How could WW2 have been even bloodier?

Deleted member 1487

close the Arctic Route (for all practical purposes), Vladivostok, and leaves only thru Indian Ocean? the 60 or so u-boats sent to the Med maybe more effective operating from Italian East Africa if that could be propped up for a while?

guess Lend Lease is a subject of debate but certainly NO Allied materials reaching USSR would have an effect?
The Persian route was still mean some stuff gets in, perhaps more than IOTL via that route, but certainly at least a 50% reduction of overall in 1942 and beyond.
 
Actually, this would probably make the US Army dramatically more effective once it reaches Europe because it will have combat experience.

The real downside would be Yucatán or Panama Canal threatening UBoats and Japanese subs. You’d really need some kind of fait accompli to be triggered where a bunch of u boats show up and have the support from Mx to block the canal.

Unless there is a much earlier POD and the Mexican military is significantly stronger (which would mean the US would freak out and Rearm even faster) I don't think the Mexican army has even the slightest chance of pushing through Central America an invading the Panama Canal Zone. If nothing else the logistics would be awful to say the least. And I don't think there is even the slightest chance the Mexican navy could stage a amphibious assault or even significantly bombard the Canal Zone fortifications.
 
The Persian route was still mean some stuff gets in, perhaps more than IOTL via that route, but certainly at least a 50% reduction of overall in 1942 and beyond.

wonder how forthcoming the Allies would be with supplies had Japan closed the Far Eastern route and Germans blocked the Arctic route? concerns anything shipped likely captured? guess keeping the Soviets in the war outweigh that?
 
Unless there is a much earlier POD and the Mexican military is significantly stronger (which would mean the US would freak out and Rearm even faster) I don't think the Mexican army has even the slightest chance of pushing through Central America an invading the Panama Canal Zone. If nothing else the logistics would be awful to say the least. And I don't think there is even the slightest chance the Mexican navy could stage a amphibious assault or even significantly bombard the Canal Zone fortifications.
Also let's not forget that Mexico had only a decade before been ravaged by a civil war that saw something like 300,000 people killed, and another 250,000 flee the country. It had only really started to stabilize again in 1934. Not a great situation to attack your neighbors in.
 
Also let's not forget that Mexico had only a decade before been ravaged by a civil war that saw something like 300,000 people killed, and another 250,000 flee the country. It had only really started to stabilize again in 1934. Not a great situation to attack your neighbors in.

Did Mexico have any real war related heavy industry at the time? I think they made rifles but that was pretty much it.

So either a much earlier POD and years of intensive development, massive foreign investment to fund said development (From where?), and military build up without somehow triggering a disproportionate and massive American response. And you need someone fundamentally delusional in charge of Mexico. Someone able to exert control but way too blinded to realize Mexico trying to fight the US at this point is a cricket trying to fist fight Muhhamed Ali.
 
Did Mexico have any real war related heavy industry at the time? I think they made rifles but that was pretty much it.
I don't know right off hand. Mexico was a major source of minerals and other war materials, which was heavily built up with American money, and the demand for oil in the leadup to the war allowed them to get away with nationalizing oil production in the country.
 

elkarlo

Banned
No grads. No Tunis grad, no Stalingrad and no midway grad and no Guadalcanal grad. Ie the axis didn't do any crazy over extended offensives. Which woukd leave them with good mobile reserves and the Allies open to counter attacks. Making Italy a much less sure thing. Plus the USSR with no Stalingrad would probably spend 43 committing smaller offensives
 
Anglo-American/Nazi War: 190 million dead.
To be fair around half of the total were Slavs and Jews killed by the Nazis (most of which was during the peace between the Reich and the West).
IOTL the US was willing to tolerate substantial losses because it was pretty clear they were going to win after Stalingrad shook out (hence the January1943 unconditional surrender announcement). Is that true if the Soviets are effectively out of the war by then and the Japanese are able to run the Pacific until the US ships slated to be ready in 1943 are in service?
I think there’s around a 60% chance that if the Reich defeated and occupied the USSR a cold war would emerge between them and the WAllies like in AANW.

On a poll in a previous thread the majority voted that the US/UK would begrudgingly accept Nazi hegemony.
 
Last edited:
To be fair around half of the total were Slavs and Jews killed by the Nazis (most of which was during the peace between the Reich and the West).

I think there’s around a 60% chance that if the Reich defeated and occupied the USSR a cold war would emerge between them and the WAllies like in AANW.

On a poll in a previous thread the majority voted that the US/UK would begrudgingly accept Nazi hegemony.

I think a cold war is the minimum. America might not decide to try and liberate all of Europe but increasing it's own defenses, seizing European colonies in the Western Hemisphere, arming regional counterbalance forces against the Reich, and the like are the minimum I would see.

The idea that the US reaction to a Nazi Reich stretching from the English Channel to the Urals would be nothing is just ridiculousness.
 
Top