New Scenario: "Atomic Eagle"

[EZRhino]

There were alot of close calls in world war two. If the Germans had had a bit more luck on their side, the war could have ended very differently.

[curtsibling]

Invading Russia was a backing a bit of a loser.

An successful German air/seaborne invasion of the UK would have ended the Allied effort in Europe.

From then on it would have been a fun and leisurely battle in the Atlantic.

I think Japan was doomed from the moment a bomb hit the Pearl Harbour base...

[Mike K.]

Germany won the war in the east and there's still a Soviet Union?

Hitler's plan for the Russians was intentional starvation of tens of millions of people in metropolitan areas while others to be forcefully deported to Siberia, as the German army pillaged or destroyed vital manufacturing industry. The remaining survivors would serve as slaves with no rights whatsoever, subject to the whim of their German masters.

This "Greater Germany" would serve primarily as an enormous agricultural colony (as Germany proper was primarily industrial, and suffered greatly during WWI when the British used their navy to block food shipments).

Anyway, if you're doing a "What if the Nazis won" scenario, Russia should play no role.

[Harry Tuttle]

I debated taking out the Soviet Union completely when I thought up the scenario, but I decided not to based on three things:

The German army would have been severly stretched to its limit after taking Leningrad, Moscow, and Stalingrad. After such heavy attrition in the ranks of the Wermacht and after fighting in such terrible frozen and swampy terrain, it is possible that the German army would have indeed stopped short of the Urals if there was some sort of ceasefire signed.

And besides, Hitler is no more. That's a major part of this scenario. In real life the little imp would have sent Hitler Youth to Siberia to continue the fighting if he could. The fact is that in this alternate reality the war went differently and the German command made some rational startegic decisions that helped them win the war.

Also, the majority of Soviet food production was in the grain belt centrally located in the Ukraine. By taking Western Russia the Nazis would have about 70% of all internal Soviet food production. Driving clear across Asia's steppes to Vladisvostok would have been a costly mistake and a strategic nightmare.

Lastly, they're Russians. They don't give up! The country that produced Tesla and Lenin are renowned for being hardcore to the bone.

Now, back to scenario making, which is the prime reason for this thread. Does anyone want to create some missions for the scenario? As I mentioned, I want to have an event file (or a few event files) that basically give the player missions to perform. Right now I would like to focus on the German side of the scenario, then the American, then the British. When this is all said and done, I picture there being in fact three versions, yes you heard me, three versions of the same scenario, based on the three major sides. Use the missions in Subwar as an example.

[Mike K.]

Goering was a political nonentity by 1941, more content to indulge in his wealth than exert any real influence-- however he was named by Hitler to be his successor, so Führer he might have been. I also think you're vastly overestimating Rommel, as it was unfashionable for Army officers to involve themselves in politics nor was he inclined to be (and talented as he was, von Manstein or Guderian were easily his tactical superiors). Himmler and his SS would have been decisive figures in a post-Hitler Nazi Germany, and I doubt little would change in regard to the Nazi's ideological war of annihilation in the east; the Reichsführer in fact planned to construct a chain of fortresses for each SS man in his inner circle stretching to the Urals once the war had concluded.

Had Leningrad, Moscow, and Stalingrad been taken Germany would have been in a more than favorable position to dictate whatever Carthagian peace terms it wanted to the Soviets. The Russians may have withdrawn further east to continue the fight (worst case scenario for Germany), but I doubt the Nazis would allow the Communist appartus to survive after coming so far. A nationalist Russia surviving is more likely.

Sorry for nitpicking (hope I'm not being offensive).

[curtsibling]

Let's just talk about the gameplay effects, the myriad historical 'whys and whens' are not really relevant except as events fodder.

I would say that Germany's first mission would be to capture the middle east.
And access to that life-giving oil...(for panzers and planes)...
This could be the baptism of fire for many of the 1946-luftwaffe aircraft...

Then it would be onto the atlantic battles...

[Mike K.]

Alrighty. We can agree to disagree.

Looking forward to the scenario, btw.

[Palaiologos]

The war was lost for Germany on September the 1st, 1939.

As for Russia the Germans did the right thing and invaded when they did. The western allies were powerless and Germany was at its mightiest. Britain was always in the habit of having someone else to fight a continental war for her(Austria and Russia in Napoleonic wars) and the Soviet union was the prime candidate.
Let alone the fact that the Russians were predicting that a clash with Germany was unavoidable, and their war machine would be ready for invasion by 1946.

Meanwhile the Reich was running out of time. The German economy was in no position to sustain a prolonged war effort and things had to be over quickly.
If the Soviet union fell the Brits were sure to capitulate, Sealion or not.
And as Hitler said "A war with Russia must find us on the offensive as allowing the Asian hordes to invade Germany would be catastrohic for the economy".

[Mike K.]

Sucking me right back into debate...

The war was lost in 1939? I don't agree. Prior to the invasion of the Soviet Union Germany was on top of the world, having conquered Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Luxembourg, and France (!), allied with Imperial Japan and Fascist Italy (not yet a complete burden), benevolent neutrality with Sweden and Spain, and its eastern flank assured by von Ribbentrop's non-aggression pact. Had Hitler focused on Mussolini's theatre of war, striking at Britain's middle east colonies, WW2 might have ended very differently. The Italian navy wasn't large enough to support the logistics of a larger military presence in Libya, perhaps Axis forces could have overrun Turkey following the victories in Yugoslavia and Greece, 1941.

The turning point of the war was the invasion of the USSR and disaster at Stalingrad.

[EZRhino]

Actually Tesla was a Serb born in Croatia. He emigrated to the U.S. when he was 28.

[curtsibling]

I have to agree with Mike K.

But, why don't we put our debate to use and write some events or missions for Harry T's sceanrio.

Conquering a region, while a dwindling economy (with extra-heavy improvement maintainence costs) eats at the conomy.

The only way for the Germany to keep it's secret weapons defence active is to recapture lost ground in the Ost Front or in the N Africa regions...

Any suggestions, anyone?

[jim panse]

Originally posted by curtsibling
Invading Russia was a backing a bit of a loser.

An successful German air/seaborne invasion of the UK would have ended the Allied effort in Europe.

From then on it would have been a fun and leisurely battle in the Atlantic.

I think Japan was doomed from the moment a bomb hit the Pearl Harbour base...

"We shall defend our island whatever the cost may be; we shall fight on beaches, landing grounds, in fields, in
streets and on the hills. We shall never surrender and even if, which I do not for the moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, will carry on the struggle until in God's good time the New World with all its power and might, sets forth to the liberation and rescue of the Old."
- Prime Minister Winston Churchill (after the fall of France), 1940

That´s for the one thing

Had Leningrad, Moscow, and Stalingrad been taken Germany would have been in a more than favorable position to dictate whatever Carthagian peace terms it wanted to the Soviets. The Russians may have withdrawn further east to continue the fight (worst case scenario for Germany), but I doubt the Nazis would allow the Communist appartus to survive after coming so far. A nationalist Russia surviving is more likely.

Hitler wanted to secure Lebensraum. This space was meant to end at the Volga-Arhkangelsk Line (following the Volga River up to somewhere between Yaroslavl and Gorky and the this line was planned straight towards Arkhangelsk).

IMHO Germany could have won the first round if the USSR would have been knocked out by December 1941 latest (as the German plans indicated). Hitler thought of being then that strong (Russian Oil!) to survive any assault from the Western Allies.
Everything that would have followed is speculative. There are a lot of opportunities ......
* Hitler could have taken Malta and Gibraltar, sending vast numbers of German soldiers to Northern Africa and secure also the vast oil fields in the Midle East making sure tht Spain and Turkey also joined the Axis.
* Hitler could have invaded the UK in 1942. Just look at the first lines I wrote ("...We shall never surrender..."). Everything Churchill wanted and needed was the war entry of the USA. Originally the nukes that fell on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were conceptuated for nuking Germany.
* Hitler thought of being so strong after a successful Operation Barbarossa that he could survive any assault of the USA & UK at any time. I do not know what he knew about the nukes.

IMHO I can not imagine Germany winning the war. Not after Barbarossa. The only chance for Germany surviving this war would have been the withdrawal from any conquered territory since September 1st, 1939 till the Fall of France. Also the conception of German Litghning Warfare says that you must knock out your enemy in the first round. Hitler was maybe strong enough in 1941 but he made a lot of mistakes that led Germany to defeat and humiliation. I remember that the Diesel stockpiles on June 22nd, 1941, were enough for about 3 months war, and the stockpiled bombs for the Luftwaffe were enough for about one month. Hitler attacked the USSR with his - unready - war machine. The Soviet Union would have been doomed for sure if the Germans would have treated the population like human beings and not like slaves. In nearly every region through the first weeks of Barbarossa the Germans were welcomed as liberators - also in Russia. The policy of Hitler is to blame for this alone. The Wehrmacht treating the Soviet population like humans would have never ever caused that vast guerilla problem. Many German Officers saw this but were not able to convince Hitler from being wrong treatening the Russian people that way.
Also after 2 years of war the enemies of Germany had - more or less - understood the methods and concepts of the German War Machine. They knew very well about the cooperation of the different weapon groups (Tanks, Infantry, MG Troops, AT Troops, etc.) and developed different strategies to fight them.

Actually Tesla was a Serb born in Croatia. He emigrated to the U.S. when he was 28.

Actually Tesla was born somewhere in the Austro-Hungarian Empire and emigrated from there to the US .
Sorry for being that geeky but I´m more or less proud of my Austrian history

[curtsibling]

Harry, your scenario thread has became a history debate!

Not a bad thing, but I think we should remember that this is a CIV2 scenario.

In which, Switzerland could have won WW2....

[Palaiologos]

Just one last thing:

Germany's total tank production was about 24.000 vehicles.

UK produced 24.000, USSR 75.000 and the USA 88.000.

Are you still certain the war was not already lost in 1939?

Stalingrand was not the turning point of the war IMO, but Kursk. History is not written by "what ifs" but with facts.
Germany simply could not attain a STRATEGIC advantage over her multitude of enemies. Even the smallest of defeats could not be ammended.(victories too-The initial phase of Barbarossa costed Germany 400.000 casualties and only 140.000 replacements were available). Possesing the finest army is not a factor that can win a war alone. Logistics win wars. UK troops were "amateurs" compared to the Wehrmacht but the average tommy was never out of ammo, food, fuel, supplies, reinforcements, replacements, airforce and artillery support.

In TACTICAL terms German forces continuisly outclassed their opponents (even on retreat-boccage battles, defense of the Vistula etc) but to what avail?

Winning more battles than your opponents without attaining a STRATEGIC advantage ammounts to nothing.

[Cyrion]

Originally posted by curtsibling
In which, Switzerland could have won WW2....

Didn't we??