What If: Germany and co. won WW II?

[marksman]

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

Claus, I beg you to go and actually read what I wrote. because your criticism doesn't appear to be related to anythign I said.

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.

Yes, all of which happened before the US' involvement. In my alternate history, none of this would have changed. What did change is that after Pearl Harbor, he utterly abandoned any notion of ending the Western Front before beginning the Eastern Front.

Without the US, Hitler would go with his original plan. Shut down the Western front so he could turn all his attention eastward.

If, as you concede, Hitler didn't want a two-front war, then his plan was to finish the Western Front before invading Russia. He had to abandon that when America got involved, but in my version, America is not involved.

Again, please, please read what I wrote and not just the first sentence. You are trying to vehemently disagree with me and I don't think we disagree significantly.

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus, I beg you to go and actually read what I wrote. because your criticism doesn't appear to be related to anythign I said.

Yes, all of which happened before the US' involvement. In my alternate history, none of this would have changed. What did change is that after Pearl Harbor, he utterly abandoned any notion of ending the Western Front before beginning the Eastern Front.

Hang on. Unless you are talking alternate history (I have to admit, I'm somewhat confused about when you do that, and when you talk about real history), there was no sign of an American invasion until way after he had already been defeated in the East. The US started with building a war economy and then supplying the European Allies (mainly the UK, but also Russia) with resources, through the convoys. But it took a lot of time, as well as building an invasion force.

Without the US, Hitler would go with his original plan. Shut down the Western front so he could turn all his attention eastward.

If, as you concede

There's nothing much to "concede".

, Hitler didn't want a two-front war, then his plan was to finish the Western Front before invading Russia. He had to abandon that when America got involved, but in my version, America is not involved.

Again, please, please read what I wrote and not just the first sentence. You are trying to vehemently disagree with me and I don't think we disagree significantly.

That depends on when you are talking about your alternate history and when you are not. It is not entirely clear, and I suspect the confusion stems from that.

 

[AWPrime]

How could Nazi Germany win?

If it kept USSR friendly and invaded England.

 

[marksman]

there was no sign of an American invasion until way after he had already been defeated in the East.

Yes, but in my version, he doesn't invade the East. Not because America isn't attacked in Pearl Harbor, but because America never gives the UK any materiel support before 1941. No Lend-Lease. No aid to its shipping. No support in making private sales. From 1936 through 1941, FDR was instrumental in using his NY financial contacts to aid the UK in privately obtaining materiel for the war from US financial interests.

In my alternative history, there is no FDR. America does not provide support to Britain at any point. This weakens British fighting efforts. It emboldens Hitler to invade the UK in early 1941, hoping to be done in June for his Russian invasion.

It's a tiny error in calculation born of overconfidence. It's just a small change to history at this point. But because of it, Hitler is unable to inavde the Soviet Union in June 1941, or at any point before the world is surprised by a particularly brutal early winter. By the time Spring 1942 rolls around, Hitler knows his window of opportunity is over.

My scenario doesn't depend on there being no Pearl Harbor. By the time Pearl Harbor would have happened, the crucial decision not to invade the SOviet Union was made.

The crucial change is not that the Japanese don't have Pearl Harbor, but that anti-banking pro-isolation Texas Democrat John Garner is President in 1936, rather than New Yorker Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

The key isn't that American military might wins the war but that without American financial aid, Britain's efforts to defend itself are sufficiently hampered so as to cause Hitler to make one fatal mistake that, coupled with the freakish winter of 1941, forever prevents Hitler form making the mistake of invading the Soviet Union.

Got it?

 

[Pyrrho]

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

I disputed your notion that an opinion that the US "won World War II" is equivalent to dangerous historical revisionism and/or holocaust denial.

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

That is not what I dispute in your remarks. I dispute the notion that people who think that the US "won WWII" are committing historical revisionism on the scale of holocaust denial. I dispute your inference that giving credit to US efforts in WWII somehow ignores the sacrifices and efforts of the Soviet Union and other countries. When someone in the US says, "We won WWII", they might be mistaken, it is not equivalent to saying "We did it all."

 

[bigred]

A whopping 64% of all Allied military deaths were Russian, while the US "share" was only 2%.

Even if we assume these numbers are accurate (they may be but I wouldn't use "wiki" as any kind of known authoritative source, esp since anyone can edit it), this is not true, ie those % are of the total # served to how many killed, not total % of allied force killed. But yes, certainly Russia suffered heavier losses.

 

[dangerbot]

I think the most plausible axis victory in WW2 scenario would be if Japan had attacked Russia on the Eastern front (relative to Russia of course) rather than pushing toward the United States. IIRC, that is what Hitler had expected them to do and he was caught rather by surprise by a lack of Japanese help in Russia. Japan had whooped Russia good and hard in the Russo-Japanese war, and probably could have done so again, especially with Hitler keeping them occupied in the west.

Any thoughts?

 

[TOHMS]

Had Germany not lost at Stalingrad, and then subsequentially been destroyed at Kirsk(sp?), they may well have "won the war".

The 2 front war being the cause for German defeat is really a myth. England was locked down, and was very weak prior to 1942/1943. If Germany had won at Stalingrad, the Soviets would have been forced to surrender, and Germany would have secured the "Lebensraum" that Hitler had saught out, as well as the resources in the Balkans.

In that case, Germany would have had the industrial might to most likely force the West into some sort of treaty.

 

[bigred]

I think the most plausible axis victory in WW2 scenario would be if Japan had attacked Russia on the Eastern front (relative to Russia of course) rather than pushing toward the United States. IIRC, that is what Hitler had expected them to do and he was caught rather by surprise by a lack of Japanese help in Russia. Japan had whooped Russia good and hard in the Russo-Japanese war, and probably could have done so again, especially with Hitler keeping them occupied in the west.

Any thoughts?

Interesting....I think that could have painted then and now as a very different picture.....

 

[Hutch]

I think the most plausible axis victory in WW2 scenario would be if Japan had attacked Russia on the Eastern front (relative to Russia of course) rather than pushing toward the United States. IIRC, that is what Hitler had expected them to do and he was caught rather by surprise by a lack of Japanese help in Russia. Japan had whooped Russia good and hard in the Russo-Japanese war, and probably could have done so again, especially with Hitler keeping them occupied in the west.

Any thoughts?

Got to disagree a little bit here, while the Japanese navy under Togo won several notable battles against the Russians, the Japanese Army found it hard going and while they ended up the victor in most of the battles they suffered heavy casualties.

IIRC, the Japanese Army in Manchuria (which was virtually an independent force), made some incursions againist the Soviets in the 20's and 30's..and were slaughtered. So the Japanese, already bogged down in China, were in no rush to widen their war by involving the USSR, and the USSR was fighting a life-and-death struggle with Hitler and had no extra forces to confront the Japanese.

But it is a LOONNNGGG way from the Manchuria/Russian border to Moscow and only one railroad line running the whole way. Not sure the Japanese could have gotten far enough West to affect the outcome.

IMHO as always...

 

[TOHMS]

If Germany doesn't lose at Stalingrad it doesn't matter what Japan does. Germany would have taken Russia. They would have gained resources in the process. Brittain being landlocked would be forced to sign a treaty. Europe and Russia, at least Western Russia would have been under German controll.

How could Nazi Germany win?

If it kept USSR friendly and invaded England.

England was not as important to the Nazi's as Russia. As I've said, they wanted controll of the vast resources and living space to expand their empire (the Nazis).

England would not have been that difficult to beat had they not suffered huge losses in Stalingrad in 1943. The war on two fronts never really opened up into a problem for the German's until they were on the run in the East, and the Allies gained a foothold in Europe. Invading Russia was a blunder for the Nazi's, but only because of the massive failures once they got dangerously close to advancing on Moscow (winter clothes etc.)

This bad timing, and Russia's amazing ability to move factories into the East after losing most of it's Western territory and continue arms production were the main factors of the German downfall.

If Germany is victorious in the East, they would have definately made entry into Europe via the West very difficult. Remember, the tide of the war did not turn until 1943, as the Allies began to breach the West.

 

[bigred]

Invading Russia was a blunder for the Nazi's, but only because of the massive failures once they got dangerously close to advancing on Moscow (winter clothes etc.)

Ironically, the Russians committed a similar blunder when invading Finland.

This bad timing, and Russia's amazing ability to move factories into the East after losing most of it's Western territory and continue arms production were the main factors of the German downfall..

...among other things. eg no long-range bombers didn't help.

 

[Pope130]

Interesting speculation all. I've worked on similar ideas for an alternate history novel. The switch point I use comes in 1940with Spain coming actively into the Axis, allowing Gibralter to be taken. The Med then becomes an Axis pond, with the British forces in North Africa and the Middle East unsuportable. Logistical contact through the Suez canal is cut off. The Japanese attack Malayasia and Australia, but not Hawaii and the Phillipines.

In the real world history one should also consider the effect of the German support for Italian forces, which delayed the start of Operation Barbarossa, and left their forces depleted. Despite this they came within artillery range of Moscow before winter hit. With three more months and larger resources they may have been able to take Moscow.

Robert

 

[bigred]

So El Douche served a useful purpose after all.

Makes me wonder who would win in a fight between France and Italy? Both seem to be living proof of the "lover not a fighter" thing.

 

[Pope130]

Big Red,
Replying to the original question "What would happen...", rather than how they might have.
One area that is rarely explored is resource exploitation. What with Allied bombing, local partisan activity and the short time involved I don't think the Germans showed a profit on the areas they occupied. While they did acquire some critical resources, they still operated at a loss. Had peace broken out after the conquest of western Europe they would have had the opportunity to effectively utilize the physical resources, and the labor of the occupied countries (well, the part of the labor force the didn't kill anyway).
This could (depending on what scenario you use), have given them a resource and population base larger than the allies.

Robert

 

[Michael Redman]

It shouldn't be forgotten that Germany was lead by an increasingly irrational dictator. For Germany to have "won" might have required Germany to have had new leadership.

As far as Germany vs. Japan interest in former colonies, I believe the two powers carved up the world in a mutually agreeable manner as condition of their alliance. Of course, ask Russia how agreements with Germany go . . .

 

[sackett]

... Japan had whooped Russia good and hard in the Russo-Japanese war, and probably could have done so again....

No, I doubt it. Remember, the Soviets won handily against the Japanese in Mongolia in 1938 and 1939; the Red Army was not the Czar's army. I think they could have done it again even while occupied with Hitler in 1941. The Japanese were committed to about the limit of their strength in China/Manchuria and in Southeast Asia and the Pacific. As it was, just keeping their hold on China tied down a huge number of their troops. Simply put, they had got into a land war in Asia.

 

[Pope130]

I just received "If Britain Had Fallen" by Norman Longmate. It deals with this very question. I'll let you know how it goes.

Robert

 

[bigred]

Big Red,
Replying to the original question "What would happen...", rather than how they might have.
One area that is rarely explored is resource exploitation. What with Allied bombing, local partisan activity and the short time involved I don't think the Germans showed a profit on the areas they occupied. While they did acquire some critical resources, they still operated at a loss. Had peace broken out after the conquest of western Europe they would have had the opportunity to effectively utilize the physical resources, and the labor of the occupied countries (well, the part of the labor force the didn't kill anyway).
This could (depending on what scenario you use), have given them a resource and population base larger than the allies.

Robert

True enough.

I'm just glad we didn't find out.

 

[TOHMS]

Hitler was insane. Leadership is often cited as one of the key reasons Germany did so poorly.

If Germany had had 3 more months, as somoene else stated, they probably would have taken Stalingrad.

Besides lacking a long range bomber, bigred, Germany was extremely iniffecient in their production. I mean this in the sense that they had far too many different types of weapons, vehicles, etc., and most were not compatibile with others. For example, if you knocked out a Tiger, the crew would not be able to use any other models of German tanks.