World War II Questions.

[DemonArchangel]

1.) What if Rommel won at Al-Alamein?

2.) What if the Germans won at Stalingrad?

3.) What if the the Japanese hit the 3 carriers at Pearl Harbor?

[Accounting Troll]

1. The British would have been pushed out of the Middle East back towards India. The Germans would have been able to consolidate their hold over the Mediterranean, and Malta would have soon succumbed. There would have been no way the Allies could have invaded Italy without control of North Africa. The invasion of Italy was important because it forced Hitler to divert troops from the Russian front to Italy and to guard against further seabourne invasions, and it also meant that the Italians changed sides. In the alternative history, the British would have suffered considerable oil shortages, hampering their economy and the Russians would have taken far longer to grind Germany down - perhaps so long that Hitler would have had time to develop the bomb.

2. Again, the Russians would have taken far longer to grind down the Nazis and they may have lost access to Black Sea oil.

3. If the carriers were badly damaged or sunk, it would have taken the Americans longer to drive the Japanese back across the Pacific, but the end result would have been the same.

[TinCow]

I agree 100% with all of the above. The only thing I want to add is a potential further consequence of #1.

With the loss of the Suez, Britain would have had a serious problem maintaining the supply route to India. It is possible that this may have caused them to abandon this territory as well. Whether or not the Indians would have or could have fought off the Japanese on their own is beyond my knowledge. Either way, it would also have prolonged the Pacific war and probably would have made India's independance faster and easier after the end of the conflict.

[Odysseus]

Well, if the Japanese hit the carriers, that would given them a greater advantage in naval power, and the Americans probably wouldn't of been able to do the island hopping strategy as well. Now, if the Germans had won at Stalingrad, that would mean that they probably would get either sign a peace treaty with the Russians or march deeper into Russia. If Rommel had won, that means that Germany wouldn't have a oil shortage and that would've prolonged the war considerably.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

2. If the russians lost stalingrad all involved generals would have been summarily executed by Stalin out of sheer rage and the Germans would have been able to hold the volga and maybe take moscow. Maybe, if they had some generals out there that knew their right flank from their center figurativly speeking of course.

[Tribesman]

Question 3 (b) what if the Japanese had launched the 3rd wave at Pearl Harbour ?

If Rommel had won at Alamein it would have just meant another battle in Egypt , I don't think he had the forces or supplies (even if he could shorten the supply line by gaining ports in working condition) to push Britain out of the middle east , Montgomery was good at defensive battles . The Allied landings in the West would have been to much of a threat to the over extended German/Italian forces . Without neutralising Malta or Gibraltar the N. African campaign was doomed to failure .

Stalingrad was a decisive factor , but the general outcome would not have been much different , the Germans tried too much over too wide an area to succeed , the failure to sieze Leningrad put a huge drain on manpower and the failure to secure the rear areas meant a huge diversion of resources and massive delays in supplying the front lines .

The failure to destroy the Pacific carriers was a disaster , without these carriers Japanese expansion and consolidation of their objectives could have been achieved . But they had no chance of winning the war outright , their only hope was a negotiated peace from a position of strength .

[DemonArchangel]

IMO, if the russians lost at Stalingrad, Hitler could afford send some men/tanks/troops to reinforce the Germans already at Lenningrad. Either that, or he could send some men to north africa to reinforce Rommel.

[Divine Wind]

All Stalingrad was, was a personal duel between Hitler and Stalin and it really did not hold much strategic value to either side. More of a morale booster for the troops and the leaders egos. At this time during the war Germany couldnt replace lost materials or men, so even if they had of won, with Russia being so versitile and huge in resources im sure they would still have achieved victory. Though it may have taken a little longer.

I doubt that even if the germans had won at Stalingrad that Hitler would of sent those extra troops to Leningrad as at the time Army Group North (which was the army laying siege to Leningrad) was considered the weakest and worst led. When twenty fresh divisions arrived from Germany Army group north recieved one division and this was the smallest and had the least number of armoured units. This was all down to Finland as Hitler expected them to join the siege of Leningrad, however they decided not too as they feared the russian reprisals if the tide of the war was to turn. That could of been crucial too, as the Finnish had at the time brilliant infantry who had already crushed a Russian invasion and were armed with some excellent german equipment. :charge:

[Tribesman]

and were armed with some excellent german equipment.
The Finns had excellent infantry , but they didn't have much in the way of German equipment at that stage of the war .
The German did supply a lot of mines , towed artillery pieces (mainly captured stocks) and 1000 old machine guns . The most effective weapons the Germans supplied were the 59 StugIIIs and the 75mmPAK-40 .
Panzerfaust/shreks were not supplied until 1944 and the tanks 15 Pz.IV didn,t arrive until just before the Finns changed sides .
Finland effectively ceased offensive actions once it had regained its lost territory from the Winter War .

[Quietus]

The Germans were simply spread too thin. And don't forget the winters. If the Soviet collapsed on the other hand, then that's another story.

Problem is Hitler hates slavs. Ukraine for example saw them as liberators from the Russian empire, but Hitler saw them as inferior. How are they supposed to expect popular support for that? LOL ~:eek:

[TexRoadkill]

In regards to #2

There is no way the Germans ever could have won at Stalingrad. They just didn't have the numbers in men, vehicles and supply. There was no decisive battle to win. It was a long (2 year?) war of attrition and the Russians had more men to lose. Where Hitler screwed up was by not retreating. He allowed the entire eastern army to be surrounded, starved and captured.

If Hitler had pulled back it would probably have delayed the Russian and possibly the Western advances since he would have had more resources to use there but I doubt it would have really changed the final outcome. If he had never broken his treaty with Stalin in the first place then things could have been much different. Hitler would have had that much more strength to use in Africa and Europe.

[Del Arroyo]

Better question might be-- what if Hitler had focused that first year's offensive and taken Moscow, decapitating the Russian state?

Russia was very weak when she was attacked and came very close to collapsing. Her vast resources did not ENSURE her victory, they BARELY saved her from defeat.

..

If the Japanese had either caught our carriers in Pearl or won the battle of Midway, we probably would have sued for peace.

It would have set them up for future victories which could have undermined our will to pursue the war.

One thing's for sure-- we would've had to start from Australia in 1944, instead of already being half-way up Asian Islands. It would have taken alot longer at least, and they possibly could have held us off to a negotiated peace.

DA

[TinCow]

Better question might be-- what if Hitler had focused that first year's offensive and taken Moscow, decapitating the Russian state?

Russia was very weak when she was attacked and came very close to collapsing. Her vast resources did not ENSURE her victory, they BARELY saved her from defeat.

I don't think the capture of Moscow would have changed the result too much. Moscow's significance was as a transport hub and as a symbol. By that point in the war, almost all Soviet industry and production had been evacuated behind the Urals. Capturing Moscow would have done very little to affect production, except to temporarily slow transport of raw materials until new rail lines were built. Assuming Stalin didn't remain in Moscow and die (highly unlikely), his regime would not even have collapsed. His control by that point was too strong and all of the USSR was united behind his leadership against the Germans.

The end result would have been a longer war. The Soviets would have had to recapture Moscow with the eastern divisions instead of diverting them to the northern and southern fronts. Moscow would have been the absolute most critical area because reinforcing the other fronts was vastly more difficult without it. As such the Germans would have had temporary gains in both north and south, probably capturing Leningrad as well. Eventually though, the weight of the Soviet armies would still have ground the Germans down. The delay in the Soviet push west would have had three further effects. First, the US and Britain would have encountered stiffer resistance during the invasion. Second, extension of the war into 1946 would have resulted in the atomic bomb being used against Germany rather than Japan. Third, the American and British forces would have advanced farther into Germany than they did historically. This would have resulted in a smaller Communist Bloc in Eastern Europe after the war and dramatically changed post-war situation. With all German science in Allied hands (rather than evenly divided), the Cold War would have been much shorter and the US would probably have been the first into space.

[English assassin]

(1) The first battle of el Alamein? Not much, fall back to Suez, hold them there. The real crunch would have been if they had got access to the Iraqi oil fields but the logistics would have been impossible for Rommel to do that.

For the second the Germans were on the defensive so, stalemate if they won. The allied landing in Tuniisa was about a month later so the end result would be the same.

(2) Nothing. Maybe the war would have lasted three months more.

(3) Nothing much. USA GDP was ten times Japan's, her industrial capacity rather more. Continental USA was plainly invulnerable from invasion no matter what, and in any case the japanese had no ineterst in invasion. The USA was always going to beat Japan easily, which was no doubt why Roosevelt agreed to "germany first".

You'd have lost Hawaii for a while at worst.

[Del Arroyo]

All of Russia's industry was evacuated within 5 months of the start of the war? I don't see how that could be possible.

And the weight of Russia's armies would have done absolutely nothing for her if things had been just a little bit different. They did absolutely nothing for her in the summer of '41-- literally millions were surrounded and captured. Stalin killed off most of his best generals and officers in the years leading up to war and didn't start listening to any of their advice until 1943-- there were many, many more Russian setbacks all through 1942 and with Moscow down the Germans could very concievably had pulled it off.

Hitler was not far wrong in thinking the Soviets were near collapse-- they absolutely were, and while it was not *smart* to attack in 1941 it was certainly not impossible for the Germans to win.

DA

[TinCow]

All of Russia's industry was evacuated within 5 months of the start of the war? I don't see how that could be possible.

And the weight of Russia's armies would have done absolutely nothing for her if things had been just a little bit different. They did absolutely nothing for her in the summer of '41-- literally millions were surrounded and captured. Stalin killed off most of his best generals and officers in the years leading up to war and didn't start listening to any of their advice until 1943-- there were many, many more Russian setbacks all through 1942 and with Moscow down the Germans could very concievably had pulled it off.

Hitler was not far wrong in thinking the Soviets were near collapse-- they absolutely were, and while it was not *smart* to attack in 1941 it was certainly not impossible for the Germans to win.

DA

I completely disagree. The Soviet industrial evacuation began withing DAYS of the German invasion. My detailed reference materials are at home, but a cursory search of the internet turned up the following:

"One factory, evacuated on 9th August, was relocated in the Urals on the 6th September and was in full production again by 24th September. From Kiev alone 197 major industrial plants were evacuated in just two months. Altogether, between July and November 1941, 1,523 industrial enterprises, including 1,360 large armament plants, were moved to the east."

What exactly makes you think that the Germans could have "pulled it off"? The loss of Moscow would not have changed the fact that the Soviets had a vast production and manpower advantage over the Germans. Even if Leningrad, Stalingrad and Moscow had all fallen, the Soviets would still have won eventually. The Germans didn't take the war seriously in the beginning. Germany only fully mobilized her economy for war in 1944. Hitler had actually REDUCED the size of the army after the fall of France. As it stood in 1941, Germanys simply did not have the resources to conquer and occupy enough of Russia to cause a Soviet collapse.

[Del Arroyo]

Wouldn't there have been ANY loss of political infrastructure with the capture of Moscow?

And I can say with certainty that Soviet numbers advantage was NOT a guarantee of victory-- it obviously wasn't in 1941, and still wasn't in 1942. Considering that in the end it was a 20 to 1 numbers advantage and few critical cracks that finally got the Germans running, and that the Russians STILL lost two or three men for every hopelessly outnumbered German they killed all the way back to Berlin, and in the siege of Berlin lost FIVE to one...

...if the balance had been a little different I can definitely see Germany winning. The loss of morale and political infrastructure, combined with improved Supply that would have resulted from the capture of Moscow, could have kept up the German victories and minimized their losses enough for them to hold the line at the Volga. You have to remember-- the Germans had no problem defeating Russian armies that were only, say, 5 times as large as theirs, and it was (according to many historians) largely the incredible strategic overreach and needless diffusion of offensive energy which cost the Germans the war. If they'd stayed out of Kursk, if they'd kept their forces together, if they'd concentrated their offensives and kept ample reserves for defense, they could have kept the Russians tied up for years and possibly have held them off all together.

Remember that the Germans were STILL advancing, on MULTIPLE fronts until the end of 1942.

And without the Eastern Front losses, Germany could possibly have defeated us at D-Day or at least whipped us in the Battle of the Bulge. I agree with you that we would probably have had to use the Bomb.

DA

[TinCow]

Wouldn't there have been ANY loss of political infrastructure with the capture of Moscow?

The Soviet government was evacuated to Kuybyshev (Samara) in October 1941, well before the Germans could ever have hoped to have captured it. Stalin remained there only as a symbol, the entire Soviet government operated from Kuybyshev until 1943. As such, there most certainly would not have been a loss of political infrastructure.


And I can say with certainty that Soviet numbers advantage was NOT a guarantee of victory-- it obviously wasn't in 1941, and still wasn't in 1942. Considering that in the end it was a 20 to 1 numbers advantage and few critical cracks that finally got the Germans running, and that the Russians STILL lost two or three men for every hopelessly outnumbered German they killed all the way back to Berlin, and in the siege of Berlin lost FIVE to one...

It wasn't so much the Soviet population that gave them the advantage as it was the lack of willingness on the part of Germany to fight in a similar manner. Germany relied entirely on superior training and equipment to deal with the larger Soviet manpower. Yet the Soviet T-34 was far superior 1 on 1 to any German tank up until the Panther. Even against the Panther and Tiger, it was a superior vehicle because it could be produced in vastly larger numbers. The Soviets produced, in 1942 alone, almost DOUBLE the production of Panthers, Jagdpanthers, Tiger Is, Tiger IIs, and Jagdtigers combined for the entire war.

It wasn't so much the manpower superiority as the vast equipment superiority. By 1942-43, the Germans were not only heavily outnumbered, but often had poorer equipment. Their superior training and leadership (in general) certainly had a great impact, but the idea that they were technologically superior by that time was largely a myth.

As for the casualty ratio... the number of casualties inflicted has nothing to do with victory. The key is the number of casualties each side is capable of sustaining. Despite the horrendous losses the Soviets suffered during WW2, they could have taken double that number and still kept fighting. The Soviets simply had a willingness to sacrifice soldiers that the Germans did not have.



You have to remember-- the Germans had no problem defeating Russian armies that were only, say, 5 times as large as theirs, and it was (according to many historians) largely the incredible strategic overreach and needless diffusion of offensive energy which cost the Germans the war. If they'd stayed out of Kursk, if they'd kept their forces together, if they'd concentrated their offensives and kept ample reserves for defense, they could have kept the Russians tied up for years and possibly have held them off all together.

Remember that the Germans were STILL advancing, on MULTIPLE fronts until the end of 1942.

The Soviet Army at the start of Barbarossa in 1941 was not the same force that the Germans faced by the end of 1942. There was a VAST restructuring of both the Army and the Air Force, resulting in an incredibly improved command and control structure. The Soviet Armies learned from their mistakes very, very well and this is what enabled the turnaround in 1942.

Even if Moscow had been captured, none of these things would have changed. The Soviet production superiority would still have existed. The Soviet restructuring of the armed forces would still have occurred. The highly skilled Eastern divisions would still have arrived to reinforce the front. As for morale... not really an issue. By late 1941 the Soviets understood it was a fight for their very survival. Morale doesn't play much of a factor when you have no choice but fight or die (by German or Soviet guns).

[Del Arroyo]

You are correct in that the Soviets were motivated to fight, but consider this: morale is not all one quantity. There is a difference between fighting for fear and fighting for pride. Fear can push you through the motions, but to fight for pride is to fight with confidence.

No matter how much of the former the Russians had, continuing German victories would have prevented them from gaining the latter. This alone would have affected their fighting ability. And I will continue to assert that different circumstances could have tipped the strategic balance toward the Germans-- just look at how much havoc they were STILL able to wreak in the winter of '44!

At the very least, if Hitler had allowed for an early withdrawal and the creation of a strong defensive line closer to Europe, I believe the Russians could have been held off. While you are right that losses do not determine victory, they are an indication of tactical advantage. Look at the losses the Russians took, even with all of Hitler's idiotic strategic decisions!

It is my opinion that while the invasion of Russia was certainly not advisable, the situation was at the very least salvageable.

..

But whatever. We do at least agree that the Germans would probably have won if they had not invaded Russia, Yes or No? ~:joker:

DA

[DemonArchangel]

No, the germans wouldn't have won if they didn't invade russia, because the Americans would just a-bomb the nazis to death. I think if my scenarios came true, Europeans would still be suffering from the effects of radiation today.

The Nazis could simply advance into the oil rich areas of the caucaus region of russia, and also, quickly capture moscow, and set up airfields to bomb the rail links between the urals and russia. It's mighty hard to haul tons of weapons and supplies by truck and horse. And considering German airplanes were much better than soviet ones, they could achieve air superiority quickly and use Stukas to take out rail links and supply lines to the factories, while exposing the urals to massive bombardment.

[Del Arroyo]

But that is the question-- would we have used the Bomb in Europe?

We didn't have too much problem using it on those half-ape yellow Japs, but would we have nuked the Germans if the alternative were negotiated peace? Maybe. I think it is an interesting question.

DA

[TinCow]

You are correct in that the Soviets were motivated to fight, but consider this: morale is not all one quantity. There is a difference between fighting for fear and fighting for pride. Fear can push you through the motions, but to fight for pride is to fight with confidence.

No matter how much of the former the Russians had, continuing German victories would have prevented them from gaining the latter. This alone would have affected their fighting ability. And I will continue to assert that different circumstances could have tipped the strategic balance toward the Germans-- just look at how much havoc they were STILL able to wreak in the winter of '44!

At the very least, if Hitler had allowed for an early withdrawal and the creation of a strong defensive line closer to Europe, I believe the Russians could have been held off. While you are right that losses do not determine victory, they are an indication of tactical advantage. Look at the losses the Russians took, even with all of Hitler's idiotic strategic decisions!

It is my opinion that while the invasion of Russia was certainly not advisable, the situation was at the very least salvageable.

..

But whatever. We do at least agree that the Germans would probably have won if they had not invaded Russia, Yes or No? ~:joker:

DA

I'll agree with most of that. Despite my claims, taking Moscow would have certainly been a shock to the Soviets. From a political/morale aspect (which is where I think it would have had the greatest effect), they could have survived its loss in 1942, but there is a possibility this would not have been true in 1941. Perhaps its fall within 6 months of the invasion would have been one loss too many and Stalin would have been assassinated/overthrown.

If Germany had not invaded Russia, they certainly could have defeated Britain and the United States eventually. A heavy concentration on naval development would have starved Britain into surrender, no invasion would ever have been necessary. Without Britain as an advanced base, the US would not have been able to supply the forces necessary to challenge Germany in Europe. At the same time, the question must then be asked... would the Soviets have taken the initiative and attacked Germany? Many people think so, and I have no answer to that one.

[TinCow]

But that is the question-- would we have used the Bomb in Europe?

We didn't have too much problem using it on those half-ape yellow Japs, but would we have nuked the Germans if the alternative were negotiated peace? Maybe. I think it is an interesting question.

DA

It is beyond dispute that the A-bomb was originally developed for use against Germany. A draft target list was even drawn up at one point, though some people dispute its authenticity.

[edit] Oops, missed a few posts.

Assuming Germany does not attack Russia, I doubt the US would have used the A-bomb in Europe. This would be mainly because (as I stated above) they would have lacked Britain as an advanced base. While the US could certainly have developed a transatlantic bomber force, without close European bases from which to receive fighter support, they would have been massacred. You can't drop a nuke in WW2 unless you have air superiority. There is no way for the US to achieve this without Britain. Thus I would have to say, no nuke in Europe.

[DemonArchangel]

Well, the americans could just wipe the german navy out after the war in the pacific was complete, then of course, they could achieve air superiority with their carriers.

[Tribesman]

then of course, they could achieve air superiority with their carriers.
Would you like to compare the performance of land based fighters with those of carrier based fighters ?
You can't drop a nuke in WW2 unless you have air superiority.
Or an advanced missile program

[DemonArchangel]

Well, slowly, america could just simply flood germany with nuke armed planes unitl eventually, the germans just get nuked to death despite massive american losses.

[lonewolf371]

Hehe, well I guess we could have A-bombed North Africa first, then, Italy, and then gone for Germany. Island hopping strategy... without the islands.

[DemonArchangel]

And then, what? the populace of europe suffers horribly from radiation?

[Demon of Light]

And then, what? the populace of europe suffers horribly from radiation?


That would at least have the effect of leaving fewer Europeans in place to hate Americans 60 years later...

Of course, nuking Europe would probably have hastened that attitude.

(joke)

In all seriousness, it should be noted that no one in a position of power had any idea would would happen if they dropped a nuke. They didn't really understand radiation, fallout or any of the rest. They hoped they'd just get a big boom with enough damage and corpses to force the bad guys into surrender. Even amongst the scientists, there were bets being made over the possibility of causing a chain reaction after splitting the atom and vaporizing the planet in the process. Given the lack of understanding of the consequences, they might have just bombed the enemy into submission in Europe had he not surrendered first. That would have been one hell of a mess.

[TinCow]

Hehe, well I guess we could have A-bombed North Africa first, then, Italy, and then gone for Germany. Island hopping strategy... without the islands.

Not possible, the US didn't have enough of a stockpile. Total production for 1945 was 6 bomb, with another 5 produced in 1946. A further 21 were produced in 1947, but it wasn't until 1948 that the US was able to start producing them in large numbers. Keep in mind that a-bombs could not be transported via carrier aircraft because they were too heavy. Ground based bombers would have to be used. Without a land base somewhere in Europe or North Africa, this simply wouldn't have been possible.

Once Germany had total control of Europe, they would have flooded the seas with U-Boats and the Kriegsmarine. It would have been nearly impossible to making a transatlantic invasion. Even if the invasion fleet survived relatively intact to land, its supply lines would be very vulnerable. If Germany had defeated Britain and was not at war with the Soviets, I suspect the US and Germany would have entered into a Cold War of their own. The US would probably have tried to play the Soviets and Germans off against one another, hoping for an eventual conflict. In such a conflict, I expect they would even have backed Germany.