Was WWII....

[Sgt Jasper]

Hello...

As you can see... by not defining 'outcome' or 'inevitable' the discussion can go off in almost unlimited directions. Its interesting to see what others considered relevant to this premise. Just on the surface, without any significant policy changes by the countries involved, I would have to say that WWII would have ended in an allied victory.

But, if you allow for any number of policy changes, then we are talking a whole different 'thing' altogether.
For example, what if the U.S. had entered the war, along with the other allies, in '39 in response to Germany's aggression, and Japans? Imagine the battle for France in '40 with a significant level of American forces present!

Or imagine Germany going to a full war-time-level of production before '39! Or say, instead of over-manning the conquered territories (France) and not invading England, they instead put more forces into the Mediterranean theater. So, instead of starting out with an Afrika Korps (three divisions) they started with an Armee Afrika (nine divisions, or more) instead!? And an enhanced Luftwaffe presence there too. Instead of a costly invasion of Britain, they beat them in the desert and take over the middle east oilfields!? That would have put an abrupt end to Britain's opposition to the Axis.

What if Hitler had not put the 'one year ban' on new weapons development? What if the Russians had gone through with their plan to start their war against Germany in '40 as they had planned? Many what-ifs to explore, eh?

Dennis

We can go on endlessly. Fun, ain't it!

One more off the top of my head: What if the French had sniffed out the Germans' plan to attack through the Ardennes and rushed in troops to defend the roads and passes. The backed-up German armor would have made great targets for the Allied aircraft. War over, or would the General Staff have a Plan B?

[Ricky B]

...

One more off the top of my head: What if the French had sniffed out the Germans' plan to attack through the Ardennes and rushed in troops to defend the roads and passes. The backed-up German armor would have made great targets for the Allied aircraft. War over, or would the General Staff have a Plan B?

Although it would have led to a huge change in the course of the war, with the German army tied up in the west for an extended period, I don't think this would have led to a quick end to the war. Mostly, I don't believe the Allied air would have been able to hurt the German panzers much - the Germans had air dominance anyway and the Allied tacair never roved extremely dangerous for quite awhile - the planes just weren't capable enough to heavily hit ground targets, from everything I have read.

I think in this case the Germans would have shifted to another point and tried again, and there would have been an extended campaign in France.

Rick

[Foreigner]

One thing I haven't seen discussed often in "what-ifs": What if France and Britain had taken a more offensive posture in September 1939, followed through the half-hearted Saar offensive and there was a real war instead of "Phoney" one? What if they had probed and then advanced deeper into Germany and in essence called Hitler's bluff? At least then any offensive in the West would have had to grind through those areas, first.

I know there was the Ziegfried line, but a bold enough probe might have revealed how thinly it was manned...

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

Concerning Hawaii, that would have both been the first isolated and reconquered Japanese garrison. Isolated because that was a long way from supplies that would have had to be shipped in and reconquered for it's port for future use. About the only reason to have taken Hawaii would be for prestige and morale. No resources for war here and pineapple, seafood and sugar cane would only last so long before the people and garrison would eventually hit short rations and near starvation.

One what if I wonder about is if the Western Allies had accepted the idea of having peace with the Germans, help rearm them and joined their fight against the Russians. Germany would not lack for resources to manufacture more of their better tanks, plus all the German forces spread around the Med and the West Front and the Western Allies all to the East Front. The Russians would have been toast. We already dominated the sea, taking complete control of the air was only a matter of time, all the bombers from the west and the B29s coming from the east, nowhere for them to hide their industry. Plus the fact that they would not be getting anymore resources or lend lease from us. To have crushed the Russians would have had a huge domino effect because of all the countries that would not have gotten aid from them, primarily China, North Korea, North Vietnam and the smaller fries like Cuba. Big what if there.

[dgk196]

Concerning Hawaii, that would have both been the first isolated and reconquered Japanese garrison. Isolated because that was a long way from supplies that would have had to be shipped in and reconquered for it's port for future use. About the only reason to have taken Hawaii would be for prestige and morale. No resources for war here and pineapple, seafood and sugar cane would only last so long before the people and garrison would eventually hit short rations and near starvation.

One what if I wonder about is if the Western Allies had accepted the idea of having peace with the Germans, help rearm them and joined their fight against the Russians. Germany would not lack for resources to manufacture more of their better tanks, plus all the German forces spread around the Med and the West Front and the Western Allies all to the East Front. The Russians would have been toast. We already dominated the sea, taking complete control of the air was only a matter of time, all the bombers from the west and the B29s coming from the east, nowhere for them to hide their industry. Plus the fact that they would not be getting anymore resources or lend lease from us. To have crushed the Russians would have had a huge domino effect because of all the countries that would not have gotten aid from them, primarily China, North Korea, North Vietnam and the smaller fries like Cuba. Big what if there.

Hello..

I think I see what you mean about the occupation of Hawaii by the Japanese. I think it would have been a springboard to nowhere. A very good facility, well equipped, but to what end, for the Japanese that is. Any 'sorties' toward the America's would have put a Japanese fleet within striking range of very strong forces. Would they have kept an occupation of Hawaii going, I think so. The Japanese had a tendency to keep what they conquered.

As to the Western Allies taking up with Germany. I see what you mean as that is a prerequisite for operations against the Soviet Union. But I think it would have been a real stretch of the imagination for that to happen. But, for a 'what-if' I believe it would have made a very interesting situation. Its just my opinion, but the only thing the Russians had going for them, was numbers. And therefor matched against a large force I think its defeat would be a matter of time.

Dennis

[Crossroads]

One thing I haven't seen discussed often in "what-ifs": What if France and Britain had taken a more offensive posture in September 1939, followed through the half-hearted Saar offensive and there was a real war instead of "Phoney" one? What if they had probed and then advanced deeper into Germany and in essence called Hitler's bluff? At least then any offensive in the West would have had to grind through those areas, first.

I know there was the Ziegfried line, but a bold enough probe might have revealed how thinly it was manned...

Then, What if France and Britain would have send the expeditionary force to Scandinavia at the time of Winter War, securing Norway, Sweden, and entering Winter War against USSR?

The French mountain troops were already embarking their ships when Winter War ended...

[PoorOldSpike]

Before the war, Hitler rounded up and jailed astrologers and fortune-tellers because he didn't want people listening to them instead of to him, but later relented and let them out, and even signed one up as his own personal astrologer.
It probably went like this-
HITLER (in mid-1939)- "I hope you don't bear a grudge because I jailed you?"
ASTROLOGER- "Nah mein fuhrer, perish the thought!"
HITLER- "Good, now tell me, what do the stars say I should do?"
ASTROLOGER- "Invade every country in sight and become World Ruler"
HITLER- "Would there be any risk in it for me?"
ASTROLOGER- "None at all, you can trust me"..:)

[PoorOldSpike]

I feel sorry for Eva Braun..
HITLER- "Let's get married"
EVA- "Oh yes yes mein darling fuhrer, and will we be honeymooning in some tropical paradise?"
HITLER- "No, after the ceremony we'll blow our brains out"
EVA- "Er...on second thoughts let's not rush into marriage for a while"

[Foreigner]

Then, What if France and Britain would have send the expeditionary force to Scandinavia at the time of Winter War, securing Norway, Sweden, and entering Winter War against USSR?

The French mountain troops were already embarking their ships when Winter War ended...

Well, Britain did send out an expeditionary force to Scandinavia at some point, didn't they? Let's take that as a basis for analysis. Imagine the Norway campaign, but with several hundred miles further to move troops and supplies - through difficult terrain and harsh climate, and to be able to reach the theater by sea, either to have to sail all around Scandinavia through the Arctic Ocean (in winter, no less) or to force through the Baltic Sea by both Germany and the Soviets; to have to violate the neutrality of two countries (and potentially to have to endure some form of resistance both from communist and nationalist groups); and then to face not an expeditionary force, but a potentially significant part of one of the largest land armies in Europe (that did not rely much on sea communications that could be cut) - even though on a unit basis not up to the quality of the German units in the Norway campaign. With all due respect to the Finns fighting for their homeland, with any support that Britain and France could muster at the time, they might have inflicted disproportionately larger losses on the Soviets, but I doubt they would have changed the outcome much. I think the actions of the Soviets during the Winter War showed that they were willing to pay the potentially higher cost for the victory.

Looking at it from another angle, while the Finns ended surrendering territories, they were not utterly defeated at the end of the war, so they had potential for further resistance. So if Britain and France were that serious about helping them, they could have reinforced the Finns and tried to push the Soviets back - but they didn't. The most logical explanation (for me) is that they understood that any help of theirs would not make much of a difference.

On a side note about the French mountain troops - well, I guess the logic might have been that they would be more used to the cold, as there were (to the best of my knowledge) no mountains in the area of the fighting. However, mountain troops do imply lack of serious heavy weapons, which would handicap them when dealing with Soviet tanks.

The more serious potential for material impact of a move to attack the Soviets in the Winter War would be to signal to Germany "look, we are both against Bolshevism, let's band together". But while this is possible, I would still find it highly unlikely. Especially for Britain I think it would be too sharp an about-face for the public to accept - to side with a regime that so far had been vilified, and whose U-boats had been waging unrestricted warfare against British shipping (that immediately brought back memories of WWI). On the other side, Hitler distrusted Britain and France (that's why eventually he moved to defeat them first). So while there were certainly circles on both sides that favored an alliance against the Soviets, I think the majority view in Britain would be better exemplified by the famous Churchill quote about Hitler and the devil.

In such an environment, then, an attack on the Soviets (in addition to participation in the Winter War, bombing of the Baku oil fields had been considered) would likely be interpreted as an attack on a German ally (no matter how insincere the relationship) - and, in the case of a Scandinavian landing - an attempt to cut the supply of Swedish iron ore. So we might see a combined Norway and Sweden campaign happening earlier than in actual history.

On the Soviet side, as a result of the attacks the media might "suddenly remember" that Britain and France had participated in the intervention on the "White" side in the Civil war after WWI (while Germany did not) - and equally "suddenly forget" the more recent "proxy" Spanish Civil War. So maybe rapprochement between the Reich and the Soviets could have gotten stronger, although not by much.

Now I consider what I am about to describe below as an unlikely scenario, but it seems this thread has left the bounds of reason far behind already.

Assuming Stalin was willing to offer and Hitler willing to accept direct military assistance, we mighty have seen a joint push into Scandinavia (and subsequent partitioning according to the Polish scenario). At the extreme, we might have seen a Soviet expeditionary force join the attack on France in the summer of 1940. Pushing the extreme further, we might have even seen what was in actuality "Vichy France" become (at least partly) a Soviet "occupation zone". But, alternatively, the presence of significant allied forces might have reduced the incentive for the German command to accept the unorthodox pan of attacking through the Ardennes, which could mean none of the Blitzkrieg, but a more conventional WWI-style slugfest.

Pushing the extreme to ridiculous levels, it is possible that in the meantime both Germany and the Soviets would realize that by cooperating they could gain most benefits of a conquest without the risk and expense of actual fighting - and the Eastern Front never happens. However, I don't think the two leaders would be ever able to trust each other sufficiently - so they would likely have had to come to blows sooner or later.

[Das Morbo]

    Foreigner

    Sgt Jasper, Weasel,

    I have to respectfully disagree with your disagreement.


    As for Sealion - Hitler would have to decidedly win the aerial Battle of Britain, then neutralize the Home fleet, then muster enough logistical capability to support an effective invasion effort - I would say this is a series of increasingly improbable events.  The only thing that would help him would be a catastrophic breakdown in British morale, which I honestly don't see enough supporting evidence for.  The risk-reward trade-off just isn't favorable enough for Germany, especially considering that the main prize was the Lebensraum in the east, and any delay with Britain means there would be more time for Stalin to prepare.


My historical analysis goes as this:

In 1940 Germany was very very cloes to win the decisive victory of the war. In the Battle of Britain the Luftwaffe bombarded RAF infrastructure and hat Fighter Command on its knees. Some sources say, RAF Fighter Command was just weeks from collapse. But then Bomber Command did one raid too many on Berlin, Hitler got mad and ordered retaliation against London. This allowed Fighter Command to rebuild.

Thus he botched up that victory.

Now lets consider the consequences of German total air superiority over England in 1940.
First of all, the German Luftwaffe could have started to bombard war factories. Thus lessen the output for sorely needed heavy weapons - the British Army had lost virtually all its heavy equipment in Dunkirk.
Secondly they could have interdicted effective Royal Navy operations by heavy units, leading to high attrtion rates among those units who tried daylight operations around the English coast.
And last but not least air operations against the inbound convoys could have taken place on a whole new level.

Consequences from that:
To me it seems this could have meant Operation Sealion could have taken place successfully and aside from Militia-Style units with rifles and grenades, the British Army had not much to resist the German Army which was at peak effectivness. This would have meant the end of the British Empire in Europe.

German attack on the Soviet Union:
Without the huge support of the Western Allies, the Soviet Union would not have survived 1942. The Red Armys logistical arm was nearly completely sponsored by the Western Allies plus they got some 8000 tanks IIRC. This support originated from Canada, the UK and the US and it was ferried in vie the northern Atlantic route or the Middle East. Both areas would have fallen to Germany if the UK had collapsed.
Things would have looked very bleak for the Soviets.

The outcome:
Germany would have taken control of the whole of Europe with no jump-off base for the US to launch an counter-invasion. It would have been a stalemate. The German Reich would have no chance to defeat the US and vice versa. The cold war would propably have taken place between the US and the German Reich.

Now think of some power-crazed Nazis with nuclear weaponry at hand in a standoff with the US....... oh boy.


As a German, I get the kreeps when I think of an Europe under 40-50 years of political and cultural influence by the Nazis. They had no realistic political concepts, just their freaked-out ideology based on power and hatred.
I am a free-minded guy who thinks for himself... In Nazi Europe I would have either been brainwashed until perfectly in-line or or tortured and murdered in a KZ (think '1984' here)

Good things turned out the way they did.