How do I drag on the Second World War?

[Rich Rostrom]

IMO it's a pile of junk, it starts going off the rails in 1941 (in the first stated event), and just goes further and further. For starters, a Germany that can't beat France on its own is never going to persuade Mussolini to move, (The Moose didn't even start OTL until the 10th of June)

What, the sky would open and lightning strike him down if Mussolini did something foolish?

Probably the same with Spain

"Probably"? You don't know and you're just guessiing. And you weren't paying attention. The Nationalist Caudillo in this TL is not Franco, but Sanjurjo. (Who outranked Franco and was to be the Caudillo before his accident.) When Sanjurjo was to fly to Salamanca to assume command of the rebellion, he could have used the seven-seat De Havilland Dragon Rapide that had been used to fly Franco from the Canary Islands to Morocco. But Antonio Ansaldo, a "daring aviator", had flown to Lisbon in a small two-seater and offered his plane as well. Sanjurjo decided to fly with Ansaldo, presumably because it was more dramatic. He also insisted on bringing a trunkful of dress uniforms. Ansaldo's plane barely got off the ground and then crashed, killing Sanjurjo.

Sanjurjo was, clearly, prone to romantic gestures. Nationalist Spain owed its victory in large part to German assistance; Sanjurjo was the sort to respond to a German call for assistance in terms of honoring a debt rather than by cold calculation of national interest.

and even if they did, Italy's only partially mechanised, Spain barely at all, so they're going to be both mostly foot-slogger armies, which may be enough to tip the balance, but will still require German to do the heavy moving.

Who said otherwise? The outcome of the 1940 campaign was described as leaving France on the brink of collapse. German renewed the pressure in 1941, and then the Spanish and Italian attacks were enough to "tip the balance".

After that, the Axis isn't putting anything big into Africa in 2 months, the Italian facilities were cr*p.

How long did it take the Axis to deploy 5th Panzer Army to Tunisia in 1942? Less than two months, despite British and American opposition and the ongoing loss of Libya. And previous losses of Italian merchant shipping.

On the American front, If the atrocities in China continue to pile up President Wheeler is going to face a few hard questions.

Do you know anything about Burton Wheeler? I can tell you what his answer would be: American boys will go to fight overseas over his dead body. No American loans, no American arms sales, nothing that would provide any excuse for the U.S. taking sides in a foreign war. That would include sales of oil to Japan on credit, which Japan required by mid-1941. Wheeler wanted the U.S. to have nothing to do with any belligerents if possible. U.S. exports would stop, but Wheeler would not organize or enforce an embargo by other countries.

Also, the Japanese were in capable of really hurting Australia or NZ OTL, what makes you think they'll do any better here (or will have the motivation to)?

What do you mean by "really hurting"? In the suggested scenario, Japan does not invade Australia or New Zealand. However, with the British Royal Navy nowhere in the area, and Australia practically devoid of airpower as well, the Japanese navy can send carrier groups down and bomb Australian cities at will. (There are no AA defenses either.)

As for motivation: is Japan simply going to ignore two hostile countries?

Also, neutrality doesn't mean 'turn away from Britain'.

Australia and New Zealand are belligerents on Britain's side. If they are forced to withdraw from the war and become neutral, that's "turning away from Britain".

Stalin isn't going to order an attack in '41, the army's just not ready and he knows it.

I wouldn't be too sure about what Stalin knows (or thinks he knows). He may not be entirely confident in the Soviet army, but he can see an opportunity that is open and will soon close.

And to describe Britain as horribly crippled is cr*p, they still retain as firm, untouched allies the most industrialised of their dominions, Canada...

Canada is good. Canada is also a small country in population and industry - a fraction of Britain's capacity, which is much smaller than Germany's. And Canada is not going to be too happy about carrying the load by itself. French Canadians were especially resentful of the war burden - Canada could not enact conscription without an explicit pledge that no conscript would ever be sent overseas.

As for "horribly crippled" - Britain has lost half its Empire: Malaya, India (effectively), Australia, and New Zealand. (The Dutch East Indies are lost to the Allies as well.) The Far Eastern Fleet is being chased around the Indian Ocean by the Japanese carrier fleet.

... and you can bet there'll be a lot of volunteers from Australia, New Zealand and India.

Volunteers... some. Not as many as when the governments of these countries were actively recruiting for the war, organizing and training the recruits, and providing transportation to the war zone. Not as many as before these countries were left defenseless against Japan by British military deployments...

 

[Twisty987654321]

Drag on the war with russia

If russia had of joined on the side of the axis during ww2, it would have dragged it on for much longer, but as russia was such a large and powerful, but not so military at the time, thay may have made the axis win the war. This is probably not the awnser you are looking for as the war would have been quite short as the axis would have won too quickly. Maybe if countries such as spain would have joined on the side of the axis, the war would drag on for much longer. My guess 1947 ish.

 

[BELFAST]

How plausible is each of these events?

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Oil and Triumph of Nazi Germany[/FONT]

In 1945 the leader of Nazi Germany took his own life in an underground bunker surrounded by the smoldering remains of his capital city. What if Hitler had made a simple strategy change in 1941? Could the war have ended with the Axis powers ruling most of the world and America cowering on the other side of the globe? ​

Adolf Hitler needed oil. By 1941 the German war machine - tanks, planes and trucks - would soon grind to a stop without petroleum. Hitler and his allies controlled most of the continent of Europe along with parts of northern Africa, but no area within the influence of the Axis powers, contained enough resources of oil to meet his needs. This was a problem that Hitler needed to solve and solve soon.​

In 1939 the Germans had signed the German-Soviet Non-aggression Pact with the Soviet Union. This document secretly divided most of eastern Europe between the two powers. For Hitler it removed the worry of having to fight a war on his eastern front while also waging war against England and France in the west. For the Soviet leader Stalin, it meant that he could turn all his attention to a possible attack on his easstern flank by Japan.​

By 1941, however, Hitler had most of western Europe under his control. Though Hitler had access to oil in Romania and the pact with the Soviet's included a clause in which they agreed to sell him oil, Hilter knew these supplies would be insufficent to meet the German war machine's growing hunger. What Hitler wanted was the Soviet Union's extensive oil fields in the Caucaus and in June he repudiated the pack and launched an attack upon the Russians.​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Operation Barbarossa [/FONT]​

Not that a desire for oil was Hitler's only reason for wanting to start a war with Stalin. He had long looked at western Russia as prime real estate for the expansion of the German Empire. He also believed the Soviet Union was weak due to purges done by Stalin to the Red Army leaderhship in the 1930's. "We have only to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down," remarked Hitler, according to Albert Speer in his book Inside the Third Reich.​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The German Military Machine was in need of oil.[/FONT]​

The battle would be fought over ideologies and race too: Fascism against Communism and the Aryan race against the Slavic race. As Hitler put it, it would be a "war of annihilation", in which the Soviet Union was to be destroyed and the peoples of Eastern Europe and Russia would either be killed or enslaved.​

On June 22, 1941, the German army attacked the Soviet Union. Hitler expected the project (designated Operation Barbarossa) to be short, with Stalin surrendering in less than a month. He misjudged the situation gravely. The action went on until the end of the war in Europe in May of 1945 and cost over 5 million casualties on the Axis side - over 80% of the German army deaths during the war. The drain of resources to the Eastern front was so great that it remains one of the prime reasons the Nazi lost the war. In the end it would be Soviet troops, not British or American, that would march into Germany and take possession of the capital, Berlin, mere hours after Hitler had committed suicide to avoid falling into Russian hands.​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Operation Arab Freedom[/FONT]​

But what if Hitler had gone a different route? What if he had put off his eastern expansionist ideas and just concerned himself with getting the oil he needed to continue the war? Some of the largest oil fields in the world are located in Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. As of the spring of 1941, these were all in Allied hands. Starting in September of 1940, however, Italy, under Hitler's fellow Axis dictator, Benito Mussolini, invaded British Egypt from Libya and Greece from Albania. Mussolini's campaigns were not totally successful and Hitler was forced to send troops to help secure those areas. While this might have been an annoyance to Hitler at the time, the conquest of Greece could have been used as a springboard for further adventures into the Middle East. If he had taken the same number of divisions he had used to invade the Soviet Union and had advanced instead into Syria or Turkey and then on into Iraq, he might have captured the petroleum facilitates with little difficulty.​

A plan similar to this may passed through the Furher's mind. On May 23rd, in response to a short-lived coup of the pro-British government in Iraq, he issued Furher Directive 30: a project designed to support the "Arab Freedom Movement." If only he had gone a little further in this thinking he could have turned this into an operation that would have replaced Barbarossa.​

Historian John Keegan, in his essay The Drive for the Middle East, 1941, suggests that for Hitler to attack Iraq via Syria he would have needed to employ an island-hopping strategy not unlike that used later in the war by the United States against Japan. Launched from the Italian island of Rhodes, a successful invasion of Cyprus would have left him in position to assault Syria with an amphibious force. With the French army in Syria and Lebanon numbering only 38,000 troops and lacking modern equipment or air protection, it is hard to see how they could have turned back Hitler's armies. The one difficulty with this plan would have been to assemble enough ships to move Hitler's forces around. Most of the suitable vessels in the eastern Mediterranean were already in British hands.​

If enough ships could not be found, however, Hitler could have pushed his way through neutral Turkey and into the Mid-East oil fields via Istanbul. He hinted an interest in doing this in Furher Directive 32 in which he talked about assembling a force in Bulgaria powerful enough to "render Turkey politically amenable or overpower her resistance." The Turks were stouthearted fighters but lacked modern military equipment and could not have hoped to resist a Nazi onslaught for long. Once Turkey fell, the surrender would have brought Hitler's forces to the edge of the oil fields. What's more, such an attack would have left the Germans into position to take the Russian Caucaus oil fields from the South. An attack from that direction would have eliminated much of the problem of terrain that hampered Operation Barbarossa from the west. In fact, all the goals of Operation Barbarossa would have been easier to achieve if the attack had been put off for a year till Turkey had been secured and the German army could have advanced two directions - from the the south and from the west.​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]German Field Marshall Rommel[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Desert Fox[/FONT]​

Another factor suggesting that an attack by German into the Mid-East in 1941 would have been successful was Field Marshall Erwin Rommell. Rommell and his 5th Light Division had been sent to Libya early in 1941 to assist the Italians who had just experienced a series of losses to the British. Rommell, nicknamed "the Desert Fox," outfought his allied opponents in North Africa despite being out numbered and ill supplied. He is generally acknowledged by historians as the best desert combat commander either side produced during the war. He was an aggressive leader who was willing to take risks if he saw a chance to exploit an enemy's weakness.​

Rommell was always hampered, however, by lack of supplies and troops. In 1942, for example, Rommell and his Afrika Korps managed to clear almost all Allied resistance from North Africa all the way to Egypt, but could go no further without additional support that Hitler never sent.​

One can only wonder what would have happened if Hitler had invaded through Turkey or Syria and then matched that action with the necessary support to Rommel for a march through Egypt and Saudi Arabia to join troops advancing through Turkey. With the Axis forces in this position it is easy to see a very different end to World War II. The Germans, under Rommel, could have taken most of the Middle-East and then moved on to India. Japan could have seized the Indies and linked up with Germany from the east. This would have given them control over almost all of the non-English speaking world. Britain might have held out for a time, but it seems likely that in the end the Axis Powers might have controlled much of the world with the United States isolated in the western hemisphere. Alone America might have not been able turn back the Axis powers and we might have seen an alternate world where the Swastika would fly over Washington D.C..​

http://www.unmuseum.org/hitlerwins.htm

 

[MattII]

What, the sky would open and lightning strike him down if Mussolini did something foolish?

Mussolini didn't order the armies into France OTL until June 10, near the end of the evacuation. Against a France that holds off two German attacks, he'll never move.

Sanjurjo was, clearly, prone to romantic gestures. Nationalist Spain owed its victory in large part to German assistance; Sanjurjo was the sort to respond to a German call for assistance in terms of honoring a debt rather than by cold calculation of national interest.

Maybe, but what are they attacking with, infantry alone?

Who said otherwise? The outcome of the 1940 campaign was described as leaving France on the brink of collapse. German renewed the pressure in 1941, and then the Spanish and Italian attacks were enough to "tip the balance".

Which unfortunately puts Barbarossa back several months if not a year, which is going to make Hitler's drive east really interesting, but also much shorter. It will also give the British time to build up in relative peace.

How long did it take the Axis to deploy 5th Panzer Army to Tunisia in 1942? Less than two months, despite British and American opposition and the ongoing loss of Libya. And previous losses of Italian merchant shipping.

It took Rommel 4 months to get ready, including bringing across logistical support, no way are you doing anything in half that time.

Do you know anything about Burton Wheeler? I can tell you what his answer would be: American boys will go to fight overseas over his dead body. No American loans, no American arms sales, nothing that would provide any excuse for the U.S. taking sides in a foreign war. That would include sales of oil to Japan on credit, which Japan required by mid-1941. Wheeler wanted the U.S. to have nothing to do with any belligerents if possible. U.S. exports would stop, but Wheeler would not organize or enforce an embargo by other countries.

And? He can't prevent volunteers from crossing the border and joining the Canadian forces.

What do you mean by "really hurting"? In the suggested scenario, Japan does not invade Australia or New Zealand. However, with the British Royal Navy nowhere in the area, and Australia practically devoid of airpower as well, the Japanese navy can send carrier groups down and bomb Australian cities at will. (There are no AA defenses either.)

They can bomb about one city at a time, for maybe a couple of nights, before having to retreat. How that's any worse than the Blitz is beyond me, and remember that the Aussies in many cases, defended their positions to the death.

As for motivation: is Japan simply going to ignore two hostile countries?

They can't project a lot can they?

Australia and New Zealand are belligerents on Britain's side. If they are forced to withdraw from the war and become neutral, that's "turning away from Britain".

And how are the Japanese supposed to force them to withdraw? The Australians are not going to stop fighting for a bit of bombing, they weren't like that.

I wouldn't be too sure about what Stalin knows (or thinks he knows). He may not be entirely confident in the Soviet army, but he can see an opportunity that is open and will soon close.

So he's basiaclly going to ignore all his generalls telling him that the Red Army isn't ready? Bull. he tried to pacify Hitler right up to OTL Barbarossa precisely because he knew they weren't ready.

Canada is good. Canada is also a small country in population and industry - a fraction of Britain's capacity, which is much smaller than Germany's. And Canada is not going to be too happy about carrying the load by itself.

Maybe you could tell me how this is different from OTL, since Australia and New Zealand had very little industry, and would provide plenty of volunteers regardless.

As for "horribly crippled" - Britain has lost half its Empire: Malaya, India (effectively), Australia, and New Zealand. (The Dutch East Indies are lost to the Allies as well.) The Far Eastern Fleet is being chased around the Indian Ocean by the Japanese carrier fleet.

Australia and NZ aren't out, and the INC isn't nearly as powerful as is being supposed, not to mention that many of the leaders were stuck in prison in 1942, after trying a similar declaration.

Volunteers... some. Not as many as when the governments of these countries were actively recruiting for the war, organizing and training the recruits, and providing transportation to the war zone. Not as many as before these countries were left defenseless against Japan by British military deployments...

Well since they won't be trying any sort of invasion of Europe without the Americans, not as many are going to be needed.

The big gainer out of all of this is of course Stalin, given at least several more months (or perhaps even as much as a year) to rebuild his forces, the Germans will be stopped much closer to the border, and will thus be in a much better position to retaliate.

But what if Hitler had gone a different route? What if he had put off his eastern expansionist ideas and just concerned himself with getting the oil he needed to continue the war? Some of the largest oil fields in the world are located in Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. As of the spring of 1941, these were all in Allied hands. Starting in September of 1940, however, Italy, under Hitler's fellow Axis dictator, Benito Mussolini, invaded British Egypt from Libya and Greece from Albania. Mussolini's campaigns were not totally successful and Hitler was forced to send troops to help secure those areas. While this might have been an annoyance to Hitler at the time, the conquest of Greece could have been used as a springboard for further adventures into the Middle East. If he had taken the same number of divisions he had used to invade the Soviet Union and had advanced instead into Syria or Turkey and then on into Iraq, he might have captured the petroleum facilitates with little difficulty.

Well sure, at the expense of giving the Soviets the time they'd need to properly rebuild their forces.

Historian John Keegan, in his essay The Drive for the Middle East, 1941, suggests that for Hitler to attack Iraq via Syria he would have needed to employ an island-hopping strategy not unlike that used later in the war by the United States against Japan.

The USN had the requisite naval superiority, the Axis won't.

Launched from the Italian island of Rhodes, a successful invasion of Cyprus would have left him in position to assault Syria with an amphibious force.

From Rhodes to Cyprus is about 400 km, kind of a long way to go, especially for a force that's going to have naval inferiority.

​

If enough ships could not be found, however, Hitler could have pushed his way through neutral Turkey and into the Mid-East oil fields via Istanbul.

That's a long way over rough terrain.

He hinted an interest in doing this in Furher Directive 32 in which he talked about assembling a force in Bulgaria powerful enough to "render Turkey politically amenable or overpower her resistance." The Turks were stouthearted fighters but lacked modern military equipment and could not have hoped to resist a Nazi onslaught for long. Once Turkey fell, the surrender would have brought Hitler's forces to the edge of the oil fields.

Provided the Turks hadn't done something nasty like blowing out all the railway bridges, which would leave the Germans on the border, but with little food, fuel and ammunition.

What's more, such an attack would have left the Germans into position to take the Russian Caucaus oil fields from the South. An attack from that direction would have eliminated much of the problem of terrain that hampered Operation Barbarossa from the west. In fact, all the goals of Operation Barbarossa would have been easier to achieve if the attack had been put off for a year till Turkey had been secured and the German army could have advanced two directions - from the the south and from the west

Against a force that would be much better prepared than it was OTL.
​

​

The Germans, under Rommel, could have taken most of the Middle-East and then moved on to India. Japan could have seized the Indies and linked up with Germany from the east. This would have given them control over almost all of the non-English speaking world.

Well, apart from the whole Soviet Union, most of Africa, and all of South America. Also, nowhere the Germans went outside of Europe had any industry, and Hitler and the Nazis were rabid racists, so it wouldn't have done them much good anyway.

Alone America might have not been able turn back the Axis powers and we might have seen an alternate world where the Swastika would fly over Washington D.C..

Um, no, there is no way they could force their way across the Atlantic or Pacific, and in any case, Germany would eventually have gone to war with Japan due to racial hatred.

One way to strengthen the German position would be for Rommel to realise in mid 1941 where he was going wrong, and thus attack from Bel Hamed and Sidi Rezegh, and thus take Tobruk in maybe July '41, and retain Halfaya pass as his front line through the winter of that year, which would also somewhat improve his supply situation as it would allow him to retain Benghazi and Tobruk as supply points.

 

[Rich Rostrom]

Originally Posted by Rich Rostrom How long did it take the Axis to deploy 5th Panzer Army to Tunisia in 1942? Less than two months, despite British and American opposition and the ongoing loss of Libya. And previous losses of Italian merchant shipping.
​

It took Rommel 4 months to get ready, including bringing across logistical support, no way are you doing anything in half that time.

There seems to be confusion about a lot of things.

Hitler ordered the Afrika Korps established on 11 January 1941. He appointed Rommel to command it on 12 February. Rommel attacked in Africa on 24 March, not four months later.

Besides which, Rommel had nothing to do with the deployment of 5th Panzer Army to Tunisia in 1942. (He was then in Egypt with the Panzer Armee Afrika, retreating from El Alamein.) The Germans started moving 5th Panzer after the Allied landings in Morocco and Algeria on 8 November. German troops were in action by 17 November. By the end of November three full German divisions were in Tunisia. By late December Allied intelligence estimated almost 200,000 Axis troops in Tunisia (mostly Italian).

This force was entirely separate from Rommel's Panzer Armee Afrika, which was still 300 miles away in Libya, east of Buerat.

This deployment took place in late 1942, when the Axis had a lot of other things on its plate, so to speak, when Axis shipping in the Mediterranean had been seriously depleted, and when the U.S. was in the war with its naval and air power.

So any claim that the Axis (with Spain added) could not quickly deploy substantial forces to North Africa in 1940 is at best dubious.

 

[MattII]

Maybe I missed something, but wasn't most of the stuff that went into the 5th Panzer army already in Africa at the time? And wasn't it only created in December of that year? Also, the 15th Panzerdivision didn't even start transferring to Africa until late April 1941.

 

[phx1138]

I remember reading in the book The New Dealer's War, there was fear in certain quarters in America that if Chiang Kai-Shek wasn't properly supported, he'd throw up his hands in the air and submit to the Japanese.

If the Japanese could bend significant numbers of Chinese to their will, that would broaden their manpower pool considerably and possibly allow for schemes to transfer industrial base to the Asian mainland.

Or maybe if the Japanese are less grotesquely heavy-handed, they can count on more local support against the European colonial powers, reducing the costs of holding the conquered territories, gaining more local production, and more local manpower.

Given the long-held Japanese belief they were destined to unite the world (under their control, of course), this seems pretty unlikely.

Also, someone suggested having Japanese submarines target merchant ships instead of warships only.

This requires IJN senior officers not to be in the thrall of Mahanian doctrine & thinking the Battle Line would decide the war...

No battle of Britain in 1940.

Interesting, but I'm not clear how it would be achieved.

Malta falls after France.

I like this one.

Heuy long wins 1936 election and 1940

Not much chance of it IMO. What are the chances for an actually credible candidate, like Dewey, winning '40?

Harry Truman elected in 1944.

Why doesn't FDR run? What happens if Time runs the photos it didn't OTL, & FDR loses?

Manhattan project start delayed until 1945.

Very improbable IMO. Why doesn't Einstein write the letter? Or does TTL's President not believe him?

No lead lease.

This strikes me as the best & most credible way, especially in light of the Neutrality Acts.

You could also (somehow...) butterfly away the Destroyers for Bases deal. This makes U.S. involvement less likely, since no USN DDs will be shot at or sunk.

It also means IJN won't have the excuse to attack Pearl Harbor... Unless the oil embargo goes ahead as OTL, in which case they'll do it because they blame the U.S. & not because the U.S. & Britain were notionally inseparable.

British must pay Americans for all supplies.

Most imports after 1941 come only from empire.

Given no Lend-Lease...

That said, what happens when the Brits start turning to other sources? How much more could the Empire produce? In a/c, tanks, radar, & especially ships?

Maybe more important, as the Brits face increasing losses of ships she can't replace (presuming it's not easily made up in Canada, Oz, or South Africa), does the Admiralty force a change to a/c priorities to get more LR a/c for Coastal Command? Do squadrons get based in Newfoundland before OTL's mid-'43? This would drastically reduce losses....

Also, this suggests Winston's dreams of invading Italy are a non-starter, since the shipping to supply them simply isn't available.

It also means the Brits can't afford the a/c losses of the bomber campaign as it was run OTL, for lack of material, trained crews, & fuel, so another approach ISTM would have to be taken. I've heard river mining was impossible. Was it? (IMO, that's the most profitable way, & has the benefit of near-zero losses.) What about wrecking the rail system? Bombing canals?

Rommel arrives in Libya after the fall of France and take Egypt and gets as far as border Iran Iraq border.

ASB. Rommel's supply constraints make it effectively impossible.

Germany does not have treaty with Japan.

This does not lengthen the war against Germany...

American continues to sell oil to Japan.

Given no other changes? This is possible if the State Department doesn't slap on the total embargo it did OTL; it appears to require FDR being a bit more explicit about not wanting a total embargo, which he didn't.

No attack Pearl harbour before 1945.

Without the need to invade the DEI, why does Japan attack at all? If there is still a need for oil, thanks to an embargo, this is ASB: Japan didn't have the oil stockpiled to last through 1942.

Germany does not invade Soviets until 1942.

This shortens the war, when the Germans run into thousands of T-34s & KV-1s....

Hitler will NOT delay the invasion of USSR

Absolutely right. And I'm ashamed I didn't think of that before the T-34s.

Germany by 1945 is in a stale mate in soviet union with big soviet partisans problem behind front lines.

How screwed up is Soviet leadership? And when does Hitler die? 1938?

1940 - Allied codebreakers re-break Enigma a month earlier.

How, exactly, do they manage that, aside handwavium?

In the gloating over the Norway victory, the break into Enigma leaks to the Germans.

More handwavium... How, exactly, do the Brits blow the biggest secret of the war? With the possible exception of the Bomb...

Between Norway and the huge security breach, the Germans postpone the attack on France by three months.

I'm not seeing the benefit to the Germans...

with the war in Europe stalemated, FDR decides that the crisis does not require him to continue as President. The Democrats nominate Sen. Burton Wheeler of Idaho, a fiery New Dealer and also fanatic Isolationist.

Very nice touch.

Germany attacks in the West, but the Allies have had three additonal months to prepare.

Seems to me you could get a comparable result just by having the Germans stick to the original plan. Which still gives you an effective stalemate in time for FDR to quit.

In November - Wheeler narrowly wins election over novice candidate Willkie.

Change the Republican nominee, you might be able to beat FDR. Or he might not be re-nominated, even if he doesn't decide to quit...

Wheeler declares that the U.S. will not aid the Allies, nor even relax the Neutrality Act restrictions on selling arms. He will veto any such moves.

And you've hit the biggie. Nice job.

bring ...Spain into the war

Wasn't Spain still pretty much in chaos?

The French government flees to North Africa in June.

I like it. If you're doing this, tho, can you offer French POWs the option to join the Germans?

President Wheeler has said the U.S. will do nothing about Japan and Euro colonies in Asia.

What's he doing about U.S. interests in China? The U.S. has been hoping to gain access there for decades...

force Australia and New Zealand to declare neutrality.

Nonsense. Japan didn't have the combat power to impose her will on either of them, & anybody who could read a map knew it. This is pure handwavium.

Soviet forces attack west into Germany.

Why? More pure handwavium. (And don't give me Suvurov.)

The length of time the second world war lasted, was pretty much as long as it could last.

Even assuming D-Day "failing" which is massively unlikely, the Reich would be overrun by the Soviets by Autumn 1946 at the earliest.

That, I mainly agree with. Remove U.S. Lend-Lease to the SU, I think you push the end back some, & end it with the SU still inside, or near, its prewar borders. You've also got to account for accelerating the end by Brit changes in approach (not tactics, exactly): like Stirlings in NF, no Avalanche, not reducing the DAK (just bottle it up)...

Every obstacle presented forces the Brits to change what they do from OTL. If they don't, they look like morons. Or the TL-writer does...

In the meanwhile in 1942 the U.S. support for getting involved is growing

No, it's not. The polls are still about dead even on "do something" & "stay out of war".

the U.S. President decides Imperial Japan has gone to far and starts to squeeze them

As opposed to before why? Recall, the U.S. wanted to aid Chiang...

In December of that year Japan attacks Pearl Harbor.

So why, exactly, does it happen on the OTL schedule, under different conditions?

The President then agrees to directly aid the UK

Now, at least, it's credible.

within 5 months after a number of U.S. ships are sunk the U.S. declares war on Germany.

Contrary to OTL, when it took over a year, why?

What are the chances of Hitler agreeing to focus on taking Moscow instead of the Ukraine? And what happens if he does?

 

[Kongzilla]

Calbear has a good timeline in the finished timelines board that stretches it into the 50's but there's a long lull in the war.

What's the name of that timeline it sounds neat.

 

[Zaius]

What's the name of that timeline it sounds neat.

The Anglo/American-Nazi War, it's in Finished Timelines and scenarios. However, the Soviet defeat which makes the prolongation of war possible is handwaved, which the author himself admits.

What are the chances of Hitler agreeing to focus on taking Moscow instead of the Ukraine? And what happens if he does?

If, up until that decision, Barbarossa proceeds in a manner similar to OTL, the consequences will be the considerable Soviet forces in Ukraine charging into the flank of the armies bound for Moscow.

 

[Kongzilla]

If the Nazis somehow happen to take Moscow what happens if the Nazis decide or just "happen" to burn the paperwork and kill the politicians, I here the SU was a very centralized government. What effects does this have even if Stalin escapes

 

[phx1138]

If, up until that decision, Barbarossa proceeds in a manner similar to OTL, the consequences will be the considerable Soviet forces in Ukraine charging into the flank of the armies bound for Moscow.

Thx.

Tremendous superiority or not, some German jets will get downed. It happened IRL, and it will happen here. Once they get some engineers to have a close look at some intact wrecks, they can get a design drawn and an assembly line built within around 12-18 months.

You're forgetting, the Brits already had jets: Meteor, with Vampire coming shortly. The Me-262 was never durable or numerous enough to be more than a nuisance. If it had been, expect the Vamp to be accelerated.

IMO it's a pile of junk, it starts going off the rails in 1941 (in the first stated event), and just goes further and further. For starters, a Germany that can't beat France on its own is never going to persuade Mussolini to move, (The Moose didn't even start OTL until the 10th of June) Probably the same with Spain, and even if they did, Italy's only partially mechanised, Spain barely at all, so they're going to be both mostly foot-slogger armies, which may be enough to tip the balance, but will still require German to do the heavy moving. After that, the Axis isn't putting anything big into Africa in 2 months, the Italian facilities were cr*p.

On the American front, If the atrocities in China continue to pile up President Wheeler is going to face a few hard questions. Also, the Japanese were in capable of really hurting Australia or NZ OTL, what makes you think they'll do any better here (or will have the motivation to)? Also, neutrality doesn't mean 'turn away from Britain'.

Stalin isn't going to order an attack in '41, the army's just not ready and he knows it. And even (or especially) if that does play out, Germany's going to be screwed past 1943, because Russia knows about logistics and standardisation (and German's got no resources coming from north of Denmark), and with much less devastation, and it coming much later, they won't need LL.

I agree with all of this. Interesting as bits of the proposal were...

to describe Britain as horribly crippled is cr*p, they still retain as firm, untouched allies the most industrialised of their dominions, Canada, and you can bet there'll be a lot of volunteers from Australia, New Zealand and India.

TY for that bolded bit. Seriously, tho, Canada was "the most industrialised"? Knowing we couldn't even produce our own gyrocompasses...

Germany is free to pursue its war in the East with no real distractions in the Balkans

And Hitler doesn't see the need to aid Mussolini why?

The resources required for convoy escorts means that Bomber [C]ommand is stillborn

Not seeing the connection. Also, some form of striking back is essential to Halifax's political survival at home, so BC won't just die.

and the RN and an expanded Fighter and Coastal command barely manage to stabilise Britain's position in Europe.

As I've said upthread, more to Coastal Command is very good for Britain in the long run.

If it provokes the introduction of the Type XXI, especially if it's earlier than OTL, tho...

The conflict in the Pacific follows OTL with Britian doing slightly worse as the defence of Empire is almost entirely devolved to the Dominions and Indian armies. The Japanese are stopped but not before a significant part of Bengal is occupied the problems from an expanded INA continue to plague any advance into Burma.

IJA was at all times on the fine edge of failure, so doing a great deal better is pretty unlikely.

Meanwhile USA steamrollers Japan in three years in a "Japan first" policy

Presuming the U.S. is hostile to Britain, hence no L-L, why is Japan attacking Pearl Harbor again?

Caucasus are occupied by the Germans although the oilfields are wrecked.

No chance of an early German attack knocking out oilfields to deny them to the Sovs? This would be bad for Germany in one way, good in another.

an increasing flow of material from the Americans

Which the Brits are paying for how...?

American intervention is triggered after an American cruiser is torpedoed by a U-boat in early 1945.

Very convenient.

There is no "soft underbelly" of Europe to threaten Romanian oil here.

And so no diversion of shipping to support an Italian op. Bad for Germany...

And what is France doing? Standing on the sidelines cheering? Or has Halifax done what Winston wouldn't, & made France a more equal partner? Lots of French colonials available...tho, I confess, IDK how much additional French manufacturing, if any.

I think that the UK on a world war footing would still develop more advanced aircraft types even without lend lease.

Given a choice between more of a proven type or fewer of an unproven one, ISTM very unlikely the Brits pick the unproven one. Besides, without a German jet, there's no need.

Another thing about the TLs being touted here is that John Terraine fans might see RAF Coastal getting the lion's share of the heavies to the detriment of the U-boats.

If the Mustang is ordered and paid for by the UK and flies in late 1940 as it did OTL then it would still exist.

Exist, perhaps. If the Brits have to continue to pay cash, they'll have to decide what they really need, & Mustangs aren't on that list if it means fewer ships. Moreover, what about getting an improved (Griffon?) Spit earlier--from Canada?

In Europe: have D-day be a massive failure that results in a lot of casualties.

That's borderline ASB. How do the Germans achieve it? Or, more correctly, how do the Brits & French turn it into such a massive cluserf*ck?

In the Pacific: Either have Truman decide not to use the A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and opt for a land invasion

Not going to happen. If Japan is getting curbstomped by a U.S. not sending aid to Britain, it's over before the Bomb ever becomes an issue.

or collaborate with the Soviets and do a blockade on Japan in an effort to starve them into submission.

You do know the U.S. Pacific Fleet Sub Force, despite bad dispositions by Nimitz, terrible torpedo exploders, bad torpedoes generally, & no access to the merchant marine code for the first year of the war, still managed to crash Japan's economy by January 1945...? You do also know Soviet aid would have been less than really helpful? Not to mention having very unpleasant strings attached...& extremely unpleasant postwar consequences.

The land invasion is probably slow and tedious, resulting in the deaths of millions of people as well as probably the mass suicide of the Japanese population (I say this because I remember reading somewhere that the Army was preparing the population to fight to the death rather than submit to occupation. I might be wrong).

There's a lot of propaganda on it. It's not much more.

The blockade probably turns Japan into a sort of Cuba, only with a state of war existing for a long time.

Not a chance in hell. Japan was within inches of starvation even in Aug '45; with sole U.S. attention, that could be June or July '43.

Spanish and Italian attacks were enough to "tip the balance"

What do you mean by "really hurting"? In the suggested scenario, Japan does not invade Australia or New Zealand. However, with the British Royal Navy nowhere in the area, and Australia practically devoid of airpower as well, the Japanese navy can send carrier groups down and bomb Australian cities at will. (There are no AA defenses either.)

Where are the Japanese getting the CVs to do this with? It's not like they aren't needed elsewhere, or don't ever need maintenance. Not to mention the absolutely staggering amount of fuel a task force burns. Have you forgotten why Japan went to war in the first place?

As for motivation: is Japan simply going to ignore two hostile countries?

Ignore, no. Actually be able to do anything about? Also no. Don't propose invasion. That's not ASB: it's stupid, & even IJA knew it. (That they did is damn near ASB.)

If they are forced to withdraw from the war and become neutral, that's "turning away from Britain"

No, that's ASB or handwavium. Or absurd.

Canada is good. Canada is also a small country in population and industry

Canada is also free entirely from threat of bombing by Germany, with access to resources not threatened by U-boats. (I'm less sure the U.S. would refuse sales to Canada, given the historical relationship.)

Canada could not enact conscription without an explicit pledge that no conscript would ever be sent overseas.

With France still strongly in the fight, that could change... With that, & lower Bomber Command losses, & no Italian campaign, Canada has much less need of conscription.

Also, don't forget, RCN escorted over half of all the convoys. With Coastal Command getting more *VLRs, RCAF Coastal Command is likely to play a bigger role, too: they were willing to fly in local NF conditions RAF thought were insane.

I would like to see Britain & Canada come to a deal to provide RCN Brit-crewed DDs so RCN can escort the fast convoys, & leave the slower ones (OTL handled by RCN) to the more experienced RN. Without USN aid, maybe this can happen?

before these countries were left defenseless against Japan by British military deployments...

Russians also had to miss Western intelligence, which in the OTL proved vital in some cases, such as Kursk. The British already had broken German Enigma Codes and later supplied this to their primary Allies (USA), but not the USSR

They didn't need it. They had a high-placed spy in OKW IIRC (never identified AFAIK) & Cairncross at Bletchley was supplying all the Enigma.

just a few more German units in Fraqnce and a few less in Norway, possibly turning the Allied advance in a slow crawl

Can Hitler be less persuaded by Brit deception designed to fool him into thinking they intended to invade? Could Op Mincemeat fail, or never be carried out at all?

Or, after D-day, could Halder (?) refuse the counterattack that effectively destroyed his army, before he shot himself? (Or did he suffer a fatal heart attack?)

Better Luftwaffe intelligence in the BoB would be a big help. Shooting Göring would be a great start.

I wonder if Hitler might not adopt the "prison battalion" model. Instead of sending Jews to death camps, he has them put in suicide units designed to march through minefields or act as vanguard groups. Even a small reduction in Heer casualties could pay big dividends...

 

[Rich Rostrom]

Quote: Originally Posted by Rich Rostrom
1940 - Allied codebreakers re-break Enigma a month earlier.

How, exactly, do they manage that, aside handwavium?

The Allies started work on Enigma in September 1939. They were reading some Enigma keys regularly by May 1940. That's eight months. You think ASBs necessary for a modest acceleration of that schedule?

Quote: Originally Posted by Rich Rostrom
In the gloating over the Norway victory, the break into Enigma leaks to the Germans.

More handwavium... How, exactly, do the Brits blow the biggest secret of the war? With the possible exception of the Bomb...

1) At the time, security procedures relating to Enigma intelligence were still primitive.

2) The secret was shared equally by Britain and France; the Polish exile codebreakers worked under French supervision at PC Bruno in Vignolles.

National rivalry between Britain and France; personal ambition. Bertrand, the French agent who first obtained Enigma documentation and later directed PC Bruno, is known to have had an ego problem.

With the spectacular success in Norway, too many people have too good a story to tell. Too many of them tell things they shouldn't to other people who don't need to know. Some of those people say things in the hearing of others who are bad hats.

Quote: Originally Posted by Rich Rostrom
What do you mean by "really hurting"? In the suggested scenario, Japan does not invade Australia or New Zealand. However, with the British Royal Navy nowhere in the area, and Australia practically devoid of airpower as well, the Japanese navy can send carrier groups down and bomb Australian cities at will. (There are no AA defenses either.)

Where are the Japanese getting the CVs to do this with? It's not like they aren't needed elsewhere

By late Japan has 9 carriers in service. Four of the six fleet carrriers are more than enough to deal with the two or three Indomitables Britain can send to the Indian Ocean. That leaves five to go and stick pins in Australia.

Not to mention the absolutely staggering amount of fuel a task force burns.

It would appear that there was no real need for any Allied ships in the Pacific at all; fuel limits would have prevented Japanese ships from going much of anywhere anyway. Right?

Have you forgotten why Japan went to war in the first place?

To secure oil supplies from SE Asia. Which are not very secure with a hostile Australia.

Quote: Originally Posted by Rich Rostrom
As for motivation: is Japan simply going to ignore two hostile countries?

Ignore, no. Actually be able to do anything about? Also no.

Funny, the Australians during WW II were not exactly confident of that. If any one had said to them "Don't worry - you're so far from Japan that they can never do you any harm whatever" they would have considered the speaker demented.

Don't propose invasion.

I specifically excluded invasion. But if it gratifies you to lecture me about that, feel free.

Quote: Originally Posted by Rich Rostrom
If they are forced to withdraw from the war and become neutral, that's "turning away from Britain"

No, that's ASB or handwavium. Or absurd.

Because, of course, it was physically impossible for Japan to harm Australia in any way. Of course, if Japan had done some harm to Australia, and plausibly threatened further harm, and Australia was unable to resist, and Britain was unable to assist Australia, despite Australia's massive contribution to Britain's wars in other theaters...

Quote: Originally Posted by Rich Rostrom
Canada is good. Canada is also a small country in population and industry

Canada is also free entirely from threat of bombing by Germany, with access to resources not threatened by U-boats...

So is Jamaica. So is British Guiana. So is Pitcairn Island. None of them are large enough to support a serious war effort against Germany.

(I'm less sure the U.S. would refuse sales to Canada, given the historical relationship.)

Sales of what? Arms? Barred by the Neutrality Act; at the very least, restricted to cash and carry, and Britain was out of cash by 1941.

Quote: Originally Posted by Rich Rostrom
Canada could not enact conscription without an explicit pledge that no conscript would ever be sent overseas.

With France still strongly in the fight, that could change...

Nope. French Canadians had no interest whatever in fighting for France. Not in WW I, not in WW II. The war was the business of les Anglos and the Quebeckers generally wanted nothing to do with it. A minority felt enough loyalty to Canada to volunteer - but not because of France.