There’s a few things which I feel should be addressed here:
Russia could not have been successful against Germany without massive aid from the western Allies of key supplies such as vehicles, telegraphic wire, high octane gasoline, etc. The idea that Russia essentially beat Germany all by herself is inherently wrong - Russia wouldn’t have survived the winter of 1943 had it not been for massive Lend Lease assistance from the U.S. and Britain. The U.S. and Britain also shared their strategic intelligence with the Soviets - of course the Soviets did not reciprocate in this!
War between Germany and Russia was inevitable. The Non-Aggression Pact between them was a cynical exercise by both parties to it - as evidenced by their collusion in carving up Poland in a secret codicil to the pact. Both sides entered the agreement hoping to forestall the aggressive intent of the other party in order to buy time to prepare for the inevitable.
It is highly arguable whether Germany possessed the means and true intention to conduct an invasion of Great Britain, as well as the means and ability to occupy it and Ireland. Since GB has neither bountiful supplies of natural resources Germany needed, lots of acreage in which to transplant happy Aryans (liebensraum), or millions of Jews to exterminate, it is indeed quite questionable that Hitler and his generals ever truly planned an endeavor to capture the islands. More likely, at least in my opinion, Hitler and his generals looked into it as a diversion. The failure of the Luftwaffe to win control of the skies over England, coupled with the paltry capabilities of the German navy either to conduct an amphibious operation or protect it from English warships, doomed Operation Sea Lion to essentially a “what if” exercise on the part of German High Command.
There are many who believe that we would never have delivered atomic weapons on German targets because they were a “Western” ethnicity as opposed to the asian Japanese. I, however, do not share this view. The decision to launch the atomic weapons upon Japan was based primarily on the desire to prevent further unnecessary loss of American lives, and also to demonstrate our devastating new weapon to the Soviets to keep them honest (of course we pissed that hand away!) - NOT for any other reason.
Much has been made (not necessarily in this thread) as to the extraordinarily high Soviet casualties in World War II as an indication of their contribution to the effort against Germany. I, however, have a different attitude about it. In my opinion, the appalling casualty and fatality rates suffered by Russian combatants AND civilians was a result of the cynical and ruthlessness of their leaders. Russia’s leaders correctly judged that they had many more men at arms Germany could ever field and therefore made the entire war one of human attrition. This lack of care for human life is evidenced in their “human wave” tactics where many Russian soldiers were not even given weapons prior to being ordered to attack - they were told to simply find them on the field of battle instead! I simply cannot find the manner in which the Russians conducted war in WWII to be admirable in the least - it was the military equivalent of a sausage grinder.
“By 1941, Germany’s industrial infrastructure was at full capacity, and all production was devoted to creating weapons”
No this is quite wrong. I don’t have the figures with me now but IIRC German weapons production increased in 1944 despite massive strategic bombing after it was put under the control of Albert Speer. I don’t think the Germans really pushed their economies to the limit until near the end of the war. One of the what-if’s is what if they had done this earlier at the start of the war. Presumably they could have fielded more division or at least much better equipped divisions on the Eastern Front which could easily have made the difference.
Also let me repeat that a lot of you are simply assuming that America would fight Germany anyway. IMO this is most questionable. If Britain had been defeated in 1941 or 1942 and Germany decided not to declare war after Pearl Harbor it is difficult to see America unilaterally declaring war on Germany and invade Europe. Atom bombs would have been irrelevant without the right policial/military context.
We developed the atomic bomb to be dropped on Germany, not japan.
However, if germany ended up fighting russia, would we not just sit out and wait to see who came out on top of that battle before we dropped any bombs on germany? After conquering russia, germany would have its hands full, and its army stretched, just occupying all of europe and russia, and wouldnt Hitler then offer peace with the United States at that point?
I agree that there was no (cost benefit)reason to invade Britain if britain stopped its fighting, but wouldnt hitler have conquered Britain eventually anyway just to get revenge? after he built many more battleships like the Bismark?
and a doper doesn’t jump on him immediately? You are losing your grip obviously!
For the record Greece had no oil - maybe FranticMad was thinking or Rumania (which Germany had access to anyway) or Persia…
To me, what too few of the posts in this thread really seem to stress enough are the politic imperatives upon the Nazis (and to a lesser extent Stalin) - they were a revolutionary party dedicated to a revolutionary agenda and simply “being patient” and screwing down the United Kingdom was, whilst quite logical. not something they could politically choose to do. The Nazis always felt less secure than they actually were - hence the lack of any total industrial organisation for war production until 1944 ( :smack: ) and the lack of use of women labour etc.
Hitler needed constant war until his war aims were met by “blood and iron” (to quote an earlier aggressor) and that meant going for Russia to keep up the momentum. Preparing U-Boat, Air Power or anything else to deal with Britain first would have looked like they didn’t know what they were doing…
For those who think what-if history is interesting I would recomend the news group soc.history.what-if. This is a scenario which has been discussed often there and you might want to search the archives on google. Just read the FAQ before posting and if you belive that Germany could have won the war in this scenario(with US in the war) you’d better know what you’re talking about.
I agree with most of what you said but I want to make some remarks. I think Russia would have stopped Germany (since they stopped them in 1941 befor allied help was effective) but without the help Russia couldn’t do the offencive manouvres they did in WW2 and they would have to bleed Germany without taking very much territory.
After June 1940 Britains fighter production was higher then Germany’s so I don’t know how Germany could get airsupperiority. Then think of the resources used in Overlord and that Germany lacked almost all of these. But I think that an invasion was planned because taken all the barges that was needed for the invasion had a negative effect on German economy.
Producing more u-boats would mean less tanks for the comming war on Russia and this time Germany doesn’t have the slave workers.
Germany lacked the resources, factories and oil to have a mechanized army.
How long the German economy would have lasted without slaves is a much debated question.
Jet-fighters wouldn’t have won the war, for one Britain also had one(Gloster Meteor). If you watch Discovery programs concerning this they will say in the middle of the program:" Germay lacked the raw materials, fuel, factories and logistical support these planes needed to be effective. In addition the range and lifespan to short, and the time needed to repair the a/c was to long.
Stalin would have attacked Germany first if allowed to go another year. Russia had 14.5 million soldiers in positions around Moscow at the time Germany attacked with 1.5 million troops. In the earlier fighting German soldiers were killing Russians soldiers at a rate of 15:1. Plenty enough to win, but got caught in the Russian winter. It was the weather that beat them. Russia also developed the T-34 tank which could stand up favorable against the German Panzers. It was not possible for Germany to win the war, some of his advisors told him so as early as 1940. We are lucky Hilter was such a mad man and made many mistakes.
Production increased on a few, high priority things. What I meant was that there was really no excess production that could be devoted to new factory construction. It’s a general statement, and I’m fully aware that in a few specific areas new factories were built, but often at the expense of other needed products.
But it was a testament to Germany’s incredible industrial base that it even managed to hold production steady in the face of heavy bombing.
Speaking of which… Those who think that we would never have used an atomic bomb on Germany are crazy. The allies were were carpet-bombing Germany daily, and the firebombing of Dresden killed people on the same order as a nuclear weapon.
These statements are completely false. U.S. tank production peaked at about 30,000 in 1944 - in 1942 it was 24,000 - which is certainly not more tanks than Germany built in both wars; Germany peaked at about 22,000 tanks in 1944, and build some 80,000 over the course of the war.
The German economy absolutely did NOT peak in weapons production in 1941; German production peaked in almost every major category of weapon and weapons platform in 1944. The German was economy was highly disorganized in 1941; reforms to improve production were not undetaken until 1942-1943, mostly under Speer. In fact, Germany did not introduce mass production techniques in aircraft construction UNTIl 1943-1944. The results were amazing; aircraft production doubled in 1943 and went up about 30% in 1944.
Totally false… are you just making this up? American production increased, quite dramatically, until war’s end. Aircraft production in 1944 was three and a half times greater than in 1942, shipbuilding quadrupled between 1942 and 1944; tank production peaked in 1943.
Unless a truly amazing percentage of Americans in 1941 were male - the population at the time being about 150 million - I don’t believe this could be possible.
Many of your general points are correct but you might wanna revisit your specific figures.
. “Production increased on a few, high priority things. What I meant was that there was really no excess production that could be devoted to new factory construction”
I am not sure this is true either. Consumptions levels were kept quite high in the early years of the war. Women weren’t used in the factories. And I think there was general inefficiency which was only removed only after Speer was put in charge. I will see if I can dig up some numbers.
About the atom bomb there are several questions:
1)Would the US even be at war with Germany?
2)How many atom bombs would it have ? With only two atom bombs in 1945 I don’t think it would be enough to beat Germany. Remember that atom bombs alone didn’t beat Japan. You had a combinations of massive conventional bombing, crippling naval defeats and blockades and the Soviet entry into the war.
3)If you are talking of war going on into the late 40’s how long before the Germans acquired their own bombs? Especially with the resources acquired/freed up after defeating Britain and maybe the Soviet Union.
It took the Soviets almost 4 years to reach Berlin. In the Soviet’s favor, they had no intervening oceans or channels (unlike the Allies), they had a huge army, and superior armor (eventually). These are important tactical and strategic advantages over the Allies.
Even considering that the Soviets had incompetent military strategy for the first phases (Stalin exterminated his best commanders), I can hardly imagine that the Allies could have done better than the Soviets. Despite the Soviet’s advantages, conquering the Germans took a long time.
If Germany didn’t attack Russia, then I don’t think Stalin would rush into Germany. Although Stalin was afraid of Germany, he was quite obsessed with internal conflicts, real or imagined. I think he was more interested in consolidating his political power within the Soviet Union, and was not an adventurist like Hitler.
As notquitekarpov said, the Nazis had a political imperative, and even a mythological imperative. That is why I once suggested that the only reason Germany would not invade Russia was because Hitler was gone. Given a more rational military leadership (imagine Rommel being alive and having power), Germany would make different choices than it did.
Well, clearly I’m going to go back and dig into this. I studied this stuff a few years ago, but maybe I’ve got my numbers mixed up. Sorry if I dropped any false info out there, and thanks to both Cyberpundit and Rickjay for catching it.
Have any of you played the PC game ‘Hearts of Iron’? It’s a strategy game where you control a nation in the 1936-1947 timeframe (some scenarios start later than 1936 if you don’t want to bother with the pre-war buildup). It’s very interesting to see the weird alternate histories that you can build in that game. It’s still being patched to get the AI countries to behave more realistically (in earlier versions, Japan rarely joined the Axis or fought the USA, in the latest version it tends to join the Comintern!), but it’s still a great game.
If the Germans had not invaded Russia, then i think the war would have lasted considerably longer, maybe even a kind of stalemate would have occured. Hitler took to many military decisions instead of leaving it to his commanders, he became obsessed with taking Stalingrad, believing that if it fell the demoralising effect on Stalin would take them to victory. Initially they wanted the oil, but Hitler allowed himself to get sidetracked.
If they had concentrated on the oilfields, they would have had a seaboard too, allowing them to resupply.The winter wasted over a million soldiers in Russia
I think it is almost inevitable that the US was going to end up at war with Germany. I have drawn up a quick time line and I think it shows that although the US was solidly against war in '39 by mid '41 the US was rapidly approaching war with Germany. Even if Germany refrained from attacking the Soviets most of these events would have taken place as they were intended as a support for the UK.
1939
1-May Gallup poll shows 72% approve discretionary embargo of aggressors
29-Jun Mandatory arms embargo extended. Gallup poll shows 51% approve
5-Sep United States proclaims neutrality
8-Sep Limited national emergency declared
22-Sep Gallup poll shows 62% favor repeal of mandatory arms embargo
3-Oct Declaration of Panama - 300-mile Security Zone around western hemisphere
4-Nov “Cash and Carry” law passes
1940
27-Aug Reserves activated for 12 months’ duty.
3-Sep United States exchanges 50 destroyers for British base rights
16-Sep Draft instituted
1941
29-Jan British and American hold joint staff conversations
11-Mar Lend-Lease Act passed
24-Mar $50M in Yugoslavian assets frozen when Prince Paul signs Tripartite Pact
27-Mar Congress approves initial $7B lend-lease appropriation
30-Mar Coast Guard seizes 64 Axis ships in U.S. ports for lend-lease convoys
2-Apr 10 Coast Guard ships transferred to Great Britain
9-Apr US occupies Greenland
11-Apr U.S. destroyer Niblack fires depth charges at German U-boat
28-Apr $50M in Greek assets frozen after Greece fell to Hitler
21-May 1st U.S. ship sunk, freighter Robin Moor
26-May German battleship Bismarck located by US-built PBY flown by US pilot
27-May Unlimited national emergency declared
6-Jun 80 foreign merchant ships seized in U.S. ports
14-Jun All remaining Axis funds in U.S. frozen
16-Jun All German consulates closed, diplomats expelled
7-Jul US occupies Iceland. Gallup poll shows 61% approve
26-Jul United States declares oil embargo on Japan.
14-Aug Roosevelt and Churchill announce Atlantic Charter
4-Sep German torpedo attack on USS Greer opens tacit shooting war in Atlantic. Gallup poll shows 62% approve
28 Sep The Lend-Lease act is expanded to include the Soviet Union.
1-Oct First Soviet Protocol signed by U.S., Great Britain, and USSR at Moscow.
31-Oct 1st U.S. warship lost , destroyer Reuben James
5-Nov Gallup poll shows 81% favored arming merchant ships & 61% favored ships entering war zones
19-Nov Gallup poll shows 72% regard “defeating Nazism” as “the biggest job facing the nation”
24-Nov U.S. Army occupies Dutch Guiana
7-8 Dec Japan delivers simultaneous bombing attacks on Pearl Harbor, the Philippines, Wake, and Guam, invades Malaya and Thailand, seizes Shanghai, and declares war on the U.S. and Great Britain.
You can also read this forward in the July 7th, 1941 special edition of Life. It seems fairly obvious that the editors of Life thought they were addressing a largely pro-war public.
By the time of Hiroshima US manufacturing was averaging just over 1 warhead per month. The predictions at the time were that they could increase that by about one a month per month. And that was going to significantly increase in mid '46 as additional separation facilities came online. By mid '46 they expected to be producing roughly 20-30 per month. Historically the US program achieved roughly these rates even without a wartime imperative. So I think it is reasonable to assume they could have achieved those production rates at least. Under those conditions I simply can’t imagine the war extending into '47.
A long time. The Germans were at least 5-6 years behind the US in nuclear development. By the end of the war the Germans had at least four huge deficiencies.
1- They had a distinct lack of raw uranium. Even if they had produced a bomb it would have only existed in very small numbers. But this lack of resources meant that experimentation was limited. US researchers simply had a lot more opportunities to play around with the stuff. This directly contributed to two of the other issues.
2- They never developed a successful separation/breeder method. Raw uranium ore is worthless as a nuclear material. In order to build a weapon you must either separate out the fissible material (U-235) or breed it (plutonium). Even if the German programs had come up with a workable method overnight, it would have taken several years before plants could be developed to produce it in any quantity. Separators and breeder reactors simply don’t just appear overnight.
3- The German program never got the basic physics right. And even worse for them, their theories were taking them down the wrong paths. They never achieved a workable design for a reactor let alone successfully bringing one online. This was pretty much the first step to any program. The US brought their first pile online in '42. To add to these problems the whole program was either being terribly mismanaged or intentionally sabotaged (depending on who’s account you believe) by its primary researchers and program director. Compare this to Groves who expertly ran the US program and likely shaved a year or more off the whole project.
4- Even if the Germans had successfully developed a device, they had no delivery method. At some point they were going to need to make a Heavy Bomber or exceptionally large V-series rocket. Even if a working German bomb had suddenly come into existence in '45, it would have taken a couple of years to develop something to use it.
Thanks for the information. I think your timeline shows support for economic sanctions against Germany and economic support for Britain. I don’t know if it shows support for full-blown invasion of Europe. Why did the US have to wait till Pearl Harbor and a German declaration of war? Besides it doesn’t address what would have happened if Britian had surrendered in 1941 or 1942. Without Britain to prod America to war and also providing a springboard for the final invasion I don’t think the US would jump into war with Germany on its own.
Let me also note again that the US didn’t use atom bombs against the Soviet Union even though it had the nuclear monopoly for several years and even after the Cold War had begun in earnest. I don’t see the US just declaring war and dropping a dozen atom bombs on Germany even it could.
BTW would the US even have the means to bomb the Germans without a British base. Would they have to use aircraft carriers? What if the Germans had established supremacy in the Atlantic with their submarines and also perhaps the British fleet at their disposal?
Well absolutely the US would not have entered the war if the UK had already come to terms with Germany. However Germany had virtually no chance of actually forcing the UK to come to terms. Sealion was never more than a pipe dream. Germany lost the Battle of Britain. And by mid '41 Germany had functionally lost the Battle of the Atlantic. Even there Germany never seriously threatened UK supplies. All told over the course of the war less than 1% of allied Atlantic shipping was sunk by the Germans. The only way that the UK is out of the war is if they choose to leave it.
As for American support for an active war… US troops were not going to be availible until late '42, in significant quantaties in any case. Until then we still have the US actively invading nominally axis controlled territories. And they are engaging in active naval warfare against the Reich. Functionally the same kind of rationalization that had been used to justify the occupation of Danish and Dutch territories could be used for French North Africa. Under those conditions FDR doesn’t even need a declaration of war until the Sicily invasion in mid '43. As it was FDR was hoping to avoid full participation in the war until May-July of '42. The country just wasn’t going to be ready until then. Japan forced FDR’s hand. But he was going to ask Congress for a Declaration of War by Mid '42. And given the fact that in Nov. '41 72% of the country thought “defeating Nazism” was “the biggest job facing the nation,” I think he would have gotten it. If 72% of the country today thought defeating Saddam was “the biggest job facing the nation,” Bush would have already started the invasion.
Absolutely. The US had sufficent sea power to take any island off the coast of Europe at will. By '45 the US fleet was larger than the fleets of the rest of the world COMBINED. Any scenario suggesting that the German subs could wrest control of the Atlantic if pure fantasy. And for the Germans to gain control over the British fleet would require use of orbital mind control lasers. The Germans have no way of forcing a British capitulation. And even if they did, the fleet would not have been handed over to the Germans. Historically the Germans never even gained control over the French fleet. Even the portion that remained afloat and under Vichy control was kept mostly in North Africa and the individual officers given strict orders to scuttle should the Germans attempt to seize them.
Even at its height, total European Axis GDP barely equaled the British Commonwealth. It was totally overshadowed by the US. On top of that many of the vital resources necessary for a modern war were completely outside the Reichs reach. The Commonwealth alone controled 90% of the worlds Bauxite. And the UK and US between them controled access to something like 85% of the worlds oil in '41. Even without the Soviet Union, per the OP, Germany didn’t have a prayer of forcing terms on the British. The British wouldn’t have been able to force terms on Germany either. But sooner or later, most likely by mid '42, the US will join the Commonwealth. And in late '45 the nukes start falling. The only hope Hitler has is that the Allies give up.
Wow, this contradicts what I had believed about the war. Maybe I’ve listened to too many programs that dramatized the danger faced by Britain.
I thought that '42 was a pretty bad year for tonnage sunk by U-boats, and that Britain really felt the effects of that (re: Churchill’s statement that the only thing that really scared him during the war was the U-boat threat). I thought that it was only in '43 that Allies implemented sea radar and other methods to sink U-boats in large numbers. Can you point us to some information that supports the viewpoint you’ve proposed?
Okay, let me fantasize a bit then. Assume that no invasion of Russia has occurred. Assume further that Germany instead pushes many of those eastern front forces to the west in order to take all French seaports, and to establish large airfields along the coast. With the increased number of aircraft available for the western front, Germany could project air support over the Atlantic, continue to harrass England’s coast, and disrupt American attempts to establish an island base.
Any island won’t be better than England for the Americans to take over. England had ports, dock facilities, rail lines, fuel depots, power: in other words, lots of logistical infrastructure. Even today the USA takes weeks or months to mount an overseas offensive, and they are doing it without being under attack. During WWII, I think any attempt by the Americans to create a base outside of England would be disrupted on a regular basis. Further, depending on the size of the island that you propose they could take, they would be exposed to observation – Britain was too big to fully observe. It would be difficult to create what D-Day had, namely surprise.
