Decisions of Barbarossa

[Tank_Guy#3]

Yes. But it made it noticably less useful as shelter against the cold.

It went from late winter to mid May, so not entirely cold. Not only that, but when bullets are headed in your direction, I'm not too certain you'd be worrying about the cold.

 

[Lord Baal]

1. Actually hitler had a much better idea of where to strike then the generals. He was once quoted saying his generals knew nothing of the economy side of warfare, and he was correct. The generals wanted to take moscow and leningrad since they thought their capture would knock russia out of the war and force a peace with a large gain for germany. This was not the case. The ukraine and other areas farther east in that direction held valuable resources that the germans needed to continue their war effort and deny them to the soviets.

Actually, you are completely wrong. Hitler's big ideas included attacking refusing to allow retreats, not allowing a breakout from Stalingrad and expending massive amounts of resources on rounding up Jews and burning villages which should have been put into the front. I think you'll find that it was in fact Hitler who knew nothing of economics, in the military sense or otherwise. Here is a man who abandoned attacks on the Caucasian oilfields in order to strike at Stalingrad, which was strategically unimportant to the campaign. Also, in case you hadn't noticed, the USSR did just fine with virtually the entire Ukraine in German hands.

Hitler is also NOT the man who suggested the lines of attack be shifted from Moscow and Leningrad in the Ukraine and Caucasus anyway. So claiming he knew where to attack, when he routinely proved his total lack of knowledge on such matters, is very dubious. I challenge you to find anything which suggests Hitler knew a damn thing about military strategy. He had advisors which did, but he had a tendency to listen to people who would agree with him, such as Paulus, rather than people who knew what they were doing, such as Manstein or Guderian. This handicapped him greatly. And that's not even mentioning the various other examples of his military stupidity outside of the Eastern Front, such as the Battle of the Bulge.

2. He DID focus on army group central, even though it was late in the campaign and too late to complete the objectives. He SHOULD have focused on army group south and held his support there the whole time instead of shifting to the north later in the campaign.

What are you basing this on? He focused greatly on Army Group South, a task force which, honestly, shouldn't even have existed. The primary thrust of the German advance was only AGC for about two months, when it should have been the primary force in the East from the beginning. The only theing the AGS accomplished of note was the capture of the Kievan Army Group, which, while impressive on paper, actually enabled the reinforcement of Moscow because it was so time-consuming.

Hitler was a military opportunist, which he proved at Kiev, not a grand strategist. I would liken him to a bull; he'd chase one target when it seemed within reach, but if he saw another he'd change his mind, wasting valuable time and energy in the process. A military leader needs to be more like a wolf; persistent in his pursuit of the more important target.

3. Leningrad starved anyway. Moscow WASNT the strategic prize though.

There was starvation in Leningrad, but the city held out. If Moscow were taken do you really think it would have held on? Especially since Leningrad received supplies across Lake Ladoga throughout the seige? Supplies which it would not have gotten if Moscow had fallen. Also, I've already stated why Moscow was so important.

4. We agree here, except for the push on moscow part.

5. It wasnt soviet incompetence. It was entirely stalin's fault, and the fact that the german generals didnt know how to wage a war, and a few mistakes on hitlers part. I could spend all day listing his mistakes, but i will only list a few.

WHen I said "Soviet incompetence" I was referring to Stalin. Primarily, anyway, though he wasn't the only Soviet leader to make mistakes. Hitler also made more than "a few mistakes." He made dozens, if not hundreds of military errors throughout his career. The German generals were, for the most part, competent, though few of them were truly great.

a. He refused to believe that Germany had attacked, and gave the order not to return fire if attacked. He thought it could still be solved diplomatically.

b. When he finally realized this would not be solved diplomatically, stalin ordered the armies to ATTACK suwalski and lvov within 48 hours. He also ordered the armies to attack and encircle the german ones. This resulted in the annihilation of most of the armies and equipment on the front.

This is eerily similar to the actions taken by Hitler at Kursk and elsewhere in 1942-43, and in the West in 1944. He even ordered similar actions in North Africa, but Rommel ignored him.

6. I agree with the hitler thing.

7. I also agree with the winter thing, but you are leaving out another thing as well. Spring was not the only time it was muddy. It starts raining ALOT in september, and it basicly becomes all mud in october and some of november until it freezes over. That is why Von Bock delayed operation typhoon until November 15th, in addition to having to rest his troops.

That would be, what, autumn in your hemisphere? I didn't know that, but it doesn't surprise me in the least.

8. This can be debated forever. The month it took for more and better equipment to get there, may have had a benefit, but the extra month may have helped more. In fact, germany had more foces arriving through the entire campaign, although in small numbers. The forces that had arrived in that month of delay would have arrived at the front during the fighting instead, and it is arguable that if they HADNT waited a month, the initial forces would have better success since the soviets would hve been even more unprepared.

Except that Soviet movements in that month actually placed them in a worse position to defend themselves from a German invasion. That's the real clincher in that argument. Otherwise I'd agree with you that the end result was up in the air, but the Soviet movements aided and abetted Germany.

9. I disagree with this. I think hitler should have attacked SOONER, not later. His forces might have been smaller, but so would have been everyone elses. His mistake was accepting the sudetenland, instead of just attacking in '38.

Are you serious? I strongly suggest you read some of my previous threads regarding Germany's economic and military position during the years of Nazi rule. Better yet, read Richard J. Evans' trilogy on the Nazis, The Coming of the Third Reich, The Third Reich in Power and The Third Reich at War. Especially the last two. If Hitler had attacked Czechoslovakia in 1938 the war would have been over before 1940. And not in his favour.

10. They could have had a VERY large effect. The only reason stalin transfered ther troops from the far east, was that his spies had reported that japan was about to attack the usa. If they had decided not to, then stalin would never have transfered the troops. Many here have said that stalin would have traded space for time, but this is not true. Stalin was not like other people. He would never have done that. He had a very unique mind, one that i do not pretend to understand. But judging by his decisions in '41 on the european front, he would have told the forces in the far east to either hold against the japs or die trying. More likely still, he would have told them to attack the japs instead.

Except that those troops in the East had an entirely negligible effect on the war in the West. The battle for Moscow was already decided in favour of Russia before those reinforcements arrived, the Japanese weren't capable of invading Russia in large numbers - as I asked before, what possible reason would they have to invade other than to help the Germans anyway? - and the Russians had spanked them with stunning ease in every border skirmish the two had had recently, leaving them reeling and frightened of tussling with the northwestern neighbour. Japan would have accomplished absolutely NOTHING if it invaded the USSR.

You see, many, including me, believe that he was living in the mindset of the first world war, where weeks could pass instead of hours before any attack or defense was made. This is probably why he ordered them to attack, since he didnt think the germans would come so soon. Therefore, if the japs had attacked, they would ahve pinned down ALOT of divisions and that would have resulted in very bad things against the germans. They would have likely taken moscow and pushed even further in the ukraine, posisbly taking and holding rostov and the area around it.

This is extremely unlikely. Not that Stalin would order a counterattack against the Japanese; while I think he wouldn't have been quite that stupid, he was capable of such action in a panic. The simple fact is that the Japanese couldn't really accomplish anything except hold down Russian troops, and those same Russian troops were stationed in the East to defend against a postential Japanese attack until mid-November anyway. Moscow was successfully defended without their assistance, and a counterattack was even launched, though prematurely. They certainly sped up the Russian victory over Germany, but they weren't essential to it.

11. That makes more sense.

12. You are still wrong, although not by much. Yes, moscow was an important transport hub and such, but so was leningrad, rostov, kharkov, minsk, and basicly every other major city there. But the thing is, even in those cities the roads were VERY poor. It wouldnt have made much of a difference. Nothing would starve, at least not as much as you make it out as. Basicly the only thing worth taking in moscow was the industries and factories, and those would be moved to the urals if it looked like moscow would fall.

Moscow was the single most important of those transport hubs in all of Russia though. And while roads were important, it was the railroads which were more so. And Moscow was by far the most important hub for those. Eliminate that hub and the supplies elsewhere whither.

13. Actually, most of the lend lease was shipped through iran (which, in addition to iraq, were basicly puppets of the UK) already, and therefore would not have made much of a difference. Very little was shipped to murmansk (probably due to german norwya and the many subs in the area), although some was shipped to archengalesk (i know i mispelled that). Still, most of the shipments went through iran (which was called persia then). Tehren was even used as the metting for the combined chiefs and stalin for a war meteting in '43.

Iran and Iraq were both Axis sympathisers who only switched sides after Anglo-Russian intervention in their affairs. I forgot about Archangelsk. But you are incorrect about the majority being shipped through Iran. Much was, but not the majority. And those supplies shipped through Murmansk and Archangelsk were of higher and more immediate priority in any case. You are also completely wrong about Iran being known as Persia at the time. It hasn't been known as Persia since the early twentieth century.

14. Not really.

15. Cities DONT PROVIDE FOOD. If they did dont you think the allies would have made paris much more of a priority? Instead it forced them to ship in 400 tons of rations(something like that, cant remember the exact stat) every day for the POP of paris. Moscow would ahve been worse. And trust me, and hubs or roads, or admin places would have been bombed flat, either by the germans, or by the soviets in later years.

I don't know what you're on about here. I never said Moscow would provide food, just that it would provide more than the Russian countryside, which was suffering the effects of the scorched earth policy. With the exception of canned goods, of which there was probably a bit, and whatever the Germans could confiscate from the remaining locals, there would be very little food there. It would, of course, be easier to supply troops in a city than scattered across the countryside, which would likely lead to a net increase in the available food for German troops in the area.

You underestimate the survivability of existing administration and logistical systems. Not every building in Moscow would have been destroyed, nor would every road, railroad, vehicle, etc.. These would provide the Germans with residences in which to set up shop, the vehicles and roads with which to link them, and presumably low-level collaborators to continue the day-to-day functions of the city, now under German auspices. Local police forces in occupied nations are an excellent example of the latter. Certainly there would be much destruction in Moscow if it fell, but it would still be better than a bunch of tents in an empty field.

Shelter would have been good whether it was bombed or not. Ruins are good for defense and shelter.

Indeed.

16. And stalin only refused to leave moscow after he deliberated on it for almost a week. If it looked like it would fall, he would certainly leave. He seriously considered abandoning moscow, although he decided against it.

Yes? Again, I don't see what you're disagreeing with me on.

Minor nitpicking here, but Moscow was burned after Napoleon took the city. In fact, he awoke in the Palace and could see the city burning in the night.

Indeed. It's not even certain to this day if the city was burnt by the Russians or if a bunch of drunken French troops managed to light it up.

Anyway, I agree with Lord Baal in almost everything, although I do think he underestimates the German chances of succes. As he says, they almost pulled it off, even though making lot's of stupid decisions. Had they made a... well, normal amount of stupid decisions, they would come even closer to succes. Perhaps close enough.

The Germans never really stood a chance of winning the war though. It's incredible how close they came to defeating the Russians, really, considering how poorly the campaign was planned and executed. They came close, but even the fall of Moscow wouldn't have won them the war. And once Moscow didn't fall, the result was never really in doubt.

 

[LightSpectra]

The Germans never really stood a chance of winning the war though. It's incredible how close they came to defeating the Russians, really, considering how poorly the campaign was planned and executed. They came close, but even the fall of Moscow wouldn't have won them the war. And once Moscow didn't fall, the result was never really in doubt.

I used to think like this, though now I'm a bit more wary on this matter. By simply observing the relative logistics, it looks like Soviet victory was entirely inevitable, but that entirely ignores the psychological part of warfare. You could say roughly the same thing about Poland, France and the U.K. fighting against Germany, though the Western Front collapsed after the French High Command lost the nerve to fight after the breach at Sedan.

Even when the Soviets won battles, they were inflicted with two to fifteen times as many casualties as the Germans. So it's rather remarkable, on a sentimental level, that the Soviet Army even survived long enough to the point where they could counter-attack. As poor a strategist as Stalin was, it's convenient to almost a cosmic degree how the Soviet Union had an utterly ruthless sociopath at the helm, and a totalitarian infrastructure in which to channel those traits. I can't imagine the Romanovs or the Whites would've had the same gall.

 

[Lord Baal]

I used to think like this, though now I'm a bit more wary on this matter. By simply observing the relative logistics, it looks like Soviet victory was entirely inevitable, but that entirely ignores the psychological part of warfare. You could say roughly the same thing about Poland, France and the U.K. fighting against Germany, though the Western Front collapsed after the French High Command lost the nerve to fight after the breach at Sedan.

Even when the Soviets won battles, they were inflicted with two to fifteen times as many casualties as the Germans. So it's rather remarkable, on a sentimental level, that the Soviet Army even survived long enough to the point where they could counter-attack. As poor a strategist as Stalin was, it's convenient to almost a cosmic degree how the Soviet Union had an utterly ruthless sociopath at the helm, and a totalitarian infrastructure in which to channel those traits. I can't imagine the Romanovs or the Whites would've had the same gall.

The Romanovs would have had the gall, but I don't think they or the Whites possessed the necessary infrastructure. Say what you will about Stalin, the wily out psychopath industrialised the USSR in a very short time-span.

Losing Moscow would be a mssive psychological blow to the Russians. I don't believe, however, that it would have been enough to cost them the war. After all, the biggest danger to Russia in the early days of Barbarossa wasn't the Germans, it was Stalin himself. I've often wondered what would have happened if Stalin's fear of a military or Party coup had been real, and Molotov, Beria or a Soviet general had taken command of the nation. I suspect that after an initial period of confusion the situation would actually have improved. I back that up with absolutely nothing but my gut, of course, but there it is.

If Moscow fell, the Russian people would not have cowered away. Rather, considering the massive propaganda campaign Beria had launched on Stalin's orders I foresee resistance actually stiffening. By this time the Russian people knew full-well what treatment they could expect from the invading Germans. If you back an animal into a corner it will fight back with more ferocity, and that is exactly what the Germans were stupidly doing to the Russians on the Eastern Front. Now, if the Germans had entered the USSR as liberators rather than conquerors... But that's a thread in itself.

 

[warpus]

Hitler's mistake wasn't attacking Russia, it was attacking Poland. Or better yet, focusing on rearmament in the 1930s rather than on economic growth. Germany could have been a powerhouse in the 1940s without the need for hopeless military campaigns.

Ignore Poland, acquire currency

 

[Lord Baal]

Ignore Poland, acquire currency

Exactly. If the Germans had concentrated on strengthening the German economy rather than its military, the nation would have been in an excellent position down the road. Not only that, but focusing on economic improvements would have led to a superior military anyway.

 

[Dachs]

German economic growth was unsustainable over a period longer than, say, a decade without conquering territory of economic value.

 

[GoodGame]

Exactly. If the Germans had concentrated on strengthening the German economy rather than its military, the nation would have been in an excellent position down the road. Not only that, but focusing on economic improvements would have led to a superior military anyway.

To get rich they have to ignore their prior obligations under treaty. To do that, they need a stronger military than their Versailles "creditors" from. (According to Wikipedia, it'd take until 1988 for Germany to have gotten out from under that debt). Say they just built up industry while reneging on debt---guess what--Germany get reconquered and probably gets additional debt obligations tacked on or even gets dissolved among the victors.

 

[Zardnaar]

The last Versailles payment was 1932- before Hitler came to power. The WW1 Allies didn't seem to care that much about treaty repayments.

Building 2 rounds of IC from 36 -38 and then expanding your army isn't a bad option though

 

[arya126]

Sigh. You want to talk HOI2, go over to paradox or off topic here. And to answer Lord Baal which i really dont feel like doing but will do anyway:

1. You are wrong. Not wanting to retreat was a good idea in that situation. The terrain there wasnt like italy or france or germany or the rest of western europe. You couldnt retreat a few miles or so to the next village or road or tother favorable defensive position. Russia was much more vast, and didnt have many villages, roads, or otehr stuff. Alot of it wasnt even actively known (which was described as terra incognito in a book i have read). It was best to hold your position. Also, the germans inflicted ALOT more casulaties on the soviets than they take when they did this. Look at the offensive near leningrad by the soviets in january. In 2 months, they lost over 400k men, and i THINK (although i am not sure on the exact number) the germans had lost around 50k. It was even more slanted in the germans favor in other battles. If this had kept up, then the soviets would have run out of men since their POP was only double the germans at the time. Why shouldnt they have stood their ground without retreating?

2. The massive amounts of resources that you say were expended, were in fact not that massive. The forces and logistics performing this task were relativley small when they werent the troops that were garrisoning the area themselves. therefore, it did not affect the eastern front much. Plus, it was basicly a big part of their idealology. You cant expect them to ignore it.

3. It wasnt only the ukraine that was vital. It was what lay behind it, in the caucasus and other areas. The oilfields in maikop and baku were absolutly vital to the soviets. Even if the germans had captured it after the soviets had destroyed them, it wouldnt matter. The soviets needed the oil as well. Without it they were screwed. Stalingrad was also another very important objective. If you took it, you basicly controlled the river it was near, and that was the main route for lend lease. If it was taken, there was no other route to the outside world. The pacific was in the middle of war and the usa couldnt reach to vladiovostok with its navy yet. The north was under constant threat from germany and its subs. And even though you say the north recieved more of the lend lease, i know for a fact that most of it was shipped through iran. Stalingrad in german hands could stop that without a long journey around the city being taken.

4. Yes leningrad would have held on until germany took it by force. The supplies that got there were merely a token amount. Moscow doesnt have any value, other than phsycological. (I know i spelled that wrong).

5. Yes the generals were competent tactically, but they failed to grasp the most important objectives of war in that time period. You take away the resources, you win. Hitlker didnt make THAT many decisions, and as i have pointed out many of his decisions were much more sound then the generals.

6. I do not know too much about kursk and the later parts of the eastern front, although i am reading up on it at the moment. The attacks in normandy were in fact very smart to do. It caught us americans off guard, and nearly succeeded. It was pretty much germany's only chance to destroy our armies in farnce. Once we broke out, there was no chance for them to push us out.

7. Do you know WHY the soviets were in a worse position? They were about to attack the axis themselves, and attack that planned to start in august and that would focus on romania and the balkans. That was why most of the army was in the south (another incentive of focusing there), the soviet air force was so close to the front allowing them to be destroyed, and why the defensive structures farther into their territory were taken apart and the troops had moved up to the border. They in fact did not move that much in the month preceding barbarossa. Maybe minimal change, a corps or 2 being moved, but nothing major.

8. Actually most of the defense of moscow had been manned by siberian troops. They did not arrive too late, and they had a big impact on the offensive that drove the exhausted germans away. Without them, moscow would still have held, but the germans would have been in much better shape afterwards as there would be nobody giving them a seriously hard tiem retreating from under fire. They would have had a nice and quiet retreat instead.

9. Stalin wasnt exactly stupid, but he had a state of mind EXTREMELY different from other people and was very paranoid. I wont pretend to be an expert on him though.

10. You dont quite grasp the concept of logistics. Just because moscow was a hub doesnt mean it would be crippling. There would be another route made, much less efficent, but the wear would go on and it wouldnt have much impact.

11. Ill leave the rest alone for now, although i agree with dachs and goodgames recent posts.

 

[LightSpectra]

The last Versailles payment was 1932- before Hitler came to power. The WW1 Allies didn't seem to care that much about treaty repayments.

... was it the last payment because Hitler stopped paying them?

 

[GoodGame]

... was it the last payment because Hitler stopped paying them?

Wikipedia:

# In 1932, the German government announced it would no longer adhere to the treaty's military limitations, citing the Allies' violation of the treaty by failing to initiate military limitations on themselves as called for in the preamble of Part V of the Treaty of Versailles.
# In March 1935, Adolf Hitler violated the Treaty of Versailles by introducing compulsory military conscription in Germany and rebuilding the armed forces. This included a new Navy (Kriegsmarine), the first full armoured divisions (Panzerwaffe), and an Air Force (Luftwaffe).

 

[Zardnaar]

... was it the last payment because Hitler stopped paying them?

See the previous post. Hitler was very good at taking credit for everything and blaming others for his mistakes.

 

[arya126]

See the previous post. Hitler was very good at taking credit for everything and blaming others for his mistakes.

Hitler may have been good, but stalin was the master of it. Again, read deathride.

 

[xchen08]

3. It wasnt only the ukraine that was vital. It was what lay behind it, in the caucasus and other areas. The oilfields in maikop and baku were absolutly vital to the soviets. Even if the germans had captured it after the soviets had destroyed them, it wouldnt matter. The soviets needed the oil as well. Without it they were screwed. Stalingrad was also another very important objective. If you took it, you basicly controlled the river it was near, and that was the main route for lend lease. If it was taken, there was no other route to the outside world. The pacific was in the middle of war and the usa couldnt reach to vladiovostok with its navy yet. The north was under constant threat from germany and its subs. And even though you say the north recieved more of the lend lease, i know for a fact that most of it was shipped through iran. Stalingrad in german hands could stop that without a long journey around the city being taken.

Umm, were you not aware that the Soviet Union was neutral in the Pacific War until August of 45 (Hence August Storm)? And that Japan had absolutely no interest in picking a fight with the USSR and thus allowed free traffic to Vladivostok, resulting in that route being responsible for roughly half of all lend-lease to the USSR?

 

[arya126]

Umm, were you not aware that the Soviet Union was neutral in the Pacific War until August of 45 (Hence August Storm)? And that Japan had absolutely no interest in picking a fight with the USSR and thus allowed free traffic to Vladivostok, resulting in that route being responsible for roughly half of all lend-lease to the USSR?

No, i was aware. I actually dont know why i said that. But half? Maybe a good portion of it but i highly doubt it was half. I know around half was shipped through iran at least, and quarter was probably shipped through either port in the north, and the far east probably had about a quarter.

But it was still highly inconvenient to get lend lease from the far east, as there was only ONE RALIROAD from the far east to the west.

 

[xchen08]

No, i was aware. I actually dont know why i said that. But half? Maybe a good portion of it but i highly doubt it was half. I know around half was shipped through iran at least, and quarter was probably shipped through either port in the north, and the far east probably had about a quarter.

But it was still highly inconvenient to get lend lease from the far east, as there was only ONE RALIROAD from the far east to the west.

It's what wiki says. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise...

As for the Trans-Siberian, yeah it was a problem. A problem partially solved by routing most of the lend-lease rolling stock to the Pacific, where they were loaded up with other lend-lease items, then driven to European Russia. The Soviets also reequiped a number of their Far Eastern units with lend-lease equipment and supplied them with lend-lease food, fuel, etc, reducing the need to ship items East.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Also, you know, it was one Railroad with multiple tracks, which is the important thing.

 

[Lord Baal]

German economic growth was unsustainable over a period longer than, say, a decade without conquering territory of economic value.

Only if an economic policy similar to that of Hitler's was pursued. After an initial rearmament phase there was no reason why Germany couldn't have switched to a consumer-oriented economy, which would not have required military conquest. Quite probably protection from belligerent neighbours, but not expansion.

@GoodGame: The Versailles treaty signatories had their own problems by 1933. They really didn't care what Germany did by that point. Public opinion even seemed to be on Germany's side quite a bit in those countries when it came to economics. After all, you yourself posted that it was the Conservatives who abrogated the Versailles Treaty's payments, and Britain and France did nothing about it.

@arya126: I was going to respond to your post in detail, but your continuing insistence upon the MYTH that the USSR was planning an invasion of Germany in 1941 essentially makes this argument pointless. If you don't know enough about the history of the situation to know that that has been proven false repeatedly since the claims were first made, it makes it obvious that you have been reading some absolutely terrible literature on the subject. Might explain such comments as; "Not wanting to retreat was a good idea in that situation." After all, Russia was the place most ideally suited for fighting retreats that the Nazis ever invaded (North Africa excepted).

And it is you who misunderstand logistics. New supply lines don't just miraculously appear overnight; if they did, warfare throughout history wouldn't have focused on destroying supply lines so much. While new routes would be created if Moscow fell, none of them would be anywhere near as efficient. That lack of speed and efficiency would be very bad for the Russians.

Also, the counterattacks after D-Day were most definitely NOT a good idea, especially the Battle of the Bulge, which was the one I mentioned. The tactical execution was brilliant, it must be said, but the strategic thinking behind it - which was entirely Hitler's; not for the first time he ignored the advice of senior generals including Guderian and Rumstedt to the contrary - was moronic. Not merely flawed, but moronic.

I strongly suggest you read the books I mentioned earlier in this thread for an ooverview of the Third Reich and the war, especially on economic and leadership issues. Regarding the conduct of the war itself there are numerous quality texts out there, along with a great deal of tripe; so many I can't actually remember which are the really good ones off the top of my head. Anthony Beevor has written some good books on specific battles, such as Stalingrad and Berlin, but no others jump out to me right here and now. If I think of some later (which I probably will) I'll post them.

 

[Dachs]

Only if an economic policy similar to that of Hitler's was pursued. After an initial rearmament phase there was no reason why Germany couldn't have switched to a consumer-oriented economy, which would not have required military conquest. Quite probably protection from belligerent neighbours, but not expansion.

Uh, well, you'd have to get rid of Hitler to do that. And if you get rid of Hitler, where are you getting the rearmament from?