Did the US save Europe in WW2?

[pbfoot]

How in the world could anyone supply any formation of troops in Alaska by air in ww2? It has some of the worst if not the worst flying weather in the world flying in 1/2mile vis with no ceiling with the navaids of the time and better yet it hadn't even been mapped .Norway is a summer climate compared to Alaska Those paratroopers would have surrendered at the first sight of an Aleut or Innuit.

 

[Glider]

OK, this is what I see for how things unfold in my hypothysis.

The Japanese do attack Pearl Harbor as planned. However, the Germans refuse to declare war on the US, and "bide their time".

I see the following happening immediatly:
1) The US declares the western Atlantic to be a "U-Boat free zone". For the south Atlantic, the US flagged ships and that of its allies not at war with Germany, will run with full lights to indicate their status. Germany attacks these ships at their own risk for the potential of a declaration of war.
2) The US would supply quite a bit of material to the commonwealth, but not on a vast scale.
3) The US would release pilots for volunteer duty for the RAF and RCAF.
4) The War in the Pacific would pretty much unfold as it did in 1942. The US simply didnt have the resources to begin a general offensive untill the summer of 1942. So just because the US had the materials available, it means nothing untill the sea lanes in the Pacific and Australia are developed and secured.
5) The Brits in the CBI might be better off, as material that would have gone to the MTO and ETO in 1942, would end up there instead.
6) The Commonwealth would still defeat the Africa Corps.
7) The Commonwealth would still be able to invade and hold Sicilly, but not untill late 1943.
8 ) The Germans could divert more material to the fight in Russia, but I still dont know if it would be enough to defeat them.

There is a lot of good things in this posting but I would like to make a couple of comments. Before I start I would like to say that the premise I am working on is that things remained the same but Germany didn't declare work on the USA.

1) Its worth remembering that the USN was in effect, at war with Germany from May 1941, when they took responsibility for escorting British convoys in the Western part of the Atlantic. It was very similar to your idea of the USA declaring the western part of the Atlantic a U Boat free zone.
2) Lend lease had started in 1941 so I don't see that side of things changing.
The rest of it I totally agree with

With reference to the discussion about The Japanese invading Alaska. I think its worth remembering that the Japanese Navy although of a very high quality was small and almost totally lacking in sophisticated landing craft. They stood next to no chance of invading anywhere, where there were prepared defences.

This is apart from the obvious logistical impossibility of invading anywhere like Alasca and doing anything more than hanging on by their fingertips to life itself.

 

[drgondog]

There is a lot of good things in this posting but I would like to make a couple of comments. Before I start I would like to say that the premise I am working on is that things remained the same but Germany didn't declare work on the USA.

1) Its worth remembering that the USN was in effect, at war with Germany from May 1941, when they took responsibility for escorting British convoys in the Western part of the Atlantic. It was very similar to your idea of the USA declaring the western part of the Atlantic a U Boat free zone.
2) Lend lease had started in 1941 so I don't see that side of things changing.
The rest of it I totally agree with

With reference to the discussion about The Japanese invading Alaska. I think its worth remembering that the Japanese Navy although of a very high quality was small and almost totally lacking in sophisticated landing craft. They stood next to no chance of invading anywhere, where there were prepared defences.

This is apart from the obvious logistical impossibility of invading anywhere like Alasca and doing anything more than hanging on by their fingertips to life itself.

Glider - all my questions posed about Britain's ability to sustain an aggressive war against Axis in WWII are based on:

1. US Strictly neutral - no embargo of any goods with Japan, no supply of Allied nations with any food, oil or war materials/craft
2. No Lend Lease - no Destroyers
3. No AvGas, food or other supplies from US to anywhere but US holdings
4. No support to Commonwealth anywhere for any reason
5. No support to USSR
6. No production of Liberty ships or use of US Merchant fleet
7. No USN or AAF support of Western Atlantic supply lines to say, help Canada
8. No USN, USA, Marine or AAF support of Australia, Borneo, India, Burma, etc.
9. Strict enforcement of Monroe doctrine but free passage to all belligerents through Panama Canal zone.

Can Britain keep all its supply lines to and from Commonwealth and USSR? Can Britain sustain itself from Med and Far East Oil sources?
Can Britain build enough Naval and Merchant Tonnage to replace losses and gain the upper hand?
Can Britain supply its own forces in Med and Malta and Africa well enough to protect the Suez from future assault?

Forget for the moment whether the Germans can defeat USSR. Its not clear that they can't nor is it clear that they don't establish a truce w/USSR in return for oilfields..

 

[drgondog]

How in the world could anyone supply any formation of troops in Alaska by air in ww2? It has some of the worst if not the worst flying weather in the world flying in 1/2mile vis with no ceiling with the navaids of the time and better yet it hadn't even been mapped .Norway is a summer climate compared to Alaska Those paratroopers would have surrendered at the first sight of an Aleut or Innuit.

I've got this mental image that maybe Soren has not spent much time in Alaska and doesn't realize that not only were there very few roads in Alaska, but the coastal cities were not even connected with roads on the coast that would support armor, nor are they in striking range of US until they further develop the He277..

It would take very few troops to hold the Coast and would/should be easy to re-take any location that Germany might accidently take, then Garrison with Naval/Air and land forces.

Germany moves NOTHING through the Interior of Alaska, nor do we do so today except for Bush pilots and transport.

And as you noted we are talking summer. Naval ops by Germany in and around Alaska in the late fall/winter/early spring compares very nicely with Murmansk runs - the Bering Strait worst in the world.

US sub fleet was a.) intact after Pearl Harbor, and b.) quickly deployable to Artic. Nothing supplies Alaska from Siberia or Manchuria or Japan in any significant quantities.. nor is there a strategic reason to do so. Far better to plan a landing around Canal Zone and move North or go straight for LA and Seattle and deal a blow on our aircraft and west coast shipyards.

 

[comiso90]

The Germans Land in Alaska

Scene 1, The Oval Office:

The Joint Chiefs in an emergency meeting briefing the President

Chief of Staff: "Mr. President, The Germans have landed on American soil."

Roosevelt: "Damn the dirty Hun, Where?"

Chief of Staff: "Alaska, Sir."

Roosevelt: "NEBRASKA!?!? Why those no good... they're going for the heartland... A stroke of brilliance! How the dickens did they manage to land there?"

Chief of Staff: "No Mr. President, Alaska, not Nebraska!"

Roosevelt: "Alaska!!!" (uproarious laughter). Thank goodness!!

The joint chiefs can no longer maintain decorum and bust out laughing too.

Roosevelt: "What the hell are they thinking?!?!"

Chief of Staff: "Not quite sure sir between the weather, escort carriers, subs and PBY patrols, they will be easily contained... intelligence reports that they lost 40% of their troops on the way over."


Roosevelt: "Excellent, tell them to send more troops, hell lets lend them some landing craft!

All laugh till they cry

.

 

[Glider]

Glider - all my questions posed about Britain's ability to sustain an aggressive war against Axis in WWII are based on:

1. US Strictly neutral - no embargo of any goods with Japan, no supply of Allied nations with any food, oil or war materials/craft
2. No Lend Lease - no Destroyers
3. No AvGas, food or other supplies from US to anywhere but US holdings
4. No support to Commonwealth anywhere for any reason
5. No support to USSR
6. No production of Liberty ships or use of US Merchant fleet
7. No USN or AAF support of Western Atlantic supply lines to say, help Canada
8. No USN, USA, Marine or AAF support of Australia, Borneo, India, Burma, etc.
9. Strict enforcement of Monroe doctrine but free passage to all belligerents through Panama Canal zone.

Can Britain keep all its supply lines to and from Commonwealth and USSR? Can Britain sustain itself from Med and Far East Oil sources?
Can Britain build enough Naval and Merchant Tonnage to replace losses and gain the upper hand?
Can Britain supply its own forces in Med and Malta and Africa well enough to protect the Suez from future assault?

Forget for the moment whether the Germans can defeat USSR. Its not clear that they can't nor is it clear that they don't establish a truce w/USSR in return for oilfields..

My misunderstanding.
On this premise I believe that the British would be able to defend itself, but I don't believe that we would be able to wage an aggresive war. Concentrating on the Med and the Atlantic we would have been able to hold the germans to acceptable losses. In my earlier postings I outlined the basis on which I believe this could have been achieved. By diverting the long range aircraft to A/S warfare, losses would have significantly reduced to acceptable levels.
The 50 old destroyers were of some benefit but has been pointed out they were old, unreliable and needed a lot of maintanence and updating. 50 long range aircraft would have been of more benefit and tragically were available but not released by bomber command.

 

[ToughOmbre]

The Germans Land in Alaska

Scene 1, The Oval Office:

The Joint Chiefs in an emergency meeting briefing the President

Chief of Staff: "Mr. President, The Germans have landed on American soil."

Roosevelt: "Damn the dirty Hun, Where?"

Chief of Staff: "Alaska, Sir."

Roosevelt: "NEBRASKA!?!? Why those no good... they're going for the heartland. How the dickens did they manage to land there?"

Chief of Staff: "No Mr. President, Alaska, not Nebraska!"

Roosevelt: "Alaska!!!" (uproarious laughter)

The joint chiefs can no longer maintain decorum and bust out laughing too.

Roosevelt: "What the hell are they thinking?!?!"

Chief of Staff: "Not quite sure sir between the weather, escort carriers, subs and PBY patrols, they will be easily contained... intelligence reports that they lost 40% of thir troops on the way over."


Roosevelt: "Excellent, tell them to send more troops, hell lets lend them some landing craft!

All laugh till they cry

.

That's pretty good comiso90, and probably not far from the truth

TO

 

[Freebird]

Glider - all my questions posed about Britain's ability to sustain an aggressive war against Axis in WWII are based on:

1. US Strictly neutral - no embargo of any goods with Japan, no supply of Allied nations with any food, oil or war materials/craft
2. No Lend Lease - no Destroyers
3. No AvGas, food or other supplies from US to anywhere but US holdings
4. No support to Commonwealth anywhere for any reason
5. No support to USSR
6. No production of Liberty ships or use of US Merchant fleet
7. No USN or AAF support of Western Atlantic supply lines to say, help Canada
8. No USN, USA, Marine or AAF support of Australia, Borneo, India, Burma, etc.
9. Strict enforcement of Monroe doctrine but free passage to all belligerents through Panama Canal zone.

Can Britain keep all its supply lines to and from Commonwealth and USSR? Can Britain sustain itself from Med and Far East Oil sources?
Can Britain build enough Naval and Merchant Tonnage to replace losses and gain the upper hand?
Can Britain supply its own forces in Med and Malta and Africa well enough to protect the Suez from future assault?

Forget for the moment whether the Germans can defeat USSR. Its not clear that they can't nor is it clear that they don't establish a truce w/USSR in return for oilfields..

Very interesting question you pose. However you will have to provide some more details.
1. At what point would you "alter" the timeline, so to speak? 1937? 1940? 1941?
2. are you saying that the US would have NO opinion on the Japanese conquest of China the Pacific region?
3. The policy of the US changed early in the war from "No military equip" to any nation at war, later it became "Cash Carry" ie. the US would sell military equip to belligerants, but the other country must pay for all exports, and carry away in their own ships. There was never an embargo on oil except on the Japanese, are you saying that the US would EMBARGO Canada the UK, friendly nations? This would be an extreme measure, I could see them refusing to export military equip, but all commodities? Would the US government then confiscate Canadian companies operating in the US?Would the US still export to neutral countries?
4. The 50 old destroyers were scheduled to be sold for scrap (I have heard the figure $500,000 for the lot), so if they were bought by a neutral country would the US allow the purchase?

 

[Soren]

I must admit that post was very funny Comiso90, nearly spit a mouthfull of tea all over my screen!

I'll be back with my response to your posts later guys, meanwhile I've got work to do.

 

[Freebird]

My misunderstanding.
On this premise I believe that the British would be able to defend itself, but I don't believe that we would be able to wage an aggresive war. Concentrating on the Med and the Atlantic we would have been able to hold the germans to acceptable losses. In my earlier postings I outlined the basis on which I believe this could have been achieved. By diverting the long range aircraft to A/S warfare, losses would have significantly reduced to acceptable levels.
The 50 old destroyers were of some benefit but has been pointed out they were old, unreliable and needed a lot of maintanence and updating. 50 long range aircraft would have been of more benefit and tragically were available but not released by bomber command.

Glider there are some other variables too. Without some extra destroyers, and the supplies from the US in 1940 would the British still have felt confident enough to send ground troops to Greece in late March 1941? If the British had only sent aircraft to help Greece Yugoslavia, but no ground troops, there would not have been a major change in the outcome. (Hitler would still lose 2.5 - 3 months cleaning out the Balkans) However, the British would not have lost 25,000 men, loads more equip., and 25 destroyers cruisers put out of action. They probably would not have had the same problems in Egypt/Libiya too.

 

[Freebird]

Glider - all my questions posed about Britain's ability to sustain an aggressive war against Axis in WWII are based on:

1. US Strictly neutral - no embargo of any goods with Japan,

no supply of Allied nations with any food, oil or war materials/craft

3. No AvGas, food or other supplies from US to anywhere but US holdings

Hold on, I just read this again, this is too bizarre!

Drgondog, the main conflict that the US had with Japan was the US embargo on steel oil.

So you are saying that the US will freely sell
oil steel to Japan, yet a complete embargo on oil food to UK/Commonwealth?

This is not "strictly neutral", this would be aiding Japan in the destruction of the UK/Commonwealth.

So, in answer to your question, Can Britain survive in a war against hostile powers Germany Japan, who are aided by the USA?

The answer is No

 

[syscom3]

The Germans Land in Alaska

Scene 1, The Oval Office:

The Joint Chiefs in an emergency meeting briefing the President

Chief of Staff: "Mr. President, The Germans have landed on American soil."

Roosevelt: "Damn the dirty Hun, Where?"

Chief of Staff: "Alaska, Sir."

Roosevelt: "NEBRASKA!?!? Why those no good... they're going for the heartland. How the dickens did they manage to land there?"

Chief of Staff: "No Mr. President, Alaska, not Nebraska!"

Roosevelt: "Alaska!!!" (uproarious laughter)

The joint chiefs can no longer maintain decorum and bust out laughing too.

Roosevelt: "What the hell are they thinking?!?!"

Chief of Staff: "Not quite sure sir between the weather, escort carriers, subs and PBY patrols, they will be easily contained... intelligence reports that they lost 40% of thir troops on the way over."


Roosevelt: "Excellent, tell them to send more troops, hell lets lend them some landing craft!

All laugh till they cry

.

 

[Glider]

Glider there are some other variables too. Without some extra destroyers, and the supplies from the US in 1940 would the British still have felt confident enough to send ground troops to Greece in late March 1941? If the British had only sent aircraft to help Greece Yugoslavia, but no ground troops, there would not have been a major change in the outcome. (Hitler would still lose 2.5 - 3 months cleaning out the Balkans) However, the British would not have lost 25,000 men, loads more equip., and 25 destroyers cruisers put out of action. They probably would not have had the same problems in Egypt/Libiya too.

I do hope that we wouldn't have sent any troops or ships to assist. At the time there was a huge sense of forboding over the decision to send assistance. You are right when you say that the decision went a long way to causing the problems in the Middle East by weakening the army there just at a critical time.
With the lack of assistance from the USA as mentioned we would need to have made tough decisions as to what to defend and what to let go.

One consequence of your scenario has struck me which you may want to chew over.
If the USA isn't giving any assistance to the UK then your aeroplane, weapons and naval shipyards wouldn't have been built up during the period 1939-1941.
It was the orders from the UK and France that financed the expansion of America's military infrastructure. Your ability to arm yourselves wouldn't have been nearly as well developed, leaving the USA in a very difficult position when attacked by Japan.

 

[drgondog]

Hold on, I just read this again, this is too bizarre!

Drgondog, the main conflict that the US had with Japan was the US embargo on steel oil.

So you are saying that the US will freely sell
oil steel to Japan, yet a complete embargo on oil food to UK/Commonwealth?

This is not "strictly neutral", this would be aiding Japan in the destruction of the UK/Commonwealth.

So, in answer to your question, Can Britain survive in a war against hostile powers Germany Japan, who are aided by the USA?

The answer is No

Good catch - I did Not mean supply Japan/Don't supply Allies. I meant supply both but no Lend Lease - strictly cash and carry - and the policy of strict neutrality starts with China 1931-1937. My error in setting my own assumptions.

The thesis of this thread is how do the Allies fare w/o favorable assistance or outright support from US - including fighting Japan in far east. This would force Commonwealth to truly pick and choose what it must defend to keep Britain engaged enough to force Germany to fight a two front war - and give Japan enough latitude to attack Suez/Middle East from Indian Ocean.

I don't have convictions that Britain could continue through 1943 just because I read several times that Britain needed a million tons per week of food and wondered a.) where it was coming from, and b.) whether Britain could replenish losses of Merchant shipping against combined fleets of Japan, Germany, Italy and maybe even some stray Frog warships, and c.) keep supplies of oil intact. Could GB keep the shipping lanes open along the coast of Africa and within the Med?

This (Battle of Atlantic) seemed to be one of the most critical scenarios of the war relative to knocking Britain out of the war.

The scenario is on the surface perhaps silly because if we were supplying both Germany AND Allies with AvGas - who decides to start sinking US ships first? - lol.

 

[drgondog]

I do hope that we wouldn't have sent any troops or ships to assist. At the time there was a huge sense of forboding over the decision to send assistance. You are right when you say that the decision went a long way to causing the problems in the Middle East by weakening the army there just at a critical time.
With the lack of assistance from the USA as mentioned we would need to have made tough decisions as to what to defend and what to let go.

One consequence of your scenario has struck me which you may want to chew over.
If the USA isn't giving any assistance to the UK then your aeroplane, weapons and naval shipyards wouldn't have been built up during the period 1939-1941.
It was the orders from the UK and France that financed the expansion of America's military infrastructure. Your ability to arm yourselves wouldn't have been nearly as well developed, leaving the USA in a very difficult position when attacked by Japan.

Actually, if we were neutral and on a cash and carry basis we could have done well supplying Japan and Germany if France and Britain chose not to buy anything.. when I said No aid - I meant no Loans/Lend Lease/buy now/Pay later..

As to being 'not nearly as well developed', I would say not as far along but we had started building our base in 1939 and, even with Britain/France purchases, we were Still in woeful situation in late 1941.

If Japan had sent the third wave to destroy the POL and Sub base at Pearl AND caught our carriers at anchor - we would not have been able to stop them at Midway nor kept Hawaian Islands (IMO).

No, this scenario implies that we may well be standing alone in 1945 had we been successful at sticking our heads in the sand.

 

[Freebird]

Good catch - I did Not mean supply Japan/Don't supply Allies. I meant supply both but no Lend Lease - strictly cash and carry - and the policy of strict neutrality starts with China 1931-1937. My error in setting my own assumptions.

The thesis of this thread is how do the Allies fare w/o favorable assistance or outright support from US - including fighting Japan in far east. This would force Commonwealth to truly pick and choose what it must defend to keep Britain engaged enough to force Germany to fight a two front war - and give Japan enough latitude to attack Suez/Middle East from Indian Ocean.

Could GB keep the shipping lanes open along the coast of Africa and within the Med?

This (Battle of Atlantic) seemed to be one of the most critical scenarios of the war relative to knocking Britain out of the war.

The scenario is on the surface perhaps silly because if we were supplying both Germany AND Allies with AvGas - who decides to start sinking US ships first? - lol.

A very interesting question, I think that it would be possible, given some smart leadership.

The key unknown in this would be the Japanese. So from your scenario, the USA does not slap any punishment on the Japanese in 1937 - 1941 for its invasion of China. In this case there is NO WAY that the British take any hostile action towards Japan, as had been prodded by the US. The British Dutch, mindful of the help they got from the US, went along with the policy, and shut off oil sales to the Japanese, and re-opened the Burma road to China.

Remember that it was this severe economic pressure that forced the Japanese to attack in Dec. 41. I think that if they could still buy oil steel, they would keep up their buildup, and not attack until late 42 or 43 at the earliest. Instead they would concentrate on completing their conquest of China.

 

[Soren]

Ok guys lets first sum up what would most likely have happened had Stalingrad fallen in 1942, which it already was very close to in reality. So lets say Hitler issued all his troops winterclothes (that alone would help enormously since as it was over 60% of Army Group Center was unable to fight because of the lack of winterclothing), and Goering hadn't been responsible for the planning of airdropping supplies, then Stalingrad would've fallen quite quickly. After the collaps of Stalingrad moral in the Soviet army would be at an alltime low and the amounts of Soviet losses prisoners so enormous that the USSR doesn't stand a chance against the approaching German forces which now have gained an extra boost to their effort securing their left flank and so are gaining fast on the Caucasus oil fields which now lie for the taking. Within a month or two the USSR would be no'more.

With the USSR successfully occupied supplies resources are abundant, allowing the German forces in the area to quickly regain full strenght. And with the now truly enormous amounts of resources at their disposal German production of war material would skyrocket! New weapons material would be produced in the hundreds of thousands at a hairraising pace. Panzer VI's could be produced in huge numbers and the introduction of the Panzer V speeded up considerably without having to deal with the teething problems. The Me-262A-1a would be available ready to go in mid 1943, and with reliable better performing engines. Type XXI subs could've been ready in late 43 to early 44. And the list goes on and on, the German army growing bigger more powerful each day....

Against the by now completely enormous fully supplied German army Britain wouldn't hold out for long. First the British US forces would be pushed out of Africa without much trouble, Rommel's DAK recieving lots of new supplies, tanks, weapons reserves by virtue of the now skyrocketing German war industry. Britain would most surely fall not long after, the RAF having been completely eliminated by the fast growing LW. Taking Britain wouldn't have been a walk in the park though, by no means, the British would've fought back ferociously! But the LW Wehrmacht would've simply overpowered the British army in the end by sheer show of arms, completely outnumbering the cut off and ill-supplied British army.

Britain falls, and Hitler IMO would most likely now focus on parts of Asia and large parts of Africa. Invading America at some point would still be in his mind though, so in order to control the Bering strait he would likely try to occupy part of Alaska. This would also divert some of the US forces, keeping them busy. The German KM would patrol the surrounding waters with their subs to ensure no Allied attempts to cut off the supply lines.(I'll go into detail as to how this would've possibly been carried out later)

But let me underline again that the Germans weren't going to invade the US through Alaska!

So your joke, although funny Comiso90, has nothing to do with what I wrote.

Onwards...

Meanwhile the invasion of Asia Africa with the help of Japan would proceed, Japan benefitting well from supplies secured in the east.

The newly equipped KM would also be in nearly complete control over the Atlantic, not that this was of much importance to the US who wouldn't have to send supplies to anyone anymore - except for Australia, but it would've been completely cut off.

Something to consider however is that by the time it would've taken to overtake the desired parts of Asia Africa its not sure Hitler would still be in command, and the conquests might have been halted. Not sure if anyone could pursuade the public of fighting the whole world for so long, and esp. when any real threat to home is gone and that the very reason behind starting the war in the first place no longer holds water. In the end most of the conquered areas would also resist on such a scale that it no longer would pay to occupy the places, the many different countries eventually rising up once more. (Look at what happened to the Soviet Union) You can't just conquer a country and integrate it into your own society, you can't destroy a country without disposing of its society people, something which is nearly impossible to begin with, and it hasn't succeeded for anyone in recent times.

The British would've certainly not settled with Germans controlling 'their' country, that would be completely out of the question for the British, and so Germany would in the end have had come up with a compromise. (Why am I thinking vassal states ? )


Now remember that most of this is all hypothetical and that I'm making allot of speculations here, cause no'one really knows what would've happened had the USSR fallen to the Germans.

Anyway the above is my opinion on the subject, now let me hear the various thoughts critique you guys have to give on the subject.

 

[Freebird]

Ok guys lets first sum up what would most likely have happened had Stalingrad fallen in 1942, which it already was very close to in reality. So lets say Hitler issued all his troops winterclothes (that alone would help enormously since as it was over 60% of Army Group Center was unable to fight because of the lack of winterclothing)

Soren Winter clothing was not the problem there, the German army was strethed thin, it was the Rumanian army holding the flank that was smashed by the Russians on Nov 19, allowing them to encircle the German 6th army. Cold weather was not the problem, the problem was that the Germans did not have enough troops to break through 30 miles of the Russian besiegers.

Hitler appointed perhaps the army's best general, Von Manstein, to command Army group B, and to rescue the 6th army. He sent Hoth's 4th Pz Army to break the siege, Hoth tried failed. (yes he had winter clothing too)

At the moment that Hoth got within 25 miles, Marshal Zhukov started another Russian offensive on the Rostov front, and opened a 60 mile gap in the Italian 8th army. V. Manstein had no other reserves and was forced to remove half the 4th Pz army to help plug Zhukovs offensive.

No Soren it would not have. Stalingrad was a slaughter house and whether they had winter clothing or not it would not have ended any quicker for either side.

Trust me I know I have talken to my Grandfather about his experiences there. By the way he had full winter clothing. I still have his boots and some of his equipment

and if Goering hadn't been responsible for the planning of airdropping supplies, then Stalingrad would've fallen quite quickly. After the collaps of Stalingrad moral in the Soviet army would be at an alltime low and the amounts of Soviet losses prisoners so enormous that the USSR doesn't stand a chance against the approaching German forces which now have gained an extra boost to their effort securing their left flank and so are gaining fast on the Caucasus oil fields which now lie for the taking. Within a month or two the USSR would be no'more.

The problem was not Goering, the problem was that the LW did not have the capability in transport to supply the army.

There is no evidence that the loss of Stalingrad would have any effect on the morale, any more than the loss of Kharkov, Kiev, Rostov or any other city.

The capture of Stalingrad does nothing for the Germans, it was just a ruse by the Russians to keep the 6th army tied down while they built up for a large counter-attack.

There is no huge loss of prisoners at Stalingrad if the Germans take it, the Russians are not encircled at that time, and there will be no great movement in the winter anyways.

The oilfields are not "for the taking" as already stated at this point Army group B is desperately trying to fill the hole in the Italian army, let alone even thinking of an offensive.

USSR falls apart in a couple of months? Are you kidding?

With the USSR successfully occupied supplies resources are abundant, allowing the German forces in the area to quickly regain full strength.


Now remember that most of this is all hypothetical and that I'm making allot of speculations here, cause no'one really knows what would've happened had the USSR fallen to the Germans.

Anyway the above is my opinion on the subject, now let me hear the various thoughts critique you guys have to give on the subject.

 

[drgondog]

Ok guys lets first sum up what would most likely have happened had Stalingrad fallen in 1942, which it already was very close to in reality. So lets say Hitler issued all his troops winterclothes (that alone would help enormously since as it was over 60% of Army Group Center was unable to fight because of the lack of winterclothing), and Goering hadn't been responsible for the planning of airdropping supplies, then Stalingrad would've fallen quite quickly. After the collaps of Stalingrad moral in the Soviet army would be at an alltime low and the amounts of Soviet losses prisoners so enormous that the USSR doesn't stand a chance against the approaching German forces which now have gained an extra boost to their effort securing their left flank and so are gaining fast on the Caucasus oil fields which now lie for the taking. Within a month or two the USSR would be no'more.

None of that happened.. and what makes you certain of your scenario? One of the key factors of the Wermacht loss was the extended supply lines to and thru Stalingrad and the inadequacy of LW air transport to supply. How d0 you say "Poof make that go away??" last but not least - ya think USSR leaves oilfields intact? and Germans have what 'oil patch' knowledge to control blow outs?

Further, the USSR had already demonstrated a resiliency that astonished the Germans - why do you think Stalingrad was a key factor (as a loss) that the Soviets couldn't survive?

With the USSR successfully occupied supplies resources are abundant, allowing the German forces in the area to quickly regain full strenght.

Even if Germany takes Stalingrad, what makes you dismiss Partisans and Guerilla warfare - increasingly effective as German Supply lines extend (into the winter?)

And with the now truly enormous amounts of resources at their disposal German production of war material would skyrocket! New weapons material would be produced in the hundreds of thousands at a hairraising pace. Panzer VI's could be produced in huge numbers and the introduction of the Panzer V speeded up considerably without having to deal with the teething problems. The Me-262A-1a would be available ready to go in mid 1943, and with reliable better performing engines. Type XXI subs could've been ready in late 43 to early 44. And the list goes on and on, the German army growing bigger more powerful each day....

facts Soren??

Against the by now completely enormous fully supplied German army Britain wouldn't hold out for long. First the British US forces would be pushed out of Africa without much trouble, Rommel's DAK recieving lots of new supplies, tanks, weapons reserves by virtue of the now skyrocketing German war industry.

That niggling little factor - had the US been fighting, Germany NEVER has access to supply and re-inforcement to Africa, short of declaring war on Turkey?? Supply chain requires transport, water, air and land - not a strongpoint of Nazi Germany.. so tell us how US and Britain and Commonwealth are pushed out? Seems like you have to keep supply chains open to re-inforce - and how do you do that? From vast hordes of merchant shipping available to Third Reich, or more Palm Sunday's?

Britain would most surely fall not long after, the RAF having been completely eliminated by the fast growing LW. Taking Britain wouldn't have been a walk in the park though, by no means, the British would've fought back ferociously! But the LW Wehrmacht would've simply overpowered the British army in the end by sheer show of arms, completely outnumbering the cut off and ill-supplied British army.

As long as you are postulating American Forces in Africa - do they just conveniently forget to re-inforce Britain (and RAF and Army)



Britain falls, and Hitler IMO would most likely now focus on parts of Asia and large parts of Africa. (Focus on Asia - he wants to take on Japan now?Invading America at some point would still be in his mind though, so in order to control the Bering strait he would likely try to occupy part of Alaska. This would also divert some of the US forces, keeping them busy.

Soren - wake up!! of all the scenarios you have posed after strong session on waterpipe - this is truly the most ridiculaous. The German Army had a better chance of taking Stalingrad and Moscow than they had in 'occupying' and supplying Alaska. It doesn't take much US force to eradicate and German foothold that survived Bering Starits. What benefit does hitler have in controlling Bering Strait unless he fears an Ameican Invasion there - if so how many troops does he divert to that purpose and keep his supply lines open in Siberia?

The German KM would patrol the surrounding waters with their subs to ensure no Allied attempts to cut off the supply lines.(I'll go into detail as to how this would've possibly been carried out later)

ROFLMAO - the Japs were TOTALLY overwhelmed by US Sub Fleet - even with lousy torps and you postulate a 3rd rate surface fleet can keep supply lines open?

But let me underline again that the Germans weren't going to invade the US through Alaska!

Nor any other path except Mexico, cutting off Panama Canal Zone - and the US had the industrial capacity to build more subs than Germany did - how do you conceive of a German Navy supplying German troops in Americas when they couldn'y cross the Channel?
So your joke, although funny Comiso90, has nothing to do with what I wrote.

Onwards...

Meanwhile the invasion of Asia Africa with the help of Japan would proceed, Japan benefitting well from supplies secured in the east.

The newly equipped KM would also be in nearly complete control over the Atlantic, not that this was of much importance to the US who wouldn't have to send supplies to anyone anymore - except for Australia, but it would've been completely cut off.

Something to consider however is that by the time it would've taken to overtake the desired parts of Asia Africa its not sure Hitler would still be in command, and the conquests might have been halted. Not sure if anyone could pursuade the public of fighting the whole world for so long, and esp. when any real threat to home is gone and that the very reason behind starting the war in the first place no longer holds water. In the end most of the conquered areas would also resist on such a scale that it no longer would pay to occupy the places, the many different countries eventually rising up once more. (Look at what happened to the Soviet Union) You can't just conquer a country and integrate it into your own society, you can't destroy a country without disposing of its society people, something which is nearly impossible to begin with, and it hasn't succeeded for anyone in recent times.

This is the only thing you have said that makes one iota of sense

The British would've certainly not settled with Germans controlling 'their' country, that would be completely out of the question for the British, and so Germany would in the end have had come up with a compromise. (Why am I thinking vassal states ? )


Now remember that most of this is all hypothetical and that I'm making allot of speculations here, cause no'one really knows what would've happened had the USSR fallen to the Germans.

Anyway the above is my opinion on the subject, now let me hear the various thoughts critique you guys have to give on the subject.

You failed the first test postulating that Stalingrad was what kept Germany from knocking USSR out of the war.

You failed the second test equating Subs with an aggresive and capable surface fleet capable of supply ANY German expedition by sea (or air). Look what happened to Germans when the heavily outnumbered the Brit forces at Crete, tried to sustain Africa Corp in Africa, or were stopped at English Channel?

For some reason you postulated sheer lunacy by theorizing a German campaign in Alaska? actually the US could just ignore it and sink every supply vessel that tried to keep troops in place? Where were you going to go and what did you think you could do with a two thosand mile march - mostly in water or sea shore? Inland you hit the mountains and tundra... much less mosquitos that can flat foot fornicate with turkeys when it warms up?

 

[Soren]

Freebird why slither around the facts ?

Fact is Army Group Center suffered so much from winter cold that 60% was out of action! Are you just going to ignore this as even a factor ??

Sorry but your theory that the lack of winterclothes wasn't the problem is far fetched, firstly because a large part of the forces committed were out of action for this very reason, and secondly had the German troops been fully supplied with winterclothes from the start there'd be no encirclement.