What would it have taken for the Axis powers to win the war, and for Germany to completely take over Europe?
Would you have to erase the fact that the US created and used the atomic bomb in order to see a victory for the Axis powers, or could they still have won the war even with the US' use of nuclear weapons?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.m.wikipedia.org
ibiblio.org
www2.warwick.ac.uk
sci-hub.cc
jmss.org
en.wikipedia.org
historyofwar.org
twitter.com
What would it have taken for the Axis powers to win the war, and for Germany to completely take over Europe?
Maintain the non-agression pact with the Soviets.
Sorry Stormfag, no amount of what ifs and if thens will make you losers relevant
Magic. Alien technology
>Would you have to erase the fact that the US created and used the atomic bomb in order to see a victory for the Axis powers, or could they still have won the war even with the US' use of nuclear weapons?
I mean, theoretically, you could see the Axis winning if the U.S. decides the game isn't worth the candle. Atomic weapons are really only a fraction of this. The U.S. had roughly 4 times the pre-war GDP of Germany, and a massively higher population. It is unlikely that Germany can win a total and open war against the U.S. at all, even if America is restricted to conventional weaponry.
You'd have to change so much that it really wouldn't resemble our WW2 at all. The Axis was simply outmatched right from the start. The huge disparity in resources and industry would make an Allied victory inevitable. The only chance they would have to possibly win would be by changing who their allies and enemies were, for instance, allying with the soviet union. en.m.wikipedia.org
Would the US have called for peace had Nazi Germany taken complete control over Europe and the United Kingdom? Assuming the Soviet Union stuck with them on the pact and didn't invade the shit out of Nazi Germany.
Since the two are so far away from each other, it would take a lot of resources to be deploying their forces in each other's territory, and it would probably consist mostly of aerial combat/bombings.
Some completely unhistoric scenarios like civil wars in the USSR or US? If they had had a non-retarded ideology they could have made more reasonable alliances(like an anti-USSR pact with UK/France/Poland or an anti-UK pact with USSR, in a good faith), but they wouldn't have been Nazis in this case.
>Assuming the Soviet Union stuck with them on the pact and didn't invade the shit out of Nazi Germany.
Literally impossible unless the Soviet Union is ruled by not-Stalin-man.
>Would the US have called for peace had Nazi Germany taken complete control over Europe and the United Kingdom?
Probably not. Even in 1941, before Pearl Harbor, the substantive Gallup polling comes to conclusions that
>We hate Germany
>We want Germany to lose the war
>We think that if Germany does win the war, they'll start undermining us, if they're not doing it already
>But we think Britain is going to win the war, so it's not necessary to get involved just yet.
>We don't want war, but we do want an increase in military spending.
ibiblio.org
If anything, greater German successes are likely to spur things on.
>Since the two are so far away from each other, it would take a lot of resources to be deploying their forces in each other's territory, and it would probably consist mostly of aerial combat/bombings.
You saw the mounting of invasions like Torch (let alone the Pacific scale invasions) from hundreds to even thousands of miles at a stretch. It would have to be daisy chained, but ti would be done, probably from Canada to Greenland to Iceland to the UK proper to the mainland.
>Literally impossible unless the Soviet Union is ruled by not-Stalin-man.
Not him, but there is no real evidence that Stalin was planning on breaking the pact or invading Germany. He preferred his wars against small, helpless opponents.
Nazis never had a chance. Japan never had a chance. Italy was a joke anyway. Nothing can change this.
The only way for Germany to take over Europe is by being super peaceful. Use trade and diplomacy. Become friend with France and everyone else. Basically do what Germans did after failing in both world wars.
I don't think it was as unrealistic and impossible as some here say, although only if someone with at least some kind of understanding of strategy was in charge (ie not Hitler and his boys).
>obviously don't attack the USSR while fighting the UK
>don't make every country on earth hate you unneccesarily (treat the occupied areas humanely)
>secure essential ressources (oil from Romania, ore from Sweden, food from Soviets)
>streamline mass production of few different weapon systems
>focus on aircraft and submarine production, bomb the UK and cut them from their supplies by sinking their ships
>force the UK to sign a peace treaty / surrender, an invasion like Sealion is extremely unlikely unless you sink the entire home fleet, have complete air superiority and somehow build an invasion fleet.
I recently read in another thread how much of an impact lend-lease and the two-front war had for the eastern campaign (something like 70% of Soviet explosives provided by the US & UK, many tanks, trucks, airplanes, but especially food as well, also the ressources mainly in air power that were bound in the west due to the Allied bombing campaign) - apparently the Soviet-German war would have resulted either in a German victory or more likely in a stalemate without Britain and the US fighting Germany.
Obviously if either the UK or the USSR were still fighting and the US were to join it would be pivotal (unless maybe there was a German-Soviet alliance).
>tl;dr: slim chance of winning the war, but not after alienating everybody on earth and declaring war randomly.
>>focus on aircraft and submarine production, bomb the UK and cut them from their supplies by sinking their ships
This is impossible, even with "streamlined production". The UK's (and Empire's) economy is considerably larger than Germany's even boosted by occupying large chunks of Europe. Furthermore, you have operational range issues to consider; WW2 planes, especially fighters, cannot fly that far, and only one of the two of you have bases all around the Atlantic.
>force the UK to sign a peace treaty / surrender
And if you can't? For that matter, Germany got bombed to hell and back without surrendering, it took actual physical occupation to do that.
I recently read in another thread how much of an impact lend-lease and the two-front war had for the eastern campaign (something like 70% of Soviet explosives provided by the US & UK, many tanks, trucks, airplanes, but especially food as well, also the ressources mainly in air power that were bound in the west due to the Allied bombing campaign
Yes, I was there too, and the user who provided it gave little thought to the notion of production flexibility. If you want a more evenhanded approach to Lend-Lease, I would suggest this.
www2.warwick.ac.uk
>Someone shared my pdf
Good to see it wasn't for nothing
>(treat the occupied areas humanely)
Stopped reading right here. The whole shtick of the germans was that they were superior to everyone. Do you treat a cockroach humanely? because that's what jews, gypsies, slavs etc were to them.
You might as well ask what it would take for Italy to dominate Europe.
>obviously don't attack the USSR while fighting the UK
So wait until the USSR becomes stronger and attacks you?
>don't make every country on earth hate you unneccesarily (treat the occupied areas humanely)
Germany was hated for starting the war. Didn't really matter how they treated the civilians, they would have been hated anyway, sww ww1 (inb rape of beligum)
>secure essential ressources (oil from Romania, ore from Sweden, food from Soviets)
They did this
>streamline mass production of few different weapon systems
They also did this as much as they could. More streamlining would mean lacking behind in technological advancement, see StG 44 which was delayed because they wanted to streamline as much as possible
>focus on aircraft and submarine production, bomb the UK and cut them from their supplies by sinking their ships
This means that they will get even more fucked by the Soviet Union
>force the UK to sign a peace treaty / surrender, an invasion like Sealion is extremely unlikely unless you sink the entire home fleet, have complete air superiority and somehow build an invasion fleet.
How will they force this? The brits considered a peace-deal after the fall of france but then decided against it since they were more or less untouchable. Also after the Battle of Britain there was no reason at all for Britain to surrender. Hess even flew to England to get a peace-deal but failed.
If you're the guy I think you are, I said I'd read it when I got a chance. I actually still haven't gone through all of the tables in the footnotes, but what I've seen impresses me immensely.
>This is impossible
You have to consider Germany was fighting the largest land war in history while Britain wasn't. If they didn't have to produce all that much land war material and maybe cut back unneccessary things (for Germany) like battleships, I'm sure they could have produced significantly more aircraft and submarines.
>The UK's (and Empire's) economy is considerably larger than Germany's even boosted
Well, the UK's economy could be hit severely by attacking the merchant ships even more than happened anyway, also with the economies of France, Italy, Poland, and the Benelux countries available for Germany I'm sure there could have been done a lot.
this thread is about the war, not the ideology of the Nazis.
>So wait until the USSR becomes stronger and attacks you?
source, everyone acts like a Soviet attack was inevitable but I never see why.
Ye there was some user giving you sources on "Journal of Slavic military studies" I believe so I barged in and shared what I had on lend-lease. The pdf impressed me immensely as well. I have a PDF on lend-lease aviation, I'll share it I can find it
if hitler didnt go to war with poland
if poland wasnt mean to germans in poland
Hi Mark Harrison, how are you doing?
Found it
sci-hub.cc
Cheeky lil' bird innit
>If they didn't have to produce all that much land war material and maybe cut back unneccessary things (for Germany) like battleships, I'm sure they could have produced significantly more aircraft and submarines.
It. Doesn't. Matter. You can't even project more aircraft that far into the Atlantic, where the bulk of the shipping routes are, and the submarines never even got close to what you'd need to break the UK. jmss.org
>Well, the UK's economy could be hit severely by attacking the merchant ships even more than happened anyway, also with the economies of France, Italy, Poland, and the Benelux countries available for Germany I'm sure there could have been done a lot.
Again, see the above link. And I was including the economies of occupied Europe in the mix. Germany is simply outclassed on the water, even when just fighting the UK.
Check this out, especially the tables on pages 23-24, and 30-35. The Commonwealth was not ignoring land military production, and in many sectors was outbuilding Germany at that as well; they were also achieving this while generally spending less of their GDP on their military, owing to the overall greater economy, there was more slack to draw upon if it became necessary.
You are colossally underestimating the degree to which Germany is economically outclassed.
I'm gonna believe you on the ecnonomy part because I don't know about that (I always thought Germany's economy was larger than the UK's e. g. also before WW1, but whatever) but
>You can't even project more aircraft that far into the Atlantic
en.wikipedia.org
with bases in Norway and northwestern France this thing could cover all shipping routes leading to Britain.
Yes, a flying boat can fly far. But fighters can't. The FW-190 was the best one the Germans had for range, and that one never had a range much better than 800 km, which means 400 out and 400 back, and less if you want to fight anything.
Meanwhile, Britian can base their own fighters, with the same range issues, all over the place; Icaeland, Greenland, Canada, Ireland, the Azores if things get desperate enough to go take it over. How many minutes do you think a Condor is going to last against a real fighter? Because while you might be able to get those out that far, their escorts can't make it.
>Germany was hated for starting the war. Didn't really matter how they treated the civilians, they would have been hated anyway
not in Ukraine, I guess they needed the food anyways, but probably went a little overboard with the hunger plan
>en.wikipedia.org
How would you prevent that from getting intercepted, tho. The workhorse of the German luftwaffe (Messerchmitt Bf 109 'Gustav') didn't even have 20% of the Fw 200's range.
Source:
historyofwar.org
Secondly this is implying that the Allies will be retards and won't start working around this problem. And according to pic related German fighters would struggle to even reach these routes
For comparison the 109's range was about the same as flying from London to Edinburgh.
Save Trotsky, and get him to lead the Soviets.
Trotsky was someone who would start wars and catch all the hate from the world.
>How would you prevent this from getting intercepted, tho.
Make Franco join the axis and use bases in northwestern Spain, outranging every British fighter (save for carriers). Concentrate U-Boat activities on possibly uncovered areas of the Atlantic to prevent the ships from escaping the Fw 200.
(((Yes, I see in which direction this "what if?" goes)))
This
UK joining the Axis
Gas.
Italy not participating or having Spain join and Japan not going full autist on Pearl Harbour
>inb4 underestimating american industrial capacity
Then the Americans will simply route their convoys north along the GIUK line, which increases the shipping time but ensures convoys will be under air cover at all time.
Remember, you have to get the big, slow FW 200's into the convoys, once the Americans deploy escort carriers, it's game over anyways.
Also joining the Axis would have gotten Franco overthrown. He was the dictator, but his seat isn't that secure, and there was still a lot of Republican sentiment, this time backed up by tons of American and British support.
>outranging every British fighter (save for carriers
Ye, now again, how will you solve the Fighter range problem? Or are we going to send Fw 200s against Seafires? Keep in mind the seafire had superior range to the 109s and 190s of Germany. The problem with what-if threads is people never take into account what could the other nation do to counteract it, so it just devolves into constant "well then" and "well then"
Also obligatory
*blocks your air superiority*
I'm certain the HMS Unicorn would've been enough to stop them.
>this thread is about the war, not the ideology of the Nazis.
The two were inseparable in Nazism. Plenty of military commanders were digusted by the indiscipline of lootings and indiscriminate killings of poles and jews but Hitler explicitly made sure it continued and the General Government's people were impoverished.
that is true from a historical standpoint and the war wouldn't have started without the Nazis (at least not in that form), but this thread is about wheter or not Germany could have won the war - regardless of ideology.
True. One has to wonder if the Nazis treated their subject populations differently. Hitler actually WANTED economic and social chaos on the Eastern front for ideological reasons instead of harnessing the human resources that existed there for the war effort agaisnt the soviets. For example, one of the first actions of the Nazis in Poland was liquidating all the Polish intellectuals, landowners and elites of any kind, similar to the Soviets in the Katyn forests. But all of this would have required Hitler getting assassinated (as some generals schemed for a while in the early war or Georg Elser's assassination succeeding (instead of hitler leaving his speech 30 minutes to early REEEE)
>One has to wonder if the Nazis treated their subject populations differently
Yes, they did. Soviet POWs were treated way worse than say French or British POWs, for example.
Did he even do anything worthwhile?
They would have needed to capture at least 8 of the 11 victory cities.
No.
>mass production meme