Change one single event of the War...

Maybe it's just me, but I really don't think that anyone really wanted the Nazi's to win the war (except for the Nazi's that is). It's just interesting to debate alternatives, play the boardgames, read about the effort, you know the Monday morning quarterback thing. The Germans did manage to turn things around and to achieve a great deal in a short amount of time after hitting bottom after WWI. I think that at one time or another we all wonder what if about something. Isn't that one reason why we are here on this website?

I am very much glad we won also.

 

One change of the ww2?

The change i would make is to stop churchill making the big mistake of the Greek compaine and put more British defence in the Singapore defence.
Greek compaine was useless!

 

As a twist on this I've become more interested in how the Allies could have beaten the bejesus out of Germany much faster than they did. That is a much less discussed topic.

 

Yes, it would have been a slugfest on the Eastern Front no doubt, and what you offered would not have made anything easier for the Germans. What I was suggesting was that the Germans would have been much stronger than they were in 41, and might have been able to give it a better go. I really don't think that the Germans would have been victorious in the east unless the British would have been taken out of the equation, and no declaration of war on the US after Pearl Harbor.

It's good to see other sides of issues. I learn something every day.

 

Sir, Why don't you start a new thread about what you just mentioned!
It sounds like a good thread!

 

Yes it would have been a much tougher struggle for the Germans, no question, but I believe that the advantage would have still been with the Germans and their blitzkreig style of warfare, and that their strength was with training and organization of the panzerwaffe. That was definitely an edge in France. The western allies had many more tanks than the Germans there too, and yes I know that they were spread out over the entire line and not grouped into large strike forces. But it seemed that the mindset of the western allies and the Soviets at the time was sit and wait. Hitler would have had the time to solidy his gains in the Med and North Africa, and therefore would have appeared to be a much bigger and stronger "boogey man" to Stalin, hence the sit and wait. And yes the Soviets would have an extra year to prepare also, to reorganize and modernize, but they I believe that they still would have been hampered by the brain drain caused by Stalin's purges, and also by Stalin's direct input into the placement of their army. It was his idea to move the Red Army to the new frontiers gained at the expense of Poland, Rumania and the Baltic States, ahead of their prepared strong points located farther east of the old frontiers. And yes, they would have that extra precious year to strengthen their new position as well. Fixed strong points would have been a problem for the Germans too, but not for too long.

The Luftwaffe's transport aircraft were in dire need of refitting and replacement after the campaign in the Balkans, as were other air and ground units. The time elapsed between the air offensive against Britain and the offensive in the Balkans about six months or so, not sufficient time to properly refit and replenish. The German economy was trying to crank out tanks, aircraft, u-boats and other sorely needed items ordered by the Whermacht. The extra year would have greatly benefitted the Germans more I believe.

Just my idea of course.

 

Hitler not invading Russia, focusing rather on the Western defenses such as the Atlantic wall and Fortress Europe.

 

I disagree. France and Britain had little over 3000 tanks it gave them a narrow advantage in tank numbers. Russia had the biggest tank park in the world. Should Germany allow Russia a further year to reorganize (in which they'd modernize their entire army and airforce) they would found it very hard to push into Russia. Russian tactics were quite similar to the German ones and with a competent commander (which Russia had. though I believe the sheer number of material would've made the advance near impossible even with a so so commander) it would be hard for the Germans to invade Russia. Not to mention that most divisions were poorly equiped with lack of shells for their heavy guns. Should another year pass, you'd probably have all (well more than those available in 1940) the supply depots working so the armies would have strategic supplies to use and not just stand still. I think delaying Barbarrossa another year would've made Germany loose the war even faster.

Oh and Germany turned into a war-economy late in 42 (and because of the war in Russia was going awry! So another year would pass before the Germans turned to a war-economy in this scenario). Which means that only by late 42 were the strategic resources being allocated primarily to the army navy and airforce.
Let's talk about the number of tanks in the Geman military. It's quite surprising that the number of German tanks used between the invasion of France and Barbarrossa increased so little so, apparently they were not churning out tanks. at least, not Russian style. Germany in 41 produced 3,000 tanks approximately. Russia, having redeployed most of their industry because of the German advance, still managed to produced over the double of that. In 42, Germany produced 3,500 tanks Russia built around 24,700. Now, how would the extra year help the Germans in any way?? Plus, it'd give them (the Russians) time to finish the training of officers and soldiers so the Germans would face a better trained, better prepared adversary with a modernised air force too! I'd like to see Germany gaining Air superiority if instead of a majority of I-16s the Russians had Migs and Yaks...


Anyway, THe Germans would've had an even tougher time to go trough Russia and probably the war would've ended earlier.



Cheers...

 

Now if the Soviets invaded Europe I assume the Allies wouldn't have helped the Reich defend itself?

 

You mean sign them up for Lend-lease? There's a daft idea.

 

Now if poland would hold off against the germany, that would be the end of Lithuania and maybe all Baltic countries... and also Vilnius would have been left for the polands.
back to the "what if" question i would make that Lithuania wouldn't agree to Soviet Union annexation... or that Lithuania would agree with germany to retake the Vilnius from the poland, but then there might be no future for Lithuania as it would have been the aggressor.

 

The British taking the lessons learned from France 1940, rewriting their doctrine and give the Army proper tools.

 

Well, if I could change one thing that happened in World War II, it would be...a few years before the war started. I would love to see the United States sticking to its plan of granting the Phillipines its independence or maybe even selling it to Japan. The latter seems a bit far-fetched though.

This could even go on to stop a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor (which was just about the stupidest thing any country could do at the time). Without American military involvement, Britain could be "destroyed". The Empire and the Reich might even sandwich Russia. You can see quite a lot of possibilities.

Well, that's my take.

 

And how pray tell would this stop a Japanese attack on Pearl? The attack had nothing to do with whether the Philippines was independant or not. If so it would have fallen even faster to the Japanese. In fact the attack was in the opposite direction of Hawaii . And where did the idea of "selling' it to Japan ever come from? I have never heard of that at all.

 

Well, your wish has been granted, no historical change necessary.

The United States did stick to it's plan to grant independence to the Philippine Islands. The Tydings-McDuffie Act of 1934 was legislation passed by Congress and signed by President Roosevelt, establishing the Commonwealth of the Philippines and mandating that the Philippines become an independent republic no later than 1946. Tydings-McDuffie granted self-rule to the Philippines under the auspices of the US Federal government for a period of ten years. Full independence was accorded to the Philippine Republic on July 4, 1946, as promised.

None of this had any effect on the Japanese decision to bomb Pearl Harbor in 1941. That was a decision made by the Commander of the Imperial Japanese Navy Combined Fleet (not of the Imperial Japanese Navy) because he felt (erroneously) that it was necessary to the success of the Japanese plan to strike south and seize the Southern Resources Area. It's entirely likely that WW II in the Pacific, and rest of the world, would have played out pretty much as historically regardless of which country controlled the Philippines in the 1940's.

See; http://www.chanrobles.com/tydingsmcduffieact.htm

 

i would have decieded to finish off Britain first........

 

how??

 

Ok, you have made a strong and convincing argument. I am a believer. You get a cookie.

 

Shoot Hitler one minute after the start of the war.

 

Good one.
My second choice.
However I would term it - fight to the death in Singapore!