Could Hitler conquer Russia if he didn't fight the west?

Ah, that explains it .

 

The Russians posed a major threat to Hitler and his Wehrmacht. Although they did need more time to take Moscow, if his armies had waited too long, Stalin's men would have attacked with the JS-2s and T-34s they had developed in 1941. Thus, Hitler was only preventing the inevitable for a year and a half.

Do not think I am defending his decision to attack Russia; I myself am part Russian, and I think that the Soviets would have honoured the pact they signed until such time as Stalin saw fit. The rape of land from Russia that took place caused completely unnecessary loss of life, and the Battle of Stalingrad set the ball in motion to correct that.
:kill:

 

Hey misterkingtiger, welcome to the forums.

The T34s were already in action by the time of the Winter Offensive on 1941 but the JS2 only first appeared a full three years later, at which time little could have saved Germany from utter defeat.

I believe it was Izaak Stern who argued that Hitler was indeed only attacking first to prevent Stalin from doing the same and overrunning Europe. I am still not sure if this is true, particularly because the evidence seems wildly overestimated. However, either way it can't be considered too beneficial had Stalin attacked first, since the regime he had in mind would probably not have been preferrable over the Nazi regime even with its mass exterminations...

 

hitler never kept his word, Stalin never kept his word and those two sign a paper witch said "we won't attack eachother"

come on, sooner or later one of the two is going to f*ck the other by attacking. hitler was first because he gave up England. if he had focust on the west and this for too long i'm sure that stalin was the first to move. and i don't care what the raison was, is or would be. Hitler said: "i attack because stalin was gouing to attck us" and stalin would probably said: "i attack because germany was going to attack us"

 

that sounds about right to me!