Third Reich SURVIVES World War II

[Snake Featherston]

Whilst lend-lease was important to the Soviet Union, it was not what tipped the balance. Hitler was probably doomed the minute he invaded Russia, his fate being certainly sealed by not going for an advantagous peace in the early weeks of the invasion.

Actually it's what kept a fair-sized chunk of Germany from dissolving under nuclear fire. Horrible as it sounds the victory of the mechanized Soviet communist armies meant bureaucratic communist despotism, not Nazi attempts to Manifest Destiny most of Europe beyond the 1938 borders of the Empire.

I vote for "less than 1%" on the assumption that the POD doesn't keep Hitler from declaring war on the US.

It that or something leading to that is the POD, I'd go with 10% or so.

If we also butterfly away lend-lease to the USSR, you might make 50%.

That won't prevent the emergence of nukes. Even though the Soviets achieve a draw, nukes destroying Germany would be an apocalyptic end but still the end.

 

[Awilla the Hun]

Going on no. timelines on AH.Com, about 25%. This includes all the new people going on about wonder weapons, and everything ever written by Eurofed (and argued about by I Blame Communism) in the After 1900 section. Those two...

 

[archaeogeek]

I think it depends on what kind of POD are we talking about here...

Let's say if Hitler:

1. Declined to bail out Mussolini's Balkan/North African adventures (which means an earlier Barbarossa), and/or
2. Kept his focus on Moscow during Barbarossa

Could that knock the Soviets out of the war? If so, Nazi Germany might last long before disappearing under a wall of atomic fire...

Marc A

No that couldn't, if he initiates Barbarossa earlier he's going to be bogged down in mud. Also chances of Rommel on the east front increase and the results would be horrible for the Wehrmacht. As for "focus on Moscow" - yes, and be killed when the soviets realize they can now flank and encircle even more of the Wehrmacht around Moscow.

 

[Snake Featherston]

No that couldn't, if he initiates Barbarossa earlier he's going to be bogged down in mud. Also chances of Rommel on the east front increase and the results would be horrible for the Wehrmacht. As for "focus on Moscow" - yes, and be killed when the soviets realize they can now flank and encircle even more of the Wehrmacht around Moscow.

Not to mention that Stalin and his generals believed the May 15th warning and were at full alert that day. Kirponos had much more notable success against the Germans for disregarding the order and being on full alert anyway. If the Germans hit the Soviets when they're aware it's coming they'll be bloodied harsher than they expect and *then* stuck in mud. By the time the mud hardens the Soviets will be much more likely to see the attack's heading for the center, not the South, which would have all kinds of interesting ramifications......

 

[1.36]

This depends on the pod....

 

[tom]

OK, maybe the formal government persisted ~21 days after the cease-fire. That was not my understanding of how I intended "survive the war" to mean. I apologize. And the PoDs all branch off September 1, 1939 whatever particular vicissitudes of history you wish to postulate for a specific ATL. I am going for percentage, not specifically a particular TL (although comments on such are interesting).

 

[Joseph Solis in Australia]

If Hitler alives, Third Reich is doomed to fail because they were just spending the budget for military build-up and kills more Jewish that's why Third Reich is doomed with Hitler. If someone killed Hitler in 1938, maybe Third Reich will survive WWII depends who will lead, its either Goering or Speer.

 

[Gridley]

That won't prevent the emergence of nukes. Even though the Soviets achieve a draw, nukes destroying Germany would be an apocalyptic end but still the end.

Except that I (as noted) assumed the US wasn't at war with Germany in either the 10% or 50% categories, due to no Hitler-madness DOW.

To explain my reasoning a little further:

1% or less chance: POD does not prevent Hitler's DOW on the US. This is how I voted in the poll.
10% chance: POD does prevent DOW on US but does not prevent lend-lease to USSR. The US in this scenario is providing material support to the allies but is not itself a belligerent... formally.
50% chance: no DOW on the US, and no lend-lease to the USSR. Germany's survival even in this scenario is only 50-50. To survive it must achieve a stalemate or better in the east. The UK will be left fighting Germany essentially alone - its resources will not support that long enough to develop nukes. The US won't simply give any it develops to the UK for use against Germany since the US it still at war with Japan and wants to use them against the nation they're actually fighting. Note I'm still giving a 50% chance that the USSR and UK can bring down Germany without active US assistance.

 

[Snake Featherston]

Except that I (as noted) assumed the US wasn't at war with Germany in either the 10% or 50% categories, due to no Hitler-madness DOW.

To explain my reasoning a little further:

1% or less chance: POD does not prevent Hitler's DOW on the US. This is how I voted in the poll.
10% chance: POD does prevent DOW on US but does not prevent lend-lease to USSR. The US in this scenario is providing material support to the allies but is not itself a belligerent... formally.
50% chance: no DOW on the US, and no lend-lease to the USSR. Germany's survival even in this scenario is only 50-50. To survive it must achieve a stalemate or better in the east. The UK will be left fighting Germany essentially alone - its resources will not support that long enough to develop nukes. The US won't simply give any it develops to the UK for use against Germany since the US it still at war with Japan and wants to use them against the nation they're actually fighting. Note I'm still giving a 50% chance that the USSR and UK can bring down Germany without active US assistance.

And if some overzealous Nazi decides to torpedo the wrong ship?

 

[Gridley]

And if some overzealous Nazi decides to torpedo the wrong ship?

Like the USS Reuben James (DD245)?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Reuben_James_(DD-245)

It doesn't necessarily lead to war.

 

[MUC]

I'd say 30%.

Germany did have a chance to end the war several times, it just didn't grasp the chance.

Examples:

1. Capturing the BEF in France and then negotiating a peace with Britain while clearing out the French. This could have been aided if the British had heavier losses at the same time in the North Sea, due to more effective German torpedoes (sink a couple of cruisers and a battleship or two and the British have just lost another couple thousand of men, the moral blow would be great).

2. Beating the USSR.
How do the Germans do that? By taking Moscow, after which (with some luck, maybe 30%?) Stalin either get's killed by the Germans or replaced by his deputies and his replacement strikes a ceasefire with the Germans, resulting in the Arhaengelsk-Astrakhan line deal.
How do the Germans take Moscow?
a) by taking winter equipment with them when they invade
b) by launching Barbarossa two weeks earlier (not a couple of months earlier, or they'll get stuck in the mud).
c) by having a more mobilized army, which means more trucks and more tanks produced, as well as less horses used for moving around. This would have required a more dedicated effort in war production, something that Germany only did quite late in the war and during a time, when German factories were subjected to level bombing.
d) by arguing less about objectives during the operation, but rather moving at the same direction that was set before the operation was launched.

 

[Sol Zagato]

MUC, an nitpick. A more mobile German army means more trucks AND more horses. Beyond logistics, their lone cavalry division was kinda useful in the mud.

 

[archaeogeek]

I'd say 30%.

Germany did have a chance to end the war several times, it just didn't grasp the chance.

Examples:

1. Capturing the BEF in France and then negotiating a peace with Britain while clearing out the French. This could have been aided if the British had heavier losses at the same time in the North Sea, due to more effective German torpedoes (sink a couple of cruisers and a battleship or two and the British have just lost another couple thousand of men, the moral blow would be great).

2. Beating the USSR.
How do the Germans do that? By taking Moscow, after which (with some luck, maybe 30%?) Stalin either get's killed by the Germans or replaced by his deputies and his replacement strikes a ceasefire with the Germans, resulting in the Arhaengelsk-Astrakhan line deal.
How do the Germans take Moscow?
a) by taking winter equipment with them when they invade
b) by launching Barbarossa two weeks earlier (not a couple of months earlier, or they'll get stuck in the mud).
c) by having a more mobilized army, which means more trucks and more tanks produced, as well as less horses used for moving around. This would have required a more dedicated effort in war production, something that Germany only did quite late in the war and during a time, when German factories were subjected to level bombing.
d) by arguing less about objectives during the operation, but rather moving at the same direction that was set before the operation was launched.

a) Won't save german supply lines; the soviets were hurt a lot by the winter too
b) Two weeks will do what exactly?
c) how are they going to build those, pixie dust? - also in mud they'll swear a lot if they don't have horses
d) great so now the soviets will know the plans about a week in...

 

[Gridley]

MUC, an nitpick. A more mobile German army means more trucks AND more horses. Beyond logistics, their lone cavalry division was kinda useful in the mud.

Not to mention right through 1945 the transport in their infantry divisions was mostly horse-drawn.

If my notes are right, a 1944 "Grenadier" (line infantry) battalion at full TO&E strength had about a hundred horse-drawn carts and wagons, about thirty riding horses and bicycles, and all of 13 motor vehicles (including 5 motorcycles). The picture wasn't any better in 1941.

For comparison, a US 1944 infantry battalion had 40 organic motor vehicles (all at least jeeps), and more in a designated section of the regimental support company. A US infantry regiment had over 220 organic motor vehicles (again, no motorcycles).

Edit to add: the US units didn't have any horses, though there were mules in some of the mountain formations.

 

[MUC]

b) Two weeks will do what exactly?

Get them outside of Moscow at least 2 weeks earlier than in OTL.

 

[Talkie Toaster]

1%. Even if they somehow managed to "win", they were an economic and political basket case headed for revolution or civil war.

 

[George Carty]

c) by having a more mobilized army, which means more trucks and more tanks produced, as well as less horses used for moving around. This would have required a more dedicated effort in war production, something that Germany only did quite late in the war and during a time, when German factories were subjected to level bombing.

And where would the Germans get the oil to fuel these extra tanks and trucks?

It is well known that German pilots became noticeably worse towards the end of the war because there was insufficient fuel for training. What is less well known is that even in 1941, the Wehrmacht was employing truck drivers with less than ten miles of on-road experience. As a result, German truck drivers suffered appalling accident rates on the Eastern Front.

 

[I Blame Communism]

I can never quite understand the concept of applying percentage chances to history. History works by causality. We can change the causes easily enough, but that just means another set of causes.

There are probably ways to keep a swastika on the map of Europe, but how am I supposed to know how many? What's the point of making percentages with numbers that are basically infinite anyway, or at least unknowable? I'd rather get my teeth into some good old-fashioned causality.

Going on no. timelines on AH.Com, about 25%. This includes all the new people going on about wonder weapons, and everything ever written by Eurofed (and argued about by I Blame Communism) in the After 1900 section. Those two...

Hey, the cosmos needs balance, you understand. You ask any Hindu holy man. It's not always pretty, but it's balanced.

 

[HeavyWeaponsGuy]

If America's involved the Nazis are done, period, I don't see much reason America WOULDN'T get involved short of having President Charles Lindbergh, not with the alliances Hitler was making and not with Japan's need to have a free hand in the Pacific leading to their attempt to launch a crippling blow at Pearl Harbor. Even without a declaration of war from Germany I think they'd have been doomed by association.

Keep in mind that no matter how successful certain military operations are the longer the war extends the better the chance it has that America just says screw it and gives Germany a can of instant-made American sunshine... or ten. Once it gets to that level Hitler needs alien laser guns from the future to have any chance of not ending up the same way he did OTL... and Eva can come too.

Edit: In many ways you'd almost need to have a PoD so early it would entirely change WWII and the nations that fought in it to the point where they're unrecognizable to us. To avoid entanglements with the US Hitler would have to not only be complicit with America's "neutrality on paper only" policy and let them keep on supplying the Allies busily fighting against him, he'd probably have to dump Japan and either go it alone or try and pressure Franco into getting involved. Spain not being the most premier military power on earth it wouldn't really change much in the war, maybe make it a little longer but it still means the Axis is dead-and-buried, by nuclear force if it comes to that.

 

[archaeogeek]

Get them outside of Moscow at least 2 weeks earlier than in OTL.

They get to choose between mud and snow. The most they'll be able to do is vaguely invest one of the largest urban zones on earth with troops that are exhausted and still lacking in supplies...