Jump to content

Alternate History- What if Hitler had not invaded Russia, would Germany still control Western Europe today?


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Detonable said:

Franco wasn’t in favor of fighting over Gibraltar, because it would expose his entire coastline to the Royal Navy, and he had no defense. 
 

However, I guess if the Germans have to occupy a hostile Spain there would be no Barbarossa...

Not only because of that, but because it would lead to the loss of the Canaries and African colonies with nothing to show in exchange, plus the Germans weren't able to supply and feed the Spanish population.

An invasion of Spain (and Portugal) would have to contend with the Spanish Army, a destroyed infrastructure and a hostile population (at a time when there were already guerrillas left over from the Civil War), so yes, it would eat a lot of the manpower that would otherwise be used in Barbarossa, in exchange for 3 naval bases that wouldn't be able to support German warships (as they weren't able to refit the rump fleet left post-Civil war before the end of WW2) and some airbases in Galicia and Portugal that will force the British convoys to go off on the Atlantic before turning South (needless to say, the Azores would also be used by the British, earlier than they historically were).

As can be seen, neither Spain nor the Germans would profit in anything but Glenn's lala land. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

On 1/24/2021 at 3:33 AM, seahawk said:

That would depend on Turkey joining the Axis, otherwise a supply line through a hostile Turkey is Yugoslavia^100 when it comes to dealing with insurgents. One has to accept that there is nothing the German can capture that would tilt the strategic balance in their favour. The more worthless territory they capture the more resources and manpower they need, which weakens their position in Europe. They are limited by raw materials, industrial capacity, manpower and fuel so the resources must be used with high efficiency. Capturing another sand dune is not efficient, shooting down 10-15% of the attacking bombers each day is.

Why would the Soviet Army occupying Turkey in 1942 require Turkish permission for Stalin to reach a deal with the Axis?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

The argument that the German economy would collapse is unrealistic because a police state willing to use force to control an economy can endure longer than the few years Britain had.  It would take a generation or two for the Nazi regime to collapse due to economic factors, like it did with the Soviet Union.

The comparison of the German and Soviet police states is unrealistic because the Soviet Union was not engaged in a war for survival. It also ignores the simple fact that by 1943 the German economy was collapsing and was sustained only by a very unpopular increase to corporate taxes, which proved to be too little, too late.

Quote

Second, the U-boats fought the BOA more or less on their own.  This will not be the case in a purely Anglo-German conflict.  The Axis air forces will take more part in the BOA, and the surface forces would also be more effective as well due to the fall of Gibraltar.

Third, once pressure mines were available in 1944, the British would lose the war at sea.  There was no defense against these, and pressure mines in the approaches to the British ports were not something that a US neutrality patrol could guard against.  The British historically had not defeated the U-boats, and as the newer types came online in late 1944, the war would have gradually swung decisively against the British at sea.

What more "Axis air forces will take more part in the BOA"?

You still haven't demonstrated how Gibraltar falls without Spanish cooperation, which the Germans are unlikely to get.

The German pressure mines, curiously enough, were not used initially due to the conventions in place against such mines. Otherwise, their design was defective, which was only discovered because they were laid as defensive mines on the French coast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Detonable said:

Huh?

On 1/24/2021 at 5:30 PM, RichTO90 said:

The refinery methods available to the Germans were thermal and pressure cracking. As I explained earlier, Europe, with the exception of one small French refinery, did not invest in catalytic cracking, which was the most advanced and expensive refinery technology of the time.

Instead, Germany elected to go with synthetic production via hydrogenation and the Fischer-Tropsch process, augmented by coal tar distillation (a thermal refining method). Heavy fuel oils (HFO) are a residue of the refining process. From 1940-1944, those methods produced 4,093,000 tons of fuel oil. Of that total, 3,253,000 tons (79.5%) were from coal tar distillation. Only 454,000 (11.1%) were produced as the residue of hydrogenation.

Aviation gasoline was produced by crude refining, hyrdogenation, and benzol, which was a mixture of benzene and toluene. However, only hydrogenation produced the high-octane gasoline required for fighter operations. A total of 5,748,000 tons of aviation gasoline were produced by Germany, 5,540,000 tons of it by hydrogenation (96.4%).

So creating more fuel oil in quantity would necessarily require less production of aviation and motor gasoline. Okay, so sacrifice motor gasoline, right? Except that it was the hydrogenated motor gasoline that was further refined as aviation gasoline. So, basically, using the hydrogenation process to produce more fuel oil is a waste of time and threatens the production of aviation gasoline.

No problem, right, instead you next thought is to use less refined crude from Romanian, German, and Austrian production. Except the highly waxed and sulfurous German and Austrian crude was already essentially only produced for fuel oil. That leaves the Romanian crude...fine it only is the source for small cuts of avgas and about 15% of mogas, so sure. Just leave it unrefined so we have more heavy fractions...uh, no, unrefined crude is not fuel oil, it is unrefined crude and has large volatile fractions in it, which, if used as bunker fuel for ships or fuel for furnaces results in very bad things...the Japanese tried to use unrefined light crude from the Dutch wells in ships, it didn't go very well resulting in damaged ships machinery. The same problem applies to Soviet fuels.

The problems the Germans faced with regards to energy production aren't curable by flipping switches on refinery machinery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

The Soviets and Germans had roughly similar aircraft production numbers.  Peak Luftwaffe strength was about 5,500.  Peak Soviet air strength was more like 17,000.  The difference was the level of attrition the LW was suffering against 3 major opponents instead of 1.

Peak Luftwaffe aircraft serviceable strength, excluding training aircraft, was 5,791...on 30 November 1944. In 1940 it averaged 3,271. In 1941 it averaged 2,962. In 1942, it averaged 3,144. In 1943, it averaged 4,082. In 1944, it averaged 4,863.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, RichTO90 said:

Quite possibly, but there was a limit to what effect flak could have and those improvements were incremental through the war. More flak guns and ammunition is unlikely to translate as more aircraft shot down until that happens.

Hardly.  More guns and ammunition would produce more Allied bomber losses in a linear fashion; twice the fire, about twice the casualties. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, seahawk said:

That "What if" needs a sensible German strategy. Not attacking the Soviets but declaring war on the USA seems not sensible. Otherwise we end up with "Nazis being Nazis", but Nazis would attack the Soviets due to Hitler´s vision.

The German strategy would be the total annihilation of the British Empire by Germany, Italy, the USSR and Japan.  The US will not enter the war if the political dynamics are not favorable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, R011 said:

Unless that means a virtual ceasefire against Britain, which is not at all likely, the US would enter the war probably within a year of when they did in real life -either by forcing Germany's hand or just an American Declaration of War as in 1917.

Hitler might be able to compromise on being Hitler, but asking FDR and the American public not to be themselves as well goes too far.

The issue is not what the USA might do.  The issue is what the USSR might do.  It is undamaged, so is in the production league of the United States all on its own.  Those insisting Stalin will attack Germany and bail the British Empire out are simply engaging in hopeful thinking.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, seahawk said:

If you could point out what net result they actually got from the captured Soviet territory? Considering the Soviets destroyed everything of value your theory makes no sense. I linked a pdf before, showing that the only areas with a positive net contribution to the German economy and war effort were under their control in late 1940 anyway.

Invading the Soviet Union cost the Germans far more in resources than were ever extracted from it.  Also, doing so prevented the trade pacts Stalin was wishing to sign in 1941 from happening, costing the Axis untold millions of tons of supplies later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Detonable said:

  Uh, no. I said the oil didn’t need to be hydrogenated. I didn’t say it didn’t need to be refined.  

Rich and I participated in a discussion last year on Axis History Forum where the use of unrefined oil in the Imperial Japanese Navy in 1944 was discussed.   The problem, (IIRC) was high sulfur contaminants in the oil, which made the ships more vulnerable to fuel explosions in battle.  But it was done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bojan said:

As for TEL, there were work-arounds if you needed relatively small quantities of high performance gasoline, but there was no realistic way to make enough to power your whole fighter fleet.

I read the way the Japanese did it was they put two fuel systems into their fighters.  One was the lower grade stuff for training and cruising and various muckings about.  The other was the one reserved exclusively for air combat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

Of course, this scenario would only happen in lala land, as you have handwaved all the issues that precluded Germany doing all the previous steps. 

Germany actually took Crete and there was nothing that could prevent the fall of Gibraltar if Barbarossa was off.  With Crete, Sicily, Sardinia, and Gibraltar, and with the whole strength of the LW without a war in the East, it was game over for the RN in the Med.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, RichTO90 said:

The comparison of the German and Soviet police states is unrealistic because the Soviet Union was not engaged in a war for survival. It also ignores the simple fact that by 1943 the German economy was collapsing and was sustained only by a very unpopular increase to corporate taxes, which proved to be too little, too late.

The German war economy was overheated and strained because it was fighting on two fronts.  The three hammer blows, the establishment of Allied airpower in France, of the loss of France, and Rumania, ain't gonna happen.

Quote

What more "Axis air forces will take more part in the BOA"?

All of the Axis aerial forces committed to Barbarossa will come west.  Some of the bomber force would be assigned to the BOA, more than the historical numbers.

Quote

You still haven't demonstrated how Gibraltar falls without Spanish cooperation, which the Germans are unlikely to get.

No, what's happening is that you are perfectly aware that if Gibraltar falls the British are done in the Med.  So, what we get is a bunch of nonsense that Franco's Spanish army, half of which would probably defect to a German invasion, will somehow perform better than the Yugoslavians did.  

 

Quote

The German pressure mines, curiously enough, were not used initially due to the conventions in place against such mines. Otherwise, their design was defective, which was only discovered because they were laid as defensive mines on the French coast.

After 1944 pressure mines will choke British imports, and argument to the effect that the Germans would not do what they could do, are simply disingenious.  The Type XXI's will start coming in in numbers and the British will be in trouble there as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

Germany actually took Crete and there was nothing that could prevent the fall of Gibraltar if Barbarossa was off.  With Crete, Sicily, Sardinia, and Gibraltar, and with the whole strength of the LW without a war in the East, it was game over for the RN in the Med.

Let's look at your logic in more detail, shall we?

Germany took Minsk, hence they should also have taken Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad - end game for the USSR

Germany took Paris, hence they should also have taken London - end game for the UK

What you still need to demostrate:

- How do they take Gibraltar?

- Why is the whole strength of the LW in the Mediterranean?

- Why the Germans could reinforce the Med but no one else can?

Your non sequiturs are bigger than operation Barbarossa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, seahawk said:

So your link confirms that valuable resources were pumped into an unfinished prestige project that never saw any return for Germany. So please explain how not doing this would have a negative effect on the German economy and industry by 1944.

You would be precisely where you were in 1944, running out of resources. But no disrespect to yourself, you are looking at it the wrong way. What if Germany had won on the Eastern front? If nothing else you would have got the breadbasket of the Ukraine, and unlike the Soviets, probably got it to work. And possibly the caucasus, and the oil there.

None of that would have won the war. But it might have staves off the economic collapse they were facing from blockade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Detonable said:

Isn’t most of the Luftwaffe available from Barbarossa being canceled? Why would the Italian fleet ever go outside air cover?  
 

How does the British fleet survive in the face of an additional 1000 aircraft in the Med?

Probably the same way they survived Dunkirk and Norway I guess.

It's not as if the Luftwaffes bomb aiming against moving targets got much better. The IJN they were not.

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

The German war economy was overheated and strained because it was fighting on two fronts.  The three hammer blows, the establishment of Allied airpower in France, of the loss of France, and Rumania, ain't gonna happen.

All of the Axis aerial forces committed to Barbarossa will come west.  Some of the bomber force would be assigned to the BOA, more than the historical numbers.

No, what's happening is that you are perfectly aware that if Gibraltar falls the British are done in the Med.  So, what we get is a bunch of nonsense that Franco's Spanish army, half of which would probably defect to a German invasion, will somehow perform better than the Yugoslavians did.  

 

After 1944 pressure mines will choke British imports, and argument to the effect that the Germans would not do what they could do, are simply disingenious.  The Type XXI's will start coming in in numbers and the British will be in trouble there as well. 

What about he Suez canal Glenn? It takes longer to get to Cairo, but the route isn't closed. It might even be faster to import supplies from the US West Coast going that way.

Germany was losing the war because it was blockaded. If you read Pierre Clostermans book you can read an account of one such action against a blockade runner. The Germans wouldn't have bothered if they weren't getting desperate.

Pressure mines, yes they tried air dropped ones, and the RN seems to have made a special effort to combat them. You need air superiority to drop mines, and effective U Boats to lay mines. They had neither in 1944, and likely never could have.

So why does the Type 21 arrive earlier in this timeline? Bearing in mind Doenitz rejected evidence radar would make surface attacks impossible till about 1943?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RETAC21 said:

Making a baby in a month by getting 9 women pregnant

If a flak outfit fires 8,000 shells into a bomber stream instead of 4,000 shells, all other things being equal, it can expect to do about twice the amount of damage, on average.  

Edited by glenn239
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RichTO90 said:

Peak Luftwaffe aircraft serviceable strength, excluding training aircraft, was 5,791...on 30 November 1944. In 1940 it averaged 3,271. In 1941 it averaged 2,962. In 1942, it averaged 3,144. In 1943, it averaged 4,082. In 1944, it averaged 4,863.

A quick google check here,

don-caldwell.we.bs/jg26/thtrlosses.htm (don-caldwell.we.bs)

Indicates that the Luftwaffe lost (defined as total losses plus damaged) 27,060 aircraft fighting the Anglo-Americans and 8,600 aircraft fighting the Soviets between September 1943 and October 1944.  It does not break down the losses between the RAF and the USAAF, but assuming about 50/50, that would mean that the RAF accounted for something like 13,500 German aircraft and the USAAF and Soviets accounted for about 22,000.

If the USA and USSR are not in the war, the RAF might shoot down or damage some number of aircraft more  - at great price to the RAF.  But even so, the bulk of the 22,000 will not be shot down because the air forces that did so historically are not in the war.  So, the LW frontline strength against England alone in 1944 is not peaking at less than 6,000, it's rising to past 15,000.

Edited by glenn239
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

None of that would have won the war. But it might have staves off the economic collapse they were facing from blockade.

One day it's the A-bomb they're not going to have, the next it's the blockade that's not going to work.  It's all pixie dust.  The British couldn't win the war without either the USSR or USA coming in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

If a flak outfit fires 8,000 shells into a bomber stream instead of 4,000 shells, all other things being equal, it can expect to do about twice the amount of damage, on average.  

eh, no?

This is basic probability. I won't bother with looking at the statistics for you, but for example, see here:

Suffice to say, it's not linear, to the surprise of no one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...