Alternate History - WWII

[Captain Adverse]

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

You are talking about the success of the German invasion on the Russian front, or the German invasion of England? I need to be clear because I have already posted my final response to the "English" question, but may be willing to further explain the Russian question. (Although I thought my original reasoning about the Russian front was fairly clear too.)

mmmkay?

 

[Quag]

You are talking about the success of the German invasion on the Russian front, or the German invasion of England? I need to be clear because I have already posted my final response to the "English" question, but may be willing to further explain the Russian question. (Although I thought my original reasoning about the Russian front was fairly clear too.)

mmmkay?

Sorry in either case I see no way of Germany winning the war. with a huge number of what ifs possibly but take away 1 thing and it only prolongs the inevitable it doesn't change anything in the long run

 

[Captain Adverse]

Sorry in either case I see no way of Germany winning the war. with a huge number of what ifs possibly but take away 1 thing and it only prolongs the inevitable it doesn't change anything in the long run

Well, in the "real world" we live in there were a lot of problems hindering the German chances of ultimately winning the war. Hitler for one, the fractured command structure which made inter-service cooperation close to impossible for another, racial cleansing programs, unclear goals...hell the foolish decision to invade Russia with a war on the western and southern fronts still raging. It's a wonder how the Germans were so successful as it was...which only serves to make one wonder how truly successful they really could have been without all those and other roadblocks.

In any event, thanks for the discussion.

 

[Quag]

Well, in the "real world" we live in there were a lot of problems hindering the German chances of ultimately winning the war. Hitler for one, the fractured command structure which made inter-service cooperation close to impossible for another, racial cleansing programs, unclear goals...hell the foolish decision to invade Russia with a war on the western and southern fronts still raging. It's a wonder how the Germans were so successful as it was...which only serves to make one wonder how truly successful they really could have been without all those and other roadblocks.

In any event, thanks for the discussion.

Yes if we remove enough hindrances to Germany they could possibly have won but 1 thing alone I don't think so.

 

[Wiggen]

Berlin instead of Hiroshima. 'Nuff said.

Yeah. The notion that the failure of Overlord would have meant a German victory is crazy.

 

[Wiggen]

Yes if we remove enough hindrances to Germany they could possibly have won but 1 thing alone I don't think so.

Would those 'hindrances' include the RAF in 1940, the Red Army, America's 'Arsenal of Democracy', the round the clock bombing campaign of Germany, etc. etc.? These 'Germany would have won the war if' scenarios are always amusing.

 

[Wiggen]

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.

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

You don't see any way because there was no way.

The 'myth' of the English Channel and the Royal Navy? :lamo

 

[Quag]

Would those 'hindrances' include the RAF in 1940, the Red Army, America's 'Arsenal of Democracy', the round the clock bombing campaign of Germany, etc. etc.? These 'Germany would have won the war if' scenarios are always amusing.

lol yeah that would be some of it 1 alone wouldn't be enough

 

[apdst]

Sorry in either case I see no way of Germany winning the war. with a huge number of what ifs possibly but take away 1 thing and it only prolongs the inevitable it doesn't change anything in the long run

There were a number of scenarios where Germany could have won the war. The defeat of the Red Army, repulsing the Normandy landings, defeating Allied forces in Italy, being just a few.

At no time, prior to January of 1945, was a German defeat, much less unconditional surrender ever a foregone conclusion.

 

[Quag]

There were a number of scenarios where Germany could have won the war. The defeat of the Red Army, repulsing the Normandy landings, defeating Allied forces in Italy, being just a few.

At no time, prior to January of 1945, was a German defeat, much less unconditional surrender ever a foregone conclusion.

No single one of those would have won the war for Germany.

 

[apdst]

Would those 'hindrances' include the RAF in 1940, the Red Army, America's 'Arsenal of Democracy', the round the clock bombing campaign of Germany, etc. etc.? These 'Germany would have won the war if' scenarios are always amusing.

More like, had the Allies not cracked The Enigma Code, had the Germans not invaded North Africa, had Allied forces been defeated in Italy, had the Germans fielded jet aircraft earlier in the war, had the V-2 and V-1 weapons been used more extensively, had deception operations by the Brits not been effective, had the Normandy landings failed, had the Germans maintained the momentum of Operation Watch on The Rhine and routed Allied forces in the west.

That's all after The United States became involved in the war. I left out the reality that had The United States not deployed forces to Europe, The Germans would have won, or at least been able to negotiate an armistice, allowing to keep most of their conquests.

 

[apdst]

Yeah. The notion that the failure of Overlord would have meant a German victory is crazy.

You need to read a book. Operation Overlord was the turning point the war against Germany

If not for Overlord, those resources could have been sent to The Eastern Front and most likely outfought The Red Army.

You won't find a single, credible historian that will agree with you.

 

[apdst]

No single one of those would have won the war for Germany.

There are a few single ones of those that could have forced the Allies into a negoatiated peace. A combination of two, or three of those events could have meant an Allied defeat.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Berlin instead of Hiroshima. 'Nuff said.

Yeah. The notion that the failure of Overlord would have meant a German victory is crazy.

The only reason that Hiroshima wound up the target of our first atomic bomb rather than Berlin or some other German city was that Germany had already surrendered by this time, and was out of the war, leaving Japan as our primary remaining enemy. The scenario in the OP presumes that with a different strategy, Germany could have made more progress against the USSR, would have been in a better position, and still been fighting by the time we had an atomic bomb ready to deploy. In that scenario, Germany, rather than Japan, would have almost certainly been the target for that first bomb.

 

[Quag]

There are a few single ones of those that could have forced the Allies into a negoatiated peace. A combination of two, or three of those events could have meant an Allied defeat.

I disagree and even all three would not have resulted in an allied defeat. at very best a negotiated peace.

 

[apdst]

I disagree and even all three would not have resulted in an allied defeat. at very best a negotiated peace.

History disagrees with you, I'm afraid.
Soviet commander admits USSR came close to defeat by Nazis - Telegraph

 

[apdst]

The only reason that Hiroshima wound up the target of our first atomic bomb rather than Berlin or some other German city was that Germany had already surrendered by this time, and was out of the war, leaving Japan as our primary remaining enemy. The scenario in the OP presumes that with a different strategy, Germany could have made more progress against the USSR, would have been in a better position, and still been fighting by the time we had an atomic bomb ready to deploy. In that scenario, Germany, rather than Japan, would have almost certainly been the target for that first bomb.

I don't believe that England and Russia would have gone along with nuking Berlin.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I don't believe that England and Russia would have gone along with nuking Berlin.

I don't see why not, if the situation was dire enough; and in any event, I don't see that it matters. If, by the time we had an atomic bomb ready to be deployed, we perceived Germany as being the greatest threat to our interests, then Germany is where that bomb would have gone.

As soon as the United States was brought into the war, the outcome was sealed. No matter what happened among the various European factions, whatever side we supported would ultimately have won. We had greater manufacturing capacity, probably, than all of Europe, and we had it on the other side of the world, relatively safe from any effective attacks. We had enough population to spare plenty of troops. On these two things alone, we had the resources to keep fighting the war however long it would take to assure the defeat of the Axis powers.

And only we had the resources to develop an atomic bomb. Germany had a program underway, as did Britain, but neither of their programs had any realistic chance of success, as neither of those nations had nearly the resources that it would have taken to complete such a project. The only thing that would have stopped us from using this weapon to end the war in our favor would have been for the war to end in our favor before this weapon was ready.

 

[Wiggen]

I don't believe that England and Russia would have gone along with nuking Berlin.

Then you know very little about the mindset of the English public after 6 years of war and months of V-1 and V-2 attacks. I spent a number of years in England during the late 50's and early 60's and the hatred was still strong even then. The London blitz, Coventry, the afore mentioned V rocket attacks ensure that there would have been no objection to winning the war with one or two nuclear bombs. As for the Russians - well, according to you they were losing the war so I suspect they would have welcomed anything to prevent that happening. Not to mention the 20 million or so dead they suffered.

 

[Wiggen]

You need to read a book. Operation Overlord was the turning point the war against Germany

If not for Overlord, those resources could have been sent to The Eastern Front and most likely outfought The Red Army.

You won't find a single, credible historian that will agree with you.

I'd suggest you read a book or two. The turning point in the War in Europe was Stalingrad and El Alamein. Your continued portrayal of Nazi soldiers as some kind of supermen is simply inaccurate. The day Overlord was launched, Allied troops liberated Rome. The Allies were on the march everywhere and there was nothing the Germans could have done. Your scenario that Overlord fails and the Germans immediately withdraw all their troops in the West to the Eastern front, presumably because the U.S. and Britain simply decide to give up is ludicrous.

I'm hard pressed to think of a single credible historian that would agree with you. Certainly nobody in this forum does.

 

[Wiggen]

There are a few single ones of those that could have forced the Allies into a negoatiated peace. A combination of two, or three of those events could have meant an Allied defeat.

The allies would never - repeat never - have negotiated a peace with the Germans. Britain refused to do it in 1940 when she stood against Hitler alone. The U.S. would never have negotiated a peace with Hitler.

 

[Quag]

History disagrees with you, I'm afraid.
Soviet commander admits USSR came close to defeat by Nazis - Telegraph

Article has nothing to do with what I said, none of your scenarios would result in an allied defeat and that includes the red army being defeated. Article also only mentions that they could have lost Moscow not necessarily the war. Heck Zhukov said the Germans underestimated the Russians and overestimated themselves. exactly same thing they did in the Battle of Britain.

 

[apdst]

The allies would never - repeat never - have negotiated a peace with the Germans. Britain refused to do it in 1940 when she stood against Hitler alone. The U.S. would never have negotiated a peace with Hitler.

You don't know that.

 

[Lukas105]

You don't know that.

If suddenly the Western Allied advance into German was stopped DEAD in its tracks without supplies from the port of Antwerp. I think they would begin peace talks, perhaps dragging the war into 1946.

 

[apdst]

Then you know very little about the mindset of the English public after 6 years of war and months of V-1 and V-2 attacks. I spent a number of years in England during the late 50's and early 60's and the hatred was still strong even then. The London blitz, Coventry, the afore mentioned V rocket attacks ensure that there would have been no objection to winning the war with one or two nuclear bombs. As for the Russians - well, according to you they were losing the war so I suspect they would have welcomed anything to prevent that happening. Not to mention the 20 million or so dead they suffered.

A lot of southeners hated the north for a long time after the Civil War ended, too.