Could Hitler have succeeded in World War II if…

In My Humble Opinion
161

I would hardly say Germany had lost by 1941. And again, my what–if scenario focuses on forcing England to sue for peace early on. They didn’t have the range needed for fighters to escort bombers at the start of the war. it’s why the retreat from Dunkirk was done with small boats. They didn’t have the ability to control the air which made larger ships vulnerable to German planes launched from France.

They didn’t rely on Strategic bombing in their fighting tactics. They advanced quickly using precision bombing to support rapid ground movement. the BF-109 and FW-190 were excellent fighter aircraft built in large numbers and the JU 87 was a fearsome ground attack plane.

The Russians had a great ground support plane with the IL-2 which was the most produced plane of the war. It was probably the most heavily armored plane of the war so it took a real beating. But they lacked a fighter plane to protect it.

I think it’s well established that entering into a 2-front war was a major mistake. My what-if scenario removes the UK early on which means they have unfettered use of production facilities in captured land. Instead of burning up assets defending factories they’re using the factories to create more assets. It’s not just a 1-front war, it’s a 1-front war with much greater assets. So they’re taking ALL of the assets used to fight off the Allies PLUS additional assets produced as a result of factories that aren’t destroyed by the Allies. They will have more tanks,planes,artillery,ships, fuel, food, soldiers etc… to go toward fighting Russia.

By taking the UK out of the war it removes some of the best weapons developed which was airborne radar, hedgehogs, and the ability to decode the enigma quickly. These were game changers in the war. I suspect they would have still have been developed collaboratively but at a slower pace.

162

Im pretty sure you have me mixed up with another poster, here. I never said strategic bombing did not happen.

163

No, your original post said this before you edited it.

164

Apologies, then. Bad phrasing. You are correct

165

I like when people correct me sincerely it makes me a better person. I was wrong, I can learn from it

166

Hey, happy to be of service. Thanks for taking it well. It’s rare that my instinct of “SOMEONE IS WRONG ON THE INTERNET!” ends in a polite exchange.

167

Nooo prob

168

I am right there with you my dude.

169

It was the type of weapon that, when used to kill a lot of people, didn’t scare them into submission on the first try; why do you figure that using it to not kill a lot of people would so scare them, if using it to so kill a lot of people — didn’t?

170

By the end of 1941, having been forced back from Moscow, no chance of taking Leningrad, and lost Rostov already, they were done for. The panzer divisions were down to 1/4 strength.

No, they chose to husband the RAF as they knew it would be needed to defend the homeland. The RAF had plenty of range to cover Dunkirk if they wished to, it’s just there across the narrow Channel.

You’ve not answered my question, which was nothing to do with tactical bombing. You keep saying the Germans would prevent the Russians from moving their ‘tank factory’ (in reality, multiple plants) to the Urals. How, with no strategic bombing force?

No they won’t, not significantly. Certainly not men - where are they magicing them up from? They still need to garrison France and the low countries.

An example Tooze gives is the huge French coal mining industry, the Germans thought all their fuel worries were over when they conquered those. But no; the coal coming from them was already used by the French population and industry. How were they going to get more out of it? Choices were:

1/ More French workers there; but as unwilling workers productivity actually dropped
2/ slave labour from the east - ditto but worse
3/ German workers; every one of which would no longer be available as a farmer or soldier.

Conquering unwilling populations does not produce the advantage the conqueror hopes for.

171

No-one is arguing that taking Britain out of the war is a bad move. It is defintely the right move for Germany.

The problem is that your proposed way of doing so (focussing on dedicated V3 batteries) is not a plausible method of doing so.

172

Except If GB was out of the war, there would be no reason for FDR to help Communist Russia, which he cordially despised.

173

The time between Hiroshima and Nagasaki was three days. Not a lot of time, in an archipelago nation that has had its infrastructure destroyed. I think the attempt should have been made, that is all.

174

As I recall, Japanese scientists visited Hiroshima and determined within a day or so of the bombing that a nuclear weapon had been used.

Whether enough time elapsed before the second bomb was dropped, or if something other than large cities should have been initial targets is another matter. But Japan knew what it was dealing with pretty quickly.

175

Erm… if Japan’s infrastructure had been degraded to the point where it would take 3 days for the top government officials to learn about and react to the bombing of Hiroshima, then you’d have a point, since in that case Japan also wouldn’t be able to resist an amphibious assault, so the bomb would have been unnecessary.

In reality, however, this wasn’t the case. Japan, as befiting a WW2 era nation in fighting condition, was not nearly that damaged.

176

I never suggested that it would take three days for the Japanese government to learn about Hiroshima. I think it might take them a few days to figure out how to respond, or if they could even respond at all. (Eta for clarity)

177

Since there are publicly available documents detailing the Japanese government’s reaction to the bombings, there’s really no need to speculate.

In fact, the Japanese war council met to discuss surrender after the first bomb fell, on Aug 9 (probably in reaction to that morning’s declaration of war by the USSR). There was some debate over whether the bomb was truly a nuclear one (the Japanese had their own program and at first were skeptical that the Americans solved the problems they themselves faced), but as noted by @Jackmannii Japanese scientists made their way to Hiroshima and confirmed it was a nuclear bomb.

They actually got the news about Nagasaki while they were meeting. Net result? The six member council was split, with 3 agreeing to surrender so long as the Emperor is left alone, and 3 agreeing to “surrender” only if the US agrees not to occupy Japan and lets Japan disarm itself (conditions that would never have been agreed to by the Americans and which are equivalent to simply refusing to surrender).

Since this council was at a deadlock even after the Soviet declaration and both bombs fell, the full Japanese cabinet met soon after. Not everyone agreed that it was time to surrender - in fact, the full cabinet was as split as the war council.

While there was some debate over whether the Americans could have had more bombs, War Minister Anami - one of the cabinet members who was in favor of continuing to fight - claimed that he’d had an American pilot interrogated to reveal that the Americans had 100 nuclear bombs and would use them to destroy all of Japan in a matter of days. That wasn’t done to scare the cabinet into surrendering, but to encourage them to fight on - as he said, “Would it not be wondrous for the whole nation to be destroyed like a beautiful flower?”.

Finally, after the cabinet continued meeting again and again for the rest of the day, the Japanese president went and asked the Emperor what to do. Only then did Hirohito agree to surrender, and push his cabinet to do the same.

However, the Japanese imposed an unacceptable condition on these terms: a guarantee that the Imperial system be left unchanged. America refused, and so Japan wavered as to going through with the surrender. Over the next few days, the Americans started a campaign of intense conventional bombing, and also dropped leaflets on Japan that explained what the US had offered and what Japan had refused. The highest echelons of Japanese Imperial power had realized that defeat was inevitable.

But that didn’t stop a group of officers from leading a coup against the Emperor on the night of the 14th. They held the palace grounds and searched (unsuccessfully) for the recording of the Emperor’s surrender speech.

When we look at the facts of Japan’s surrender, rather than simply guessing, it becomes very clear that even after both nukes fell, surrender was a close thing. The idea that dropping a bomb over the ocean would accomplish anything is patently ridiculous.

178

You asked:

And then, when presented with evidence that America did indeed aid Russia before war was declared, you moved the goalposts just a bit:

So the answer is that America would, and did, provide aid to Russia before America declared war on Germany. Yes, it was to provide assistance to GB, but your original question was answered.

179

I think the most obvious answer is that the normal way to fight a war is to use the weapons you have, not to demonstrate them to your enemy.

The United States had been fighting a war with Japan for four years. There had been substantial casualties on both sides. We had spend billions of dollars and man-hours building an atomic bomb.

Given all that, why would anyone take seriously an argument that we should drop it on a deserted island instead of an actual target?

180

I’ve heard the related story about the German atomic scientists who were being held in custody by the Americans after Germany’s surrender. They had assumed that America would place a high priority on interrogating them and were surprised that their interrogators seemed to be rather complacent. They decided that the Americans didn’t understand the potential of atomic weapons. Then a few weeks later, they heard the news reports about Hiroshima and realized that America had been so far ahead of Germany they didn’t feel the German scientists could offer any useful information to them.