Alt-History #7-The dreaded WW2 thread.

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...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Europe would be speaking German!

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.

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

 

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

Nuh-uh!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Point 1:I HATE BEING WRONG! GAH!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

no change. the spitfires could be launched from grass strips.
this is the major reason the RAF couldn't be knocked out.

 

Providing they were prepared...

That would explain why the RAF put so much effort into stopping the fighter bases being bombed then.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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.

 

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.

 

i suggest you read the book "bomber command"

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.

 

Read it years ago, it doesn't alter the facts...