Questions for WW ll buffs

[DemocratSinceBirth]

I have been reading books and watching documentaries on that era and some questions come to mind:

1) What happens if the Germans never invade the USSR?
2) What happens if Trump was president during that era?

[Xipe Totec]

1. The Man in the High Castle

[mcar]

8. Yep. Great show

[DetlefK]

2. Not invading the USSR was never an option.

Hitler joined politics because the socialists and communists took his small and comfortable imperial monarchic world from him.
The NSDAP rose to power selling anti-communist sentiment. (The SA had bloody streetfights with communist street-gangs.)
The Third Reich needed the oil-reserves of the Black Sea in the long term to sustain its industry and war-machine.

The Nazis didn't want "Lebensraum". There is more than enough agrarian land in western and central Europe. (Grains from Spain fed a good chunk of the Roman Empire.)
They wanted the oil of the Black Sea-states and the metal-ressources of the Carpatian mountains in Romania and the mountains in eastern Ukraine.

[Ilsa]

11. Re: Lebensraum

Would the nazis have wanted the land for a population explosion of sorts, not just for agrarian purposes? ( I guess it's a silly question, but I like to cover my bases. )

The coveting of oil, minerals, etc as you mention makes alot of sense.

I thoroughly enjoyed your responses.

[Johnny2X2X]

12. The Nazis had a peace deal with Russia

They keep that peace deal and Russia might have given them access to the Black Sea oil. At the very least if Germany would have played it differently they'd have conquered Europe.

[Spider Jerusalem]

3. The answer to 1) depends on whether the Japanese still attack Pearl Harbor

[PCIntern]

20. Wait...I thought the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

https://www.google.com/search?q=john+belushi&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari#imgrc=OskfAH9Pqp3xGM:

[Lucid Dreamer]

4. Alternate history speculation

1) The Man in the High Castle by Philip K. Dick
2) Anything by Harry Turtledove

[Paladin]

5. If trump had been president then, we'd all be bilingual:

Japanese and German.

[DetlefK]

6. Okay, let's play this out step by step... (oh, this is fun)

The Third Reich and the USSR make peace after jointly invading Poland...

1. The Third Reich conquers France. Without the necessity to fight in the east, the TR conquers Britain. All of western Europe is now ruled by fascist dictators: Hitler, Mussolini and Franco.

2. In the mean-time, the USSR moves forward with its reforms and turns into a full-blown police-state. The destruction of ukrainian culture continues. (In this alternative Soviet-Union, there are no ukrainian Representatives making trouble.)

3. Between Hitler's concentration-camps and Stalin's gulags, the Jews are wiped out in Europe. Completely.





I see conflict in the long term. The Third Reich was at its heart a deeply corrupt state, full of grifters and embezzlement.
On the other side, the internationalist Trotsky-wing of Communism might have survived without Stalin's WWII-purges. They would spread anti-capitalist and anti-corruption propaganda in the Third Reich and the Nazis would have a hard time arguing against it.

So, in response to the anti-capitalist propaganda and agitators from abroad, the Third Reich would turn into an even more grotesque and even more oppressive state. (Stunting art and scientific progress.)

The anti-communist sentiment from before WWII would resurface.

Without nuclear weapons and their threat of mutual destruction, there would be no Cold War between the Third Reich and the USSR. (The nuclear research in the Third Reich was one single tiny laboratory because Goebbels didn't believe it would ever yield something impressive.)

As such, inevitably a land war would break out between the two. With destruction and death surpassing those of WWII.

[qazplm135]

7. I mean he was going to invade the USSR

that was always going to happen.

the better question is, what if he'd waited until England was out of the fight either via treaty or surrender so that he didn't have to commit so many forces to the Western Front?

The answer is...probably the same result, but with better progress and at least a chance at some version of victory.

The main reason Stalin did the deal is he was not ready, and needed time. He certainly was preparing for war even if the initial attack surprised him.

But Russia was still a juggernaut.

Now, if Hitler was truly smart, he'd have told Japan, hey forget about the US, attack Russia from Asia, we'll attack from Europe, and divide the spoils (oh and neither of us will be stupid enough to attack or declare war on the US).

In that scenario, the USSR is in deep trouble and I'm not sure the US goes to war to save her.
Having said that, they'd still be deeply bogged down in Russia, and that gives an opportunity for France, England and other nations to build up and challenge.

Maybe there was a path to NAZI dominance, but it required a very intelligent and disciplined leader to do it.

[cemaphonic]

15. I don't think Japan would make much difference in the war vs the USSR

They did fight a few border conflicts in the early days of the war that were mostly a draw, and Japanese neutrality did allow the Soviets to reassign most of their eastern garrison to the west.

But Japan was already horribly bogged down in China. They didn't have the manpower or logistical capability to open up a second front, especially one in a vast wilderness with no infrastructure. They could probably have taken Vladivostok if they had made it a priority, but then what? It's 1500 miles to the next city of much industrial significance, and if the Russians tear up the tracks, they're marching through tundra, desert and forest the whole way. It would have stung to lose the Pacific Coast, but if the USSR was prepared to go scorched earth in their heartland, they could easily just write off the Far East.

And war with the US is probably inevitable. It had already escalated heavily before Pearl Harbor, and the US was doing whatever it could to get supplies to China. Also Japan desperately needed resources from the colonial client states in SE Asia and the Pacific, including the US client Philippines. Going to war against the Western Allies in the Pacific is probably going to get the US involved sooner or later.

[KatyMan]

17. Two great posts

ThAnk you both!

[qazplm135]

18. maybe, but we know the threat of Japan invading

causes Stalin to keep a lot of troops standing by to counter.

It was only after he was certain Japan wasn't going to attack that he moved them back to deal with the NAZIs.

Even the threat of Japan invading from the East could have done wonders.

And Stalin may not have known that Japan was bogged down.

If Japan doesn't attack the US and only focuses on China and the USSR, I don't think it's a given that the US attacks right away.

[sarisataka]

9. Many possibilities

1) a significant force must be maintained on the eastern border of the Reich to deter the Soviets but that leaves many troops available elsewhere. England must fall because war in the east is inevitable. If Germany does not strike first, the Soviets will be ready to break the treaty and attack likely around 1943-45. Possible ways to force England to capitulate:

-launch Sealion and invade Britain. It will be costly but the quickest way to victory in the west.

-pressure Franco to join the Axis, if he refuses invade Spain and seize Gibraltar tightening the stranglehold on England

-send more troops to Africa and make an all out effort to take the Suez canal and thus threaten the entire Middle East and cutting England from much of its empire. This would also give the USSR need to watch its southern border.

2)Hitler, not Stalin would be seen as the strongman in Europe. He would give verbal support to England while currying favor with the Axis. Without Lend-lease England will struggle to simply survive; despite Churchill's bravado they may come to terms.

The USSR will be far behind Germany in technology in their future war. While the sheer mass of bodies Stalin can commit to battle may give victory, though not assured, it will even more bloody than the actual history.

Japan would feel less threatened by the US and strike the European possessions in the Pacific without attacking American bases. The US maintains a defensive posture to protect its possessions leaving Japan free to take the resources it needs.

[Ilsa]

10. I'm enjoying considering all of these replies. I have a question:

Would Chamberlain and others in the peerage have accepted a "negotiated" surrender to the Third Reich? Would the people of GB have stood for it?

Another question: would Hitler have wanted Ireland? My understanding is that some Irish citizens joined the Allies to fight the TR, but Ireland remained neutral. Any thoughts?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. Ireland was neutral because they disliked the Brits.

It's hard to think of any English speaking people formally allying themselves with Hitler.

[Ilsa]

16. I know why Ireland remained neutral.

The Troubles may have formally ended, but there was still an "occupation", that is, Northern Ireland, and hatred continued. Still, there were Irish who fought with GB. I was wondering if Hitler had any interest in acquiring Ireland if he had been successful in overrunning Great Britain.

[sarisataka]

19. Very intriguing questions

For the first, I believe Chamberlain definitely, and even Churchill, would have agreed to terms with Hitler. Not a surrender but an acceptance of status quo maybe with concessions in Africa.
The people would have considered it a bitter pill to swallow but better than a long, bloody, continental war.

Would Hitler have wanted Ireland? Definitely. It would be a strategic gem. Air bases to threaten western English targets beyond the range of bombers based in France, ports on the Atlantic to send U-boats out and to refuel raiders and so on.

Two things would have prevented this even if England agreed. First is the Irish who would no more enjoy serving Berlin that they did London. Germans in Ireland would have faced everything from passive opposition to a low grade guerrilla war. Second is that any German forces in Ireland would easily be cut off by the Royal Navy. Supplying troops would be impossible if Britain wished; the German navy needed far more ships to break a blockade.

[Ilsa]

21. Thank you for your thoughtful answer.

It makes sense to me.
I was surprised that Churchill would have considered an acceptance of status quo with concessions.

[sarisataka]

22. I am far from well read on Churchill

But did come across references that he and his cabinet did discuss the possibility of offering peace terms to Hitler.

What I read was that Churchill believed Hitler would want more than England would be willing to give. It was also debatable if he was seriously considering the possibility of coming to terms or buying time to delay Halifax and others who were favoring an end to the war while he, Churchill, continued to pressure Roosevelt to bring the US further into the conflict.

[Ilsa]

23. Got it. Again, makes sense. Thank you. nt

[Johnny2X2X]

13. Trump?

He would have talked about how although the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, Hirohito sent him a touching love letter and the US would be sitting this one out for now.

He'd have allied the US with Germany in Europe.