What if Hitler had taken over Stalingrad?

reply to post by KilgoreTrout

Would you say that the Soviets advantage was more in their ‘anticipation’ of the Germans intentions, as opposed to any other form of advantage. Given the fact that the so-called genius of modern espionage, Gehlen, was by then insitu why do you think there is little sign that the notion of a ‘leak’ within the High Command was not better explored ?

Yeah the Soviets had good strategic intelligence, I have my doubts in believing there was a spy in the OKH maybe in the OKW or in the War Ministry or a satellite organisation that provided support like transit authority.

Why not in the OKH? because I've never seen evidence for a suspect/pre-emptive Soviet action in response to a quickly executed Heer operation on the local level by a Division or a Corp, OKH would be informed in advance and the opportunity was there, it's grand offensives like Zitadelle(Kursk) that have espionage written all over it, I'm not sure day to day operations were known to the Soviets.

The leak was the responsibility of the RSHA the Gestapo specifically, Gehlen was employed as the Officer Commanding Fremde Heer Ost(Foreign Armies East) section of the operational intelligence department of the Ober Kommand Heer(Army High Command). He was involved in creating espionage and intelligence through it and not in countering it, he excelled at his job, unfortunately for them he was ignored when it mattered most.

So, internationally, a quick resolution to the ‘Great Patriotic Wars’ was required…would you say that was a fair assessment? That, economically, it was better that Germany be sacrificed than Russia, in the eyes of some?

In Britain's eyes it was important that both countries were neutralised, the Germans crossed the line of no return there could be no free trade during war, and for all the Soviets machinations the British knew they were the most dangerous opponent and free trade for the Soviets was always through necessity. The Americans on the other hand enjoyed free trade with both sides that's why upto a point they were ambivalent over the fate of Europe, this changed when the Soviets showed their true intentions at Potsdam, the Americans misunderstood or should I say Roosevelt and part of his administration misunderstood what the Soviets were about.

I'm not sure a superweapon short of a nuclear device would have made much difference in the end. Obviously with the Soviets out of the war then it would change everything.

But once the US was in the war, with Germany and the Soviets obliterated the power vacuum would have been vast. Britain could never have permitted such a total or single domination of the Eurasian Heartland either. Britain didn’t have the resources to manage that task alone and I feel that it would not have trusted to the US that level of control either.

British global strategy for Eurasia was managed by proxy and diplomacy and some direct involvement in war, one country dominating the World Island was never an issue for the British if it could bolster countries like Iran, Turkey and Japan, containment of the heartland was what the British settled for, it worked the Russians were kept down with minimal effort in hindsight though many wars were still created out of the struggle.

As an example the British took alot of effort building the Japanese into an effective Naval power at the turn of the century, so the Japanese would act as a foil to keep Tzarist Russia out of the pacific, and they did, they also facilitated their imperialistic ambition as a by-product.

The British couldn't control the heartland so effectively they blockaded it.

It comes down to then, in Churchill’s mind, the lesser of two evils. Given that those Soviet expanses offer some of the richest farmland known to man, I doubt there is a world leader who would ever contemplate contaminating them intentionally. That would surely mean doom to us all!

I see, you mean using nuclear weapons on the Soviets, by the Axis or western Allies. Theres no targets in Eurasia of any significance and contaminating radioactively so as to destroy food production would not make immediate sense, if nuclear weapons were to be used on the Soviets it would have been in European Russia against troop concentrations and population centres.

Britain was offered highly favourable terms, repeatedly, they were all rejected out of hand seemingly, though that was obviously not the actual case. It is clear from recent publications and archival releases that Hitler did believe that Britain would consider an alliance should he attack Russia. It is likely that that was the agreement that Hess brought with him when he flew to Scotland at the beginning of May 1941. Or at least part of the information that he brought with him. When Hitler ordered Operation Sealion to stand down, he did so without cypher, he signalled loud and clear to Churchill that he did not want to take Britain. This Churchill already knew of course, Hitler laid out his intentions in Mein Kampf, he wished Germany to ‘walk hand in hand’ with Britain, the great land empire and the great sea empire together in world domination. Poor Hitler never stood a chance against Churchill, the king of ‘by any means necessary’.

There is a story, I don’t know how true it is, that upon hearing the news that Germany had attacked Russia, Anthony Eden slapped his thigh and leapt to his feet, declaring that ‘we’ had won the war. Interesting!

Why was the B.E.F. allowed to leave the continent?

I agree completely Operation Sea Lion and the Battle of Britain were both attempts to put leverage on Britain to bring them to the negotiating table.

Yeah I've read the Anthony Eden remark before, his aide found him drinking in a pub on Mayfair when he was told from my account he jumped on the table shouting 'we've won the war', how true it is who knows.

I could understand his reaction must of been the darkest hour, what with the Americans sat on the fence waiting to see what the outcome was, from that point onwards they were looking for a way to get involved in the war legitimately, either way were all grateful for their sacrifice.

reply to post by carslake


Thanks for the detailed response, raises more questions, considerably more on the impact of intell operations on the outcome of the whole campaign but I think they swerve too far away from the OP. I've sent you a U2U concentrating more specifically with the leaks around Zitadelle if you're so inclined.

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


Aaeeigh! yeah it's swerving all over the place.

All good though, can I take my anorak off now! I can feel my creditability

going up.

Originally posted by carslake

All good though, can I take my anorak off now!

Haha...don't be too hasty, you may need it again. I'm working up a new thread based around Barbarossa should be up in a day or two (time willing). I'll drop you a link as and when. Zippers at the ready!