He had most of Europe under his control. By invading Russia he committed too many valuable troops and resources to another Front.
It would have been better for him to let Stalin invade him because, as a defender, you get to choose the terrain (that's why castles were built).
He would have ruled Europe for a long time. I don't think that America would have been such a big threat to him because,
1/ near the end of the war the German air force was far superior than any other,
2/ German scientists were already working on an atomic bomb (that's where the Americans got their technology from),
3/ a few atomic bombs on Russia would have capitulated them very quickly.
Thank God that Hitler made some very grave mistakes, mistakes that handed a win to the Allies.
2007-07-10 22:52:32
·
answer #1
·
answered by PC 7
·
5⤊
0⤋
There certainley would have been some changes, however there was other factors involved, namely the Soviets where planning an attack on Germany and would have moved in 1943 / 44 when conditions where right, the extra attacks on British Homeland by Luftwaffe would have created more damage, but the main chance missed would have been the reinforcement of the North African Campaign and drive towards the Middle Eastern states.
I still believe Germany could not have won the 2nd World War Unless the USA had been neturalised into full Neutrality again this would have meant convincing the Japanese to Attack only British, Chinese and Dutch areas leaving the flanks very exposed to US counter attacks later.
2007-07-11 00:44:09
·
answer #2
·
answered by Kevan M 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
To correct some earlier misinformation -
The attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbour, Hawaii, took place on December 7th 1941. Operation Barbarossa, the name given to Nazi Germany’s invasion of Russia, started on June 22nd 1941, so America joined WWII 6 months after the invasion of Russia.
The North African campaign was a side show in WWII and Hitler didn't want to be involved, however he was dragged into it by Italian incompetence and Mussolini's ego.
The Germans needed oil, Russia had lots of it.
Was an invasion of the UK a practical possibility. No. Without control of the sea it was never a possibility for the Germans. Although our small land army was in disarray following Dunkirk and the RAF was under extreme pressure, we still had control of the North Sea and English Channel. Any invasion attempt would have ended in disaster for the Germans.
Would the war have lasted longer had Hitler not invaded Russia, almost certainly, however the vast military industrial complex of America would have eventually been too much for the Axis powers to contend with.
2007-07-11 00:41:43
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
Other than not invading Russia, Hitler should have not called for the 3 days halt on the advance to Dunkirk, aloowing the escape of 300,000 troops. He aslo should have followed up with a quick invasion of Britain before the Brits could regroup as they had left many equipment behind in France.
2007-07-10 23:25:30
·
answer #4
·
answered by Kevin F 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
I think that at that time in history the world had a different attitude, one of righteous indignation as opposed to "I don't care, it's not me" which would have motivated the world in general to continue to struggle against Hitler and his army until they were eventually defeated. I do think that if he had not gone after Russia, he would have seemed to have won for awhile, while the western front rallied and the Russians waited to see how much of a future threat he would become. Ultimately, I think Stalin would have been inclined to stomp Hitler even if he had not invaded Russia, and the allies would have jumped at the opening to free themselves.
2007-07-10 22:51:27
·
answer #5
·
answered by naniannie 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
A British General once said after Hitler invaded Russia " The Germans wouldn't win the war" after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor he laughed out loud and said' The Germans will lose the war!"
2007-07-11 01:38:56
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
I don't think Hitler would have won the war, but it would have certainly been more difficult for the Allys. After the war, however, Communists wouldn't have ruled Eastern European countries West of Russia, Ethnic tensions and wars wouldn't have occurred in the former Yugoslavia (Serbs would have remained a strong factor in KOSMET, BiH and Croatia) and NATO wouldn't have existed. Oh, what a wonderful world could it be!
2007-07-10 23:27:42
·
answer #7
·
answered by Avner Eliyahu R 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
The whole point of the war was to invade Russia. The war in Western Europe was just a prelude to prevent a war on two fronts. If he wasn't going to invade Russia, there would have been no war.
2007-07-10 21:53:40
·
answer #8
·
answered by bulliont 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
Most definitely. The failure of Operation Barbarossa signalled the failure of the Third Reich. If he had instead concnetrated his overwhelming forces in Africa, then switched to the UK mainland, he would have had a much firmer base on which to launch an offensive into Russia. The fact that he got it so monumentally wrong is something we can all be thankful for.
2007-07-11 00:10:18
·
answer #9
·
answered by Norman W 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
He planned it from the start. The so-called "Four-wars" by Hitler is a plan of world domination and Russia is the Third War.
If he didn't attack, then he has more manpower on North Africa, imagine all the German armor divisions in Russia went to North Africa.
2007-07-10 23:11:56
·
answer #10
·
answered by this is madness!!! 3
·
0⤊
0⤋