WW2 What If?

[BlackCat]

What if, on the eve of the Barbarossa Campaign, Hitler converted to Judaism?

Then you probably wouldn't have been born

Oh, wait

[Ben Kenobi]

Per the original question.

Super Axis:

Russia grew considerably with the annexation of half of poland, the Baltics, plus Bessarabia, around 30 million people, enough to compensate for their entire war losses. That would put them at roughly 200 million people, roughly 150 million core. So 150 million core, 50 peripheral.

Germany itself was around 70 million in Germany proper, 40 million in Italy. Japan adds 75 million people.

Including occupied territories, Germany has roughly 280 million people to draw upon.

That leaves the Super Axis holding roughly double their core population, to around 350 million core people. Add double that in conquered territories to give their core + peripheral and you have around 700 million people.

UK + USA alone has 50 million + 130 million + 20 in the core to give them about 200 million core people. Core + Peripheral, with 171 million in British India, and other parts of the empire brings them around 200 million in the peripheral and 200 million in the core.

That would give the allies together, core + peripheral, close to 400 million, vs the super Axis of 700 million. I don't think it can be done. It would likely lead to a stalemate. The primary advantage of the allies is access to overall productive capacity that could not be touched by the Axis. It proved to be sufficient against the Axis when they had the numerical advantage, but against a super axis, they would be down 2-1 even including British India.

The only thing I can see is for the US to go at Japan alone, with their full force, no Torch, no support for Britain. Britain does nothing but hunker down and prevent a crossing.

Same with Egypt and the mideast. Hunker down and stave off attacks from Germany and Russia from the north for as long as possible. Same in India.

Put in a super allied force in the pacific and try to knock out the Japanese quick.

Japan surrenders. Then move the super allied force to the mid east. If the British can stave off both the Germans and the Russians here, they can choke both off by controlling access to the mid east and to most of asia.

Then probably something like Torch and Churchill's Med strategy. Take it slow, cut off Africa from Hitler, and then you control most of asia, but the super axis still controls all of europe.

I guess it could be done, but the entire war strategy would change.

[David Floyd]

No, I haven't heard anything about they were short of fuel (please post links to evidence), neither have I ever heard any evidence of heavy US submarine activity, and last US AAA was not a question and certainly not why the third strike wasn't sent.

First of all, if you are so ignorant of basic facts you shouldn't even be having this conversation with me. I will oblige you with the following, relying on Wikipedia, all of which information is easily confirmed by ANY NUMBER of other sources, if you would bother to look:

As Wikipedia says for reasons Nagumo didn't launch the third wave:

* American anti-aircraft performance had improved considerably during the second strike, and two thirds of Japan's losses were incurred during the second wave.[70] Nagumo felt if he launched a third strike, he would be risking three quarters of the Combined Fleet's strength to wipe out the remaining targets (which included the facilities) while suffering higher aircraft losses.[70]
* The location of the American carriers remained unknown. In addition, the admiral was concerned his force was now within range of American land-based bombers.[70] Nagumo was uncertain whether the U.S. had enough surviving planes remaining on Hawaii to launch an attack against his carriers.[71]
* A third wave would have required substantial preparation and turnaround time, and would have meant returning planes would have had to land at night. At the time, only the (British) Royal Navy had developed night carrier techniques, so this was a substantial risk.[72]
* The task force's fuel situation did not permit him to remain in waters north of Pearl Harbor much longer, since he was at the very limit of logistical support. To do so risked running unacceptably low on fuel, perhaps even having to abandon destroyers en route home.[73]
* He believed the second strike had essentially satisfied the main objective of his mission — the neutralization of the Pacific Fleet — and did not wish to risk further losses.[74] Moreover, it was Japanese Navy practice to prefer the conservation of strength over the total destruction of the enemy.[75]

I will also give you this link:

http://www.combinedfleet.com/pearlops.htm

Why not ? Considering what they deployed on a large number of islands, they could have sent them to hawaii for better use.

And how were they supposed to GET TO HAWAII? Walk? How were they going to be resupplied? Mana from Heaven?

[David Floyd]

BK,

That would give the allies together, core + peripheral, close to 400 million, vs the super Axis of 700 million. I don't think it can be done. It would likely lead to a stalemate. The primary advantage of the allies is access to overall productive capacity that could not be touched by the Axis. It proved to be sufficient against the Axis when they had the numerical advantage, but against a super axis, they would be down 2-1 even including British India.

Doesn't matter. For perspective, Japan had a population very close to that of the US (ie, roughly 105 million vs. 130 million), and yet the war wasn't that close, given that the US won in the Pacific utilizing a fraction of it's total resources. What is going to make the difference is atomic weapons delivered from heavy bombers that are untouchable by SuperAxis aircraft, along with weaponized anthrax which the SuperAxis can't hope to match. Additionally, the US/UK/Commonwealth in this scenario retains much greater strategic flexibility due to overwhelming naval dominance - they can pick the where and when of any land engagements. Population simply is not going to come into play in this scenario, because at the absolute WORST CASE SCENARIO, the US uses the B-36 equipped with atomic weapons to depopulate Europe and the Soviet Union by the late 1940s, AND/OR Great Britain uses anthrax to depopulate Western Europe in the EARLY 1940s, a capability which they certainly had.

[David Floyd]

Also, if you are counting conquered people as part of core population, then you should probably read up on the performance of German allies in the war. It wasn't exactly spectacular. And remind me at just which point did Vichy France or the General Government area provide effective combat troops to the Axis? Indeed, it was the opposite -the Poles and French provided VERY effective combat units, but it was to the Allies, not the other way around.

[Ben Kenobi]

Doesn't matter. For perspective, Japan had a population very close to that of the US (ie, roughly 105 million vs. 130 million),

My sources put them at 75. Not counting Korea or Manchuria as core.

and yet the war wasn't that close, given that the US won in the Pacific utilizing a fraction of it's total resources.

Agreed. I don't see how a super axis could field a substantial Navy sufficient to capture India or Australia, let alone the US. There is simply no winning exit strategy even for the super axis, save a truce.

The question is, the American strategy, though invincible took 4 years to implement from Pearl to VJ.

Can Fortress Britain hold out for 4 years? Can the US successfully ship to Britain and stave off Sea Lion through aerial and naval supremacy for that long?

What happens if El Alamein goes the other way and the British lose in the Middle east early on, say in 42?

What is going to make the difference is atomic weapons delivered from heavy bombers that are untouchable by SuperAxis aircraft, along with weaponized anthrax which the SuperAxis can't hope to match.

What if the folks at Peenemunde drop the bomb on London in '47?

[Ben Kenobi]

Also, if you are counting conquered people as part of core population, then you should probably read up on the performance of German allies in the war. It wasn't exactly spectacular. And remind me at just which point did Vichy France or the General Government area provide effective combat troops to the Axis? Indeed, it was the opposite -the Poles and French provided VERY effective combat units, but it was to the Allies, not the other way around.

I'm not counting conquered as core. Core for Germany + Italy is around 110 million.

[David Floyd]

Can Fortress Britain hold out for 4 years? Can the US successfully ship to Britain and stave off Sea Lion through aerial and naval supremacy for that long?

Sea Lion is a joke. If the navy of Nazi Germany couldn't support Sea Lion, what capability does the navy of the Soviet Union add? None. Could such a navy be built? Sure, but the Royal Navy had such a massive lead in numbers, training, and doctrine that it would have taken a decade, easily, even using the combined resources of Europe and Russia to build a fleet capable of defeating the Royal Navy. As for air power, Great Britain actually OUTPRODUCED Nazi Germany historically. Granted, the Soviet Union plus Germany could have and would have outproduced Britain, but they still couldn't have invaded. Britain was for all intents and purposes, invulnerable.

What happens if El Alamein goes the other way and the British lose in the Middle east early on, say in 42?

And why in the world would El Alamein have gone the other way? The Germans had the capability to, at the maximum, supply 4 mobile divisions in North Africa, which is in line with their maximum deployment prior to Torch (the difference being, the additional troops shoved in were not conducting offensive operations). Now, could the Soviet Union have invaded through northern Iran? Sure they could have. But given their performance against the Finns in the Winter War, and given the terrain involved, I can easily see the Red Army getting bogged down rapidly in Iran.

And even if the Germans and Russians had conquered the Middle East and Egypt, they still can't decisively end the war.

Additionally, once the Americans come in, which is inevitable given the inevitability of Pearl Harbor, the outcome is a foregone conclusion. The US can shift more airpower into Great Britain, while simultaneously swamping Japan AND building a heavy bomber force, that any air advantage the SuperAxis may possess disappears. The US outproduced the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany combined in aircraft, while supplying the Soviets with thousands of aircraft and millions of tons of avgas via Lend Lease.

[David Floyd]

I'm not counting conquered as core. Core for Germany + Italy is around 110 million.

And my point is, look at the combat performance of the Italian military. It was, shall we say, less than impressive.

[Ben Kenobi]

And why in the world would El Alamein have gone the other way?

Where do you think all the divisions sent to Barbarossa in 1941 are going to go? Rather then having the leavings, you have Rommel + Guderian and all the best Nazi units in the Afrika Korps. Rather then deploying the bombers to Russia, what happens if they force the surrender of Malta, and conquer the garrison there? Then they are free to ship to Libya and to Afrika without harrassment. This increases their maximum supply capacity. As for El Alamein, do the British, if the Soviet Union joins the Axis do they continue to garrison Egypt? Remember they had a massive build up in Egypt as Churchill saw it as an opportunity to finally defeat the axis and turn the tide. Would he choose the same move if Hitler rather then stabbing Stalin, draws him into the Axis in 1941?

Now, could the Soviet Union have invaded through northern Iran? Sure they could have. But given their performance against the Finns in the Winter War, and given the terrain involved, I can easily see the Red Army getting bogged down rapidly in Iran.

Why go through Iran? Smash Turkey. Hitler + Stalin gangbang.

And even if the Germans and Russians had conquered the Middle East and Egypt, they still can't decisively end the war.

They don't have to. The Allies have to force some kind of surrender probably before they go nuclear. Let's say for sake of argument this is 1947. Can the allies force the surrender of Super Axis by '47? I don't think they can.

Additionally, once the Americans come in, which is inevitable given the inevitability of Pearl Harbor, the outcome is a foregone conclusion. The US can shift more airpower into Great Britain, while simultaneously swamping Japan AND building a heavy bomber force, that any air advantage the SuperAxis may possess disappears.

They were able to do so in the second world war. The question is whether a Japanese + Russian Pacific Navy + Siberian divisions make the island hop strategy take longer. Can they successfully pull off a D-Day if Hitler has 100 more divisions to play with?

The US outproduced the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany combined in aircraft, while supplying the Soviets with thousands of aircraft and millions of tons of avgas via Lend Lease.

True, but take into account that all of their losses no longer happen. That's a huge amount of manpower and weaponry preserved.

[David Floyd]

Where do you think all the divisions sent to Barbarossa in 1941 are going to go? Rather then having the leavings, you have Rommel + Guderian and all the best Nazi units in the Afrika Korps. Rather then deploying the bombers to Russia, what happens if they force the surrender of Malta, and conquer the garrison there? Then they are free to ship to Libya and to Afrika without harrassment. This increases their maximum supply capacity.

Logistics, sir, logistics. It wasn't just the shipping constraints in the Med, it was the port capacity of Italian ports in Libya, as well as the distance of the supply lines in North Africa. For instance, if you ship in 1000 tons of fuel, but you eat up 800 tons of fuel transporting it to the front, it is suddenly less impressive. 4 divisions was the ceiling of what could be supplied via Libyan and Tunisian ports, regardless of the existence of Malta or the Eastern Front.

Why go through Iran? Smash Turkey. Hitler + Stalin gangbang.

Smash Turkey and sabotage Germany's only source of chromium? Good plan. Plus, Turkey might not be a walkover, either.

They don't have to. The Allies have to force some kind of surrender probably before they go nuclear. Let's say for sake of argument this is 1947. Can the allies force the surrender of Super Axis by '47? I don't think they can.

Why in the world do the Allies have to force surrender before going nuclear? They didn't WRT Japan, right? And by September of 1945 the US has 10 A-bombs/month coming off the supply line, with production accelerating. Just exactly how many targets are left in Europe by 1947??

[Ben Kenobi]

And my point is, look at the combat performance of the Italian military. It was, shall we say, less than impressive.

Well sure, because Hitler had his core playing in Russian swamps.

What happens if his best troops are all in Afrika? Does he have to use the Italians for anything besides cannon fodder?

[Ben Kenobi]

Smash Turkey and sabotage Germany's only source of chromium? Good plan. Plus, Turkey might not be a walkover, either.

Russia has enough Chromium. Hmm, nuclear engineers in exchange for raw materials. Sounds like a plan to me.

Why in the world do the Allies have to force surrender before going nuclear? They didn't WRT Japan, right? And by September of 1945 the US has 10 A-bombs/month coming off the supply line, with production accelerating. Just exactly how many targets are left in Europe by 1947??

Before the Super Axis goes nuclear. If they get the bomb in '47, are the Americans and Brits willing to nuke occupied Europe to force a surrender in '45, if they do not have any control of Europe? What happens if they do nuke and Russia tells them to fart in the wind?

[David Floyd]

But my point is, you were counting Italian population figures into your calculations for manpower. I am simply pointing out the fact that the Italian military cannot be considered equivalent man to man of the German, or American, or British, or even Russian armies given their performance in the war. Consider for instance the Italian invasion of Greece - if Italy was a first-rate power, why did it have trouble defeating the third rate Greeks? Hell, they didn't even defeat them - the Germans had to invade Greece to end that campaign.

Don't look at population figures - the numbers don't tell the story. That's my point.

[David Floyd]

Russia has enough Chromium. Hmm, nuclear engineers in exchange for raw materials. Sounds like a plan to me.

You mean, the nuclear engineers who concluded the atomic bomb was impossible? Sure, they're gonna have success

Before the Super Axis goes nuclear. If they get the bomb in '47, are the Americans and Brits willing to nuke occupied Europe to force a surrender in '45, if they do not have any control of Europe? What happens if they do nuke and Russia tells them to fart in the wind?

Then they don't tell Russia anything. They use B-36s, virtually untouchable by Soviet air power, to nuke Russian cities. And if that doesn't work, they wait a year or two and use B-47s and hydrogen bombs. There is nothing to indicate that Germany and the Soviet Union could have successfully collaborated on a successful atomic bomb project, especially given the fact that the only way the Soviets built one by 1949 was through espionage. And if the Soviets are active belligerents, I think it's safe to assume they will be much less likely to conduct intelligence operations in the United States.