"What If?"

[Peter.Steele]

Well Germany would likely have control of all of europe at the time, and if the attack on Pearl harbour happens still, the Americans would likely not land on the Normandy beaches due to the reduction in allied soldiers (no brits) and the increase of German control and the likelyhood of far, far higher American casualties. Hell, they may not attack the Germans in Europe at all, just Japan in retaliation.

There would have been no way for the US to mount a campaign in Europe at all - the ability to base from Britain / British territories was the only thing that made the ETO possible for the US.

More to the point, there would have been no need for a US intervention in Europe, because Britain would have been out of jeopardy. The map of Europe and North Africa / Middle East would look quite different.

As Lemon pointed out, Italian pressure would likely have driven Britain out of North Africa entirely. Israel, as it exists today, would have been impossible - without British possession of Palestine and Egypt, it could never have been created. Further, with no way to mount an Allied invasion of Europe, there would have been no check on the concentration camps, and therefore likely no people - or a severely reduced number of people - available to populate Israel, even if there had been a way / will to create it.

Lacking Israel, there would have been no specific focus point for Pan-Arab anger, and the West would not have been propping up that focal point ... and it's likely that the current situation re: Muslim conflict vs the west would have developed along entirely different lines. Probably Italians would be the big targets, as the likely possessors of large tracts of the Dar al Islam.

Without any action in North Africa, and no invasions in France or Italy, there would be no distractions to draw German attention away from the Eastern Front. It's entirely possible that the Soviets could have still managed to push something through and come out on top, but it's equally likely that there would have been a series of German buffer states in the Baltics, Ukraine, Byelorussia, etc. I don't think that Germany ever had a real chance of true domination of the USSR, especially the eastern parts.

If something like this did come to pass - armistice with some former SSR's as buffer states between a vastly expanded Reich and Russia - you'd find that the southern SSR's, the 'Stans, would either break away or never have been incorporated into the USSR. They would likely have developed into either failed states or extensions of Iran / Turkey / etc. It's entirely possible, however, that there could have been a separate Kurdistan carved out somewhere.

With a substantially weakened Russia, there would have been no cold war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact - hell, Warsaw itself would have been part of some Grossedeutschland - and Russia would have had less impetus / capability to drive for a warm-water port: Afghanistan would never have happened.

There would likely have been a cold war of sorts, between US / Germany, but there would have been no NATO: most of the NATO nations would not exist. By probably 1965-1970, there would have been another war, though - Germany would not be content with Britain sitting there off her shores, as an island of defiance. Any war resulting from this would - if Hitler was still alive and in power - have gone nuclear, and likely have worked out badly for the USA / Britain, considering how much of their rocketry knowledge base came from Germany in our timeline.

Anyway. There's more that could be explored ... that's just the basic idea of it that I have.

 

[[TW]Wilsonam]

What if the Normans lost at Hastings? Canada would never have been born!

That is a slightly sweeping assessment

So - assume the Saxon fyrd hadn't got carried away, broken ranks and charged down Senlac Hill, getting many of themselves cut down in the process. The Saxon shield wall holds all day and the Normans (I'm including their allies under that heading, as only about 50% or less were actually Normans) are stuck. Further Saxon forces come up, rather than buggering off back to their homes, further outnumbering the Normans.

William is now faced with defeat - potentially a truly disastrous one. The sane thing to do would be to pull back, re-embark his troops and head for home, cursing and muttering.

But the effects?

Firstly, my ancestor who came ashore with him would have gone home. Oh crap - I'd probably be French.

On a wider scale... Harold Godwinson would have absolutely consolidated his position as King, having defeated both a Norse AND a Norman invasion. Would be interesting to think where that would have led to.

The Normans built castles all over the place, including the Welsh/Scottish borders to consolidate their power, then went stomping through Wales. Led to English expansionism and the creation of "Great Britain", then the "United Kingdom". You could argue that this wouldn't have happened after a failed Norman invasion. Also, there wouldn't have been English claims on large tracts of France, so a lot of the Anglo-French wars three might not have happened.

This implies a much more "peaceful" England, potentially much more insular than we actually were. We'd have probably wound up much more like the Dutch - great traders and seafarers, but far less inclined to helping ourselves to other people's countries!

 

[Alexander Ostmann]

text

See, the thing is, Moscow definitely would have been an incredibly bloody battle once within the city since it was booby-trapped to hell and turned into more of a fortress than Stalingrad.

In my opinion, after your proposed course of events occurred (which I completely agree with), the Germans could have taken the Soviets out of action, but not before they inevitably failed in Moscow. They would have entered the city, taken too many casualties, and would have been forced to retreat in time for winter. This would not matter, however, as the swing southward would have been completely successful because it was earlier. Wheat would have been captured from the Ukraine, the oil from the Caucasus's would still have been blown but captured nonetheless, and Stalingrad (if still attacked) would have had the west bank completely occupied. This would have cut all communication to the south for the Soviets and that would have been it for them.

I do not have the exact statistic on hand, but I thought I heard somewhere that over 90% of the Soviet oil came from the Caucasus region. There would have been serious degradation to Soviet fighting capability and there would have been no alternative for them but to surrender. Either outcome would still have involved capitulation of the Soviet Union eventually and wiping them off the map.

As you said, the results of this would have been far reaching. There would have been no Korean, Vietnam, or Afghan wars. Potentially new ones would arise instead of course, but my amount of knowledge is not enough to predict the place, reason, or time for those wars.

 

[NoxNoctum]

Even if the Soviet Union had "officially" surrendered (which I doubt Stalin would ever do), it would be partisan hell. The Germans could NEVER have held onto such an enormous amount of territory.

I mean look at Afghanistan. And that's a tiny fraction the size of the old USSR... not to mention Taliban =/= Red Army leftovers.

I think it would have been much more along the lines of the plot in the novel, "Fatherland".

 

[CandleJack]

What if this was the AK37?

Genuinely curious

 

[Reddog]

What if this was the AK37?

Genuinely curious

I surmise it would suffer a lot of the same problems the SVT40 did, eg. poorly trained conscripts not understanding how to properly maintain a piston driven self loading firearm. Although the AK is pretty damn bulletproof in this regard so you never know.

All that said thopugh, an infantry arm is not going to make much of a difference in an army as poorly led as the Red Army was at the start of Barbarossa.

 

[Alexander Ostmann]

Even if the Soviet Union had "officially" surrendered (which I doubt Stalin would ever do), it would be partisan hell. The Germans could NEVER have held onto such an enormous amount of territory.

I mean look at Afghanistan. And that's a tiny fraction the size of the old USSR... not to mention Taliban =/= Red Army leftovers.

I think it would have been much more along the lines of the plot in the novel, "Fatherland".

You're right: Stalin probably would not have surrendered, but if the Germans did get into the Kremlin, they would have got him. Stalin told his generals that he would not leave Moscow or the Kremlin if the Germans did make it into the city.

In regards to the partisans, the difference is, back then, the Germans knew how to deal with them back then. How they did it was really the only way to do it: keep killing them until all resistance ceases. Someone will always be fighting for some cause and you can't win everyone's hearts and minds.

 

[doomis]

In regards to the partisans, the difference is, back then, the Germans knew how to deal with them back then. How they did it was really the only way to do it: keep killing them until all resistance ceases. Someone will always be fighting for some cause and you can't win everyone's hearts and minds.

And this is why you don't go around invading countries until only every other option is fully exhausted... Seriously sometimes your answers are disturbing

Now, if this quote is in no way connected to more "recent" events then truly sorry for misundersting it.

 

[LemoN]

In regards to the partisans, the difference is, back then, the Germans knew how to deal with them back then. How they did it was really the only way to do it: keep killing them until all resistance ceases. Someone will always be fighting for some cause and you can't win everyone's hearts and minds.

I've had an interesting discussion on this subject a couple of weeks ago.
The end line was that the Romans were the only nation I've ever heard of that knew how to properly annex huge strips of land and crush any sort of opposition.

Basically, at the moment we have two ways of dealing with partisans and the population that backs them.

Western way:
Go soft and try to lull the population into cooperating by telling them that if they stop fighting their country will become more prosperous.
Doesn't work since no country pumps enough money in there to actually do anything.

German/Soviet way:
Crush anyone and anything even remotely related to guerrillas.
Doesn't work since you give the population no future and just terrorise them.


Now, the Romans were the only country/empire in history (that I know of) that actually managed to pull off both ways combined, either the guys cooperated and benefited from the immense advantages of being part of the Roman Empire... or they were crushed, wiped out and enslaved. They pumped unbelievable amounts of money in the annexed areas and heavily promoted building up industry and creating jobs and prosperity.

 

[Bluehawk]

Well remember that the Germans planned on saturating the land with colonists until they were the majority. At that point, guerrilla warfare would just give the Germans an excuse to wipe them out completely.

The question is how long this colonization would take and if the army could garrison the land long enough and/or if the SS could do enough preemptive counter-insurgency work... if you catch my drift.

Another what-if would be, if the Germans won in the East and they had plenty of space to set up their Jewish population, would the Wannsee Conference be overturned? Probably not. It would be neat if the Jewish Autonomous Oblast actually had a significant population though. "Good news, we're giving you an Israel!" "Hooray!!!!" "Bad news, it's in Manchura." "What!?"

 

[Peter.Steele]

You're right: Stalin probably would not have surrendered, but if the Germans did get into the Kremlin, they would have got him. Stalin told his generals that he would not leave Moscow or the Kremlin if the Germans did make it into the city.

In regards to the partisans, the difference is, back then, the Germans knew how to deal with them back then. How they did it was really the only way to do it: keep killing them until all resistance ceases. Someone will always be fighting for some cause and you can't win everyone's hearts and minds.

In regards to the partisans, most of them were welcoming the Germans with open arms as liberators ... up until the Germans explained their ideas about lebensraum. Remember - Ukraine and Byelorussia, the Baltics, etc., had all been hotbeds of White activity after the Revolution, and Stalin's purges weren't too far in the past either.

All the Germans had to do to win hearts and minds was not kill everyone.

I've had an interesting discussion on this subject a couple of weeks ago.
The end line was that the Romans were the only nation I've ever heard of that knew how to properly annex huge strips of land and crush any sort of opposition.

Basically, at the moment we have two ways of dealing with partisans and the population that backs them.

Western way:
Go soft and try to lull the population into cooperating by telling them that if they stop fighting their country will become more prosperous.
Doesn't work since no country pumps enough money in there to actually do anything.

German/Soviet way:
Crush anyone and anything even remotely related to guerrillas.
Doesn't work since you give the population no future and just terrorise them.


Now, the Romans were the only country/empire in history (that I know of) that actually managed to pull off both ways combined, either the guys cooperated and benefited from the immense advantages of being part of the Roman Empire... or they were crushed, wiped out and enslaved. They pumped unbelievable amounts of money in the annexed areas and heavily promoted building up industry and creating jobs and prosperity.

Even the Romans weren't all that successful at it. Judaea never really settled down for them, Britannia and Germania likewise. Gallia was only ever even partially pacified because the tribes hated each other more than they hated the Romans. The Provincia was the only place outside of Italy where they ever really had a full 'civilization' package in place. I think. I might be wrong.

 

[Alexander Ostmann]

In regards to the partisans, most of them were welcoming the Germans with open arms as liberators ... up until the Germans explained their ideas about lebensraum. Remember - Ukraine and Byelorussia, the Baltics, etc., had all been hotbeds of White activity after the Revolution, and Stalin's purges weren't too far in the past either.

All the Germans had to do to win hearts and minds was not kill everyone.

In my scenario, the only thing I was changing was Britain accepting peace. The Einsatzgruppen were still going to go into the USSR and exterminate regardless if Britain lost or not, so people were going to turn on the Germans anyway. That is, unless we want to add another "what if" to the situation.

 

[User Name]

Here's two: What if...

1: ...Hitler doesn't invade the Soviet Union, and instead concentrates on the UK?

2: ...Hitler does attack the Soviets, but goes for the oil instead of Stalingrad?

 

[Peter.Steele]

Here's two: What if...

1: ...Hitler doesn't invade the Soviet Union, and instead concentrates on the UK?

Then he's screwed.

Although at the time the Germans thought that the pretense for Barbarossa - that the USSR was going to attack them was just a pretense, history has, IIRC, shown it to have been quite true.

 

[LemoN]

Then he's screwed.

Although at the time the Germans thought that the pretense for Barbarossa - that the USSR was going to attack them was just a pretense, history has, IIRC, shown it to have been quite true.

Yup, didn't the Soviets start to shift a big bulk of their forces towards the border with the rest of Europe a month or two before the Germans actually started shifting their forces?

 

[Bluehawk]

And yet when the Germans did invade, Stalin didn't believe the initial reports.

How could Hitler possibly double cross me before I double cross him!? It's completely absurd!

 

[Grobut]

Then he's screwed.

Although at the time the Germans thought that the pretense for Barbarossa - that the USSR was going to attack them was just a pretense, history has, IIRC, shown it to have been quite true.

Stalin did plan to attack, both parties knew their "peace treaty" was an absolute farce, and that a confrontation was inevitable.

However, the USSR was no where near ready when Barbarossa happened, they where probably a year away from actually doing it, atleast, and meanwhile, the RAF was as good as defeated, they where like a week away from having to surrender when Hitler decided to pull the plug on the battle of Britain.

So yeah, it is possible that Hitler could have taken out the UK, and still manage to attack the USSR before Stalin could get ready, if he had just known how bad things where looking for the RAF at the time.


Good thing he didn't..

 

[Alexander Ostmann]

Stalin did plan to attack, both parties knew their "peace treaty" was an absolute farce, and that a confrontation was inevitable.

However, the USSR was no where near ready when Barbarossa happened, they where probably a year away from actually doing it, atleast, and meanwhile, the RAF was as good as defeated, they where like a week away from having to surrender when Hitler decided to pull the plug on the battle of Britain.

So yeah, it is possible that Hitler could have taken out the UK, and still manage to attack the USSR before Stalin could get ready, if he had just known how bad things where looking for the RAF at the time.


Good thing he didn't..

It's so amazing to think one pilot going off course and accidentally bombing London changed the whole outcome of WWII.

 

[C_Gibby]

Here's one: What if the "evil" elements of the Nazi ideology did not exist (racial persecution, etc) but Hitler still tried to invade other countries and still ally with the Japanese and Italians? What stance would other countries have to this?

 

[Bluehawk]

I don't think much of anything would change, since it was the question of Poland's sovereignty that kicked off the conflict.