[VANITY] A Different Outcome to World War II - Attention WWII Buffs

American Heritage ^ | June 8, 2014 | Self

[tom h]

In an old issue of American Heritage, there was a passage stating that, after the bombing of Pearl Harbor in December 1941, Hitler decided to declare war on the USA. In response, his generals recommended ceasing the offensive war against Russia, retreating to defensible lines, and taking the very reasonable military approach -- consolidating their very extensive gains in continental Europe, adding Greece and Spain to the mix, securing northern Africa, and turning the Mediterranean Sea into a "German Lake."

Hitler initially agreed to this very reasonable strategy. But within days the Soviets mounted their first winter offensive, on the outskirts of Moscow, and Hitler was so infuriated that he forgot his initial agreement and decided to continue his total war against Russia.

The rest, of course, is history. Russian bled Germany dry, the Allies invaded on D-Day 3.5 years later, and Germany lost.

[Jagdgewehr]

how would Stalin have used Hitler and the Americans beating each others brains out first?

Very astute question. Given Stalin's maniacal tendencies, the "what ifs" seem boundless.

[Rockingham]

Consistent with your scenario, Admiral Rader advocated that Germany seize Gibraltar, the Med and North Africa, and Egypt, then extend their forces down the east coast of Africa and interdict the flows of Mid East oil and Allied supplies to Russia, and sever England’s lines of communication with India. This would have accrued substantial gains for Germany and Japan, potentially to the point of knocking Russia out of the war. If so, Germany’s position as supreme in Europe would have been secure.

[tom h]

Interesting consideration. Prior to the invasion in June 1941, Stalin was speculating as to what Hitler's expectations were in Soviet Russia openly with the Politboro. Based on Mein Kampf, they suspected it was the Ukraine, the Pripet Marshes, and the Baltic States, which would allow for German domination of the Baltic Sea.

A tome I read about Stalingrad said that Stalin, in a weak moment within the first 60 days of the invasion, was willing to concede these in a peace treaty if Hitler would stop the offensive. It was the Bulgarian Ambassador who assured Stalin, that, ultimately, Russia would prevail, if they just had the willpower, in a war of attrition.

[taxcontrol]

It is because of how close he came to winning the atomic race that I put that reservation into the mix. Had Hitler not attacked the Russians at all, he would have likely won at El Alamein. This would have been a very serious blow as it would have solidified much of North Africa and supplies of Oil for Germany / Italy. The cascade effect would have been to deny the Allies a launching point into Italy.

Further, it was Stalin who kept pressuring to open up a second front on German. Had that not been in play, it would have taken at least another year before the Allies would have had the strength to push into Western Europe. Thus giving more time for the development of any number of technical advances including bombers that could strike the US (Amerika bomber program).

Had Hitler pulled off a Doolittle type raid and been able to strike at the docks of Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, etc. I suspect that even if only minor damage occurred, the US would have pulled back some of it’s support for England to shore up defenses in the US. If the damage had been significant, it could have knocked the US out of supporting England for a good 6 months.

Had this happened, I’m sure that England would have had a second blitz and possibly even had to repel a ground attack by Germany. Significant damage would have far more likely had the atomic bomb been completed by the Germans first.

[C. Edmund Wright]

Seems like you are analyzing in a vacuum. Without the eastern front war, all those tanks, all those men, all those artillery pieces and planes that the Russians destroyed…..would have been available for North Africa / France / etc.

Moreover, the Generals who lost faith in Hitler due to his Russia decision, would not have done so. AND, this would have extended the war, and Hitler might have gotten the bomb before we did. That could have been game, set, match.

In War, something delayed is something CHANGED, period.

[Chode]

ya, und scheiss, aber meh krank... my Deutsch IS pretty sick and it's been a looong time

but i can still order beer and get my face slapped

[tom h]

That's the fascinating point. Had Hitler secured Europe, first and foremost, there might have been NO D-Day. He might have had to retreat hundreds of miles in Russia in an effort at reconciliation, keeping only the Baltic States and part of the Ukraine. But he would not have bled his troops dry on the Russian front.

But he didn't. As he said in Mein Kampf, international Jewry and Bolshevism were his mortal enemies, not the Anglo Saxons. So he continued prosecuting the war on Russia to the demise of his nation.

[C. Edmund Wright]

All of that’s true - and all of that would have forced us to do things differently. We might have never seen the demotions of Patton and McAurthur. The USS North Carolina, the first warship produced post Pearl, might have gone east instead of west.

Whole different ballgame…..anyway you shake it out.

[Doctor 2Brains]

(until the Nazis started doing their whole Nazi thing)

Very true, and very humorously said!

[HiTech RedNeck]

That’s fascinating if such minute quantities of boron are enough to actually kill a reaction. Aryans aren’t either particularly stupid or particularly bright, but it’s notable that the scholasticism of science has featured a lot of Jewish people. Jews are a bookish people by faith. From partial Jewish background I can vouch that Jews are some of both the brightest and most stubborn people in this world.

[dfwgator]

I wonder if Hitler took Moscow, if Stalin would have survived, or would he have been deposed, perhaps by Khrushchev, who even then harbored ill-feelings towards Stalin.

Then let’s assume the Soviets eventually turned the tide, you would have had no Hitler, and at least perhaps a much more benign Soviet leadership.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Nazism and Communism were both cauldrons of evil, though Nazism more intensely boiling. This is tantamount to a chaos theory question.

[dfwgator]

Although to Hitler, France had to become a German colony, in the early days, Hitler imagined an alliance with England, in which England would retain her Empire, while Germany had her colonies in the East.

But Von Ribbentrop felt rejected while Ambassador to England and developed a hatred for the British, which he eventually passed onto Hitler.

[tcrlaf]

“Had his fighter jet had another 1-2 years of competitive warfare - the battle of Britain and so on might have been reversed.”

As long as we are kibitzing, the above is a VERY important point to consider.

Going on the defensive in Russia in Spring 1942 would have freed up an incredible amount of resources for R+D. The nuke program would have been just one.

The Jet program would have a better development. Remember that the ME-262 could have been ready for deployment in the summer of 1943, had Hitler not demanded that it be redesigned as a fighter-bomber, which delayed it by almost a year. Had that happened, the Bombing campaigns of Summer/Fall 1943 could have been a bloody disaster.

The Long-Range Bomber program would have likely had more resources, as well. But more importantly, the Rocket Program would have had more time, and more resources.

With the effect of Allied bombing cut back by the jets that the Allies had no real answer for, how much more output would German Industry have in the 1943/1944 period?

[C. Edmund Wright]

Yes, they beat the Soviet’s brains out at first….but the sheer size of the Soviet Union geographically, plus its immense population, meant that eventually they would turn Germany back. It was invevitable. Germany simply could not have ruled the captured territories and never been able to sustain supply lines all the way to Vladivostok.

[C. Edmund Wright]

Yes, but the Nazi thing was who they were.

[KC_Conspirator]

I am going to do some arm chair quarterbacking like all historians. Many of today's (many liberal) historians like to point out that the war was won when Hitler invaded Russia, because thats where their fellow travelers lived. Others say that Germany's fate was sealed when they declared war on the US. The fact is that none of this was decided until very, very late in the war.

My central point is to show that the outcome could have been different in many, many ways, up until the breakout from Normandy.

Germany did make mistakes early in the war until they were unable to invade and knock out England. Then they invaded Russia with a wounded, but not yet out England. They had overwhelming victories in Russia early. If they had treated their occupied countries better and not had shooting squads and such, they might have garnered more support from the people of Eastern Europe and even Russia. It would have made the partisan effort earlier. But then again we are talking about a murderous dictatorship here.

Also, Stalin threated and countermanded his military leaders into making bad military decisions. As the war went on, his listened and gave more decision making to his generals, in which they made good decisions. Hitler, OTOH, did the opposite and usurped more and more decision making with very setback from his generals, forcing them into unattenable positions. By Stalingrad, Hitler was in effect reporting to himself 4 times.

When the Soviets learned through espionage that Japan was not going to declared war on them (of which they were supposed to do), they moved much needed men and supplies to defend Moscow (Vyazma) and repelled the Germans. And knowing that allowed them to concentrate on the Eastern Front. Still even after Stalingrad, the Germans were on the offensive until the summer of 1943 with the Battle of Kursk. At the same time, the Western Allies had secured North Africa and were landing on Sicily. NONE OF THESE ALLY victories were a sure thing, even in 1943. EVEYTHING WAS IN DOUBT. However, after these setbacks, the Axis only offered a few offensives.

Until D-Day in the West, or more even Operation Cobra, the breakout from Normandy, and the securing of France, could one say that the end was in sight. That now put immense pressure on Germany on the Western Front; in which their resources were needed in the East.

Germany's last offensive in the west, the Battle of the Bulge, could have changed things, but in this writer's opinion, they underestimated Ally resolve. And underestimated our Air Force, which would have pounded them into dust as soon as the snow storm cleared, much like the Falaise Gap.

So my best guess is by late 1943 and to mid 1944 did we have idea that we would be victorious.

Mind you, we still were waging a 2 front war, the other in the Pacific against Japan. Despite Midway and the Coral Sea wins, the long battle for Guadalcanal ended in the beggining of 1943, and our navy was now big enough to mount the upcoming island hopping campaigns. Again, up until 1943, Japan still occupied most of the Pacific.

[dfwgator]

If Hitler had set up a “Vichy” Russia and allowed the Russians at least autonomy on paper, instead of trying to wipe them all out, if he could have defeated the Red Army that much quicker.

[AU72]

There is also the issue of the Japanese non-war against the Russians.

That became a dead letter once negotiations with the US over withdrawl from China ended and the US instituted the oil embargo that forced Japan to move south for the oil fields.

What if Japan agreed to withdraw to Manchuria and with no oil embargo used those troops to move into Siberia? Stalin only started to re-deploy his Siberian armies when his crack spy in Tokyo told him in September that the Soviet Union was no longer a target.

[null and void]

That’s fascinating if such minute quantities of boron are enough to actually kill a reaction.

They are, or at least enough to convince the Nazi that one would need an enormous amount of U-235 to make a bomb.

Aryans aren’t either particularly stupid or particularly bright, but it’s notable that the scholasticism of science has featured a lot of Jewish people. Jews are a bookish people by faith. From partial Jewish background I can vouch that Jews are some of both the brightest and most stubborn people in this world.

From my Germanic background I can vouch that Krauts are some of the most stubborn, average, and OCD people on the planet!