Alternate history of ww2

[Kardikek]

I've been playing Europa Universalis and Hearts of Iron series for a while now enjoying messing up history as the proverbial overmind. So after watching a documentary on ww2 I ask you, could Germany have won had Hitler been a bit more intelligent and less fanatically whimsical?

Hitler did his bit in unifying Germany into a singleminded war apparatus but once actual war had started he was like a rabid fangirl. Unwanted, loud and obnoxious and an irrational urge to prove himself right with catastrophic results.

Off the top of my head from what I know;
- Overconfidence in regards to operation barbarossa against the soviets and then refusal to accept defeat resulting in the death and capture of an entire army group. (Same as previous swedish and napoleonic invasions)
- Overconfidence in their air superiority so much that they halted all R&D into air tech at the start of the war. And once they finally got the first working jet engines despite this hitler cockblocked it. Halting it's production for two years and then forcing the makers to make what would have been the world's most superior air fighter into a fighter-bomber of dubious quality.
- Despite the army needing simpler, faster and lighter tanks with more range against the soviets Hitler once again cockblocked it with his own ideas of weapon design adding 20 odd tons of armour making the new tank just as worthlessly cumbersome as the previous on the vast plains.

- Hitler also cockblocked the production of the world's first fully automatic assault rifle. The army ignored him on this though.
- Albert Speer whined in his biography about how Hitler prefered putting ass lickers into power instead of people with a firm grasp of tactics and knowledge.

Basically if Hitler wasn't in charge being a retard could they still have had a chance against the seemingly endless supplies of the US?
But then again the allies could have just invaded the Ruhr area the moment nazi forces entered Poland and cockblock most of their industrial production thus ending the war within a week.


Just see this as a mind game for fun.

[Taure]

Hitler could have won if Germany had won the battle of Britain (rather than the allies) thus resulting in in invasion of Britain that had been planned, rather than the invasion of Russia that took place in RL (because Germany failed to gain Air Superiority over the allies in Western Europe).

Had the U.K. (and allies) lost the Battle of Britain and been invaded, the allies would not have had a staging point for the invasion of Normandy. The military might of the U.S. would have been ineffective (against Germany, they still had Japan to worry about) due to the Atlantic Ocean.

Once the U.K. had fallen, Hitler could have regrouped and gone for Russia in his own time, rather than having to fight the two-front war he ended up with.

So the whole of modern history depended on that one Battle of Britain.

[World]

If necessary, I believe the Nuclear Bomb would have been used against Germany, if the Allies had the possibility to drop them.

Yes, Germany would have had more success if Hitler hadn't been a psychopath. Simply not attacking Russia would have made a huge difference.
Although Japan would probably still lose (they always do in Hearts of Iron II :D), thus leaving the US free to concentrate on Europe. Though it would have been hugely more difficult to succeed.

[Amerision]

Even more interesting:

Germany's only really good chance at total European control was in World War I. Had Germany dug its heels in for a few more months (or won many of the critical battles that barely saved the Allies. The very last push into France was barely repelled only because German troops were hungry and stood plundering the bakeries in towns they took over), Britain would have become crushed under the strain and would have either eventually either retreated its forces or become destroyed by a German assault.

This would result in severe starvation in Germany (Britain was maintaining a blockade), with most likely thousands dying, but it is clear in retrospect that Germany's early, surprising surrender was what saved the Allies. With Britain out of the game, France would have no choice but to surrender, making any form of an American invasion at this point pointless. The American Expeditionary forces, while fresh, were woefully unprepared for war and poorly trained compared to their British counterparts. The Germans would easily knock them out, holding the coasts.

With the British out, the blockade would also fall, perhaps as a clause of a ceasefire or simply to bring the ships back to repel a possible German invasion in the coming years.

With the West finished, Germany could then rape the East and take over Russian resources.

--
Here's another strategy, which is probably the better than the one above. This is from a paper of this topic I wrote a few weeks ago:

Alternate Germany Strategy


Germany in 1916 was in a favorable position. The Allies had been unable to change the stalement; British and French forces suffered heavy losses at Gallipoli, Mesopotamia, and East Africa, the Italians and Russians slaughtered against German and Austrian forces.


Russia, the main aggressor in the East, had suffered massive losses, losing close to fifteen soldiers for every enemy casualty. Their armies had been all but destroyed in the year before, and civil unrest loomed at home.


The Central Powers remained able to easily move forces from its two main fronts due to the greater unity of command and heartland position as well. This large advantage, however, was slowly being countered by the command of seas the Allies possessed, and the large amount of resources from America that would soon start replenishing Allied forces. Furthermore, conscripts from Britain were being added to the Western front, along with the possible impeding American entrance to the war.


With the Russians reeling and possessing such an inferior military, it seems reasonable to assume that a reduced and primarily defensive position in the East could retain the front long enough for Germany to concentrate heavily on the West. If the kill ratio of the German armies fighting the Russians can be counted on, as much as a 50% reduction of forces in the Eastern theater could be maintained. Germany should not seek to drive into the heart of Russia, keeping Napoleon's failure in mind. All that had to be maintained is a stiff, easily dependable shield to stall Russia enough for an all out Western offensive.


With Lenin sent to the Russian homeland, and civic unrest as it was, German leaders could expect disruption in the Russian command that would severely compromise Russian aggression. Perhaps a deal could made with the revolutionary promising a return of captured lands in return for immediate assistance in the form of war goods for the drying up German stockpile once the Russian revolution is completed.


On the Western front, the German High Command should execute its most massive effort to date. The German position could only get worse. Naval blockades were stifling resources, and American support could only increase with time. Two steps could be taken to mitigate these issues:


1.) The Zimmerman Telegram would be avoided at all costs. The gesture was useless even if it had not been cracked – the promise of land gain and financial support for a Mexican war against the United States was useless to America's southern neighbor. The only major arms manufacturer in the Western Hemisphere was the United States itself, and German forces would find it impossible to ship the massive amount of arms to help Mexico. Furthermore, although the southern American border was mostly undefended, Mexican forces would have trouble maintaining the many English speaking peoples it could hypothetically conquer. This too was unfeasible – the United States was far more powerful than the Mexican military.


If a diplomatic gesture was desired, perhaps the German Embassy could pass information to pacifist American newspapers warning of possible British forgeries with similar subjects as the real Zimmerman telegram (instead of sending the actual telegram). This would play into the fears of American pacifists that the British would try to bait America into a 'European War'.


2.) Halting all submarine warfare against passenger liners. Although this seems like a naïve gesture considering the possible shipment of arms and supplies via civilian ships, it would go a long way in supporting American pacifists and silencing the country's warhawks. Anti-German sentiment rose in the United States after the repeated sinking of civilian liners. Allowing the British more arms in the short term would be well worth preventing the United States from leveraging her massive resources directly against Germany.


With direct US involvement made far more unlikely and the bolstering of Western forces with reinforcements from the Eastern front, a massive thrust into France toward Paris would be called for. The information detailing the plan would be given to the German soldiers in order to prepare them for the tremendously difficult operation. Tales of glory, that of a united Europe under the power of Germany and the like. Boosting the morale of the troops would be of paramount important less they falter in their drive.


In preparation for the attack, a surge of Austrian (and Ottoman troops, who, after defeating the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps at the Battle of Gallipoli remained bolstered) troops might be diverted similarly from the Eastern front would, perhaps at the expense of defensive capability or even land in the East, attempt a reckless all-out charge through Italy towards France with artillery support. The goal would be to make it extremely messy and noticeable. Troops bearing the German uniform and flag would be ideal, but not necessary. The success of this operation is unimportant – in all likelihood it would fail terribly. It would, however, draw some allied forces from the North toward the South just in case.


Within a week or less, the main German force would launch its attack simultaneously with an all out naval assault with its unterseeboots – u-boats – on any ships approaching France. With a temporary (if weak) block on the seas to inspire panic in France (who has been relying heavily on foreign aid). Trivial operations like the Bombardment of Yarmouth and Lowestoft would be scrapped and instead replaced by this blockade. The zeppelins, long thought useless (the Germans had used them in daylight against heavily armed targets to great failure – gunfire took care of they fairly easily) would be flown over French lines and crashed deliberately to incite panic. Any bombing operations possible would be carried out, but signs of mounting defense should initiate their suicidal missions. Crewmembers would set the course and parachute out if possible, putting as much distance as possible between them and the craft laden with explosives. Again – the object is fear and intimidation, not destruction (though any opportunity which presents itself should be taken advantage of).


In the midst of this chaos, the German force would finally make its attack toward France, driving the French soldiers and gambling on the diversionary and fear-inspiring tactics to defeat the tired, worn-out defense, making great use of weak points in the line (which were all but absent with the British). If the Russians have, at this point, quit the war, the majority of the eastern forces could be drawn back to the West. The news of both Russia's departure and more German soldiers would also hammer down Allied morale.


With luck, the German could drive into France and capture Paris or at least force the country to sue for peace. With France out of the war, Britain would quickly give up at the prospect of the entire German front facing them. With that out of the way, Germany would swing her armies around the confront the weaker Russia, who, by this time, has either retreated from the war because of the revolution, or has reassembled its forces to attack the weakened German defense. With Russian forces as weak as they are (or a revolution causing them to quit), the Germans are sure to win the war, making it too late for the US to enter the war even if she had wanted to.

--



See? Much easier than her trying in the second World War.

[Lyndon Eye]

One could also argue that had the Schleiffen Plan succeeded and France had fallen, history might have been written in a very different fashion.

Then again, one could also make even more specific conjectures and argue that had Von Kluck's turn never occurred, or had the Right Wing been stronger, the outcome of WWI might have been very different.

I suppose there are a millions "what if"s and "if only"s.

As it stands, Germany lost both wars, and the U.S. became a superpower.

End of story.

[Giovanni]

Not enough people, regardless of the fronts. The US couldn't have used Britain as a staging point, but that assumes Britain was the only front the US could have used for Europe. The problem for Germany was air/naval superiority (subs are nice, but not when you're against a country that has figured out how to counter them). The invasion would have taken one hell of a lot longer, and it would have likely ended in a rather one-sided nuclear exchange (or a bunch of suicide fire-bombings coming from either North Africa or the Persian Gulf), but Germany wouldn't have won that thing.

Historical 'what-ifs' are always fun . . . But kinda pointless.

[Niffler Lord]

Hitler could have won if Germany had won the battle of Britain (rather than the allies) thus resulting in in invasion of Britain that had been planned, rather than the invasion of Russia that took place in RL (because Germany failed to gain Air Superiority over the allies in Western Europe).

Had the U.K. (and allies) lost the Battle of Britain and been invaded, the allies would not have had a staging point for the invasion of Normandy. The military might of the U.S. would have been ineffective (against Germany, they still had Japan to worry about) due to the Atlantic Ocean.

Once the U.K. had fallen, Hitler could have regrouped and gone for Russia in his own time, rather than having to fight the two-front war he ended up with.

So the whole of modern history depended on that one Battle of Britain.

I agree. The Battle of Britain was the most crucial point in the war. Within the first few months the RAF was almost on its knees, from the bombing campaign. Then the Germans switched to bombing cities and gave the RAF much required relief, which lead to the loss in that battle.

IF the Britain had been conquered then Germany would have more troops for the Russian campaign and possibly finished it before onset of the Russian Winter, the thing that ultimately defeated the Germans.

The US would have then found it hard to reenter Europe as the main staging areas were in Africa, where Rommel was beating the shit out them for the most part. Even if got a good foothold in Africa, a cross-Mediterranean landing would have been extremely difficult and dangerous.

I also like to point out that the only reason the Allies learned to counter the U-boat threat was because they broke the transmission code used by the Germans. Plus Hitler was diverting resourses to other areas.

There are so many if's with WW2. But I do feel that the main one was Hitler. Without him the war could have gone on for a lot longer.

[Tenhauser]

Even more interesting:

Germany's only really good chance at total European control was in World War I. Had Germany dug its heels in for a few more months (or won many of the critical battles that barely saved the Allies. The very last push into France was barely repelled only because German troops were hungry and stood plundering the bakeries in towns they took over), Britain would have become crushed under the strain and would have either eventually either retreated its forces or become destroyed by a German assault.
The main problem with the German war machine during WWI occurred before the war had begun. The Schlieffen Plan, for those who don't know, was the original strategy created by Count Alfred von Schlieffen of the GHC years before WWI on an invasion of France. In its first carnation, the Schlieffen plan called for 72 divisions to conduct an enormous enveloping movement that would encircle and destroy the French forces. It called for the 72 divisions to be split into three groups (53 divisions were allocated for the sweeping movement, 10 for the pivot, and 9 to hold the French frontier) and it was here that the plan hinged on, any change in the troop placement could spell disaster for the entire plan; which it did as the plan was later revised by Helmuth von Moltke, Schlieffen's successor, so that the placement of the divisions was more even.

it is clear in retrospect that Germany's early, surprising surrender was what saved the Allies.
The Allies didn't need saving in 1918. The German Spring Offensive, while incredibly effective during the early stages, ground to a halt due to the constant stream of American troops (quantity has a quality all its own) and because the attacks had finally forced the Allies to create a unified command structure.


With the West finished, Germany could then rape the East and take over Russian resources.
If the last push into France you mentioned above was the 1918 Spring attacks, then Russia was already out of the war. Political and military leaders of WWI, for the most part, still thought in an 1800's mindset - Concert of Europe and all that jazz. The most that the German's would have done would be to support whichever side they liked in the Russian Civil War.

While I agree that the German defeat in the Battle of Britain was an important point in the long road to (eventual) Allied defeat, it was most defiantly not the turning point that it is being portrayed as; that would be the Battle of Stalingrad.

[EvilSpanker]

Hitler fucked himself over in The Battle of Britain. Germany was winning the battle until he decided to focus on bombing London instead of the airfields and other vital areas.

Even if Britain lost BoB I don't think Operation Sealion would have worked. Too many factors going against Germany; Britain's navy, home field advantage, etc.

The US couldn't have used Britain as a staging point, but that assumes Britain was the only front the US could have used for Europe

Very true. I see the next most logical invasion point would be from Sicily or Greece (assuming they push the Axis powers out of Greece). Most likely Sicily though since it is almost on top of Italy.

Though I don't know if any of it could happen. With Britain out of the war that would mean Montgomery was never in Africa to fight Rommel, which means that the remaining allies would have to fight there first. I am sure Patton could have done it.


If any of you are interested in Alternate history fiction the works of Harry Turtledove (the Great War Series), Philip Roth (The Plot Against America), Philip K. Dick (The Man in the High Castle) were very enjoyable to read IMO.

[Kardikek]

Paradox forums have fanfics of the games they play but calling it AAR. Just finished reading a massive fic where the british monarchy took power back, retook power over it's colonies and giving them a place in the parliament along with a military buildup well before ww2. Detailed to the degree of history books and an awesome read for Briton supremacists :)

[Helltanz98]

While Hitler was a moron, and no one disputes that, but Germany and the Soviet Union were both well on their way to having A bombs, they were conducting tests, in an alternate timeline where Hitler was not such an idiot, or got replaced by some body more Competent, say Grand Admiral Karl Donitz, or the Commander of the SS and Gestapo; Heinrich Himmler, Germany probably would have won, Hitler was an idiot his stupidity cost Germany the war, Stalin would have probably been content to wait for the non existent rebellions of the common people against capatilist governments, so Goering should have been ordered to blow every major target his Luftaffe could hit, Barbossa should have been scrapped until the whole of the German army was fixed up, and rearmed, Sturmgewer 44, probbalby, and then after the whole army is fixed up and Stalin has caused all kinds of havoc on his country's research ability by killing of the academics nuke moscow with a jet bomber and hit the eastern front hard and fast with Blitzkreig tactics, secure up to the Ural mountains, and use the resources there for preparations to finish off Russia, hell if Japan didn't lose you could have them bomb Russia's eastern bases.

[Giovanni]

For those of you discussing World War I, US soldiers were a negligible force during that event. Much more significant were the US agricultural supplies that got pumped into France and Britain as the two countries would have starved without them.

As for the points about World War II, Germany was not going to conquer all of Russia before the winter set in, and even if it did somehow manage to take Moscow, it is likely that the Russians would have just destroyed their cities and watched the Germans freeze to death.

Either way, Germany would have been suceptible to a land invasion from either the Caucuses or from Italy had Britain not been available as a staging point.

[Tehan]

Shoot the dictator and prevent the war? But the dictator is merely the tip of the whole festering boil of social pus from which dictators emerge; shoot one, and there'll be another one along in a minute. Shoot him too? Why not shoot everyone and invade Poland?

Careful when mucking with history. It has inertia and a nasty sense of humour on its side.

[Helltanz98]

In World War I the United States basically supplied the supplies to the starving nations, rather than the US troops kicking ass and taking names, like he said they would have starved had we not made such sharing.
However as on the subject of land invasions. An amphibious landing in Italy and then up into Germany would be stupid, all the German army would have to do is hold up in the Italian alps, and then chokepoint the allies to death, machine gun nests at three angles on clustered infantry would play hell on allied morale.
I'm not familar with the Caucaus mountains but given the size of the red army, that angle might work, but conquering the whole of the USSR would have been impossible before winter, hence my above statement about stopping at the Ural, it is basically extremely fertile, lots of resources and farm land, it cut the USSR off from a good deal of supplies.

[Giovanni]

We did go up through Italy though, it was just ridiculously bloody. There was also a possibility of invading the south of France from North Africa, or just going across Gibralter.

[Helltanz98]

Thats what I meant, about Italy, I totally forgot about France and North Africa though Gibraltar might have been a problem to its kind of dangerous, if the Germans managed to achieve air superiority.

[Aekiel]

You're also forgetting the naval aspect of the Atlantic. While the German U-boats were very good at what they did, they were forced to deploy from the coast of the North Sea, pushing through the picket line between Britain and Iceland to get to the Allied convoys. If Britain fell it would have given the Germans a lot more freedom in where to deploy their ships and U-boats from.

Also, in 1940/41, when the Battle of Britain was in full swing, Germany had control of much of West Africa. If Britain had fallen in that first assault with France and Norway the Atlantic would be open to them without any interference from European navies.

As well as that, if what my books tell me is true, then President Roosevelt favoured a direct assault into Europe instead of an attack through Africa, but was talked out of it by Churchill. If that is the case, and Britain did fall in the early stages of the war, then there would be no invasion from the south, with only the 8th Army Corps in Egypt able to provide any backup (as well as the fact that new Commanders would not have been provided when others were killed/dismissed).

From there it is pure conjecture on what could or could not happen. Would the Allied forces have been able to cross the Atlantic in such great force without help from the British Navy in the North Sea? Would the rest of Africa have fallen without help from US troops in the west? How long would it have taken for the USSR to fall under increased pressure from German reinforcements?

Aekiel

[excalibur421]

Well, I wouldn't say our troops had a negligible impact in WWI, despite our late entry. Don't think I could do justice explaining it, but if you can, read 'To The Last Man' by Jeff Shaara, part of the book is from the point-of-view of a U.S. soldier.

Anyway though, on the topic at hand, I think that Germany definitely could've won if Hitler had been removed from power. After all, he blocked numerous scientific developments, most notably nuclear weapons.

Of course, it's rumored that Werner Heisenberg wasn't putting his full effort into research of that subject, after seeing what was happening to one of his good Jewish friends, a scientist named Neils Bohr.

If Hitler had been removed even in 1944, the war would've turned out differently. He micro-managed things to a ridiculous extent, trying to force his Generals to require permission to perform most any maneuvers. At D-Day this prevented an armored division from moving to assist in trying to turn back the invasion. If that division could've moved when it wanted to, 6-6-44 would've gone a lot differently.

Also, Amerision, how'd you do on that paper? It seemed pretty good to me.

Well, that's enough rambling for now...

[Midknight]

Isn't there a pc game that recently came out that has a storyline that Hitler didn't loose?

[EvilSpanker]

Isn't there a pc game that recently came out that has a storyline that Hitler didn't loose?

I read about a game a while back in my magazine. In the game I think Churchill is hit by a car sometime before the war and dies. Without Churchill, Britain falls, etc etc. Then skip to the 50s, Hitler launches his invasion of America and you take the POV of some dude fighting the Germans.

As for its name or if it is out...beats me.

[excalibur421]

That would be Turning Point: Fall of Liberty, it looks fairly decent, but it's not set to come out until early next year.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_Point:_Fall_of_Liberty

[World]

Heh, because everybody is sick of wargames set in WWII where you fight against the Germans in Europe, now you get a post-WWII-game where you fight against the Germans in the US.

Could be nice though.

[Helltanz98]

Reserving judgement till it comes out, but world is right to many WWII games fighting against the Germans, need more fighting the Japanese, or the Russians, the Italians are boring.