Lets talk about alternative WW2 scenarios...

[EPW]

Alternate-Reality forum

[Sandman]

The 'Germany could have outproduced Britain' argument is true enough, if you're positing an alternative German ideology and leadership. As it was, the Nazi distaste for mass production and female labour meant they could never really use their empire effectively.

[David Floyd]

Garth,

So if it was in partnership with the west what would happen to Poland? Would they participate as part of the German-Western Allies? Germany couldn't easily invade without going over land. If they refused help would the allies invade them to get at the Soviets?

Well, Poland and France were pretty close - given the right situation, ie, an Anglo-French-German alliance, I don't see why Poland wouldn't have joined in. Given the fact that Poland was penned in by two monsters, I think it's likely, that if it came to a choice, they would choose the "European" side vs. the Soviet/Communist side.

Sandman,

Germany's other problem was that the didn't have coherent production goals - Hitler kept forcing German industry off on irrelevant tangents, such as the Bismarck-class BB, V-weapons, super-heavy tanks, etc., rather than focusing on what Germany really needed. It also didn't help that the German political scene basically consisted of a bunch of "warlords" vying for power - you had Hermann Goering, Heinrich Himmler, Reinhardt Heydrich, Joseph Goebbels, Martin Bormann, Albert Speer, etc., as well as a large number of "lesser" figures, all vying for power within the hierarchy. As a result, the Germans ended up with Luftwaffe Field Divisions, a 600,000 strong Waffen SS, the Volksturmm, the production on jets that had to have new engines put in after as little as 10 hours of flight, and ridiculous things of that nature, all of which took away from the overall goal of winning the war.

I also sort of doubt the premise that Germany could have outproduced Britain to the extent needed to actually invade Britain. Germany would still be required to maintain a massive army, along with the necessary buildups in the Luftwaffe/Kriegsmarine, whereas Britain could simply focus on cranking out fighters and pilots, maintaining the Royal Navy, and keeping their army around the same size it was historically. As long as Britain is focused on defense, and not whittling away their resources in various Mediterranean offensives (or even invasions of Norway and/or the Balkans, as Churchill wanted to do), I just don't see Germany outproducing Britain by a wide enough margin, in the critical areas, to force a military solution to the war.

[Sandman]

I recall reading in Anthony Beevor's Why the Allies Won that Germany started the war with the world's largest and most modern car factory. Due to the disjointed German economy, it never produced a single tank, producing gas stoves instead.

[Darius871]

"What if" Stalin had transmitted HIV to Chamberlain in August 1932?

[Andemagne]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Pilsudski probably could have been enticed into an alliance with Germany against the USSR. The Western powers very likely would have, at the very least, looked the other way at German-Polish aggression against the Soviets, and likely would have sent aid.

That was precisely the scenario Stalin feared and was working feverishly against in the 1930s, selling out revolutions in Spain and Bulgaria to prove how responsible a leader he was.

Without a non-aggression pact with Germany, no way Stalin makes a move on Eastern Europe.

Originally posted by David Floyd
The Soviets are still going to move on Finland, as they did historically, IMO. If that happens, and without a larger WW2 going on, I think that we see a German-led dogpile - German and Swede "volunteers", English and French money/equipment - that could erupt into a wider war.

Also, there is nothing in this scenario which prevents a non-aggression pact between Germany and the USSR, just as there is nothing that would prevent Germany from violating that pact when such a violation served it's interests. If Stalin feels secure enough to move against Poland or Romania, thus presenting a long-term major threat to German security (in Poland, the prospect of the Red Army very, very close to Berlin, and in Romania, oil), there's no reason why Hitler wouldn't seize the moment to go to war, especially since he would very likely have Anglo-French support.

Originally posted by Lancer
Germans could have been the masters of central europe all the way to the Caspian, all they had to do was sell out the non aggression pact in alliance with the democracies after Stalin attacked Finland. GB and France almost went to war with Russia over Finland anyway during the sitzkriege. Instread they are today slaves to Russia who can turn off the oil on a whim.

this scenario is allmost like it went in real history, except that germany signed non-aggression pact with western allies rather than the soviets. but what would have resulted? 'Barbarossa of the West'? or would Hitler have been satisfied after capture of his presious lebensraum in the east? could Hitler defeate Stalin if he had not taken France, Denmark and Norway? or would France and Britain stabbed him in the back?

[Heraclitus]

I think Stalin would have signed a humiliating peace like the one of 1917. He would then be toppled.

And Hitler would turn his eyes to the west.

[David Floyd]

With a friendly France and Britain in Germany's rear and uninterrupted trade with the rest of the world, there's no reason at all that Germany wouldn't have simply crushed the Soviet Union. They came reasonably close to winning historically, with a million+ troops tied down in occupation duties/battle on other fronts, and without friendly powers to trade with.

In this timeline, though, Germany is able to concentrate ALL of it's production of armor, arty, and anti-tank guns against the Soviets, as well as 90%+ of the Heer, with no realistic chance of another war on anyone's terms but Hitler's own. France and Britain hitting Germany with a surprise attack, when Germany's in the process of dismembering their own perceived greatest threat? Not likely.

[David Floyd]

Heraclitus,

Yes, I think that's the way it would go, too. I think Germany would end up with the Baltic States, the Ukraine, all of Poland, and Byelorussia at the very least.

I also think, though, that even when Hitler turned West, he would not have been able to invade Britain, unless he spent years building up the Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe first, and Hitler doesn't strike me as the patient type. I really think that the end result of this scenario would be the US-engineered atomic destruction of the Reich, sometime in the late '40s.

[Heraclitus]

But letting Germany become the undisputed master of the contient? Not likley.


They would insist on some kind of Russia still exsiting. Hitler would perhaps take the deal, perhaps not. But in any case a year or so down the road France gets it and Britain is all alone.

[David Floyd]

Yeah, I agree with that.

At first, though, Britain and France would support Germany, I think. Remember, Neville Chamberlain was not exactly the most interventionist politician around in Britain, and France wasn't going to move without British support. Winston Churchill wouldn't even factor in unless and until Britain started having some serious setbacks. Once Germany's true nature became clear, I think we might see a different attitude, but I still don't see Britain and France reversing their position and opposing Germany, when, in this scenario, Germany is very arguably in the right for going after the Soviets.

When (not if) Germany turns on France, of course they easily absorb it. My point is, though, Britain still stands alone but Germany is still probably unable to invade, but either way, once the US comes in, the only alternatives open to Germany are military defeat by the combined armies of the US and Britain (unlikely, with no Soviet Union in play), or complete atomic destruction in the 1947-1948 timeframe, which is the absolute, no doubt about it outcome, as long as the US gets involved in the war. The only way the US doesn't get involved in a war vs. Nazi Germany is if Hitler restrains himself and doesn't go after France and the Low Countries (and, by extension, Britain), and I just can't see that happening.

[Heraclitus]

Ahem, sorry but the US didn't declare war on Germany untill the Japs attacked. Without a Pearl Harbour the Germans would have severaly years of peace to take as many British colonies as they like and prepare an invasion of Britain.

[Andemagne]

US didn't declare on Germany, its the other way around.

of course, in this scenario Hitler is wise enough NOT to declare on US after Pearl Harbour. but what could cause the erupt anyway? unveiling of jew holocaust, US want to help the western european demogracies, US want to stop Germany becoming too powerful, German ambitions for world domination, something else maybe? could there be a cold war between US and Germany beyond late 40's?

and yes, Germany could really USE those few extra years.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Andemagne
US didn't declare on Germany, its the other way around.

Yes true, but I doubt that they would not have declared war evetully.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Andemagne
unveiling of jew holocaust

Wouldn't happen, the full extent of it was only discovered later. The German state would have kept this "secret" for a long time.

Originally posted by Andemagne

of course, in this scenario Hitler is wise enough NOT to declare on US after Pearl Harbour.

Why would Peral Harbour happen in such a raddically different time line? The Japs would not fear a defeat at the hands of the USSR since the Germans would have been fighting the Soviets earlier and possibly more succesfully. Japan would in my opinon confinue conquering China and also invaded the Soviet Union in the East.

Originally posted by Andemagne
could there be a cold war between US and Germany beyond late 40's?

Possibly but the real question is what happens to the Manhattan project in this timeline? Would it be complete in 1945? Could the Germans even get Nukes first?