WW II "what ifs"

[bigred]

Thought the idea presented in the "blunder" thread merited its own thread...

How about what if Hitler hadn't been so obsessed with dedicating so many resources to hammering away at Russia and played it more defensively on the Eastern front?

[Ranb]

You may enjoy reading Fatherland; an alternate history novel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatherl...rs_in_the_film

Ranb

[ElMondoHummus]

Originally Posted by bigred

How about what if Hitler hadn't been so obsessed with dedicating so many resources to hammering away at Russia and played it more defensively on the Eastern front?

Hmmm, that's an interesting question. The Soviets had so much territory to cross before actually getting into Germany - basically all of Belarus and Poland, and possibly one or more of the Baltic states too - so I guess it's concievable that Germany could have just gone defensive and merely held what they had. But I don't know; I'd want to study that part of history some more. Still though, the fact remains that the Soviets were a very long distance threat.

In contrast, the Western Allies, didn't have as far to go to threaten the Ruhr manufacturing area as the Soviets did; as was pointed out in the Blunders thread, the whole reason for doing Market Garden was to make such a strike from the Netherlands. The fact that it failed and they had to go through Belgium doesn't change the fact that the distances were shorter.

So, given all that: If there were more German forces available in the West, could a possible consequence be that the Allies might not have gotten much past the beaches on D-Day? That's one possibility I'm coming up with. The Germans might have been able to repel the invasion and force the Western Allies to take another route. Possibly force them to put all their chips on the Italian route? (*Shudder*). Or possibly try another invasion and just plod through Holland? Or do another D-Day and just accept the casualties until France was secured?

Huh... well, I'll stop there with the speculation. Others can contribute. Anyway, just as a closing thought: Given the animosity Hitler directed towards the Soviet Union, I really do find it hard to imagine the Eastern campaign being done any other way. Hitler really wanted to do the Soviets in after they entered the war. So this is definitely just speculative fiction.

[gnome]

My favorite What-if is supposing Hitler got assassinated and Germany then wanted to team up with America against Russia.

[MG1962]

With some withdrawls at the right time, such as Stalingrad. The Germans would have fielded a much stronger defense in the East. Give the Soviet ramping up of production, I would say the war would have ended pretty much as it did, only on a longer time line

One interesting thought. The Germans may have allowed their western front to collapse and allow British and US forces to take most of Germany once they realised what was happening

[Loss Leader]

I have always maintained that if Germany had stopped with Eastern Europe and the Saar, they could have held it for a good couple decades. There would have been a constant low-grade war across north Africa and the middle east. The minute they crossed into France, though, their fate was sealed.

[ElMondoHummus]

Originally Posted by gnome

My favorite What-if is supposing Hitler got assassinated and Germany then wanted to team up with America against Russia.

Hehe... that reminds me of a story an old music professor told my in my university military history class. He was a German, and (we all took this info at face value; our instructor vouched for it, IIRC) one of those kids drafted into the Hitler Youth, then drafted into the military. Anyway, he was initially in Soviet hands when Germany fell, and he told us that German speaking political officers went around each group of captives saying "We'll build schools, we'll build bridges, we'll build houses together, then you can join us in our war against America!"

The even funnier part is that he said, once he got into American hands (I don't remember how that worked), he said he told some old US Army sergeant the Soviets were doing this and got blown off ("Russia was our ally against you Krauts!").

At any rate, if you buy his story (and personally, I think it's for real), then the reality was that Russia wanted to team up with Germany against America. At least in his case. Interesting story in any case.

[MG1962]

The story is very possible - The Soviets where as liberal with the truth as anyone. I think if Stalin thought he could have pulled it off - he would have taken on the US - The A bomb came along at just right time. When the Russians finally caught up the whole MAD concept was very entrenched

[ElMondoHummus]

Okay, I'm gonna bump this thread with my own musings. This hearkens back to my previous post where I decided that Hitler would've thrown more resources towards the Atlantic Wall to protect against US, British, and Canadian attack (were there any others that I'm not aware of?) if he would've wised up and went defensive against Russia. Anyway, let's go from there:

What if D-Day weren't successful?

Yeah, that's a loaded one. I am talking about failing to achieve any beachhead, not merely failing to capture any individual sector. There was some breaking point there; if nothing else, the number of soldiers to put into battle would've been a hard limit. Anyway, what if for some odd reason the Allies were not able to capture the beaches at Normandy? You can make this for any reason you like: Assume Hitler did indeed take forces from the Eastern Front, or assume that the Allies would've lost their cool and withdrew. Or whatever (freak hurricane). Doesn't matter. What then? Anyone think we would've just regrouped to try another landing elsewhere in France? Or went further north? Maybe tried to assault Cherbourg directly?

Or how about further south, maybe through Italy? I don't remember much about what happened there in WWII besides being stymied by the mountainous terrain and tough fight by the Germans, but would the Allies be deterred by that, or think that more effort could produce a win?

Or, is it possible that the Allies would've tried assaulting those same beaches again? While I don't think that would've been the first choice, I actually don't think the Allied command would have necessarily written off that avenue of entry merely because of the initial failure; they might have thought that a more massive bombardment might make the difference. Or they might have figured that a narrower front but a longer "tail" of successive waves would wear down the defenses. Anyway, my point in this paragraph is to say that the possibility of a second assault on the Normandy beaches wouldn't necessarily be out of the question.

Anyway, enough from me. Any opinions? Sorry that I'm picking such an obvious example, but I'm beginning to realize just how much about WWII that I've forgotten since college over a decade ago, and I'm just not remembering much that I haven't recently read.

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus

Maybe tried to assault Cherbourg directly?

The one lesson the Dieppe raid showed clearly is this: do not attack fortified ports head-on.

I'd guess the Allies would regroup and aim for another landing spot. In the interim they'd keep hammering at Germany from the air. I would think, in the light of a failed invasion, the bombing campaign would get even more attention and resources since it was the one weapon the Western allies had for attacking Germany directly.

If the war in Europe goes on long enough, the atomic bomb becomes available for use in that theatre. One or more German cities vanish under a mushroom cloud, and Germany surrenders.

So, the end result is the same as happened historically, just the particular methods and timeline change.

[gumboot]

When the allies invaded southern France they were virtually unopposed. I think this may have been a likely avenue for invasion.

Let' not forget that Rome fell two days before D-Day, and in August 1944 the allies pulled seven divisions out of Italy for the invasion of Southern France.

[Furi]

Interesting topic, I suppose an interesting little what if, would be if Operation Felix succeeded (or the early capture of Gibraltar in general).

Would have been very interesting for the whole Mediterranian and North African Theatre & Europe's 'Soft Underbelly' Would not have been so soft.

In North Africa the situation may easily have been reversed, difficulty of supplies (via Suez) for the commonwealth and allied forces, and pretty much unmolested supplies for the axis forces with allowing an axis run through to Suez and on to Palestine, possibly giving Axis Forces access to Persian Oil either by force or expediancy,

if Persia joined axis or was taken this would have granted an alternate route to the Caucasus, making a Soft underbelly for the USSR and Indian subcontinent (soft might be a bit of an overestimation) IIRC Britain and Soviet union had agreements in place to stop exactly this scenario

As with any other Ahistoric it gets easy to say what could have happened as opposed to what would have happened, as I am sure Allied forces would want to keep some control and access to the Med, and would have mounted a defensive perimeter around the Canal that made Okinowa or Iwo Jima seem flimsy, quite possibly given the alternative with Soviet forces as well.

[Cainkane1]

What if Hitler had doen the opposite and not attacked either Britain or france and merely invaded Russia?

[Furi]

Originally Posted by Cainkane1

What if Hitler had doen the opposite and not attacked either Britain or france and merely invaded Russia?

We probably would have made grunting noises at him (but little else) however the whole Poland issue would be very tricky, even if nothing other than total sitzkrieg occured along the siegfried line and no naval ops I think that there would still have been ever strengthening Allied aggression

[Drewbot]

I think it is a far simpler question regarding Hitler devoting more troops west, rather than east.

1. If Hitler had released the entire 15th Panzer Army from the Pas De Calais on D-Day, he may have destroyed the invasion in it's infancy.

2. If Hitler had not tried to send an Army group down to the Caucasus and instead devoted it to the the push on Moscow, he would have taken Moscow and broken Russias back.

These are far simpler than a complete redesign of strategy, but simply 'what-if' Hitler had not been so stubborn.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by Cainkane1

What if Hitler had doen the opposite and not attacked either Britain or france and merely invaded Russia?

The United Kingdom, France, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Canada all declared war on Germany before France was invaded. (Norway declared war prior to May 10 1940 as well, but this was in response to being invaded by Germany).

I think the "Phoney War" would have continued for a little longer, but ultimately it was clear that with Churchill at the reigns the UK was going to war. Canadian troops began arriving in the UK, and during the Phoney War there was conflict between the navies and air forces of the two sides.

Of course, had the allies invaded Germany while the Germans were busy fighting the Russians, Germany would not have lasted very long.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by Drewbot

1. If Hitler had released the entire 15th Panzer Army from the Pas De Calais on D-Day, he may have destroyed the invasion in it's infancy.

I don't think that was Hitler being stubborn. He got suckered in by Operation Fortitude South, which is hardly surprising since it was one of the most extensive and successful deception plans in history.

[Furi]

Originally Posted by gumboot

The United Kingdom, France, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Canada all declared war on Germany before France was invaded. (Norway declared war prior to May 10 1940 as well, but this was in response to being invaded by Germany).

I think the "Phoney War" would have continued for a little longer, but ultimately it was clear that with Churchill at the reigns the UK was going to war. Canadian troops began arriving in the UK, and during the Phoney War there was conflict between the navies and air forces of the two sides.

Of course, had the allies invaded Germany while the Germans were busy fighting the Russians, Germany would not have lasted very long.

But if there was no agression towards Denmark and Norway, and minimal Naval Ops, there prob wouldn't have been a Churchill goverment Nev' might have remained and the peace brokers might have stood a chance.

But I think the moment Hitler's gaze turned to the east, the allies would have taken him roughly and forcefully from behind, (I am not sure, but I am pretty confident that a "Suprise Butt Secksoring" was never mentioned in Sun Tsu)

[ElMondoHummus]

Originally Posted by Cainkane1

What if Hitler had doen the opposite and not attacked either Britain or france and merely invaded Russia?

Well, I would have to ignore the fact that I don't see Hitler not going after the west - especially, because as Furi pointed out, Poland would've been invaded and the West would've had to react in some way (the Czechoslovakia route is longer... logistical concerns alone suggest that a Poland route would be more favorable, thus poor Poland ends up being a pawn no matter what). Plus, after the Treaty of Versailles, it's nearly impossible to imagine Hitler not going after the Western powers, just for revenge if nothing else (recall that he actually forced France to sign their surrender in the very same train car that was used for the Versailles treaty signing). But this is a "what-if" thread, and I want to have some fun here, so I'll play.

Pretend that Poland did not end up being the event drawing the west in, and massive sitzkrieg occurred. Pretend further than the Western powers were mollified by the mere fact that Germany wasn't going after them, the WWI horrors driving them away from any military action towards at most denouncements in the League of Nations. Yes, that's a lot to swallow, but this is a musings thread, so I'm taking the liberties. Anyway, then imagine Germany, at full strength, driving on through Eastern Europe.

Would they have conquered all of Russia? Or would they still have been stymied, then defeated by winter? That's one I can't answer; I don't know enough about the Eastern campaign.

Would their capture of the Ukraine areas allowed them the resources they needed to strengthen themselves even further? Recall that, despite the crippling terms, much flouting of the Versailles Treaty had already occurred, and that much of the driving force behind the Eastern Campaign (Operation Barbarossa) was to capture areas and therefore resources (petroleum, agricultural areas, etc.). So assuming they could get and hold those areas - another assumption, true - imagine the following:

Germany and the USSR fight back and forth for years, and either eventually exhaust themselves and negotiate a settlement, or turns down the over hostilities and instead paces themselves for long term antagonism; imagine sort of a central/eastern European version of the Israeli/Lebanese border areas, except hotter and backed by larger armies. The conflict stretches for over a decade, going through cycles of getting hotter and cooling off.

Imagine that that lasts through till today. Yes, nearly half a century. Yes, that's very unlikely - On just one point alone, I cannot imagine the consumption of resource necessary to fuel such a long conflict; you'd think that would break one or the other side - but again: What-if thread. What would the world be like if there wasn't a simple West/East split, but if German brand National Socialism was still in effect, and still in competition with/antagonism against Soviet style Communism? What would the political map be like? Would the US, with it's vast resources, still have risen to the status of a world power? Or would France and Britain still be the giants of the West. Would any of them have enriched themselves off of supplying one or the other - or hell, both - side(s), or would they have done their best to deny either Germany or the USSR any benefit of their production?

And going beyond the socio-economic-political aspects, what would the West's militaries be like? Would Germany and the USSR be considered the worlds superpowers? Or would they be crippled and driving towards financial ruin? Would the west's militaries consider themselves able to stand against one or the other's militaries? Or would they settle for being second-class vs. ones honed by multiple decades of war?

No, I'm not expecting anyone to address all these points. I'm just throwing them out there to be chewed on. Again, I can't see WWII happening in any way other than it did, given the initial conditions and the personalities involved. Any differences in choices - for example, Hitler actually getting smart and not insisting on keeping Stalingrad - would be small eddies in the larger current towards eventual German defeat. That's the way I see things. But, hey, what if?

[Drewbot]

Originally Posted by gumboot

I don't think that was Hitler being stubborn. He got suckered in by Operation Fortitude South, which is hardly surprising since it was one of the most extensive and successful deception plans in history.

You're right, had Hitler not been fooled, and released the 15th Army from the Pas de Calais, on or shortly after Dday, then they might have destroyed the invasion in it's infancy.

[Tolls]

Originally Posted by Furi

But if there was no agression towards Denmark and Norway, and minimal Naval Ops, there prob wouldn't have been a Churchill goverment Nev' might have remained and the peace brokers might have stood a chance.

That's a misreading (helped by Churchill, I might add) of Chamberlain. He knew there would be a war, and he wanted the UK and France to be prepared for it. Once Hitler moved on Poland there was no way the UK would have backed down. At that point the plan was a build up with the aim of moving in 1940/1941 (not much use to Poland, but then we were never in a position to really help them).

So, even with Chamberlain in power we would still have "taken him roughly and forcefully from behind"...

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by Furi

But if there was no agression towards Denmark and Norway, and minimal Naval Ops, there prob wouldn't have been a Churchill goverment Nev' might have remained and the peace brokers might have stood a chance.

The thing is the above only works if all offensive activities during the Phoney War were initiated by Germany, but they weren't. The Royal Navy very quickly was quite aggressive against Germany.

While I think Chamberlain keep seeking peace for far too long, I don't accept the often-argued angle that he was seeking "peace at any cost". I think by 1940 Chamberlain was well and truly committed to waging a war against Germany.

[aggle-rithm]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

The one lesson the Dieppe raid showed clearly is this: do not attack fortified ports head-on.

"But if you must, use Canadians."

[aggle-rithm]

I had an idea for an alternate-history novel called "Barbarossa West", in which Germany attacked the US instead of Russia.

Yes, I know that's very implausible, as Germany couldn't manage to even cross the English Channel to invade Britain.

The idea hinged on a very brilliant and influential naval commander who, in our time line, died as an infant. In this alternate story, he would manage to convince Hitler to throw enormous resources into developing the Navy. Among his innovations would be a class of troop-carrying submarines, which could send masses of soldiers over the Atlantic from Africa to South America. From there, they would move North, conquer Mexico, and invade the US from the South.

In the end, the admiral would grow disillusioned with Hitler and would team up with Rommel to unseat him as dictator.

A lot of problems with the idea (especially: How would the Germans get past the Panama Canal without anyone noticing?), which is why it never made it to bookstores.

[ElMondoHummus]

Originally Posted by gumboot

While I think Chamberlain keep seeking peace for far too long, I don't accept the often-argued angle that he was seeking "peace at any cost". I think by 1940 Chamberlain was well and truly committed to waging a war against Germany.

Yes. At risk of digression: One of the biggest errors in the way history is taught is to portray Chamberlain as a complete Peace-At-All-Costs politician. His real error was trying to play the Great Game between nations during a time of crisis, and it blew up in his face. After the betrayals over Poland, Chamberlain was the one to declare war on Germany, and he was also the one to begin the militarization that allowed Britain to fight WWII.

(For the record, no, I don't agree with Chamberlain's acquiescence on the Czechoslovakian issue; rather, my point here is a focused one about his image as an absolute antimilitant vs. the reality of his stance)

Remember, too, that despite Churchill's crusade against Chamberlain's stance before war broke out, and his fierce disdain of appeasement, Winston's words during Neville's funeral showed that he understood the real complexity of his predecessor's situation. They were opponents, not enemies.

[end of digression]

[ElMondoHummus]

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm

I had an idea for an alternate-history novel called "Barbarossa West", in which Germany attacked the US instead of Russia.

Yes, I know that's very implausible, as Germany couldn't manage to even cross the English Channel to invade Britain.

The idea hinged on a very brilliant and influential naval commander who, in our time line, died as an infant. In this alternate story, he would manage to convince Hitler to throw enormous resources into developing the Navy. Among his innovations would be a class of troop-carrying submarines, which could send masses of soldiers over the Atlantic from Africa to South America. From there, they would move North, conquer Mexico, and invade the US from the South.

In the end, the admiral would grow disillusioned with Hitler and would team up with Rommel to unseat him as dictator.

A lot of problems with the idea (especially: How would the Germans get past the Panama Canal without anyone noticing?), which is why it never made it to bookstores.

Screw the problem with the Panama Canal, what about the logistics of supplying troops over the Atlantic? The Wolfpack idea could easily have been turned on the German navy.

But, as recreational alt-fiction, it does sound interesting. I'm going to go look for it at my library.

ETA: Blah! Not alt-fiction, alt-history! Fictional alt-history (redundant much, much?). Yeeesh, I can't type today.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus

Remember, too, that despite Churchill's crusade against Chamberlain's stance before war broke out, and his fierce disdain of appeasement, Winston's words during Neville's funeral showed that he understood the real complexity of his predecessor's situation. They were opponents, not enemies.

At least when war broke out Chamberlain was sensible enough to put Churchill on his war cabinet and make him First Lord of the Admiralty. His own party had practically disowned him.

I think it's fair to criticise Chamberlain as being too invested in peace during the 1920's and 1930's, but then this criticism is not his alone to bear. Everyone was too invested in peace. And it is understandable after WWI.

Hindsight tells us that the rare detractors like Churchill and FDR were right about Hitler all along, and I think it probably should have been obvious to everyone what was going to happen. But it wasn't the blindness of a single politician that was the problem. The entire western hemisphere was blind.

And this is of course the dilemma that has plagued the western world ever since WW2 - how do you tell when someone is a threat, and how soon should you oppose them with force?

It would not surprise me in the least if we one day repeat our mistake of the 1930s.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by gumboot

When the allies invaded southern France they were virtually unopposed. I think this may have been a likely avenue for invasion.

Let' not forget that Rome fell two days before D-Day, and in August 1944 the allies pulled seven divisions out of Italy for the invasion of Southern France.

The reason the Anvil landings were a cakewalk was because almost all the decent German units in Southren France were withdrawn to face the Normandy landings.
The real problem with landings on the scale of Normany in Sourthren france was the lack of nearby ports. A lot of ships with very short duration at sea could be used for the cross channel attacks which could not have been used for an assault on Southren France.
IMHo the whole Italian Campaing beyond Sicily was a strategic waste.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Drewbot

I think it is a far simpler question regarding Hitler devoting more troops west, rather than east.

1. If Hitler had released the entire 15th Panzer Army from the Pas De Calais on D-Day, he may have destroyed the invasion in it's infancy.

2. If Hitler had not tried to send an Army group down to the Caucasus and instead devoted it to the the push on Moscow, he would have taken Moscow and broken Russias back.

These are far simpler than a complete redesign of strategy, but simply 'what-if' Hitler had not been so stubborn.

1 .is not a given. Allied Air Power would have badly torn up the 15th Panzer Army moving from Pas De Calais to Normandy.
2. I think you are confusing the German transfer of units from Moscow to Kiev in 1941 with the German Spring offensive iot the Caucusus in 1942. The Germans did not have the Caucausus as an objective in 1941, and did not have Moscow as an objective in 1942.
If anything,in 1942 the Germans should have put their main effort into the drive on the Caucausus,and not get diverted into Stalingrad.

[Corsair 115]

Here's a what if for the Pacific theatre: what if the Japanese had sent their submarines after merchant ships instead of only letting them go after warships? The Japanese had excellent torpedoes, and certainly their subs could have caused a lot of grief for Allied shipping in the Pacific.

This misuse of their subs was a major blunder.

[memetic]

Originally Posted by Drewbot

2. If Hitler had not tried to send an Army group down to the Caucasus and instead devoted it to the the push on Moscow, he would have taken Moscow and broken Russias back.

The Russians expected the German 1942 offensive to be against Moscow and had concentrated their available forces to defend the city - that and the more open terrain were why the initial progress in the south was so good.

The Germans actually managed to attain about a 1.4 to 1 initial superiority over the Russians in the south; they had no chance of doing so around Moscow. A Moscow offensive may very well have failed.

Attacking in the south made sense strategically. It fooled the Russians, and the oilfields were a valuable target. Where the Germans failed was in execution - they couldn't decide between the Caucasus and Stalingrad and tried to do both. This was typical of several of the early war German offensives - great operational execution, but unclear goals and poor strategic execution.

[Tolls]

Just thought I'd scribble a quick post on the "what if it was just Germany vs USSR" idea run through earlier by ElMondoHummus.

My take on that is this.

Now, 1939 goes much as it happened, except no western intervention. Germany builds up through 1940, for a war in 1941, safe in the knowledge (somehow) that the west will not intervene at all. The USSR pootles along as it did in 1939 and 1940 (the Winter War, the purges, the restructuring of the army). That's the set up for this "what if".

I would assume 1941 would probably go much the same way. There's nothing, in my mind, to say that anything major the west did would have affected that campaign significantly. The major change comes after the winter. In this version the USSR does not have any input from lend lease. Germany has not had its industrial output distracted by a war in the Atlantic. Both these things shift the balance for the 1942 campaign firmly in favour of the Germans. I would argue that the USSR would not have made it through a second winter.

Should they have held on into 1943 things are even worse. Germany does not lose 300,000 troops in North Africa (and the commitment of further troops to Italy), and the Soviets get no lend lease (no trucks, no rolling stock, no fuel, no food) and are reliant on what they can produce. The Soviet army is no longer capable of conducting a meaningful offensive...gameover.

[Tolls]

At the risk of further digression...

Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus

(For the record, no, I don't agree with Chamberlain's acquiescence on the Czechoslovakian issue; rather, my point here is a focused one about his image as an absolute antimilitant vs. the reality of his stance)

His military advisers recommended against declaring war over Czechoslovakia since they were ill-prepared for one. They felt the Czechs could nto last more than a few weeks, and the allies would be unable to influence that result in any way. This is, in fact, a similar view taken the following year over Poland, but by then political needs were more important than purely military ones.

I've read summaries of the analysis done in '38, which essentially boiled down to the fact that the Czech defenses were now virtually worthless after the annexation of Austria had outflanked them and that the Czech airfields would be neutralised early on, as happened to the Poles (barring a few exceptions).

[Drewbot]

What if... Germany had used the same rail gauge as the Russians? troop movement and supply would have been facilitated much easier. Germans relied on horse drawn supply from railhead to the front. Would the outcome in Russia had been different if something as simple as this had been the case? They were so close to taking Moscow and Stalingrad, would either of these objectives been backbreaking to the Russians had they fallen?

[Tolls]

Originally Posted by Drewbot

What if... Germany had used the same rail gauge as the Russians? troop movement and supply would have been facilitated much easier. Germans relied on horse drawn supply from railhead to the front. Would the outcome in Russia had been different if something as simple as this had been the case? They were so close to taking Moscow and Stalingrad, would either of these objectives been backbreaking to the Russians had they fallen?

Were there supply bottlenecks in 1941?
I think there were in '42, but I'm not so sure about the previous year.

In any case, I'd say it was more a case of "what if the Russians had used the same guage as everyone else"...

[Nogbad]

Originally Posted by Drewbot

What if... Germany had used the same rail gauge as the Russians? troop movement and supply would have been facilitated much easier. Germans relied on horse drawn supply from railhead to the front. Would the outcome in Russia had been different if something as simple as this had been the case? They were so close to taking Moscow and Stalingrad, would either of these objectives been backbreaking to the Russians had they fallen?

The factories churning out the T38s beyond the Urals and the supplies coming in through convoy via the North Atlantic were crucial to Russia. Moscow and Stalingrad much less so. Starting another massive front in 1941 was a key decision. What if Hitler had decided to stick with an uneasy truce with Stalin? Would D Day have happened if all the Reich's resources were available for the Western Front and Italy?

[ImaginalDisc]

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm

I had an idea for an alternate-history novel called "Barbarossa West", in which Germany attacked the US instead of Russia.

Yes, I know that's very implausible, as Germany couldn't manage to even cross the English Channel to invade Britain.

The idea hinged on a very brilliant and influential naval commander who, in our time line, died as an infant. In this alternate story, he would manage to convince Hitler to throw enormous resources into developing the Navy. Among his innovations would be a class of troop-carrying submarines, which could send masses of soldiers over the Atlantic from Africa to South America. From there, they would move North, conquer Mexico, and invade the US from the South.

In the end, the admiral would grow disillusioned with Hitler and would team up with Rommel to unseat him as dictator.

A lot of problems with the idea (especially: How would the Germans get past the Panama Canal without anyone noticing?), which is why it never made it to bookstores.

Have you considered having the not-died-as-an-infant naval commander be from Nueva Germania, which succeeded rather than failed in your timeline? That would give Germany a base in the Western Hemisphere, Paraguay, and a resupply point.

The "Military genius from a village of Aryan racial supremecists lead by Therese Elisabeth Alexandra Förster-Nietzsche who gradually becomes disillusioned with his ideology and turns on his former commanders" story writes itself. Sucks that Paraguay is landlocked, however.

[Tolls]

Originally Posted by Nogbad

The factories churning out the T38s beyond the Urals and the supplies coming in through convoy via the North Atlantic were crucial to Russia. Moscow and Stalingrad much less so.

Moscow was pretty important. A large number of major rail routes passed through Moscow, which was very much a hub of the Soviet rail network.

Originally Posted by Nogbad

Starting another massive front in 1941 was a key decision. What if Hitler had decided to stick with an uneasy truce with Stalin? Would D Day have happened if all the Reich's resources were available for the Western Front and Italy?

Well, that one would be a case of "wait for the Bomb" I think.
I can't see an invasion of France succeeding without the massive drain of the eastern front. Probably not even an Italian front.

What would happen to the North African campaign? Presumably more resources would have put into that in 1941 than was actually done.

I have to say that the "No Eastern Front" is one of the "what ifs" I have a hard time with since the east was so fundamental to Hitlers whole strategy from 1934 onwards.

[Chaos]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

Here's a what if for the Pacific theatre: what if the Japanese had sent their submarines after merchant ships instead of only letting them go after warships? The Japanese had excellent torpedoes, and certainly their subs could have caused a lot of grief for Allied shipping in the Pacific.

This misuse of their subs was a major blunder.

I think their major blunder was attacking Pearl Harbor.

What if they had not done so, but simply invaded the Phillipines, then waited for the US Navy to come to the aid of the Phillipines, as per the pre-war plans?

They would not have alerted the USN to either the devastating effect of carrier aircraft on surface warships, nor on the very high level of training and capability of their carrier aircrews. The USN would probably have come steaming west, centered around their ancient battleships, with carriers mostly in scouting roles. Japanese long range bombers (the G3N "Nell" and G4N "Betty") and submarines would have harassed and weakend them all along the way.
Then, when the entire US Navy (or at least the entire Pacific Fleet) is far outside the range of land-based air cover, and far away from any other support that a large naval base could offer, the might of the Japanese aircraft carrier fleet could have descended on them like the proverbial Kansas tornado.
In early 1942, the Imperial Japanese Navy have roughly the same number of carrier aircraft as the USN (counting the six Pearl Harbour carriers plus three lighter fast carriers, Shoho, Zuho and Ruijyo against the six USN carriers available in the Pacific in ´42), but both their aircraft and their pilots were markedly superior to those of the USN. I am pretty sure they could have pulled it off and bagged more than enough capital ships to let the IJN battleships deal with the rest.

[Nogbad]

Originally Posted by Tolls

Moscow was pretty important. A large number of major rail routes passed through Moscow, which was very much a hub of the Soviet rail network.



Well, that one would be a case of "wait for the Bomb" I think.
I can't see an invasion of France succeeding without the massive drain of the eastern front. Probably not even an Italian front.

What would happen to the North African campaign? Presumably more resources would have put into that in 1941 than was actually done.

I have to say that the "No Eastern Front" is one of the "what ifs" I have a hard time with since the east was so fundamental to Hitlers whole strategy from 1934 onwards.

Agree on the latter - Hitler detested all the Soviets stood for and wrote to Mussolini on his relief that the Eastern campaign had begun in 41 because he could not sleep easily over the pact he had entered into with Stalin. Hitler would have loved a peace treaty with Britain - that was something he could sleep on. Perhaps the more realistic "What if" is if the King had not met Simpson and the establishment that favoured Hitler had remained in power in the UK and the UK sat the war out. With no convoys, no RAF bombers and no North Africa, might Germany have prevailed against Stalin?

Contrafactual history is fun but in truth there are an awful lot of variables to play with.