Operation Barbarossa - What if

[Aenlic]

A lot of what-if's in WWII. As we've been discussing in the Sealion thread, what if Hitler hadn't insisted on the civilian target Blitz and continued instead to destroy Britain's military and industrial capacity, having essentially put the RAF out of action? Sealion would have gone on; or, as has been suggested by some historians, Churchill would have been out and Halifax would have been in and ready to come to terms. This would have freed the Luftwaffe for Barbarosa before the destruction wrought by the RAF during the Battle of Britain, might have kept the U.S. out of the European war, and would have made things much more favorable for Barbarosa in 1941. A strong Luftwaffe, Britain out of the conflict, the U.S. out of the conflict, no supply from either to the USSR, the threat of Japan from the East: all these things combined make Barbarosa a different matter.

Then again, Hitler would still have been in charge. His seeming inability to allow his generals to do what they knew how to do would still have been there. This is the man, after all, who essentially grounded the ME-262's by insisting that they be made bomber capable. If not for Hitler, Germany might have won WWII. But, if not for Hitler, there probably wouldn't have been a WWII.

[Brenus]

“If not for Hitler, Germany might have won WWII.” It can be discussed. Without Hitler, the Germans would have attacked through Belgium, where the B.E.F. and the two mechanised French Division, with better tanks, were waiting for them. Not sure than they would have won. The rare combats between French and Germans Tanks would indicate that not (Montcornet, Gambloux). Without Hitler, the General would have retreated in front of the Russians in 1941 in front of Moscow, which would have allowed Zukov and Rokosvosky to finish them off in the plains. Yes, Hitler did made some mistakes, but his Generals put the blame on him for every thing. Hitler wasn’t interest in Stalingrad before his generals told him to take it. The rush to Moscow wasn’t Hitler idea.
Germany lost the war because no Bomber Command, not strategy. Even the tactic failed. The Blitzkrieg worked in France because France had roads infrastructures, and petrol stations where the German tanks refuelled (the French tanks were on kerosene and hadn’t this capacity). The Red Army lost the first battle because they had the same military doctrine than the German, attack, attack and attack again. They were outmanoeuvred by the Germans for several reasons. However, when they learned to defend then to counter-attack (the Shield and the Sword, like in Kursk) and to change the point of attack, they took the upper-hand and never lost the initiative.
Barbarossa was a success. And this success was a trap. No alternative was ready to replace it, and no material, no weapons better adapted to the new menaces.

From the English side, nothing indicated that Churchill would have lost the elections… And nothing indicated that if he had, Halifax would have surrender… It is an insult to this man to suggest he was ready to do it.
Sealion, come on. The Battle of England started to free the airs from the R.A.F for the crossing of the channel by small boats. Well, and during this time, the Royal Navy would have watch the Germans boats crossing… I don’t think so. Where was the German fleet to protect the soldiers? Somewhere else is the answer. It took three years for the Allies to build an invasion forces, and even if the British Army had been badly defeated in Belgium and France, they had time to rearme and prepare. And the point of landing was really too obvious… In Crete (1941), the Germans had to land with fishing boats…

[Aenlic]

From the English side, nothing indicated that Churchill would have lost the elections… And nothing indicated that if he had, Halifax would have surrender… It is an insult to this man to suggest he was ready to do it.

I recommend that you read a book called The Holy Fox: Biography of Lord Halifax by Andrew Roberts before making statements which are clearly not true. ;)

[Brenus]

“a book”: Well, it is not because it is written that is true, second a lot of politicians said (and still say) thing to win elections, like “I will make peace”, then make wars. Nothing new under the sun, for what I know. According to Roosevelt, never the US will be involved in the war in Europe, which became the target N01, even if it was the Japaneese who attacked the US.balloon2:

[Aenlic]

The accepted view is that if the RAF failed and the Blitz gone on, then Churchill would have been out, and Lord Halifax would have been in. Halifax was favored by the majority in Britain as late as May of 1940, from everything I've seen. So, since you've chosen to take a contrarian view, please feel free to prvide some proof. Refusing to even consider "a book" which just happens to be the definitive source on Lord Halifax, is edging close to willful ignorance. At that point, no further discussion need be held until the condition is cured.

[Brenus]

“The accepted view is that if the RAF failed and the Blitz gone on, then Churchill would have been out,” Right, that is the point. I do not ACCEPT views. I challenge views.
“Halifax was favored by the majority in Britain as late as May of 1940” How do we know that? Polls? Elections? We had plenty of examples where some people were seen as favourites before an election then they lost the elections. The British are not good in accepting defeat as shown by their history.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

“The accepted view is that if the RAF failed and the Blitz gone on, then Churchill would have been out,” Right, that is the point. I do not ACCEPT views. I challenge views.
“Halifax was favored by the majority in Britain as late as May of 1940” How do we know that? Polls? Elections? We had plenty of examples where some people were seen as favourites before an election then they lost the elections. The British are not good in accepting defeat as shown by their history.

Aenlic and I disagree as to the potential success of an invasion of Britain, but his point about Halifax is not without merit. Consider:

1. Halifax was the most "pro" German political leader in Britain at the time (with the possible but unconfirmed exception of Edward VII). He had been advocating an avoidance of/cessation of conflict with Germany until a very recent point before then.

2. Britain could have sued for peace and Hitler would have (in all probability) accepted. It may have been palatable, as Britain had succesfully pulled off the Dunkirk evacuation (BEF losses were nothing compared to the Somme), was enjoying success in Libya, had exacted a significant cost in German aircrew/planes, and could point to successes at Sea and in Norway. In short, it could have been "spun" as calling it a draw and blamed on the French for folding like a paper sack (not exactly accurate, but could have been spun that way -- US "neo-cons" are doing so to the present day).

3. If a Halifax government had ended the conflict, then Germany could have turned on the Soviets, and it is not as though the Soviets were popular in the British government anyway.

The key issue hinges on British popular opinion shifting away from Winnie (possible, the Blitz was certainly fraying tempers) and to Halifax (I don't have any good data on this one way or the other).


Had Britain opted out of the war, the USA would have had no pretext whatsoever to ship supplies to the Soviets, and Germany would have had fewer concerns in the Med to de-rail its Eastward efforts. Barbarossa would probably not have been launched any earlier, but may have had more success (some Historians argue that it should have worked as it was).