If the Nazis conquered the USSR?

Wehrmacht was defeated by the Red Army, not because of winter.

Although the original post was not 'concerned' with how the Germans might have won, a number of subsequent posts have raised issues that indicate that the how is an important issue that would affect the 'aftermath' even given a German 'victory'.  I agree with earlier comments to the effect that, given Germany's historical campaign of 'brutality' and 'extermination', even being more successful militarily would still leave a 'rump' state based in the east and ongoing 'irregular' warfare against partisans in the 'occupied' zone that would tax Germany's resources.  In that sort of scenario the best the Germans could manage would have been to 'stalemate' the west until nuclear weapons were available.  Basically in order to 'win', Germany would have had to force Britain out of the war.  However, to accomplish this Germany needed not only to 'win' militarily in the east, but to be able to 'hold' it with minimal resources of their own.

With their historical campaign against the Soviet Union, Hitler had simply 'bitten off more than he could chew'.  He was trying to accomplish 2 goals in a single campaign, both the military defeat of the Soviet Union and the extermination of a segment of the population in preparation for German 'colonization'.   Now, a key component of a 'successful' campaign would be, IMHO, to separate these 2 actions into distinct 'phases'.  The first phase would involve the military defeat of the Soviet Union, followed by its breakup -  to be 'replaced' by a number of fascist 'puppet' regimes.  Puppet states in the Ukraine, Crimea, Baltic States and Caucasus would likely have been the most successful.  Perhaps less so in the core Russian areas.  A simple approach of 'reopening churches' and 'redistribution' of the collectivized land would have 'won over' much of the rural population. With a successful 'Phase I', Germany would have been free to concentrate on the west.  This would have involved switching their production and R&D efforts to air, naval and WMD's in order to force Britain out of the war.  Germany would have held a huge geographical advantage in this conflict, as Britain would have vulnerable to attack from the nearby French coast, while Germany would have had a defensive 'buffer' of France and the low countries that would have to be penetrated before Germany itself could be hit.  Once the Germans had build large numbers of advanced models of u-boats, fighters and heavy bombers it would have been increasingly difficult for Britain to hold out.    

Originally posted by ChickenShoes I wouldn't say his military notions were even remarkably astute in the beginning. He was a master politician with an amazing poker face. He was skilled in the art of manipulation, but he did not invent blitzkrieg or any of the tactics used in World War II, he just oversaw them.

Actually he even opposed blitzkrieg in its first real instance (when Guderian crossed the Meuse near Sedan). Guderian was ordered not to exploit the breach and wait for infantry reinforcements to move up and form a salient, on Hitler's direct orders. Guderian managed to get permission from von Kleist to do a reconnaisance in force around Sedan - to a depth of 10km. Guderian simply ignored both Hitler's direct order and the limitations of Kleist's order and proceeded on ... Guderian literally defied the entire German command, including Hitler, and all of German military doctrine - there was no plan to conduct deep battle in France but when command discovered Guderian off madly racing towards Paris with the French helpless to do anything about, it became all part of Hitler's infallible genius and his masterful planning.

What Hitler was really good at doing, was taking credit for the successes of others, while laying the blame for his failures on his staff.

Originally posted by elenos You have a point there ChickenShoes. The master politician knows how to delegate and get what advice they most need from others. All the Nazi tactics had been invented but he allowed for them to happen. For instance the strafing of refugee civilians on the roads to slow down the advance of enemy troops. A cold blooded thing to do but highly effective as a tactic.

You have a point there ChickenShoes. The master politician knows how to delegate and get what advice they most need from others. All the Nazi tactics had been invented but he allowed for them to happen. For instance the strafing of refugee civilians on the roads to slow down the advance of enemy troops. A cold blooded thing to do but highly effective as a tactic.

Originally posted by Earl Aster Yes, I suppose since the pact of steel in 1939(?), the Soviets were not expecting any kind of attack from the Nazis and their military was not mobilised. I've heard that Stalin did start a re-armourment programme (which further strengthens your point), but for that same reason, doesn't that suggest that he was expecting something to come? Stalin was an isolationalist and unlike Trotsky, didn't believe in invasion for furthering the cause of world communism. If that's the case, then what else could he have been arming for if he hadn't had suspected a Nazi invasion? I suppose the civil war would have made him suspicious of the new republics in Europe, but he can't have been re-armouring just for that...

Yes, I suppose since the pact of steel in 1939(?), the Soviets were not expecting any kind of attack from the Nazis and their military was not mobilised. I've heard that Stalin did start a re-armourment programme (which further strengthens your point), but for that same reason, doesn't that suggest that he was expecting something to come? Stalin was an isolationalist and unlike Trotsky, didn't believe in invasion for furthering the cause of world communism. If that's the case, then what else could he have been arming for if he hadn't had suspected a Nazi invasion? I suppose the civil war would have made him suspicious of the new republics in Europe, but he can't have been re-armouring just for that...

Oh. Fair enough- Modern world history isn't my forte, but I always thought that it was the winter. I don't understand, though - the red army was always renowned for being ill-equipped and undersupplied.

Originally posted by Earl Aster I don't see how they could have done it. The Soviet citizens were pushed into battle by a brutal regime and had been indoctrinated beforehand. Although overall they had inferior weaponry to the Nazis (Well, apart from the T-34, PE-2 Peshka and others), the sheer size would have made it impossible, even if the Germans had managed to defeat the Soviets at Kursk and Stalingrad. If they did, they would have just got bogged down and down into the winter and probably would have eventually experienced gurellia warfare.   This is a very distorted picture of Sovier military capabilities. By the middle of the war Soviet Military production surprassed German not only by numbers but by the quality.   Soviet tanks, machine guns, aircrafts, tanks etc. not only were not inferior, but actually were better than German weapons.   You gave example of T-34, and perhaps about 80% of the Red Army's tank forces consited of this machine.   As about the numbers, the numbers didn't save Chinese from the defeats from Japanese. Even in 1944, when the war was going to the end Japanese were able to seriously beat, numerically much superior Chinese.   This war, was win not by numbers and winters, but mainly by Industrial production and access to the resources.

I agree, the Germans never would have made it, withdrawal was their only real option but that was not to be. Had they pushed on and had impossible victories against the physical factors in their way they were still robbing peter to pay paul. The numbers of battle trained troops held down were desperately needed elsewhere.