Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 12/29/2005 11:19:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/29/2005 11:23:31 PM EDT by 26120]
What could Germany had done to conquer Europe and keep us out of WW2?
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 11:27:35 PM EDT
Nothing.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 11:48:13 PM EDT
not invade russia.
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 4:46:46 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/30/2005 5:48:38 AM EDT by Spiff]

Originally Posted By vengarr:
not invade russia.



+1, and I might add, Hitler could have decided to *not* declare war on the US after Pearl Harbor. That would have complicated things tremendously for Roosevelt, and his desire to get us into the European war (which I agree with).
Link Posted: 12/30/2005 12:14:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 26120:
What could Germany had done to conquer Europe and keep us out of WW2?




Killed Hitler after the fall of France, and prevented his ban on military research which cost Germany about two years of precious time. Also not invade Russia until England was out of the war.
Link Posted: 12/31/2005 2:08:14 AM EDT
Personally if Hitler had not declared war on the US in support of Japan, the US would have eventually been dragged into involvement in Europe anyway. I doubt Hitler could have stopped himself from messing with the US in the long run. The US was too big a sleeping giant for Hitler to ignore, and in all likelyhood he would have done something to start a war with the US eventually, possibly involving Central or South America and the US Monroe Doctrine.
Link Posted: 12/31/2005 10:20:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By GarethB:
Personally if Hitler had not declared war on the US in support of Japan, the US would have eventually been dragged into involvement in Europe anyway. I doubt Hitler could have stopped himself from messing with the US in the long run. The US was too big a sleeping giant for Hitler to ignore, and in all likelyhood he would have done something to start a war with the US eventually, possibly involving Central or South America and the US Monroe Doctrine.



I agree 100%, eventually we would have been fighting the Germans. But what if by not declaring war on us, Hitler had delayed US entry for a year or so? Think of the weapons Germany was working on that may have had a bigger impact if the ending of the war had been delayed, jet technology, improved submarines, strategic bombers, etc.? What about troops that might have been available for the Eastern Front if not tied down *so soon* in Africa, Sicily, or Italy fighting both the US and British forces?. I agree that we would have been fighting the Germans sooner or later, but it *may* have been a completely different conflict if we had started the long road back by invaded N. Africa a year and a half after we actually did (or Sicily or Italy as German forces in N. Africa were already in retreat, then again that does not mean they would have been pushed out by British forces).

Also another point to consider, if things had gone sour in Russia before he declared war on the US, or even if the German timetable were delayed again, Hitler may have chosen to *not* declare war on us. At the time he found it so easy to do so because the German high tide was still flowing (well, and let's face it, the Italians were not turning out to be the most reliable allies).
Link Posted: 12/31/2005 12:31:13 PM EDT
They could've moved slower. Europe showed a remarkable ability to ignore Hitler's advances. If he moved slower and consolidated his conquests, spent more time in R&D, etc...
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 2:45:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Spiff:

Originally Posted By GarethB:
Personally if Hitler had not declared war on the US in support of Japan, the US would have eventually been dragged into involvement in Europe anyway. I doubt Hitler could have stopped himself from messing with the US in the long run. The US was too big a sleeping giant for Hitler to ignore, and in all likelyhood he would have done something to start a war with the US eventually, possibly involving Central or South America and the US Monroe Doctrine.



I agree 100%, eventually we would have been fighting the Germans. But what if by not declaring war on us, Hitler had delayed US entry for a year or so? Think of the weapons Germany was working on that may have had a bigger impact if the ending of the war had been delayed, jet technology, improved submarines, strategic bombers, etc.? What about troops that might have been available for the Eastern Front if not tied down *so soon* in Africa, Sicily, or Italy fighting both the US and British forces?. I agree that we would have been fighting the Germans sooner or later, but it *may* have been a completely different conflict if we had started the long road back by invaded N. Africa a year and a half after we actually did (or Sicily or Italy as German forces in N. Africa were already in retreat, then again that does not mean they would have been pushed out by British forces).



It's a bit of a two edged argument though. When the US first entered the war, some of the equipment it was using wasn't particularly good (eg: early war US tanks). It took actual combat experience to see what equipment was good enough and what wasn't. Without that first hand experience, what reason is there for the US to develop better equipment before the shooting starts at a later date? Does the US build up stocks of what was already in the inventory and go in with that, or do they try to quess what changes they'll need to make and develop new equipment without the experience of actual combat? Will the new untested equipment have it own set of unexpected weaknesses that won't become apparent until it's used in anger? What paths does German fighter development take if there is no massed B-17/B-24 bombing campaign to deal with?


Also another point to consider, if things had gone sour in Russia before he declared war on the US, or even if the German timetable were delayed again, Hitler may have chosen to *not* declare war on us. At the time he found it so easy to do so because the German high tide was still flowing (well, and let's face it, the Italians were not turning out to be the most reliable allies).


Actually, lets say Hitler manages to not piss off the US for at least another year beyond actual history, but he does go into Russia as planned. The Russians had to fight a delaying action until they had built up the industrial capacity to equip an army and airforce that could push Germany back. Lend-Lease gave Russia a supply of equipment until their relocated factories got back into full production. If the US is kept out of the situation, does Russia get any Lend-Lease support from the US? The UK also got a lot of equipment from the US under Lend-Lease. Do they get any now? How does that affect their ability to slow down German expansion?

If an unsupported Russia and UK are fighting an overall losing battle against Germany, Washingtom will at least see an expanding Germany and the consequences of Hitler's regime growing in territory and power. Does the US then contrive some provocation with Germany as a pretext for getting into the war?

I know someone who is a professional analyst with a thinktank that contracts to the Pentagon. He's been writing an alternate-history series of stories that paralell this very issue. There was an actual attempt by some senior members of Churchill's government to open peace talks with Germany behind Churchill's back. In reality Germany was slow to respond because they thought it was a trick, the plotters were uncovered during that delay and that was the end of it. In his alternate history version, Germany responds quickly, Churchill is deposed from power by the plotters and England and Germany agree to peace terms (the other UK Commonwealth countries such as Canada, Australia, India, etc, reject the agreement and stay in the fight). That means that there is no England for the US to operate from, so they have to do things differently. Here's a link to the stories. The Big One

He originally started writing the stories after being fed up with all the "The Germans win WW2" alternate histories that exist.
Link Posted: 1/1/2006 1:09:47 PM EDT
once we had the bomb and if things did not go well on D-Day or just before VE-Day, we would have just nuked the sorry krouts as we did the japs.
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 8:15:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By IceHandLuke:
once we had the bomb and if things did not go well on D-Day or just before VE-Day, we would have just nuked the sorry krouts as we did the japs.



Well, we are talking about a partial re-write of history, so what if, because we weren't fighting the Germans we did not put as much emphasis on crash coursing the A bomb program? That would mean no US A bomb in mid '45.
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 8:41:21 AM EDT

Originally Posted By GarethB:
It's a bit of a two edged argument though. When the US first entered the war, some of the equipment it was using wasn't particularly good (eg: early war US tanks). It took actual combat experience to see what equipment was good enough and what wasn't. Without that first hand experience, what reason is there for the US to develop better equipment before the shooting starts at a later date? Does the US build up stocks of what was already in the inventory and go in with that, or do they try to quess what changes they'll need to make and develop new equipment without the experience of actual combat? Will the new untested equipment have it own set of unexpected weaknesses that won't become apparent until it's used in anger? What paths does German fighter development take if there is no massed B-17/B-24 bombing campaign to deal with?



If we stay out of the war with Germany I'd be willing to be that nothing is done to upgrade the Sherman (I won't even bring up the M3). The M4 was more than enough to take on existing Japanese armor. I pin point the tank situation because other than them I think US equipment was on par with other nations. But there were some joint venture programs such as certain landing craft and even the P-51 that may not have come into fruition.

However, I really do think that the US and Britain would have continued to share info and technology.



Actually, lets say Hitler manages to not piss off the US for at least another year beyond actual history, but he does go into Russia as planned. The Russians had to fight a delaying action until they had built up the industrial capacity to equip an army and airforce that could push Germany back. Lend-Lease gave Russia a supply of equipment until their relocated factories got back into full production. If the US is kept out of the situation, does Russia get any Lend-Lease support from the US? The UK also got a lot of equipment from the US under Lend-Lease. Do they get any now? How does that affect their ability to slow down German expansion?



I don't' think Lend Lease would have been to much of an issue, it was already in full swing by late '41. The only question I would think would be along the lines of, do we curtail shipments because we are not fighting the Germans and we decide we need our resources to fight the Japanese.



If an unsupported Russia and UK are fighting an overall losing battle against Germany, Washingtom will at least see an expanding Germany and the consequences of Hitler's regime growing in territory and power. Does the US then contrive some provocation with Germany as a pretext for getting into the war?



Maybe, but I think the most likely scenario is that US ships continue to be sunk transporting supplies to England, and eventually, like in 1917, the Government gets tired of it and declares war. Something like that.



Here's a link to the stories. The Big One



Saved that link for future reading!!
Link Posted: 1/3/2006 12:40:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Spiff:

Originally Posted By IceHandLuke:
once we had the bomb and if things did not go well on D-Day or just before VE-Day, we would have just nuked the sorry krouts as we did the japs.



Well, we are talking about a partial re-write of history, so what if, because we weren't fighting the Germans we did not put as much emphasis on crash coursing the A bomb program? That would mean no US A bomb in mid '45.



Actually, I saw a documentory series about Einstein not too long ago. Even before the US had officially gone to war he and other leading US scientists had lobbied the Whitehouse on researching the atom bomb because they were aware that German scientists were also researching it. It didn't become clear for quite a while that the German research was going nowhere so there was a real sense of urgency on the US side. It really was a race to develop a working bomb before Germany did. My personal inclination is that the Manhatten Project would have stayed close to it's historical schedule regardless of whether the US entered the war or not because there was too much to lose if Germany developed a working bomb first. The question is how close? If the US doesn't enter the war at the historical date, do leading UK scientists like Oppenheimer who were part of the atom bomb project not get involved at all, do they get involved at a later date, or is there some covert US-UK deal and things go ahead as normal? If things don't go ahead as normal, what impact does the delayed or non-involvement by UK scientists have on the project as a whole?

Spiff, the P-51 is an interesting case. It wasn't originally a joint project between the two governments. UK aircraft production was flat out building the existing UK aircraft types. The UK govt privately contracted the company North American Aviation in 1940 to build P-40's for the RAF. NAA offered develop a new fighter for them instead. The result was the P-51. The US govt didn't have any significant involvement until they cleared the initial design for export and asked for two prototypes for their own testing. I don't know if the UK govt went to NAA because other larger US aircraft companies didn't have spare production capacity or not. If the US is on a lower war footing than historically, does the UK go to one of the other US aviation companies with spare production capacity and buy the P-40's they originally asked for?
Link Posted: 1/3/2006 2:21:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By GarethB:
Actually, I saw a documentory series about Einstein not too long ago. Even before the US had officially gone to war he and other leading US scientists had lobbied the Whitehouse on researching the atom bomb because they were aware that German scientists were also researching it. It didn't become clear for quite a while that the German research was going nowhere so there was a real sense of urgency on the US side. It really was a race to develop a working bomb before Germany did. My personal inclination is that the Manhatten Project would have stayed close to it's historical schedule regardless of whether the US entered the war or not because there was too much to lose if Germany developed a working bomb first. The question is how close? If the US doesn't enter the war at the historical date, do leading UK scientists like Oppenheimer who were part of the atom bomb project not get involved at all, do they get involved at a later date, or is there some covert US-UK deal and things go ahead as normal? If things don't go ahead as normal, what impact does the delayed or non-involvement by UK scientists have on the project as a whole?



All good points, this is what makes it so difficult to come up with "what if" scenarios. Way to many variables.



Spiff, the P-51 is an interesting case. It wasn't originally a joint project between the two governments.



Right, I did not mean to imply that the P51 was a joint US/Brit government thing. Though I guess I did.
Top Top