kharkov, Stalingrad, Bagration, Falaise etc.

>>138844805
>Nope, to achieve success in offensives you need numerical superiority, force concentration, element of surprise or tactical supremacy.
I never said that doesn't play role,of course it plays a major role,but even more important is morale.
Look at the Winter War,and you will see a clear importance of morale.
To say it's not important is ridiculous.

>>138844755
RKKA operational doctrine was offensive. To the extreme.

In order to avoid precisely what happened to them in WW2.

You see, when you prepare for defensive operation against an attack you expect, you don't time your army re-organization and re-equipping the way they did.

No you amass supplies and crowd airfields at the immediate border, the way they did.


It doesn't take too much ingenuity to realise that France and Britain were giving Hitler Slavs of Central Europe, then Poland, in the hopes of Hitler going after the Lebensraum as he outlined it throughout the period. The West could have struck Germans hard while they were busy in Poland and manned the border towards France by second line meagre forces.

But they calculated the same way Soviets did: to let the other two kill each other off and then waltz in and dictate the terms to both.

>>138845060
Soviets had plenty of morale. That is why their infantry advanced into their deaths, and their motorized and armoured columns got bogged down on the advance and annihilated in the difficult weather and terrain.


Soviets were hampered by inadequate preparation, dual command system, incompetent party cadre, purges that culled the pool of qualified officers and forced promotion of battalion commanders into regiment and division commanders to the obvious detriment, outdated equipment (Winter War demonstrated to them the pitiful combat value of T-26, T-28, T-35, T-40 and other older tanks), underestimation of Finland and the worst winter in a long time (contrary to German crap, winter of 1941 and 1942 were MILD, 1940 was really cold).

If the Soviets lacked morale and fighting spirit, they wouldn't have suffered such heavy losses, because there wouldn't be so many men throwing themselves against Mannerheim line.

Nevertheless, Soviets got their shit together and as soon as Finns started taking a beating, they sued for peace. If they hadn't, there wasn't much stopping Soviets from reaching Helsinki, once Mannerheim line was breached.

>>138845232
I never said that Soviets would not attack IF Germans were stuck in a war with Britain.That would mean that their spearhead was blunt,that their main forces were either destroyed or stuck.

In a scenario that OP outlines,where Germans occupy much of mainland Europe,and take a break,Soviets WOULD NOT attack.
Germany was percieved as very strong in 1940,and had tested their soldiers,vehicles,weapons and doctrine against many different opponents.
Stalin had removed great number of high ranking officers,he knew what that meant for his army.Soviets had tested their military against Finns,and that didn't give them confindence.
THEY WOULD NOT ATTACK.

>>138843255
The Soviets tried to join the axis, if that was allowed UK would have been stomped

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_Axis_talks

>>138845748
True, which is why he timed the start in Spring 1942.

Winter War, Bessarabia, Baltics and Ruthenia return (suck it, Poles, you still have kept historical Red Ruthenia to this day) was Soviets giving themselves strategic depth and spring board for the eventual attack on Reich.

Zhukov had previously proposed mid-1941 attack, but the poor showing in Winter War convinced STAVKA that RKKA was far from ready.

Same thing would have happened. Stalin would have called up Hitler and laughed in his face saying he was going to take Romania for the oil fields, and said Hitler couldn't stop him.

So Hitler decided to invade. Hitler later said if he knew that Stalin had all those tanks, he'd never have invaded.

Hitler pretty much did what he said he'd do in Mein Kampf: reunite pre WW 1 germany and grab a bit more land so the Brits couldn't starve Germany with illegal food embargoes.

>>138846067
>True, which is why he timed the start in Spring 1942.
Give me one clear document that proves that Soviets planned attack in 1942.

>>138846124
and grab a BIT more land from Eastern Europe.
A bit meaning ALL OF IT.

>>138844143
>Germany could have conqured Britain.For sure.
You forgot Brits had naval superiority. It isn't the first time in history they fail to stop a great power to unite continental Europe, yet their island has never been conquered since the Middle Ages iirc

Hitler started the war too early. He should've waited 5-10 years more before starting it

>>138846131
Well they kinda got caught with their pants down so no detailed plans and orders were given but a massive expansion of RKKA, introduction of new artillery, fighter, bomber, tank models scheduled for early 1942 is a clear giveaway. There is a document of Zhukov proposal to attack Reich in May 1941.

>>138846798

In accordance with Hitlers personal doc Hitler knew in 1939 that his illness is going to kill him soon.

A lot of people forget how ill Hitler was.

>>138846798
Germany was bankrupt, running on two week reserves of foreign currency for trading, and employing barter trade with a number of partners.


Reich had unsustainable economy, primitive manufacturing technology (yes, they had) and relied on GM/Opel, Ford and Chrysler investments to build them trucks, aeroengines, armored halftracks etc. but not tanks. Funny thing is, the only modern factories equipped with assembly lines were American.
German tanks were made in workshops, in batches, and no two tanks were alike, going as far as spare parts not fitting.
That is what happens when you employ heavy machinery workshops, locomotive plants and steel foundries to make your AFVs, instead of purpose built arsenals like Soviets and Americans, or converted car and tractor plants.


One often left out fact is, the Germans lacked artillery and especially artillery ammunition throughout the war, but most chronically in Poland and France, where they were threatened with spending some types if the battles had lasted longer.

That is what happens when you don't do re-armament and army buildup systematically.
In the end, you have to press into service all of those foreign captured, confiscated guns and ammo, you can't afford to throw anything away, leading to a logistical and maintenance nightmare.


Yes, I have read a lot, from Wages of Destruction onwards.

>>138846836
They got caught with their pants down because they saw how Hitler was agressive.

>>138843255
Stalin was a thug with designs for eventual world domination, focusing first on Europe. He was also an opportunistic coward, striking only at those he perceived could not defend themselves.

We can look at real history to figure out what would have happened. Before Hitler went to war with the USSR, he had been their ally in a mutual pact of economic support: Soviet raw materials for German industrial goods.

Stalin had already starting using this leverage to his advantage. He delayed shipments to pressure Germany during political disagreements, invaded multiple Eastern European countries and effectively annexed them, and in general pressed his influence in Eastern Europe to the fullest extent.

At the same time he also tried to avoid war with Germany, knowing full well his military and his industry were not ready for such a confrontation. It was one thing to bully the Baltics, Romania or Finland, another thing entirely to bully Europe's largest industrial power, on whose industrial goods the USSR depended for its own modernization.

If Hitler hadn't declared war on the USSR, it's likely that Stalin would have waited a LONG time before considering an offensive war against Germany. He never risked war if he didn't think he'd achieve overwhelming victory, and that would not happen for decades if ever.

So, if Hitler hadn't declared war, the two countries would have remained in a paradoxical alliance based on mutual need overcoming evident mutual hatred. Churchill would have kept refusing German peace overtures, trying to get the US into war, which Roosevelt would have pushed for.

The key question is what Germany would do in such a case once Japan attacked the US, which they would have done regardless. Would it have also decalred war on the US? if so, then Stalin would have waited to see what came of the Western front, and attacked Germany while the Allies pinned it down in the West.

>>138843255
A couple years later a fully prepared Soviet Union invades and rapes all of europe

>>138843255
WWII would still happen as it did. War wasn't Hitler's choice, it was Churchill's.

File: 1503199482260.jpg (82KB, 476x581px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 476x581px

>>138847888
>some people still believe this

>>138847888
>>138847976
It wasn't just Churchill's but it was substantially a British decision to declare war on Germany for "guarantee" of Poland that never made sense and was hypocritical in its inception, as they only attacked Germany and not the USSR.

He invaded Russia because they were militarily unprepared.

Waiting would have seen them mobilize a full scale wartime economy which Hitler could never defeat.