Could the Western allies have won it alone?

A very accurate summation, Johann. England is easily the most overlooked of the major powers that fought in WW2. But she was, indeed, the key to victory in the West.

 

Given Hitler's reaction when the Battle of France was over, and when he thought Barbarossa had been won, the Germans would not have put much effort into atomic bombs, rockets or jet fighters. The U.S. had started A-bomb research and hemispheric bombers before entering the war. The scenario of B-36 bombers dropping a-bombs isn't all that impossible. But it would have been well into 1946 before enough planes and bombs were available for a single war winning strike.

 

I definently agree with the assumption that if England was lost, than the Western Allies would lose the war. The lose of England would not only be the lose of an effective forward staging area for the US, it would also bring the Germans dangerously close to the US, even possibily within bomber range.

If the UK was not taken, I still see it very hard for them to do anything to stop Germany. Imagine if Rommel, who was in charge of the defences in France, had the money, troops, and material he wanted to actually make Germany impregnatable. The Western Allies would never have a chance at D-Day because they know it would be a suicide attack.

 

Without Britain the US could never have made their vast armies count against the Germans because they were simply too far away. So indeed, in the case of the SU falling, the war would depend on the British Iles.

However I disagree with Corp on the Western Allies being able to win it alone, unless the Americans would be prepared to take the literal millions of casualties it would take to enter Europe. Without the Soviets as a giant meat grinder in the east, there would be dozens of Panzer and hundreds of regular divisions to be called upon to counter an invasion. The practical problem of the amount of troops that can be crammed into a beachhead would have made any invasion almost certain to be thrown back into the sea unless some kind of absolute power in air or ground could be established. Because the Germans still had the technological edge as well as the momentum of the solid base, I wouldn't judge such an endevour to have any chance of success at all.

I wonder, Corp, how you would picture the US and Britain winning the war against Germany alone?

 

Hmmm...good question. For starters, I still see the North Africa campaign proceeding much as it did, if only because Hitler never wanted to fight there in the first place, and I see no reason for him to change this attitude. After that, things get more problematical. I think Sicily would have happened, if only to secure the Mediterranean and thus the Allies's southern flank; knocking Italy out of the war in this scenario is still a likely proposition, though German reaction would likely be more powerful than it was in real history. The invasion of Italy is a toss-up, given the need to build up strength for the eventual invasion of France against a foe that has not been bled white in Russia. However, I do agree with those who have said that large numbers of German troops would be needed to defend the Ural line against Soviet pressure. The difference in the troops available to defend against an invasion would be more a case of quality rather than numbers so much. The Wehrmacht would have large numbers of first-rate soldiers to defend against any cross-Channel assault, so it would be a lot harder than our D-Day was (and that was bad enough). Given the amount of aircover and naval support available, plus German miscalculations (Pas de Calais, etc.), I believe the landings would still succeed, though at higher cost. The fighting in France, Belgium, Holland would have taken much longer in this scenario; from June 6, 1944 to at least 1946 to clear France and the Low Countries and reach the German border. Figure at least another year to reach Berlin. This is all guesswork, of course, since there is no way of knowing whether an Allied landing in France would encourage the Russians to step up efforts to mount an offensive against the Germans to throw them out of Russia.

 

but why the soviets will atack germany?, they had a non agresion pact, that hitler violated
stalin did not believe the german attack until it was real, did stalin trusted hitler? :-?

 

I'm working from memory so I may be way off here, but I recall that even by December 4, 1941, the Germans had already suffered 1,000,000 casualities in Russia (KIA, MIA, POW, WIA). They would also have had to leave significant forces to guard the line.
The U.S. was capable of fielding 300 divisions, but it would have affected war production and required even more shipping to move and supply that many troops. If Britain had fallen, and the U.S. decided to continue the war an Atlantic island hopping campaign may have occurred. By 1945 the U.S. would have been able to land 10 divisions at once and launch 1,000 planes from carriers. Recapturing Britain or seizing bases in North Africa would have been possible and would have forced the Germans to fight at more of a disadvantage. Still hard imagine it happening.

 

One has to remember that a coastal landing is very risky, and can only be successful if minimal initial resistance is encountered. Landing forces would literally be sitting ducks for coastal defenses, and without the Luftwaffe stretched to breaking point in Russia, air superority (and therefore naval superority) would not have been achieved so easily, if at all. Do remember that there were only TWO german planes to resist the thousands of allied aircraft on D-day.

German aircraft technology has always been somewhat ahead of the Allies. The Fw-190, which appeared earlier than the Mustang or the Spitfire, is comparable to both models, and by the end of the war the Ta-152 series was already in production, together with Me-262s. The main reason for virtual allied superority is twofold. Firstly, there was a lack of skilled pilots and fuel. Skill is especially important in any air force. Flying doesn't occur as naturally to the average joe as, say, pointing a rifle and shooting. This is evidenced by the lopsided air combat kill ratios of the Korean War. Two aircraft models, both which cancel each other out in terms of advantages and disadvantages, engaged in a completly one-sided battle for air superority. The Americans came out the winners with an incredible 15:1 kill ratio.

Secondly, there has never been enough German aircraft in the Western front to present any solid resistance due again to the eastern front. Even the Soviets, which never came up with good fighter models of their own (although they did a pretty good job with their IL-2/10), was able to achieve air superority. A lot can be said about the sad state of the Luftwaffe by 1944/45.

Now, with North Africa is a minor theatre compared to the eastern front. That Germans managed to fight back against such overwhelming odds tells us a lot about the quality of German divisions. The battle for Russia was more or less decided by 1941. North Africa would simply have collapsed like a deck of playing cards if German chose to focus her attention there before El Alamien. Remember that a two-pronged drive, with Turkey to back the Germans up, could have done quite a lot of damage.

 

Good post Gatsby, and I largely agree!
Just one picky point:

Rubbish! First off the IL-2/10 were ground attack...
But really, claiming that the Soviets had no good fighter models!
For example, the Yak series were superb, indeed the Germans forbade their pilots to dogfight with a Yak 3 below a certain height, it was so good.
Then there are the late LaGG fighters...

Yes, the average life of a Soviet fighter aircraft (& pilot) was around 80 hours, but that was mainly due to poor training and shoddily made aircraft...

 

I have to agree with Ricky.

First off, the Il10 only entered service at the tale end of 1944, by which point the Luftwaffe was greatly depleted as a service anyway, and then only in relatively small numbers.

That Soviet aircraft were inferior is largely a postwar myth that was mainly convenient Cold War propaganda. After its combat debut, a Luftwaffe edict specifically forbade engaging the Yak-3 at altitudes below 5,000m (About 16,000ft), and the Yak-9, Lavochkin La-5 and La-7 were all easily the equals of their western allied counterparts. The Western aircraft would have enjoyed a considerable edge at higher altitudes (About 15,000ft +), the Soviets would have been superior below that, at the altitudes their aircraft were optimised for. The LaGG fighters themselves were fairly early war aircraft, the basic airframe only became effective with a change of engine and the split from Lavochkin and the other two designers.

As to D-Day, I have to disagree that there were only two aircraft to challenge the landings, there were far more than that available but only two sortied against the beaches, and in terms of the fighter arm of Luftwaffe it should be remembered that a large quantity of the Luftwaffe's fighters remained in the west to counter the Allied, especially US bomber offensives.

I'm sure that the friends and relatives of the 50,000 RAF Bomber Command crews that lost their lives throughout the war would have disagreed with the assertion that there weren't enough fighters to present a solid resistance, there were plenty. That's just RAF bomber crews over Europe, not elsewhere and not including USAAF losses.

The assertion that the Luftwaffe was always ahead of the Allies is I'm afraid also untrue. The Bf109 had to soldier on till the end, past the point that it was well past it's prime, references I have in books claim that the Yak-9s could easily outperform the Fw190As, the Luftwaffe's bomber arm ended the war for the most part flying the same, almost un-upgraded aircraft that had failed in the Battle of Britain, whilst the US had introduced the A-26 Invader and B-29 Superfortress, the Luftwaffe was still being forced to use the He111, Ju88 and Stuka. The Me262 is a remarkable exception to the rule, but when you consider that only about 300 are reckoned to have entered service, as opposed to in excess of 30,000 Bf109s being built, you can see why it was a mere proverbial drop in the ocean!

The Fw190 did not appear earlier than the Spitfire, the Fw190A-1 entered service in September 1941, it engaged Spitfire MkVs over the channel and proved superior, but undergunned. The Spitfire entered service in 1938, some 3 years earlier. After the Mustang and MkIX Spitfires entered service, both outperformed the Fw190A series, and with steady advances of the Spitfires and Mustangs the gap grew wider. The Dora-9s only entered limited service towards the end of 1944, when it was too late to influence things anyway, and only a handful of Ta152s were built. Don't mistake me, I'm not saying that the Fw190 was a poor aircraft, it wasn't, but it gained it's reputation from those early clashes against the MkVs and it's incredibly heavy firepower against the bombers in its later marks.

As for North Africa, against all that the Allies could send, plus having to maintain a large garisson in the East and West and fighters over Germany and to guard against Soviet counterattacks from beyond the Urals, it would have been far from a certain thing for the Germans, especially considering the Logistics of supplying the Afrika Korps. The Germans could not historically keep the actual Afrika Korps supplied, an enlarged one would have been even more difficult!

As for linking up with the Japanese, why would they? There was nothing in what would have been left of the Soviet Union that the Japanese would have been interested in anyway, Germany wouldn't have been interested in attracting any more direct US attention, certainly not before Britain sued for peace or surrendered at any rate, and in any case could probably not afford to.

 

Interesting idea - if Britain had capitulated, or signed a peace treaty, or similar, would the USA have stayed in the war against Germany? (assuming that Britain held out until after Pearl Harbour)

Simon, if Germany had taken Malta, they would have had far less trouble getting supplies to North Africa.
Delivered supplies as opposed to sent supplies probably belongs in the 'shocking statistics' topic.

 

True, if they took Malta, but that's another what if!

 

Erm yes, do forgive my ignorance...

BTW I meant that the IL-2/10 was a good design, not a good fighter model. I'm sorry for any misunderstanding caused.

I'm not sure whether Hitler (considering his doctrine) would have wanted to sue for peace. Its quite plausible though, since both sides would effectively had been locked in a stalemate.

The Germans could have invaded central Asia and then India and China(both of which were important Japanese objectives), and relieve the enormous amount of pressure put on the Japanese by the Americans.

Additionally, if Hitler wanted to invade America, he could either land on Britain then leapfrog to Iceland, then Greenland, then finally Alaska (a horrible way to start an invasion) or free up the Eastern Soviet union and China, then launch an attack at Alaska before driving down the American Peninsula.

 

Wow - Germany invading America...

There is a fantastic 'what if'!

Somehow, though, I'm not sure that it would have been very possible. Even if it had been, I doubt it would have worked. One thing history has taught us about America, if you kick them, they will rip your limbs off! :bang:

(the 2 most obvious examples being Pearl & 9/11...)

Besides, an Invasion through Alaska or from Greenland would mean invading a highly industrialised country with little air support and (being as it is Germany) practically no strategic bombing campaign.

Yes, Germany had several 'Amerika Bombers' in the pipeline, but there was no way they could produce as many of these as the USA could produce B-17s, and look at the mauling they took!

btw - your point on Soviet fighters is forgiven!

 

I seriously doubt Germany could have pulled that off. Not withstanding additionaly offensives and garrissons required in China and India now (!), how and more importantly where could they afford to strip the extra troops from to carry out an invasion and just as crucially an occupation of the United States?

Even under the best circumstances you'd have an army, minus air support (Except maybe the KMS Graf Zepellin, and a handful of unescorted Amerika Bombers), sailing thousands of miles and landing sea-sick soldiers with a battle plan that couldn't even contemplate Seelowe as anything other than a large scale river crossing... Oh, and facing the might of the USN and Army....

Well, I guess if the war had gone that well for the Germans so far anything could be possible, but, I wouldn't want to be among the soldiers carrying out the invasion!

 

If England had fallen (along with Russia), the U.S. would have still defeated Japan. But in this scenario I see a stalemate/peace/Cold War developing against Germany, at least until the U.S. develops the Atom Bomb.
If England doesn't fall but Russia does, Germany still loses. The aforementioned guerilla war in Russia would give Germany fits. The strategic bombing campaign still cripples German industry. And don't forget, Goerring is still in charge of the Luftwaffe, and Hitler is calling the shots, making stupid decisions. D-Day would be worse and there would be no breakout until at least late 1945. By then a war-weary U.S. would start nuking German cities one by one until they surrendered.

 

Um, Alaska is on the west coast of North America. The proposed German path across the Atlantic would have had the Germans landing in Atlantic Canada (Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and then Quebec).
Highly unlikely the Germans could have done this.

 

Well, while we are in heated debate over a German invasion of America, lets throw another log on the fire.

Suppose Mexico, and/or Cuba, allied with Germany aganist the US. This gives Germany a place to send troops, material, and whatnot (assuming they can get by the supposed USN blockade of the Caribbean.) Im not saying that either country would be a serious threat to the US, just a board for launching a full scale assualt into the south. Lots of juicy targets as well, New Mexico, Texas, California, Florida, Georgia, Lousiana. That is a lot of beach to defend!

 

probably you wont belive me if I tell you that during WW II, the germans have a lot of suporters in mexico, so that was one probability that the USA could have then

 

Curiously, I have once read an SF story that suggested a different chain of events in which Germany attacked the US instead of the SU, thus keeping intact the Molotov-vonRibbentrop pact. In this scenario, called 'Florida Tag', the germans defeated the Americans and therefore won WW2 and started making their 'perfect society'.

It's a funny idea.

Has anyone read/seen Fahterland?