Alright, I'm new here, and while I've had a long time interest in WWII, I haven't started looking into the specifics untill recently. So, if I appear like an ignorant fool, I can only apologize. Also, I don't know all your the Alternate History lingo, so try to keep that down in this thread...
Ok, my basic premises:
- Hitler actually listens to his generals, which leads to less moronic mistakes
- Hitler orders a full scale attack on Dunkirk.
- No Battle of Britain, in order to preserve pilots and aircraft for Barbarossa
- Closer cooperation between Germany and Italy, resulting in the otherwise useless Italian soldiers having better training.
- Rommel getting additional forces and supplies in Africa (though I suppose the British would have fewer troops considering their loss at Dunkirk)
- Germany recruiting soldiers from the slavic and other populations bordering Russia (more on this further down).
- War production peaking much earlier than 1944.
- More efficient use of propaganda. In other words, it would allow the German army to recruit soldiers from slavic countries and countries close to Russia, where they were often seen as saviours. If they were so keen on treating them badly, they could dispose of them after the war was over, or alternatively use them as cannon fodder (like the Russians), or to create diversions (like Rommel did with the Italians), while the real force heads in from a different direction.
- More efficient use of propaganda #2. In Norway and Denmark, the Germans weren't exactly welcomed, and their treatment of the people didn't help much. Generally, they weren't cruel to the public, but the denial of using the nation's flag, the reputation that Gestapo had, and the generally bad treatment of anyone who went against the Germans, really made them hated. With a little bit of work from the propaganda machine, the occupants could be intstructed to treat the Norwegians and Danes better, and simply arrest dissidents, instead of torturing them or sending them to work camps. Granted, they were instructed to approach the Norwegians and Danes with a friendly attitude, considering they were "aryan", but it must be used to a much greater degree, in order to gain their trust, or at least appear friendlier to the public. On a side note, my grandmother told me not long ago that the soldiers often talked about how much they missed their homes back in Germany, and how they would regularly give my father candy (he was 3-8 years old during the occupation). Overall, she perceived them as friendly and polite, not much different from Norwegians in their early 20s. My grandparents lived not 100 meters from some German barracks, so they had somewhat regular contact with them. On the other hand, my grandfather on my mother's side was chased off by the Gestapo for printing illegal newspapers. He escaped twice, just hours before they came knocking on his door. While he was fleeing, the boat he was on got shot to pieces by the RAF by mistake, killing several Norwegian fishermen as well as a horse tied to the deck, and he had to swim ashore. Eventually he hitched a ride to England, and joined the RAF (not as a pilot). A bit off track, but what the hey...
Anyway, I'm not sure what the victory conditions would be, but I suppose taking Moscow and killing Stalin would be a step in the right direction, as well as making peace with England. As for Pearl Harbor, I'm undecided on that. Assuming Pearl Harbor did happen, it would have to destroy most of the American fleet (meaning all ships were in port), as was intended by Japan. If Germany actually managed to get control of Russia, Europe, Northern Africa and parts of the middle east, and make peace with England, they would have vast resources, and should be able to produce a fleet to defend its shores (no invasion of the US) as well as aid Japan in their eventual battle with the US. Not to mention the US wouldn't be able to use England as a base in order to invade Europe.. and if they did, they would be crushed by the superior German army, which is still intact as they haven't been destroyed by Russia's cannon fodder Red Army in this timeline.
If the US still managed to take Japan, would there be any chance of them trying to use Japan as a base for attacking Europe, by invading from the east?
As mentioned, I'm still green in this area, so any corrections and additions would be very welcomed. My idea is to use this as a backdrop in a comic I've been planning, about a German SS Officer. I've barely begun planning it, but I figured if I was going to create an alternative timeline, I had to get advice from people who know what they're doing...
Ok, my basic premises:
- Hitler actually listens to his generals, which leads to less moronic mistakes
- Hitler orders a full scale attack on Dunkirk.
- No Battle of Britain, in order to preserve pilots and aircraft for Barbarossa
- Closer cooperation between Germany and Italy, resulting in the otherwise useless Italian soldiers having better training.
- Rommel getting additional forces and supplies in Africa (though I suppose the British would have fewer troops considering their loss at Dunkirk)
- Germany recruiting soldiers from the slavic and other populations bordering Russia (more on this further down).
- War production peaking much earlier than 1944.
- More efficient use of propaganda. In other words, it would allow the German army to recruit soldiers from slavic countries and countries close to Russia, where they were often seen as saviours. If they were so keen on treating them badly, they could dispose of them after the war was over, or alternatively use them as cannon fodder (like the Russians), or to create diversions (like Rommel did with the Italians), while the real force heads in from a different direction.
- More efficient use of propaganda #2. In Norway and Denmark, the Germans weren't exactly welcomed, and their treatment of the people didn't help much. Generally, they weren't cruel to the public, but the denial of using the nation's flag, the reputation that Gestapo had, and the generally bad treatment of anyone who went against the Germans, really made them hated. With a little bit of work from the propaganda machine, the occupants could be intstructed to treat the Norwegians and Danes better, and simply arrest dissidents, instead of torturing them or sending them to work camps. Granted, they were instructed to approach the Norwegians and Danes with a friendly attitude, considering they were "aryan", but it must be used to a much greater degree, in order to gain their trust, or at least appear friendlier to the public. On a side note, my grandmother told me not long ago that the soldiers often talked about how much they missed their homes back in Germany, and how they would regularly give my father candy (he was 3-8 years old during the occupation). Overall, she perceived them as friendly and polite, not much different from Norwegians in their early 20s. My grandparents lived not 100 meters from some German barracks, so they had somewhat regular contact with them. On the other hand, my grandfather on my mother's side was chased off by the Gestapo for printing illegal newspapers. He escaped twice, just hours before they came knocking on his door. While he was fleeing, the boat he was on got shot to pieces by the RAF by mistake, killing several Norwegian fishermen as well as a horse tied to the deck, and he had to swim ashore. Eventually he hitched a ride to England, and joined the RAF (not as a pilot). A bit off track, but what the hey...
Anyway, I'm not sure what the victory conditions would be, but I suppose taking Moscow and killing Stalin would be a step in the right direction, as well as making peace with England. As for Pearl Harbor, I'm undecided on that. Assuming Pearl Harbor did happen, it would have to destroy most of the American fleet (meaning all ships were in port), as was intended by Japan. If Germany actually managed to get control of Russia, Europe, Northern Africa and parts of the middle east, and make peace with England, they would have vast resources, and should be able to produce a fleet to defend its shores (no invasion of the US) as well as aid Japan in their eventual battle with the US. Not to mention the US wouldn't be able to use England as a base in order to invade Europe.. and if they did, they would be crushed by the superior German army, which is still intact as they haven't been destroyed by Russia's cannon fodder Red Army in this timeline.
If the US still managed to take Japan, would there be any chance of them trying to use Japan as a base for attacking Europe, by invading from the east?
As mentioned, I'm still green in this area, so any corrections and additions would be very welcomed. My idea is to use this as a backdrop in a comic I've been planning, about a German SS Officer. I've barely begun planning it, but I figured if I was going to create an alternative timeline, I had to get advice from people who know what they're doing...
Clearly he was right in the case of the Sudentenlands.