What If: Germany and co. won WW II?

[Solus]

The thing is you guys are missing the point. The war against Britain was a relatively minor for Germany compared to the Russian front. Germany could have no TOTAL VICTORY unless the Soviet Union was defeated and that's simply not possible as I see it. It's like saying the North African campaign was the corner stone of the war; even if Germany had won in north Africa they still would have lost the war. The key is the Soviet Union. Germany lost to the soviet union's enormous manpower and willpower. The allies merely helped the soviets along.

Britain is irrelevant, if Germany had managed to somehow win against the Soviets; Britain would have been finished. All the war production was in tanks and things of that nature. As Germany began to lose the war it lost time, and materials. Imagine though if they won against the soviets. The U-boats could have staved Britain to death because there would have been 10 times the number as well as air superiority.

I have nice book that has many statistics on this subject. Perhaps it's time I bring some out...

 

[geni]

Sold to whom? The world is coming out of the Depression. The former colonies don't have any cash with which to buy their freedom. France is occupied. Russia is impoverished. Germany is the enemy. America isn't buying. Who is the UK going to sell their colonies to to fund the war effort?

The locals. Ecentric millionaires. Jews (you want a homeland? fine we sell you a large chunck of the middleast). Buyers could be found

Exactly, which means the UK navy is less effective in this alternate universe than it was in our own.

Battleships would likely be the most important factor.

I'm pretty sure London is considered an urban area.

A london in ruins is no use to UK.

I think they very well could.

Then the invasion is over after a couple of weeks and the germans have lost pretty much all their ability to launch assults across the sea as the troops they fail to evacuate.

The RN and RAF thing is very much an all or nothing battle.

Exactly. The invasion and taking of Italy begins in July 1943 and continues through the fall. Five months.

Italy has mountians. England does not. Some of the latter italian invasions got pretty much stuck on the beachead.

But the point of the exercise is not merely the time of taking London, but the cost in materiel and personnel. Even if the invasion of London goes from, say April 1941 through August 1941, if there are enough casualties, Hitler would not be able to shift gears for Russia.

4 months? I doubt it. Remeber the british army lost most of it's kit at dunkirk. In particular the lack of decent anti-tank guns is going to hurt.

 

[geni]

Britain is irrelevant, if Germany had managed to somehow win against the Soviets; Britain would have been finished. All the war production was in tanks and things of that nature. As Germany began to lose the war it lost time, and materials. Imagine though if they won against the soviets. The U-boats could have staved Britain to death because there would have been 10 times the number as well as air superiority.

Doubtful. Germany had one sort of ready aircraft carrier. Anti-submarine weaponry and tactics were becomeing significantly better and the RAF would likely have been able to defend it's own turf. If not carry out offensive operations.

 

[marksman]

I think your analyzing is very presice Marksman and your scenario sounds plausible but then that would probably have meant that the iron curtain would be the atlantic. If Russia had gotten into high gear and Germany weakened by having to occupy Europe and UK the red army wouldn't have stopped until they reached the west coast of England...

That assumes the Soviets invade Germany, which I don't think was a sure thing until the battle of Moscow. If Germany and Russia stalemate in the Ukraine, without the devastating losses of Germany's actual Russian campaign, the two sides may have simply (however reluctantly) agreed informally to simply leave things as is. Heck, if Germany doesn't invade in 1941, they might never have invaded, much to Hitler's chagrin. And once both sides develop nukes, the idea of invading one another becomes folly.

The locals. Ecentric millionaires. Jews (you want a homeland? fine we sell you a large chunck of the middleast). Buyers could be found

I find that idea absurd. The locals have little to no ready cash or barter. India cannot afford to pay England for India, and have no need to do so if they know that England is on the vergs of collapse and they can get the land for free.

Even if Jews could "buy" Palestine, without the support of any army, there is no way they could hold onto it in the face of Germany's allies in the area. An independent Israel in 1948 flush with refgees from continental Europe is much better equipped than newly arriving Israelis from the US and UK in 1939.

I do not believe that any buyers could be found for British holdings.

Battleships would likely be the most important factor.

I'm not sure how that's resposive to what I wrote.

A london in ruins is no use to UK.

I'm not sure how that's responsive to what I wrote either. You're the one who pointed out that UK's land defense centered around London. You also pointed out that the Nazis fared most poorly in urban areas. Those two facts combined make it more likely that the German army could face difficulties with a land assault in the UK, particularly if they suffer heavy losses en route.

Then the invasion is over after a couple of weeks and the germans have lost pretty much all their ability to launch assults across the sea

Why is this an all or nothing game with you? The naval battles could inflict serious but not total losses on the Germans as they cross.

The RN and RAF thing is very much an all or nothing battle.

Why? What is so unique about the RN/RAF that makes it different from every other fighting force in history? Are they paper tigers? I don't think so.

Italy has mountians. England does not. Some of the latter italian invasions got pretty much stuck on the beachead.

You're the one who suggested a comparison with the Italian launch was appropriate, not me.

4 months? I doubt it.

Your doubt has been noted.

Geni, I think we have to agree to disagree. I don't see any basis for your theory that the crossing of the channel is going to be either entirely successful ro an unitigated disaster for Germany with no middle ground. You clearly don't see any basis for a middle ground. Until I get my time machine operational, I don't think we're going to make any progress.

 

[bigred]

Well glad to have sparked some nice historical discussion. Still playing catch-up on this thread.....but one point to note: I said what if Germany and co. won the war. Not just Germany. FWIW

 

[marksman]

I really don't see how Japan could have actually conquered China, even if America didn't get involved. Occupy it? Sure, for about twenty years until they get whittled down in Maoist guerilla tactics.

 

[Chaos]

I really don't see how Japan could have actually conquered China, even if America didn't get involved. Occupy it? Sure, for about twenty years until they get whittled down in Maoist guerilla tactics.

Maybe keep things the way they were at the beginning of WW2 in the pacific, and wait until the various warlords and factions started tearing each other to pieces?

 

[marksman]

Other than Chang Kai-Shek and Mao, I don't think there were a whole lot of "warlords and factions". If Japan, for example, waited for the two factions to beat one another to a bloody pulp before invading, they would have been disappointed. After the Long March in 1934, Mao was well on his way to totally destroying Kai-Shek. When the Japanese did invade in 1937, Mao was taking on both Japan and Kai-Shek and doing remarkably well, even before America joined the Pacific theater.

If Japan didn't invade, Kai-Shek would have been toppled, in my opinion, by 1939, and then it would have been Japan against a unified China and they would have been crushed.

 

[CFLarsen]

I agree with the Don. The only scenario in which Germany wins is America staying out of the war.

Don't ever make the mistake to think that the US won WWII.

Of all the allied forces, the Soviet Union bore the brunt of the casualties and the devastation. Despite their failed moronic political agenda, we owe our freedom from the Nazis primarily to those guys. They fought with their backs to the wall, and they succeeded, despite inhuman conditions.

I'm not negating the effort of the US and the Brits, which was tremendous. But to say that the US was the reason why the Nazis were beaten is equivalent to Holocaust deniers claiming that there were no extermination camps. In each case, it is historical revisionism of the worst kind.

The day Germany invaded Russia they lost the war...

Yep. That was probably Hitler's biggest mistake: He thought he could win a two-front war, doing what Napoleon couldn't.

 

[Pyrrho]

I'm not negating the effort of the US and the Brits, which was tremendous. But to say that the US was the reason why the Nazis were beaten is equivalent to Holocaust deniers claiming that there were no extermination camps. In each case, it is historical revisionism of the worst kind.

You're wrong, Claus. Saying that the opinion that the US tipped the balance is equivalent to holocaust denial is ridiculous. If people disagree with that opinion, that's fine, but it is a very far cry from holocaust denial.

I mean, wow. Just...wow.

ETA: and before we get off on any tangents, what I dispute here is not the issue of whether or not the US war efforts were the reason Nazi Germany was defeated. What I dispute here is the contention that to say so is equivalent to holocaust denial or "historical revisionism of the worst kind".

 

[CFLarsen]

You're wrong, Claus. Saying that the opinion that the US tipped the balance

How on Earth did you get to that conclusion??

I mean, wow. Just...wow. Did you even bother to read or even try to understand what I said?

 

[catbasket]

How on Earth did you get to that conclusion??

I mean, wow. Just...wow. Did you even bother to read or even try to understand what I said?

Claus, what Pyrrho actually said was -

You're wrong, Claus. Saying that the opinion that the US tipped the balance is equivalent to holocaust denial is ridiculous. If people disagree with that opinion, that's fine, but it is a very far cry from holocaust denial.

(Emphasis mine)
Claus, I have a lot of respect for your anti-woo work, but please don't quote people out of context.

 

[The Don]

Don't ever make the mistake to think that the US won WWII.

My opinion (from post 2) was:

IMO, Germany could only have womd WWII if they hadn't taken on the U.S. and Russia

Whatever womd means

And assuming womd means won, then I stand by it

 

[Pyrrho]

How on Earth did you get to that conclusion??

I mean, wow. Just...wow. Did you even bother to read or even try to understand what I said?

Yes, I did.

Don't ever make the mistake to think that the US won WWII.

Of all the allied forces, the Soviet Union bore the brunt of the casualties and the devastation. Despite their failed moronic political agenda, we owe our freedom from the Nazis primarily to those guys. They fought with their backs to the wall, and they succeeded, despite inhuman conditions.

I'm not negating the effort of the US and the Brits, which was tremendous. But to say that the US was the reason why the Nazis were beaten is equivalent to Holocaust deniers claiming that there were no extermination camps. In each case, it is historical revisionism of the worst kind.

Bolding mine. What you wrote there is an incredible straw man argument.

And I said:

You're wrong, Claus. Saying that the opinion that the US tipped the balance is equivalent to holocaust denial is ridiculous. If people disagree with that opinion, that's fine, but it is a very far cry from holocaust denial.

I mean, wow. Just...wow.

ETA: and before we get off on any tangents, what I dispute here is not the issue of whether or not the US war efforts were the reason Nazi Germany was defeated. What I dispute here is the contention that to say so is equivalent to holocaust denial or "historical revisionism of the worst kind".

I probably should have quoted you directly, to avoid any accusations of deliberate obfuscation, etc. Oh, well. I still dispute your bolded statement, above, on the same grounds.

So, basically, it is your job to show why and how an opinion that the US won WWII is equivalent to holocaust denial and/or "historical revisionism of the worst kind".

While I'm on this subject, it's not as if the European Theater was the only concern in WWII. There was also the little matter of Japan.

Maybe the US didn't "win" WWII, but the US sure as hell ended it.

 

[marksman]

Don't ever make the mistake to think that the US won WWII.

I didn't, Claus. Did you actually read my hypothesis, or did you just see my opening sentence and think that I was saying that American military might was the cause of Allied victory?

I very cleraly hypothesiszed that American lack of material support for the British might have caused Hitler to make a miscalculation on the ease of invading Britain. That miscalculation would then lead to Hitler not invading Russia, which, ironically, would have allowed Germany to win.

 

[kleinjahr]

"Italy has mountians. England does not" Someone needs to bone up on their geography. Ever hear of the Highlands or Wales? The moors of Yorkshire? Granted, not the Rockies but at least equivalent to Appalachia. The Nazis would not have had an easy time of it. Especially as Churchill had already set up an organization for guerilla war behind German lines. The R.N. would certainly have set up shop in Canada or Newfoundland, especially if the Royals had managed to escape.
If Britain had been conquered then the Nazis would "own" all her colonies/possessions. Trouble is they would have to enforce that ownership. Which means they would have to occupy said colonies/possessions. Spreads them a bit thin especially when those colonies would, undoubtably, resist. It would also bring them into conflict with Japan.

 

[Dave1001]

"Italy has mountians. England does not" Someone needs to bone up on their geography. Ever hear of the Highlands or Wales? The moors of Yorkshire? Granted, not the Rockies but at least equivalent to Appalachia. The Nazis would not have had an easy time of it. Especially as Churchill had already set up an organization for guerilla war behind German lines. The R.N. would certainly have set up shop in Canada or Newfoundland, especially if the Royals had managed to escape.
If Britain had been conquered then the Nazis would "own" all her colonies/possessions. Trouble is they would have to enforce that ownership. Which means they would have to occupy said colonies/possessions. Spreads them a bit thin especially when those colonies would, undoubtably, resist. It would also bring them into conflict with Japan.

How did the Germans handle the similarly dispersed French colonies? Did they all accept the Vichy government?

Also, I imagine defeating France put Germany in potential conflict with Japan- wouldn't their natural incentive be for Vichy claims to be enforced over Japanese imperial desires?

An interesting chapter of WWII I haven't heard much about yet.

 

[kleinjahr]

"accept the Vichy government?"
Morocco and Algieria did, at least officially. Look up Operation Torch and the sinking of the French Fleet.

"defeating France put Germany in potential conflict with Japan"
Yup. If the war had ended with the fall of France then certainly Germany would be in contention with Japan over the Asian and Pacific possessions. As well as the Dutch possessions. A lot of resources, oil, rubber etc.

 

[Hutch]

Interesting speculations all.

One thing I haven't seen mentioned as a alternative is that if the British had been less competent and/or the Germans more agressive, Dunkirk may have been remembered where 270,000 English troops and all their equipment surrendered to the German Army.

A disaster of that magnitude might have drove Churchill from office and installed a Government willing to listen to peace overtures from Hitler (which indeed he made in our timeline after the rescue at Dunkirk). With a pacifist Government in England and Isolationists still holding sway in the US, Hitler could have turned his entire attention on the Soviets.

And I, unlike Solus, think maybe he could have gotten away with it. No other fronts to suck in troops, no convoys to Murmansk, no Lend Lease convoys through the Middle East (my dad led truck convoys through what is now Iran/Iraq to supply the USSR in 1943-45), the decimation of the Soviet Officer Corps by Stalin's purges, being able to launch his attack in Spring 1942 (since Britian wasn't stirring up trouble in the Balkans and Hitler would let Mussolini muck around there)...yes, he might just have been able to pull it off.

As for Japan, it would absorb the French Asian colonies (Vietnam) and probably bully a weak Britian and conquered Holland into relinquishing others (Singapore, Malaysia) without a fight. This would solve much of their energy and resources issues and negate the need to fight the US. I do agree they would have bogged down in China and might have divered troops to take over the Siberian areas of Russia if Germany had the Soviets nearly defeated (Stalin maintained sizeable troop concentrations throughout WWII in the Asian areas fearing just such an attack).

As for the US, it would have kept it's Isolationist creed into the 1950's, when it would suddenly realize (perhaps with the orbiting of the first Nazi Satellite or first Atomic Bomb) the incipinent danger and would then embark on a radical and enormous buildup of it's military and defenses to such an extent that the Germans/Japanese would decide to let the American Continents alone. The US would accept this "Cold War" status.

So the aftermath is a Germany (with Spain and Italy as junior partners) astride Europe and Russia (there would perhaps be a rump Soviet somewhere in the steppes, but with no real power or influence), a Japan self-sufficent and with a growing industry but continuing problems and drains on its' military in China and Indo-China, a weak and bitterly divided England (perhaps even in the throes of Civil War) with her colonies falling away, and a heavily armed but wary United States dominating the North and South American Continents

What would come from this? That I do not know. Maybe we need to ask Harry Turtledove...

 

[CFLarsen]

I probably should have quoted you directly, to avoid any accusations of deliberate obfuscation, etc.

You probably should, yes.

So, basically, it is your job to show why and how an opinion that the US won WWII is equivalent to holocaust denial and/or "historical revisionism of the worst kind".

Simply because it would be rewriting history. Any kind of historical revisionism is dangerous.

While I'm on this subject, it's not as if the European Theater was the only concern in WWII. There was also the little matter of Japan.

Of course.

Maybe the US didn't "win" WWII, but the US sure as hell ended it.

That is exactly the kind of misconceptions I am talking about. The Soviet forces fought their way all the way from Moscow to Berlin, suffering terrible losses along the way, not just of civilians, but also troops.

A whopping 64% of all Allied military deaths were Russian, while the US "share" was only 2%. Over 8 million Soviet soldiers died, while the number of US soldiers killed was just over 300,000.
Source

I didn't, Claus. Did you actually read my hypothesis, or did you just see my opening sentence and think that I was saying that American military might was the cause of Allied victory?

I very cleraly hypothesiszed that American lack of material support for the British might have caused Hitler to make a miscalculation on the ease of invading Britain. That miscalculation would then lead to Hitler not invading Russia, which, ironically, would have allowed Germany to win.

No, no, no. You have it upside down.

Hitler had little interest in Western Europe, other than he wanted to make sure they weren't able to interfere with his conquests of his coveted Lebensraum in the East.

When he realized that the West wouldn't let him do that, he had to attack the West first, because he wanted to avoid having to fight a two-front war. It wasn't until he felt adequately secure in the West that he turned to Russia.

He was furious when Japan attacked the US, because he knew that he couldn't avoid the two-front war then.