Alternate History - WWII

[Wiggen]

The Soviets planned to keep on fighting even after Moskva (Moscow as traditional Russian pronunciation) was captured. They still had the oil-rich Caucasus which provided 90% of Soviet fuel, Archangelsk and Murmansk to receive aid, the western Urals where much industry have been relocated and out of reach of military actions, as well as Leningrad and Stalingrad (though both could have easily been taken if Moskva was conquered). The Soviets still had a sizable population to keep on fighting in the western Urals, middle Asia, and at the Volga.
Even if the Nazis did succeed I doubt that they were able to carry out Sea Lion. Remember, the original plans called for Rhein (Rhine) barges to carry out the landing. One can imagine their chances against Channel waters and the Royal Navy. Also their surface fleet was in shambles after raiding the Atlantic and the debacle at Norway. As of 1940, they only had 4 destroyers and 1 cruiser, entirely insufficient to carry out a landing. They also failed to achieve air superiority. By the time they got their navy and Air Force back in shape, the US and GB would have beaten them by numbers and industry. The so-called Nazi war economy wasn't impressive to begin with (the economy was barely mobilized with the level of consumer goods production as high as pre-war levels), brought down by corruption and power fighting between Goering, Bormann and such.

Your point about the impossibility of the Germans invading England is always overlooked when these 'what if' scenarios come up. It doesn't matter how big and how good your army is - unless you can teach them to walk on water, they still need a navy and amphibious capabilities. Look what it took for the Normandy invasion in terms of ships and landing craft. And the allies had control of the air and no surface navy to worry about.

 

[Wiggen]

If Operation Overlord had failed, the war in the west would have been as good as won.

You still haven't told me how the Germans, with nothing approaching the Overlord capabilities, were going to invade England. I know they claimed they were supermen, but still walking on water was beyond them.

And no, if Overlord had failed we would have simply tried again.

 

[apdst]

Did we send them T-34 tanks? Did we send them millions of troops? Did we send them tank killing aircraft?

As far as tank killing aircraft, yes we did: B-24's, P-39's, P-40's, P-51's, and P-47s; nearly 10,000 aircraft, in all.

It wasn't the tanks, nor the troops that contributed to the increased mobility that allowed them to match up with the Wehrmacht's mobility; it was the thousands of trucks that we gave them, that allowed their towed artillery to become mobile, that made the difference at the end of the day.

 

[apdst]

You still haven't told me how the Germans, with nothing approaching the Overlord capabilities, were going to invade England. I know they claimed they were supermen, but still walking on water was beyond them.

And no, if Overlord had failed we would have simply tried again.

They didn't have to invade England to win. It took two years to put Overlord together. Trying again wasn't a forgone conclusion.

 

[Wiggen]

And the U.S. and England would have simply given up, said 'OK, you win', and stopped the war? That's not alternate history, that's an alternate universe.

 

[Captain Adverse]

For the millionth time on this forum, as soon as you can explain to me how the Germans were going to invade England with no surface navy, no amphibious capabilities, inability to control the skies, and facing - at the time - the largest navy in the world, I'll buy into the notion that Germany could have won the war in the west.

Hitler was never committed to the conquest of Britain at that point in the war. He never considered it much of a threat and he hoped to make a quick peace with them. It is one of the reasons suggested for his hesitation at Dunkirk, and definately his reason for changing strategy during the Battle of Britain from bombing strategic targets to terror bombing cities.

Now had the Germans destroyed the Army at Dunkirk, there would have been almost no military force available in England to withstand assault. The British had committed RAF units to France and suffered heavily in the early stages of the French conquest. The German Air Force easily gained air superiority over Britain during that phase of WWII and could have maintained it if Hitler had continued strategic bombing. Control of the air meant control of the Channel, with land based bombers capable of sweeping the area of British warships.

Although the French combat fleet was scutted at Toulon, control of the French harbors enabled the Germans to seize a significant number of merchant vessels. This was supplemented by vessels seized in Holland and Belgium. If The Germans had emphasized an invasion from the start, the destruction of the B.E.F., control of the air over the channel and air interdiction of British naval forces would have enabled an invasion within a few months of the fall of France. Couple that with parachute seizures of key air strips, and the Germans could have also done airlifts of larger troop units to support the invasion forces.

All it would have taken was Hitler's commitment to the conquest of Britain right from the statrt.

 

[Quag]

Without Lend Lease and American involvement, The Brits and the Soiets would have gotten their asses handed to them.

The Red Army didn't have the maneuver capabilities to defeat the Wehrmacht, without Lend Lease.

Again I disagree, it would have taken longer but the outcome IMHO would have been the same

 

[Quag]

Hitler was never committed to the conquest of Britain at that point in the war. He never considered it much of a threat and he hoped to make a quick peace with them. It is one of the reasons suggested for his hesitation at Dunkirk, and definately his reason for changing strategy during the Battle of Britain from bombing strategic targets to terror bombing cities.

Now had the Germans destroyed the Army at Dunkirk, there would have been almost no military force available in England to withstand assault. The British had committed RAF units to France and suffered heavily in the early stages of the French conquest. The German Air Force easily gained air superiority over Britain during that phase of WWII and could have maintained it if Hitler had continued strategic bombing. Control of the air meant control of the Channel, with land based bombers capable of sweeping the area of British warships.

Although the French combat fleet was scutted at Toulon, control of the French harbors enabled the Germans to seize a significant number of merchant vessels. This was supplemented by vessels seized in Holland and Belgium. If The Germans had emphasized an invasion from the start, the destruction of the B.E.F., control of the air over the channel and air interdiction of British naval forces would have enabled an invasion within a few months of the fall of France. Couple that with parachute seizures of key air strips, and the Germans could have also done airlifts of larger troop units to support the invasion forces.

All it would have taken was Hitler's commitment to the conquest of Britain right from the statrt.

Germany never had control of the skies over britian. They came close to denying britian the use of the southern airbases for a short period of time and if they continued to attack the airbases they might have for a short period of time. but that didn't give them control over british skies only made it harder for britian. Any attempt at an invasion would have been met by everything the british had even if it meant 1 way trips for the escort aircraft. Any attempt at invasion was doomed

 

[apdst]

Again I disagree, it would have taken longer but the outcome IMHO would have been the same

Not with the weal leadership in the Red Army. They didn't have a fallback, in the event of a route.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Germany never had control of the skies over britian. They came close to denying britian the use of the southern airbases for a short period of time and if they continued to attack the airbases they might have for a short period of time. but that didn't give them control over british skies only made it harder for britian. Any attempt at an invasion would have been met by everything the british had even if it meant 1 way trips for the escort aircraft. Any attempt at invasion was doomed

Well, we are just going to have to agree to disagree on that speculation then. I think it was entirely possible had the Germans been committed from the start. Hindsight seems 20/20, but back then no one thought or planned on France falling so quickly (or at all) either.

 

[Quag]

Well, we are just going to have to agree to disagree on that speculation then. I think it was entirely possible had the Germans been committed from the start. Hindsight seems 20/20, but back then no one thought or planned on France falling so quickly (or at all) either.

True but what was discovered after the war was that throughout the battle Britain constantly grew comparatively stronger than Germany. At the time it seemed almost hopeless but a large part of that was Britain believing German propaganda about Luftwaffe strength and Germany believing their own propaganda so much they never considered that Britain would go all out in building up it's fighter force.

 

[Quag]

Not with the weal leadership in the Red Army. They didn't have a fallback, in the event of a route.

Germany didn't have any way of exploiting much more than they did they were already stretched thin and were having supply problems

 

[Captain Adverse]

True but what was discovered after the war was that throughout the battle Britain constantly grew comparatively stronger than Germany. At the time it seemed almost hopeless but a large part of that was Britain believing German propaganda about Luftwaffe strength and Germany believing their own propaganda so much they never considered that Britain would go all out in building up it's fighter force.

This may or may not be true, I don't know.

But even giving this the benefit of the doubt, you are not taking into consideration three factors:

1. Hitler's lack of commitment to the battle (he admired Britain greatly, and hoped not only for a quick peace but a possible future alliance).

2. Operations throughout Europe prior to Operation Barbarossa (Greece, Yugoslavia, reorgnization of the French Occupied Zone) as well as planning and troop movements for Barbarossa itself.

3. TIME, i.e. in real history Hitler's actions gave Britain time to reorganize, regroup, and rebuild.

Take away all three of those factors...things could have easily turned out very differently for Great Britain.

 

[Quag]

This may or may not be true, I don't know.

But even giving this the benefit of the doubt, you are not taking into consideration three factors:

1. Hitler's lack of commitment to the battle (he admired Britain greatly, and hoped not only for a quick peace but a possible future alliance).

2. Operations throughout Europe prior to Operation Barbarossa (Greece, Yugoslavia, reorgnization of the French Occupied Zone) as well as planning and troop movements for Barbarossa itself.

3. TIME, i.e. in real history Hitler's actions gave Britain time to reorganize, regroup, and rebuild.

Take away all three of those factors...things could have easily turned out very differently for Great Britain.

1. Agreed this could have changed though I see little effect in the outcome
2. agreed but there was no way to change this really. Britain was supporting Greece and fighting in the med and N Africa, all at same time as well end the conflicts there and Britian is stronger as well.
3. time was on Britain's side not Germanys. No matter what Hitler did aside from massive reorganization to increase fighter production and pilot training there was no hope to win the battle of Britain and therefore no chance at invading Britain.

 

[Captain Adverse]

1. Agreed this could have changed though I see little effect in the outcome
2. agreed but there was no way to change this really. Britain was supporting Greece and fighting in the med and N Africa, all at same time as well end the conflicts there and Britian is stronger as well.
3. time was on Britain's side not Germanys. No matter what Hitler did aside from massive reorganization to increase fighter production and pilot training there was no hope to win the battle of Britain and therefore no chance at invading Britain.

You are trying to engage me in a debate on this lol.

You misunderstood my reference to time...recall I had previously stated if the Germans had always been committed to the conquest of Britain, that it was my opinion based on all factors (i.e. available shipping seized during the conquest of the Low Countries and France, effective control of the air above the Channel, overwhelming air superiority, continued strategic bombing instead of terror bombing, the destruction of the B.E.F. at Dunkirk intead of letting them escape, etc.) then sometime during the first three to five months after the fall of France Germany could have mounted a successful invasion of England. But Hitler never considered it during that period.

No matter how much production Britain would have been able to save during the strategic bombing period, it would not have been enough to counter Germany's greater production capabilities if they were solely focused on the conquest of England.

 

[Quag]

You are trying to engage me in a debate on this lol.

You misunderstood my reference to time...recall I had previously stated if the Germans had always been committed to the conquest of Britain, that it was my opinion based on all factors (i.e. available shipping seized during the conquest of the Low Countries and France, effective control of the air above the Channel, overwhelming air superiority, continued strategic bombing instead of terror bombing, the destruction of the B.E.F. at Dunkirk intead of letting them escape, etc.) then sometime during the first three to five months after the fall of France Germany could have mounted a successful invasion of England. But Hitler never considered it during that period.

No matter how much production Britain would have been able to save during the strategic bombing period, it would not have been enough to counter Germany's greater production capabilities if they were solely focused on the conquest of England.

lol, No they never had the means to cross the channel or wrest air superiority from Britain. They would have had to have started much sooner with a full military economy than 1939 to have enough planes/pilots to wrest air superiority from Britain. No air superiority no invasion. heck look at overlord they had thousands of ships that were specifically built for an amphibious assault the Germans had a few prototypes that weren't that effective at best.

 

[Wiggen]

Hitler was never committed to the conquest of Britain at that point in the war. He never considered it much of a threat and he hoped to make a quick peace with them. It is one of the reasons suggested for his hesitation at Dunkirk, and definately his reason for changing strategy during the Battle of Britain from bombing strategic targets to terror bombing cities.

Now had the Germans destroyed the Army at Dunkirk, there would have been almost no military force available in England to withstand assault. The British had committed RAF units to France and suffered heavily in the early stages of the French conquest. The German Air Force easily gained air superiority over Britain during that phase of WWII and could have maintained it if Hitler had continued strategic bombing. Control of the air meant control of the Channel, with land based bombers capable of sweeping the area of British warships.

Although the French combat fleet was scutted at Toulon, control of the French harbors enabled the Germans to seize a significant number of merchant vessels. This was supplemented by vessels seized in Holland and Belgium. If The Germans had emphasized an invasion from the start, the destruction of the B.E.F., control of the air over the channel and air interdiction of British naval forces would have enabled an invasion within a few months of the fall of France. Couple that with parachute seizures of key air strips, and the Germans could have also done airlifts of larger troop units to support the invasion forces.

All it would have taken was Hitler's commitment to the conquest of Britain right from the statrt.

An invasion of Britain simply wasn't possible for the Germans, just as elimination of the RAF was never feasible. The RAF finished the Battle of Britain with more front line fighter aircraft than they started it with. It's this myth of the invincible Germans that has risen up that seeks to explain away their failures. Parachute landings would have been a disaster. They tried that in Crete and took such heavy casualties that they never attempted paratrooper assaults again in the war.

 

[Wiggen]

You are trying to engage me in a debate on this lol.

You misunderstood my reference to time...recall I had previously stated if the Germans had always been committed to the conquest of Britain, that it was my opinion based on all factors (i.e. available shipping seized during the conquest of the Low Countries and France, effective control of the air above the Channel, overwhelming air superiority, continued strategic bombing instead of terror bombing, the destruction of the B.E.F. at Dunkirk intead of letting them escape, etc.) then sometime during the first three to five months after the fall of France Germany could have mounted a successful invasion of England. But Hitler never considered it during that period.

No matter how much production Britain would have been able to save during the strategic bombing period, it would not have been enough to counter Germany's greater production capabilities if they were solely focused on the conquest of England.

I don't know how many times this can be said before it's understood: Germany had no amphibious capabilities and almost no surface Navy. They would have faced the largest navy in the world, operating in its back yard, with fighter aircraft 15 minutes from the invasion beaches. It was never, ever going to happen.

 

[Captain Adverse]

QUOTE=Quag;1061988139]lol, No they never had the means to cross the channel or wrest air superiority from Britain. They would have had to have started much sooner with a full military economy than 1939 to have enough planes/pilots to wrest air superiority from Britain. No air superiority no invasion. heck look at overlord they had thousands of ships that were specifically built for an amphibious assault the Germans had a few prototypes that weren't that effective at best.[/QUOTE]

I don't know how many times this can be said before it's understood: Germany had no amphibious capabilities and almost no surface Navy. They would have faced the largest navy in the world, operating in its back yard, with fighter aircraft 15 minutes from the invasion beaches. It was never, ever going to happen.

You guys with this "NEVER" mentality in a "what if" thread...very strange.

It was that "never" mentality that did not expect the Fall of France, the successful invasion of Norway, the massive initial success of Operation Barbarrosa, the success of Rommel in North Africa (including kicking our (American) asses at Kesserine Pass); oh and btw regardless of losses the parachute assault on Crete succeeded despite knowledge of the attack through cracking the enigma code and British naval control of the seas areound the island.

The real "myth" is this invincibility of the English Channel and the British Navy. We are not talking about a major sea engagement between warships or an invasion on a highly fortified zone like the coast of France in 1944, we are talking about an un-prepared (and with the suggested loss of the B.E.F. which did not happen in real life) and ill-defended coast. You guys are depending too much on the Wikipedia version of actual events.

We are supposed to be in "what if" land here folks, not "Never-Never land." LOL

P.S. although this is the "what would be needed for success in Russia" thread, I stand by my "what if there was only a single front war" which would have made the invasion successful original post.

 

[Lukas105]

Alternate History : Unternehmen Wacht am Rhein ​

Battle of the Bulge​

This German Operation in late 1944, called for a last ditch, risk it all attack on the Allied controlled port of Antwerp. With German tanks, hoping to relive the glory days of the blitzkriegs of 1939/40, surprising Allied troops once again, attacking through the heavily wooded forests of the Ardennes.

The attack was looking successful in the first few days, but as Allied resistance stiffened, their advance was slowed down considerably. The German frontal forces fell short of their objective of the River Meuse, Just 10 miles away.

*If the Germans did manage to capture Antwerp, and cut off the majority of Allied forces in the west from their supplies, could it of changed the course of the war?

*Instead of pouring his reserves into the Battle of the Bulge, could the German forces be put to better use somewhere along the front to perhaps lengthen the war?

*What could of been done to help the Germans recapture Antwerp, in your opinion?

1*Perhaps Germany could of sought a separate peace with the Western Allies, allowing them to put more troops up against the Russian Steamroller in the East.

2*Perhaps the German Reserves could of been put into the defense of Berlin, or at the German Defensive line at Seelow Hights.

3*Nothing much, If the Operation was commenced earlier, the Weather would of allowed massive Allied bombings before the operation could even begin.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Alternate History : Unternehmen Wacht am Rhein ​

Battle of the Bulge​

This German Operation in late 1944, called for a last ditch, risk it all attack on the Allied controlled port of Antwerp. With German tanks, hoping to relive the glory days of the blitzkriegs of 1939/40, surprising Allied troops once again, attacking through the heavily wooded forests of the Ardennes.

The attack was looking successful in the first few days, but as Allied resistance stiffened, their advance was slowed down considerably. The German frontal forces fell short of their objective of the River Meuse, Just 10 miles away.

*If the Germans did manage to capture Antwerp, and cut off the majority of Allied forces in the west from their supplies, could it of changed the course of the war?

*Instead of pouring his reserves into the Battle of the Bulge, could the German forces be put to better use somewhere along the front to perhaps lengthen the war?

*What could of been done to help the Germans recapture Antwerp, in your opinion?

1*Perhaps Germany could of sought a separate peace with the Western Allies, allowing them to put more troops up against the Russian Steamroller in the East.

2*Perhaps the German Reserves could of been put into the defense of Berlin, or at the German Defensive line at Seelow Hights.

3*Nothing much, If the Operation was commenced earlier, the Weather would of allowed massive Allied bombings before the operation could even begin.

I think you meant this to be a NEW message thread? If so you posted it in the wrong section of the Altenate forum.

 

[Captain Adverse]

SORRY, HAD TO REPOST BECAUSE I SCREWED UP THE QUOTES AND EVERYONE I WAS REPLYING TO DID NOT GET A NOTICE

I don't know how many times this can be said before it's understood: Germany had no amphibious capabilities and almost no surface Navy. They would have faced the largest navy in the world, operating in its back yard, with fighter aircraft 15 minutes from the invasion beaches. It was never, ever going to happen.

An invasion of Britain simply wasn't possible for the Germans, just as elimination of the RAF was never feasible. The RAF finished the Battle of Britain with more front line fighter aircraft than they started it with. It's this myth of the invincible Germans that has risen up that seeks to explain away their failures. Parachute landings would have been a disaster. They tried that in Crete and took such heavy casualties that they never attempted paratrooper assaults again in the war.

lol, No they never had the means to cross the channel or wrest air superiority from Britain. They would have had to have started much sooner with a full military economy than 1939 to have enough planes/pilots to wrest air superiority from Britain. No air superiority no invasion. heck look at overlord they had thousands of ships that were specifically built for an amphibious assault the Germans had a few prototypes that weren't that effective at best.

You guys with this "NEVER" mentality in a "what if" thread...very strange.

It was that "never" mentality that did not expect the Fall of France, the successful invasion of Norway, the massive initial success of Operation Barbarrosa, the success of Rommel in North Africa (including kicking our (American) asses at Kesserine Pass); oh and btw regardless of losses the parachute assault on Crete succeeded despite Allied knowledge of the attack through cracking the enigma code and British naval control of the seas areound the island.

The real "myth" is this invincibility of the English Channel and the British Navy. We are not talking about a major sea engagement between warships or an invasion on a highly fortified zone like the coast of France in 1944, we are talking about an un-prepared (plus with the suggested loss of the B.E.F. which did not happen in real life) and ill-defended coast. You guys are depending too much on the Wikipedia version of actual events.

We are supposed to be in "what if" land here folks, not "Never-Never Land." LOL

P.S. although this is the "what would be needed for success in Russia" thread, I stand by my "what if there was only a single front war" which would have made the invasion successful original post.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

And the U.S. and England would have simply given up, said 'OK, you win', and stopped the war? That's not alternate history, that's an alternate universe.

Berlin instead of Hiroshima. 'Nuff said.

 

[DDD]

Alternate History : Operation Typhoon

Battle of Moscow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

1*What if the Germans succeeded in capturing Moscow in the winter of 1941? What could be changed in the German Strategy to make this happen?

2*If the Soviet Union did surrender, Do you think the war could of ended on Nazi Germany's terms?

3*What would become of Great Britain, the United States, and the other Allies?


1. Since the main point of Soviet leadership and morale would be taken, I could see mass desertion and surrendering in the Soviet Army. Eventually, leading to a full unconditional surrender. German strategy should of put all of its resources into an assault on Moscow, taking tank units from the Leningrad and Crimea fronts, and Operation Barbarossa could of started a month or two earlier to give some leeway until the Russian winter.
Operation Barbarossa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2. Nazi German would annex the Soviet Union in an unconditional surrender, and this would satisfy Hitler's "Lebensraum".

3. Operation Sea lion would be approved and most of the German forces form the Eastern Front would be poured into Operations in Western Europe and Africa.
Operation Sea Lion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nazi Germany would more than likely see its' self in a good position to come to peace terms with the countries in the Western Hemisphere, such as the United States. WWII would end in 1942/1943 on Germany's term, with Europe and parts of Asia under the Iron Cross.

Please answer below to the * Questions and give your reasoning to the Alternate History questions.

We here speak openly and somewhat frequently about these "what if's." For one thing the terror that occurred from Serbia ever since the Ottoman Empire withdrawal, ever since the 1st Balkan wars and onwards, could have been undone only if Deutch played a smarter move.

How we curse the day Hitler send so many of his finest soldiers in the peak of Siberian winter! Such a stupid move coming from an artist/painter! If only Hitler:

1) Did not colonize Poland in purpose just to infuriate other parts of Europe (and later USA) and took it easily one step at a time,

2) Left the Jews alone,

3) Not send his army to suicide,

These alternative histories may have developed. These would spare us the bloodshed that occurred later from Russian satellites (i.e., Serbia, Montenegro, Bulgaria, etc) only some of which you may have witnessed in 1999 television.

Under Nazi rule Albania was fuller. Dardania and Albania were one by most part. All that remained was another Dardania taken by force during the Balkan wars all the way to Nish. We could have done it! But nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo, said Hitler!!! He said "I have a better plan! Let's send our troops to freeze to death instead!!"" God damn, mo fo, lunatic!!!! :argue:soap:no:

In short words. We regret that this alternative plan did not work due to Hitler's hasty and illogical moves. Because they did not work Serbs regained their support to continue with their century and a half terror at our lands and at our expense!

 

[Quag]

QUOTE=Quag;1061988139]lol, No they never had the means to cross the channel or wrest air superiority from Britain. They would have had to have started much sooner with a full military economy than 1939 to have enough planes/pilots to wrest air superiority from Britain. No air superiority no invasion. heck look at overlord they had thousands of ships that were specifically built for an amphibious assault the Germans had a few prototypes that weren't that effective at best.

You guys with this "NEVER" mentality in a "what if" thread...very strange.

It was that "never" mentality that did not expect the Fall of France, the successful invasion of Norway, the massive initial success of Operation Barbarrosa, the success of Rommel in North Africa (including kicking our (American) asses at Kesserine Pass); oh and btw regardless of losses the parachute assault on Crete succeeded despite knowledge of the attack through cracking the enigma code and British naval control of the seas areound the island.

The real "myth" is this invincibility of the English Channel and the British Navy. We are not talking about a major sea engagement between warships or an invasion on a highly fortified zone like the coast of France in 1944, we are talking about an un-prepared (and with the suggested loss of the B.E.F. which did not happen in real life) and ill-defended coast. You guys are depending too much on the Wikipedia version of actual events.

We are supposed to be in "what if" land here folks, not "Never-Never land." LOL

P.S. although this is the "what would be needed for success in Russia" thread, I stand by my "what if there was only a single front war" which would have made the invasion successful original post.[/QUOTE]

I nderstand its a what if thread, I still see no way under a single front war that Germany would have won.