Germany would have lost quicker if...

[Gyrene]

There are hundreds of discussions on the web about "Germany would win if" topics, dozens in this forum alone, so here's a twist:

What could have the Allies have done to win the war quicker, perhaps one year or more earlier than they did?

Would a heavy tank like the M6 having showed up in Europe made a difference? Maybe even the T28 & T29 prototypes?

Should the Americans have pushed more aggressively at Anzio?

What if France had held out longer?

Could the US in particular, be able to afford to put the Pacific campaign in the back burner & turned the USMC & MacArthur's forces towards Europe?

Should the USSR have been better prepared & trained to tackle the Germans "Just in case?"

Some stuff to mull over.

Gyrene

[l3w53r]

If...

[JonS]

how far back are we going? Better defense preparations in the 30s (esp. fighters for the RAF) ... more active participation in Spain ... a more, um, lenient sttlement to WWI ... if they hadn't had to re-learn convoy theory in the North Atlantic. Twice! (once for the RN, and again for the USN) ...

[ 10-30-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]</p>

[pritzl]

I've always found those "what if" arguments to be somewhat annoying. The ones you mentioned about "Germany could have won if..." tend to be by far the most prevalent, but I feel the same way for just about every subject in history.

The basic problem with these arguments is that they often attribute infalilibility to one side while assuming that the other side would have made the same mistakes all over again.

"What if" questions can indeed be very interesting to explore, but if one side is allowed to be perfect, than both sides should be. Just think how very different, and possibly prolonged, or devastatingly shortened WWII becomes when that happens. For example...

1. France had formed armored divisions rather than spreading their tanks out. After all, tank for tank, it's generally acknowleged that the French had better tanks.

2. Russia never suffered from the purges of the 1930s.

3. Russia recognized the importance of radio communications in armored and arial warfare.

4. Hitler didn't temporarily order a stop to technological research after the battle for france.

5. Germany developed a capable 4 engine Heavy bomber before the outbreak of war. Jets, Missles, Atomic weapons, the assault rifle, etc.

6. What if Japan's diplomatic codes were not broken?

7. What if Japan pressed home the attack on Perl Harbor and destroyed the feul facilities or even invaded the island?

8. What if the U.S. had bypassed the Huertgen and bounced the Rhein in September or October. Would they have gotten to Berlin First.

9. What if Germany had invaded Russia first instead of France? How many Allied countries, or mercenary volunteers would have joined the fight against communism.

Once you start correcting for mistakes made by everyone, the possibilities become so huge that one can only begin to guess what could have been different.

interesting though

[Michael Dorosh]

Shooting Hitler in 1916, or finding him a girlfriend in about 1922, might have made all the difference, no?

[Gyrene]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> The basic problem with these arguments is that they often attribute infalilibility to one side while assuming that the other side would have made the same mistakes all over again. <hr></blockquote>

My main reason for even bringing this up. I've yet to see one of these "what if's" from the Allied side, as opposed to the weekly "If Germany had Me262's in 1943 the Allies would be toast" threads.

Just trying to balance the board a bit

Gyrene

[Gyrene]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> Shooting Hitler in 1916, or finding him a girlfriend in about 1922, might have made all the difference, no? <hr></blockquote>

Don't forget "Keeping him away from goats"

Gyrene

[ParaBellum]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Gyrene:

What could have the Allies have done to win the war quicker, perhaps one year or more earlier than they did?

<hr></blockquote>

Hm, how about not demanding unconditional surrender?

In many (german) statements there are lines like "as long as the allies demanded unconditional surrender we have to continue the fight 'til the end".

Of course nobody wanted a ceasefire with the NS regime, but maybe this would've made it easier for opposition groups within Germany, especially in the military, who maybe could've stopped Hitler.

[Stuka]

.....if they'd strapped Tin Cook Suckeye into one of his beloved Me262s and flown him into the fuhreurbunker.

Those babies were so Uber, they could penetrate the mantlet of a Kingtiger at 30 paces.

You could run with them too.

[Ogadai]

I think the first major point where the British made a bad decision was their failure to continue up O'Connor's "raid" into Libya and eject the Italians from North Africa completely. Instead of having their forces wasted in a political debacle like Greece and then Crete, the British and hence the Allies would have been about 12 months or more advanced through control of a large slice if not eventually the whole of the southern coast of the Mediterrean.

While Rommel might have found himself in Tunis, a great deal earlier and assaulting into Libya, it would have ensured that the Egypt was a great deal more secure than it was. If the British could secure the Vichy portion of the coast through negotiation, then the Germans would have no ability to influence events there ( big maybe I agree).

It definitly would have complicated matters for the Axis and made things easier for the Allies.

[Peter Panzer]

...no sweat gyrene:

...large scale, combined arms thrust directly aimed at capturing a bridge over the rhine. conceivably, this could be accomplished by establishing a “corridor,” if you will, of crucial river crossings. This could be brought about with relative ease by the laying of a “vast airborne carpet” through which an armored corps could pass...

...easy as one, two, three - straight on to the ruhr my friend. we’ll have the boys home by christmas...

[Kanonier Reichmann]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Peter Panzer:

...no sweat gyrene:

...large scale, combined arms thrust directly aimed at capturing a bridge over the rhine. conceivably, this could be accomplished by establishing a “corridor,” if you will, of crucial river crossings. This could be brought about with relative ease by the laying of a “vast airborne carpet” through which an armored corps could pass...

...easy as one, two, three - straight on to the ruhr my friend. we’ll have the boys home by christmas...<hr></blockquote>

You just wouldn't want it to be only "90% successful" as we all saw what that type of operation led to.

Regards

Jim R.

[Chris Knapp]

Market Garden could have worked. They came so close

Chris

[Barticus]

OK, let's go back to '39.

What if France had marched on Germany as soon as they could after the invasion of Poland?

Regardless of the quality of the French troops of the period, could Germany really have faced two continental armies at the same time?

B

[Garulfo]

... if they had had me as one of their commanders

[Michael Emrys]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Gyrene:

What could have the Allies have done to win the war quicker, perhaps one year or more earlier than they did?<hr></blockquote>

Probably the most effective thing they could have done would have been for Stalin to recognize early in 1941 that Hitler had definitely settled on Barbarossa and had allowed the Red Army to establish improved defensive dispositions. This would have enabled the Soviets to more closely implement their doctrine of defense in depth with early counter-attacks. This would likely not have stopped the Wehrmacht cold, but might well have limited its penetration into Soviet territory and have cost it a lot more to get there. This for a variety of reasons should have put the Soviets in a better position to go over to the strategic offensive in 1942. No sure things here at all, but this might have shortened the war by a year.

Michael

[JasonC]

Not Germany, but the Nazis would have lost sooner, if the Weimar Republic had the death penalty for treason and had applied it vigorously after the beer hall putsch - in 1922.

[Michael Emrys]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by pritzl:

I've always found those "what if" arguments to be somewhat annoying.<hr></blockquote>

For my part, I enjoy them greatly as long as they are viewed merely as light entertainment. The real world is so complex and unpredictable that there is not a whole lot that can be speculated about in terms of an alternate history with any real confidence. However, with that caveat...

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>1. France had formed armored divisions rather than spreading their tanks out. After all, tank for tank, it's generally acknowleged that the French had better tanks.<hr></blockquote>

It would have taken a lot more than that for France to come out any better in 1940. Due to the inadequacy of their communications from the High Command to its subordinate units, and a general unfamiliarity with the tempo of modern mechanized warfare, French counters to German moves always arrived about 24 hours too late.

Also, the training of their second and third line divisions was woefully inadequate. This was to cost them dearly when the Germans overran such formations after crossing the Meuse.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>2. Russia never suffered from the purges of the 1930s.<hr></blockquote>

True. What can one say? The Red Army may have benefitted slightly by having some politically unreliable individuals rooted out, but it suffered far more by losing so many experienced and innovative officers.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>3. Russia recognized the importance of radio communications in armored and arial warfare.<hr></blockquote>

But was it lack of recognition or that Soviet industry had simply not advanced to the point where it could produce the necessary equipment?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>4. Hitler didn't temporarily order a stop to technological research after the battle for france.<hr></blockquote>

I think this points to one of the basic faillings of Hitler as a war leader. He got his country into a war that was bound to be an uphill struggle against steep odds, and then tried to fight it with one hand behind his back. Hitler never really enjoyed the united support of the German people and was therefore not in a position to demand supreme efforts of them. As a consequence, he feared to place the German economy on a total war footing until 1943, when it was too late.

He also disbanded several divisions after the fall of France and slowed critical armaments production, even as he was beginning to contemplate Barbarossa. That was to prove a less than shrewed move.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>5. Germany developed a capable 4 engine Heavy bomber before the outbreak of war.<hr></blockquote>

Doubt that would have helped in the kind of war Germany had to fight, really. Look at it this way. Germany has very limited capacity to create and airforce compared to its prospective enemies. It has to establish priorities so as to get maximum bang for the buck.

Germany, unlike Britain and the US is a Continental power. It's war is going to be fought primarily by its army. Even more than other nations, its navy and airforce must play subsidiary roles (some exceptions for the navy, but more about that later). The Luftwaffe's greatest contribution would be to act synergistically with the Heer to assist the latter to speedy victories. Gemany's whole strategy depended on quick victories. It could not win a long war, so there wasn't much sense in planning for one.

And consider this: The Allies didn't get the strategic air war to work until 1944, and they had far greater resources to lavish on the effort than Germany could ever have mustered at any time.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Jets...<hr></blockquote>

Would have been very nice to have, but I doubt they would have proven a war winner. It took another five years after the war was over for jet technology to mature to the point of producing a significant weapon of war. That pace might have been accelerated some under the pressures of war, but time would still have been needed to work the bugs out.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>...Missles...<hr></blockquote>

Pretty much the same story as for jets.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>...Atomic weapons...<hr></blockquote>

The historical record makes it very doubtful that the Germans could have done much with this. Firstly, they were simply pursuing the wrong theoretical avenues. This was either because their scientists didn't understand the physics, or they knew but suppressed the information because they didn't want to put such a terrible weapon into the hands of the Nazis, depending on whose story you trust. Secondly, even had they the right recipe, it looks as if the industrial and economic foundation for such a massive undertaking was completely lacking. In order to produce the A-bomb, they would have had to cut back most other war production.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>..the assault rifle...<hr></blockquote>

Would have been nice to have, but the war was not fought with rifles primarily.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>6. What if Japan's diplomatic codes were not broken?<hr></blockquote>

How would that have made a difference? Reading the diplomatic traffic tipped us that relations with Japan were tense and that war was likely, but didn't tell us where or when. In fact, in the days prior to Pearl Harbor, it made it look like the Japanese might still be looking for a diplomatic solution, though not one acceptable to the West.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>7. What if Japan pressed home the attack on Perl Harbor and destroyed the feul facilities or even invaded the island?<hr></blockquote>

Destroying the tank farm would have seriously inconvenienced the US Navy, but to fly a third strike would have used up all the avgas and bombs on the carriers. This would have left them practically defenseless during the trip home.

As far as invasion goes, they simply lacked the resources for that. In order to have even a meager chance to pull that off, they would have had to have curtailed the attack on Malaya and the NEI. And for the Japanese, Hawaii without those would have been worthless, since they were the reason it went to war in the first place.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>8. What if the U.S. had bypassed the Huertgen and bounced the Rhein in September or October. Would they have gotten to Berlin First.<hr></blockquote>

Bypassing the Hürtgen would doubtlessly have been a good idea. Don't know about the rest. I think the best use of Alllied resources in September is to clear the Scheldt Estuary as quickly as possible. That should have been their first priority since a thrust into Germany could not be supported until they had gotten their logistics straightened out.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>9. What if Germany had invaded Russia first instead of France?<hr></blockquote>

Even Hitler realized that getting involved in Russia with powerful armies on the Continent and at his back was a bad idea. In the spring of 1940, no-one could foresee how rapid and complete the collapse of the French defense would be.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>How many Allied countries, or mercenary volunteers would have joined the fight against communism.<hr></blockquote>

Surely you jest! At that point everybody realized that the immediate threat was Germany.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Once you start correcting for mistakes made by everyone, the possibilities become so huge that one can only begin to guess what could have been different.

interesting though<hr></blockquote>

Agreed.

Michael

[ 10-31-2001: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]</p>

[CombinedArms]

It all depends upon when you set your start date for "doing something different." There's a lot the Allies could have done in the 1930s to win the war earlier or perhaps prevent it all together.

But if you set your start date at, say Jan 1, 1942, I don't think there's really much of anything they could have done to end the war quicker. From that point on, they basically pursued the war effort with great coordination, determination, and intelligence--not perfectly, of course, but in my view well beyond what could have been reasonably expected (esp. considering the comparatively dismal performance from 1935-1941.)

The Pacific war ended well ahead of the most optimistic schedules of the 1942 planners. The leapfrog strategy worked brilliantly, they kept moving their attack dates FORWARD on key islands, and the atomic bombs made an invasion of Japan unnecessary, shortening the war by at least one year.

I don't see how the success of Market Garden, or an early US bridgehead across the Rhine, would have shortened the war by much, either. There was still a very large and powerful German army to defeat on its home ground--an army that was massed to launch the Ardennes assault and wasn't exactly going to go away if the Allies made a narrow breakthrough somewhere.

Looked at another way, I don't see how the Brits and US could have invaded France before the good weather came in 1944 and once the good weather came again in 1945 the Western Allies and Russia rolled over Germany very, very promptly--basically because of the attrition of the German forces during '44 and the winter campaigns of '45. That attrition took time.

But not THAT much time. If you pause to consider it, the western Allies utterly defeated and routed a massive and well-trained German army, up till then the best army the world had ever seen, in just eleven months (June 6 '44-May 9 '45). I don't see how they could have done it much quicker than that. Similarly, the Russians went from near collapse in Jan '42 to triumph in May '45, against an even more massive German army. I'm not sure how they could have done it much quicker. And Russia's success depended, in part, upon the diversion of Axis forces from the Russian front forced by Overlord and continued by the effort to meet the Western threat through unsuccessful Ardennes offensive. As I said, it is hard to see how the Allies were going to conquer Germany before the good weather of '45 arrived, and once that happened, in, say March, they moved pretty darn fast. In two months (March and April) German defenses collapsed, and by the end of April Hitler was dead. After that, it was simply Allied armies rolling forward almost at will and negotiations for surrender.

[ 10-31-2001: Message edited by: CombinedArms ]</p>

[Splinty]

One thing I think might have helped the U.S. Army was a better training system for replacements. The troops that landed in Normandy had months to train and experienced officers and NCOs to lead them. But the replacements sent into France were dismally trained and often were sent straight into the fight without even a chance to bond with their new units.