# What if: January 1942



## Njaco (Feb 13, 2008)

Ok, this may have been done before but a couple What if threads here have got me thinking the past few weeks on this scenario. If this has been done, close it, lock it and give me a demerit. I'm sorry for wasting computer paper.  

January 1942

Germany has NOT invaded Russia.
Instead, Hitler had decided that it would be far more effective to use the sub-human Russians as slave-type and drain, if he could, its resources for Germany. He also realizes that with the entrance of the US it won't be long before the US and UK are on the shores of France and he doesn't want a two-front war. Russia is far larger than what he believes his army can conquer, with them spread out across Erurope and Africa. With Japan now in the war, he can cultivate a two front war on Russia at a later time if he can dull Stalin in a sense of some security while planning with the Japanese to strike from China and Mongolia. He has achieved this with a new pact with Russia, similar to 1939 but bringing oil, metal, ores and other needed items from Russia in exchange for what the Russians believe are new designs of war machines and elite training from German advisors.

So the question is what happens in the next 3 years?

Is France invaded?
Is North Africa left to wither for lack of material and men?
Does Rommel make it to the Suez and beyond?
Does German tank design improve without knowledge of the KV-1 or T-34?
Does the Luftwaffe finally get a long-range bomber?
What happens in the Air War over Europe?
Is there Peace accords with UK and US or a fight to end the war?

So much to play with. Any thoughts?


----------



## Parmigiano (Feb 13, 2008)

Spring 1943 : uncle Josif take advantage that Adolf's army is busy westwards with US and UK and invades east europe and jugoslavia, then eventually continue with Oesterreich, Hungary and Germany.

Winston may consider to change priority and side with Adolf against the reds, USA would not agree because of japan in Axis and of the Jews question: interesting scenario 

In any case France and Germany would had been the main battlefield.

Italy, if they were smart, would had sent everybody to f___off and place all possible resources to defend the Alps, the only hope to keep disaster outside the country (unlikely that with the mess in north europe somebody would make a priority to invade Italy from the south)
Since they were idiots, they would probably had followed the Germans.


----------



## DBII (Feb 13, 2008)

I agree, Stalin would have attacked. The Communist thought was always enemy's will not keep treadies and friends do not need them. He always know they would be fighting German. The Nationalist and Communist never got along.

DBII


----------



## Njaco (Feb 13, 2008)

But would Stalin have the guts after Finland to take on something like Germany. And I threw in that Hitler was planning this, just not so soon along with the help of Japan. Devious plans for sure, but would they be implemented before 1945? What would happen in between?

And I'm trying to keep this in a Nazi frame of mind, that to pretend friends and use their resources while planning to strike when stronger.


----------



## DBII (Feb 13, 2008)

I think Stalin would have used the time to stockpile weapons. The two country's political theory demanded the destruction of the other. It was just a matter of when and who would pull the trigger first. The communist are more willing to wait for an advantage while Hitler was implusive.

DBII


----------



## Thorlifter (Feb 13, 2008)

So Hitler stays out of Russia, that means he can concentrate on attacking France and going southeast into Romania and Turkey for the oil fields. If he was smart, he should also stay out of Africa and use Rommel to invade France, then assault Britain. 

However, at that point, Stalin would come into Poland and Yugoslavia and poise themselves to invade Germany. If Hitler could take down Britain quickly via an invasion, then and only then would he attack Russia sitting on their eastern border.


----------



## Lucky13 (Feb 13, 2008)

What if Stalin got first to the oil fields....


----------



## Thorlifter (Feb 13, 2008)

Well, Njaco stated Hitler would arrange a trade with Russia, supplies for training. I'm sure Hitler would love to be controlling them, but if he could still obtain crude, steel, coal, and other vital materials, he would work with that.


----------



## Njaco (Feb 13, 2008)

Well, thats the question.

Would Rommel, now reinforced as the only active front, be able to push to the Middle East and secure oil fields there? Would there be a need to go to the Caucasus? And I threw in the pact with Russia suppling oil, so is there a need?

Remember by 1942;
France is occuppied
Norway is occuppied
Belgium is occuppied
Denmark is occuppied
The Netherlands are occuppied
Greece is occuppied
Crete is occuppied
Yugoslavia is occuppied

What happens to Malta?

I was wondering with the reduction of forces needed for Russia, what would next be the hotbed? I agree that Russia and Germany are not exactly partners but there is a cooling period and it is not a priority at this time.

Just reread Thors post....Would Hitler invade England?...successfully?


----------



## Konigstiger205 (Feb 13, 2008)

Well if they do the same mistakes and the Luftwaffe screws up again I think Britain would be safe and sound...if that is the case then they will probably wait until U.S. bring troops and equipment necessary for the invasion.But then again maybe Germany organize its Kreigsmarine and mans a successful invasion on Britain...


----------



## Thorlifter (Feb 13, 2008)

And that was my point. If Rommel wasn't busy playing in the big sand box, wouldn't using him to land on England be the first choice for him to be used? If not, moving him southeast would be. But as Njaco pointed out, with Russia supplying oil, there wouldn't be a need to have him go after the oil fields. That leaves one direction. Have Rommel go after England and if you needed another action in another direction, remember you would still have Heinz Guderian to command it. 

The blitz, luftwaffe, kreigmarine, and Rommel. Sure would make an interesting scenario to invade England.


HEY THIS IS MY 1000th post! Yea, I win a cookie.


----------



## Njaco (Feb 13, 2008)




----------



## The Basket (Feb 13, 2008)

The Germans should have tried to knock UK out of war before invasion of Russia.

The German Navy was never strong enough to invade UK. And would always have to give control of the seas to the RN. Battle of Britain round 2 in 1942 would have been an eye opener with the Fw190 involved.

But Hitler invaded Russia for more than economic or military reasons.
He hated communists and the jews and the slavs and believed Moscow was the base for all. He wanted to invade because it was the National Socialist thing to do. He couldn't help himself. 
Maybe UK was at war but we weren't his ideological enemy or the demons of his dreams. Stalin was. The Soviets were weak in 41 so why not have a bash? Before they get strong and invade first....


----------



## Njaco (Feb 13, 2008)

I'm not ruling out an attack by Hitler, just not in the historic timeframe. Russia would be stronger but wouldn't also Germany? And I envision an agreement with Japan to take on Russia along its borders at the same time as a German attack.

But what would be the strengths? Tanks? Would design be as advanced without real-time trials and experience? Would the T-34 matter in German tank design?

Would the Luftwaffe finally come to terms with the Ural program and develope a machine to take on the depths of Russia or even the US?

Any thoughts?


----------



## The Basket (Feb 13, 2008)

The Ural bomber would need a long range escort fighter and very good navigation equipment to work. Soviet fighters like the MiG-3 would have had a good go at em so the Ural bomber concept doesn't work for me. 

Where is the long range fighter and when was navigation good enough to fly at night over the steppes....

German tanks like the Panther come out of experience against the Soviets. Without this would they have built the Tiger and Panther? They Believed the Mk IV was big enough.

The war would have been won if the Germans freed the Soviets from tyranny rather than create a new one. That is where they lost and no amount of tanks and bombers could make it up.


----------



## Captn javy Wilson (Feb 13, 2008)

I have faith in our abilities, but I think it would have came close, so close that we were fighting in america


----------



## Njaco (Feb 13, 2008)

True, true. I'm just trying to get an idea of what everyone thinks would be the next step.

I agree with your take on the Panther. I was thinking about that very thing.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 13, 2008)

Germany never did have the capabilities to invade England after the spring of 1940. Reread te numerous comments about it.

Hitler would always keep a sizable force on his eastern borders simply because treaty or no treaty..... he wasnt going to trust Stalin, and vice versa.

Without the eastern front hogging resources, the Germans would successfully attack and hold the eastern med cutting GB out of its colonies.


----------



## Njaco (Feb 13, 2008)

Personnally, I would think he would focus on Malta first. Secure that and then on to Alexandria!

Sys, what would be a sizable force for the border? I think many divisions and resources would be freed or operations elsewhere.


----------



## Lucky13 (Feb 14, 2008)

If he wanted steel, he could just as well have gone for sweden and our high quality steel....then he'd have the whole peninsula to himself. And if he decided to attack Russia later on, he could do it on two fronts....


----------



## Konigstiger205 (Feb 14, 2008)

Well the Panther wouldn't have appeared without the experience of the T34 but the Tiger would have still be made because development for a heavy tank was made since the late 30's but if it looked as the Tiger or be as good thats another thing...its clear that the T34 gave the Germans the idea for better thanks than the MKIV.And as for the invasion of the Soviet Union the key element its not making the same mistakes...if they would concentrate all their efforts on a single target, Moscow for example they would have better chances of winning but it would be a different Soviet Union...a stronger one this time...


----------



## Parmigiano (Feb 14, 2008)

If we exclude a Russian attack to Germany, in my opinion there would have been a stall in Europe.
By 1942 the Allies were already having the initiative, huge US supplies were ready to move in UK etc. 
So it is unlikely that Hitler could have launched a successful strike against UK
True, there was the Fw190 and the 109 with extra range vs 1940, but still there was no strategic bomber force, and the RAF was fully equipped with Spitfires with more effective armament than 1940. 

But the 1943 allied air offensive would probably have been doomed, because the Luftwaffe would have been able to line up about the double of the fighters available in 'real' 1943. 

So, no invasion in 1944, no breaks in the kammerhuber radar line (hence better deployment of the defending fighters), industrial production in better situation (no need for dispersal, better assembling and all we can easily see) more time to develop jet machines etc.

Probably Hitler would have focused on the basic industrial supply targets, either east europe or Africa for oil and north Europe for steel.

I see a Nazi controlled Europe mainland, UK as fortress supported by US to turn down any potential nazi idea to cross the Atlantic and Stalin looking east: Japan between the hammer and the anvil for a while, then once the 'rising sun' is eliminated the two Big powers to continue with a direct war in far east for supremacy. Impossible for me to assess out the importance of the 'Cina variable' in this scenario.
Maybe UK could have avoided the de-facto loss of the colonies (India, Burma etc.) by fighting this Russia-US war on the US side


----------



## plan_D (Feb 14, 2008)

An interesting scenario. 

I believe the come the spring of '42, the Soviet war machine would feel capable of assaulting the axis forces in Europe and this they would do. Germany would have not made another attempt on Great Britain but would continue the Battle of the Atlantic in an attempt to strangle her.

The German ground forces would not be largely occupied in North Africa. I don't believe that Germany in any sense would believe that the Soviet Union would remain loyal to any treaty. The Afrika Korps could well be an army and Rommel would have a larger pool of supply causing huge doubt in Allied victory there; I believe that unless Britain was willing to risk pulling troops from India then Cairo would fall. 

The Germans would station the vast majority of their forces in the east of the Axis Empire - into these forces would pile the Soviet forces. The Soviets had already cut their head off of their general staff and had been given no way of learning the mobile warfare doctrine again. The Germans on the other hand have the experience of mobile war and the theory to back it up; the German armour would have the Tiger (which was in development since 1939) and most likely the Pz.IV Ausf F/2 because of the heavy British armour encountered in the desert. 

The Soviet military would have larger numbers of T-34s and KV-1s but I believe they would fall into many German traps laid as the front seemed to collapse, only to close in around them. The Soviet assault would falter then halt, then be turned back in quick time. 

Then I believe the German forces would replicate their true path, especially if Hitler did become insane in this alternate scenario. 

The battle for North Africa would probably become close to defeat but if the supplies sent to Russia were sent to North Africa instead, then victory could be gained by the Allies.


----------



## Njaco (Feb 14, 2008)

Good stuff, Plan.

I get the feeling everyone thinks that if Germany didn't attack,that Stalin would?


----------



## Thorlifter (Feb 14, 2008)

Agreed. My proposal would be keeping Germany out of Africa. Thus all those supplies would be available in Europe to fortify, attack, posture, whatever. If Germany were to fortify up, it would be imperative that they capture the oil fields in Romania. If they didn't, Stalin could cut off his supply to Germany from the "treaty", and Germany would be stuck again without oil. No oil, no war machine.

Also, with those extra supplies, the next target would have to be England. No England, no two front war. Imagine the U-boats and pocket battleships roaming the north Atlantic, heck, the whole Atlantic unopposed by the royal navy. Now you have the U.S. having one hell of a problem supplying England. Now the U.S. would have to divert some of her main warships to the Atlantic, thus weakening the U.S. force in the Pacific.

I'm not saying it would be successful since it's been pointed out the British forces would be stronger too, but that's how I would see it play out.


----------



## Freebird (Feb 14, 2008)

The Basket said:


> The Germans should have tried to knock UK out of war before invasion of Russia.



The Germans needed to launch their attack RIGHT away, as soon as France fell, they might have had a decent chance.



Basket said:


> The German Navy was never strong enough to invade UK. And would always have to give control of the seas to the RN. Battle of Britain round 2 in 1942 would have been an eye opener with the Fw190 involved.



Correct. The big problem was that they lost 2/3 of their destroyer force invading Norway. Without enough destroyers they can't clear the British subs out of the channel to prevent them from torpedoing invasion barges



> Maybe UK was at war but we weren't his ideological enemy or the demons of his dreams. Stalin was. The Soviets were weak in 41 so why not have a bash? Before they get strong and invade first....





Njaco said:


> Good stuff, Plan.
> 
> I get the feeling everyone thinks that if Germany didn't attack,that Stalin would?



Absolutely. There is some {Russian} historical evidence thats what Stalin planned to do.

Hitler was about 2 months too late launching "Sealion" and also 2 months late in his invasion of Greece. This put "Barbarossa" back two months, if he could have invaded Russia in early May he would have had a much better chance of success.


----------



## Lucky13 (Feb 15, 2008)

Also, IF he'd decided to invade Sweden as with Norway and Denmark and with Finland on their side, the Baltic Sea would have pretty much become an inland "lake"....could have caused a lot of problem for the Russians


----------



## Njaco (Feb 15, 2008)

All good points. I didn't know Stalin planned to go after Germany. But at this point in 1942 what would be Germany's strengths? Would the Navy be stronger? Would Graf Zeppelin be completed?

I think North Africa would have to be settled. Hitler was already a year into that campaign.

And wasn't Rumania a partner at this time? Would there be a need to take the oil fields?

Some stats:

Total import oil for Germany:
1941 - 2807,000 metric tons
1942 - 2359,000 metric tons

Total of oil for year:
1941 - 8485,000 metric tons
1942 - 8965,000 metric tons

Used for Year:
1941 - 7305,000 metric tons
1942 - 6483,000 metric tons

Total production oil for Russia:
1941 - 33 million metric tons
1942 - 22 million metric tons

So if oil reserves are boosted in the 6 months from June 1941 to Jan 1942, Germany would be in afar better shape regarding oil if part of that Russian production is imported to Germany as per the "Barbarossa Treaty"?


----------



## plan_D (Feb 15, 2008)

I don't think that North Africa would be decided by 1942. The Germans and British would both have increased forces in the region, and I believe it would be a similar progress as reality. Or, possibly, could be turned against the Germans if the British managed to increase the supply and force of the 8th Army with the Artic Convoy material before the Germans managed to bulk up the Italian forces in the area. 

Germany would have a greater reserve of oil, but the Soviet Union certainly would invade the Axis Empire. At that time the German oil production is not largely important because of the quick decision made on the Eastern Front - it would be make or break within the first few months, and it would be the oil reserves that would be used. And it would be the German handling of the invasion ... if Hitler decided that German forces should hold every inch, they would lose; if however Hitler allowed his generals free roam then the Soviet Union would be turned back and defeated in massive numbers.

I don't think the invasion of the Soviet Union had a large affect on German naval production (I could be wrong), so I believe that Graf Zeppelin would not be completed. The Atlantic and North-West Europe would be no different either, except the several thousand Hurricanes and Spitfires sent to the Soviet Union could be sent to the CBI or North Africa instead. 

The Soviets would suffer as a result of no lend-lease ... and the Germans would be able to inflict heavy casualties on the Soviets, which they could not yet replace.


----------



## Freebird (Feb 15, 2008)

Njaco said:


> All good points. I didn't know Stalin planned to go after Germany. But at this point in 1942 what would be Germany's strengths? Would the Navy be stronger? Would Graf Zeppelin be completed?



Graf Zeppelin was suspended in mid 1940 when almost complete, it should have been possible to finish it by late 1940 {plus some months working-up the ship training


----------

