WW2 changed so much. There are so many what ifs within ww2. Here are my favorite considerations:

1. What if Hitler had stayed out of his Generals way and let them fight using sound strategy?

Hitler was a brilliant orator. He was a military dunce. Operation Barbarossa was his masterwork of stupidity. Ignoring the lessons of Napoleon is a bad thing.

2. What if Hitler had kept his stupid mouth shut about the US?

Germany declared war on the US. There was strong motivation in the US to stay out of the "European conflict". FDR was none to anxious to get into it, either, disliking British Impreialism. The US would have beat the crap out of Japan in 3 years or less, I think, including massive strategic bombardment of Japan and a full scale invasion.

3. What if Rommel had not died prior to D-Day?

Rommel vs Patton. What a fight.

4. What if the blitz of Britain had continued to focus on airfields?

The focus shifted from airfields to cities at a critical point. The RAF were running on empty. Operation Sealion would have been contested by the British Navy, of course, but a succesful defeat of the RAF would have made things interesting.

I have so many more...

5. What if, instead of hating Jewish people, Hitler had disliked cheese? What would this mean for Austria and Switzerland?

Wouldnt it be interesting if Hitler had been accepted into art school and somehow became a famous artist... and wed be learning about him in a positive light and a differnet context... wouldnt that be crzy!

1. Well the Germans probably would have won. The invasion of Russia was a stupid idea. If h had stayed on track and let his generals make te war plans, they probably could have prevailed.

2. We declared war on Germany when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. It wasnt Hitlers fault... it was Tojo's.

3. Who knows... if he hadnt died, he still wouldnt have been there for D-Day. After all, the germans thought the attack was coming somewhere else, up the coastline quite a ways. D-Day was a surprise attack.

4. Well the bombing of London was an accident. No one meant for it to happen. But if it hadnt... well i was going to say that modern war would be change because militaries wouldnt bomb civilian targets.. but the Japanese did this too, and it wasnt an accident. so actually there would be no change in today's tactics.

1. What if Hitler had stayed out of his Generals way and let them fight using sound strategy?

Europe would be speaking German!

3. What if Rommel had not died prior to D-Day?

Huh? Rommel died well after D-Day. In fact, I think Rommel was one of the field commanders of a force defending the shores. Rommel did not die prior to D-Day, you should check that to be sure.

Rommel vs Patton. What a fight.

This is always a good one! And I have to say that it depends on many factors. Rommel was great open-field tactician and would have whomped Patton on the open desert. In a close area like Europe, Patton was good because he was willing to take risks, which Rommel wasn't. In Europe, all other things being equal, I think Patton would have whomped Rommel.

Baron Max

2. We declared war on Germany when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. It wasnt Hitlers fault... it was Tojo's.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_did_the_US_enter_World_War_2

Nuh-uh! :p

Huh? Rommel died well after D-Day. In fact, I think Rommel was one of the field commanders of a force defending the shores. Rommel did not die prior to D-Day, you should check that to be sure.

On July 17, 1944, British aircraft strafed Rommel's staff car

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/rommel.htm

The Normandy Landings were the first operations of the Allied invasion of Normandy, also known as Operation Neptune and Operation Overlord, during World War II. D-Day for the operation, postponed 24 hours, became June 6, 1944, H-Hour was 6:30 am.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normandy_Landings

This is always a good one! And I have to say that it depends on many factors. Rommel was great open-field tactician and would have whomped Patton on the open desert. In a close area like Europe, Patton was good because he was willing to take risks, which Rommel wasn't. In Europe, all other things being equal, I think Patton would have whomped Rommel.

Baron Max

Point 1:I HATE BEING WRONG! GAH!
:p

Point 2: You don't think the technological advantages possessed by Rommel might have swung things differently? Without the Air Superiority enjoyed by the Allies, even just Air Parity, I think those "Sherman" tin cans we produced in gobs would have died in ridiculous hordes. I think it would have been a draw, prolonging the war until someone could off Hitler, or until the eastern front was overrun completely. Just my opinion.

New thought here-suppose the 1944 assassination attempt on Hitler had been successful.

hmm... Germany has a revolution, becomes a democracy, surrenders the war.

New thought here-suppose the 1944 assassination attempt on Hitler had been successful.

By that time, practically every German commander knew that Hitler's war was lost. They would have tried to gather up the pieces to keep Germany whole and unconquered. Whether they could have done it, or whether the west would have bought it is ...well, open to question and speculation.

Baron Max

Point 2: You don't think the technological advantages possessed by Rommel might have swung things differently? Without the Air Superiority enjoyed by the Allies, even just Air Parity, I think those "Sherman" tin cans we produced in gobs would have died in ridiculous hordes. I think it would have been a draw, prolonging the war until someone could off Hitler, or until the eastern front was overrun completely. Just my opinion.

I don't think so. Remember, in Scily, using ONLY the infantry, we fought the Panzers to a standstill in many, many areas.

I agree that with Rommel in command, and on the open desert, the armor divisions enjoy great success. But as the war wore on, our infantry often took on the Panzers in head-to-head encounters and did great damage to the Germans. Add in some American tanks and tank destroyers, and the balance swung to the Americans.

Yes, yes, air power was a big factor in SOME battles, but don't forget the ones where no air power was involved. And in Europe, the bad weather was a major problem for the allies. Yet we still fought 'em damned well.

Baron Max

2. What if Hitler had kept his stupid mouth shut about the US?

Germany declared war on the US.
hitler did not want america involved in europe.
he knew, as well as the japanese, that a conflict with america would be devastating.

4. What if the blitz of Britain had continued to focus on airfields?
no change. the spitfires could be launched from grass strips.
this is the major reason the RAF couldn't be knocked out.

no change. the spitfires could be launched from grass strips.
Providing they were prepared...

this is the major reason the RAF couldn't be knocked out.
That would explain why the RAF put so much effort into stopping the fighter bases being bombed then.:rolleyes:

In other words, not true.

leopold-see post #6. If he didn't want the US in the war, why did he declare war first?

:shrug:

Baron Max-Firstly, I acknowledge that the Infantry enjoyed great success against the panzers. I submit, however, that the terrain in question played a major role in this. Italy was defended from rugged terrain, where the panzers' advantage of mobility was negated. France was a tactician's nightmare. Rommel may have been able to mount a successful counter to Patton using the available environmental defenses. Then again, Germany's love for the heavy tank may have participated in it's loss of the war. Two brilliant minds, one with technology, the other with almost limitless reinforcement. If only they could have met under equal circumstances. Ah well.

As far as the assassination and diplomacy, I think it would have led to war with the USSR. Stalin was offended, personally, by Barbarossa. He may have denied requests for any negotiation to punish the Germans. If the other allies accepted an armistace and Stalin denied it, Churchill may have driven forward against the USSR in defense of the Germans. Roosevelt was uncomfortably trusting with Stalin. US troops may have stood in defense of France, but made no move to fight in Germany. Without US support, the British were spent. It would have been a demoralizing fight for the West, I'm sure.

US troops may have stood in defense of France, but made no move to fight in Germany.

I don't see how a scenario like this would be possible. Inevitably as the Russian juggernaut crashed through American lines there would be incidents that would lead to skirmishing or all out battle. For instance, American soldiers would most likely be interned during an advance into the American/British occupied zone rather than allowed to retreat to France.

In other words, not true.
i suggest you read the book "bomber command"

If he didn't want the US in the war, why did he declare war first?
because japan struck pearl harbor.
hitler thought he had a really good chance to win since our navy was supposedly wiped out.

So no one cares about the cheese thing. That's the extent of historical interest for you these days. Hmmph.

wow. talk about speaking in tongues.

i suggest you read the book "bomber command"
Read it years ago, it doesn't alter the facts...

maybe you can tell us why germany wasn't able to knock out the RAF even though hitler sent many 1000 plane raids on the airfields.
why do you think hitler switched to night raids?

Possibly. But he also switched to civilian targets to try terror as a tactic. That more than anything saved the RAF.

i've always assumed that spitefires could be launched from grass strips. a few videos i've seen also affirms that assumption.
another thing that helped the RAF was that most of her downed pilots could be rescued.
plus, britain had radar (although i'm not sure if she was using it at the time.)

i've come to the conclusion that the limiting factor for the RAF would be replacement aircraft.

The radar on the coast saved their ass many times. Planes on the ground are just easy targets. Consider, also, the exhaustion factor of the pilots. That is what I have heard as the biggest reason for them being,"on the ropes".

If Hitler had kept the US out of the war Germany would be running Europe and Asia as we speak. Without the US England and Russia would have fallen. I don't think it would have taken much for Hitler to buy off the US at that time. Germany had internal strength which is something the US doesn't have even now.

Possibly. But he also switched to civilian targets to try terror as a tactic. That more than anything saved the RAF.

No he didnt. In fact, cities only became targets after an unfortunate mistake: a German bomber pilot was unable to find his target, and, seeing a light below him, basically crossed his fingers and dropped his bombs. Turned out it was London that he had mistaken for his target.

The radar on the coast saved their ass many times.
it's probably one of the deciding factors.
Planes on the ground are just easy targets.
yes, true.
but if you could camouflage them and put them somewhere else other than an airfield . . .
Consider, also, the exhaustion factor of the pilots. That is what I have heard as the biggest reason for them being,"on the ropes".
the pilot situation. germans lost more pilots than the brits.
i never pictured the RAF "on the ropes".

i've come to the conclusion that the limiting factor for the RAF would be replacement aircraft.
No.

Britain was producing more aircraft than Germany at the time.

No he didnt. In fact, cities only became targets after an unfortunate mistake: a German bomber pilot was unable to find his target, and, seeing a light below him, basically crossed his fingers and dropped his bombs. Turned out it was London that he had mistaken for his target.

But the point is that the objective of the campaign switched from aircraft to civilians.

And not to mention... his motivation for his hatred of cheese would have been vital. Would he have sought worldwide genocide of cows and goats?

Also, remember that the Spitfire didn't win the London Blitz. It was too few in number to play a major role. Most of the British aircraft involved were Hawker Hurricanes.

If the tactic wasn't changed, were all the city hits accidents meant for airfields?

in any event, control of the air over the channel prevented hitler from invading britian.

If the tactic wasn't changed, were all the city hits accidents meant for airfields?
with the technology of the era one almost must resort to carpet bombing for bombs to be effective.

Not-true. Dive-bombing was an excellent tactical weapon, both at sea and on the ground. Air superiority was not a major consideration until later. The ME-109 just didn't have the legs to adequately defend the Do-17's, and the Bf-110 was a dual-role aircraft, neither a good bomber or fighter, really.

Carpet bombing/Strategic bombing, while effective, was like using a brick to drive a nail. The nail and the brick both get fucked up.

If the tactic wasn't changed, were all the city hits accidents meant for airfields?
Some were the result of attacking production facilities/factories.

After the Battle of France, the Battle of Britain began in July 1940. From July to September, the Luftwaffe frontally attacked Royal Air Force Fighter Command to gain air superiority as a prelude to invasion. This involved the bombing of fighter airfields to destroy Fighter Command's ability to combat an invasion. Simultaneous attacks on the aircraft industry were carried out to prevent the British replacing their losses, but these were ineffective; changes introduced by Lord Beaverbrook ramped up the efficiency of fighter production markedly. Machine replacements were arriving at a rate three times higher than German intelligence believed. The pressure on pilot replacements was much more intense, and eventually overcame official reluctance to put experienced pilots from Poland, Czechoslovakia, and other occupied nations in front line combat.

In late August 1940, before the date normally associated with the start of the Blitz, the Luftwaffe attacked industrial targets in Birmingham and Liverpool. This was part of an increase in night bombing brought about by the high casualty rates inflicted on German bombers in daylight.

During a raid on Thames Haven, on 24 August, some German aircraft (one commanded by Rudolf Hallensleben who went on to win the Knights Cross for other actions)[6] strayed over London and dropped bombs in the east and northeast parts of the city, Bethnal Green, Hackney, Islington, Tottenham and Finchley. This prompted the British to mount a retaliatory raid on Berlin the next night with bombs falling in Kreuzberg and Wedding, causing 10 deaths. Hitler was said to be furious, and on 5 September, at the urging of the Luftwaffe high command, he issued a directive "for disruptive attacks on the population and air defences of major British cities, including London, by day and night". The Luftwaffe began day and night attacks on British cities, concentrating on London. This relieved the pressure on the RAF's airfields.

Prior to the beginning of the Blitz, dire predictions were made about the number of people who would be killed by a German bombing campaign. A report by the Ministry of Health commissioned in spring 1939, calculated that during the first six months of aerial bombardment there would be 600,000 people killed and 1,200,000 injured.[7] This proved to be greatly over-estimated because it was based upon faulty assumptions about the number of German bombers available and the average number of casualties caused by each bomb. However, it led to the mass evacuation of around 650,000 children to the countryside

-wikipedia

:bugeye:

Not-true. Dive-bombing was an excellent tactical weapon, both at sea and on the ground. Air superiority was not a major consideration until later. The ME-109 just didn't have the legs to adequately defend the Do-17's, and the Bf-110 was a dual-role aircraft, neither a good bomber or fighter, really.
The Germans did have to have air superiority to employ dive bombers like the Stuka. The reason the Germans quit using them on Britain was that they were being shot down in droves due to their low speed and lack of maneuverability.
Plus, they're not exactly the best thing to conduct a strategic campaign with. The Luftwaffe itself wasn't really suited to do so, what with it's inventory being all medium bombers.

As an aside - the Bf110 did get a second lease on life as a ground attack aircraft and night fighter.

Hitler was said to be furious, and on 5 September, at the urging of the Luftwaffe high command, he issued a directive "for disruptive attacks on the population and air defences of major British cities, including London, by day and night". The Luftwaffe began day and night attacks on British cities, concentrating on London.

Lights out,
Lights out in London...

:mufc:

Germany had put everything into winning the tactical battle. I can honestly think of no battle lost by the germans due to poor tactics. Strategically? The war was lost the day Barbarossa began. All portions of the German military reveal their focus on tactical success. The Stuka was magnificent for close support, and precision raiding. The FW-190D went far towards re-establishing Air Superiority. The ME-109, was simply outclassed by the Spitfire, and later by the Mustang, in spite of changes made to it.

Germany needed a short, victorious war. The denial of that brought them to their knees.

1. Then Britain would have been in very, very, deep shit. We'd be looking at an invasion, followed by guerilla land and sea tactics. I think the German U boats would have given the Germans an advantage over the British navy.

2.Then the US would have to wait again, for an excuse, say extensive support to Japan from Germany. The US might also use unrestricted submarine warfare again.

4. Well. then the Battle of Britain would have been lost. See point one.

Not-true.
seldom did a bomb hit its target unless that target was an entire city.
Dive-bombing was an excellent tactical weapon, both at sea and on the ground.
i'll agree but only if you aren't diving into anti aircraft weapons.

i believe there are 3 things that "saved" the RAF:
1. radar. britian knew when the luftwaffe left the french coast.
2. pilot replacements. the germans not only lost their planes but they also lost their pilots. most of the downed RAF pilots were retrieved.
3. the ability of the spitfire to be launched from grass strips.

the abilities of the RAF crews must be in there somewhere.