Another what if about WWII

[viper37]

Assuming Germany would have won WWII against the Allies (let's assume Russia would still be fighting), how long do you think this country could have survived without falling on itselves?

For myself, I'd say withint 10-15 years. Once Hitler would be dead, his close supporter would be fighting among themselves and Germany would end up being divided like it was in the EU period.

What do you think?

P.S. I know it has no historical value, but just for the fun..

 

[unmerged(4876)]

1000 years .

No, really, it would not last very long, as everyone would try to beak away. Yugos, France, Russia..., but the Germans did have a 6 mil. strong army and a large secret police.

Maybe a Cold War w/Germany and U.S. as rivals... A victor Nazi Germany shares some connections w/Soviets, large army, just won a war, has many different ethnic groups wanting to go their own way... Nazi Germany of cource, never fully upgraded their industrial capasity to full mil., but the connections are there.

Germany, IMO, would fall like Russia did, once a huge power, torn apart from the sepreatists, dying a slow and painfull coruption-filled economic death...

 

[Gjakoll]

To speculate about the eventual outcome if Germany 'won', we would have to know more about how she won. Did she reach a negotiated settlement w/ Britain after the fall of France (as came frightenlingly close to happening, if Halifax had replaced Chamberlin instead of Churchill), did Hitler have an attack of temporary sanity and NOT DoW the USA in Dec. 1941, setting up a 1942 victory in Russia? Did the United Nations fall apart and reach separate peaces with Germany? I think each of these scenarios would result in a different answer.

 

[unmerged(592)]

the insane thing is Japan DOWing USA when they could get oil in short time attacking British/French colonies, not Germany DOWing the USA who were effectively in war anyway.

 

[viper37]

Let's speculate that England has surrendered after losing the Battle of Britain and his now a "vassal" of Germany, sort of like Vichy's France. We are now circa 1945-1946, and the USA is now at peace with Germany (white peace, cold war, indirect military support to resistance movements in Great Britain). USA and Japan are still fighting, the nukes aren't there yet, efforts from all side has been unsuccesfull as of this time (let's leave them out of the scenario).

War is just outside Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad, but the Germans do occupy these cities and are in partial control of the situation (the cities look like today's Palestine)

And a little sidenote here: notwithstanding the above assumption, in the real scenarion of 1941-1942, if Germany had succesfully invaded and controlled Russia's three principal cities, do you think Russia would have collapsed? I think not, but I unfortunately don't have solid facts to prove my theory.

Ok, do you have enough info to speculate now?

 

[Agelastus]

Originally posted by SoleSurvivor
the insane thing is Japan DOWing USA when they could get oil in short time attacking British/French colonies, not Germany DOWing the USA who were effectively in war anyway.

With the result that the USA would have DOWed them (Japan) )They picked the wrong opening move, but mostly for the right reasons.

As to the Reich's long term stability, still thinking.........

Still, the lack of moral qualms could only have been an asset in holding down a hostile population, although not in conciliating it. Anyone ever read any of S M Stirling's Draka books, science-fiction, but with a similar scenario to this "what if"?

 

[Gjakoll]

Well, based on your assumptions, I'd say Germany has about 3 years left before the soviets roll over them. I'm a firm believer that EVEN IF Germany was fighting the Soviet Union alone, they couldn't have beaten them. Hitler was too much of a micro-manager to allow the Wehrmacht to fight to its best, and even if he'd left them alone, Russia is just too big to effectively invade. The BEST the Germans could've done is a 1918-type Treaty of Brest-Litovsk to stop the USSR, and with Hitler's determination to exterminate the Slavs, that wouldn't have happened.

Plus, I can certainly imagine that the USA, if they were supporting the resistance, would've been shipping all sorts of material into Vladivostok to assist the Russians. If that happened, then there is absolutely no way Germany could overcome the USSR that has american assistance.

So, I believe, based on your postulate, that eventually the USSR would have rolled all the way to the Bay of Biscay, probably by 1950, but would've been so exhausted from the fight that the US, having crushed the Japanese Empire, would be the only superpower in the post-war era. With the USSR suffering a late 1980's economic meltdown in the late 50's/early 60's.

Of course, I could be wrong....

 

[unmerged(592)]

I think FDR would have a hard time DOWing anyone in 1941. If the situation is all cleared before he gets enough support I don't see how the US people is willing to engage in a war that is already over. It would mean to attack an undistracted and strengthened enemy who can't and won't harm the US anyway.

 

[Agelastus]

Originally posted by SoleSurvivor
I think FDR would have a hard time DOWing anyone in 1941. If the situation is all cleared before he gets enough support I don't see how the US people is willing to engage in a war that is already over. It would mean to attack an undistracted and strengthened enemy who can't and won't harm the US anyway.

January-February 1942 and after, the probability of Roosevelt successfully pushing a DOW on Japan approaches 1 (certainty.) You underestimate the hardening of American public opinion in the last months of 1941, let alone Roosevelt's entire policy since 1939. Plus the influence of the "China card" in US politics for fifty years. Reluctance is not the same as unwillingness.

 

[unmerged(5070)]

Originally posted by SoleSurvivor
the insane thing is Japan DOWing USA when they could get oil in short time attacking British/French colonies, not Germany DOWing the USA who were effectively in war anyway.

I think attacking the USSR from the east would be an even better move of Japan. I don't think Russia would have survided a two fronts war.

 

[viper37]

Originally posted by De Boesselaere


I think attacking the USSR from the east would be an even better move of Japan. I don't think Russia would have survided a two fronts war.

I always wondered if there was a valid reason for Japan to not DoW Russia? (I know they had a peace treaty, but still, even for the Japanese, it doesn't look to me as a 'valid' reason not to attack...; of course, if they had their mind set on on USA since the 1930s...)

 

[grumbler]

Originally posted by viper37
I always wondered if there was a valid reason for Japan to not DoW Russia? (I know they had a peace treaty, but still, even for the Japanese, it doesn't look to me as a 'valid' reason not to attack...; of course, if they had their mind set on on USA since the 1930s...)

The reason is that the japanese were terrified of a war with the USSR. Nomanhan had taught them that they would lose a land war with even just the Asiatic portion of the Red Army, lose it badly and quickly. They were not at all prepared, emotionally of industrially, to take advantage of the German invasion of Russia. By June, 1941 the Japanese Army's humiliating loss to the Soviets had put the IJN faction firmly in control of strategy, and the die had been cast for the "Southern Adventure" rather than the "Northern Adventure."

The Japanese would have been hopelessly compromised strategically if they went to war in Malaya and the DEI and the Philippines had suddenly turned hostile in their rear. So long as the PI were even potentially hostile, they cut the oil routes to the DEI. I think the japanese weighed their chances in going to war, and weighed them about as accurately as they could. It was always a gamble, but at least the plan they eventually put into action gave them the perception that they had a chance to win!

 

[unmerged(4876)]

Khalin-Gol.

After the Japps lost this battle in the 30's, they decided not to attack Russia again; it was too powerfull. So they messed with us, ironicly probably more devestating (read, nukes).

Anyhow, Germany might have won against Russia if:

Control of the the three major cities, Leningrad, Stalingrad, Moscow

Control of Murmank: no more lend-lease

No Dow on US: no US in war

Control of major industrial center: Gorkiy or someting like that, which produced much of the sovyes industrial stuff.

Controll of the Causasus: oil! Wohoo! The Germans needed the stuff, badly. Tigers and Panthers gobble up the stuff faster than you can say: pnomonoultramicrospocicsillicovolcanoneosis (disease coal miners get)

Even then, if Stalin was stubborn enough, the war might have dragged on into the Urals. It's ironic that in WWI, puting Lenin into Russia, and thus winning the war on that front, was what made them lose next time. Stalin's industrial "reforms" were what stopped the Germans in the first place, even if some if his decisions were a bit "stupid." (i.e. before Barbarossa, Stalin was convinced by one of his ministers that the new German tanks were way powerfull, and he approved a measure to stop production of 47 mm. AT gun for a 100 mm. AT gun.)

 

[unmerged(592)]

Japan badly lacked adequate tanks and the means to produce them in numbers and keep supplied over the sea. A pearl like raid on soviet garrisons in late 1941 when they started to send forces to europe followed by an entrenched defense might be costly to the USSR but it isn't a lethal strike if it can't either a)gain them control of critical resources or b) deprive the soviets of the strategic positions and means of logistics to operate effeiciently in this area c) somehow influences the winter offensive. In this scenario Japan can only be a minor, maybe more important than Italy but still not as potent as Germany. By the winter of 1941 most soviet war production came from the Ural region. There were still important industrial sites at Leningrad (that weren't of any use) Moscow/Gorki, Wolgograd (back then called Stalingrad) and minors elsewhere.

 

[Doomdark]

Ah, but wouldn't the whole point of a Japanese attack on the USSR have been to tie up Soviet troops; not to actually drive them back? Wouldn't the Japanese have been safe in assuming that Germany, not Japan, would decide the outcome of this war?

If Stalin had not been able to draw on his Siberian divisions in late 1941 the Germans may well have taken Moscow, and anything similar to the Stalingrad encirclement would have been very difficult to accomplish.

Compared to opening a limited support front against the USSR, the attack on Pearl Harbour seems quite insane. Of course, winning a war against the USSR might not have seemed very important to the Japanese. Still, it makes you wonder whether the Axis powers made any common plans at all...

 

[unmerged(592)]

in short: no, they didn't

 

[unmerged(528)]

The Japanese were time and again appalled by the fact the Hitler consequently did the opposite of what he told them he would....

Earlier in the war, Japan might have been persuaded to attack the USSR. But when the German attack came, the Japs were allready determined not to do it and could not secure the oil and resources they needed unless they struck south. Such an action would increase tension toward the US eventually bringing them into the war, spelling disaster for the inferior Japenese navy. Since they needed oil and getting it would mean war with the US, the Japs decided to use their only hope for a victory in the pacific - a preemptive strike....we all know the result.

 

[unmerged(5384)]

A few points on Japan vs Russia/US:

1) As pointed out, after tactical defeats in outer Mongolia in 1939, Japan was quite wary of clashing with Russia on land thereafter. Japan was probably quite aware of her deficiencies in armor and heavy artillery development, crucial cogs in fighting successfully against Russia.

2) Also, given the unpreparedness of German forces for the winter and their exhaustion after Vyazma/Bryansk, it's not certain that Moscow would have fallen even if the Siberians had not arrived. Even in good weather, the Germans could barely take Stalingrad. Street fighting in freezing weather in Moscow would have caused even worse casualties and made a Russian counterattack easier.

3) Japan was not counting on actually defeating the US - it hoped to reach a favorable settlement after delivering a series of heavy defeats on the US and her allies, which it did. The problem was of course, misreading the US response to go all the way to Tokyo after what the IJN did to Pearl. Still, it would have been interesting if Japan had just attacked non-US colonies in Asia. FDR would have had great difficulties getting Congress to doW Japan in 1941-2.

 

[viper37]

Originally posted by SoleSurvivor
in short: no, they didn't

As much as Japan and Germany are concerned, I knew they wasn't any coordination (wich makes me wonder why they did ally at all?).

But what about the Italians? Once the war started and Italy was getting heavy losses, I know Hitler didn't trust them too much, but before the war, were they real allies? I mean, did they prepare together, in advance, the invasion of France? The attack on GB and its colonies?

I know a few things about Hitler's visit in Italy, and Mussolini's in Germany, but I don't have that much details on war plans...

 

[Agelastus]

Originally posted by viper37
But what about the Italians? Once the war started and Italy was getting heavy losses, I know Hitler didn't trust them too much, but before the war, were they real allies? I mean, did they prepare together, in advance, the invasion of France? The attack on GB and its colonies?

In a word.......NO.

Mussolini only entered the war when France looked certain to go down in 1940-the Italian offensive was a preview of what was to come-six French divisions holding an attack by twenty-four Italian and barely giving an inch of ground. Mussolini's invasion of Greece was meant to take some of the limelight from Hitler-Hitler was informed of it the day it started, much to his surprise and chagrin (given his by-now well founded distrust of Italian arms.) The consequences of that little fiasco for the Axis are still being debated to this day.