World War 2 What If

[kittenOFchaos]

In my view, had Russia collapsed in 1941 due to Hitler perhaps driving for Moscow sooner and an armistice agreed with the Soviets, then the US/UK would have been unable to invade Europe.

Even with the vast distraction that the Russian front provided and the defection of Italy the Allies made slow progress in Italy. D-Day was a dangerous gamble even with most of the German army having been torn to shreds in Russia and with resources so stretched.

Take away the Russian front and have Germany flush with Russian/Ukrainian raw materials then the US/Uk who generally needed a vast superiority in men, armour, artillery and air power to go toe to toe with the Germans would have lost had any landings been made.

The Russians with Allied support won WW2. The US weren't even the biggest players at D-Day and the Western Allies killed very view Germans comparative to what happened on the Eastern Front. The notion that the US would eventually win had Germany taken Russia down quickly is just as laughable as the idea Germany could ever invade the USA.

[Serb]

Ever heard about the Cyprus, moron?

Do you mean Crete, idiot?

Yes I did, 'cause it's the same, idiot.

That island's a bit bigger than Malta, you know...

And this bigger island have been captured by German paratroopers supported by Luftwaffe only (without any interference of the Kreigsmarine).
That's what I meant, you moron.

[Serb]

In my view, had Russia collapsed in 1941 due to Hitler perhaps driving for Moscow sooner and an armistice agreed with the Soviets, then the US/UK would have been unable to invade Europe.

Even with the vast distraction that the Russian front provided and the defection of Italy the Allies made slow progress in Italy. D-Day was a dangerous gamble even with most of the German army having been torn to shreds in Russia and with resources so stretched.

Take away the Russian front and have Germany flush with Russian/Ukrainian raw materials then the US/Uk who generally needed a vast superiority in men, armour, artillery and air power to go toe to toe with the Germans would have lost had any landings been made.

The Russians with Allied support won WW2. The US weren't even the biggest players at D-Day and the Western Allies killed very view Germans comparative to what happened on the Eastern Front. The notion that the US would eventually win had Germany taken Russia down quickly is just as laughable as the idea Germany could ever invade the USA.

Exactly

[Drake Tungsten]

Yes I did, 'cause it's the same, idiot.

Crete



Cyprus

Russian education system

[David Floyd]

Also, Serb, if you think that the Germans could have taken Malta with airborne troops, I suggest you study the topography of the place. It would have made Crete look like a walk in the park.

And don't think for a second I'm on your side here. I'm just playing devil's advocate to the people who think that the war would have followed roughly the same path (Torch-Husky-Avalanche-Overlord-Anvil-Cobra/Goodwood-etc). My actual belief is that the US/Britain would have eventually been able to dominate the periphery of Europe, establish air superiority as was historically done, defeat the U-boats as was historically done, and force a German surrender through the atomic bomb, although it might have taken until 1946.

As has been pointed out, defeating the Soviet Union doesn't magically release "4 million troops", and even if it did, where are they going to go? The road network in Libya was estimated to be able to support 4 Panzer divisions, maximum, and even if/when those forces took Egypt, the logistics only get worse from there (and correspondingly better for the Brits as they retreat along their own lines of supply). Germany on the Indian border is

In my opinion, here's the likely scenario in a "Soviet Union falls" campaign. The US cancels Torch, as it was mainly planned to open a 2nd front for the Soviets anyway. However, the US immediately begins staging troops to Egypt to reinforce 8th Army. Plans for the invasion of northern France are shelved for the moment as impractical, although Dieppe-style raids are carried out with varying degrees of success.

The U-boat war goes mostly as it did in our timeline.

If Malta holds, the US/UK slowly push DAK back across Libya and into Tunisia, although Germany pumps in something around the level of forces it did historically to combat Torch - but not many more, as they couldn't support them adequately. If Malta falls (which I think likely if Germany/Italy really put their minds to it), then Germany is able to pump in many more troops to Tunisia - but not to Libya/Egypt. The line initially stabilizes somewhere east of Tunisia into something of a stalemate - for the moment.

Meanwhile, Churchill's plans for an Aegean campaign are carried out, with primarily UK forces clearing the Italian Aegean islands, as well as Crete. Crete is developed into a MAJOR air base in the region. At the same time, plans are developed to retake Malta. Once the U-boat threat is defeated in 1943-ish, the US/UK are able to devote significantly more naval units to the Mediterranean, possibly with at least 1-2 US carriers. The USS Ranger would have been operating in the Eastern Med for a while, now, supporting operations in the Aegean. While unable to operate in the Pacific, USS Ranger was easily the most capable carrier in the Atlantic/Mediterranean, excepting those times in which Wasp or another US carrier was temporarily deployed. This naval power is able to attrite the Regia Marina, and is eventually able to, in conjunction with air power neutralize Axis air forces on Malta. This gives the option of either interdicting supply convoys to Tunisia, or retaking Malta. I think the Allies roll the dice and go for Malta. The Germans can't fit more than a token garrison on the place, and can't easily reinforce with Allied naval superiority in the region. Once Malta falls, North Africa falls as well, likely within 6 months.

OK, where to now? By this point, the US/UK has air superiority over northwestern France, and something approaching that in Greece and the southern Balkans. The Allies have retaken Africa and everything in the Med other than Sicily. Sicily is probably a bridge to far at this point, although perhaps not impossible with a major effort. But why? Even if it knocks Italy out of the war, it probably isn't worth it. Going into Greece doesn't make a lot of sense either. If only there was a strategic target that the Allies could isolate, land in overwhelming strength, AND create a strategic advantage for themselves by doing so.

Oh wait, there is. Norway. I'd put a Norwegian campaign on the books for summer of 1944, around the same time as Overlord historically, except that I really think that to pull this off the Allies need massive carrier support in the North Sea. This pushes the campaign back a year, to May of 1945, when Japan is essentially defeated. At this point, the US can easily transfer 8-10 carrier decks to the region, and in conjunction with land-based air power and the Royal Navy, absolutely dominate the Luftwaffe. Germany can't easily reinforce, nor can they easily defend the landings along the long Norwegian coastline. Additionally, the Luftwaffe is absolutely not suited for anti-shipping strikes, as the Luftwaffe never developed an adequate anti-shipping aircraft or a torpedo bomber, so I can easily see 8-10 US carriers, with UK support, operating at will in the region.

Since Mid-1944, B-29s have been bombing the hell out of Germany. Although the Luftwaffe is somewhat more capable in this scenario, my thought is that the Allies attrit a lot of this force by making it operate in Northwestern France, where the Germans likely still think the Allies plan on landing - perhaps a belief facilitated by deception campaigns, a la Operation Fortitude. As B-29s wreck the transportation network in France, the Germans are forced to defend, which allows the Allies a chance to draw down the Luftwaffe (which, by the way, also NEVER developed a strong training rotation program during the war). 1000 bomber raids into Germany still take losses, and at high altitude are less effective than they could otherwise be.

However, the first Atomic Bomb falls on Germany in August 1945. The target is probably not Berlin, but rather a more peripheral target, such as Peenenmunde, the Ruhr, Ploesti, or somewhere similar.

And that's where I stop for now. In August 1945, the fight is still going in Southern Norway, although the Allies are gradually gaining the advantage. Swedish iron ore shipments to Germany are diminishing, due to Allied "suggestions". The Luftwaffe is still undefeated, and will cause losses over Germany - but how long can Germany take the atomic pounding they are going to be getting? How long until the Allies try a land invasion of the continent, supported with atomic weapons in a tactical role?

Reasonable scenario?

[kittenOFchaos]

Very reasonabe on the whole.

However, it is hard to know whether the U-Boats wouldn't with increased support be able to prolong the offensive in 1944 or starve Britain in 1942 or 1943 (at times the situation was truely dreadful). More importantly, given the actual casaulty rate for bomber crews over Germany during WW2, had the Luffwaffe actually had fuel and fighters and more importantly far more experienced crew (lost in Russia) then the casualty rates could have stopped the air campaign dead in its tracks.

The other consideration is that Germany could enter the Middle-East via Turkey who'd be in an extremely difficult position as would Spain if Hitler had defeated Russia. The political situation could cause Gibralter to be made indefensible, leading to problems holding Malta and if Turkey did join Hilter of allow access, then the Middle-East is totally outflanked.

It is whether with a much more difficult battle in the air, even greater losses at sea due to U-Boat and long-range bombers (the notion some in this thread put forward that the RN did well against these threats is again laughable given how many warships and merchant ships we lost), a much more powerful adversary on mainland Europe is it worth fighting on?

Given that V2's would be landing in London with no counter right until we could perhaps nuke Germany to the negociating table and us with no opportunity to land on mainland Europe...I think Germany would get peace with the West long before we'd try nukes. Plus weren't we already using them on Japan at that time?

Nukes wouldn't force Hitler to give up, he didn't give up and his people didn't turn on him even when worse devastation was wrought than what the early nukes could do - and we'd have precious few of them in 1945. It'd produce a very interesting reaction from Germany...be it to try their own program, or use biological and chemical weapons as a response. What I don't see it doing is causing the Nazis to give up and I don't see us having the political will to use such weapons repeatedly.

Thank goodness it never came to this!

[Main_Brain]

Re: Malta:

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

Re: German Surrender after Atomic Bomb: I know this is a favourable Scenario of many, yet imagine a Hitler unbeaten in any Land Campaign who defeated France and Russia and thus the two most dangerous Powers near Germany. His Position within the Government would be untouchable. Combine this with the Fact the Psychopath never sued for peace instead choosing to shoot himself as Soviet Troops approached.. I and this is only my personal opinion, I strongly doubt he would "surrender" to the Allies.

Also I dont know what plans for the newly gained Eastern Provinces existed, yet it is quite possible those could make (due to range=reduced bomb capacity) quite 'safe' places for the Axis which is bad.

[Dr Strangelove]

I think you're underestimating the role that partisans would have played in such an alternative scenario.

You're also underestimating der Fuhrer's psychosis. With the Soviet Union out of the way and only a very distant US and a supposedly Britain facing him what is Hitler going to do? Remember how in late 1940, after the defeat of France he actually decreased military production? Who is to say that he won't do that in the alternative timeline after the defeat of the Soviet Union? Furthermore, getting supplies across the Mediterranean wasn't the only difficulty the Wehrmacht faced in North Africa, there was also the long stretch of desert with inadequate roads. There's also the inadequate supply of petrol. Even if the Nazis capture the oil feilds in the Caucasus they still have to get the oil back to Germany.

[Dr Strangelove]

No offense, but that is BS. Redeploying aircrafts isn't halted by winter and trains could actually move. It was on the battlefront and the near supply the winter had an effect.

The Soviets tore up their rails as they retreated. IIRC the Germans had a great deal of difficulty repairing the Soviet rails during the winter of 1941. Remember that German aircraft were relatively short ranged. In order to provide front line support they would have to establish air bases fairly close to the front lines - no more than 100 to 200 miles. During the 1941 campaign that meant moving equipment by motor vehicle because the rails were still under repair.

[kittenOFchaos]

The Soviets tore up their rails as they retreated. IIRC the Germans had a great deal of difficulty repairing the Soviet rails during the winter of 1941. Remember that German aircraft were relatively short ranged. In order to provide front line support they would have to establish air bases fairly close to the front lines - no more than 100 to 200 miles. During the 1941 campaign that meant moving equipment by motor vehicle because the rails were still under repair.

They could use oil tankers in the Black Sea.

[Serb]

Russian education system

Epic fail, indeed. That was my 8th beer, iirc.

[Dinner]

Luckily, both Mexico and the Dominican Republic are across an ocean that the Germans could never cross in the face of American naval opposition.

That's why in HOI2 I usually invade Portugal (to get the Azores) and then invade Venezuela before the Dec 7 event fires. That way I'm already established. The alternative is to invade Denmark from the sea so you get both Iceland and Greenland without the Denmark surrenders event.

[Drake Tungsten]

Epic fail, indeed.

Stop taking it so well. You're ruining my fun.

[David Floyd]

However, it is hard to know whether the U-Boats wouldn't with increased support be able to prolong the offensive in 1944 or starve Britain in 1942 or 1943 (at times the situation was truely dreadful).

I doubt this, as the U-boats were essentially ****ed because of Allied HUFF-DUFF direction finding prowess, as well as the minor fact that the Brits broke naval Enigma.

More importantly, given the actual casaulty rate for bomber crews over Germany during WW2, had the Luffwaffe actually had fuel and fighters and more importantly far more experienced crew (lost in Russia) then the casualty rates could have stopped the air campaign dead in its tracks.

This is somewhat true, but I'm assuming that after a disastrous B-17 raid (maybe 15% losses) or three, the Allies would re-evaluate the strategy, and use the bombers for raids within range of friendly fighter cover - northwestern France, and possibly Greece. The B-29 would be deployed to the ETO, which would have been much more effective in my opinion. Also keep in mind that the bomber offensive, while good for Allied morale, did little to actually win the war - German production in the latter half of 1944 was greater than any other 6 month period between 1933 to that time.

The other consideration is that Germany could enter the Middle-East via Turkey who'd be in an extremely difficult position as would Spain if Hitler had defeated Russia. The political situation could cause Gibralter to be made indefensible, leading to problems holding Malta and if Turkey did join Hilter of allow access, then the Middle-East is totally outflanked.

Perhaps, but again, the Germans would be limited as to the forces they could support in a Middle Eastern offensive through Turkey. Bear in mind again that the Brits would be falling back on a huge logistical base - India. Not that the Germans could make it that far. If you want to have the Germans conducting an offensive down the Levant to outflank the Suez Canal, I suppose that's a possibility, although with Allied naval and air superiority it would be tricky to guard against amphibious landings behind the lines. German air power was just not going to be effective in an anti-shipping role, and once the US really starts pumping forces into the region they're going to be unstoppable, given the probable limits of Axis logistics.

It is whether with a much more difficult battle in the air, even greater losses at sea due to U-Boat and long-range bombers (the notion some in this thread put forward that the RN did well against these threats is again laughable given how many warships and merchant ships we lost),

The RN did EXTREMELY well against the U-boat threat, once it got it's **** together with regards to an effective convoy system. Once Enigma was broken, and once escort carriers started seriously entering the battle in 1943, it was largely over for the Germans. As for German air power against the Royal Navy (and potentially USN), the Luftwaffe did not have a modern dive bomber (can you imagine the Ju-87 against the modern air defense of the time?), and did not have a torpedo bomber of which I am aware, period. As for level bombing, the only nation that had any measure of success in this area was the IJN, and even that success was very, very limited.

a much more powerful adversary on mainland Europe is it worth fighting on?

If the Germans declared war after Pearl Harbor, I think that the US would absolutely fight on.

Given that V2's would be landing in London with no counter right until we could perhaps nuke Germany to the negociating table and us with no opportunity to land on mainland Europe...I think Germany would get peace with the West long before we'd try nukes.

Why would there be no counter to the V-2? And even still, the V-2s did far less damage historically than the Allied bomber offensive ever did, and the bomber offensive didn't stop the war, so why should the V-2s?

Plus weren't we already using them on Japan at that time?

Yes, but we didn't have to. We could have continued to starve Japan, and perhaps used one in October after dropping the first few on targets in Germany.

Nukes wouldn't force Hitler to give up, he didn't give up and his people didn't turn on him even when worse devastation was wrought than what the early nukes could do - and we'd have precious few of them in 1945.

Nukes forced Japan to give up, and while I agree as to Hitler's instability, I can easily see the German military, perhaps with the backing of Heinrich Himmler, or perhaps both independently bringing Hitler down.

It'd produce a very interesting reaction from Germany...be it to try their own program,

No. They had already given it up as impossible, and just because they suddenly knew it was possible doesn't mean they could make a bomb overnight. The Germans were hopelessly behind, and had no chance of catching up before being reduced to radioactive ruin.

or use biological and chemical weapons as a response.

Hitler was heavily opposed to this, largely because of his experiences in WW1. If he never used them on the Eastern Front, even with Berlin falling down around him, why would this be any different?

What I don't see it doing is causing the Nazis to give up

They did historically, once Hitler was out of the way.

and I don't see us having the political will to use such weapons repeatedly.

Why not? The American public would have simply seen them as really big bombs. We had the political will to burn Japanese and German cities to the ground, killing millions of civilians. Why should this be different?

Thank goodness it never came to this!

[Kitschum]

Also I dont know what plans for the newly gained Eastern Provinces existed, yet it is quite possible those could make (due to range=reduced bomb capacity) quite 'safe' places for the Axis which is bad.

Already during the war the Germans favored the eastern parts of their country for new development. Hard to say how set their plans were, but I think industrial relocation is a certainty as far as it could be done without creating too much inefficiency. I think in general people might be understimating the economic strength of Europe, although how well the Nazis could have harnessed it for war making is a huge variable.

Anyboyd that reads German there's a 1942 memo on the Generalplan Ost here (with a Zusammenfassung near the end): http://gplanost.x-berg.de/gplanost.html

For instance, here's the settlement plan for the east: