@beatboks1 said:
Axis would win. The reason that Germany lost had nothing to do with nuclear bomb or weapons. It was because Hitler made the mistake of braking his word and invading russia. This made him fight a war on two fronts, o e of which was a war of attritian against russia. The cold and conditions of the russian front meant that by simply withdrawing and destroying resources they could make the German supply lines unable to cope.
Had Germany had a massive ally like Russia protecting the rear landmass having already taken all of Europe they could have focused more intently on the Battle of Britain. Its unlikely Britain would have held up long against the Blitzcrieg tactics and Germany's full force. Especially with the German military machine being re-enforced with the 170-175 million russians of the time (the populatio of USA and UK combined in 1940 didnt match mother russia).
Lets just remember that Germany started her V2 rocket program in oate 42. Due to the fact they had to divert resources that would have produced the rocket much faster to the manufacture of tanks excetera for the eastern front these would have been operational MUCH earlier than 44. By 44 they would have had better range and likely able to use against more distant enemies.
Lets also remember that many of the scientists who worked on the manhattan project had escaped war torn Europe or were from the UK. Bad Germany not split its force to fight Russia its doubtful these would have gotten to America.
Sophia mentions the lack of co-operation between Hitler and Stalin but thats incorrect. They had after invaded Poland together and signed the non agression pact. Clearly Stalin at least had some measure of trust of Hitler.
I'd also like to poing out that if Japan hadnt actually attacked America at Pearl Harbor the USA wouldnt have even joined the war (that was the key error made by Tojo, one that matched Hitlers error to invade Russia). As such it would be England, canada, France and Japan vs the axis. SinCe the axis had taken France not much lster that makes it England, Canada and Japan vs German, Italy, Russia and Romania. Esentially Axis has a combined population of 220-230 million to draw recruits from compared to 70 to 80 million allies. The axis in 1940 have the technological and weapon advantage. They have vastly greater numbers almosf 3 to 1)
Axis stomp in this case
This is an old post, but Britain had Naval supremacy and they where never in danger of being invaded by Germany due to a strong navy and island status. They also gained Air Superiority after the Battle of Britain and the addition of a theoretical Soviet Airforce wouldn't have really changed that much. This was because the Soviet Union viewed the emerging Air Force in WW1 as being inherently bourgeois as it was made up of middle class "adventurers" so didn't really invest in it.
Japan needed to attack America eventually because they where experiencing sanctions and with expansion slowing in the Far East, they needed to knock America out before they could mobilize. That was whole point of Pearl Harbour. There economy was straining and couldn't maintain any type of protracted War with the U.S hence why Pearl Harbour was so swift and sudden.
Hitler also associated Nuclear Technology with Jews so he was never going to pursue it. In fact many Jewish Scientists who escaped Germany ended up working on Project Manhattan. Hitler was far more interested in conventional weaponry hence why the Germans excelled with the concept of the Universal Machine Gun (MG42), Battle Rifle (FG42), Assault Rifle (STG44) as well as Jet Place (Me 262). But even in those cases, designs where often limited due to time, Hitler being iffy on projects like Assault Rifles and lack of Oil and rare materials (Me 262).
The non aggression pact was essentially you don't attack me I don't attack you. It wasn't an alliance. In fact when the Soviet Union and Germany invaded Poland, there was some border skirmishes where the Germans and Soviet Union overstepped agreed lines and this was well before Barbarossa started.
Much of what you said is true but over simplifies what I'm saying and takes the wrong context of other things I've said.
1. Did the German's have a navy that could deliver a landing force on mass? absolutely not. At the outset of the war they only had about 6 surface naval vessels. One of these was sunk in 1940 and another in 41. the rest not till 45 with one being scrapped in 49. The Allies did not however have a naval superiority because while the Royal Navy started the war with 18 surface ships the German's had 60 U-boats. Between 1935 and 1939 they had build and commissioned 64 and only 4 had been sunk in the last few months of 1939. The Germans built a total of 599 U-boats be the end of 1942. By the time that last U-boat was commissioned the allies had only sunk 127 U-boats leaving a fleet of 472. Germany still had 117 U-boats to surrender to the allies and had lost 57 U boats in the last. Conversely the royal navy went from 17 surface ships to 56 by the end of the war but only had 8 submarines. This of course isn't counting the 4 royal indain ships, 17 Royal Canadian Ships, the 3 Australian Navy ships stationed in Europe, the 4 NZ Navy ships the 4 Free French etc etc that was added to their forces. If the German's were planning to land an invasion force it would not have been by sea but by its 21 Fallschirmjäger-Divisions (paratroopers) the way it did in Sicilly in 43.
2. Yes Britain won the BOB but don't forget it had quite a few pilots from other countries to aid with that. There were 450 pilots Australian pilots in the UK in 1940 and not to mention those from Belbgium, NZ, France, Poland, Czech etc.
Had USSR (as per the OP) actually been allied with Germany in 1939 do you think ALL the 1,200 Belgiums, 90 Czech, 1600 Poles, etc? 20% of the pilots that the RAF had at the start of the Battle of Britain were foreign many of whom would not have been there if there had been a greater force of two allied nations attacking mainland Europe (with the vastly greater numbers that mother Russia would have added to the German force). If The Japs hadn't attacked Pearl and the US joined in the war in the pacific then the Australlian and NZ squadroans would likely have been recalled home.
3. I didn't say that Germany would have used the A bomb, I simply meant had the US not come into the war because of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour then it would not have been used against them as they would not have been in the war.
Had Germany not had to split its forces fighting a second front they would have had more resources on the eastern front throughout the war. This would have made it far more difficult for those fleeing the Germans to get over borders. It would have meant that many of the re-enforcements that the allies got from occupied Europe after June 1941 would not have occurred. this would have resulted in potentially facing an RAF in the BoB that was 10 to 15 % less (obviously some of those foreign pilots are still going to make it to the UK). they would have faced that Raf with B2 rockets developed earlier and more of them as the resources weren't being split to provide weapons to a second front. they would have had more manufacturing resources to put to U-boat production to replace losses as those resources wouldn't have been needed for tanks and weapons on a second front that was being extended with a war of attrition. They would have been able to train more paratroopers and have more airborne divisions.
Had Japan not attacked Pear Harbour then likely the 26 Aust Squadrons and 4 NZ ones would have been recalled to their home countries to defend. Had Japan attacked Earlier and actually got the aircraft carriers that was their intent They would have removed the ability for the US to wage both a European and pacific campaign at the same time (forcing them to only focus on one, with the anger that the US citizens had toward the Japanese that would have been them). Who is to say what that would have resulted in as the Gerans who had a more advanced weapons program would have had more resources to work on it. Had they attacked later as a second plan had laid out when a larger collection of the US fleet was going to be on the Us Coast, then they would have either destroyed more of the US naval force and been facing an enemy much closer to their home shore or have lost their own fleet being over committed and with an attack so close to the US mainland assured that the US would focus solely on them first and finish them.
if instead you factor in the Russian's actually aligning with the German's from the outset instead of Japan as the OP asks I don't see how the allies would have won. The conquest of Europe with Russian aide would have been faster. The UK would have faced a much larger air force, Navy and done so without the aid of the Americans (as no Japan at all means no reason to enter the war) and the 30 warships they added to the allied naval fleet across both campaigns. In this instance there is no attack on America because Japan isn't a protagonist. The Allies do the war without the US and only the resources of the commonwealth and less help from escaping Europeans against a much larger and stronger opponent with more dedicated resources.
Log in to comment