Hitler's Gamble with Destiny, 1941
The German invasion of the Soviet Union was probably the most important event of World War II. There is no doubt it shaped the remainder of the 20th century. By unintentionally destroying the old world, Hitler created a new one that has ever since demanded constant attention and action from the United States.
The Nazi Fuhrer intended his campaign against the Soviet Union to destroy what he called"Jewish-Bolshevism." Its destruction, he believed, would end any hopes Britain had of winning the war and discourage the United States from entering on the side of Britain.
The campaign also had a so-called world-historical goal. It would furnish a"Final Solution" to what the Nazis called the"Jewish Question," the conviction that Jews were parasites and could only destroy, not build civilization. By the end of 1941, the Nazis were already putting in place the cruel, industrialized process of the Holocaust, which eventually killed six million Jews.
Nazi Germany grossly underestimated the capacity of the Soviet Union to resist. At incredible cost, the Soviet Union held on through 1941, and by the end of 1942 took the offensive against Nazi Germany.
Hitler created the opposite of what he intended to accomplish by invading the Soviet Union. Instead of destroying it, he made it stronger. By continuing to fight in 1945 long past any hope of a victory, he created a political vacuum in Europe. Germany lay in ruins. France, Britain, Italy, the Netherlands and Belgium were incapable of dealing unaided with the Soviet Union or with national liberation movements in their colonies.
Hitler's campaign and its utter failure changed, perhaps permanently, the role and power of the United States. In the new world Hitler's destructive efforts had created, there were only two major powers, the United States and the Soviet Union. If the former retreated into isolationism, the Soviet Union would fill any political vacuum unchallenged. The United States clearly could not allow this to happen.
If only historians could run an experiment to see how the 20th century would have turned out had Nazi Germany defeated the USSR! There is, of course, something called" counterfactual" history, which deals in speculation about what might have happened if events had gone differently. This can help determine the significance of what did happen. But it can't prove anything.
But we can certainly say that had Hitler won his gamble, the postwar world would have been quite different. With the Soviet Union destroyed, the world would have been reduced to three great powers -- Nazi Germany dominant in a Europe that ran from the Atlantic to the Ural Mountains, a Japanese empire in the Pacific, and an Anglo-American alliance centered in the Western Hemisphere. There would have been no Cold War, just great power rivalries. In an isolationist and probably very conservative United States, there might not have been a Civil Rights Movement or anything remotely resembling the insurgencies of the 1960s.
Hitler, of course, did lose his gamble. Three consequences of his defeat are still with us in the early 21st century.
- Even though the Soviet Union ceased to exist ten years ago and the Russian Republic does not play the same kind of role in the world as its Soviet predecessor, the United States continues to pay more attention to Russia than to any other country of similar size and power. In discussions concerning the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the United States and its NATO allies constantly ask how far NATO can expand without provoking the Russian Republic. NATO doesn't defer to any other country, so why to Russia?
- The United States is now the major world power. Hitler, in destroying the old world, had much to do with this. The results of World War II drew America into international affairs on a permanent basis. The end of the Cold War merely changed the context in which the nation exercises world power. The main question for the 21st century will be whether the United States will be able to use this truly unprecedented power wisely.
- Finally, the European Union (EU) was originally in large part a result of memories of German aggression in World War II. While the economic aspect of the EU has always been important, the countries involved also wanted to interweave the destiny of Germany with their destinies so that a Nazi Germany could never take shape again. Although the idea of containing Germany has never completely disappeared, the EU has taken on a robust life of its own.
The reverberations of Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union will eventually die out. But in terms of historical cause and effect, 60 years is not a long time. After all, the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s owed much to the unfinished business of the American Civil War, a hundred years earlier. The repercussions of the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941 remain important, not so much because we fear another Hitler or a Nazi Germany, but because we see more clearly the kind of world we live in when we understand how that world came to be.
This piece was distributed for non-exclusive use by the History News Service, an informal syndicate of professional historians who seek to improve the public's understanding of current events by setting these events in their historical contexts. The article may be republished as long as both the author and the History News Service are clearly credited.
comments powered by Disqus
michael jenkins - 12/7/2002
saying thatthe powers that be would not have continued on in to a cold and probably a hot war , is forgetting the fact of the atom bomb , which in the hands of our present polies is a weapon of concern but in the hands of hitler...
Nelson Hellwig - 8/1/2001
This is indeed a fascinating topic. I think we sometimes take for granted that the democratic/representative republic form of government is the prevailing form in the world today.
This was not the case before World War II and would most likely not be the prevailing form of government today had Hitler succeeded in his invasion of Russia and eventually caused other nations to sue for peace.
We are indeed very fortunate that things turned out the way they did!
Peter Eisner - 7/31/2001
I agree about the importance of the invasion of Russia. There's an interesting and little dealt with sidelight to Hitler's invasion of Russia that has always fascinated me-- British, American, and, apparently, some coldly analytical Germans as well, recognized that the invasion would surely deplete German resources and lose the war. In mid-1940, there was another option. After the fall of Paris, the German army could have moved south into Spain, taking Gibraltar, brushing through North Africa as it swept across the Mediterranean, encircling Russia rather than occupying it. Efforts in Spain by the British and American governments intensely lobbied Franco to remain neutral. Meanwhile, there were aborted attempts on the Spanish-French border to stir up commando operations with the possible goal of raising concern in the German High Command about the stability of its southern flank. Talk about changing history. No one could have stopped Hitler from moving south at that point -- while Britain was still reeling from Dunkirk and the German offensive. Fortunately for the West, the window for any movement to the south ended by October 1940, when Hitler and Franco signed a non-aggression pact. I'd be interested in corresponding with others about this period.
- U.S. Textbook Skews History, Prime Minister of Japan Says
- Recalling a Film From the Liberation of the Camps
- Skull Fossil Offers New Clues on Human Journey From Africa
- Are crude conspiracies right? Research shows nations really do go to war over oil
- Famed SC civil rights protesters have convictions erased
- Columbia University professors Eric Foner, Alan Brinkley, and Alice Kessler-Harris to retire
- A powerhouse appropriations subcommittee is now headed by a historian: Republican Rep. Tom Cole (OK)
- Slavic scholars divided over a scholarship sponsored (and withdrawn) by Stephen F. Cohen
- Claire Strom to Step Down as Editor of Agricultural History
- Joan Peters’s legacy assessed by one of her fiercest critics, Norman Finkelstein