How the Soviets Really Won WWII :)

[Blaupanzer]

IF both Britain and the SU surrendered/capitulated in 1942, WW II in Europe is over. The US will do what is necessary to control the Americas and may carry on the struggle in the Pacific, but Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East are lost for the forseeable future. The Soviets stole the Bomb from us; the Chinese from them. No reason to think the Germans wouldn't have been able to do that if they dominated Europe. (Klaus Fuchs seems to have been in it foor the money as much as anything.)

As a side note, if the Brits capitulate, what becomes of their fleet? Wouldn't the new National Socialist government of England be able/willing to p[rovide same to Germany as needed?

[Patroklos]

If it is simply capitulation, I don't think we are talking about a fascist takeover or anything like that, they just withdrawl from the war. It would not be the first time we have seen Britain forced into peace by a continental trouble maker while still maintaining their self rule.

[BlackCat]

Just curious since I don't know but what would be the range of the typical US carrier aircraft of the day -- I was wondering beause I was considering Blackcats points about attacking a major landmass with carrier based aircraft.

The carriers would obviously have major disadvantages regarding vulnerability (ONE enemy aircraft seemed able to disable a carrier after all) and a long supply chain. But I was considering whether their mobility could compensate somewhat . It would in no way be certain that the germans would know where a given carrier group was at a given time. I know in the war in the Pacific, detection of opposing carriers would be a struggle . The Germans might "know " that there were 8 US carriers in the Atlantic but at any given time they might have very limited knowledges as to how many of them might show up off of Morocco versus how many might be off of Norway.

Your main problem is that you compare with the pacific. There you have two oposing carrier fleets searching for each other and able to sink each other. Thats not the case in europe. There you have one big unsinkable carrier that just waits for the US carriers getting into shooting range.

Germany had several effective reconnaissance planes, f.eks. fw200 and arado Ar 234 (wich actually was the worlds first jet propelled bomber).

Add submarines and you have serious problems with hiding.

But assuming that the Germans could have a far flung net of patrol aircraft and centrally located aircraft , any US advantage from this might be too transitory. There could be interesting games of cat and mouse played though as the US sent carriers in and out of range.

I don't see it as improbable at all that in this scenario the US would be fully capable of making regular nucleur strikes on the German cities, destroying their industrial capacity in away that conventional bombing was unable to do

While the carrier fleets may have some succes in that cat/mouse game, the real problem arises when you send the bombers in. No matter from where you attack, there is at least 1.000 km from the coast to the german cities/industrial areas. Well, you could send a carrier into the North sea, but that would be like sending it into tokyo bay

Edit: Patroklos as usual a damn fast typer .

[BlackCat]

That arado Ar 234 are actually quite interesting. I knew about it, but not that it was as early as it apparently was. Ordered autumn 40, body finished late 41, though engines first ready mid 43. If they had been ready for the battle of britain, the outcome could have been different.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arado_Ar_234

[Blaupanzer]

1943 is the "magic answer" for a whole fleet of weapons from Germany. If the Jet Fighter, Tiger tank, new armored troop carrier, type-XXI submarine, and third version of their rocket had entered regular production prior to the war starting in 1943, Germany could have used their superior armor and mobile artillery to win the war with Russia rapidly. These kind of "ifs" are endless. Western Europe is fortunate that the allies prevailed.

[BlackCat]

Well, what surprised me was that it was before me 262 - I had expected it to be after.

Actually, an early german victory on both fronts could be a problem for their development. Lacking "challenges", could divert fundings from arms to civilian production.

[Blaupanzer]

Or, more likely prevent diversion of funds from the civilian sector. Germany did not go to full war mabilization in their "industrial circles" until mid-1943. Until then, piano wire competed equally with communications requirements for copper. If victories had come quickly, the great raates of early '44 would never have been achieved.

[BlackCat]

Well, that's another way to say the same. Though, if germany was in war with US (probably a very silent one for a long period), navy and air force would probably recive a big chunk.

[David Floyd]

Your characterization of British involvement in the Pacific is disengenous. The industrial support for the majority of the Australian and New Zealand effort was still sourced from Britain. Furthermore, your characterization of the Burma conflict is false. Japan was taking Burma as an avenue to invade India. If Britian is out of the war (and thus her colonies either out too or impotent) this is no longer a primarly theatre, there are literally hundreds of thousands of Japanese troops free to reduce China or further fortify the Pacific island holdings. Not to mention the release of hundreds of airframes and various logisitics assets.

To be blunt, Britain out of the way in 41 coumpounds the problems of the Americans quite a bit.

I don't think that YOU understand the nature of the Burma/India theater. Japan wasn't invading because Britain was there, they were invading because Japan was controlled by an expansionist military junta, dominated by the Imperial Japanese Army, which thought itself to be invincible.

Furthermore, even if the IJA releases "hundreds of thousands" of soldiers from Burma, they aren't going to the Pacific theater. The Army regarded the Pacific as a naval diversion, and was loathe to release any forces. The initial Japanese amphibious invasions were done on a shoestring, with no significant reserves available, because the IJA didn't believe in the Pacific theater, at least not relative to their (never ending) war on the Asian mainland. Speaking of which, I don't understand why you think an additional 200,000 Japanese soldiers would have made any difference at all in China. Japan already controlled many of the major cities, and consistently defeated the Nationalist Army - they were "winning". Your argument is like saying the US could have won in Vietnam if only we had pumped in more soldiers. You are arguing that military success depends in all cases on numbers, but that ignores the facts.

Finally, had Japan "reinforced" Pacific garrisons with your hundreds of thousands of men, then the US would have just "island hopped" around them. They couldn't fortify every island to the point of invincibility, because of the inability to supply such garrisons, and the inability of the islands and atolls to support huge garrisons due to physical size constraints. Japan actually tried this strategy, pumping over 100,000 soldiers into the garrisons at Truk and Rabaul. Such garrisons would have been almost impossible to overcome conventionally, so the US just bypassed them, left them to "wither on the vine".

The output of US shipyards would not be effected by the lack if ground operations in Europe. America still needs to defeat the Japanese Navy and in the actual timeline American shipyards were operating at capacity the entirety of the war. You are correct that it would free quite a bit of airpower and army assets, unfortunetly they are not particularly useful for the first couple years of the Japanese war.

True, US naval production probably would have remained fairly constant. However, additional army assets would have been extremely welcome in the theater, as would additional amphibious assets. If the US had the LSTs and other landing craft that were busy being built up for Torch, Avalanche, Anzio, and Overlord, as well as the infantry divisions allocated to those theaters, don't you think we could have rolled back the Japanese faster starting in 1943, when the new carrier production became available?

BTW, with a British surrender in 1941 we can also assume a Dutch surrender at the same time. You may find that Japan has no need to be at war with either the Commonwealth or the Dutch, meaning they have no need to invade Indonesia or Burma. Think for a second what impact that has on Japanese fleet concentration relative to America circa 1941.

Sorry, now you are being disengenuous. Japan invaded the Dutch East Indies because of a need for two VITAL resources - rubber and oil. Additionally, the Dutch had ALREADY surrendered in 1941 - that is, after the German rolled over them the year before. Japan still invaded DEI in their Pacific offensive. Another fact to think about is that, initially, Vichy French forces resisted Japanese forces in French Indo-China, even though France had already been conquered by Germany. Japan was going to invade the "Southern Resource Area" no matter what, once they committed to war, because the US blockade meant they needed the resources to continue their war in China. And giving up the war in China was politically impossible for the Army regime that effectively controlled Japan at the time.

Why this complete BS concerning strategic bombing persists I will never know. It is one of them most obtuse arguements that can possibly be made yet it persists regardless

Whether or not German arms production increased or not is irrelevant when gauging the success of the strategic bombing campaign because you are using the irrelevant benchmark of pre war production and to guage all measurements. Consider two things.

1.) At the outbreak of war all sides began sqeezing as much productivity as possible out of their arms industry as possible.

2.) At the same time they were converting their civilian industry over to armaments.

Both of the above will have dramatic impact on the production levels of a nation's arms and munitions. What if strategic bombing negates one of the above? Does overall arms production increase? Yes. Has stragetic bombing succeeded in reducing production from what it would have been? Yes.

That's counterfactual to the point of absolute bull****. The only verifiable fact is that German production INCREASED every year of the war, including into 1945, IN SPITE of the fact that Allied strategic bombing had been ongoing in earnest since 1943. Could Germany have produced more in the absence of such bombing? Well, maybe, but then again, they would have had little need to streamline their production without the impetus of Allied strategic bombing. Additionally, more German production was irrelevant to the outcome of the war, should the US decide to hang in the war. Germany simply cannot develop the ability to outproduce the US before the US develops the ability to destroy Germany.

Thats the question you have to ask yourself: Without stategic bombing would German production been far greater than without stragegic bombing? The answer is obvious.

If it's so obvious, give me a quantifiable answer.

You need to break out of your own preconcieved notions and take a more objective look at things. For some reason you are imagining that an Atlantic war would look like a Pacific war, that German has any motivation whatsoever to engage in open ocean warfare via surface of aviation, and that they have any motivation whatsoever to attempt a cross Atlantic invasion itself.

There are two very different things that need to be accomplished by each side in this scenario. America needs to achieve undisputed sea superiority AND mount a cross Atlantic invasion against an occupied, fortified, rested, otherwise unthreated and victorious Axis war machine with interior lines of communication without a significant base of operations within two thousand miles.

All the Germans have to do is deny them.

Which one sounds easier to you?

You're right, except for one thing. All the Germans THINK they have to do is deny the Americans access to the Atlantic. Ultimately, it doesn't matter. US atomic weapons decide the issue, at the latest, by 1948-1949, delivered by the B-36. Yes, the US may TRY to conduct combat operations into North Africa or the MidEast. If they do, they are probably doomed to failure - although that also depends on the power of resistance of the Soviet Union. Even assuming everything goes right for the Germans, though, they are still destroyed by the late 1940s, should the US have the will to seek such an outcome.

As has been told to you already, this is NOT the Pacific. You need to take into account the very significant differences between the two theaters. This is not a case of attacking isolated outposts with no hope of resuppy. There is no point on the European continent (or African) that America can attack that Germany will 1.) Not have air superiority 2.) Not have unhindered lines of communication too and 3.) can be in any way cut off by American naval might (I know you are going to say "Hey, what about the Med!!!, but think about what going through the straights would involve at this point).

Come on, I know we disagree, but surely you don't think I'm so stupid as to assume a viable USN presence in an Axis-dominated Med. Come on now. I understand the theaters are different. I also still maintain that the U-boat threat was very beatable, in much the same way it was beaten historically, although without British assistance. Once the U-boats are defeated, the USN WILL be able to redeploy in overwhelming force to the Atlantic, and WILL be able to conduct operations against the European coastline in RELATIVE safety. Yes, the USN will probably take losses, but no, the Luftwaffe will NOT be able to effectively concentrate to destroy 20 American carrier groups, especially given the fact that the German Navy would be nowhere to be found.

Obviously, if the U-boats aren't defeated, the USN won't be deployed across the Atlantic, but again, this is ultimately irrelevant, if the US chooses to make it so (again, atomic destruction delivered by either the B-29 in 1945-46, or the B-36 in 1948-49).

Germany was busy doing this in the actual timeline anyway, and was doing it when the various resistance groups had the moral boosting knowledge that both the Soviet Union and Britian had the upper hand.

Sorry, but no. Soviet partisans were operating in 1941, when it appeared the Germany was headed for an overwhelming victory. Dutch, Belgian, and French resistance forces operated throughout the war in the face of overwhelming opposition.

Do you think resistance efforts become greater or less once their major hopes or liberation (and material support) are gone.

The Polish Home Army revolted in 1944, and initially kicked the Germans out of Warsaw, not because they had a guarantee of Soviet support, but because they had nothing left to lose. Yes, I think resistance becomes even greater when hope fades, because the resistance forces have nothing left to lose. If they sit on the sidelines, they'll be hunted down and killed. If they attack, they'll still be killed, but at least this way they'll be killed in combat instead of in concentration camps.

No doubt there will be a great many resources devoted to garrisoning certain areas, but in reality if Britain and Russia are out of the war by 1945 when America can even contemplate invasion at all (1950 is a more realisitic date for actually trying), it is more probably that most of Europe will look like Iron Curtain era Eastern Europe, the peoples or the area for the most part resigned to their fate and themselves puppet states of a fascist flavor. In any case, you don't need armored divisions to garrison areas, the bulk of the conventional Axis war machine will be available for normal combat operations.

I think you greatly misunderstand what a total German conquest would look like. Surely you don't assume the Wehrmacht in Vladivostok, for example, or uninterrupted German control of Caucasus oil sources or Ural/Don industrial regions. Indeed, we are more likely to see a rump Soviet state, with a nebulous border somewhere West of the Ural Mountains, fighting a generally undeclared war with Germany. The second Germany significantly reduces their combat power - including, especially, their mobile response options - on the Eastern Front, then the Soviets will jump right back into action. The Soviets weren't stupid. They understood that Germany couldn't conquer the Soviet Union, and the only reason they even considered a negotiated peace at any point in the war is because they thought the Western Allies were going to screw them. Stalin - or any successor to Stalin - would not acquiesce to a perpetually weak Soviet Union, especially not with the United States still actively in the war, and actively doing everything possible to arm the rump Soviet state.

It could only get easier for Germany in this scenario than it was in real life. This a a straw you are grasping at, there is no reason to assume Germany would not be able to exploit these resources, especially since they did just that under far worse conditions in real life.

Easier, sure. But the point was, Germany is NOT going to be able to outproduce the US in a manner sufficient to stave off atomic destruction. It just won't happen.

You have yet to come up with this magic weapon. As has been pointed out to you the B-29 is not the invulnerable weapon you imagine it is. You understand that only 3,000 were ever built, right? You understand that the B-29 was vulnerable to cheap Japanese fighters (they used to ram the bombers), why the hell are you pretending they would be safe from far more capable and advanced German ones? Not to mention the B-29 was vulnerable to flak.

The B-29 was not invulnerable. That said, don't bring up Japanese fighters as an example. When Curt LeMay suggested stripping ALL of the defensive machine guns from the B-29s, and flying firebombing missions from an altitude of under 5000 feet, it was widely assumed that the B-29s would take disastrous casualties. This did not happen. Yes, some suicide attacks occured, but don't try to imply that "cheap Japanese fighters" did a damn thing to stem the B-29 attacks.

However, the only German aircraft actually produced in quantity during the war that had the even theoretical ability to intercept the B-29, was the Me-262. The Me-262 could have intercepted the B-29, but only at the very upper limit of its operational ceiling, which greatly reduces its' combat effectiveness. Furthermore, as has been pointed out, the Me-262 had very short "legs", and was an overall maintenance nightmare for the Germans. You claim that the Germans would have been able to solve this problem. My response is simply that you are making assumptions that aren't necessarily justified. All we can factually speak to are the weapons actually produced by either side. You can assume magical superweapons, and magical efforts to improve the effectiveness of German high altitude interceptors, but you can't "show me the money", so to speak.

Furthermore, even if I grant you this point, but counter with the soon forthcoming B-36, you can only counter that argument with more assumptions about magical German abilities to counter the B-36, without actually telling me what they had on the drawing board. Remember that you can't produce a new aircraft or technology overnight. I have no doubt the Germans could have, eventually, countered any weapon the US deployed, but that isn't the standard. The question is, could they have done so in time? History suggests not.

This part of your agruement is just getting ridiculous. The B-29 concept was only accepted and developed in ernest in 1940. If America can design and a bomber of that type in four years, why the hell can't German once its changed stragetic situation becomes blindingly clear? And the question isn't why they can't, they obviously could of, the real question is why the hell wouldn't they? But that isn't really the question. The real question is can't/wouldn't they devolope the obvious intercepter requirements for a defense of Europe? Is it your position that it was simply beyond them? That they are retarded? that they are just going to mindnumbingly plod along with four years of real timeline development instead of realizing the implications of the changes we are discussing for the purposes of this scenario?

You tell me what Germany had on the drawing board in 1942-1943, that had a reasonable chance of mass production by 1946, that could have countered the B-36. You're the one giving the Germans hand-wavium abilities, so back up your bull****, please.

1.) Stop pretending Germany is America. The goals and positions or each are vastly different, yet you continue to insust Germany must fight the same way America is.

Not at all. I was simply responding to the point that Germany would contribute additional resources to the Kriegsmarine, by pointing out the irrelevancy of that statement in any case.

2.) Your characterization of German surface combatants is false. There is nothing to suggest that German surface combatants were in any way inferior to their Allied counterparts in any class. In fact there is much that points to the opposite. The inferiority of the Axis surface fleet is not in quality, but in quantity.

Congratulations. German super-battleships could - ARGUABLY - sink any US battleship afloat. Well guess what? So could the Yamato and Musashi. Look where that got the Imperial Japanese Navy.

3.) The only naval sphere Germany (and Italy) were greatly inferior as in carriers, which for the purposes of the Axis is really not that big a deal. This is also counter balanced to a large degree by the unquestioned German superiority in both numbers and quality of submarines.

Except that carriers dominated the naval conflict, whether it was fleet carriers in the Pacific, or CVEs in the Atlantic. Sorry, but no.

1.) There is no "maybe" about it, they did. The Japanese did. This B-29 invulnerability is a figment of your imagination.

The Japanese did it through suicide attacks. That's something the Germans were quite unlikely to resort to on a large scale, and if you disagree, you profoundly misunderstand the difference between the German and Japanese cultures.

2.) So for some reason the Americans continue to develope bigger and better bombers, but the Germans forget to develope fast, higher flying intercepters? :crazyeyes"

All we can definitively look to is what was a)on the drawing boards, and b)likely to be produced. Given those constraints, the Germans had NOTHING with which to counter the B-36, and relatively little with which to counter the B-29.

3.) The US nuclear arsenel did not number in the dozens until into the 1950s. It was one of the great fears post WWII that the Soviets would invade before we had a chance to have an adequate nuclear response.

It only took 2 to force Japan to capitulate. Japan was much more resistance to that possibility that Germany was. It was a cultural thing. It's very easy to imagine a military coup following atomic attacks on Berlin and Nuremburg, for example.

[David Floyd]

1.) What long logistics tether. You keep saying "Germany" but the logistics train actually starts in Italy. They have undisputed control of the Med and now the Black Sea. In all reality Turkey is a member of the alliance now. The logistics trale to Palestine is no more strenuous than the one to Tobruk.

The one to Tobruk was pretty strenuous. Certainly an overland route through Turkey - again, imagination on your part, as the Turks had NO desire to join the war as an Axis ally/vassal - would have proved even more strenuous. Do you have any idea what the roads in the area looked like in 1942?

2.) How is America going to get access through Iran when there is that whole Japanese empire in the way? And what good would access to India do them for the purposes of the Middle East.

How is the Japanese Empire in the way? The IJA can't just conquer Burma and India at the snap of a finger - the war in China deprived them of sufficient forces for the task. Furthermore, access to India would provide a bomber and naval base, as well as an overland route to the theater no more strenuous than that of Germany.

1.) I wasn't aware that years constituted overnight. There is no sane reason to doubt that the Axis could more more than enough forces form the Eastern Front to any other theater within a matter of months. There is no reason to doubt this because they did this constantly in the actual war where they were losing as opposed to winning like in this scenario.

Most of the time, German redeployments from the Eastern Front were temporary. For example, the remnants of the German forces deployed for Wacht am Rhein and Nordwind were immediately redeployed to the East for the counterattack in Hungary. However, certainly, Germany would have had more conventional forces available. I simply argue that these forces weren't necessarily relevant to the situation, given both logistical constraints and America's long-term ability to nuke Germany back to the stone age.

None of this is relevant. The position "WELL HITLER WILL **** IT ALL UP" is nothing more than a hand wave.

This IS relevant. Hitler DID **** it all up, repeatedly. And you still haven't responded to the point that the Stalingard and Caucasus disasters were historically on schedule, unless you magic up other points of divergence that we haven't yet discussed.

The point is, they don't really have too. If Britain is surrendered and the Soviet Union as done the same, there is no threat to Germany. They could keep ever single foot soldier there for years under the worst case scenario before America could even think of invasion.

At what point have I advocated an American invasion of Europe?

Also, I'll respond to the second part of your post later. At this point, I've had too many beers to respond intelligently

[chequita guevara]

However, the only German aircraft actually produced in quantity during the war that had the even theoretical ability to intercept the B-29, was the Me-262. The Me-262 could have intercepted the B-29, but only at the very upper limit of its operational ceiling, which greatly reduces its' combat effectiveness.

The Dornier Do-335 could have intercepted the B-29 with two kilometers to spare.

Me 163 Komets probably could have attacked the B-36.

[chequita guevara]

BTW, the original assertion by Kuci was that the UK, USA, and USSR were all necessary to defeat Nazi Germany. I only said that Great Britain was not necessary. If two of the three were out, one isn't going to defeat the Nazis alone.

[David Floyd]

che,

Only around a dozen Do-335s were produced by April of 1945. Furthermore, IIRC, the maximum ceiling of this aircraft was around 37,000 feet - in other words, less than the maximum ceiling of the B-29, and nothing even CLOSE to the B-36s.

As for the Me-163 Komets, not only were the only production versions of this fighter extremely unreliable, but IIRC the Komets had an unpressurized cabin, meaning that high altitude combat was unsustainable for extended periods. You won't be intercepting very many B-29s with the Komets, to say nothing of the B-36.

[Drake Tungsten]

If two of the three were out, one isn't going to defeat the Nazis alone.

The U.S. could, but I don't think they would've tried. Too difficult, if not technically impossible.

[chequita guevara]

We're assuming a German victory in Europe, which means it has more time to develop those wonderful weapons.

According to Wiki, the service ceiling of the Dornier was 4,000 (1,200 meters) feet above the B-29.