The US Wins WWII

Considering that their military is already quite busy with China and the US, how poorly the Japanese fared in their border skirmishes with the Soviets, I doubt they would be likely to jump in on the war until the Russians have already been decisively defeated.

IIRC, there were something like twenty divisions sitting around in Manchuria doing nothing during the war just to guard against the Soviet threat. So a defeated SU might mean differences in the East as well. The Japanese may move northwards, but even if they only release troops for service in China it might still have some effect.
 
IIRC, there were something like twenty divisions sitting around in Manchuria doing nothing during the war just to guard against the Soviet threat. So a defeated SU might mean differences in the East as well. The Japanese may move northwards, but even if they only release troops for service in China it might still have some effect.

True, though if the Soviets are in such a desperate position that they strip their border with Japan that might be enough for Japan to jump in, though they might be somewhat coservative and be careful not to overextend their position too badly. Pushing to the Amur river might be a good move on their part; it gives them a shorter, more defensible border with the Soviets just in case things go badly for them, and still gives Japan some nice gains to brag about. Having a stronger, shorter border position could also free up some of the forces in Manchuria for China.
 

hammo1j

Donor
Sorry to keep banging on about this book, but this scenario is well covered in the book the "Moscow Option".

In the books scenario the generals take control from Hitler and fight the war on a more rational basis. After taking Moscow, the SU still exists with Stalin in charge and the industrial production beyond the Urals. The key is that Rommel in the ME and Army Group South will meet up to take the Middle East which will deprive the USSR and Britain of the oil it needs to fight.

The conclusion is that, even fighting rationally, German does not have the resources against such powerful Allies and will lose. It does not explicitly say when the war would end in Europe, but my guess is that it would go an extra year to June 1946 even with the Allies having nukes because as I have argued:

(i) Nukes were not being produced very quickly
(ii) Nukes were only of a power similar to a conventional raid 10-15 ktonnes and conventional bombing did not stop Germany without an invasion.
 
but with Moscow out of the war could chemical weapons have been used on the Russian civilian population to cut down on the guerrilla fighters.

and with The Nazi Army having if a little bit smart had of solidified its hold on eastern europe and not taken all the losses from the retreat from moscow they would have millions of people left

Also if they had of taken stalin The USSR would have collapsed because beria and Molotov and others would not have gotten along well enough to rule.

And if they had of gotten a peace settlement out of this the Russian might have agreed to it.

they could have then turned thier full might onto britain and the middle east.

and if this is before december 41 Hitler might not declare war on The US
 
but with Moscow out of the war could chemical weapons have been used on the Russian civilian population to cut down on the guerrilla fighters.

and with The Nazi Army having if a little bit smart had of solidified its hold on eastern europe and not taken all the losses from the retreat from moscow they would have millions of people left

Also if they had of taken stalin The USSR would have collapsed because beria and Molotov and others would not have gotten along well enough to rule.

And if they had of gotten a peace settlement out of this the Russian might have agreed to it.

they could have then turned thier full might onto britain and the middle east.

and if this is before december 41 Hitler might not declare war on The US

The only problem with a peace settlement is that so long as Hitler and the Nazis are in charge the terms they offer will simply be too draconian for the Soviets to accept unless they are utterly broken. He did plan to take everything up to the Urals after all, and with Moscow taken and the Soviets reeling the Nazis are not likely to accept anything less.
 
but with Moscow out of the war could chemical weapons have been used on the Russian civilian population to cut down on the guerrilla fighters.

Doubt it... Hitler, as a WW1 veteran, actually feared using Chemical weapons - they were kind of the nukes of the WW2, and interestingly it is one line Hitler did not cross even in desperate times. I guess it goes to show that everybody has their own demons.
 
Doubt it... Hitler, as a WW1 veteran, actually feared using Chemical weapons - they were kind of the nukes of the WW2, and interestingly it is one line Hitler did not cross even in desperate times. I guess it goes to show that everybody has their own demons.

Agreed. As I recall, it was also the Allied policy that any German use of chemical weapons (even against partisans) would result in massive retaliation in kind. Gas might be somewhat useful against guerrilla fighters, but I doubt it's worth having the next thousand-bomber raid drop mustard gas instead of explosives.
 
IMO,the war required three powers to win. Britain bought time,the U.S brought supplies and the Soviets bled the Nazi war machine to death. Removing one element destroys the equation. For example,lets assume the Soviets are knocked out in 1941 through the capture of Moscow and Stalins death/execution.The Soviet union is reduced to a rump state near the Urals. The Germans control European Russia with its grain and oil supplies and are in a good position to thrust down through the Caucasus to threaten the Middle east and British India. So,where does that leave the U.S and Britain? Well,not in a very good position. The Germans will throw everything at their remaining enemies. The blitz is renewed and the R.A.F will be put under fierce strain. U.S planes and pilots will ease the burden on the brits,essentially its an attritional battle. The allied strategic bombing campaign goes out the window as the focus switches to defending british cities from the luftwaffe bombing. This probably continues for about a year,with peaks and periods of little activity. Eventually,the Germans will realise that as long as the U.S is backing Britain it can't be directly invaded and knocked out of the war. The Kriegsmarine is able to churn out more U-boats and rationing becomes tighter in Britain as more Merchant shipping is sunk.Eventually,German jets,rockets and advanced U-boats will be produced in sufficient numbers to strangle/bombard britain into surrender. If Britain is able to hold out until 1945,the U.S A-bomb will change the situation. U.S can't drop the A-bomb on a German city due very strong luftwaffe presence and the danger of an unexploded bomb being captured by the Nazis.Bomb is detonated elsewhere. Announced to world,tech is shared with britain. Germans propose immediate peace treaty,which is accepted. Cold war ensues.
 
Okay, so Moscow Falls.

The next defensive position is actually the Volga River, for much of the country anyhow. Not insurmountable, but definitely something--and the Soviets MIGHT have enough cohesion to attempt to build a strong line on that river.

That said, this is likely to be another mistake for the Soviets, but if nothing else it will still slow the Germans down. And perhaps thats the point--if Germany gets stuck in a Vietnam like quagmire in Russia, much like Japan in China, the Soviet Union is still serving its role. The Allies are going to have to push all the harder, but they still have a second front of sorts.
 
Sorry to keep banging on about this book, but this scenario is well covered in the book the "Moscow Option".

In the books scenario the generals take control from Hitler and fight the war on a more rational basis. After taking Moscow, the SU still exists with Stalin in charge and the industrial production beyond the Urals. The key is that Rommel in the ME and Army Group South will meet up to take the Middle East which will deprive the USSR and Britain of the oil it needs to fight.

The conclusion is that, even fighting rationally, German does not have the resources against such powerful Allies and will lose. It does not explicitly say when the war would end in Europe,

I also enjoyed that book (the 2001 edn.), although they had Rommel (with more troops) able to take Suez, the British still fought on and stopped the link-up with German troops from Russia - though I thought the use of Lancaster bombers based in Iraq implausible! Previously, it always seemed implicit that if the British lost Egypt that was it for them in the Middle East.
I wonder if there was a part 2?
 
Top