What If.....

Lockstep

The RAF had failed in the battle of Britain and Germany had invaded and conquered England.

I'd be interested to see how people feel the world would have changed.

Cato

Ireland would be next, to deny any form of base of operations for the Americans, with out any place to consolidate forces in western Europe America would more than likely base their operations in northern Africa, Germany would crush Russia as it only has to concentrate on its eastern front with all of Europe and Russia secured i believe the war would come to a stand still both sides tired from the long war would be unable logistically to keep attacking each other from across the Atlantic, German U-boats would keep America looked in their ports and then there would be some uneasy ceasefire between America and Germany and that would be then end to the war unless one of the sides decides to nuke Europe or America ( i don't think the Americans would be capable of this politically this would be suicide)even in this case i foresee a ceasefire.This ceasefire would favor Germany imposing humiliating terms on America as a result of the Versailles treaty in 1918, disarmament of America by Germany, and gradual integration into the Reich. then a push for the middle east to secure all the worlds oil supply resulting in world domination by the Germans. i believe the the japanese would still be nuked but not have surrendered.

Lockstep

Yeah, I would definetely see an uneasy truce occuring between the Reich and USA with both sides pressing for nukes.

TerrorFirmer

Germany would probably have invaded Ireland to secure the frontier, but have left countries like Spain independent provided they agreed to ally themselves to Germany (and they would have done so willingly, in such a scenario).

They would have invaded Russia as per reality, and most likely, with the exact same outcome owing to Hitlers obscene lack of consideration and context, albeit at a later date and just possibly, without actually suffering complete defeat but forced into containment rather then expansion.

I suppose there's a large chance Spain would have openly joined with the Axis, and with Africa seized if Britain had fallen in 1940, Turkey might have followed suit and allowed a deeper and much faster circulation of the Red Army and/or industry before it could be moved, which would have been far more likely to result in the defeat of Russia - but as I said, what the German army did and could do were equally hampered entirely as long as Hitler remained in overall command of the army.

Agent Smith

Boards.de Anyone?

the_syco

I'd say if Japan attacked attacked the USA, I'd say they'd still nuke 'em. And with a working bomb, why stop there? Bomb, I don't know, Germany, and any ceasefire would be to the allies favour.

TerrorFirmer

the_syco wrote: »

I'd say if Japan attacked attacked the USA, I'd say they'd still nuke 'em. And with a working bomb, why stop there? Bomb, I don't know, Germany, and any ceasefire would be to the allies favour.

And how would you propose the united states delivers an atomic weapon all the way to occupied Europe, protected by an air force far that would realistically been better then their own had the air campaigns of 1943/44 never happened?

dogmatix

Read Robert Harris's book Fatherland - I think this gives a realistic what if scenario for a German victory in Europe. It's set in 1963 and the US and Nazi Germany are in the middle of a cold war.

I think a German victory over Britain would have enabled them to defeat the USSR by 1942 at least and no later then 1943. They would have had a lot more options into russia also, such as pushing up through the middle east and of course they would have had no need to maintain significant forces in the west and North Africa after a british defeat.

The US could not have easily delivered an atomic bomb to europe from the east coast of America - the B29 did not have the range, and the B36 which did was still a few years away from service and could never have gotten through a heavily defended German airspace anyway.

Dinter

Sorry for the size of it. I've time on my hands today as I'm out of work sick.

With the total destruction of the RAF in 1940, Germany is free to land troops in England and after the establishment of Luftwaffe forward operating bases is capable of blitzkrieg against poorly armed and equipped British troops still reeling from the materiel loss at Dunkirk. Germany negates Roosevelt's unpopular appeals for war against her as Britain as an entity is gone and it is decided that trade agreements with Europe will make more sense to ensure there is not another catastrophic depression Especially as an embargo would cripple the American economy.

To sweeten the deal for the American public, Germany refuses to honour it's treaty with Japan when it goes ahead with the attack on Pearl Harbour. This allows it time to settle Western Europe and rearm and refit. However there is still agreement between the two and in a secret clause Germany must be prepared for all out war should the Americans get within landing distance of the Japanese home islands.

The British government, having withdrawn to Canada, continues the war against Germany through its colonies in Asia and raids from naval bases in Halifax. In this it is aided by secret American lend lease aid and begins to entertain thoughts of strangling German trade to the US by building bases in Greenland. This would allow it to raid into the Channel and North Sea.

However with the threat posed by British flights and commando assaults against her heavy water research facilities in Norway and Heisenberg negated, Germany is soon capable of creating a working, low yield, atomic bomb. In 1943 it launches several squadrons of JU390 V3's equipped with the new weapon, from airfields in Iceland. These obliterate Halifax and the surrounding areas and the threat forces the US to renege on its agreement with Britain. Without American aid and with her colonies in Asia in the midst of being overrun by Japanese troops, Britain is forced to sue for peace. As a condition of this she is stripped of her colonies and vast military bases are established in Australia and New Zealand.

In North Africa, well-supplied Axis forces destroy the diminutive and badly equipped “Free Britain” and “Free French” troops. North Africa falls and with it the Axis powers gain access to the massive Middle East oil fields whilst driving the Allied presence into the Pacific. Although commando raids will continue against Axis installations the Allied forces have lost all viable forces except in Russia, North America and the Pacific.

Meanwhile in 1943, Germany invaded Russia with the start of operation Barbarossa. This had been delayed until the successful completion of operation Sea Lion and as such they were able to choose to go earlier in the year. Without the thousands of vehicles, tonnes of food and miscellaneous supplies that should have come from Britain and America via the Artic convoys, Russia is not in as strong a position to recover from the initial Blitzkrieg assault. Also Germany has specifically asked for Japanese help if she wants aid against America. Japan masses armies withdrawn from areas seceded by Britain to Germany and holds them in Manchuria, thus keeping Russian forces trapped in the Far East. Without these trained troops Russia cannot mount the successful counter attacks that in an “alternate reality” occurred in December 1941. Her forces are soon pushed back to the A-A line and Moscow is taken in the first push.

As Lebensraum is no longer the political priority for Germany due to commanding Western Europe, the SS and Eisensatz are not given the free hand to massacre everyone that they would have had had otherwise and the Ukraine becomes a fertile recruitment ground for the Wehrmacht. Divisions raised from the west of Russia are added to the 5.5 million Axis troops already involved. These troops are valued highly as the Germans recognise that in their skewed racial values, it is better for Slav to kill Slav. To this end they are specifically recruited and the native populations are treated well to ensure the flow continues. Hitler and the other racial purity hawks are content with the realisation that they are going to die anyway.

Russia will not sue for peace but will continue to be driven back. Without the direct supervision of the NKVD and with the purges and gulags fresh in mind some areas secede from the Soviet Union. These throw in their lot with the invaders. At the end of 1942 the Caucasus oilfields are captured and the Urals are within range of the Luftwaffe. Although Russia will never formally surrender, her ability to resist is destroyed and the harsh winter of 1943 ironically wipes out tens of thousands of her disorganised and impoverished soldiers. By the beginning of 1944 dishevelled Russian troops are being pushed out of Russia proper, where unable to rally, they are assaulted continuously.

Germany finally settles along the A-A line to regroup and although a massive garrison force is needed Russia’s Western Republics are held. Beyond the A-A line, V3’s carrying atomic warheads immediately target any military build-up. With this impediment Russian armour cannot ever be as decisive as it could have been.

At the end of 1944 Germany is poised at a crossroads. It can commit to an aerial bombardment against America, allied to armoured thrusts down from Canada along the Eastern and Western seaboards. America is not stretched, as yet, in the Pacific although the growing German presence in Canada is forcing it to divert troops to protect the homeland. Alternatively Germany could also sign a non-aggression pact with America thus guaranteeing a free hand for her to assault Japan and once they’ve bloodied each other, attack.

Without the ceaseless air assaults against her factories, Germany’s new wonder weapons such as the V3 etc are online and American cities down to Houston are in range. However it is probable that Germany will instead consolidate her forces and with the threat of her atomic weaponry force a peace on the rest of the world that suits her.

CerebralCortex

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

They would have invaded Russia as per reality, and most likely, with the exact same outcome owing to Hitlers obscene lack of consideration and context, albeit at a later date and just possibly, without actually suffering complete defeat but forced into containment rather then expansion.

I suppose there's a large chance Spain would have openly joined with the Axis, and with Africa seized if Britain had fallen in 1940, Turkey might have followed suit and allowed a deeper and much faster circulation of the Red Army and/or industry before it could be moved, which would have been far more likely to result in the defeat of Russia - but as I said, what the German army did and could do were equally hampered entirely as long as Hitler remained in overall command of the army.

With Hitler's ineptitude in the eastern considered would he still not have more material and air power with the British out of the way? In the battle of the Kursk (I'm lead to believe) they were outnumbered slightly in the ground and air but with the defeat of Britain and thus victory in Africa they would have more aircraft, less bombing of their industry and no worries about an invasion of Italy possibly leading to a victory in that crucial battle.

TerrorFirmer

@ Dinter...I realise that we're talking about alternate history but that seems a bit unrealistic....you've not only changed the timeline, but all of Hitlers policies and priorities as if he didn't exist.

As Lebensraum is no longer the political priority for Germany due to commanding Western Europe, the SS and Eisensatz are not given the free hand to massacre everyone that they would have had had otherwise and the Ukraine becomes a fertile recruitment ground for the Wehrmacht. Divisions raised from the west of Russia

This would have been completely impossible, being oblivious to reality was Hitlers speciality. Principle always overrode common sense, context, rationality, etc. The whole principle of Barbarossa was not just to create space, but to completely edradicate communism and Jewry from Europe and destroy what the Nazi's preceived as inferior peoples. Hitler could have easily raised these divisions you speak off from the Ukraine and even Russia itself in 1941 after the invasion easily; he didn't because his blinding hatred of them refused to let him cede even to logical steps and foreigners didn't really enter the Germany army until much, much later in the war when the war was effectively lost. His irrationality and refusal to give priority to tactics over ethics are what lost Germany the war.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

With Hitler's ineptitude in the eastern considered would he still not have more material and air power with the British out of the way? In the battle of the Kursk (I'm lead to believe) they were outnumbered slightly in the ground and air but with the defeat of Britain and thus victory in Africa they would have more aircraft, less bombing of their industry and no worries about an invasion of Italy possibly leading to a victory in that crucial battle.

He would have had more material, that's for sure, but not enough. By 1944, the massive bulk of the Germany army was in the east, at one stage only 10% of armoured vehicles were being sent to the West Wall despite the same proportional losses in that theatre compared to the east. Also, a lot of the forces in the West were units being replenished, units that were understrenght and under armed, volksgrenadier, etc. Towards the end of the war, without any air cover, armour support, or artillery, most of these army groups surrendered in huge numbers....literally hundreds of thousands. Most of the defenses were constructed by slave labour, which wasn't used in the east and industrial output grew until the end of the war, so in that regard construction of the atlantic wall wasn't much on a drain on the eastern war effort as a whole. Same with Italy - nature of terrain meant little defenders could stage effective defense, and largely infantry based, vast bulk of armour was in the East. So while it would have helped, what the Germans needed was better strategic and tactical direction in the east, with which they could have - of course, ignoring the atomic bomb which would have ended the war anyway - held out until late 1945/early 1946 at least, and - although it's open to discussion as to if the German army could have defeated Russia in 1941 under it's own nominal command - they could have, at the very least, exercised a successful containment policy and blunted the Red armys attempts at attack.

As for Kursk both Air Forces were, despite maybe a variance in numbers, evenly matched, neither could acheive aerial supremecy. The Soviets never really made effective use of their air force; neither could the Germans in the east, they had complete aerial domination until mid 1943 and still couldn't use it force any sort of decisive outcome on events.

CerebralCortex

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

....As for Kursk both Air Forces were, despite maybe a variance in numbers, evenly matched, neither could acheive aerial supremecy. The Soviets never really made effective use of their air force; neither could the Germans in the east, they had complete aerial domination until mid 1943 and still couldn't use it force any sort of decisive outcome on events.

Are you saying that left to concentrate on Russia that Germany under Hitler would have still lost to the red army? Hitler's tactics in the eastern front were nothing short of crazy but with enough steam, for example not having to send a his panthers to Italy at the end of the battle of the kursk he could have come out on top. Maybe my knowledge is to limited on the subject.

TerrorFirmer

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Are you saying that left to concentrate on Russia that Germany under Hitler would have still lost to the red army? Hitler's tactics in the eastern front were nothing short of crazy but with enough steam, for example not having to send a his panthers to Italy at the end of the battle of the kursk he could have come out on top. Maybe my knowledge is to limited on the subject.

In my opinion, anyway. Hitler did withdraw forces to deal with the allied Invasion of Italy, but the German attacked had been decisively beaten by then and one corps wasn't going to make or break the battle - though I suppose might have been vital in stopping the Soviet counter offensive that followed Kursk...plus, at this stage, the Panthers were completely unreliable, and a lot of them broke down due to mechanical failure rather then being knocked out in battle.

The order of Kursk was terrible anyway, the Germans attacked a well defended, multiple line deep Soviet salient - with vastly inferior numbers. It's surprisingly they managed to penetrate as far as they did in the south, but even if they had acheived a very limited breakthrough they didn't have enough reserves to make the best of it or make a proper encirclement, whereas the soviets had a relatively vast reserve pool.

Mainstein had an alternative plan that favoured a war of manoverability rather then attacking static positions but it was refused by OKH in favour of attacking the salient.

Dinter

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

@ Dinter...I realise that we're talking about alternate history but that seems a bit unrealistic....you've not only changed the timeline, but all of Hitlers policies and priorities as if he didn't exist.

Well I thought that was the point. Sea lion would have had a much better chance of succeeding if Hitler hadn't personally removed the emphasis from destroying airfields to cities.

Also I am of the opinion that Barbarossa would have been delayed should Britain have been conquered. I base this on the fact that it would have cost the Wehrmacht heavily and those losses would need to have been made up. Also taking into account the whole Untermenschen idea. Hitler did not expect communism nor the “subhuman” Slavs to stand against him. There was no overriding reason to hurry. Success in Britain would have given him the distraction from Russia his Generals wanted. Old kicking in the door quote comes to mind.

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

This would have been completely impossible; being oblivious to reality was Hitlers speciality. Principle always overrode common sense, context, rationality, etc. Hitler could have easily raised these divisions you speak off from the Ukraine and even Russia itself in 1941 after the invasion easily; he didn't because his blinding hatred of them refused to let him cede even to logical steps and foreigners didn't really enter the Germany army until much, much later in the war when the war was effectively lost. His irrationality and refusal to give priority to tactics over ethics are what lost Germany the war.

The Ukrainian National Army and the corresponding units that were created in Latvia, Estonia and Belarus by 1943 would be a case in point and probably beg to differ.

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

He would have had more material, that's for sure, but not enough. By 1944, the massive bulk of the Germany army was in the east, at one stage only 10% of armoured vehicles were being sent to the West Wall despite the same proportional losses in that theatre compared to the east.

Without having to hold forces in Western Europe against invasion Hitler could have turned against the Soviet Union with a higher proportion of his army far earlier. Also some people seem to think that Stalin pulling his factories back behind the Urals is how he survived. It isn’t. The Allies supplied them with thousands of tonnes of materiel throughout the War from the Arctic convoys and through the Black Sea. These would have been negated with the fall of Britain.

If we believe that Germany could have succeeded in reaching Moscow with the increased invasion force that came from pacifying Western Europe earlier than Japan would have invaded Russia. It was her main condition and a two-pronged attack would have seriously hurt the Russians, as it would have split their forces.

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Also, a lot of the forces in the West were units being replenished, units that were understrenght and under armed, volksgrenadier, etc.

There were several important Panzer divisions thrown away due to Hitler’s stupidity during D-Day 1944 that would never have occurred. Also, apart from one massive raid on the Oder and Berlin at the close of the war is there one example of the Russian air force having any effect on German productivity.

British and American bombing crippled German industry, which wouldn’t have occurred had Britain been knocked out. So those excellent Panthers and Tigers etc would have been out in far bigger numbers and more effective now that spares and parts etc are widely available. Think even of the thousands of German 88’s employed as AA guns around German industry to counter American and British bombers. Imagine what half of them would have done entrenched at Kursk.

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Most of the defenses were constructed by slave labour, which wasn't used in the east and industrial output grew until the end of the war, so in that regard construction of the Atlantic wall wasn't much on a drain on the eastern war effort as a whole.

Yes but these defences weren’t just dragon’s teeth and barbed wire. There were hundreds of guns and thousands of men to man them.

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

As for Kursk both Air Forces were, despite maybe a variance in numbers, evenly matched, neither could acheive aerial supremecy. The Soviets never really made effective use of their air force; neither could the Germans in the east, they had complete aerial domination until mid 1943 and still couldn't use it force any sort of decisive outcome on events.

The biggest problem the Germans had was oil despite their ingenious ersatz petrol. Imagine what they could have done with Middle Eastern oil and tens of thousands more skilled British Todd workers. Russian pilots were no match for the trained German pilots that were lost during the Battle for Britain. In air combat quality does count as against numbers, but to have any effect there must be useable planes. Without the gutting the Luftwaffe received from the RAF, Russia would have faced a far more formidable and overwhelming Luftwaffe. A Luftwaffe that fielded jet propelled Stukas and wire guided, air to ground missiles designed specifically to counter the Russian T34’s. (Both of which projects were stopped by allied bombing.)

Frankly I think Russia could not have survived without American and British help. There are too many factors to ever know for certain which is why I make my own interpretations.

TerrorFirmer

The Ukrainian National Army and the corresponding units that were created in Latvia, Estonia and Belarus by 1943 would be a case in point and probably beg to differ.

That was exactly my point; the ethnic formations could have been made in 1941, and with a bit of tact, Hitler could have raised large volunteer armies to fight against Stalin and stripped the Red Army before a pitched battle was even fought, and then have liquidated them after victory, if he so wished. But he didn't permit so until much later into the war, and after the tide had turned against Germany - the reason being his hatred of Communism and the slavic people override any sense of rationality.

Without having to hold forces in Western Europe against invasion Hitler could have turned against the Soviet Union with a higher proportion of his army far earlier. Also some people seem to think that Stalin pulling his factories back behind the Urals is how he survived. It isn’t. The Allies supplied them with thousands of tonnes of materiel throughout the War from the Arctic convoys and through the Black Sea. These would have been negated with the fall of Britain.

If we believe that Germany could have succeeded in reaching Moscow with the increased invasion force that came from pacifying Western Europe earlier than Japan would have invaded Russia. It was her main condition and a two-pronged attack would have seriously hurt the Russians, as it would have split their forces.

True regarding the supplies from the Allies, but equally, it was not a war winning factor either - the withdrawl of the factories was far more important then the Arctic convoys. Allied military hardware helped but was next to useless; the Soviets sent British and American hardware straight into battle without even modifying the markings, they were knocked out almost instantly by superior German weapons. What they valued was clothing, and hat also helped enormously was trucks, but this mostly had the effect of accelerating their offensive progress in 1943-45 rather then saving them from total defeat.

Regarding the draw of the Atlantic Wall/Western europe, by the invasion in 1941, the state of the Atlantic defenses were nothing like they would be in 1944 - and did not consume remotely as much manpower as they did in 1944 either. Besides, by 1944, the Germans in the West were crippled by a lack of Petrol, Gas, and armoured vehicles - should, theoretically, the Western frontier have been secured via repulsion of D-Day, the Germans would have benefited primarily from increased numbers in manpower but not necessarily significant armour owing to the fuel shortages, which in itself wasn't overly helpful.

Then again, if Western europe was secure in the sense that Sealion was a success, I suppose that the Germans supply of fuel and gas wouldn't be precarious as it was in 1944 in reality. Either way, the increased manpower wouldn't have made an overly large difference - the fuel would have. So it depends on what sort of alternate you're looking at....a pacified Britiain, or a defeated D-Day.

There were several important Panzer divisions thrown away due to Hitler’s stupidity during D-Day 1944 that would never have occurred. Also, apart from one massive raid on the Oder and Berlin at the close of the war is there one example of the Russian air force having any effect on German productivity.

British and American bombing crippled German industry, which wouldn’t have occurred had Britain been knocked out. So those excellent Pumas and Tigers etc would have been out in far bigger numbers. Think even of the thousands of German 88’s employed as AA guns around German industry to counter American and British bombers. Imagine what half of them would have done entrenched at Kursk.

In fairness, the confusion on D-Day wasn't solely attrituable to Hitler - Rommel also wanted reserves kept around Calais. True though, that there were several panzer divisions tied up - most of which were destroyed by air power.

I assume Puma means Panther, but as for the 88's, again, they were defensive weapons, and until literally forced to the defensive owing to an exhaustion of supplies, Hitler insisted on attack. In fact, he insisted on this anyway, right up until April 1945. Retreat, defense, these were not words in Hitlers accepted vocabulary. The only way that the Eastern front could have been contained would be in the event of Hitlers death, and the adoption of a defensive line as advocated by the likes of Rommel, held by screens of anti-tank guns. It simply couldn't and didn't happen with Hitler in charge.

So I suppose on the Eastern front they would have fared far better. But you have to look at the way in which the war progressed - after 1943, the Russian's didn't just drive the Germans ahead of them, they virtually annihilated them. This wasn't owing to technical German inferiority, it was Hitlers refusal to cede ground and disasterous micro management. So, as I was saying earlier, with Hitler in charge, it probably would have almost led to even more forces being encircled, and an even larger Army Group Center being annihilated in Summer 1944.

Hitler was the inherent problem, not a lack of Armour - although that was also critical, if they were free to shorten lines, attack and retreat as they saw fit, the high command would have not fallen victim to half the blunders it found itself in in 1944/45.

Agree about the bombing, but right throughout the entire Allied bombing campaigin, German industrial output in terms of ammunition and armour actually increased to a high point in 1945 - what they needed, and lacked, was petrol to drive them, and even if they had had that in the event of a successful Sealion, by fall 1944 they were desperately short of crews. Poorly trained crews accounted for the loss of thousands of tanks.

The biggest problem the Germans had was oil despite their ingenious ersatz petrol. Imagine what they could have done with Middle Eastern oil and tens of thousands more skilled British Todd workers. Russian pilots were no match for the trained German pilots that were lost during the Battle for Britain. In air combat quality does count as against numbers, but to have any effect there must be useable planes. Without the gutting the Luftwaffe received from the RAF, Russia would have faced a far more formidable and overwhelming Luftwaffe. A Luftwaffe that fielded jet propelled Stukas and wire guided, air to ground missiles designed specifically to counter the Russian T34’s. (Both of which projects were stopped by allied bombing.)

Yeah that's true. I did say myself that in the event of Sealion being successful, Germany could have pushed through the middle east and linked up with Turkey, who could probably be persuaded to enter the war - which would be overwhelmingly in Germanys favour at this stage.

Regarding the air force though, initially the Luftwaffe decimated the Red air force - but the battlefields were so large, and the armies involved so huge, that neither side, even the Russians at massive ratios in their favour in 1945, could actually use it to force any sort of decisive outcome on a battle, let alone on an entire campaign.

Really, I just thought your interpetation of the Eastern Front was just a bit off, because it didn't take Hitlers ethics and behaviour into account. In my opinion. The rest of it is fine!

CerebralCortex

Puma was a wheeled tank.
http://www.southeasthobbies.com.au/catalogue/italeri/7029S.jpg

TerrorFirmer

I know what a Puma is but in the context of what he said - Germanys best tank being Tiger and Puma - Puma was obviously a mistake. It wasn't even a tank, and was very lightly armored.

Dinter

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

That was exactly my point; the ethnic formations could have been made in 1941, and with a bit of tact, Hitler could have raised large volunteer armies to fight against Stalin and stripped the Red Army before a pitched battle was even fought, and then have liquidated them after victory, if he so wished. But he didn't permit so until much later into the war, and after the tide had turned against Germany - the reason being his hatred of Communism and the slavic people override any sense of rationality.

I agree with that assessment up to a certain point however in my opinion local raised troops would not have been that necessary against a Russian Army caught between two Axis forces. Remember Barbarossa involved 5.5 million soldiers (of varying quality) not counting a single solitary Japanese. Had they invaded too things could have been very different. I fully believe that solely concentrating on Russia the Wehrmacht could definitely have captured Moscow. Stalin knew that Japan was not going to invade if Moscow held due to a high placed German spy in Japan reporting to him. Something Sorge I think. He was thus able to strip his Eastern flank to reinforce the West.

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

True regarding the supplies from the Allies, but equally, it was not a war winning factor either - the withdrawl of the factories was far more important then the Arctic convoys. Allied military hardware helped but was next to useless; the Soviets sent British and American hardware straight into battle without even modifying the markings, they were knocked out almost instantly by superior German weapons. What they valued was clothing, and hat also helped enormously was trucks, but this mostly had the effect of accelerating their offensive progress in 1943-45 rather then saving them from total defeat.

A lot of that opinion is based on Soviet propaganda that grew up during the Cold War. Russia claiming it needed nothing but it’s own resources to survive. In actual fact they were of desperate import to the Soviets at the beginning of the war purely for the food and munitions they carried and it is recognised that Leningrad would have been forced to surrender without them. When we think that the civilians and soldiers there were reduced to eating corpses imagine what would have happened without Allied intervention.

Interestingly Allied military hardware was offloaded directly into battle in much the same way that Russian hardware came off the production line and was driven to the trainyard and hence to battle by the fitters who assembled it!

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Either way, the increased manpower wouldn't have made an overly large difference - the fuel would have. So it depends on what sort of alternate you're looking at.... a pacified Britiain, or a defeated D-Day.

With a pacified Britain there is no D-Day. Germany has ample fuel and access to new oil fields in the Middle East. This is easily transported as the Mediterranean is now an Axis pond! Trust me I see the success of Sealion solely in the oil it allows access to.

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

In fairness, the confusion on D-Day wasn't solely attrituable to Hitler - Rommel also wanted reserves kept around Calais. True though, that there were several panzer divisions tied up - most of which were destroyed by air power.

Rommell wanted his Panzer Divisions spread out around Calais but ready to respond immediately on the “Longest Day”. When he ordered this thrust against the beachheads he was overruled by Hitler who postponed the manoeuvres for three days. Normandy was broken up into several channels bordered by man made lakes that would funnel the Allies into the maw of his armour. When he finally got the go they Allies had breached this line.

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

But as for the 88's, again, they were defensive weapons, and until literally forced to the defensive owing to an exhaustion of supplies, Hitler insisted on attack. In fact, he insisted on this anyway, right up until April 1945.

Highly mobile, quick to set up, exceedingly accurate and with a massive velocity, 88’s were attributed by Rommel as the reason the Africa corps was so effective. Surprisingly he does not give the credit to his tanks. They were defensive in that they covered the fake withdrawals that the corps made and then unleashed hell on the British tanks. That happened through Wavell and Montgomery until lack of replacement and supplies forced the Corps into retreat after El Alamein. Actually though that raises an interesting point. Without the threat of invasion from the West, would we have seen the Desert Fox on the steppe? Imagine him against the psychotic Zhukov.

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Retreat, defense, these were not words in Hitlers accepted vocabulary. The only way that the Eastern front could have been contained would be in the event of Hitlers death, and the adoption of a defensive line as advocated by the likes of Rommel, held by screens of anti-tank guns. It simply couldn't and didn't happen with Hitler in charge.

But would they have needed to defend if they had already turned the Russian Northern flank with the destruction of Leningrad? In reality Hitler’s Generals were always happiest at attack. The whole Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe doctrine was blitzkrieg. Although capable at defence they preferred attack. Even if it was their very successful “paper bag” defensive tactic, that necessitated a counter attack. Germany’s problem was that later in the War it just didn’t have the fuel for a war of manoeuvre and this contributed directly to the Kesselring doctrine that was also supported by many of Hitler’s generals. Also Rommel and Guderian as well as several of the more successful German general had absolutely no problem ignoring Hitler’s orders when it suited them.

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Agree about the bombing, but right throughout the entire Allied bombing campaigin, German industrial output in terms of ammunition and armour actually increased to a high point in 1945 - what they needed, and lacked, was petrol to drive them, and even if they had had that in the event of a successful Sealion, by fall 1944 they were desperately short of crews. Poorly trained crews accounted for the loss of thousands of tanks.

I just don’t think you’re seeing the knock on impact that the freedom from air assault would have given the Germans. Think off all the wonder weapons you’ve heard of destroyed or limited by the Allied bombing. Whilst Germany’s output may have remained high they were chopping and changing their equipment as certain raw materials, like rubber or zinc, ran out. This led to the shoddy workmanship so familiar to anyone who looks at the German output at the end of the war.

Dinter

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

I know what a Puma is but in the context of what he said - Germanys best tank being Tiger and Puma - Puma was obviously a mistake. It wasn't even a tank, and was very lightly armored.

Yes it was indeed a mistake. Meant to be Panther. Fixed it now anyway. Sorry. . . I'll get my coat

Although I think Puma's looked great they couldn't really stand up to a T34!!

CerebralCortex

Yes also think of all the fighter aces available to the Luftwaffe for deployment of the ME 262.

Lockstep

I have to say, I'm extremely impressed by the ideas here.

meathstevie

kickoutthejams wrote: »

The RAF had failed in the battle of Britain and Germany had invaded and conquered England.

I'd be interested to see how people feel the world would have changed.

I suppose you should add the following as well. The Russians didn't have the T34 and winter proof clothing and weaponry.

Lockstep

Meh, it would be unlikely for the Russians not to have winter proof clothing at all due to the climate they live in.

Logistically, sure, maybe they wouldn't have enough.

Very interesting read guys, dont have the time to reply to some of the more detailed stuff. WWII would be a subject that I would have a broad knowledge from reading so many bloody books on the subject & alot of these points were very accurate with some good opinions on what could have happened.

Dinter

meathstevie wrote: »

I suppose you should add the following as well. The Russians didn't have the T34.

When the first Wehrmacht divisions rolled into the Soviet part of Poland at the outset of Barbarossa, the T34 made up a tiny percentage of the Russian armoured might.

However, whilst it is true that the T34’s or KV1’s in existence outclassed the German tanks of the time, an obvious parallel must be drawn with the British Matilda II’s and French S35’s that were swept aside by German tactics. Panzer I’s and II’s were outclassed by what faced them and yet still carried the day.

It was not superior German armour that did it but Guderian’s principle of combined arms and tactics that surpassed the outdated static defence and counter that the Russians, French and English proscribed to.

With an overwhelming air force and massed artillery, on a par with that fielded during the invasion of France, who knows if the 45% of Russian armour that escaped when the winter of 1941 brought operations to a halt would have done so.

The T34, although an excellent tank could not by itself, have done much to halt a German advance. By the advent of Barbarossa the Germans were familiar with destroying larger and better armour. The Russian tankers, although courageous, were not. In all fairness they didn’t even have radios to communicate with their commander.

I would definitely think the Germans capable of reaching Moscow and reducing Leningrad if their “backdoor” was firmly bolted. I have already stated the consequences that would have brought about for Russian scorched earth policies as they back-pedal towards waiting Japanese troops.

meathstevie wrote: »

. . . and winter proof clothing and weaponry.

Actually the winter proof clothing is a moot point.

Firstly, I don’t think Barbarossa would have occurred so late in the year if Sealion had succeeded. It would probably have begun in early 1942. I would think this a fair estimate if you consider the logistics of moving men and materiel back from France and Britain to their jump off points.

Secondly, I don’t believe Russia would have really have improved defences a huge amount. If you remember, Stalin had the correct start date for Barbarossa and yet allowed little or no military build up.

Thirdly, the Allies delivered much of the Russian heavy weather gear. This would also have not occurred.

It’s all meant as conjecture though.

kowloon

As I happen to have them beside me I will add some figures that you might find interesting:

Tank Strengths by military district June '41, figure in brackets is modern vehicles, T-34s and KVs

Leningrad MD: 1,506 (15)
Baltic Special MD 1,393 (109)
Western Special MD 2,201 (383)
Kiev Special MD 4,525 (758)
Odessa MD 769 (60)
Moscow MD 1,134 (9)
Kharkov MD 300 (20)
Orel MD 413 (11)
North Caucasus MD 184
Trans-Caucasus MD 869
Central Asian MD 2,602
Far Eastern MD 2,969

Kaiser_Sma

The industrial muscle of the united states is often underestimated, the pacific war could only last so long, the japanese possition was unsustainable. It is entirely probable that had russia or britain fallen that america would still have defeated the germans. It is even still a close run race if both the european allies were defeated, although it probably would have waited untill after the pacific war was over. This of course all depends on the war weariness of the american people.

The dominion states and the colonies probably would have fought on as well, after the pacific theatre ended, it is likely that a larger force from india and australia could have been brought to bear. Maybe even free russians from beyond the urals, though i don't know how effective this would be.

The result would have been an all the more bloodier conflict however. Ireland probably would have been invaded, it would also be the perfect place for a counter invasion from america as it's defences would be the least prepared and it's landscape hard to defend.

TerrorFirmer

Kaiser_Sma wrote: »

The industrial muscle of the united states is often underestimated, the pacific war could only last so long, the japanese possition was unsustainable. It is entirely probable that had russia or britain fallen that america would still have defeated the germans. It is even still a close run race if both the european allies were defeated, although it probably would have waited untill after the pacific war was over. This of course all depends on the war weariness of the american people.........

How would the United States actually fought Germany/occupied Europe? If the pacific war had broken out as per reality, but Germany defeated Russian and Britain, there would be no real alternative to peace apart from a prolonged naval based war, which Germany would not fight anyway owing to the much smaller navy.

The result would have been an all the more bloodier conflict however. Ireland probably would have been invaded, it would also be the perfect place for a counter invasion from america as it's defences would be the least prepared and it's landscape hard to defend.

That would be completely impossible, an invasion force across the entire Atlantic against occupied Europe? It would be annihilated in hours...

Firstly, I don’t think Barbarossa would have occurred so late in the year if Sealion had succeeded. It would probably have begun in early 1942. I would think this a fair estimate if you consider the logistics of moving men and materiel back from France and Britain to their jump off points.

I think that's the best chance Barbarossa ever had of success, even with Hitlers irrational leadership still firmly in place. I actually don't know much about the pacific war or the politics surrounding it (save for the basic timeline); why didn't Japan invade Russia from the east? If it was oil they were after, surely the defeat of the Soviet Union would have yielded sufficient quantities to offset the necessity of attacking America over the embargoes.

Saabdub

Interesting, the invasion of North Africa was mounted directly from the US across the Atlantic with no staging in the European theatre. The other option would have been to use the Suez Canal and operate from Egpyt. If Egypt was lost they could have come up the Red Sea. The Ultimate objective would have been to capture Tunis, Sicily and southern Italy as a staging area to mount an invasion of Southern France.

Saabdub

peasant

I'm not so sure that the eastern front would have happened at all.

If Germany had managed to overrun England straight after the debacle of Dunkirk, they still would have had to spend a lot of energy and manpower into consolidating the the UK (and Ireland with it in one swoop)

You don't just conquer an island of 50 million people, leave a few administrators behind and run off to fight another war on a different front.

I'd say Germany might have been very content to slowly germanise the UK and include its existing colonial infrastructure into its fold. This would have meant sending troops and weapons to far away places in Asia and Africa.

With access to British colonies, the need for oil and other raw materials would have been met and the only reasons to invade the Soviet union would have been political and ideological ones.

Yes, Hitler was a maniac, but every now and then he also had notions of being a benevolent world leader.

It is imaginable that Hitler would have just built strong defences in the east and just coaxed / strong armed places like Romania, Bulgaria into the Reich rather than fall victim to a predatory USSR.

As for the Americans ...with the Japanese to worry about to the east and the west basically consisting of Germany with a very strong U-boat fleet and the British navy under the German flag ..they might have been quite happy to leave Hitler at it, let him worry about the Soviets and go about their business of selling Coca-Cola to the Germans.

We' ll never know.

TerrorFirmer

Saabdub wrote: »

Interesting, the invasion of North Africa was mounted directly from the US across the Atlantic with no staging in the European theatre. The other option would have been to use the Suez Canal and operate from Egpyt. If Egypt was lost they could have come up the Red Sea. The Ultimate objective would have been to capture Tunis, Sicily and southern Italy as a staging area to mount an invasion of Southern France.

Saabdub

That would be completely impossible....looking past the African idea even, how an earth would they stage a military build up in Egypt of all places? Even, if we entertain the possibility they could somehow do that, how an earth would they make the remotest headway against the German and Italian army in France/Italy? They had enough trouble as it was in Normandy fighting the shadow of an army and with overwhelming air superiority. Pretending for a moment that the Germans had no military forces in Africa and this build up went ahead, somehow unhindered, can you being to imagine the annihilation that would take place, launching an invasion against a superior enemy with massive air and numerical superiority?