Brilliantlight
Banned
I think it quite likely that the US would liberate parts of Russia by invading the Crimeria Penisula or the area around Murmansk . The US would then recruit Russians to help.
Would D-DAY still have been attempted if Russia had fallen?
- Thread starter ktotwf
- Start date
Brilliantlight
Banned
ktotwf said:Interesting things you guys all have to say. My topics aren't usually this successful...
I am surprised that the opinion is split almost 50/50.
But, I agree, that had there been the "Black Christmas" scenario, with 10 German cities wiped out on Christmas 1945, Germany, nor any other country would have still have had the will to fight on. Thats just brutal.
Agreed, what would Germany fight with after that? You take out Berlin, Hamburg, Dusseldorf, Frankfort and Stuttgard and you probably have taken out the majority of Germany's industrial might not talking about 5 more cities.
Brilliantlight said:
Bad Idea, as a look at the map proposes.
1. The US won´t have a real staging area, so the invasion has to come through the whole Atlantic, given that the Germans and Italians would not have objected against Egypt being used as a staging area for the US.
Anyway, they would have to run through the eastern med, I see Fighter Bases on Crete, Greece along north. So this would have to be taken out first. Unlikely.
2. The Invasion fleet would have to pass through the Dardanelles. Even if Turkey is neutral state, unlikely with ALL the neighbours Axis or taken by the Axis, that´s a nightmare.
3. All coasts of the Black sea in Axis hands, I see Fritz-X and torpedoes coming from all directions
Murmansk- or the "Bay of Frozen Pigs"
1. It´s in the extreme north. I would wonder if establishing a beachhead there wouldn´t be very costly. I imagine that anybody who gets overboard will freeze to death before he can drown, but that´s a guess.
2. The sea route to Murmansk is arround northern Norway. Plenty of oppurtunity for the Luftwaffe in Northern Norway to hammer them all along.
3. Given the americans take Murmansk, there is only one general direction open: South. So the Germans can block every advance and kee hammering the supply ships and the beachhead with every weapon of choice.
4. Also, this part of Russia wouldn´t bring many potential guerilla, as it is not densely populated.
Brilliantlight
Banned
Steffen said:Bad Idea, as a look at the map proposes.
1. The US won´t have a real staging area, so the invasion has to come through the whole Atlantic, given that the Germans and Italians would not have objected against Egypt being used as a staging area for the US.
Anyway, they would have to run through the eastern med, I see Fighter Bases on Crete, Greece along north. So this would have to be taken out first. Unlikely.
2. The Invasion fleet would have to pass through the Dardanelles. Even if Turkey is neutral state, unlikely with ALL the neighbours Axis or taken by the Axis, that´s a nightmare.
3. All coasts of the Black sea in Axis hands, I see Fritz-X and torpedoes coming from all directions
Murmansk- or the "Bay of Frozen Pigs"
1. It´s in the extreme north. I would wonder if establishing a beachhead there wouldn´t be very costly. I imagine that anybody who gets overboard will freeze to death before he can drown, but that´s a guess.
2. The sea route to Murmansk is arround northern Norway. Plenty of oppurtunity for the Luftwaffe in Northern Norway to hammer them all along.
3. Given the americans take Murmansk, there is only one general direction open: South. So the Germans can block every advance and kee hammering the supply ships and the beachhead with every weapon of choice.
4. Also, this part of Russia wouldn´t bring many potential guerilla, as it is not densely populated.
More as a strategy of desperation then anything else. I would thing Crimea would come after liberating North Africa.
Don't underestimate the willingness of the Allied powers in WW2 to engage in mass slaughter of civilians. Late in the war, the conventional bombing campaigns were pretty directly aimed at the mass extermination of the civilian economies of Germany and Japan, and many hundreds of thousands of people died as the result.
The US leadership was if anything even more gung-ho than the British. Historians recently unearthed some interesting studies and contingency plans involving what the US planned to do if the nuclear bomb didn't work and they had to launch a conventional invasion of Japan. Basically they planned to switch their mass bombing raids to dropping poison gas. Estimated Japanese casualties were on the order of 5 million up. This wasn't some hypothetical from a couple of guys in planning - the military leadership signed off on it, and apparently supplies of gas were on the move.
The US leadership was if anything even more gung-ho than the British. Historians recently unearthed some interesting studies and contingency plans involving what the US planned to do if the nuclear bomb didn't work and they had to launch a conventional invasion of Japan. Basically they planned to switch their mass bombing raids to dropping poison gas. Estimated Japanese casualties were on the order of 5 million up. This wasn't some hypothetical from a couple of guys in planning - the military leadership signed off on it, and apparently supplies of gas were on the move.
wkwillis: There is no question that technology was a big factor in the defeat of the uboats, but you are underestimating the impact of codebreaking and sheer numbers. It is difficult to explain away the sudden drop in uboat effectiveness after May of 1943 by simply arguing that the technology changed (we are talking about an 80% falloff in two months), but when one looks at the defeat of the 'Shark' and 'Neptune' keys (wonderful decryption work there), it is at lot easier to understand. The introduction of schnorkel technology (which in fact allowed recharging of batteries without coming to the surface, and exposing oneself to air attacks, and air-independent propulsion would have made things ugly as well. More to the point, it isn't unreasonable to imagine the Germans extending their air coverage over the bay of biscay absent a major threat in the east, which would have made ASW operations difficult as well.
To add to this, lets remember that the allies developed several useful tactics in dealing with subs, and began to deploy true asw carriers as well following the real crisis in 1943. These had nothing to do with technology, and might easily have been degraded in value had the germans been able to increase production.
Regarding Churchill as a historian (and just what are YOUR credentials?), I agree that he is hardly a Morison, but he had the unique position of actually hearing from the experts (note that the Admiralty also believed that the Uboat threat was the real threat, as did most of Britain's economists at that time and later) directly what their judgements were. Leej doesn't even offer an argument to explain his point, Though I respect your points, I still don't see how it would be as deterministic as you make it out to be. Churchills famous 'silent graphs' quote relates directly to evidence presented to him at the time. Given his complete disinterest in the ASW war, it is difficult to imagine just why he would falsify this position AFTER THE WAR in a way that would make him look foolish...
To add to this, lets remember that the allies developed several useful tactics in dealing with subs, and began to deploy true asw carriers as well following the real crisis in 1943. These had nothing to do with technology, and might easily have been degraded in value had the germans been able to increase production.
Regarding Churchill as a historian (and just what are YOUR credentials?), I agree that he is hardly a Morison, but he had the unique position of actually hearing from the experts (note that the Admiralty also believed that the Uboat threat was the real threat, as did most of Britain's economists at that time and later) directly what their judgements were. Leej doesn't even offer an argument to explain his point, Though I respect your points, I still don't see how it would be as deterministic as you make it out to be. Churchills famous 'silent graphs' quote relates directly to evidence presented to him at the time. Given his complete disinterest in the ASW war, it is difficult to imagine just why he would falsify this position AFTER THE WAR in a way that would make him look foolish...
I think there would have been an eventual Allied Victory- but we are talking 1955 perhaps. US (and in fact British) Production was truly awsome.
I think in due course the Allies would have out produced the Nazis in Jet fighters.
However in 1945-6 there would NOT have been the allied air superiority of OTL over Germany or Supremacy as in OTL over Japan.
Flying a superfortress with that weapon and a risk of the aircraft coming down with the bomb NOT going off would have been a huge risk.
I also suspect that there would be guerilla war against the Nazis in the (former) Soviet Union. The Nazis were, except in the Baltic states, not very good at using the loathing of Stalin's regime.
The Nazis believed that Slavs were inferior and had that they had every right to exploint them as ruthlessly as possible.
I do NOT believe that nukes would have made Hitler choose to surrender at any stage- though if targetted right it could have killed Hitler.
In OTL Hitler seemed really to believe he could turn things around with Soviet forces in Berlin and the WEstern Allies occupying most of the Western part of the Reich. He really was as doo lally as he was evil
I doubt that D-Day as such would have been an option in 1944- if only because of the lack of air superiority.
To imagine a Nazi triumph over Russia is truly a nighmare.
The only bright spot I can imagine is the way it might effect British and US Society. A lot of good measures were adopted in both countries in OTL to assist people in the munitions industry- especially women.
I can imagine better child and health care provisions and women having a major role in everything but the front line fighting -and for 15 years.
However remember we are talking about 10s of millions more deaths than in OTL.
I think in due course the Allies would have out produced the Nazis in Jet fighters.
However in 1945-6 there would NOT have been the allied air superiority of OTL over Germany or Supremacy as in OTL over Japan.
Flying a superfortress with that weapon and a risk of the aircraft coming down with the bomb NOT going off would have been a huge risk.
I also suspect that there would be guerilla war against the Nazis in the (former) Soviet Union. The Nazis were, except in the Baltic states, not very good at using the loathing of Stalin's regime.
The Nazis believed that Slavs were inferior and had that they had every right to exploint them as ruthlessly as possible.
I do NOT believe that nukes would have made Hitler choose to surrender at any stage- though if targetted right it could have killed Hitler.
In OTL Hitler seemed really to believe he could turn things around with Soviet forces in Berlin and the WEstern Allies occupying most of the Western part of the Reich. He really was as doo lally as he was evil
I doubt that D-Day as such would have been an option in 1944- if only because of the lack of air superiority.
To imagine a Nazi triumph over Russia is truly a nighmare.
The only bright spot I can imagine is the way it might effect British and US Society. A lot of good measures were adopted in both countries in OTL to assist people in the munitions industry- especially women.
I can imagine better child and health care provisions and women having a major role in everything but the front line fighting -and for 15 years.
However remember we are talking about 10s of millions more deaths than in OTL.
Admiral Matt
Gone Fishin'
I'm not sure about an improvement in US society. By the end of the war, the US was suffering from large-scale and increasingly violent strikes, which were being kept down in an increasingly repressive fashion. Hard to tell where it was going though.
Admiral_Matt,
There's a TL somewhere called "Dark America" where a longer WWII leads to a US fascist regime. I remember posting the link some time ago, but I can't remember where it is.
There's a TL somewhere called "Dark America" where a longer WWII leads to a US fascist regime. I remember posting the link some time ago, but I can't remember where it is.
one thing that was brought upa few times but mostly ignored. what about a nazi-us peace. i suppose that's a more "boring" scenario because it means no war, but why couldn't their be a new type of cold war, w/ the us in the western hemisphere and the nazi empire in the east (i suppose britain would maybe be neutral or nazi terrirtory?). do you really think this is impossible - for example, if hitler hadn't declared war on the US might there have been peace. if hitler had conquered russia (solidifying his empire of course) AND not declared war on america could he have even immediately worked out some sort of deal with the US. i think that's an interesting scenario in itself. maybe the zeppelins would be shuttling back and forth again by '42. what do you think.
Very interesting speculation.
One of the main point seems to be the hipotetical mass destruction capabilities of the Reich in 1945 after victory over the URSS in 1941. I think that Hitler would not be able to inflict heavy damage on the US, but he will on GB. Would the americans make peace in order to save London? Sort of stop nuking Germany or London dies in a cloud of Sarin? Also, after the first strikes, the germans could re-locate officers and industries in occupied country. Doubt the americans would nuke Paris or Brussels.
One of the main point seems to be the hipotetical mass destruction capabilities of the Reich in 1945 after victory over the URSS in 1941. I think that Hitler would not be able to inflict heavy damage on the US, but he will on GB. Would the americans make peace in order to save London? Sort of stop nuking Germany or London dies in a cloud of Sarin? Also, after the first strikes, the germans could re-locate officers and industries in occupied country. Doubt the americans would nuke Paris or Brussels.
There seems to be a lot of confusion regarding the use of chemicals as a WMD. Even the nastiest chemicals make VERY poor WMDs, as they simply aren't lethal enough for long enough in battlefield distributions. Chemicals are wonderful tactical weapons (mostly area denial), but even nerve agents (not gases, but liquids that are deposited as areosols) aren't lethal unless you are directly exposed to them during their active period. If these were deposited as part of a general bombing, the heat of flames (from the bombing) would destroy the nerve agents, and if there were no bombs, populations not directly exposed would remain safe.
Would there be casualties, definitely, and probably heavy ones (1000s), but very little else, and not for long. On a cost-effectiveness basis, napalm would work far more effectively. More to the point, however, the idea of 'London dying in a cloud of Sarin' reveals a complete failure to understand the effects and limitations of Sarin, or any chemical agent...
Would there be casualties, definitely, and probably heavy ones (1000s), but very little else, and not for long. On a cost-effectiveness basis, napalm would work far more effectively. More to the point, however, the idea of 'London dying in a cloud of Sarin' reveals a complete failure to understand the effects and limitations of Sarin, or any chemical agent...
You are most welcome.
My apologies for the tone of my response, I wrote it with a massive headache, and (rereading it) I can see how it might have come off as far more critical than I had intended...
My apologies for the tone of my response, I wrote it with a massive headache, and (rereading it) I can see how it might have come off as far more critical than I had intended...
Scott Rosenthal said:
The official estimates from the US military - who would presumably have been in a position to know - disagreed with you. The disagreement probably emerges from you missing the point. It's true that gas isn't all that great on a battlefield if protective gear is at all common, and you can't kill a million people just by releasing nerve gas from one point. Due to the danger of it blowing back on your own troops and so forth, the biggest effect is just to force everyone to wear their protective gear all the time. The estimate of millions of casualties is because the US didn't just plan battlefield use of gas, but mass strategic bombing with gas. Those millions of casualties would have been virtually all civilian. Presumably they weren't planning to be so silly as to firebomb at the same time and have the gas detsroyed or carried up and away by the heat. Anyway, incendiaries are most effective against very built-up inhabited areas where there is lots to burn. Mass gas bombing would have been considerably more lethal against the civilian population in areas not vulnerable to firestorms.
US planning for Coronet, as well as stragetic bombing plans for Japan in the event of the 'conventional option', all state that gas (particularly the aerosol types used by the US, and NOT including nerve agents, which the US didn't have at the time, and thus wouldn't have much experience with) was considered 'largely ineffectual' against populated areas, 'particularly if the populations had any time to take protective shelter'. Given the relatively short duration of effectiveness in most (not all) environments for the agents preferred by the US (mustard and lewisite), this seems a reasonably rational analysis. The primary expected use of gas weapons during the latter part of WWII envisoned their TACTICAL employment, against airfields, defended beaches, tht sort of thing, NOT against civilian populations, who were far, far more vulnerable to massed firebombing, a technique that had already been refined to a very high degree of effectiveness. As you said, they would know...
Precisely how would such bombings be effective against populations that wouldn't be vulnerable to firebombing? These were LIQUIDS (aerosols actually, but you get the idea), and thus wouldn't have a great deal of impact upon people in shelters with reasonably protected air intakes. Any shetlers vulnerable to gas (and certainly some were, though very few by late in the war...after all, this wasn't a new threat, and there had been literally decades to devise responses), would have been even more vulnerable to the effects of firebombing.
Regarding using gas during firebombing, this technique was discussed briefly as a method of killing off emergency response personnel, and would involve mixed loads of explosives and mustard, followed by intensive firebombing. The idea would be to lure out and kill the response crews, or (if they declined the invitation to be poisoned) simply suppress them and degrade their ability to fight the fires.
Even in WWI, gas was almost exclusively a tactical weapon (with occasional operational uses), with very poor prospects for use as a strategic killer. It is an ugly weapon, one that few civilized people would suggest belongs on a battlefield, but even in modern hands, its use as a WMD is limited indeed.
Now, if you are all hot and bothered to find something awful to pin on the US planners for late WWII, why not select biological weapons? The US certainly was most interested in those, and was fully prepared to use several exceptionally nasty ones had the invasion (or blockade) of Japan become necessary...
Precisely how would such bombings be effective against populations that wouldn't be vulnerable to firebombing? These were LIQUIDS (aerosols actually, but you get the idea), and thus wouldn't have a great deal of impact upon people in shelters with reasonably protected air intakes. Any shetlers vulnerable to gas (and certainly some were, though very few by late in the war...after all, this wasn't a new threat, and there had been literally decades to devise responses), would have been even more vulnerable to the effects of firebombing.
Regarding using gas during firebombing, this technique was discussed briefly as a method of killing off emergency response personnel, and would involve mixed loads of explosives and mustard, followed by intensive firebombing. The idea would be to lure out and kill the response crews, or (if they declined the invitation to be poisoned) simply suppress them and degrade their ability to fight the fires.
Even in WWI, gas was almost exclusively a tactical weapon (with occasional operational uses), with very poor prospects for use as a strategic killer. It is an ugly weapon, one that few civilized people would suggest belongs on a battlefield, but even in modern hands, its use as a WMD is limited indeed.
Now, if you are all hot and bothered to find something awful to pin on the US planners for late WWII, why not select biological weapons? The US certainly was most interested in those, and was fully prepared to use several exceptionally nasty ones had the invasion (or blockade) of Japan become necessary...