WWII without US entry.

[Enigma]

Britain would not have fallen in any conceivable WW2 scenario.

Didn't the Canadians help out the British especially in the Battle of Britian? From what I heard, the Canucks helped besides providing men, they also provided planes and brought the German POWs into makeshift jails in Canada.

Somehow from what I understand, without Canadian help the British would have a VERY hard time winning the Battle of Britian.


And please don't laugh about Canadian military. I know they suck today but 50+ years ago they were pretty good.

[The Cleric]

Anyway, Britain held together because of US support. The US was sending in supplies and material neccesary to keep Britain alive. Without those supplies (food, medicine, clothes), the populace would have forced a surrender.

Nope, see just because the US doesn't declare war doesn't suddenly mean nothing the US produces is available

But without the US forcing the goods through the German sub lines, Britain wouldn't have had the option of buying the goods. A US that is not going to go to war or participate at all would be reluctant to send merchant ships through a sub screen.

[Strate_Egg]

Well, you might have to change a lot of things around, but Germany COULD have beaten the soviet untion, especially if it had not puttered around in the pact with the soviet untion during the "attempts" to starve out England whilst she was continually supplied by the Americans with "the arsenal" of democracy. German, in no way, shape, or form, no matter how powerful she was, would have defeated the United States or England at that rate. It would be the equivilent of the Spartans trying to defeat athens by means of starving them out. As long as the navy held, it wasn't gonna happen.


However, in terms of the soviet union, it had a the ability to beat the Third Reich. However, Germany could have won the war it it did not A, waste time with the west, or B. have stupid leadership.


Blizkrieg would be the best option to use on the soviet union. However, the problem with this lay in Germany's overuse of it. By the time they hit russia, the russians were pretty much thinking something was up. Even though they were pretty unprepared as a result of stupidity of the purge, as well as ill equipped logistics and manufacturing, once they got rowled up, they would be tough.


Therefore, the best bet would have been to listen to generals, take out russia first surprise, and then stop. IF the US stayed out, which is unlikely for any of this, maybe the west could be taken, but only after the resources of the Union were appropriated.

[MKSheppard]

Nope, see just because the US doesn't declare war doesn't suddenly mean nothing the US produces is available

Except we'll be asking for HARD CAPITAL, instead of giving oodles away
for nothing.

Indeed most Soviet planes where designed for less then 100 octane fuel and worked just fine with it.

They won't perform as well as with 100 octane avgas. That gave them a
tremendous boost over the Luftwaffe, which was operating with crappy gas.

[Straha]

Anyway, Britain held together because of US support. The US was sending in supplies and material neccesary to keep Britain alive. Without those supplies (food, medicine, clothes), the populace would have forced a surrender.

Britain can still buy them, no?

As an aside, the US and the UK supplied a huge majority of the high octane Avgas used by the USSR during the war as the Soviets simply didn't have the refining technology at the time to make super high octane fuels for aircraft. Without the high octane fuel to run the engines at altitude, the Red Air Force would have been crippled vs. the Luftwaffe.

How well do you think Russia would have faired without the ability to fly planes? Tanks don't take kindly to having bombs dropped on them. Germany beats Russia because Russia doesn't have the ability to properly supply it's troops with the supplies neccesary to win.

Take a globe out.
Look at All of Europe west of Poland and east of Spain
Look at Russia
Notice the size of Russia
Notice the shape of Russia
Notice the fact that Russia had a huge population at the time of WWII

Now take what happens if Russia fights a simple huge scale war of attrition against Germany. Germany can't win if the Luftwaffe is the only service left intact can it? Then you take the point that by the time the Germans have made any decent progress against Russia exhausting its industry, Russia will have had the ability to hire American Engineers, Bring them over, and learn how to make High Octane Fuel effectivley. As well as mobilize the entire nation for a large scale war, to put it bluntly Russia is so damn big that they can do whatever the hell they want while the Germans spread themselves thin in the west.

[phongn]

Anyway, Britain held together because of US support. The US was sending in supplies and material neccesary to keep Britain alive. Without those supplies (food, medicine, clothes), the populace would have forced a surrender.

Britain can still buy them, no?

There's a reason we switched to "Lend-Lease," you know. Britain bankrupted herself trying to pay for all thos US goods.

Then you take the point that by the time the Germans have made any decent progress against Russia exhausting its industry, Russia will have had the ability to hire American Engineers, Bring them over, and learn how to make High Octane Fuel effectivley.

Soviet industrial engineering may have not been up to the task of producing high-octane fuels even with American technical assistance.

[Raptor 597]

Anyway, Britain held together because of US support. The US was sending in supplies and material neccesary to keep Britain alive. Without those supplies (food, medicine, clothes), the populace would have forced a surrender.

Britain can still buy them, no?

As an aside, the US and the UK supplied a huge majority of the high octane Avgas used by the USSR during the war as the Soviets simply didn't have the refining technology at the time to make super high octane fuels for aircraft. Without the high octane fuel to run the engines at altitude, the Red Air Force would have been crippled vs. the Luftwaffe.

How well do you think Russia would have faired without the ability to fly planes? Tanks don't take kindly to having bombs dropped on them. Germany beats Russia because Russia doesn't have the ability to properly supply it's troops with the supplies neccesary to win.

Take a globe out.
Look at All of Europe west of Poland and east of Spain
Look at Russia
Notice the size of Russia
Notice the shape of Russia
Notice the fact that Russia had a huge population at the time of WWII

Now take what happens if Russia fights a simple huge scale war of attrition against Germany. Germany can't win if the Luftwaffe is the only service left intact can it? Then you take the point that by the time the Germans have made any decent progress against Russia exhausting its industry, Russia will have had the ability to hire American Engineers, Bring them over, and learn how to make High Octane Fuel effectivley. As well as mobilize the entire nation for a large scale war, to put it bluntly Russia is so damn big that they can do whatever the hell they want while the Germans spread themselves thin in the west.

Notice the rail lines of Russia
Notice the vital points in the West Russia and the Other Western Soviet States
Notice the Volga
Notice hows it's a god line of demarcation
Each time the Soviets lost Minsk, Pskov, Smolensk, Kiev etc. they lost the ability to fight in the region. The Soviets large size also slows transit especially in a surprise defensive war. Attrition also does not necessarily work. Hasso von Maneuteffel and one motorised division held back and killed more Russians then the numbrer of men in his division. Had Hitler not screwed around moving troops too much around Smolensk and Kiev, Moscow falls in December. The central front collaspes to Ryzaan and most of the land inbetween is also lost. This is 1941 I'm speaking of. Population means jack shit when your arnmy was poorly equipped and your armored destroyed. With Moscow gone it may thrown the rest of the fronts back. Even though Moscow wasn't taken in 1942 it had serious manpower issues.

[Sea Skimmer]

Soviet industrial engineering may have not been up to the task of producing high-octane fuels even with American technical assistance.

They could and did produce a fair amount, but the need for volume prevented them from stopping and converting over most production facilities from the lower octane levels they had been churning out for the before the war.

[Symmetry]

Yeah, but then Hitler wouldn't have been Hitler, and WWII wouldn't be WWII, and in fact probably never would have taken place. In order to do that scenario you have to rewrite whole decades of history prior, and that can't be done. The only plausible Short term Hitler Victory scenario is if Stalin had been killed and a triumvirate had taken over and then party politics took place, other then that no victory for USSR.

If Napoleon had been there instead of Hitler, it would have gone very differently

[phongn]

Bonaparte loses Germany when the Red Army comes crashing through a in the 1940s.

[Sea Skimmer]

Didn't the Canadians help out the British especially in the Battle of Britian? From what I heard, the Canucks helped besides providing men, they also provided planes and brought the German POWs into makeshift jails in Canada.

Somehow from what I understand, without Canadian help the British would have a VERY hard time winning the Battle of Britian.

Canada provided 88 pilots with 20 of them becoming KIA, that is not much more then New Zealand's contribution of 71 with 11. For comparison, the RAF had 1822 pilots in the battle with 339 KIA, and the Fleet Air Arm another 59 with 9 KIA. This in not counting bombers, which where very active as well, attacking invasion craft and German airfields along with missions over Germany. Canadian aircraft production was very limited and didn't really get in gear until later in the war.

That would be about it for direct Canadian contribution, other then a limited number of Canadian naval escorts, which covered convoys part way across the Atlantic. They also had part of a division in the UK as I recall, but it of course saw no action in the Battle of Britian.

Whatever you have been hearing, it's simply a load of crap. Canada was a welcome ally and fairly important because convoys where assembled in Halifax, but at this stage of the war its direct contribution was very small. And nowhere near decisive.

[Thunderfire]

Actually the opposite is true. The German invasion of the Soviet Union was delayed for a month because Hitler had to bail out the Italians when they got their asses handed to them in the Baltic.

This is a common myth. The spring is russia was really wet in 1941. The russian
mud would have stoped them fast if they attacked earlier. The Balkan was only
a side scenario. Greece would be a nice place for an allied invasion. The occupation
of the Balkan actually had a positive effect on the east front.

[Boba Fett]

The Balkan was only a side scenario. Greece would be a nice place for an allied invasion. The occupation
of the Balkan actually had a positive effect on the east front.

The occupation of the Balkan was tactically needed.
That way they blocked a possible supply route for the soviets across the Black Sea.
Army Group North had the task of capturing Leningrad with it's harbour on the north.
Airfields on Crete and in Greece provided cover for the operations in North Africa.


As for the Third reich vs. ths Soviet Union scenario...

The Germans never had any real chances.

I think, it doesn't matter how much territory you manage to conquer if in your backyard a huge population is working against you. Slowing production, sabotage, passive resistance.

The germans failed to establish good relationship with the local population of the conquered territories, because of the nazi ideology, forced labour, robberies, rape etc.

Without real support from the locals, Germany is doomed.

[Symmetry]

Bonaparte loses Germany when the Red Army comes crashing through a in the 1940s.

No way. Bonaparte had the ambition, cleverness, and charisma to become dictator of Germany and adopt some sort of useful ideology that would justify him. He was just as capable of calling the West's bluffs as Hitler was. He would have given the North African forces the support they needed to take the Suez and the middle eastern oilfields. And finally, he wouldn't have been so damn stupid about everything.

[Sea Skimmer]

No way.

Demonstrate that Napoleon genius, which lost his entire army in a poorly planned invasion of Russia among other things, could make up Germany's incredible resource deficiency and the logistic impossibility of defeating its enemies.

He would have given the North African forces the support they needed to take the Suez and the middle eastern oilfields.

Great more tanks to guzzle more fuel that can't be shipped in. Logistics dictated the battles for North Africa. Italian shipping could only move so much tonnage, the ports could only handle so much and trucks could only haul so much to the front. All where essentially running at full capacity throughout the campaign, though Italian shipping capacity was eroded until over 75% had been sunk.

You cannot simply throw more troops into the theater if they cannot be shipped over or supplied, as it was Rommel often had large stocks waiting for shipment in the ports of southern Italy.

Against any significant opposition taking a mechanized army to the Nile is near impossible, the only way it even become slightly possibul is if Tobruk is fully functional. However it will not be until British air and naval power is removed from that end of the Mediterranean. That in turn requires an advance at least to the Nile, so you see the problem. Course even if the Germans could reach the Nile, the British still have ports very close at hand, an excellent natural defence, a web of roads and railways to resupply from and its still over a thousand miles over essentially road less desert to the oil fields.

[Glocksman]

Against any significant opposition taking a mechanized army to the Nile is near impossible, the only way it even become slightly possibul is if Tobruk is fully functional. However it will not be until British air and naval power is removed from that end of the Mediterranean. That in turn requires an advance at least to the Nile, so you see the problem. Course even if the Germans could reach the Nile, the British still have ports very close at hand, an excellent natural defence, a web of roads and railways to resupply from and its still over a thousand miles over essentially road less desert to the oil fields.

Would it have made any difference if Mussolini had used his brains and not jumped in the war in 1940 and stayed merely pro-Axis neutral like Spain did? That would have eliminated the need to supply the Afrika Korps altogether.

[Sea Skimmer]

Would it have made any difference if Mussolini had used his brains and not jumped in the war in 1940 and stayed merely pro-Axis neutral like Spain did? That would have eliminated the need to supply the Afrika Korps altogether.

The Russian front easily would have swallowed up the German forces committed to the theater, as would the Atlantic wall defenses. Actually the Mediterranean was a far greater drain on the allies, though it didn't have to be. With Italy never a part of the war cross channel attack would have easily been launched in 1943. Italy never offered more then a long and tortuous road to the Reich, and everyone but Churchill seemed to know it. It was in Germany's best interests to keep the Mediterranean sideshow going as long as possibul. There infantry was highly effective there, among other things, while on the Atlantic wall it would far less so, same thing for the Eastern Front.

And don't expect any resources flowing into German from a neutral Italy, the nation had little of its own, needed a lot, and would have the British restricting what got in.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Notice the rail lines of Russia
Notice the vital points in the West Russia and the Other Western Soviet States
Notice the Volga
Notice hows it's a god line of demarcation

I am aware of all these things.

Each time the Soviets lost Minsk, Pskov, Smolensk, Kiev etc. they lost the ability to fight in the region.

In my opinion this had more to do with catastrophic losses suffered by the defending army groups in the encirclement than with the loss of rail junctions.

The Soviets large size also slows transit especially in a surprise defensive war. Attrition also does not necessarily work. Hasso von Maneuteffel and one motorised division held back and killed more Russians then the numbrer of men in his division.

One atypical case does not make an argument.

Had Hitler not screwed around moving troops too much around Smolensk and Kiev, Moscow falls in December.

So, your plan is to not transfer large forces from the Moscow Axis of advance onto the encirclement operations--so the Germans probably fail to encircle Kiev and Smolensk, because OKH needed those extra forces to complete the kessel. That's about 1,000,000 men and a heavy weight of materiel that the Soviets retain on their order of battle, not anything to be sneezed at. And I doubt that Zhukov will just let them languish in salients while the Germans push on Moscow.

In my opinion, the "all-out for Moscow" plan could have been much more ugly for the Germans than the snafu that the RL division of forces ended up as.

[Pablo Sanchez]

And don't expect any resources flowing into German from a neutral Italy, the nation had little of its own, needed a lot, and would have the British restricting what got in.

Some historians consider Italy's participation to have been a net drain on the German resource economy, because Hitler became obligated to supply material to keep Mussolini up and running.

[Sea Skimmer]

[

In my opinion, the "all-out for Moscow" plan could have been much more ugly for the Germans than the snafu that the RL division of forces ended up as.

Moscow was a hollow shell of a prize anyway. A lunge at it makes no sense. Destroying Russia armies as close to the boarder as possibul is the only worthwhile goal of an invasion. Unfortunately Russia can replace all those armies rather quickly, and doesn't keep them all close at hand. Reducing every mega pocket formed also inflicted very heavy, and often ignored by history, causalities for the Axis.

[Butterbean569]

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned yet (I don't think it has)...but consider this: Moscow nearly fell in the REAL WW2 with Germany split in two. Now, it's true that the Nazi's had a lot of work to do before they could get Moscow...

But with the scenario presented (basically all of Germany vs. all of the USSR) I think that the Nazi's would be boosted (and the Soviets hurt) enough that Moscow would be taken at some point. If this happens, I believe that the USSR would have collapsed.

[Howedar]

Your belief that taking Moscow would take down the USSR is something you have not supported.

[Butterbean569]

*sigh*

I guess it pays to read the last 3 posts before I post lol Sorry for the spamming

I still think that the scales would be tipped enough for Moscow to be taken...or at least come under seige for a long time

[Butterbean569]

The Russian's have already taken a huge beating...both in man/material and morale. If Moscow falls, the morale factor would be huge. I doubt anyone would even want to fight.

Furthermore, if the Nazi's take Moscow, they can turn that into a new staging base. Although they might have to wait out some things (a winter, reinforcements), they would have a point to start from once they're ready to go (instead of being pushed way the hell back and trying to do it again).

[Raptor 597]

Notice the rail lines of Russia
Notice the vital points in the West Russia and the Other Western Soviet States
Notice the Volga
Notice hows it's a god line of demarcation

I am aware of all these things.

Each time the Soviets lost Minsk, Pskov, Smolensk, Kiev etc. they lost the ability to fight in the region.

In my opinion this had more to do with catastrophic losses suffered by the defending army groups in the encirclement than with the loss of rail junctions.

The Soviets large size also slows transit especially in a surprise defensive war. Attrition also does not necessarily work. Hasso von Maneuteffel and one motorised division held back and killed more Russians then the numbrer of men in his division.

One atypical case does not make an argument.

Had Hitler not screwed around moving troops too much around Smolensk and Kiev, Moscow falls in December.

So, your plan is to not transfer large forces from the Moscow Axis of advance onto the encirclement operations--so the Germans probably fail to encircle Kiev and Smolensk, because OKH needed those extra forces to complete the kessel. That's about 1,000,000 men and a heavy weight of materiel that the Soviets retain on their order of battle, not anything to be sneezed at. And I doubt that Zhukov will just let them languish in salients while the Germans push on Moscow.

In my opinion, the "all-out for Moscow" plan could have been much more ugly for the Germans than the snafu that the RL division of forces ended up as.

I'll agree with your genera assesment, but Hitler wasted numerous men on the way to Smolensk and Kiev in defensive operations. For instance, he insisted on holding the Elyna salient and other pointless operations. It also seemed that Guderian and ordered back and fro constantly, wasting time instead of full encirclement. I have not studied Hoth's campaigns yet but I assume the same was true for him. And of Hasso, I was merely stating it can be done and with proper managment by an inmutable OKW. Also, numerous times in defensive operations under von Manstein, von Kliest, Rauss(later in 1945) in the war proved a wearing down strategy would like not work well in the earlier times. By the time of these defensive battles it was far too late. I'd think it they had prepared better for the winter and make a greater followup offensive in 1942.