Could USA have defeated Germany if USSR was not involved?
Would USA be willing to invade occupied Europe if USSR was not already steaming toward Berlin?
With Germany not occupied in the East, where could USA invade?
Would stratetic bombing even be viable in such case? (lossess due to LW not being tier in the East)
Could USA endure the casualties and protracted war it would face without Russian involvement?
>>28602961
Yes, Germany had no navy to speak of, and outside of the fevered dreams of madmen no serious long range heavy bombing capability. They would have probably still landed in France while pushing up through Italy. Germany would have held out longer, perhaps, but American and British war tech caught up with German tech fast.
>>28602961
>Could USA have defeated Germany if USSR was not involved?
Probably. They had much better strategic planning and they would have held the initiative in the Atlantic, unless the UK outright surrendered and emulated Vichy France.
If the UK got steamrolled in some hypothetical, I think it's unlikely they would have gone to the effort, and especially not before beating Japan. I think it's more likely that Germany and America would have carved out their empires on opposite sides of the world and we'd have lived in a US vs. Nazi Germany cold war.
>>28602961
No. In fact neither the US or USSR would have been able to take Germany without the ALL the other players involved working together.
Even with the ENTIRE world against them, at almost any point in the war victory could have gone to the Germans.
The US cutting supplies off from Africs made it possible for USSR to wear down the Nazis. The bloody battles against the USSR stole Russian troops from the eastern front and the battle of Britian erroded German air support for the rest of the war.
The Allies were VERY CLOSE to giving up at several points in the war.
>>28602961
Most Likely no on all accounts.
A lot of this hypothetical relies on "how" not involved the USSR was.
IE - Split Poland then be best friends without future plans of backstabbing each other?
Did Barbarossa happen but they agree'd upon a surrender/ceasefire say outside Stalingrad/Leningrad?
A lot of it depends on how tied down in the east the German army is already for a potential surprise Russian Offensive or if they can leave Normal level garrison troops without fear of a Gaddafi happening.
If Barbarossa never happened and Germany/USSR were best of friends after splitting Poland then the US doesn't have a chance in hell. At this point resources would've been easily diverted to bolster/reinforce the Afrika Campaign with most likely outcome of losing the Battle of El Alamein and eventual loss of Egypt. This secures the French Algerian Oil fields for supply to Axis troops and also gives easier access for trade/diplomacy with the Empire of Iran who was Axis Friendly. This being important as Iran prior to the Ango-Soviet Invasion was the midway point for technology sharing with Japan.
Even if Ceasefire Scenario played out and Germany took Ukraine, Poland, Baltic states with some Russian land it would have to watch it's back as USSR consolidated it's power for revenge. In this Scenario the US still loses. Sheer number of men and equipment being free'd up from the Eastern Front would've been overwhelming for any sort of Ground Offensive from the west. Most likely the Invasion force in Italy could've been repulsed when those men arrived.
>>28602961
Probably would have ended up nuking berlin
>>28602961
>Could USA have defeated Germany if USSR was not involved?
No. Without Barbarossa Rommel kick out Brits from Africa, Hitler takes over Mediterranean and fuck everybody in the ass.
>>28603052
OP here.
This is the idea:
>Split Poland then be best friends without future plans of backstabbing each other
As for Afrika Korps - supply capabilities were limited as well as transfer capabilities(ports). Yes, ports could be expanded and railroads built, but I wonder how many divisions could Germany suppy in N. Africa.
If Torch still happens in 1942, USA definitelly has the capabilities to grind out Germany in Mediterranean. IMO only problem would be a full-out naval invasion in France/Italy/Balkans.
>>28603129
Also US Navy and Royal Navy vs Italians in Med. I'd not bet on Afrika Korps being supplied for any significant amount of time.
>>28602961
US land forces alone were insufficient to defeat Germany. Likely, Berlin would have been nuked before a single american troop sets foot on Europe.
>>28603138
I don't think so. Then you have UK being bombed with biological weapons. Also nuked berlin would be a minor hindrance to the Nazis.
If the Germans begin to lose the war, I feel like there's a big chance of Stalin being the one who backstabs Hitler for a land grab.
>>28603168
>land grab
>Russia
You are polak, aren't you?
>>28603175
Not him, but I'll take "What is the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact" for 100 dollars, Chip.
>>28603175
No. I just recognize that he was the Richelieu of his age.
>>28603151
The reason the UK was never bombed with chemical or biological weapons was because the UK could hit back ten times harder
>>28603195
The reason was Hitler's personal opposition to them.
>>28603204
Bullshit
>>28603195
Their biological agents were much deadlier but the Krauts had more terrifying nerve agents to make up for it.
To OP, it would've been a a hell of a lot more difficult. With them fighting at more than 30% of their strength in the west, it wont be easy for sure.
>>28603229
While British chemical agents were inferior, they had a lot more of 'em than Germans and more capable air force.
>>28602961
Dumbass Ameri-fats sat out the first couple of years of the war anyway. Anyone can win if they come onto the field at half time with the opponent worn down.
>>28603268
How delusional can you be
I hate America but this is retarded
>>28603037
The slavs would have assfucked the germans on there own. They pretty much did, we did fuckall in Europe.
Get the fuck out, klaus.
>>28603274
Ameri-cunts -
Turned up late for WW1
Turned up late for WW2
Couldn't win in Korea
Lost in Vietnam
Beat up some little kids in Central America
Didn't know what to do in Somalia
Pulled up short in Gulf War 1
Called the game too early ("mission accomplished!) in Gulf War 2.0
Can't get out of Afghan.
Go team!
>>28603037
>Even with the ENTIRE world against them, at almost any point in the war victory could have gone to the Germans.
Literally what? are Krautboo's really so delusional?
>The Allies were VERY CLOSE to giving up at several points in the war.
Shame no one ever told the allies about this, If a Bong politician in WW2 said we where surrendering they would be dragged out into the street and shot as a traitor.
>>28603301
>Turned up late for WW1
Very true
>Turned up late for WW2
And were one of the two biggest contributors to the victory nevertheless
>Couldn't win in Korea
Neither could the others
>Lost in Vietnam
True, no matter what burger apologists say
>Beat up some little kids in Central America
Ye
>Didn't know what to do in Somalia
Ye
>Pulled up short in Gulf War 1
Muh incubators
>Called the game too early ("mission accomplished!) in Gulf War 2.0
Bush should be hanged for starting that
>Can't get out of Afghan.
Ye
I agree with almost all your points but denying their contribution in WWII is retarded
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II#Production_summaries_1939.E2.80.931945
further questions?
>>28603341
How would these look without the USSR?
>>28602999
>US vs. Nazi Germany cold war
I don't know about cold war, nazis being nazis, they would have had less qualms about going nuclear for any of the proxy conflicts that were bound to happen.
>>28603336
This. You pretty much fixed his retardation.
>>28603348
it says that literally two paragraphs under
>>28603365
I'm a faggot.
>>28603285
Soviet Union would have collapsed in 1942 without being supplied by western allies. More than 2 million commies starved to death on parts of country that weren't occupied or sieged, without 4.5 million tons of food delivered by US there would be lot less slavs. Their logistics relied US and British delivered trucks. Soviets made most of their own ammo... with lots of 'em loaded explosives and propellants delivered by western allies. Almost 40% Soviet munitions used US or British explosives or propellant.
>>28603411
No.
It would have taken one hell of a lot longer but eventually they'd outlast the nazis.
>>28603301
>"Turned up late for WW2"
>Joined the war within 5 months of Barbarossa
>Handled the Pacific war almost by itself
>Provided lend-lease materials that kept Soviet logistics running, together with food, ammunition, weapons, fuel and to a lesser degree tanks and aircraft.
Hurr durr Soviet stonk, won war by itself.
>>28602961
if not for American intervention could KMT have defeated CPC
>With Germany not occupied in the East, where could USA invade?
France or Italy
>>28603456
>Hurr durr Soviet stonk, won war by itself.
Sure did, in Russia.
I have an idea for the us
go on the defensive
don't even d day
wait till nukes are ready and kasplod everything
>ITT
Slavaboos shout till their faces turn purple that the soviets single handedly won the entirety of WW2
Wehraboos stuttering b-b-b-but we COULD have won!
Amerifats shouting that they single handedly won ww2
Britbongs wrecking Americunts their own war history.
So the same WW2 thread we've had here since the board started? Boy you are all so original.
>>28602961
>Could USA have defeated Germany if USSR was not involved?
yes, 1945 for sure
>nuke berlin
>nuke wolfschanze
>hitler and the nazi leaders are killed
>wehrmacht generals are scared and capitulate
the end
>Would USA be willing to invade occupied Europe if USSR was not already steaming toward Berlin?
probably, but it was not necessary, see above
>With Germany not occupied in the East, where could USA invade?
africa -> italy
africa -> greece -> balkans
africa -> south france
probably norway
>Would strategic bombing even be viable in such case?
yes,nazis did what they could against the strategic bombing campaign and lost it anyway
but it wouldn't have been necessary to bomb them constantly, because nazis wouldn't have forced a total mobilisation of their industry to wartime production.
they would have stick to a more mixed industry/consumer production orientation which also means over expensive and very prone pre-wartime machinery.
You should also consider following,
1.) the wehrmacht wouldn't have gone past the pz4d (short 75mm) and pz3d/h because there was no use for better tanks - both tanks are inferior to a sherman M4 because the M4 was designed to be invulnerable to both of them and was also supposed to outgun them
2.) they lost the battle over britain and didn't consider a aerial victory over the UK as a viable option - so, they wouldn't have seen it as necessary to build a lot of the better machines because there was no need for them anymore (FW190, Me410, etc.) meanwhile, the US and the UK heavily focused on better airplanes
2.) the nazis would have focused on the navy, building up a massive naval force (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Z) which would have been annihilated by the US because they could have bombed the docks to shit with thier bombers and the naval forced of the US and UK would have anihilated the ships (if they would have been able to build them)
the US would have been able to compensate for their losses, not the nazis
>>28603576
part 2
>follow up question to part 1: why did the nazis lost the air war?
because they had tactical bomber focused training
nazis considered bomber pilots to be more important than good fighter pilots
recruit -> fighter pilot -> stuka pilot/bomber pilot
they put too little, too late effort in a good fighter pilot training
they run out of good fighter pilots early and hand't enough industrial capacities to produce enough high altitude fighter in masses,
they also had constante fuel shortage, mainly because the allies bombed all the oil depots to shit (Hamburg area https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_Campaign_targets_of_World_War_II and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_Campaign_of_World_War_II and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_Campaign_chronology_of_World_War_II)
which also helped the russians to win their war in the east - with intact fuel depots, they (the wehrmacht) would have been able to do more and a lot faster than they did
>Could USA endure the casualties and protracted war it would face without Russian involvement?
not necessary, see part 1
>>28603037
Germany was fucked in the summer of 1941 m8. Everything else after that was them trying to position themselves for a favorable peace.
>>28603576
>Being 11
>mentioning nukes
Pick two and only two
>>28602961
Long story short: if the Soviet Union and Germany for some unholy reason became best buds, Germany could've poured it's entire strengh into crushing Britbongs.
The battle of Britain went bad for the Germans because they were actively preparing for Barbarossa. Without it, they could've developed strategic bombers to destroy British targets, swap Brits with fighters, invest more into it's Navy and so forth. With Britain gone, US has no base to launch it's attack.
Rommel would've gotten all the support he needed to capture the oil fields of the Middle East.
So it ends up in a strategic stalemate. Neither side can score a victory. Peace is made.
>>28603664
>Without it, they could've developed strategic bombers to destroy British targets, swap Brits with fighters, invest more into it's Navy and so forth.
Yeah they totally could have developed a strategic bomber in like 6 months AND build a strategic bomber fleet in the same time. Also a navy.
>>28603671
Germany had been working on a strategic bomber design since 1938. It just had never fit into the Blitzkrieg doctrine, thus the plans were postponed. By the time they again considered building strategic bombers, the preparations for Barabarossa and the meatgrinder of the Eastern Front sucked up all of their production capabilities.
>>28603671
>What is Ju 89
>>28603684
A prototype that would have had half the capabilities of a B-17 and practically no defenses if it entered production.
>>28603411
Just accept that fagermany got fucked like the german kids by soviet soldiers
>>28603693
But it is a strategic bomber.
The He 177 would have been amazing, but then
>Hurr it must be a dive bomber
happened.
>>28603268
>>28603301
The USA wasn't beholden to european powers. It joined the world wars when there was a reason. Fucking WW1 only happened because Eurotards were too gung-ho to jump into other nations' conflicts in the first place
People are always bitching about the USA sticking its nose in other's business, but criticize for not interfering when it doesn't.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=fNqFJCypk7c
Obligatory
>>28603658
>mentioning nukes
I understand that usually this is irrelevant buy we are discussing the only war in which they were used.
>>28603658
Different fag here, but that is exactly where it would have ended.
>>28603664
>With Britain gone, US has no base to launch it's attack.
>Rommel would've gotten all the support he needed to capture the oil fields of the Middle East.
Without Italy fucking up in Africa, Rommel wouldn't have been in Africa in first place.
US started to develop intercontinental bombers before it even joined the war. Northrop B-35 and Convair B-36. Production was delayed for couple reasons. To focus on production of B-24... that would have been mostly moot point without UK to use as base and to develop 'em properly after war, without war ending those would have entered service before all quirks would have been ironed out. US could have nuked Germany without having airbases in same fucking hemisphere in case UK would have sued for peace.
Without strategic bombing conducted from UK and north Africa German air defenses would have been much weaker and less developed. Intercepting B-36 with contemporary fighter designs would have been more than slightly difficult... and that is assuming Germans would have even developed high altitude interceptors like Ta-152 without pressing need.
>>28603694
Just accept the fact that war would have fuckloads more bloody for Soviets at minimum without Lend-Lease... assuming they could have held in first place with 40% less ammunition, war production being interrupted due laborers starving to death in factories and offensive capability being hampered by having 70% trucks to deliver supplies to frontlines. Only way Soviets managed to produce fuckloads of tanks was by converting every factory capable to produce tanks to producing tanks. That meant that Soviet Union didn't produce any railway rolling stock or trucks during war.
Only thing Soviets provided to allies was cannon fodder. Without Soviets allied casualties would have been higher, but still sustainable. It's pretty unlikely Soviet Union would have survived without LL.
>>28603576
>>nuke berlin
Without German surrender, US has no U235 for bombs in time, lol.
>>28603422
The Soviets would have been pushed back behind the Urals, the Nazis would never be able to fully pacify the occupied territory, it would turn into a stalemate until the Soviets built up enough to start grinding their way west. Figure they would take Berlin in the early 50s
>>28603533
Outdoor cat thread
>>28603037
http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm
Economically, Germany would have to assimilate Italy, all of France, and cooperate with Japan, and still fully conquer and assimilate the UK and the USSR to even get ahead of the USA. That's just impossible given a 5 year timeline. Germany simply could not win economically - and once the five years were over, it's nuke-dropping time.
>>28604240
>being this wrong
what's it like being retarded?
>>28603223
Hitler hated them from his experience in WW1, and issued a command that chemical/biological weapons were not to be used, at all, during the war. Both sides prepared for their use though, Germany researching nerve gas, Brits just producing good ol' chemical agents like mustard gas.
There was some use of the stuff by the Germans, on the Eastern front, but only because they considered the Russians degenerates. It really was a different war there.
Anyways, the stuff wasn't really used on a big scale. Both sides had reserves, waiting for the other to use it. Axis powers didn't use it because of Hitlers command, their reliance on horse-drawn transport, and probably the fear the Allies would retaliate harder. The Allies didn't use it because they had a continent to liberate - public opinion would be very much against them if they'd be the first users.
>>28604618
What's with you nuke-dropping retards?
WW2 nukes are shit. Utter fucking 21kt and 15kt shit sthat can kill perhaps 100.000 thousand but also ensure your troops covered in chemical/biological weaponry and UK depopulated of living life due to so much anthrax and other shit being used.
Also it's easy to drop a nuke in uncontested space, not so easy vs fighter jets when you're re flying a bit improved Brother Wright technology.
Wake the fuck up atomboos.
>>28604618
Nobody is talking surpassing. But while USA can bully a shit-tier country like Afghanistan, Iraq or Morocco, it collapses even vs. low-tier North Korea or Vietnam. Germany would need only exact production capabilities it had and it would grind USA to peace treaty in three years. USA would have fold like they did in '74.
>>28603285
Without Lend Lease Stalin would get fucked.
That's ignoring western allies bombing Germany and occupying 2/3 of Luftwaffe and millions of ground troops.
>>28602961
No.
85% of German casualties were on the Eastern Front.
Americans (I am one btw) tend to believe they won the war all by themselves, but forget that all major battles were on the Eastern Front. Even D Day, Battle of the Bulge, etc pail in comparison to battles like Stalingrad, Kursk, Kharkov, and all the battles on the Steppe. It is a fact that the Soviets are the ones that won WWII. Now, it needs to be taken into account that the British and Americans sent many tons of aid to the Soviets in tanks, munitions, etc.
I highly doubt that the Americans and British alone could have taken on the Germans if the Germans had not been focused on the Soviets.
>>28604993
This.
Every major town in Russia was dust and 1 out of every 4 Russians died in that war.
If the Japanese sent another strike force, if the Germans attacked at Dunkirk, if the Pacific war went just a LITTLE worse, and the u boat command got the production they wanted...
So many little lucky breaks literally made that war.
>>28603411
It would've functionally collapsed, but I doubt the Germans could take advantage of their production capabilities. They'd actually lose manpower trying to keep the damn place occupied though. Best case scenario for Germany is that Barbarossa didn't happen, and Stalin doesn't invade.
>>28605034
http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm
Ha ha u dumb cunt. Educate yourself.
>>28603495
Not a viable strategy when you know the Nazi's are working on their own nuclear program. One that wasn't going to work, but still. They had long range-missiles down, combining that with a nuke would not have been pretty.
>>28603576
>not bombing the Wolfschanze first
Invasion probably wouldn't be necessary, true.
1. Doesn't that mean the Wehrmacht should've developed a counter to the M4 instead? Something like a reliable medium tank. Not the Panther or Tiger, mind you, something in between the Pz4 and Panther.
>>28602961
No way in hell. Barbarosa was a mistake.
>>28604231
>Without Soviets allied casualties would have been higher
Don't you mean lower?
As in, without the Soviets, the total amount of Allied casualties would've been lower?
Or, as in, without the Soviets, the other Allied countries would've had more casualties?
>>28605096
Some people don't consider the Soviets a member of the "Allies".
>>28604933
>Being this wrong.
It's pretty easy to drop a nuke when you're cruising 10,000ft above the ceiling of German interceptors and going as fast as them.
Not to mention the fact that it only takes 1 bomber and 1 bomb to functionally destroy a city, as opposed to 100 bombers to destroy a section.
Hell, you could send up an entire formation of B-36s just to disguise the 1 plane with the bomb, to guard against a lucky 128mm flak hit.
>>28604933
>WW2 nukes are shit.
But scary as hell given the time period. We're currently used to the idea of a horrorbomb destroying millions of lives - a well aimed atom bomb back then would reduce public morale to mostly zero, especially if you said more would come. It could also possibly decapitate the Nazi leadership - nothing was built to withstand an atom bomb back then.
>Axis will retaliate with biological/chemical weaponry
Been discussed here before. Keep in mind, Axis had hardly any strategic bombers to deploy those weapons, while Britain had both a sizeable stockpile, an itchy trigger finger called Churchill, and the means to deploy them.
>vs fighter jets
A continued air offensive would've ground the Luftwaffe into the ground. UK and USA outproduced them. In the end, there would be barely any interceptors left to fight against one very, veyr, very heavily escorted strategic bomber.
>Germany would need only exact production capabilities it had
German war machine was hilariously inefficient. They would've needed more economic backing to defeat the USA.
>>28605009
>>28605034
>>28605076
USA alone was more economically powerful than all the Axis, France, the USSR, and half the UK combined. The Axis would have to take over and completely assimilate the latter three in order to outproduce the USA. This was a war of economics, and the Axis simply had no means of winning that. Compound this with the fact that they were laughably incompetent on a strategical level (Japan, Germany, and Italy), and they could never really have won.
>>28605137
My delusional burger. With German tech of the time, nazis would have probably produce stuff that could exceed Sabre in its capabilities. Btw Sabre had Service ceiling of 49,750 ft (15,163 m) and could take your flying target down any time, day or night. By 1949 Germans would have 6 years of experience of taking down bombers and not under conditions of real history. Your B 36 is nothing but waste of resources in this case.
>>28605181
it would take decades to build the cohesion required to out compete the us economically after you bombed and destroyed all your new clay so effectively.
>>28603456
>Joined the war within 5 months of Barbarossa
The war had been going for 2 years by the time Barbarossa happened.
>Handled the Pacific war almost by itself
Except for the British in the South-East and the tonnes of locals who took to insurgency. Jesus the US didn't even face the main portion of the Japanese Army, most of whom were tied up in China.
>>28605201
Nazi Wonderwaffen were technological marvels yes, but they rarely had the effect they needed. Maybe, maybe, maybe, the Luftwaffe could've had a high-speed interceptor like that. Too bad the Allies would've been building way better jets by then - they already outproduce the Me with the Meteor, and it was arguably the better plane.
>>28605201
What is this 'Sabre'?
The only sabre I know is american.
>>28602961
Germany's main problem that caused them to lose WWII was Hilter. Every dumb decision involved Adolf. I hate the hypothetical question if you could go back in time would you kill Adolf Hilter. The answer is no and here is why. Germany could of had long range bomber which would have analiated the RAF because during the blitz the RAF would rotate out pilots and would let them rest and perform maintance on their aircraft out of range of the Luffwaffe but with long range bombers they would have been fucked. Instead of building the goddamn super battleships like the Bismarck Germany could of instead built more u-boats or pocket battle ships. Instead of building the ridiculous Tigers and Tiger IIs more of the Panthers which were more effective. Also without Hilter Germany probably wouldn't have allied themselves with Japan which would have saved them from fighting us until they were done cleaning up Europe
Yes. There just wouldn't have been a rebuilding after
>>28605262
Me 262 had no sucessor due to end of war. But it'd be reasonable to expect it would meet or exceed Sabres' capabilities.
>>28605201
>being this delusional
4 years too late son
>>28603115
With what navy?
>>28604933
>not so easy vs fighter jets
Three months between the introduction of the Me 262 and the Gloster Meteor.
>>28603465
Probably not, the KMT were corrupt and incompetent as could be, and only their German-trained units were the exception.
Also it was a 3-way battle most of the time, with the Japanese, adding a very unpredictable variable to the whole thing.
>>28605275
AKA I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK IM TALKING ABOUT
that dumb fuck Hitler would just turn them into bombers
>>28605275
It'd be even more reasonable to expect that both the UK and USA would produce a superior fighter aircraft to counter those.
>>28603355
Nazis had no nuke program. all they found of it was a half finished (nonfunctional) reactor in a warehouse post war because all the big brains were designing stupid shit like single use jet fighters.
>>28602999
>>28602961
>britbongs hold out like they did
>germany lobs V2s at them but has no real plan or reason to take over the brirtbong islands besides pride
>germany focuses on eliminating the resistance forces in poland, denmark, france, and the rest of their european holdings
>fight in africa and the middle east against the brits goes much better for the hun
>doesn't attack russia
>hammer and sickle keep throwing shit at the finns and dying like dogs, but no massive military buildup on thier side.
>US finishes steamrolling the japs
>wins the Chinese civil war for the nationalists instead of telling them git gud.
>The pacific becomes the American Lake
>britain becomes airstrip one
>the US fights proxy wars against the Soviets in russo chinese wars
>the Germans fight a proxy war in finland against the soviets
>the US fights a proxy war with the Germans through britbongs in africa and middle east colonial holdings/air war
IE 1984
>>28602961
Given the Germans relied on U-Boats and had a very poor surface fleet the US/UK wouldn't have the biggest issue securing the Sea. Because that's exactly what they did.
The US would probably nuke Berlin and major production areas after dealing with Japan.
>>28605299
So you think it'd be a three-sided Cold War? Seems like that wouldn't stay Cold for long. Problem here is that if two sides have a nuclear exchange, number three walks away largely unscathed. Completely revamps the idea of MAD.
>>28605320
>after dealing with Japan
Well the nukes were initially for Germany anyway, so they'd have got nuked before the US had finished teabagging the Japanese anyway.
>>28603223
It's actually not, of all the terrible things Hitler was willing to order, use of chemical weapons was on his "don't fucking do it" list. He was afraid because of the injuries he sustained from them in WW1 and didn't want to use them in fear of retaliation.
>>28604240
The US got most of its fissionable material for the Manhattan Project from Canada, so yeah it wouldn't have been a problem.
>>28604933
>What's with you nuke-dropping retards?
Well, they're retards.
Every time Operation Unthinkable comes up half the idiots in the thread just say the US would have won because "muh nukes", completely ignoring the large amount of time needed to build them, not to mention the money.
>>28604618
And this... The US could build all the planes and tanks it fucking wanted, but without a beachhead into Europe it would have made no difference. The millions of Germans that wouldn't be tied up fighting Russia would have made the D-Day invasion into Dieppe 2. While the hard time Allied forces had in the drive through Italy would have been 10 times as hard.
>>28604993
>Allies occupying millions of ground troops
I think you mean the Russians.
>>28605354
Yeah, pretty much.
>>28605160
>Axis had hardly any strategic bombers to deploy those weapons
They had V-2 rockets.
>>28605387
That couldn't hit the US.
>>28605201
The premiere german interceptor in 1945, as in the only one in production, that would be able to defend against nuclear attack when the US had both a delivery platform and a weapon, had a max altitude of less than 40,000ft.
Bomber confirmed for getting through.
>>28605387
>V2s
>good
I think you mean "massive waste of resources", just like thier static launch sites that got fukkin rek'd by allied strategic bombing.
>>28605387
>V2 capacity: 2200lbs/1000kg
>Fat Man weight: 10300lbs/4670kg
>Little Boy weight: 9700lbs/4400kg
>>28605096
>Or, as in, without the Soviets, the other Allied countries would've had more casualties?
This.
>>28605121
>Some people don't consider the Soviets a member of the "Allies".
They were frenemy at the best... to worse degree than Saudis or Pakistanis today, by fundind ISIS, Taliban and other assorted islamist scum.
>>28603336
>Bush
Do you honestly believe that war was orchestrated by a dude that was almost assassinated by a pretzel? lol
>>28605397
We weren't talking about them hitting the US, we were talking about chemical and biological weapons being used on the UK, and how the Germans had no strategic bombers.
V-2's armed with nerve gas would have been devastating to the English citizenry.
>>28605413
You could probably build a thousand V-2's for the cost of one nuke.
>>28605406
>launch sites wrecked by bombing
Nevermind that ground forces were inevitably needed to shut them down permanent, of course.
>>28605446
Bu-buh big business would never do anything wrong!
Get out of here Commie! REEEEEEEE!!!!
Seriously fuck Iraq 2 though, Afghanistan would have been wrapped up and turned into a semi-stable country by now if that shit-show hadn't gone down.
>>28605375
>Well, they're retards.
Not really. By the end of 1945, the USA had 6 nukes. That's probably down to 4 after they threw 2, but still. By 1948, they had 110 - and that was without a war economy. You can bet your ass any prolonged conflict as in this scenario (or as in Unthinkable for that matter) would've resulted in the widespread use of nuclear force by the USA.
>time & money
They had plenty of both to build 110 nukes in 3 years after the war. God help Germany had the USA still been in a wartime economy by 1948.
>ithout a beachhead into Europe it would have made no difference.
They would've made one eventually. It would've taken massive numers, maybe a nuke or two, but it would be made. France/Italy/whatever would be hell indeed, but they'd get there. Still, this is only if Germany doesn't surrender because of the nukes.
Face it, any large-scale conflict after 1945 will be decided with nuclear force. Extending WW2 past 1945 only yields on result: nukes. Lots of em.
>>28605406
Fun fact. Production of V-2's killed more people than missiles. Having enough marketable skills saved Von Braun from ending up on the rope.
>>28605447
Arming V2's with chemical/biological waepons would have caused massive retaliation by both UK and USA, as well as public opinion swinging against the Nazi's in occupied countries. UK and USA could outproduce Germany as far as chemical weapons were concerned, and they had, far, far more reliable and cheap delivery methods.
>You could probably build a thousand V-2's for the cost of one nuke.
War isn't about who has the most money left at the end of the game. War is about who is the least nuked at the end of the game.
>>28605262
F-86 and Mig-15 were pretty much designed by Germans and stolen by US/Soviets. If the Me-262 line had gotten true traction and war was prolonged a "Sabre" like design is the logical next step in fighter jet design Germany would've followed.
>>28603456
>Handled the Pacific war almost by itself
Japanese military command considered the August storm just as catastrophic as the nukes.
>>28605511
But the war wouldn't have been prolonged. Germany would be glowing before they came up with an interceptor that was anything more than like a one way rocket assisted ballistic climb and then hopefully hit the bomber on the way back down.
>>28605484
>and that was without a war economy
>3 years after the war
Yeah, funny how when you're not spending all your money building tanks, planes, and ships, you would have the resources to build lots of nukes.
The US was bankrupting itself to fight WW2, keeping up that level of production and producing a 100 nukes in 3 years is a far-fetched assumption.
>they would have made one (a beachhead) eventually
With how many casualties? Sure the US could eventually overwhelm the Germans with sheer numbers like the Russians did, but would the American people have the stomach for that level of casualties?
>Still, this is only if Germany doesn't surrender because of the nukes.
You keep fast-forwarding to 1945 like it's the only date that matters. If the Germans weren't busy with the Soviets they would have been a lot more prepared for anything the Allies threw at them. Including nukes, high-flying bombers and M4 Shermans.
Half this assumption relies on the Germans being complete retards and not reacting at all to anything the Allies do... According to this thread the Germans, free from fighting the Soviets, wouldn't build any better planes, any better tanks, or strong air defenses... none of which are very logical assumptions.
>>28605484
>they had 110 - and that was without a war economy.
Nuke production and research wasn't cut or affected in any way by the war ending
>>28605542
Actually it was already designed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Ta_183
>>28605375
Germany still wouldn't have control over the Med and have to rely on Vichy France and Italy. It'd change the nature of the war, but ultimately Germany would still have to defend a massive amount of coastline. The problem with these scenarios is that they mostly assume that, aside from the change indicated in the premise, events of the war are static. More than likely you'd see a lot more raids and the primary invasion focus would be on Italy and Greece, Operation Dragoon, and, if Turkey abandons neutrality in this scenario, the Black Sea.
>>28605582
>if Turkey abandons neutrality in this scenario, the Black Sea.
Unless Turkey sided with the Axis powers,
>>28605555
Alright then. 25 nukes instead of 100. Still would've cleared quite the path for a landing. Who cares about radiation anyways? It's a better alternative then just letting the poor fuckers die by MG42.
>stomach the casualties
They probably wouldn't. More bombs then.
>better planes
They simply couldn't outdesign the Allies. See: Meteor.
>better tanks
Hitler was stupid, both for tanks and planes. Anyways, as long as he's in charge, there will be no sensible medium tank, which the Germans need. It's highly likely they'll just waste resources on Konigtigers and developing the Ratte. Meanwhile, they can't build them worth a damn because the USA bombed the bearing factory. Again.
>air defenses
Won't be enough. They already had massive airdefense, it still wasn't enough to stop the Allied bombing. They need wings in the air to do that, and they can't outproduce or outdesign the Allies.
>>28605567
How many flights did that make again?
>>28603533
But Britbongs WWII history is nothing but shame.
>>28605596
That would mean determining how the position of the SU in this scenario, if the SU is neutral then Turkey joining either side brings it into conflict with the SU. If the SU is Axis-aligned then it probably already invaded Turkey.
>>28605269
It wasn't entirely Hitler that was the one to change over from bombing RAF airfields to terror bombings, it was with the continued 'totally rad and effective idea, man' egging on of Göring and his cadre at the Luftwaffe that allowed for the obviously pointless plan to continue. Hitler was a stubborn man but if the right person told him to fuck off he usually did but the infighting and backstabbing is what really poisoned any effective planning.
There was a decent amount of flotsam at the top of command and killing one person wouldn't end it. But if the continued destruction of the RAF had continued what would have more than likely happened would be the expedient entry of the US into Briton to shore up defenses becasue airpower doesn't hold land and trying to bomb them into capitulation doesn't really work. It would severely erode British ability to fight back they had an entire Commonwealth to draw men and supplies from and an extremely powerful ally in the US.
>>28605201
>With German tech of the time, nazis would have probably produce stuff that could exceed Sabre in its capabilities.
Germans had tons of unfinished advanced weapons projects. Some of 'em took couple decades to mature into useful weapons with lot more R&D resources. Yes, they had Ta-183 in works, it was to be equipped with air to air missiles... command guided by pilot. Just getting much simpler for pilot to use semi-active radar guided missiles to be reliable took digital fire control system... that happened around same time as F-14 and F-15 entered service.
The best high altitude interceptor Germans had during war was Ta-152, it was high altitude optimized FW-190. Intercepting B-36 in daylight with it would have been seriously hard thing to do. In darkness... impossible on light daylight fighter.
>>28605511
F-86 and MiG-15 like fighter Germans had under development at end of war was Ta-183. Entirely different design than Me-262. It took another decade for Kurt Tank to develop it into useful level after war in Argentine and it only barely met original specification... with mature British engine that was twice as powerful than originally intended engine.
>>28605597
>They simply couldn't outdesign the Allies. See: Meteor.
Actually that was due to the fact that Hitler's fascist model sucked balls in wartime, as well was corporate douchebaggery.
Hitler fostered competition and rivalry at all levels of government. It worked in peacetime because it drove people's ambitions and made them compete against each other to be the best.
But that behavior continued into the war, and hindered things drastically.
For example, each major airplane firm competed with each other to design the next fighter or bomber for the government, sabotaging each other literally, and politically by playing for favoratism with various party officials.
Contrast this with US arms production. When they settled on the B-17, EVERYONE got to build them. Not just the firm that designed them. Everyone got to make money, everyone contributed to the war effort.
The Nazis also had problems with standardizing equipment, which is why by the end of the war they had 50 different types of truck in service. While the Allies were using 2, and both of those had interchangeable parts.
If the Germans hadn't completely fucked their equipment policies, they would have had jet aircraft 10 years before anyone else in the world.
So yes they could outdesign the Allies, but they couldn't apply anything in reality because of various bureaucratic and business level bullshit that held them back and nullified all of the the technical expertise they had over everyone else.
>MFW I realize that half the reason the Nazis lost
>was because they had a shitty Military Industrial Complex like we do now
>>28603480
Oh look.
Someone made a list of all the shit the burgers sent them.
This list came from russias own mouth so you know they reported exactly what was sent and dident fudge any numbers to try and make themselves look like they dident need burgger jiz to guzzle down in win.
for fucks sake annon before murrica got involved with soviets their tank crews were using fucking signal flags to communicate.
without american indursty thrusting its giant throbing cock into stallins ass the commie forces would have been running out of everything and germans would have just curb stomped them back to moscow while still being able to capture the oil fields he needed.
>>28605659
It wasn't just Hitler that made the system, it was years and years of ingrained military industrial fuckery. You shoot Hitler and declare war with a more representative leadership and you will still run into production problems becasue the American system was pretty much only used in the US.
>>28604231
>Without Italy fucking up in Africa, Rommel wouldn't have been in Africa in first place.
Rommel was in that shithole because hitler had a personal dislike for him and put him on what he viewed as the least important front.
Why is no one talking about casualties? The amount of manpower needed to defeat a Wehrmacht unhindered by losses on the Eastern Front would be enormous.
I don't think the American public would've had the stomach for expending literally millions of lives to defeat Hitler.
>>28605722
Not if you just go full Imperial Guard and bomb the everloving shit out of them.
>>28605678
Fuck me i forgot to post the link.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/pearl/www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/lend.html
>>28603336
>Lost in Vietnam
>True, no matter what burger apologists say
Entire post discredited.
>Called the game too early ("mission accomplished!) in Gulf War 2.0
>Bush should be hanged for starting that
Oh you're an edgelord, nothing to see here.
>>28602961
Yeah, it would have just taken longer.
As the Japanese found out the hard way, America has a mind numbing capacity for building and fielding fuckall huge armies. The Japs ignored that and after making early gains, got slowly ground to dust by an industrial complex that could shit entire fleets in the time it took other nations to make ships.
The Soviets did a bangup job against the Germans and unarguably shortened the war by years, but even without a second front, the Germans were inevitably fucked the moment we joined the war. We would have simply fielded more tanks and ships and planes and swamped them in the end.
>>28605722
Wait until 1946. Win air superiority, nuke everything, all at once.
>>28605722
The bombing campaign would have simply continued until Manhattan was finished, at which point we would have turned Europe into a cinder.
>>28603664
It still would have taken the Germans massive, massive losses/lots and lots of time to invade Britain.
There's no getting around them losing the BoB and their utter lack of a proper surface fleet after most of it got sunk in Norway.
Not to mention that it'd be an all or nothing battle for Britain, so they're not going to hold back. Once you got surface units in amongst those hilariously inadequate barges it would have been a slaughter.
At some point us Bongs might even have gotten over the entire 'Well we can't deploy Indians to the main theatres of war, that's just not cricket old chap' business, we'd have had a shitload of manpower.
>>28605722
The public back then was a very different one than the one now or even 15 years after the war. You have to remember the military controlled what got sent out in press releases and Congress was in full support of the war, They were prepared to eat a lot of dead men for a fucking island that killed a relatively small amount of people, imagine what they would have done if they were told that shit was Lord of the Rings style last battle for freedom and liberty worldwide. Hell, the shit that happened during the Cold War was against a former 'friend'.
But I am not American so I may be misreading the social mood.
>>28605744
>>28605800
We did that save for the nukes, and the casualty ratios were still either equal or slightly in favor for the Germans in 1944/45 against battered veterans and raw teenage recruits. Against the cream and flower of the German army, it would've been even more unfair.
>>28605659
>they would have had jet aircraft 10 years before anyone else in the world.
You mean they would have developed jet aircraft several years before Hans von Ohain developed his design for a jet engine?
>>28605555
>Bankrupt itself
> National debt never passed 100% of GDP
> funded most of German and Japanese post war government
> Marshall plan
US was nowhere near bankrupt after WW2, not like Germany which had national debt at 300% before Barbarosa, and kept getting worse from there.
>>28605820
India wasn't fielded to that large of an extent because it was near the point of revolution and the troops that were produced were mostly unmotivated and shit.
>>28605833
You don't need to invade at all.
Turn the German heartland into a nuclear wasteland a bit at a time and demand unconditional surrender.
>>28605833
Except that without the SU getting involved in the war the "cream and flower" of the German Army would be largely untested and not fighting against an enemy paralyzed by officer purges and inflexible leadership.
>>28603037
>, at almost any point in the war victory could have gone to the Germans.
hahaaaa
>>28605345
No it doesn't you stupid fuck. Just because one country can walk away doesn't change the idea that if you start shit your going to die.
The end result is STILL that nobody starts shit.
>>28603664
>The battle of Britain went bad for the Germans because they were actively preparing for Barbarossa. Without it, they could've developed strategic bombers to destroy British targets, swap Brits with fighters, invest more into it's Navy and so forth.
Absolute bullshit. They didn't start actively preparing till December 1940, long after the battle of Britain had ended.
>>28604813
>Hitler hated them from his experience in WW1
That part is pop-history bullshit
>and issued a command that chemical/biological weapons were not to be used, at all, during the war.
And this is explained by Albert Speer telling Hitler it was best not to use chemicals because the allies had more of them.
>>28605823
You're reading it right.
My grandfather lost two brothers in that war and believe me, not a single fuck was given so long as they died killing Nazis. I had a great uncle who was 30 years old and could have just stayed home with his family, but instead got a special dispensation to join the Navy because he worked with radars as a civilian and really, really wanted to kill Japs. Another great uncle left his family and his business and went to build Liberty Ships in Mobile for pennies on the dollar to what he'd been making.
We are a lazy, indulgent, shiftless mishmash of cultures and competing social theories, but when you really piss the United States off, you might as well just kill yourself. Because we're not going to stop. We're going to build ships, tanks and planes like geese drop turds and we're going to sail over and beat the fuck out of you. And we're going to love every goddamned minute of it.
>>28605882
The German Army had invaluable experience after the campaigns in Poland and France. Let's be real here, the American Army would've been even greener and more inexperienced than the German Army.
My entire point is that defeating the German Army requires more than "lel we bomb u!" and while American casualties wouldn't have been as high as the Red Army's, it still would've required an inordinate amount of casualties that the US had never experienced as our time spent in WWI was merely a fraction of what the other powers had gone through.
>>28605893
So, you're not going to start, but it does complicate matters.
Say you want to start lobbing nukes. Do you only target the one enemy you're now aiming at, or do you dilute the charge, and also aim at the third party, so nobody wins? What's the protocol for retaliation? This would be interesting as fuck.
>>28605920
>Speer
>saying he couldn't outproduce the Allies
Yeah, I'm going to need sauce right there. Seems highly unlikely he'd ever say such a thing.
>>28602961
If the Germans won in the east they would have swept down into Africa via the Caucasus, which is what Rommel was banking on after he realized he'd blown it.
>>28603223
Mien Niggah, Hitler got gassed while a German soldier. As a matter of fact he heard that the armistice was declared while in a hospital due to being blinded in a gas attack.
>>28605446
A lot of those kind of people think he was the mastermind behind and planed out the 9/11 attacks and pulled it off without a hitch.
To the point where he was able to make anyone who says he did it look like a nut job.
just so he could go to a sand box and kill some brown people.
Then 10 seconds later these same people call him a stumbling bubmling idiot that screw up everything he ever touched.
>>28605935
They had invaluable experience shooting horses and fucking French women.
Invading Russia was a fucking nightmare the moment the Russians managed to slow them down.
>>28605935
Why do we need to invade if we can reduce the population of Berlin to zero in an afternoon by late 45.
Do that, drop fliers in other places saying "you're next", demand unconditional surrender.
Drop fliers on the troops telling them to call home and find what's going on.
>>28605882
>>28605965
Pretty much any military that is fighting on familiar and home turf is going to do much better than ones on the attack and experience is something that is gained pretty quickly. If the US entered the war and the Soviet Union didn't mangle the Germans' right arm it would be a grinding battle, especially if you try to enter Germany proper.
dream on fritz
>>28605965
It's obvious you're not interested in a serious discussion, at least I tried. Put down the internet meme history and try learning something that isn't entirely related to boosting your self-esteem as an American. Fuck you.
>>28602961
No. All the resources that were spent in the East could have been used in the West. Just imagine all the megatons of steel and millions of soldiers being used for the Battle of the Atlantic instead. Dönitz would have gotten his fleet of 900 uboats that he always wanted. This would have strangled Britain into submission. Thus, no more unsinkable aircraft carrier right in front of the continent which would eliminate all US invasion plans.
>>28605963
> presidents
> winning wars
Nope. Not even.
The modern American President is a rubber stamp man for his party. He does not plan or execute wars. He just signs on the dotted line.
Dubya is a nice guy. Probably, after Johnson or Grant, the funnest president to get drunk and shoot the shit with. And he's not exactly retarded, but he's pretty damned far from smart. He's a rich Texas party boy who went where and did what he was told. And he's not that much different from any other president since, say, Eisenhower. Maybe Johnson.
>>28606014
You mad, bro?
The French and Poles barely slowed the Germans down. Actually, they didn't do that. The Germans didn't have to deal with anything really tough until they ran into millions of Soviet bullet sponges.
>>28606024
M8
motherfucking Nixon.
The last president who did shit by himself.
Axed China from the Soviets with one visit and some ping pong.
Got the Soviets so nervous they invited him to Moscow.
>>28606023
All resources spent in the West would likely have been mismanaged, as per German SOP.
Millions of men? Not as if Germany could defeat the USA alone on their amount of men. Sure, almost 12 million Slavs died on the Eastern front. You cannot expect a better-armed, better-trained American to die as easily as a barely educated Russian. Besides, US, UK and Canadian Army (and population) size would've been enough to take 12million casualties if it got down to a meatgrinder. The Germans were combat ineffective after 6.
U-bats was an arms race. One that could not effectively be won by either side. Britain would not starve. In fact, they weren't even that much affected. They had the least rationing of all of Europe in WW2. Even if there had been more U-boats, US and Canada would just have sent ships untill the U-boats ran out of torpedos.
>>28606023
A redirection of men and materiel from the east to the west doesn't magic up additional resources or production capacity. You'd have seen a massive amount of material and manpower put into the Atlantic Wall.
>>28606023
>Just short of 70% of all artillery munitions in late 43 and on was devoted entirely to AA guns on the western front to protect strategic targets
>but the Allies didn't encounter any resistance
>>28606113
>All resources spent in the West would likely have been mismanaged, as per German SOP.
German tactics were the best of all the participants of the war. The errors of Germany lay in the strategic domain. The premise of OP was removing that weakness.
>Millions of men?
Yes. Never heard of the Eastern front?
>Not as if Germany could defeat the USA alone on their amount of men.
That was never the question. the question was if the USA cold have defeated Germany if USSR was not involved and the answer is a clear no. Whether Germany could defeat the USA was never a consideration of the scenario in discussion. In truth, neither could have hurt the other on their continent.
>Sure, almost 12 million Slavs died on the Eastern front. You cannot expect a better-armed, better-trained American to die as easily as a barely educated Russian.
America saw nothing of the war. WWII was largely a German-Russian war. Where do you think Germany used its most elite troops, the large majority of its equipment, ammunition, resources, etc? I even attached a pic explaining the huge imbalance for crying out lout. And you're still asking "Millions of men?" as if the Eastern front never happened.
>Besides, US, UK and Canadian Army (and population) size would've been enough to take 12million casualties if it got down to a meatgrinder.
How would they go across the Atlantic when Britain is strangled into submission by a fleet of 900+ uboats and taken out of the fight, when thus the mid-atlantic gap widens to a gap that stretches up to Europe's shores?
>U-bats was an arms race. One that could not effectively be won by either side. Britain would not starve. In fact, they weren't even that much affected. They had the least rationing of all of Europe in WW2. Even if there had been more U-boats, US and Canada would just have sent ships untill the U-boats ran out of torpedos.
You have no idea how little Hitler cared about the Battle of the Atlantic and how that would have changed the war.
>>28606219
> MFW Germany spent less than 15% of wartime production on all ground vehicles
> over 50% spent on Fighters and AAA to try to stop the Bombers.
> more money spent on building subs to starve Britain than Tanks to fight the Soviets
>>28606179
Something like 80% of German imports before Barbarossa came from the USSR. You have no idea how Germany shot itself in the foot by attacking the Soviets.
>>28606023
That is actually a really interesting question, if the U-Boat program became the monster the Allies made it out to be what would be the result?
Obviously the sinking of civilian merchant vessels would be very hard to excuse and would enrage the US and air drops would help relieve at least some of the strangulation. But counter submarine warfare would reach amazing proportions and depending on how fast the Germans could retrofit the designs it would be a close one until the Allies got the upper hand in Radar and Sonar.
>>28606113
I don't think it would be as simple as spamming ships, it would probably be a combination of counter sub warfare and larger convoys. The technical limitations of subs meant that an chance of an attack against the US would be low (would severely piss them off though) but the damage to ports and boats in the UK would be a very real threat. Though the US might be able to counter by bombing german sub ports the combined Air battle and the Sea battle would challenge the strategy of the British airstrip.
>>28606293
>there was no aerial war in the East
>>28606272
>You have no idea how little Hitler cared about the Battle of the Atlantic and how that would have changed the war.
Cared about it enough to spend more money on Uboats than Panzers
> How would they go across the Atlantic when Britain is strangled into submission by a fleet of 900+ uboats and taken out of the fight, when thus the mid-atlantic gap widens to a gap that stretches up to Europe's shores?
> mfw when 80% of all U-boats were sunk
> mfw when a single escort carrier group sinkes 4 U-boats on one convoy
> MFW when 2,800 are built and each only take 40 days.
>>28606324
>The Soviets didn't get their shit pushed in by a third of the luftwaffe that was on the western front to the point that the Ace of Aces said that it was boring killing subhumans that weren't even taught defensive aerial maneuvers and didn't even break formation so the entire squad could be easily destroyed in turn
>>28606324
Might as well not have been considering how little they lost in the east.
>>28606293
I think the U-boat is a somewhat overrated weapon once the war actually kicked up full swing and the US and co. began to become the hunters and not the hunted with more advanced sonar and radar. There are only a limited amount of sensible shipping routes and that is a double edged sword in defense and offense.
>>28606351
That's why I think it's funny. They spent so much on Uboats and then it didn't work.
Hence the emphasis on "try".
>>28606316
>air drops
from where?
Supplying all of Britain during a war is something different than supplying Berlin in peace.
>depending on how fast the Germans could retrofit the designs it would be a close one until the Allies got the upper hand in Radar and Sonar.
According to this American submariner the move-countermove cycle was always increasing in speed and the Allies were "saved by the bell":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLmM8PK2bos
And that was with Germany's attention largely on the East, not like in this thread's scenario.
>>28606347
>the warring parties in the East never increased the size of their forces
>>28606272
>In truth, neither could have hurt the other on their continent.
Except for the strategic bombings, naval actions, and raids that the USA could pull off but the Germans couldn't. You're also not explaining how Germany is making those 900 submarines in a period of time to stop Lend-Lease, which started four months before Barbarossa. At the very least, you're talking about tripling the number of U-Boats constructed by 1942.
>>28606324
Only a quarter of the Luftwaffe was involved in the East.
>>28606417
>strategic bombings
from where?
>raids that the USA could pull off but the Germans couldn't
The Germans could pull off raids in the Gulf of Mexico
>You're also not explaining how Germany is making those 900 submarines
Hitler was always preparing for a great land war. Of all the wars he fought, the one gainst the USSR was the only one he wanted to fight. No scroll up again to read the premise of this discussion.
>>28606272
>The errors of Germany lay in the strategic domain. The premise of OP was removing that weakness.
No, the premise of the OP was
>Could USA have defeated Germany if USSR was not involved?
Meaning the resources used in that front are directed elsewhere, but all other constraints remain the same, notably economic and raw materials. Leading us to:
>In truth, neither could have hurt the other on their continent.
Except the US could have, because Germany could never have denied access to the sea, since
>How would they go across the Atlantic when Britain is strangled into submission by a fleet of 900+ uboats
back then as today the best ASW platform was aircraft, and Germany's naval aviation was token at best.
>>28603336
>Bush should be hanged for starting that
Nigga had some Aluminum tubes!
>>28606393
What are you even trying to say?
That chart is not strength, it's losses. Germany can have a million planes in the east and the chart would say 100 if the Soviets only shot down 100 planes.
What it does show is that the VVS sucked at shooting down German fighters, and that the vast majority of Luftwaffe's fighter wings were in the west.
>>28606469
>Meaning the resources used in that front are directed elsewhere, but all other constraints remain the same, notably economic and raw materials.
see: >>28606306
>>28606453
You're still talking about tripling real world production of U-boats within a few years. If anything, the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe would be weaker in this scenario due to that massive material and manpower needed to pull that off. We're talking, "impact the invasion of Poland and France," amounts of resource shifting.
>>28606382
Thanks for the vid, that's actually really neat how the risk of detection and sinking is what was the main deterrent of U-Boats, though the cameraman really needs to learn the the presenter is secondary to the fucking presentation.
>>28606561
Don't ask that kind of question about Wehraboos, in their mind production works just like Hearts of Iron. You can build retool factories from building tanks to Uboats instantly., Once the production bar is done, you click deploy and the Uboat appears fully assembled in port.
You don't have to build specific production infrastructure because all factories make everything.
>>28606616
Hey now, the Germans actually did use that method for the Type XXI U-boats, granted it meant that out of 118 subs constructed only four were fit for service by war's end.
>>28606692
Everyone did pre-fab ship building. Even then there's considerable time needed to put all the things together in an actual shipyard.
Even harder when said shipyard is being bombed and so are the railroads bringing in the prefab parts.
>>28606721
I know, but the Germans farmed out a lot of the work on the pre-fab sections to factories that had zero experience in ship, especially sub, building.
>>28606734
So the results were... sub-par?
>>28606382
>from where?
Closest I can think of is Iceland via Canada and that would be a bit of a stretch, though it is one of the more humorous invasions in WWII.
>>28606748
Excelsior.
>>28605750
>Entire post discredited.
Vietnam War is proof that war can be lost while winning 90% of battles. It's all about politics and media how US lost it. In the end almost entire region turned commie as neighboring countries were destabilized by Vietnam War. The very thing US was trying to prevent from happening.
>>28605920
>And this is explained by Albert Speer telling Hitler it was best not to use chemicals because the allies had more of them.
Göring rationalized lack of chemical warfare on fact that German logistics relied on horses a lot. Their own chemical warfare would have fucked 'em up far worse than allies... before any allied reaction to said chemical warfare. There are gas masks for horses, but horses aren't pulling anything heavy while wearing it. Gun that would normally be drawn by 4 horses would require dozen with gas masks.
>>28606023
>Dönitz would have gotten his fleet of 900 uboats that he always wanted.
He assumed 300 would be enough to win war... he got 'em and still lost the battle of Atlantic, mostly against Canadians, because of radars, sonars, hedgehogs, HF/DF and Bletchley Park + bunch of Polish mathematicians.
>This would have strangled Britain into submission. Thus, no more unsinkable aircraft carrier right in front of the continent which would eliminate all US invasion plans.
US had planned for case UK folded. Work on B-35 and B-36 underway even before Pearl Harbor and US joining the war. US could have started strategic bombing campaign on Germany without having airbases on same hemisphere.
>>28606113
You shouldn't forget about all the people Free French could pull from their colonies under allied control to meat grinder. A seriously forgotten part of both world wars.
>>28606751
That would require fueling stations that again must be supplied via tankers that are incredibly vulnerable to subs and would be easy targets for an increased submarine fleet that can patrol the waters via ports in Norway.
>>28602961
Probably, because the USA had much more industrial capability,and they couldn't be bombed. Combined with a large-ish population and lots of untouchable farmland, and you got a recipe for success.
>>28606768
>mostly against Canadians
There's one person on /k/ that keeps saying this, I assume it's the same person.
>>28605009
Most Americans don't think that the US single-handedly won the war without any other help from Allies. I'd say a large portion acknowledge that the Russians consumed many German lives and resources on the Eastern Front, but agree that they wouldn't have been as powerful if it hadn't been for the critical resources that we gave them. The aide they received from the Allies was critical in keeping them in the war as a force to be reckoned with.
>>28605944
I was thinking of this too. Sounds like a goldmine for some undercover ops, say, a KGB agent sabotages an American missile facility to fire at Germany? The Germans would retaliate against America, naturally, but would they target Russia so that they couldn't move in on the broken nations' remains? Sounds like a Tom Clancy book.
>>28605930
I'm usually a salry brirbong when it comes to 'America, fuck yeah!' comments, but fuck me, that gave me a small patriot boner and I'm not even a yank.
Keep it up you mad, far-to-upbeat bastards.
>>28606316
>That is actually a really interesting question, if the U-Boat program became the monster the Allies made it out to be what would be the result?
>Obviously the sinking of civilian merchant vessels would be very hard to excuse and would enrage the US and air drops would help relieve at least some of the strangulation. But counter submarine warfare would reach amazing proportions and depending on how fast the Germans could retrofit the designs it would be a close one until the Allies got the upper hand in Radar and Sonar.
To sum up the Battle of Atlantic in WWII we end up with rather confusing events. Allies fucked up a lot. US entry to war made everything easier for Germans for a while. Post Pearl Harbor panic caused US Navy to relocate lot of their Atlantic Fleet to Pacific... that combined with the fact US Atlantic fleet was ran by an idiot meant that shipping on US east coast was run without convoys. That meant that escorting anything was ineffective.
Once Royal Navy and RAF got their shit together Germans ceased to operate near British Isles. That left western Atlantic as easy operational area to U-boats. Royal Canadian Navy wasn't priority in equipping ships with new sonars or radars, their job was generally to escort convoys to Iceland, where Royal Navy took over, generally RN spread it's resources to escort convoys to UK and from UK to Mediterranean. At that time there were gaps in air patrol coverage, mostly done by RAF using B-24's that they saw as inadequate bomber better utilized as ASW aircraft. U-boats got fucked after US east coast shipping was ran with convoys, Canadian Navy escorting until Iceland and RAF doing air cover.
IMHO one of biggest mistakes was distribution of radar and sonar equipment. RCN was too low on distribution priority.
>>28603301
True
We tried the peaceful method of embargo first. Then got dragged in.
We and Australia took an entire fucking theater and still managed to kick ass in Europe at the same time.
Fuck you.
Can't say I know enough to make a comment on Korea, however I'd like to say that there's still a South Korea now no matter what you say.
k/D ratio. 'Nuf said.
Central Americas "little kids" we're dictators and shit. Noriega had it coming. We kicked ass.
We dun fucked up in Somalia, but nobody else did a damn thing either, and it was a fucking UN mission to begin with
I haven't studied the gulf war much/at all, but I'm pretty sure Saddam's dead as fuck.
2.0, same thing, but then again like I said I don't know much if anything about those wars.
Afghanistan we were winning, just like Vietnam, but we refused to say "fuck it, the things these people believe are the problem and not just the leaders. Bomb the entire damn place to a lower level of hell and kill everything, good or bad"
>>28602961
Could USA have defeated Germany if USSR was not involved?
>Depends how define defeat
Would USA be willing to invade occupied Europe if USSR was not already steaming toward Berlin?
>Dunno about willing but given that according to wikipedia, allied strenght during invasion of normandy was1,332,000 (by 24 July 1944) and Axis 380,000 (by 23 July). And even germany facing this superior amount of troops, both lost around 120k. At the same time 2.5million germans were facing 6.5million soviets in easterm front. Without east draining german resources had west front faced much much more stronger opponent. Also germany probably could import critical stuff such as fuel from soviets. They actually had to abandon tanks due to fuel shortages. I think unless allied sent atleast 10x the force they sent originally to normandy, they would have failed. Casualties would have been huge and i doubt american homefront would be so intrested to fight a war across the atlantic which didnt really affect them anyway
With Germany not occupied in the East, where could USA invade? Possibly mediterranean but i think same applies here as in normandy
Would stratetic bombing even be viable in such case? (lossess due to LW not being tier in the East)
>B-36 had its first prototype fly in 1946 and germany had some protypes for amerika bomber during the war. Amerika bomber had probably seen much more funding in this situation too. Also possible inter continental rocket would have been possible for germans in couple of years. I think only option had been nuclear strike but brits might have not consented that(they did consent hiroshime/nagasagi) in fear of german chemical weapon retaliation.
Could USA endure the casualties and protracted war it would face without Russian involvement?
>Doubt it, i dont think americans would have been keen send millions to die in europe
>>28602961
>Could USA have defeated Germany if USSR was not involved?
If you believe Albert Speer the Anglo-American bombing campaign could have defeated Germany by itself had they focused day (US) and night (RAF) on oil targets.
>After the war, Speer told American interrogators that a full-out offensive against the synthetic plants by the combined air armadas of England and America—closely spaced raids, night and day, without cease—could [alone] have brought about Germany’s surrender... in eight weeks.
This is obviously an exaggeration, but for most of the war bombing command did believe they could win the war through the air without a land invasion. A prolonged war would have seen atomic and napalm bombing of Germany, so it's not impossible.
>>28602988
>They would have probably still landed in France while pushing up through Italy.
Damn, this is quite possibly the most retarded thing I've ever read.
How exactly are the Americans supposed to land on the beaches with the *entire German army and air force* opposing them?
>>28606815
>There's one person on /k/ that keeps saying this, I assume it's the same person.
Royal Canadian Navy ran convoys from New Foundland to Iceland. They started with half dozen destroyers and ended up with fuckload of destroyers and corvettes. They got shittiest part of Atlantic to escort convoys on and somehow managed to do it, with extreme dilution of experienced sailors, while being pretty much lowest priority in distributing new equipment in naval forces of British Empire.
I'll doubt it's one person. First of all it's first time I'm discussing this on /k/. Secondly, I'm not even Canadian. Pretty much everything Canadian army did in WWII pales in comparison to what their navy did in Atlantic. Normandy or shit that happened in Italy.
>>28607442
Consider also how difficult Normandy would have been if the Luftwaffe was able to oppose the landings. Without the war in the East, far more resources would have been available to sustain them, making Normandy a far more tenuous proposition.
The Royal Navy absolutely precludes any German invasion of the UK. For obvious reasons a German invasion of the US continent is also out of the question. A cross-channel invasion is very unlikely to succeed against the full force of the Germans, so we'd be at a standstill. Nuclear weapons aren't the game changer everyone thinks they are. The USA used their first three weapons (test, hiro, nagasaki) and that was it for a long time. They were producing more but it took years, so this wouldn't have been an easy end to the war either. To be honest I think it would have settled down into a stalemate and ended in a political solution when all sides realized it would never end. There wasn't really any reason for the Germans to fight USA or UK, or vice versa.
>>28603422
WW1 shows that they couldn't beat the Germans on their own terms.
Germans were so close to beating the USSR, that lend-lease did really make the difference.
>>28607571
This. Italy was hard fought for by the Germans, but Northern France was practically a skeleton crew. Had Germany and Russia somehow come to terms for long-term peace, an invasion of France and Italy would have been almost impossible. The number of aircraft would have made day and night bombing of continental Europe so hazardous as to be reserved for only the most crucial of targets.
It would have been a totally different war.
>>28607645
At that point it would have actually been easier to convince Russia to go to war with Germany than to invade Europe by sea.
>>28607586
Why do I pick a date and see most German submarines being sunk by the Royal Navy
>>28607571
Bomb and she'll the ever living shit out of everything and force them to pull back from the landing zones, bring in tons of artillery to support the assaults further inland, and keep on pushing.
Once the Suez Canal is cut off, the Germans are going to have the same production problems, they just won't have the Soviets kicking their asses to make them put a fire under their engineer's asses to make bigger and dumber machines.
>>28607595
>The USA used their first three weapons (test, hiro, nagasaki) and that was it for a long time. They were producing more but it took years, so this wouldn't have been an easy end to the war either.
They planned to have another bomb ready on August 19, three more in September, and another three in October.
>>28606815
Are you stupid?
>>28607682
Because the Canadians were part of the Royal Navy? They weren't two different organizations in the war.
Continued from >>28607554
>>28602961
>Would stratetic bombing even be viable in such case? (lossess due to LW not being tier in the East)
The Luftwaffe was destroyed by a war of attrition in the air over western Europe, but you don't need to hypothesize about this because we know what effect strategic bombing had prior to Overlord, as the records survived.
>The oil war had been won. Synthetic plants were down to 6 percent of normal output and production of aviation gasoline had stopped altogether. The oil campaign clipped the wings of the Luftwaffe and impaired the Wehrmacht’s mobility, preventing it from protecting coal resources that powered the synthetic plants.
>Germany’s river and canal network had been disabled and its rail system was in ruins, and with it, the coal industry that powered the economy. Allied airpower’s slow strangulation of rail and river systems was probably the greatest single cause of Germany’s economic collapse. No nation today can prevail in a total war without an industrial economy, and Germany did not have one in early 1945. It had almost no oil, and although it had plenty of coal, Allied airpower made it impossible for Germany to move it. “Even a first-class military power—rugged and resilient as Germany was—cannot live long under the full-scale and free exploitation of air weapons over the heart of its territory.” For the first time in modern history the economy of a world power had been utterly destroyed, and along with it, all of that country’s major cities.
None of this is predicated on the Russian front. If anything the additional fighters would have meant Hitler's insistence on transferring resources into flak gun and jet production would have happened sooner, but the US would have responded by shipping B29s to Europe instead of the pacific. They flew at 40,000 ft, an altitude Me 262's struggled to perform at. Fuel consumption also limited 262's to within 25 miles of their bases.
>>28607809
Even the imported oil from Romania (60% of all German oil), something people often mistake as being cut off by the Red Army, was reduced to only 10% production by the American Fifteenth Air force.
>>28602961
Germans were running out of fuel reserves. They were siphoning all the automobiles they could near the end of the war.
They had millions of pissed civilians behind their borders. More than fifty times their volume in soldiers.
They had no less than 26 attempts on Hitlers life from other germans at this point. Ranking as high as general.
It was doomed near the end. Either way.
>>28607940
>>28607908
>>28607809
In this scenario fuel could be imported from soviet union along other resources and would be harder to stop.
>>28602961
Slightly related:
Anyone wonder what a turreted version of a jagtiger or sturmtigwr would look if they for example turned the armored superstructure into a slow moving turret, like if someone wanted to modernize the design and gave the Germans today's modern materials and unlimited resources to make whatever they wanted?
>>28608174
>turreted version of a jagtiger
Body of JT + turret = KT
Gun of JT in a turret + new chassis = Maus
>>28608319
Now imagine one of these with a turret.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmtiger
>>28608470
>Sturmtiger
Why??? It's just a howitzer for fortification destruction. Long as fuck reload, slow muzzle velocity (so you can't hit mobile targets at any range). A turret isn't needed to blow up bunkers.
People kept saying that the US had so much more economic power than everyone else, but why?
European countries were around for much longer and had much more developed infrastructure, surely? The UK should have had access to much more resources as it had a whole empire including colonies to draw on.
But the US somehow grew from a backwards colony into a superpower that eclipsed the british empire in less than 150 years?
>>28608512
Because the US is fucking enormous and filled with resources and really really hard to bomb and had a large and relatively well educated populace that could convert their established industries already largely centered around converting raw resources into goods for wartime industries.
>>28605963
I think the point was mostly going against Iraq, which was an enemy of Al-Qaida at the time.
>>28608557
>backwards colony more educated than european nations with much older universities
>>28608593
people educated in these universities went to america and applied their knowledge.
>>28608593
A hundred and fifty years ago. By the time of WWII they were far and away the largest economy in the world.
>>28608503
Because 380mm rocket assisted rounds anon.
And nuking enemy formations with this amuses me.
>>28603336
>turned up late for WW1
bait
>Turned up late for WW2
bait
>Couldn't win in Korea
bait
>Lost in Vietnam
Guess fucking what that is
>>28608593
>you have to be incredibly well educated to operate a lathe, a drill press, and a mill
The Americans had a solid higher education class but their economic strength relied on their blue collar industrial might. At the time there were very few Americans, male or female, who could not operate in a factory environment.
They leapt forwards with the concentration of highly educated people after the war which is partially why they maintained their economic edge.
>>28608722
i feel baited by your post.
>>28603037
There are these things called nuclear weapons. The United States was the only country to produce them during the second world war, and using them on Japan was an afterthought. I'll let you figure out the implications yourself.
>>28608620
US states were already close to Britain in terms of GDP in early 19th century. US was far and away the largest and the most influential economy by the mid to late 19th century.
>>28608109
Or the Soviets, being the opportunistic commies that they are, break Molotov-Ribbentrop and invade the Germans after their own military reforms are done.
The other thing is, what does Germany use to buy fuel with? The Soviets are not going to take payment in marks, and the Germans still have to use their gold reserves to buy steel from the Swedes.
What if the US simply goes to the USSR and says "I'll buy any oil you have with valuable dollars, and I'll beat Hitlers price no matter what they offer".
>>28608593
>>28609436
>UK has 2 out of the world's ten best universities
>California has 4
I love that.
>>28609409
IRL Soviets were asking for weapons and tech. So Germany would not only be giving the Soviets time to rearm, but actually helping them be stronger.
>>28609460
Boston itself has as many as all of UK.
>>28603355
>nazis
>more evil than the commies
>>28605244
>The war had been going for 2 years by the time Barbarossa happened.
Yes, but usually it is the Russians crying about how the US was late for the war and did fuck all while glorious comrades depleted Germany's ammo supply one conscript at a time.
>>28608109
If the Sovs take Reichmarks, and even then, cutting the supply lines through Poland won't be much harder than cutting the supply lines from Romania, which the US did with airpower IRL.
>>28606042
>The French and Poles barely slowed the Germans down. Actually, they didn't do that. The Germans didn't have to deal with anything really tough until they ran into millions of Soviet bullet sponges.
Germany suffered worse casualty rate in France than during Barbarossa. And they lost like half of their aircraft.
>>28606453
>The Germans could pull off raids in the Gulf of Mexico
What? Fucking how?
>>28603301
>Couldn't win in Korea
What color is the sky in your world where the Norks and Chicoms won Korea?
>>28608722
Asymmetrical war was not defeat.
>>28602961
More like
>Could Germany have POSSIBLY stood a chance against the might of USA USA USA Power Thrusting?
>>28611377
Wonder how much of /k/ would be cleaning whatever the hell that is off the wall the moment it barged in.
>>28602961
Yes, nukes. The end.
All those dead Russians were a waste of time.
>>28613049
Not as much as you think because the euros are nogunz.
And by the amount of crap posts during the day there are lots of Euros.
>>28611181
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Theater_%28World_War_II%29#Gulf_of_Mexico
>>28602961
thats an E 100
>>28605299
>Nazis had no nuke program
Read more faggot
>>28603301
>turned up late for WW1
We had no real reason to enter in the first place until late in the war, it wasn't our fight until we were provoked.
>turned up late to World War Two
The IJN certainly felt our wrath in the pacific, nazis weren't a threat. Again we didn't join till provoked and contributed greatly to the war effort materially.
>Korea
I would agree... EXCEPT South Korea is a leap and a bound ahead of North Korea in every way except starving to death and gulags and is now one of the worlds richest nations, so I would consider this at least a partial victory (FYI the Chinese didn't exactly win either).
>Lost vietnam
Complex legacy, but it does boil down to "main objective failed". That said no one else really did well there either, not the French nor Chinese.
>South America
We've been playing in South America for a long time, this is status quo stuff, besides there were commies in some areas (contras vs Sandinistas)
>Somalia
Yeah cuz the rest of the world did so much to contribute beforehand, as we all know nations are willing to risk their peoples lives to help African countries, which is why Rwandan genocide ended in hours right??
No one else seemed to do anything, don't bitch about nothing being done then criticize the people who try.
>gulf war 1
We won, saddam negotiated a surrender, that's how lots of wars go. Not every war has to end in regime change and he was a decent foil to Iran.
>gulf war 2
Yep one of the most controversial presidents in recent history said that and immediately people were saying bullshit.
>Afghanistan
Insurgencies are a bitch, the soviets got stuck there too. Nations aren't built in a day, armies aren't trained overnight. You criticize us leaving too early, but then criticize us choosing to stay to ensure our investment isn't wasted by us leaving too soon? What is the ideal COIN length to you? 5 years? 10?
>>28617579
but the mission accomplished thing was for the ship that it was on
>>28617579
>We had no real reason to enter in the first place until late in the war, it wasn't our fight until we were provoked
You were smuggling weapons to an enemy, you weren't provoked, you were looking for a fight.
>>28618346
shh, dispelling myths about bush is heresy
Nope ...
