WW2 What If?

[David Floyd]

Perhaps, but at least the US would be #WINNING. In not unrelated news, in such a scenario perhaps the population of Europe would have been better advised not to embrace dictators like Hitler and Stalin.

[giblets]

If they would have been better off dead, they could commit mass suicide without our help.

[David Floyd]

The fact of the matter is, the national security of the United States was such that we could not allow either Nazis or Stalinists to control Eurasia. That is the only overriding concern, and is the reason we would never have allowed it to happen. During the 1940s, the United States was for all intents and purposes LITERALLY the Hand of God when it came to military prowess and international relations.

[giblets]

We must be pretty lousy at playing God considering how many people fell under Communist governments in that period.

[David Floyd]

We weren't aggressive enough. We should have dropped the Bomb on the Soviet Union over Eastern Europe.

[giblets]

I wonder how many other problems we could solve if we were more willing to incinerate people?

[David Floyd]

Probably quite a few. And again, it wouldn't be a problem if those people didn't so willingly accept brutal dictators.

[giblets]

Every Russian who didn't martyr themself to defy Stalin deserved to die? Really?

[David Floyd]

No, but the fact is that it was a popular revolution that swept communism into power. If the government the people revolted to bring in eventually threatened the US, and if that government was destroyed, it's ultimately the fault of the people who brought the government to power.

Or do you NOT believe that the German people were to blame for the rise of Hitler?

[giblets]

The German people had no idea Hitler was going to start a world war and murder millions of people. Hitler was to blame for that.

[David Floyd]

Which doesn't make us unjustified in doing anything and everything to defeat Hitler.

[David Floyd]

The German people also knew he was a virulent anti-Semite, and, hell, he wrote Mein Kampf way back in the 1920s.

[ur32212451]

That statement alone is idiotic. I will still address your points, but no historian worth his credentials thinks the war was winnable by the Axis.

You have got me here, I can't tell Historians worth their credentials to those who are unworthy of their credentials. They all think they are right and will not confess that they are not worth their credentials, but believe their opposing Historian is wrong.

But I just spent the last hour or two on how Germany could have invaded England.

The Luftwaffe was far superior to the British RAF at that time, and could have provided cover. This would change later in the war. In my view, admittedly an after the facts view, that taking England is the only chance Germany had to win the war. Of course, declaring war on the USA was another real bad mistake Hitler made.

England most likely had the best Navy in the world at that time. Germany needs to take England to win the war.

My guess is that British Navy will not be very effective in the English Channel. Particularly with the Luftwaffe bombing any ships entering therein (though they did not have the Japanese Torpedo's) and German canons firing from the shore. Since you know more about this than I do, why could they not cross the English Channel and float troops and even Panzer tanks and other equipment undercover of the Luftwaffe. Something similar to our invasion of Normandy in 1944. If done right on the heels of 'the miracle at Dunkirk', before these troops regroup. What is needed would be the appropriate transport boats suitable for crossing the English Channel, some PT boats would be handy.

But such should have to be prepared before the war starts. If Germany can not take England, then they can not win the war.

Anyway, please explain why what I suggest can not work? I fully expect you will, my knowledge of war tactics and supply lines are very limited.

Yes and no. The Soviets were NOT afraid to challenge Japan, and in fact Soviet ground forces in the Soviet Far Eastern Military District were superior to the Japanese Kwangtung Army at EVERY POINT during the war, including during Operation Typhoon when the Red Army was arguably at it's weakest.

Grant that Stalin was every bit the mad man that Hitler was, probably more so if that is possible. Germany had an army move into Poland and remain there. Stalin took the Oil fields as part of their treaty, which Hitler made to prevent a two front war. But Stalin trusted no one, and he certainly did not trust Hitler whose invading army of Poland remained in Poland and were being built up at their border. No way He was going to go to War with Japan. Hitler was hoping that Japan would attack the USSR from the east, and was fairly certain this would be the case when he did declare war on Russia. Hitler's armies lost to the Russian winter, and because Hitler had his way rather than let what his most able generals wanted to do. As the war progressed, Hitler's mind was disintegrating and his commands became more and more absurd.

Destroying the BEF was not necessarily a war winner. Also, there is considerable dispute as to whether Guderian or Hitler gave this order. Even so, German panzer forces were so strung out on their supply lines that they needed a rest period before resuming the offensive, especially given the strong defensive stand put up by Alan Brooke and the British II Corps (divisional commanders Alexander and Montgomery).

It is difficult as to guess what would have been a war winner. The fact remained that there were Panzer divisions available at that time and location, they and the German army advance was halted by the German command, either Hitler who was present, or a General or two. The Luftwaffe was present and used and was besting the RAF, but most days of the evacuation the weather worked against using the Luftwaffe. Hitler did have a strategy of winning the Brits over to his Aryan ideology and believed that they were equal to Germans as far as race goes, or perhaps, on the other hand, the generals felt that easing up on the evacuating BEF forces may lead to a treaty with Great Britain and give themselves time to re-group, or perhaps it was simply Divine providence, that the axis powers should lose the war, and the State of Israel be brought into existence as their diaspora comes to an end.

This is where I should just stop arguing with you idiots. Tell me how Germany can invade England. Show me the troop lift, the logistics. Just try.

See above for my best 'uninformed' guess. I know Germany had a poor Navy. The Bismarck was too late too little. But I thought they might be able to cross the English Channel, and keep the supply lines open with their airplanes and a small effective navy just for this purpose, if they had forethought to prepare for this one scenario. I realize Germany did not have the means to develop a full strong Navy. But it was not a problem for the USA.

You are arguing two different campaigns. In December of '41 it is well acknowledged that Hitler was RIGHT to order no retreat, and that a retreat would have turned into a rout. As for the Stalingrad campaign, had 6th Army broken out, what would have happened to the much greater German forces in the Caucasus? They would have been cut off and surrounded, is what would have happened.

But the German Generals wanted to fall back for the winter to defensible positions. I know there is oil in the Caucasus, but also in Poland, would not such a retreat be in Germany's best interest, and retake the Caucasus in the spring with a rested and warmer army.

This has little to do with the OP, so I won't address it. Suffice it to say, many might disagree with you.

This is something I could defend, but will refrain since it is a departure from the OP.

The 2nd Coming of Jesus Christ couldn't have won the war for Germany. They were THAT outclassed once the US came in.

Yes, declaring war on the US was the biggest mistakes Japan and Germany made. They truly underestimated the US.

I do appreciate that you took the time to answer my post, and I value your views. I am quite a novice on warfare.

[ur32212451]

The German people had no idea Hitler was going to start a world war and murder millions of people. Hitler was to blame for that.

You mean they did not read 'Mein Kampf' or listen to his speeches. He did what he said he would do.

[David Floyd]

My guess is that British Navy will not be very effective in the English Channel. Particularly with the Luftwaffe bombing any ships entering therein (though they did not have the Japanese Torpedo's) and German canons firing from the shore. Since you know more about this than I do, why could they not cross the English Channel and float troops and even Panzer tanks and other equipment undercover of the Luftwaffe. Something similar to our invasion of Normandy in 1944. If done right on the heels of 'the miracle at Dunkirk', before these troops regroup. What is needed would be the appropriate transport boats suitable for crossing the English Channel, some PT boats would be handy.

OK. There are a few things at work here. First of all, Germany had a grand total of ZERO effective landing craft. In point of fact, their half-baked Sea Lion contingency planning involved using Rhine River barges to transport troops. The problem with that is that a Royal Navy destroyer could sink a Rhine River barge by simple steaming by it at 20 knots - the barges were not seaworthy. Operation Sealion was in fact wargamed by at Sandhurst in 1975, and the result was a total German surrender after approximately 3 days. The point was, whether or not Germany could gin up enough boats to transport a landing force across the Channel was irrelevant - the Germans didn't have the logistics to resupply any beachhead, nor could they combat the Royal Navy. Yes, the Luftwaffe would have been competitive in the Channel - but it is a telling point that the Luftwaffe had essentially zero bombers capable of anti-ship action! The types of bombs that are effective on land were not necessarily the same as what were needed for anti-ship strikes, and what the Luftwaffe really needed were torpedo bombers. They didn't have any. Combine that with the fact that Royal Navy LIGHT FORCES (ie, destroyers and light cruisers) were readily available to intervene in the Channel and were superior to anything the Kriegsmarine could deploy means that the invasion would have been doomed from the get-go.

But the German Generals wanted to fall back for the winter to defensible positions. I know there is oil in the Caucasus, but also in Poland, would not such a retreat be in Germany's best interest, and retake the Caucasus in the spring with a rested and warmer army.

There were no defensible positions built during the Soviet winter offensive. Indeed, the Heer gambled everything on Operation Typhoon - they had no fallback position. And that's the point - the Germans had nowhere to fall back to. It was indeed stand or die. As odd as it seems, the winter campaign of 41/42 can almost be seen as a German tactical victory. As for Stalingrad, again, the 6th Army couldn't abandon Stalingrad without assuring the destruction of the armies in the Caucasus. Would the Germans have been better served by withdrawing everyone prior to Stalingrad? Sure, but that would have defeated the point of the summer offensive in any case.

I didn't answer all of your views, as some of the answers would be irrelevant to the main point. If you would like clarification, feel free to repost and I will do my best to answer them.