WW2 Scenario Germany

[MarcH]

Well, I think WW II was mostly lost due to political reasons. The ideology was the main problem. As has always been pointed out, there where more then enough potential allies in the east.
I would invade Poland. Hack it is about Danzig, Poznan and Torun. After that, I would set up a puppet government in Poland (real problem with nazi ideology), and claim only the disputed provinces.
Same thing in the west, after victory over France, Belgium an Holland, reclaim what was lost in WWI and leave it with that.
No invasion of Scandinavia.
Under that circumstances, a peace with UK could be possible. With Stalin invading whole eastern Europe, I think public opinion in the west could be influenced with Stalin as the bogie man.
In asia, I would most probably stick with national china as ally. This would be one further connection to the west, and would most probably be useful in the clash with Russia.

After the war my map would look like this: bigger Germany, allied with whole Europe, including independend Ukraine, Baltics, Georgia. Through that alliance with national china, get involved in the war against Japan. Reclaim some islands in the pazific region, an leave it with that. Oh, and get Sansibar back from the UK

 

[Waylander]

You want to get Sansibar back?

Because of the beaches?

 

[MarcH]

Those beaches are halfway to the beaches of Palau, Bismarck Island etc.
And it would give a great background for overly cool pictures of H-class Battleships, Type XXI Subs and heay aircraft carriers

 

[drandul]

Some new view

How about this scenario:
Hitler signs some more pacts with Stalin. - I'd assume - as bouth of them were qite strong autocrat - they could get some agreement between each other - I mean same basic principles of state organisation. Got closer ally of USSR (I think it may happened in realaty) and invaded Eourop, Asia, GB, Arctica and the rest of the world. Germany and probably Japan would get as mach recources as they need to sacsessfully withstand and conquer whatever they wanted. Main reason of Germany and Japan Defeat is lack of resources. - Russia had all recources in it won. - Easy - like in old DUNA pc GAME - bild more "HARVESTERS" and protect them

 

[Chrom]

How about this scenario:
Hitler signs some more pacts with Stalin. - I'd assume - as bouth of them were qite strong autocrat - they could get some agreement between each other - I mean same basic principles of state organisation. Got closer ally of USSR (I think it may happened in realaty) and invaded Eourop, Asia, GB, Arctica and the rest of the world. Germany and probably Japan would get as mach recources as they need to sacsessfully withstand and conquer whatever they wanted. Main reason of Germany and Japan Defeat is lack of resources. - Russia had all recources in it won. - Easy - like in old DUNA pc GAME - bild more "HARVESTERS" and protect them

Ideologically Hitler was much close to West. There was very strong sympathy for Hitler among GB elite, and it was big luck for Europe when Churchill was elected instead.

There is common myth in the West what Stalin was an ally of Hitler -of course not. They merely signed a NAP. Similar NAP's was signed few years earler between Hitler and GB, Hitler and France, etc.

As such, Stalin would never help Hitler directly. Trading with him was ok as bascaly Hitler threated USSR just as much as GB. Sure, now, in hindsight, we can say what Hitler was much more dangerous for USSR - but back then it wasnt clear.

Stalin would also never atack Hitler (in viable timeframe) - it is now known what Stalin planned USSR developing instead of agressive militaryexpansion. Finland was already as bad as it gets.

So, Hitler best chance was to conquer whole Europa including East Europe. Scandivian countries wasnt very important and Hitler could either snatch them or leave as is. Then Hitler could try to defeat GB - successfull or not doesnt matter as 3rd Reich would have enouth resources by then to defend against anyone barring, may be, joint attack by USSR and USA. Such alliance again is very unlikely for already given reasons.

Basically, noone cared about Jews (or any other racism) back then. It wasnt something what separated Hitler from the rest of the world.

 

[TomBombadil]

invading russia...using a different front.

Germany´s strategy until 1941 was perfectly planned and executed, the only small problem was forcing Britain to join the allies by bombing their big cities after Britain left Europe mainland. Invading Russia was an inevitable desicion after occupying east Europe. But the problem was, as we all know, the harsh conditions in the russian front Stalingrad. To avoid this, there was an option left actually. It was; 1: invade Turkey 2: open a front in Caucasian 3: Using Blacksea to form an attack in Ukraine and charging from there.

What do u think?

 

[Chrom]

Germany´s strategy until 1941 was perfectly planned and executed, the only small problem was forcing Britain to join the allies by bombing their big cities after Britain left Europe mainland. Invading Russia was an inevitable desicion after occupying east Europe. But the problem was, as we all know, the harsh conditions in the russian front Stalingrad. To avoid this, there was an option left actually. It was; 1: invade Turkey 2: open a front in Caucasian 3: Using Blacksea to form an attack in Ukraine and charging from there.

What do u think?

Any big invasion against USSR would result in all-out war with USSR. Even IF Hitler would manage to make peace with Stalin after occuping Ukraina - Stalin would not let it rest in peace. In few years after thouroughfull preparations he would surery try to take lost land back. In the same time, such obvious danger from USSR side would prevent Hitler from attacking GB with full force, possible still dragging USA to help GB in full-scale invasion against Hitler, now with very possible USSR help. Again, not a good prospect for Germany...

So, clearly, the biggest Hitler's mistake was attacking USSR. Without it (and corresponding occupation of "untermanschen") 3rd reich would be just another racist nazi country like many others of that time.

 

[grndpndr]

The minute hitler invaded the soviet union he doomed the geman people to defeat.No posssible way even from a population standpoint the germans could have occupied the soviet union.Had the German air force possesed very good 4 engine bombers enabling them to drstroy RUSS factorys beyond the Urals perhaps they could have forced a favorable peace early in the war
but after surviving '41' -'42' the german war machines fate was sealed.

 

[Chrom]

The minute hitler invaded the soviet union he doomed the geman people to defeat.No posssible way even from a population standpoint the germans could have occupied the soviet union.Had the German air force possesed very good 4 engine bombers enabling them to drstroy RUSS factories beyond the Urals perhaps they could have forced a favorable peace early in the war
but after surviving '41' -'42' the german war machines fate was sealed.

From the population standpoint Germany was very capable defeating USSR. It is actually a big western myth about countless soviet communists horders what overhelmed "blonde knights". In fact, by summer 1942 Germany had MORE citizens than USSR. About 100 millions for 3rd Reich against 100-105 millions for USSR (excluding occupied territories). This could be even seen in numbers of soldiers reqruited - 22 millions for Germany and 33 millions for USSR. Keep in mind, substancial part of USSR soldiers was reqruited after liberating occupied territories.

Even in 1941, when war started, USSR had about 175m population - hardly overhelmed superiority. Moreover, a substantial part of that population was partially non-exploitive population like western ukrainian, some deep siberian folks, some asian and caucasic folks, etc.

4 engine bombers wouldnt help Germany. First, you just dont realise the size if SU. Second, Germany just didnt had resouces. And thrird, even IF Germany somehow obtained these resources - they would gain 10x as much advantage by spending them on building tanks and front-line aircrafts.
Only rich USA (and GB) , not envolved in major land war, could spend so much resources on so ineffective (per-resouce spend) equipment as long-range bombers.

 

[Manfred2]

4 engine bombers wouldnt help Germany.
Dead wrong.
A good, tough four-engined bomber would have allowed Germany to
1- make much more effective raids against Britian
2- scout the sea-lanes for the U-boats better than the fragile FW-200 could
3- Bomb factories sent beyond the Urals by Stalin. I doubt very much if teh Russians could have sent the whole industrial complex to Vladivistok, or even Baikal.

Barbarossa did not doom Germany until it failed.

Turkey did not have to be invaded. If Geramny had made a serious effort to take malta and Egypt in the winter of 1940-41, Turkey could have been induced to join up, as Romainia, Hungary and Bulgaria did.

 

[Chrom]

4 engine bombers wouldnt help Germany.
Dead wrong.
A good, tough four-engined bomber would have allowed Germany to
1- make much more effective raids against Britian
2- scout the sea-lanes for the U-boats better than the fragile FW-200 could
3- Bomb factories sent beyond the Urals by Stalin. I doubt very much if teh Russians could have sent the whole industrial complex to Vladivistok, or even Baikal.

Barbarossa did not doom Germany until it failed.

Turkey did not have to be invaded. If Geramny had made a serious effort to take malta and Egypt in the winter of 1940-41, Turkey could have been induced to join up, as Romainia, Hungary and Bulgaria did.

Manfred, i could also tell what a good, realiable tank in sufficient numbers could help Germany even more. 50.000 tanks - not too bad? Or 100.000 addiditional frontline fighters.... or much, much large naval fleet to finally blockade SU and invade GB... Or even 40.000 frontline bombers - imagine what effect they would have on enemy fighting units!

Realise, these are the same things as 4 engines bomber in sufficient numbers. They all require the same resouces WHAT WASNT THERE!

Again, even USA, not involved in major land war, obtained such bomber in sufficient numbers only by summer 1944. And effect of such bombing would be less than effective IF majority of Germany resources wasnt concentrated on the Eastern front. Without land war, Germany could easely build enouth fighters and enouth AAA to reliable protect itself against bomber raids.

P.S. Take a globus. See what is meant "behind Ural". It is an area 6000 km long, and then you still didnt reached Far East. And Ural itself is 2000 km from Moskow... and Hitler need to somehow get close to Moskow... Now, try to build an bomber what is capable to cross such distances. And THEN try to build a fighter capable to ecscort bombers other such distances. Technically impossible task by 1940 or even 1944.

 

[grndpndr]

Germanys population In 1940 totalled aprox. 80,600,000.Russian poulation figures from the same year total 194,000,000.Conspcripted troops from conquered countrys do not an effective aRmy make Chrom.Your attempting to equate conquered peoples with citizens when you claim the germans had a larger population base which is at least disingenous. As I said eariler even though germany had conquerd most of europe.It did take resources away from the effort known as barbarossa which the germans could ill afford.Now I understand how you came up with such distorted population figures for the 2 countrys . The wildly exagerated german population versus the same wildly underestimated Russian population is simply done by adding unwilling subjects to germanys pop base and how on earth were some 80,000,000 germans to occupy a country the size of
russias 175,000,000 pop. even excluding eastern Soviet terrtory.The Notion was ludicrous and hitlers generals knew it.4 engine bombers or no the minute the invasiion failed to take moscow in 1941.Reinforcements from siberian divisons with t34s during the winter of 41-42 it was simply a matter of time before germany was waging a long defensive war .As has been said hitlers micromanagement had a great deal to do with some of the greastest disasters ,stalingrad,and Kursk. The blows germany was simply unable to recover from due to its immense losses
in particular Kursk which emasculated german panzer divisions leading to a long defensive retreat ending in a bunker in berlin.

 

[Chrom]

Numbers for you to note
Official Germany population:

Ferbruary 1938 - 66,031,000
March 1938 - 72,790,000 (Austrien)
October 1938 - 76,426,000 (Sudeth)
September 1939 - 79,922,000 (DANZIG)
October 1939 - 89,858,000 (West Poland, a native German territory)
July 1940 - 89,940,000 (East Belgium)

July 1940 - 89,940,000

Plus
Elsas - 1,219,000 (1936)
Lothringen - 696,000 (1936)
Luxemburg - 290,000 (1941)
Slovenien - 775,000 (1941)
Plus Belorussia - Belostock district
Plus natural growth from 1938, plus some native (and not-so-native) germans what hurried from all over captured Europa to recive German citezenship and get a fat pie from future prospects.

All in all, pretty close to 100 millions for native population of 3d reich. And dont ever tell us what somehow the native germans from Lothringen were worse than the ones from Berlin. Althought i can easely point out what many USSR peoples from Caucasus or Asiatic republic were indeed not-so-russian, and they had indeed very low reqruitment rate.

Again, this is only 3d Reich numbers. Now please add the population of Hungarian, Finnland, Romanian, Bulgarian, and partially Italian to the mix by itself.

Thereas USSR had close to 190millions, but only if we count newly included West Ukraine and Baltic states. Either way, the difference is not THAT overhelming, especially considering German allies what directly took a part in invasion against USSR.
Also, as i said - by summer 1942 VERY sizeable chunk of USSR population was captured. MOST dence population and industrial areas - i.e. Ukraina, Belorussia and part of western Russia - was captured.
So, after 1942, we cant say what USSR had any population advantage against Germany.

The number of reqruited to German army vs USSR army proves my point - 22 millions vs 33 millions. Hardly an overhelming advantage, considering surprise attack, better training of german soldiers, direct military support of Axis allies and resources of whole captured Europa.
For example, do you know, what most famous german fighter - BF-109 - was mainly assembled in Chehoslovakia?

BTW, what you meant by "eastern Soviet terrtory"??

 

[grndpndr]

Very simply put germany lost the war because they bit off more than they could chew,The indusrtial base the russian possessed while they may have not been the highest quality weapons made killed just as effectively and anyway you want to diminish the capabilitys of the soviet army they did have effective weapons and a great deal of them. Far More than the germans could hope to match.Whether it was due to lend lease or allied bombing then germans were decisevily beaten before the brits and americans joined the land war. Is that due to the great advantage in population or manufacturing capability possessed by the germans?They did have this grand manufacturing capability throughout the conquered territorys as yove claimed but subject to sabotage combined with the population advantage and mere 10 millions of advantage in the size of the soviet army the superior training of the german soldier surely overcame any difference in fighting poorly trained soviet armys superiority of a 2-3 advantage yet they were outprodued by 100 fold.No matter how you care to juggle numbers the germans simply could not match the manufacturing capability/numbers of even the russians let alone the UsA and they were in fact doomed from thier first step into soviet territory.Long before the western allies had a chance to impact the war the soviet army all by thier lonesome managed to soundly defeat the germans at stalingrad witha loss of how many divisions as well as at Kursk where the soviet army neutered the german panther divisions ,pride of the german army and best they had to offer, which began the reteat that didnt end until Brlin and Hitlers bunker.That doesnt sound like an enemy on the ropes rather it points to a germany struggling to remain in the war and forestall the inevitable.This silly argument of yours about german numerical superiority and manufacturing capability doesnt wash in the history of the war.10million men only amounts to some 90 divisions anyway,a pittance right.

 

[Chrom]

Very simply put germany lost the war because they bit off more than they could chew,The indusrtial base the russian possesed while they may have not been the highest quality weapons made killed just as effectively and anyway you want to diminish the capabilitysb of the soviet army they did have effective weapons and a great deal of them. Far More than the germans could hope to match.Whether it was due to lend lease or allied bombing they were decisevily beaten before the brits and americans joined the land war. Is that due to the great advantage in population or manufacturing capabilitypossessed by the germans?They did have this grand manufacturing capability throughout the conquered territorys as yove said but subject to sabotage combined with the populatim advantage and mere 10 millions of advantage in the size of the soviet army the superior training of the german soldier surely overcame any difference in fighting poorly trained soviet armys superiotrity of a 2-3 advantage yet they were outprodued by 100 fold.No matter how you care to juggle numbers the germans simply could not match the manufacturing capability/numbers of even the russians let alone the UsA and they were in fact doomed from thier first step into soviet territory.

It is due to HIGHLY ineffective use of resources. For example, Panther required about 10x times as much work as T-34, while being may be 2 times better. Some thing with with airplanes, etc. Add to the fact what Germany hadnt switched to full-time industrial mobilization till about later 1943 - and you know why USSR outproduced Germany. Still, 1941 and 1942 was especially bad for soviet industry due to relocation.

The pure industrial capabilites of 3rd reich was far greater than USSR ones , EVEN counting lend-lease, which btw. hadnt kicked till later 1942 anyway. We can see steel production, aluminium production, optic and engines production... in all these areas Germany was far ahead of USSR. But very ineffective way of production prevented Germany to exploit industrial advantage to full strength.

 

[Chrom]

A short article about USSR and Germany economic.

http://www.feldgrau.com/econo.html

Note, in 1943 Germany produced 4.5 times MORE steel than USSR, and still falling behind in several vital areas of weapon production....

 

[eckherl]

Very simply put germany lost the war because they bit off more than they could chew,The indusrtial base the russian possessed while they may have not been the highest quality weapons made killed just as effectively and anyway you want to diminish the capabilitys of the soviet army they did have effective weapons and a great deal of them. Far More than the germans could hope to match.Whether it was due to lend lease or allied bombing then germans were decisevily beaten before the brits and americans joined the land war. Is that due to the great advantage in population or manufacturing capability possessed by the germans?They did have this grand manufacturing capability throughout the conquered territorys as yove claimed but subject to sabotage combined with the population advantage and mere 10 millions of advantage in the size of the soviet army the superior training of the german soldier surely overcame any difference in fighting poorly trained soviet armys superiority of a 2-3 advantage yet they were outprodued by 100 fold.No matter how you care to juggle numbers the germans simply could not match the manufacturing capability/numbers of even the russians let alone the UsA and they were in fact doomed from thier first step into soviet territory.Long before the western allies had a chance to impact the war the soviet army all by thier lonesome managed to soundly defeat the germans at stalingrad witha loss of how many divisions as well as at Kursk where the soviet army neutered the german panther divisions ,pride of the german army and best they had to offer, which began the reteat that didnt end until Brlin and Hitlers bunker.That doesnt sound like an enemy on the ropes rather it points to a germany struggling to remain in the war and forestall the inevitable.This silly argument of yours about german numerical superiority and manufacturing capability doesnt wash in the history of the war.10million men only amounts to some 90 divisions anyway,a pittance right.

How many Panthers were in the Kursk battles, how many of them could not even make it to the front lines due to mechanical failures, hardly the pride of the German panzer troops during that battle.

 

[merocaine]

This silly argument of yours about german numerical superiority and manufacturing capability doesnt wash in the history of the war.10million men only amounts to some 90 divisions anyway,a pittance right.

Its not a silly arguement. At two key points the Germans were the numerically superiority force.
Before Moscow in 1941. It was the Russians exellent use of there reserves after the Germans exhasted themselves that was the key, they certainly did'ent outnumber the Germans at the outset of the Battle.

During the Battle of Stalingrad, here small numbers of Russian troops held off numerically superior troops, and in the process ground them down, as the own reserves were slowly built up for the counter offencive.

Its not a very rewarding process going through the German misteps in there eastern Campain (of which there were many), if you dont do the same for the Russians.
What if Stalin had competent commanders in the west at the start of the battle? What if a thin line was held at the border with the Majority held deep in european Russian. What if Stalin had heeded the many warnings about attack and had disposed his forces accordingly?
The sheer number of tanks at the start of the battle could in the hands of a competent commander turned the Germans back much earlier.

The more interesting alternative history should focus on how rapidly the Germans could have been defeated if the Russians had decent commanders at the outset.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

eckherl, manfred & chrom...

Boys a different platform here or there, a different choice of poroduction facilities or a different tacticle decission would not have altered the outcome for the germans, it may well have altered the tactical situation some but i highly doubt anything of real strategic importance could have been achieved. A 4 engined bomber, a better choice of tank, a better rifle, whatever, none of them would have changed the outcome. Wars arnt won by platforms, they're won by organizations, nations and economies as a whole. Their folly was strategic rather than tactical or even economic. They fought the wrong people at the wrong time, i.e. the rest of the world at once. Strategically/Economically the combination of the UK, USA and what was left of the USSR was a combination that NAZI germany could never have matched, and the tactical advantage they held at the outset eroded as the war progresed, untill they were eventually outfought by all of the above.

@ merocaine....

An interesting point. However it was not only effective leadership that the red army lacked in 1941. Their real downfall was an atrocious operational doctorine in small to meduim sized unit terms. Their large scale doctorine wasnt too shabby, "deep battle" had all the hallmarks of blitzkrieg, and the battles of anhialtion waged in '44 were IMO more effective then the blitzkrieg battles waged in 41. Even if they had decent division/army/corps commanders they wouldnt have been able to maneuver them effectively because of the sh*tehouse quality of small unit commanders, NCO's, logistical train and operational doctorine. All of this was made painfully clear in Finland were the Soviets were constantly outfought on the company/battalion/brigade level by the finns, even when holding a massive numerical and in some cases logistical advantage. Ivan needed a year of hard schooling to allow military darwinism to take its cource. By 1944 they were better than the germans on the division/corps/army level, and their equal (for the most part) in small units. The Red Army evolved from the boots up, it changed from the awkward, cumbersome, inefficent, politically driven, outdated and incapable white elephant that evapotrated before the germans in 1941, to the devistating, precisie and extreemly capable instrement of warfare it was in 1944/45. Better commanders in 1941 would have changed little, the improvement needed to be organization wide before they could beat the germans.

 

[merocaine]

@ ozzy b

point taken, the Red Army of 41 could'ent have undertaken an operation like 'Bragration', even the counter offencive before moscow fissled out once the Germans decided (or Hitler did anyway) that retreating in the winter was a bad idea.

But certainly the stupendous losses in men and material in the opening months of the campain could have been avoided with less brainless dispositions, even if tactical reflexes were numb.
The fighting in the Ukraine is a classic case, Stavka was still marching troops into pockets even as they were being encircled, as poor as the level of NCO and junior offier training was it would have been better if the had someone less idiotic than Budenny in command.