What would have realistically happened if Hitler had successfully taken over Russia. Would he have taken over the world?
your scenario is so wildly unlikely that any answer to your question could be seen as plausible
>>392563
It must not have been that unlikely if Hitler thought highly enough of the plan to actually go through with it, right?
>>392560
Assuming he takes control of the russian oil and industry, I'd imagine there's nowhere else to go but stalemate.
He'd expect a surrender from the british, which he did not get.
Japan wanted him to attack India from the west. Maybe that would be his next option to force the Brits to surrender.
Eventually, A-Bomb blows Japan up and is poised to be used against Germany.
>>392560
I believe he only wanted the western third?
but let's say by some miracle he had that, The Americans would have just dropped an A-bomb on Berlin and war would be over.
russia is big and hostile. taking it over is really not something that just happens.
even if all soviet military and leaders offed themselves, would he have any way of controlling it?
>>392674
But could the americans couldnt project air power that far into europe from their british bases?
>>392651
By the time the a bomb was ready to be deployed in Europe, Im guessing that the Luftwaffe has regained air superiority over germany at least.
>>392686
I think you should maybe backtrack and try again with this post.
>>392721
Why? Other than "because the Germans are fucking magic in this scenario?"
>>392746
i mean they took russia
presumably after a deal with the devil to produce super soldiers
he never had a chance against russia
if he do win by miracle, the amerifats would instantly pull out since they are pussies
(and direct confrontation against a well armed and experienced army would be disastrous for their meme forces)
>but muh bomb
how do you deliver it? by magic? because sure as hell you wont have a foothold near yurop
>>392810
We had and still have an 81k square mile airstrip just 39 miles from the mainland and air superiority which could only grow stronger (we can bomb their factories, they can't bomb ours).
>>392827
Good luck bombing shit when you need to cross hundreds of miles through Flak AA and Interceptors waiting for you
Allied casualties during their strategic bombing campaign were disastrous and their bombing effects were minimal.
>European Russia is annexed
>Stalin dies
>Asiatic Russia continues to fight
>American troops ship in to prevent a fascist Eurasia
>it is 1945, 2 million Americans have died in Russia, yet the front lines are still in the former Soviet Union
>the Japanese islands are starved into submission by American submarines
>mass bombing raids are a thing of the past, since the losses were unacceptable and the needs of the army have priority
>>392560
He'd spend the rest of the war trying to manage all the terriority his army somehow magically conquered.
>>392773
Deathshead plz
>>392746
let's assume for the sake of common sense, that the german victory over russia occured early in the war rather than later. the longer the war drew on, the less chance of a german victory. thus, let's say the germans won oh - early 1942. And by won, I really mean force the Soviets to capitulate. Want a reason how? Ok:
Joseph Stalin is arrested by the Politburo for being duped by Hitler and so ill-prepared for a war. The Politburo executes Stalin and sues for peace. Hitler occupies Moscow and siezes much of the Russian reserves.
Germany uses Slav(e) labour and newly acquired oil reserves to not only rebuild the luftwaffe but also stockpile reserve fuel. The Wehrmacht is reinforced with thousands of surrendered russian tanks and airplanes - many of which are lended to Italy in it's renewed fight in North Africa.
After a year of respite, the german advance continues south either through the Caucasus and into the middle east (end game to link up with Japan in India) or together with Italy back into Libya.
It is now 1943 and North Africa is the new battlefield between a reinforced British (by american) forces and German led Axis coalition.
The pacific theater plays out as planned more or less.
Mainland Europe remains untouched and even better off fortified. Only difference is Rommel is in North Africa instead of France. Model is left in charge of the defence of France. Goering is still inept, but Hitler is even more so for not sacking him. The war in North Africa can go either way but in either case, the endgame of the war is played out with a Germany spared from the brunt of their casualties on the eastern front. No succesfull D-Day landings, No succesful Italian campaign, no defecting minor Axis allies. Best case scenario, Vichy France and Franco's Spain joins fight in North Africa.
(cont)
>>393190
Mussolini remains in power due to Italian advances (thanks to germans) in North Africa. There is no Allied invasion of Sicily and Italy.
1945 -
Japan close to the brink of defeat. Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Next up, Europe.
If Britain is still in the war, which is likely/unlikely depending on how the north african campaign, Britain is base of operations.
The British airplane production is most likely still very good but German is up to par as well. Thus german air superiority over mainland is likely.
So any A-bomb dropped at this point would have to have been at a port city and only after heavy casualties sustained. Maybe starting with Italy.
Whoever loses, Farage wins.
>>393207
>So any A-bomb dropped at this point would have to have been at a port city and only after heavy casualties sustained. Maybe starting with Italy.
UNLESS the B-36 program was sped up, so the first were combat ready in late 1945 and could drop nukes on any German city with impunity.
>>392571
Replace Hitler with Napoleon and have a big laugh. You don't invade Russia m8, it's just too fucking cold, it's like Canada. Let the grimy bastards keep it.
>>392560
German continental hegemony is unchallengeable at least in the timeframe of WW2.
Western Allies bombing campaigns intensify as a means of trying to win the war from the air. Eventually, nuclear weapons are deployed.
My mid-1947, Germany is a baking, irradiated cinder.
>>392721
Extremely unlikely. The vast majority of Luftwaffe assets were deployed against the Western Allies, and they still lost.
http://don-caldwell.we.bs/jg26/thtrlosses.htm
>>392852
Until they got the P-51s out in force. Then it got quite devastating.
>>393190
A German victory in Russia would not mean anything for North Africa. The dominating problem fighting in the desert wasn't total force, it was supplying said force, with a threatened sea lifeline and terrible rail infrastructure. You'd have ships, troops, and supplies piling up in Italian harbors, unable to disgorge.
There would be no advances, and Sicily would likely be lost as well. German reinforcements would probably make attacking Italy proper impossible though.
>Germany takes Russia
>Germany is now fighting a brutal insurgency across more landmass than anyone has ever had to deal with, on top of the the other powers attacking from every side
>Germany is kill, Russia and probably the other East European states see a power vacuum that creates about a century of pain and radically different nationstates by the present day
>West Europe doesn't get screwed as bad, they and the US are the dominant power, likely busy trying to extend influence into Superyugoslavia
>who even knows what the fuck happens to SE Asia without Soviet influence, maybe they end up under the US' sphere after fixing what Japan started and imposing US friendly democracy/capitalism in China
>>393625
>A German victory in Russia would not mean anything for North Africa. The dominating problem fighting in the desert wasn't total force, it was supplying said force, with a threatened sea lifeline and terrible rail infrastructure. You'd have ships, troops, and supplies piling up in Italian harbors, unable to disgorge.
A German luftwaffe freed from the eastern front would be able to help in securing a domination over the mediteranean. It would mean a lot for North Africa as supplies could be brought in by sea and the campaign could be picked up again.
>>393625
>Extremely unlikely. The vast majority of Luftwaffe assets were deployed against the Western Allies, and they still lost.
Not at all. The problem facing the Luftwaffe was fuel, supplies and industry. Germany was incapable to replace it's losses. In this scenario, that does not apply.
>>393675
>A German luftwaffe freed from the eastern front would be able to help in securing a domination over the mediteranean. It would mean a lot for North Africa as supplies could be brought in by sea and the campaign could be picked up again.
Untrue on two accounts.
Firstly, and quite simply, the amount of air assets that can be re-allocated isn't that much. 2 Luftflottes tops.
Secondly, the corridor from Sicily to Tripoli and Tunis is already pretty secure; the Allies weren't getting more than 10-20% of the stuff anyway in the timeframe we're talking.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a348413.pdf (Page 12)
The problem becomes extending further west or East, and while you theoretically could try to bring down a large airforce to say, Cyrenica after you've taken it, you have a dearth of airfields, and you start running into the rocketry problem; those planes are going to need quite a bit of supplies themselves, which are hard to deliver in North Africa, and the more you bring air resources down to try to secure more convoys, the more of those convoys need to go simply to the air assets keeping them going, which nets you little progress.
>>393689
No, was that some 78% of their single engined fighters were engaged against the western allies, and that even in the relatively benign 1943, their operational losses neared 100%.
More industry would help, but it almost certainly wouldn't be enough, given that you'd struggle to keep up with Britain alone, nevermind the U.S.
>>392563
Easy, what if the T-34 was rubbish.
Germany would have largely succeeded if they hadn't underestimated Russian tanks.
>>392560
Even if the Axis won the war they would have lost in the inevitable civil war following it. Realistically, look at every empire that's ever existed. Look at the American empire now, the most advanced military force that has ever existed bolstered by richest nation that has ever existed and they're desperately trying to keep the pieces together.
>>392560
Get rekt by dozens of millions of partizants all across the USSR and Poland
Okay, forget about the Axis. What if the Aztecs won the Second World War?
Didn't have the manpower to do it
Probably would have receded most of his gains to uprises and other stressors, would have gotten to keep Austria/Sudetenland/East Prussia though I bet, which would be a healthy empire.
>>392560
Assuming America hasn't hit the continent yet, he would settle for most of Russia and leave the far east to Japan. The US would promise to defend Britain and Hitler would sign a deal with the US and Britain, ending the war for the time being. The war in China would continue for another decade at least. At no point was Germany in any position to take over the world.
If America has hit the continent, then it's game over for Germany. Beating the Soviet Union militarily was possible, but occupying it completely was not. Beating America militarily was not possible for Germany, and the idea of them somehow attacking it is laughable.
>>393802
Extremely unlikely that Churchill would sign any sort of peace agreement with Hitler. Even during their historical nadir, after the defeats at Gazala, a vote of no confidence got something like 25 yea, 450+ nay, he's going to be hard to unseat.
I question the viability of getting some sort of cease-fire with the Brits and Americans.
>>393763
>More industry would help, but it almost certainly wouldn't be enough, given that you'd struggle to keep up with Britain alone, nevermind the U.S.
More industry would help alot*
Remember how Albert Speer got the industrial ball rolling just by streamlining production. Imagine the production quotas in an economy that wasn't being bombed and whose labour force wasn't being drafted into the army to stop the advancing russians.
I think you underestimate just how much better off German industry would be off after a victory in the east.
As for the North African problem, you could supply from both air and sea. You're also assuming this is something that has to happen quickly, whereas I imagine a drawn out conflict with no real victor.
American supplies would be welcome, but a Soviet puppet state being drained would be even more so.
>>393856
>Remember how Albert Speer got the industrial ball rolling just by streamlining production.
Remember how half of it was cooking the books, and how Gunther Rall noted that it didn't mean anything, because they didn't get enough new pilots to have anyone fly the new airframes?
> Imagine the production quotas in an economy that wasn't being bombed and whose labour force wasn't being drafted into the army to stop the advancing russians.
But it would be bombed. It would be bombed harder because the anglo-allies would be focusing more on air power in the absence of an ability to land on the continent.
And there would still be a draft, and recruitment into the front line. Russia will need to be occupied. Italy, the Balkans, Greece, France, Belgium, and the Netherlands will all need to be guarded, and guarded heavily against possible allied invasions.
>I think you underestimate just how much better off German industry would be off after a victory in the east.
It wouldn't be significantly better off. Real life isn't risk, and Germany had already more or less peaked its work force.
>As for the North African problem, you could supply from both air and sea.
Read the pdf I linked to earlier. Sea supply is hampered by your lack of port space. Tripoli harbor was literally jammed for all of 1941 and most of 1942. You can't just wave a magic wand and get more supplies in. Air resupply? The entire Luftwaffe's lift force couldn't even help the trapped 6th army, flying way shorter distances than you'd need to conduct offensives in North Africa.
>American supplies would be welcome, but a Soviet puppet state being drained would be even more so.
I was really more considering the 100,000+ American fighters and bombers that would be coming in, not the supplies.
>>393843
You're right under normal circumstances, but this scenario involves Hitler standing over a dead Russia and founding the world's newest and greatest superpower. America would help defend Britain, but they're not going to invade the continent in that scenario because it's too late. If Churchill is in the way that much, he would be replaced regardless of his political standing.
>>393874
>Remember how half of it was cooking the books, and how Gunther Rall noted that it didn't mean anything, because they didn't get enough new pilots to have anyone fly the new airframes?
remember how Luftwaffe started training their air crews into Infantry divisions because they didnt have enough planes to fly? Personell and industry would not be a problem in this scenario.
>bombing
It would be bombed but it would also be much better protected. We're talking about a scenario where millions of soldiers would not die on he eastern front. From germany, italy, hungary and romania. Plus added industries and no second front.
>work force
A lot of it got pushed into the army to save a now non-existant personel problem. Add the ruskie slave labour and voila.
>supply by air
A recovered kuftwaffe could help a lot. The eastern front luftwaffe was as you've already pointed out, not so strong. In addition, this entire argument started with a rebuilt airforce so your magic wand is negated.
>>393911
>remember how Luftwaffe started training their air crews into Infantry divisions because they didnt have enough planes to fly? Personell and industry would not be a problem in this scenario.
No, I don't. Cite a source. And raising infantry and even panzer divisions for "airfield defende" doesn't count. I want to see something about trained fighter pilots being pulled into the front line.
>It would be bombed but it would also be much better protected. We're talking about a scenario where millions of soldiers would not die on he eastern front. From germany, italy, hungary and romania. Plus added industries and no second front.
No, it wouldn't be much better defended, because you already had 80% of the historical Air Force trying and failing to stop it. All those infantry and tanks and howitzers aren't going to stop B-17s.
>A lot of it got pushed into the army to save a now non-existant personel problem. Add the ruskie slave labour and voila.
You would still need enormous forces mobilized to hold on to what you have. And slave labor didn't get the Mazis that far in the Ukraine. Why would it work any better in manufacturing in Russia?
>A recovered kuftwaffe could help a lot. The eastern front luftwaffe was as you've already pointed out, not so strong. In addition, this entire argument started with a rebuilt airforce so your magic wand is negated.
Yes, only the air force wouldn't just get rebuilt, and certainly not to the extent that you can fight and supply 2 fronts, thousands of km apart.
>>393911
>remember how Luftwaffe started training their air crews into Infantry divisions because they didnt have enough planes to fly
They combed out superfluous Luftwaffe ground crews (not pilots), because they ran out of soldiers on the Eastern front.
Nazi Germany being the poorly run shithouse it was, they didn't use them to fill up army formations, but created completely new and green divisions (Luftwaffen-Felddivisionen), that performed about as you would expect air force personnel to perform when forced to do infantry work with little to no training and under the command of air force officers. After the majority of the soldiers were dead, the formations were integrated in the army.
>>392560
>realistically
>successfully taken over Russia
does not compute
the Soviet war machine completely outclassed in every way the Germans', from tanks to airplanes, to manpower to resources
Germany had a better chance of winning WWI than WWII.
>>394163
Pretty much the only remotely plausible scenario is the Soviet Union falling into some kind of civil war in the aftermath of the invasion.
>>394185
You also might have a chance if Turkey allowed you to buildup and move through their country, but I have no idea how you'd sell that.
>>392563
/thread
>>394272
What if the T-34 was absolute shit?
Wouldn't the US have just nuked them?
>>394278
Then the soviets make the KV-1their main tank.
>>393774
would that solve their logistical problems? equipment shortages? reliance on a quick, decisive strike? and a lack of capacity to wage a successful war after the failure of such a strike?
>>393190
I tend to dismiss all axis-win-ww2 scenarios as totally impossible, but I've never considered the USSR simply suing for peace due to the shock of the invasion and rapid advance.
Was there any real likelyhood of that happening?
>>392560
Oh look one more thread about
>hurr durr what if Hitler won
Did you miss the other threads about switching places with Hitler and What if Hitler and Stalin was ally?
This is fucking worst then container bunkers
>>394304
If the T-34 was shit then the KV-1 wouldn't be all that great either, and it would be too little too late regardless.
>>394487
>>394304
If the T-34 was shit then the KV-1 wouldn't be all that great either,
I don't see how that follows. If the design for the T-34 had flaws in it, if it wasn't the historical T-34, why are the people working over at another factory with another completely different design team suddenly going to turn shitty too?
>and it would be too little too late regardless.
Again, why? The overwhelming majority of all Soviet tanks were constructed during the war. They could have done the same if they ultimately settled on a different tank model.
What if Hitler developed the bomb before the war?
>>394414
>would that solve their logistical problems? equipment shortages? reliance on a quick, decisive strike? and a lack of capacity to wage a successful war after the failure of such a strike?
It worked in France. They swept in and decapitated their enemy before tenuous supply lines defeated them. If they hadn't been slowed by devastatingly effective Russian tanks then they could have taken Leningrad, Moscow, and the Ukraine. Hitler had been told that the Russians didn't have a modern military that could withstand a direct German assault and they based Operation Barbarossa off that assumption.
>>394505
What if aliens invaded UK?
>>394516
But they did. You didn't actually think Thatcher was human did you?
>>394505
Limited uranium for manufacturing, as well as no airframe capable of delivering the bomb sharply limits its effectiveness. Spurs on atomic projects in England and the U.S.
>>394510
Soviet armor was almost completely ineffective in 1941. By October, the Soviets were down to about 7,000 tanks, from a pre-war total of about 24,000. They had less than 200 to defend Moscow with.
Soviet armor, however effective it might have been from an engineering standpoint, was completely useless due to retarded armor doctrine and tactics; most determined resistance to German troops came from good, old fashioned infantry and artillery, not the tank force.
I would recommend Stumbling Colossus, by Glantz, if you want to read up on just how awful Soviet armor was in practice.
>>394516
kebap aliens
>>394510
man, you just don't have any idea what you are talking about, do you
>>394497
>I don't see how that follows. If the design for the T-34 had flaws in it, if it wasn't the historical T-34, why are the people working over at another factory with another completely different design team suddenly going to turn shitty too?
I meant to say that the T-34 was inferior in all regards, not just a few easily fixed design flaws. Just imagine that the Russians were completely behind in tank technology and generally didn't have people in the military aware of the potential of tanks such that they couldn't just develop a modern tank as good as what they could have (and did) produce had they been developing modern tanks for many years.
Anons were claiming that it is utterly inconceivable that Operation Barbarossa could have succeeded. I'm just trying to make the smallest tweak to history possible to ensure the success of the operation.
>>394538
Then if the Soviets are somehow way behind on the tank curve, that also affects German tank design and training, since they got a lot of it from the Soviets to begin with when they weren't allowed to re-arm under the Versailles treaty in the 30s.
Likely impact is that the attack on France stalls.
>>394523
>Limited uranium for manufacturing
>SAG/SDAG Wismut was a uranium mining company in East Germany during the time of the cold war. It produced a total of 230,400 tonnes of uranium between 1947 and 1990 and made East Germany the fourth largest producer of uranium ore in the world at the time. It was the largest single producer of uranium ore in the entire sphere of control of the USSR.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wismut_%28mining_company%29
For some reason that fact is largely unknown outside of East Germany.
>>394552
230,400 tons in 43 years. That makes 516 tons a month., on average.
The Manhattan project was using close to 2,100 tons of domestic uranium a month, and was importing a lot more from Canada. It wouldn't be enough to keep up.
>>394523
>>394533
If I'm not mistaken, the German military came close to taking Leningrad and Moscow early on. They were slowed by Russian soldiers using hit and run tactics in the woods and Russian tanks with armor German tanks couldn't penetrate. It doesn't seem justified to say that Germany couldn't' have possibly succeeded if you tweaked history a little given how close they were.
Germany has been wary of a war of attrition with Russia because could always wear down offensives with sheer manpower, which is why Germany staked everything on blitzkrieg, an attempt to decapitate Russia before it became a war of attrition.
>>394571
>If I'm not mistaken, the German military came close to taking Leningrad and Moscow early on.
You are mistaken. They got within sight of Moscow by the beginning of November, on a ragged supply line and with undefeated Soviet divisions behind the line causing trouble. Leningrad was a little closer, with the city actually assaulted and put under siege, but the defenses and the natural swamp were formidable, and in close to 3 years, the Germans never broke through. Tanks are pretty bad in urban conflicts.
>>394569
Are you sure that's raw uranium? That number seems awfully high.
>>394580
That is raw uranium. It goes down once you purify it and throw out the waste, but I assumed that the figures given for the Wismut mine were also totally purified, roughly 1% u-235 stuff.
>>394589
The 200,000 tons East German Uranium were extracted from some 200 million tons of uranium ore. Supplying the Manhattan project with that amount of Uranium would have required major mining operations, and the question why they needed that much uranium to begin with. 2000 tons uranium contain 14 tons of U-235, and they needed less than 100kg per bomb.
I'm sure the early factories were inefficient, but were they THAT inefficient?
>>392560
Literally impossible.
>>394579
>The German military were not close to Leningrad and Moscow
>The German military was close to Leningrad and Moscow
I'm getting mixed messages here.
If they were already that close before the first winter even came then I find it unreasonable to claim that they couldn't possibly have taken their advantages, let alone with hypothetical advantages given to them.
>>392905
Pretty much this, except I don't see how in the hell Germany would still be in the war with that much manpower leaning on them.
>>394622
A lot of it went into research, building reactors and various experimental bomb construction, plutonium production, etc.
To be honest, I'm just cribbing a figure off of a graph I read ages ago, I'm not really sure where it all went.
>>394653
you said "close to taking"
he said "in sight of"
the two are different
remember stalingrad?
>>394653
I'm saying that
A) They were geographically close, but that they were not in any position to take either city, let alone both, as significant obstacles remained to overcome.
B) Soviet tank forces were ineffective at slowing or halting the advance in any event, they were reliant primarily on infantry and artillery.
Furthermore, the advances stalled before winter hit; people hugely exaggerate the effects of the snow, logistical overstretch, old-fashioned outrunning their supply lines, is what doomed Barbarossa.
>>394441
>Was there any real likelyhood of that happening?
There's rumours that Stalin considered it at one point, but any hard evidence has been lost to history.
>>394079
Luftwaffe Field Infantry.
>because you already had 80% of the historical Air Force trying and failing to stop it. All those infantry and tanks and howitzers aren't going to stop B-17s.
You're suggesting that 80% of the historical air force is all Germany could muster under any circumstances, which it wasn't. We both know the Luftwaffe never recovered after the Battle of Britain because there wasn't enough materiel or men to do so, because of the eastern front - the very LACK of which we're now discussing. Moot point.
>You would still need enormous forces mobilized to hold on to what you have. And slave labor didn't get the Mazis that far in the Ukraine. Why would it work any better in manufacturing in Russia?
You'd need large forces to hold on to what you already have. Nothing that could compare in size to what you needed to take it, tho, don't be silly.
>Yes, only the air force wouldn't just get rebuilt, and certainly not to the extent that you can fight and supply 2 fronts, thousands of km apart.
Again, you're assuming we're talking a couple of months here, whereas I'm talking over the course of 3-4 years.
>>394441
After the disaster that was Barbarossa, Stalin retired to his Datja and sulked for several days - doing nothing. When some of his political friends showed up he believed that they had come to arrest him and was resigned to his fate.
In the world of Soviet politics, it was a very real possibility.
>>394657
Close to taking relative to the thousands of miles of trekking and fighting it took to get there. If Germany reaches the cities earlier because they have a hypothetical advantage then they may be able to take the cities before they drown in Russian blood.
How about he destroyed England and made peace with Russia?
No Anglos to ruin the world and brotherhood between Aryan races (Germans and Russians)
>>394664
>Furthermore, the advances stalled before winter hit; people hugely exaggerate the effects of the snow, logistical overstretch, old-fashioned outrunning their supply lines, is what doomed Barbarossa.
It is my understanding that the frost HELPED German forces. They were slowed to just a few miles a day by mud. The frost kept the ground firm.
A dry spell might have given Germany the advantage they needed to take Leningrad and Moscow before long supply lines and the slowly rising tide of Russian soldiers defeated them.
>>394693
Hitler didn't even want a war with France and England. Hitler would have taken a ceasefire with England at any point in the war. He saw anglos as cousins of germans.
Slavs were always the prime target. If anything the "cooperation" if you can call it that in their conquest and division of Poland was Hitler's way of leave Russia in a more vulnerable position upon the beginning of Operation Barbarossa.
>>394693
>How about he destroyed England and made peace with Russia?
I don't even know what's less plausible - Germany defeating the Soviet Union, or destroying England. Because they tried both, and failed both.
With England there's also the whole 'getting across the Channel with no navy or airforce capable of making that possible' deal.
>>394666
>We both know the Luftwaffe never recovered after the Battle of Britain because there wasn't enough materiel or men to do so
The battle of Britain saw roughly 1,900 aircraft destroyed, along with the loss of some 2,700 aircrew.
That didn't stop them from committing close to 3,000 planes to Barbarossa, another 3,000 to Reich defense, an entire Luftflotte to each of the Mediterranean and the North Sea, and do some anti-shipping activites in the Atlantic at the same time. 1940 alone saw the production of over 7,000 planes, and with the rapid rate of aircraft development in WW2, most of the planes around in 1940 would be obsolete 2-3 years later in any case.
The BoB did not "destroy" the Lfutwaffe in any capacity.
>You'd need large forces to hold on to what you already have. Nothing that could compare in size to what you needed to take it, tho, don't be silly.
Which is why Germany committed more force by 1943 garrisoning Yugoslavia than they committed to conquering it. Are you so sure?
>Again, you're assuming we're talking a couple of months here, whereas I'm talking over the course of 3-4 years.
And in 3-4 years, the Americans will smother you, because no matter how well you streamline things, they've got enormously more population, resources, better factories, and you know, nukes.
>>394718
>they tried both
Not really. The Blitz was an attempt to frighten Britain out of the war, not a prelude to invasion. Hitler never seriously intended on invading.
>>394728
>Hitler never seriously intended on invading.
Well then he had done his best to hide his intentions from everyone including his generals, whom he had instructed to begin preparations for an invasion, and tasked the Luftwaffe with its air campaign with the explicit aim of facilitating an invasion.
>>394737
Obviously Hitler wanted the British to think invasion was possible. It serves the attempt to scare Britain into a ceasefire. Churchill wanted the British to believe it too in order to scare more war effort out of them. But if there was a serious intent to invade then they would have focussed on British air and coastal defenses, not start a terror campaign.
Hitler never wanted to go to war with Britain and called the British cousins of Germans.
>>394769
>But if there was a serious intent to invade then they would have focussed on British air and coastal defenses
this is literally what they had been doing when they started the battle of britain...
>>394726
>The BoB did not "destroy" the Lfutwaffe in any capacity
Yes it did, because most of the experienced fighter pilots went out the window in BoB. These needed time to replace, something which was not allowed.
>Which is why Germany committed more force by 1943 garrisoning Yugoslavia than they committed to conquering it. Are you so sure?
Yes. One is hilly, one is flat. Terrain like in the Balkans is perfect breeding grounds for Partisan activity because it's almost impossible to keep it controlled from a central location.
>And in 3-4 years, the Americans will smother you, because no matter how well you streamline things, they've got enormously more population, resources, better factories, and you know, nukes.
I'm starting to think you haven't read the thread.
>>394821
>Yes it did, because most of the experienced fighter pilots went out the window in BoB. These needed time to replace, something which was not allowed.
Again, you're overestimating the scale of the BoB. Fall Gelb committed over twice as many assets as ever went into the BoB, let alone were lost. The losses sustained in the BoB were hardly crippling to the Luftwaffe.
>Yes. One is hilly, one is flat.
Yes, flat terrain helped so much against the historical, numerous, unsuppressed partisan activities you got in Poland and Russia. And now you have millions and millions of square kilometers to guard, which is going to take a hell of a toll.
>I'm starting to think you haven't read the thread.
And you very clearly haven't read anything I've posted, or at least not clearly. 1943's later half had the western defenders suffer 144% operational losses.You literally had more causes to keep planes out of the air, damge, breakdown, or pure lost, than you had planes. It gets even worse in 1944. They were getting their pasty white asses kicked by the Western airpower, and no amount of reallocation of forces from the Eastern Front, or minor increases of productivity from the advent of slave labor are going to change that.
All the while, America, which has way more to throw at you, is building more big bombers, more p-51s, and hey, if they really run into trouble, they might actually deploy the jets they had since 1943 and decided weren't worth the trouble of using.
>>394861
>Again, you're overestimating the scale of the BoB
I think you're underestimating it.
>Yes, flat terrain helped so much against the historical, numerous, unsuppressed partisan activities you got in Poland and Russia.
Look, I'm not debating wether Russia is going to take as many men to guard as it takes to conquer in this scenario, because such a hypothesis is just absurd considering the immense drain of resources and manpower the eastern front was. They're not even closely comperable.
>And you very clearly haven't read anything I've posted,
That's because you just keep repeating yourself or coming with absurd scenarios such as the one above.
>>394910
>I think you're underestimating it.
Looking at numbers, noticing which one is bigger, is "underestimation"? Run by me how that works.
>Look, I'm not debating wether Russia is going to take as many men to guard as it takes to conquer in this scenario, because such a hypothesis is just absurd considering the immense drain of resources and manpower the eastern front was. They're not even closely comperable.
Because of course, you've looked at how many men were acutally used to garrison backroad regions in Russia and come to a conclusion how many more would be needed to keep the whole? Show some of that work.
>That's because you just keep repeating yourself or coming with absurd scenarios such as the one above.
>absurd scenarios.
http://don-caldwell.we.bs/jg26/thtrlosses.htm
It is literal, historical, FACT you fucking idiot. Airplane production was very well documented. Luftwaffe losses were also very well documented. Almost all air forces they sent against the Western Allies were trashed within 4 months.
The only absurd scenario here is your imbecilic insistence that things would be somehow different when you've reallocated roughly 20% of the Luftwaffe's fighters and however many extra planes you squeeze out of not having the pressures on the Eastern Front, while simultaneously ignoring the fact that the lack of a viable invasion in Europe is going to cause the Western Allies to also intensify their bombing and escort efforts.
>>393190
>Joseph Stalin is arrested by the Politburo
lol
>Germany uses Slav(e) labour and newly acquired oil reserves
yup.
>>394813
The Battle of Britain started out as a continuation of the conquest of France. Germany had to hit British military targets until they were certain they could fend off any attempted return off all those French and British soldiers that escapes across the channel.
Germany didn't receive any devastating blow at the hands of the British during that first part of the Battle of Britain. In fact had they continued targeting the RAF they could have had complete control of air over the channel, which is exactly what they needed to mount an invasion of England. But instead they gave up and started attacking civilians. That doesn't make a lick of sense in the context of intended invasion. It makes perfect sense if Hitler was just trying to secure France and then scare the British into negotiating a ceasefire.
Hitler never wanted to start a war with Britian and he never seriously wanted to invade Britain. MAYBE if the RAF had completely had completely collapsed and from the very outset such that Britain was easy pickings instead of a gamble Hitler would have done that, but Hitler cared more about invading Russia than England. The Western front had always been an bothersome distraction from Germany's main goals.
>>393219
>could drop nukes on any German city with impunity
Not if the Germans keep their airforce up.
That said, the nuke is the ace in the whole. Keep in mind that the V2 was the first ever ballistic missile, and that the Germans were also working on the bomb. If they ever got one then they wouldn't need bombers to deliver a killing blow to Great Britain.
>>394985
Have you seen the Manhattan Project facilities? If they had been built in Europe, they would have been bombed into rubble.
>>393672
>Germany is now fighting a brutal insurgency
Einsatzgruppen is dealing with that.
Reminder that insurgencies only really work if the occupying force keeps civilian populations intact.
>>394985
What he's saying is that if the B-36 was developed, nothing in the German arsenal would be able to intercept it, and then they would be able to drop bombs with impunity.
And the V-2 couldn't carry a payload the size of even the Little Boy, and was terribly inaccurate to boot, about half of them missed London.
>>394959
>>394959
>the T-34 was actually shit
Nah, it was actually good. German tanks were overengineered and broke down. Russian tanks were built like... tanks. Sure, you had to hit levers with mallets to change gears and shit, but they rarely broke down and German tanks had a hard time piercing the T-34's slanted armor.
>>394994
Which is why the Germans successfully put down the insurgencies in Greece, Yugoslavia, Poland, and the Baltic states. It totally wasn't like the attacks got more intense and organized as time went on.
>>395000
To be completely fair to the V-2's lack of accuracy, Operation Double Cross worked like a fucking charm.
>>395002
Throughout the entire war Germany was playing catch-up to Russian tank design, and was hampered fantastically by Hitler and Porsche's incredible stupidity.
The only true 'innovation' of German tank design during the entire war was the concept of an easily replaceable 'power pack' for the panther, which of course got thrown out during the design stage because of muh transmisison-engine balance.
Look up "the Anglo-American Nazi War"
>>395002
>they rarely broke down
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34#General_reliability
http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/the-t-34-in-wwii-the-legend-vs-the-performance/#The%20T34’s Overall Combat Results in 1941
>The T-34 is possibly the only weapon system in history to be rated by most commentators as the finest all round weapon in a century of warfare, and yet never consistently achieved anything better than a one to three kill-loss ratio against its enemies.
>>392560
>What would have realistically happened if Hitler had successfully taken over Russia.
Well Alien Space Bats would fly out of my arse.
But let's imagine that he takes and holds Russia to the Leningrad-Moscow-Stalingrad line for 5 years until the Western allies nuke Germania.
Millions of dead slavs. The razing of St Petersberg with starving slave labour. The elimination of European jewery and the Serbian people.
>>397060
>Alien Space Bats
Fuck off back to AH.com and their SJW admin
>>392560
BT-7 is kill :(
>>397213
>Fuck off back to AH.com and their SJW admin
I think you mean nntp://soc.history.what-if
I eagerly await the day when Alison returns from the dead, riding a lion of zion, and drives a late model british MBT over you.
>>397262
>soc.history.what-if
Holy shit, I used to read this back in the day (Outlook Express FTW). Can't remember if ASB was a meme then.
>>397287
ASB was a "meme." Alison Brooks invented it. I saw it. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_space_bats ).
Alison was such a great grog/historian. I miss her.
>>394706
>Slavs were always the prime target.
"No." The main targets were:
>annexing the German majority areas in other countries (Sudetenland, territories in Poland, Austria etc)
>France
>USSR
In this order. And even USSR was more of a preemptive strike than anything, the lebensraum horseshit was just a luxurious colonial fantasy Hitler had because he read too much Karl May as a kid. It was at no point a priority.
>>397259
That'a BT-5 though.
>>397787
I didn't think they put a hv gun on the BT-5, help me out with comparative identification?
>>392560
He may have made the Japanese panic if he got as far as Kamchatka, but I don't think he would have bothered.
>>397825
BT-5 has no MG in the rear of the turret and a different frontal armor/hatch layout.
Those are the most noticeable differences.
>>397861
Thanks, I'm also spotting superstructure, rounding on the front mudguard. Cheers mate.
>>394994
you do realize that the Einsatzgruppen only had about 3000 men, and they pretty much only did one thing in Eastern Europe
>>397915
>and they pretty much only did one thing in Eastern Europe
Got drunk and committed suicide because not even the PhD Nazi creame could handle the job when it was day in day out?
(I think my claims' sources are found in the captured Einsatzgruppen archives).
