The what if thread -WW2-

[ddg2sailor]

I have been looking for a place to post this but its not easy to find the right group. I hope I found it here.

My area of interest is ww2. Being too young to have been there I have to rely on the history books and the media. There are endless books about ww2 and some even about this topic (Which I will get to in a moment).

Let me start by being clear. WW2 is over. Some of those we fought with are now friends and some are our best allies. And so and with due respect to all parties :

What would have happened if certain key events did not occur....

What would have happened if the USA had not gotten into WW2?

With the USA in the war.... (just to be clear).

Early in the war the government had been treating with the government of Russia (I hope I have this correctly) but at some point they stopped treating with russia and opened I believe was a third front , against Russia. What would have happened if Adolp Hitler hadnt turned against Russia?

I hope this dosent offend anyone. I am curious what people think. Il post my guess's later for surely thats all they can be.

Robert

 

[MontyB]

I have been looking for a place to post this but its not easy to find the right group. I hope I found it here.

My area of interest is ww2. Being too young to have been there I have to rely on the history books and the media. There are endless books about ww2 and some even about this topic (Which I will get to in a moment).

Let me start by being clear. WW2 is over. Some of those we fought with are now friends and some are our best allies. And so and with due respect to all parties :

What would have happened if certain key events did not occur....

What would have happened if the USA had not gotten into WW2?

With the USA in the war.... (just to be clear).


Early in the war the government had been treating with the government of Russia (I hope I have this correctly) but at some point they stopped treating with russia and opened I believe was a third front , against Russia. What would have happened if Adolp Hitler hadnt turned against Russia?

I hope this dosent offend anyone. I am curious what people think. Il post my guess's later for surely thats all they can be.

Robert

This is a tough "what if" because it is such an all encompassing scenario but I guess I will start things off...

- I think it unlikely that the USA would have avoided WW2 after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.

- However if we assume that the Japanese decided to take on British, French and Dutch possessions in Asia instead of attacking the USA I really don't know if the USA would have had an excuse to enter the war especially in the European theater.
I think however life for the British Commonwealth would have been very difficult without at least the material support of the USA.

In terms of the European theater I think very little would have changed without the USA, Britain could not have hoped to set foot on continental Europe but as long as Britain stayed in the war Russia would have eventually worn down the German army.

 

[Zastava-Arms]

In terms of the European theater I think very little would have changed without the USA, Britain could not have hoped to set foot on continental Europe but as long as Britain stayed in the war Russia would have eventually worn down the German army.

I agree, if the USA didnt enter the European theatre then the Red Army would have eventually have occupied all of Europe, and made the majority of the continent a Communist fiasco.

 

[BritinBritain]

Here's a “What if.”



What if the invading German Army in Russia acted as liberators of the Russian people saving them from the despotic rule of Stalin, then treating them in a far more humane way, could the outcome on the Eastern front be any different?

 

[Doppleganger]

In terms of the European theater I think very little would have changed without the USA, Britain could not have hoped to set foot on continental Europe but as long as Britain stayed in the war Russia would have eventually worn down the German army.

Does this include no Lend-Lease?

IMO 'what if' questions need to have tightly set boundaries, otherwise they can quickly spiral out of control.

To answer BritinAfrica's question I think it might have made quite a difference, not least because Germany would not have had to delay to capture Kiev and would have at least hundreds of thousands of auxiliary troops fighting on their side and causing confusion amongst the Soviets.

The problem with this 'what if' scenario is that it would mean that the Nazi regime would have to have totally different policies and ideologies than they did historically. Would such a Nazi regime then even be in Russia in the first place?

 

[Klibanophoros]

What if the Japanese managed to build a fleet of five hundred 'Yamoto' class battleships?

What if the germans followed suit with an improved bismarck class fleet of five hundred?

What would the Allied reponse be?

How would Naval warfare in WWII and in history be affected?

 

[ddg2sailor]

some very interesting comments. In truth would the nazi have been less nazi-like if they had elected to make some changes?

I find the concept of Germany the liberator's of Russia very interesting. While certainly the german people are capable of such things... I fear that hitler wasnt likly to want to liberate anyone.

Perhaps you are right.... this may be too open ended.. Certainly the events I outlined are unlikely , more so as they never transpired. But i my mind they were at the time at least something that may have happened... but diddnt.

Now the Idea of rapid increased fleet's for Germany and Japan are interesting but for the Japanese part its seems even more unlikly. Being an Island nation one has to wonder where they got the material to build the fleet they did have. But after dec 7 it seemed they would have lacked the resouces to build 500 battleships.

As for the german's. They may have had some of the resources to built up thier surface fleet but as far as I know thier capital ships and thier q ships were largely in theator at the start of the war and maybe some of the q ships were converted. Instead the german people in a move that may have won the war put all thier efforts into building U boats. It did of course take time to build even these... but they turned them out in record numbers and their deployment and subsequent actions was nothing short of heroic. In hind sight and from the wrong perspective.

As for lend lease... no reason it should'nt go on as indeed it did prior to the events of dec 7. But as the russians are either neutral or liberated by the Nazi's we wont send them any planes or ww1 era destroyers.

As for the Russians they fought briliantly to protect their homeland. They were taken by suprise but managed to make a decent accounting. I wont add another variable to this as some would say its already too confusing...

But dont the Russian people make great democrats? Gotta admire the way they took to it. Perhaps I misspeak here.... whatever it is that the russian system is evolving in to.. it seems to work for them.

I hope I managed to address all the points... Im not great fan of cut and past replies.

Robert

 

[MontyB]

Here's a “What if.”



What if the invading German Army in Russia acted as liberators of the Russian people saving them from the despotic rule of Stalin, then treating them in a far more humane way, could the outcome on the Eastern front be any different?

I don't think it would have been different, I certainly think they would have had a better chance at winning due to the reduction in partisan activity but they still would have had the same supply and manpower issues, there was an idea that if they had acted as liberators that they could have attracted large numbers of Russians to fight for them but I think that is a long shot as even if they did get the numbers bringing them up to a level where they could have operated as part of the German Army (rather than just cannon fodder and garrison troops) would have taken years.

If you read Manstein's Lost Victories he goes into this problem talking about the Romanians.

Does this include no Lend-Lease?

IMO 'what if' questions need to have tightly set boundaries, otherwise they can quickly spiral out of control.

To answer BritinAfrica's question I think it might have made quite a difference, not least because Germany would not have had to delay to capture Kiev and would have at least hundreds of thousands of auxiliary troops fighting on their side and causing confusion amongst the Soviets.

The problem with this 'what if' scenario is that it would mean that the Nazi regime would have to have totally different policies and ideologies than they did historically. Would such a Nazi regime then even be in Russia in the first place?

I agree and I think I pointed out that the question was a little bit too "all encompassing" for my liking, however I am not so sure I agree with the Russian auxiliaries argument.

 

[brillix]

If the USA didn't enter the European theatre then the Nazi will be focused on Eastern Front against The Red Army. WW2 won't ended at 1945 for sure.

 

[Chukpike]

Since this is what if, then why not the US getting Germany to declare war on Japan after December 7th, 1941. Agreeing to aid Germany against Russia. US taking all the western hemisphere, Germany taking Europe and Russia. US taking Japan and China.

With German Uboats not needed against American convoys, they could be used against Japan.

Should give Germany and the US time to divide up the rest of the world after that.

 

[MontyB]

If the USA didn't enter the European theatre then the Nazi will be focused on Eastern Front against The Red Army. WW2 won't ended at 1945 for sure.

Not as long as Britain stayed in the war.
The belief I have about the roles of Britian, Russia and USA is that if any one of them was removed from the conflict Germany would have achieved its goals.
- Remove Britain and the Commonwealth and hundreds of thousands of German troops, aircraft and materials are freed up for action on the Russian front.
- Remove Russia and you free up millions of German troops for action against the West.
- Remove the USA and both Britain and Russia are history by 1942, Britain strangled into submission via the Uboat blockade and Russia due to lack of materials supplied by Lend Lease.

Since this is what if, then why not the US getting Germany to declare war on Japan after December 7th, 1941. Agreeing to aid Germany against Russia. US taking all the western hemisphere, Germany taking Europe and Russia. US taking Japan and China.

With German Uboats not needed against American convoys, they could be used against Japan.

Should give Germany and the US time to divide up the rest of the world after that.

The only way this would work is if Japan had invaded the Hawaiian Islands on Dec 7th and captured Pearl Harbor, still the thought of thousands of Tigers rolling off US production lines is an interesting one.

 

[LeEnfield]

What if Germany had turned all its attention to North Africa, took the Suez Canal closing down the Med to any allied force and then taken oilfields in the Middle East. Turkey and Spain would have know doubt joined the Axis then Germany could have attacked Russia with its full Army from two different directions.

 

[George]

What if the Japanese managed to build a fleet of five hundred 'Yamoto' class battleships?

What if the germans followed suit with an improved bismarck class fleet of five hundred?

What would the Allied reponse be?

How would Naval warfare in WWII and in history be affected?

This is totally off the deep end. On a realistic bases some believe the US was close to maxed out @ the size fleet we had. Germany had a Continental view with emphasis on the Army. A better what if would be if they had completed 5-10 Bismarks, 5 Graf Zepplins & a properly structured Fleet that could have made an invasion of the UK @ least something other than a pipe dream. In the Pacific the Carriers ruled, so what if they finished several of the armored deck Carriers early in the War?
Next
What if the Ardense(sp?) Offensive had resulted in the surrender of Britian's Army & the reoccupation of northern France & the Low Contries? Would the UK be forced to quit? Would the US had to "occupy" the UK to continue the War(assuming the US Armys wern't captured in the event of a total reoccuption of France)?

 

[Doppleganger]

What if the Japanese managed to build a fleet of five hundred 'Yamoto' class battleships?

What if the germans followed suit with an improved bismarck class fleet of five hundred?

What would the Allied reponse be?

How would Naval warfare in WWII and in history be affected?

I think the above question is a perfect example of what can go wrong when asking for 'what-if' scenarios - they need to be realistic. No country in WW2 would have had the resources to build 500 modern battleships.

What if Martians landed in Germany in 1938 and gave Hitler technology from the future - would he win WW2??

 

[Guaporense]

Mobilization

What if Germany had mobilized for total war in january 1940 instead of february 1943?

I note that full mobilization takes some time, germany took 18 months to reach peak armament production in july 1944 (I think). In 1944 germany produced 19 thousand AFV, in 1940, less than 2 thousand. In 1944, 35 thousand planes, in 1940, less than 8 thousand.

I think that germany could have reached 1944 levels of armament production in 1941, given full mobilization. Having 15 thousand tanks for barbarossa instead of 3,600 would't help?

Also, the fact that in 1944 if germany wasn't bombed, armament production would have benn higher, for example, panther production would have been 7 thousand, instead of 3,800. Tiger II production would have been 1,500 instead of 400.

 

[Panzercracker]

What if Germany had mobilized for total war in january 1940 instead of february 1943?

Not possible, Germany was not USA, its industrial capacity and resources were limited, as was its population, instant total mobilization was not possible.

I note that full mobilization takes some time, germany took 18 months to reach peak armament production in july 1944 (I think). In 1944 germany produced 19 thousand AFV, in 1940, less than 2 thousand. In 1944, 35 thousand planes, in 1940, less than 8 thousand.

Thats because Keitel stramlined forced labor management, assembly lines were perfected and additional factories built, you needed a couple of years for that kind of thing so again its impossible to do by 40.

I think that germany could have reached 1944 levels of armament production in 1941, given full mobilization. Having 15 thousand tanks for barbarossa instead of 3,600 would't help?

Not a chance, they could maybe, maybe pull 5000 or 6000 vehicles at that time but they'd also give the Red Army time to finish the bulk of reforms, and the Red Army despite its incompetence when not caught pants down was a scary beast through numbers alone.

Also, the fact that in 1944 if germany wasn't bombed, armament production would have benn higher, for example, panther production would have been 7 thousand, instead of 3,800. Tiger II production would have been 1,500 instead of 400.

I seriously doubt that, you see German production capacity was ultimately limited not by the amount of factories but by natural resources, they didnt have enough rubber, steel etc.

For example the early Tigers would not be pierced by T-34/85 85mm gun even at point blank, later production could get damaged even by 75mm, thats how much German steel quality degraded over the war.

 

[Guaporense]

Not possible, Germany was not USA, its industrial capacity and resources were limited, as was its population, instant total mobilization was not possible.

Okay, so do you think that the 10-20% figures of 1944's armament production in 1940 was because germany didn't have the resources? Why they had them in 1944?

Do you think that they were mobilizing all resources they could in 1940? I cannot believe that.

Thats because Keitel stramlined forced labor management, assembly lines were perfected and additional factories built, you needed a couple of years for that kind of thing so again its impossible to do by 40.

All right, so lets see: in 1940 to 1942 AFV production increased from 1,800 to 4,200, then in 1943 it increased to 14,000 and 19,000 in 1944!

The jump from 1942 to 1943 and 1944 could have

Not a chance, they could maybe, maybe pull 5000 or 6000 vehicles at that time but they'd also give the Red Army time to finish the bulk of reforms, and the Red Army despite its incompetence when not caught pants down was a scary beast through numbers alone. I seriously doubt that, you see German production capacity was ultimately limited not by the amount of factories but by natural resources, they didnt have enough rubber, steel etc. For example the early Tigers would not be pierced by T-34/85 85mm gun even at point blank, later production could get damaged even by 75mm, thats how much German steel quality degraded over the war.

And their european empire in 1941 didn't have the resources? Germany had more resources in early 1941 than in mid 1944, and in the latter period armament production was 4 to 6 times larger (in terms of planes and AFV).

The point is that in the first 40 months of the war germany was not producing what they could. This proved fatal in the long run. The question is: What if they had mobilized after France and Britain declared war on them instead of mobilizing after losing Stalingrad?

 

[GreatestAlive]

What if the Germans developed a production capability far more superior then the USA at the time? What if the Germans didnt treat the Jews as the main reason why they had their troubles in the past, and the Jewish scientists that wouldve left Germany and worked on the Manhattan Project (ex. Albert Einstien), they wouldve stayed and helped Germany with the A-Bomb.

 

[lljadw]

Okay, so do you think that the 10-20% figures of 1944's armament production in 1940 was because germany didn't have the resources? Why they had them in 1944?

Do you think that they were mobilizing all resources they could in 1940? I cannot believe that.



All right, so lets see: in 1940 to 1942 AFV production increased from 1,800 to 4,200, then in 1943 it increased to 14,000 and 19,000 in 1944!

The jump from 1942 to 1943 and 1944 could have



And their european empire in 1941 didn't have the resources? Germany had more resources in early 1941 than in mid 1944, and in the latter period armament production was 4 to 6 times larger (in terms of planes and AFV).

The point is that in the first 40 months of the war germany was not producing what they could. This proved fatal in the long run. The question is: What if they had mobilized after France and Britain declared war on them instead of mobilizing after losing Stalingrad?

In the first 4O months of the war,Germany was producing wat it could and it layed the foundations for the production of 1943 :there was no Speer miracle,there was a Todt miracle :they did mobilize in 1939 ,building a factory is also mobilize ;they had no more resources in 1941 than in 1944 .If you mean resources =raw material in 1941 there was a blockade and in 1944 there was a blockade.

 

[lljadw]

no german surface fleet in 1939

A new post. What if the Germans had not wasted all that money on useless(iIMVHO:wink: )ships as Tirpitz,Bismarck,......... and used the money to build 200 u-Boats, could they have not starved the UK in 1940-1941 ? And why didn't they not it? Maube because Hitler gave Raeder all liberty and Raeder,not having learnt nor forgotten anything ,wanted a big fleet as in 1914(big fleet that was totally useless in WWI ,IMVHO :wink: )