Thinking about this more, the Germans only had to sink shipping going off to the UK. There was no need to acquire air supremacy over England (acquiring air supremacy over the English channel to enable further shipping destruction would be worth it).
Let’s not problem that these ships sunk need to be replaced too!
Had their propaganda machine been used to turn some soviets against Stalin they could have had much help from the local populaces.
Very scary if Hitler could have suppressed his end goals until the war was won…
Yes, Stalin had purged at lot of the minorities, like ukraineans, baltics, cossacks etc etc, and they could have turned against Stalin, not to mention russians that was against communism. But Hitler was against arming slaves, even to fight other slaves, because his main purpose with the war was to kill most of the slaves west of Ural and then populate the Ostland with pure germans. But Hitlers generals did draft a lot of volunteer Ukraineans and Russians, not to forget Vlasov’s cossack army, but they could never tell Hitler about it. They had to do this in secret, so they didnt upset Hitler and ruin his day.
Yes, if Hitler could have suppressed his urge to kill jews and slaves until the war was won, the history might have turned out different. The german army was always short of supply because Hitler used the railways to bring jews to Auschwitz. Imagine all this trains bringing supplies to the front instead, and the 6 million jews working in factories or fighting as soldiers, it might have made a difference. But then, Hitler would not have been Hitler, and there would not be any WWII.
In case you ask me.
When UK and France declared war , Hitler could have haltet his troops on Germany’s original 1914 borders and stated that he had no more claims, and that the treaties of Versailles and the spirit of Wilson was fulfilled. Then UK and France would be short of any casus belli, and there would be no world war, and Hitler would be considered one of the greatest statesmen of the century because he had restored Germany’s originale borders, not to mention that he lifted Germany out of the depression.
But since he kept on, the best thing he could do different, was better cooperation with his allies and his generals.
The treaty with Stalin was clever, the Poland campaign was a success, the attack on Norway to secure the steel trade and treathen the North Sea was a success, and the initial attack on France was a success. But by now Hitler started to mess it up, and he was responsible for the miracle of Dunquirk. If he had trusted his generals, he could have got 350 000 british hostages to enforce a peace treaty.
But from this point his Italian allied startet to mess things up in Balkan and North Africa. Mussolini attacked Egypt and Greece without telling Hitler, and failed in both places. Hitler could have ignored it, and saved every man for Barbarossa, but then the oil fields in Ploesti would have been vulnerable. Better cooperation with Italy could have avoided the attacks on Egypt and Greece, and made for an ultimate Barbarossa campaign. Or Hitler could have put of Barbarossa, and used all available resources to conquer the rich oil fields in the Middle East, closed the Sues canal, allied with Turkey, and kicked the Brits out of North Africa and the Med. Now Germany would have a great template for a 1942 Russian campaign.
Better cooperation with Japan could made a successful Barbarossa. If Japan attacked Russia simultanesly, and Hitler let Army Group Center go straight for Moscow, then Moscow would have been conqered. In our real timeline, Moscow was saved by the siberian troops and the non-aggression pact with Japan. As it turned out, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour did not help Germany, it just brought giant military industrial complex USA into the war, and from that point the outcome was pretty much set.
…The german army was always short of supply because Hitler used the railways to bring jews to Auschwitz. Imagine all this trains bringing supplies to the front instead, …
this might be a part of the reason but mainly had the Reichsbahn to deal with the russian width of the tracks wich was 1542 mm. Reichsbahn Pioneers had to change or switch it to European 1435 mm.
…The german army was always short of supply because Hitler used the railways to bring jews to Auschwitz. Imagine all this trains bringing supplies to the front instead, …
That’s a ridiculous assertion.
Especially considering he used those SAME jews as slave labour, pumping out munitions, supplies, etc, whilst barely feeding them anything.
1 train ride carries X amount of people for X amount of thousands-man-hours… hmmm
Can you be a little more specific Aleposita?
Not every hard labour was done by Jews or Jews only, there was O.T. and R.A.D who were first in line to build Sub pens etc, etc.
They were more likely refreshed with workers from Concentration Camps.
Keep focus on radar, airfields and fighter aircraft factories during the battle of Britain; I would add attack North Sea and Channel convoys by air along. Force the Royal Air Force to fight over the Channel where the Germans have a better chance of favorable match up.
Thanks Omega: great poll, question and options.
I am a great believer in keeping the US out of wars: they always ruin it for other nations!
WW2 could have been two wars, on two different halves of the planet.
Hitler’s declaration of war, followed stupidly by Mussolini’s, was unnecessary and brought Patton and Bradley and the II Corps to the shores of Africa, with all the problems that caused the beleaguered Axis forces there. Next was Sicily and Italy’s surrender, then 20 German Divisions holding the Italian Peninsular instead of fighting the Russians. (Hitler called off Zitadelle early for fear of losing control of Italy.)
I do also think the UK could have been starved by better use of Navy and Air by German planners. As others have said Sealion was not necessary, only shutting down the Island from outside. The Channel was a great place to draw out the RAF, as the 109 just did not have the combat range to stay too long over England.
We start to see leaders emerging, but all the options were picked at least once so that’s good!
Not declaring war against the US seems to be the most popular option. I guess I agree with this to extent that I believe the Japanese should have avoided getting the US involved by attacking the Dutch East Indies as they seized French Indochina. If the UK (who would be having a harder time getting supplies home because of a better German sub / air campaign) would be foolish enough to declare war, then the Japanese could proceed and take over with much less risk of seeing the US involved immediately (why would the US help the UK asset its own Empire?).
In late 1941, a stalemate could be reached in absence of seeing the Soviets or the USA involved.
UK is starving off, bankrupt and isolated and would have no interest in carrying on a fight. The Germans would have the UK acknowledge Italian and German North African conquests, the German claims on Western Europe (why wouldn’t Germany absorb Vichy France), Poland, Norway and the Benelux.
Japan with oil supplies from the DEI, could continue the colonial expansion in China and consolidate its empire.
Following the war, there would be 4 major world Powers:
Soviet Union (most powerful and numerous land forces)
USA (most powerful economy)
German Empire (best technology / military tactics)
Japanese Empire (dependent on other’s technology, but high potential)
Instead of attacking the USSR in 1941, Germany should have invaded Turkey and, from there, struck out in two directions. The eastward thrust would have had as its objective the capture of Iran, Iraq and possibly Saudi Arabia, in order to gain control of their oil supply for Germany and (at the same time) to deny that oil supply to Britain. The westward thrust would have had as its objective the capture of the Suez Canal and of Egypt, trapping the British Army between this new thrust and Rommel’s existing forces in western North Africa. The British presence in the Mediterranean would have been compromised, thus complicating the logistical support of the British armies in North Africa and facilitating that of the Axis armies, who might eventually have knocked the British completely out of North Africa. Britain’s shortest route (via Suez) to India and the Far East would have been cut off, with damaging effects to both Britain’s maritime trade (bringing Britain closer to economic strangulation) and to its military support of its forces in the Far East (thus making the Japanese invasion of Malaya and Burma easier in December 1941). With Germany occupying the Middle East and Japan having an easier time in Burma, it’s even possible the two Axis nations might have taken a shot at a joint invasion of India from opposite directions and effected a link-up there, knocking Britain’s “jewel of the Crown” out of the war and providing a direct overland trade connection between German-occupied and Japanese-occupied territory.
The Turkey option is interesting. With UK on the ropes, it’s not impossible that Turkey would have granted passage in exchange for retaining it’s sovereignty (not getting invaded).
From there, the Germans could take over most of the British and French empires.
The land route with Japan is an interesting concept which would have made Japan access to German technology much easier (as opposed to using submarines!)
An Invasion of Turkey wasn´t neccessary.
It would have been a waste of time and ignorant since it was, that Turkey was a good provider for certain metalls (Chrome ,Nickel etc.,…) and other supplys.
Turkey was officially Neutral and an Invasion would open another Frontline wich drains men and material.
Invading Turkey as N.-Germany in any scenario and given time would cause more Problems then Help.
N.-Germany could have conquered Turkey in a few weeks, rather say months, but you also would have woke up the Arabien league (especially when you are about to cross the easten part of Turkey).
Are you Gentlemens and Generals are willing to do so in your Scenario??
@aequitas:
you also would have woke up the Arabien league (especially when you are about to cross the easten part of Turkey).
Marhaba, kifallach, mabsout eh? You too speak arabian, aequitas ? Jalla jalla, my special friend price for you.
Who do you, in your humble opinion, think the Arabien league will most likely support, Hitler with his anti-jews policy and close cooperation with islamic leader Amir Al-Husseini, or the Ottoman infidels who depressed and subjectioned the arabs for one century and at this time (1940) try to make a secular state away from islam ?
ShadowHAwk, the US also sold was materials to Germany but it is true Roosevelt felt Hitler had to be stopped and that most of the trade and support was with Britain. Had Germany not gone after minorities coupled with a competent P.R. campaign then I am certain Germany could have kept the US from declaring war. Germany would have to be able to choke out England fairly quickly and not a 10 year starvation blockade. By the end of 1941 the US still could not muster the political support required to declare war. Hitler was a fool to declare war on the US first. Had he not done that one easily avoidable act it might have been another year even with Pearl Harbour before the US comes to the aid of England. Had he actively worked to keep the US out of the war in Europe/Africa it could easily have been 2-3 more years if ever.
The old saying “If things were different they wouldn’t be the same” comes to mind if you change too much about Hitler and Nazism. With that in mind a questionable option as unsavory as it is….could be “Avoid genocidal tendencies until victory is won.”
@aequitas:
you also would have woke up the Arabien league (especially when you are about to cross the easten part of Turkey).
Marhaba, kifallach, mabsout eh? You too speak arabian, aequitas ? Jalla jalla, my special friend price for you.
Who do you, in your humble opinion, think the Arabien league will most likely support, Hitler with his anti-jews policy and close cooperation with islamic leader Amir Al-Husseini, or the Ottoman infidels who depressed and subjectioned the arabs for one century and at this time (1940) try to make a secular state away from islam ?
naw ,only a few sentences turkish to get good conversations with some Turkish friends over here.
The question of Turkey in WW II. and it´s role was allready discussed many times of course but mostly ended up, with the high possibility that the Arabien League would not welcomed an Invasion of Turkey.
And in fact,Turkey (as well as the Arabien League) welcomed the anti - jew policy of Hitler but it would have been soon clear IF Hitler is invading Turkey, then the Arabien League would have figured that his hate/interrest is against all different thinkers and believers.
Hitler knew what he was doing by keeping Turkey at bay in that state they where (officially Neutral) and even allowing SS - Handschar fighting along with his soldiers. SS-Handschar was the only Muslime Unit (Croats) who fought for Hitler against the Soviets.
It is to understand that it was more like an unwritten pact between N.-Germany and Turkey and The Arabien League tolertaing the things happen in N.-Germany and dealing metal, interrests and money etc. …
But to be honest and to leave it a little bit open, it is hard to say what exactly would have happend if Turkey would have been conquered as a whole, including the eastern part. -> according to the Ottoman question you have raised.
It was a very sharp and Interresting question of you Razor :-) iyi Günler (my Turkish writting is bad lol :wink:)
Nice answer. And it just might be a good reason nobody dared attack Turkey during the real war
Nice answer. And it just might be a good reason nobody dared attack Turkey during the real war
8-) :-D
I did not mean to imply the US was selling goods to Germany after the declaration of war, my mistake, I should have been more specific. I would also like to add that it was not the US government but US corporations which have a mind and motive of their own.
http://www.ranknfile-ue.org/uen_nastybiz.html
So anyways,
The Lend-Lease act was enacted 9 months before Pearl Harbor but well after the outbreak of WW II.
I didn’t know this until just know, from wiki…
Formally titled An Act to Further Promote the Defense of the United States, the Act effectively ended the United States’ pretense of neutrality.
Germany may have easily been able to use PR to delay or even prevent this act from being passed. Britain was running out of gold and prior to this act the US could not sell war materials on credit.
If this act could have been delayed until 1942 and Germany been better prepared with subs in the Atlantic then I think Germany would have a good foundation for choking out England.
…Just that history is always written by the victor not the loser of a war.
And this is exactly the problem and makes it hard to figure out the truth…
