One piece of tech that actually came from ww2 that would have given a major if not deceive advantage if one of the Axis powers got ahold of it was the norden bombsight. It was analog computer and marvel of the time that increased bomber accuracy incredibly. If Hitler had had them during Barbarossa the Russians would not have won.
Another thing that would have done wonders is if the Germans got wind of the Ultra decrypts and upgraded their enigma machines in order to prevent interception.
Seems like the minimal amount of tech required for the allies to win is none, given that they DID win.
For either Germany or Japan to “win”, we of course need to define what “winning” means. Do they need to conquer and occupy all of Britain and the USA and the Soviet Union? Or do they need to, say, capture Moscow, and force a humiliating armistice on Britain, before the USA can even enter the war, or something like that?
As an interested observer of counterfactual threads about WWII, one thing I’ve never quite decided is the extent to which Germany could possibly have “beaten” the USSR. On the one hand, just looking at a map, and how close to Moscow they got, and hearing some fairly basic criticisms about really stupid logistical moves they made, it’s hard to imagine that a few more random elements going their way wouldn’t have resulted in their capturing Moscow. What effect that would have had is, of course, harder to predict. Could Hitler have been happy with a disarmed and humiliated and 1/3 smaller than before USSR to his East?
Good points overall.
Ref the very last sentence …
Could Stalin or his successor have been happy with a German occupation of the “good” third of their vast country?
I submit not. The Soviets may have had to retreat beyond the Urals for years or decades to regroup. But just like Aahhnold: they’d be back. For 200-plus years the Russians have been proving the adage: If Mama Russia ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy.
I think Germany could have beaten Stalin had Hitler not decided that Russia could be taken in 6 weeks. Not having any winter gear was criminal negligence.
I think Nazi German victory could be defined as capturing the Big Three of Moscow, Stalingrad, and Leningrad, and effectively gaining the permanent upper hand over the Soviets - insurgency would go on forever, but in an underdog role. France would have to remain conquered. Britain wouldn’t necessarily have to surrender, but would be neutered and hungry/weak.
As for the Japanese, they’d have to hold Taiwan, the home islands of Japan itself, and perhaps some Chinese territory.
Oh, ok, then that’s not an argument in the counter-factual situation, which is what I was discussing.
If you had modern fighters, they would take down all of the RAF fighters. I just provided numbers to show how relatively easily that could be done. I also went through the case of why the numbers of trained pilots wouldn’t be critical for the purpose of the thread, but I see you aren’t discussing that.
The bombsight had serious limitations and I don’t really know how much it would have helped in Barbarossa. (Not doubting it, just I don’t know how critical that was, compared to other factors. In general, Germany was using aircraft for CAS and dive bombing.
There were a number of areas where having knowledge of the actual war would have made significant differences. The combination of both modern equipment and knowledge of the war should make it possible for any of the players to either win or win faster.
I presume it means to win much faster or with less effort. Anything which the US did which prevented Japan from taking the oil fields would have made a very short war out of it.
For Japan, the US has to either stay out or quit the war. They get access to the oil and other resources either by holding onto the territory or by treaty. They would want to retain Manchuria, Formosa and Korea.
For Germany, I think it would be easier if they knocked out Britain first, then went after the Soviets and pushed them past the Urals before the US entered, but either way, there would have to be no active war between Germany and any of the Allies.
Certainly Germany had a much better chance than Japan, which had no prospects as long as the US was interested in fighting.
It may have been possible. OTOH, one thing which counterfactuals often do is suppose that Hitler isn’t Hitler. That’s one element which makes it totally unpredictable and would allow them to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Nobody has responded to this. Would a few attack subs, given to each axis power, be enough to win the war?
Germany would use them to destroy the escort ships and thus prevent supplies and troops from reaching the European theater from the United States. Japan would use them to kill the U.S. aircraft carriers, allowing it’s carrier launched planes to destroy American naval battlegroups with impunity. (some planes would be lost to flak, but they can replace those)
Germany then merely needs to capture Moscow, which is easier to do since the Russians are getting no free vehicles. It would neuter Britain by using the same attack subs to sink the Royal Navy (or enough of it that the survivors hide in port), and then it could position it’s fleet in the English channel, providing flak fire support to shoot down British aircraft. It could also probably shell portions of Britain with battleships.
The Russians might fight on, but if they are missing Moscow, Germany can hold the line against the weaker Red Army. Germany, with the vast resources of occupied Europe, then just needs to get nukes.
As a side note, these are nuclear submarines that were given to them. If they were to send just 1 fuel pellet for the submarine to their nuclear laboratories, they could figure out the key ingredient is U-235 and it’s fission, not fusion, you want. That makes a German nuclear weapons program feasible.
Once they get nukes, they use them to annihilate the remnants of Russia.
The United States gave to the Soviet Union from October 1, 1941 to May 31, 1945 the following: 427,284 trucks, 13,303 combat vehicles, 35,170 motorcycles, 2,328 ordnance service vehicles, 2,670,371 tons of petroleum products (gasoline and oil) or 57.8 percent of the High-octane aviation fuel,[24] 4,478,116 tons of foodstuffs (canned meats, sugar, flour, salt, etc.), 1,911 steam locomotives, 66 Diesel locomotives, 9,920 flat cars, 1,000 dump cars, 120 tank cars, and 35 heavy machinery cars. Provided ordnance goods (ammunition, artillery shells, mines, assorted explosives) amounted to 53 percent of total domestic production.*
Looks like they would need some of those subs in the Pacific or for Japan to help sink the Soviet ships.
I think so, depending on a couple of things. First the timing. It would takes fewer subs to allow the Germans defeat the British at the beginning of the war. The OP specified January, 1942, but I assume that’s because of an American bais and perhaps a general unfamiliarity of the war, as it also talks about helping France out.
Assuming that you could go back and help Germany in June, 1940, then several subs would be enough to force Britain to sign an armistice at terms very advantageous to the Nazis. There wouldn’t be any way for the US to really come to the aid of Europe.
Without Britain and the US, the Germans would devote that much more war efforts to Russia. If our counterfactural allows a 1940 date for helping Germany, then the USSR forces would be pushed back to the Urals in 1941 or '42. Otherwise, it could take longer and probably more subs to finish Britain quicker and to keep the US help out.
I think even a relatively smaller number of modern planes would help the Germans defeat the Soviets faster. It would be nice if the Lufftwaffe had a way of taking out or harassing the Soviet transportation system.
Several subs would be enough for the Japanese to beat the Americans in early 1942, although I would still like six for a quick rout. As someone pointed out, when faced with modern RN subs, the Argentinians had to retreat to their ports. I think that the USN would have to take a similar action. Hawaii could be completely blockaded, except via air, and the US lacked the ability to feed its population by air alone. That along with no answer to the IJN super weapon would force the US to agree to end hostilities on Japan’s terms.
With the US out of the picture, and holding on the her new Southeast Asian territories, Japan could make serious trouble for Stalin in Siberia. While the Japanese had been soundly defeated in Mongolia in 1940, they could have Round II with against a very distracted Red Army and would not face the same level of leadership, equipment or men.
With Germany fighting a one-front war (with access to British oil!) and the Soviets now forced into a two-front affair (or a “1.3” front, we’re not supposing the IJA is going to be that effective), without US material support, the balance would swing to the Axis.