Rather Controversial.

[Vermelho_Steele]

What would have happended if the Democratic Westerners (The USA, Britain, France, the Scandinavians) had allied with the Axis Powers (Germany, Italy, Japan, Austro-Hunagry) to fight the Soivet Union?

The Nazis had never really wanted to fight the Allies, Hitler knew Germany couldn't have fought a two-fronted war. Both Hitler and the Allies were anti-Communist, so they could have worked together to defeat the Russians.

The way it could have worked is that the West would have supplied the Fascists with weapons and money to fight socialists, when the USSR had crumbled, the Axis Powers would have Germany, Italy, the Blakans, Russia and Finland to cover, with roughly a 100 million people to govern this Axis Empire and defend it's huge empire. There would have been many uprisings against the German imperialists. Exhausted, overextended and damaged the West could use India and France as springboards to then overthrow the Fascists and keep Socialism as a mere fantsy, thus sparing the world of the gulags, secret police and repression of the 'Perfect Workers Paradise'. Japan would be friendless and exhausted form all the fighting in Asia.


So what do you all think of this and what would the world look like if it had happended?

[Scipio Africanus Maximus]

Interesting, but there are a few problems. For one, Hitler and Stalin aggreed to a non-aggression treaty between the two nations. They also agreed to a division of Poland, with Germany taking the western part and USSR taking the east. Hitler originally didn't want a two-front war, and thought the west easier to take, which it was. He then turned his attention east before defeating GB, which is where he really screwed up.

Another interesting question is what would've happened if Operation Sea Lion had been successfully carried out?

[conon394]

What would have happended if the Democratic Westerners (The USA, Britain, France, the Scandinavians) had allied with the Axis Powers (Germany, Italy, Japan, Austro-Hunagry) to fight the Soivet Union?

Umm Austro-Hungary??? You do realize it was long gone right.

I would put this in realm of ‘What ifs’ that are simply too unrealistic to make any sense.

While a certain number of Western leaders no doubt welcomed the rise of the Nazis (and Fascists in Italy) as better than those states going Red there is no rhyme or reason for said Democracies to help Hitler attack the USSR.

The USA was firmly neutral and had no interest in European war. In the interwar period the US did good business with both Germany and Russia.

Britain and France while they might welcome the collapse of the USSR would hardly be exited about a vast German Empire in the east that would upset the balance of power. Again it important to distinguish between – wow its good Germany didn’t go red and wow lets help Germany become so powerful it can dominate Europe.

Another interesting question is what would've happened if Operation Sea Lion had been successfully carried out?

Well seeing as it was more or less imposable I would say no interesting but completely not even realistic.

If it had been attempted no doubt WW2 would have been much shorted. With vast number of Germans dead in the English Channel and the German air force even more reduced in a desperate fight to support the invasion – Hitler would have suffered a catastrophic military and political defeat. He certainly would not be ready for Barbarossa, and Stalin would like move to aggressively renegotiate the M-R pact. The UK is likely not distracted by a German invasion of Greece and so drives Italy out of N Africa and takes the opportunity to capture Vichy North Africa and hand in over to the Free French.

Japan launch no war in 41 since the USSR is not occupied fighting for its like, Germany is and looks weaker and the UK is not so overstretched.

[Scipio Africanus Maximus]

Well seeing as it was more or less imposable I would say no interesting but completely not even realistic.

If it had been attempted no doubt WW2 would have been much shorted. With vast number of Germans dead in the English Channel and the German air force even more reduced in a desperate fight to support the invasion – Hitler would have suffered a catastrophic military and political defeat. He certainly would not be ready for Barbarossa, and Stalin would like move to aggressively renegotiate the M-R pact. The UK is likely not distracted by a German invasion of Greece and so drives Italy out of N Africa and takes the opportunity to capture Vichy North Africa and hand in over to the Free French.

Japan launch no war in 41 since the USSR is not occupied fighting for its like, Germany is and looks weaker and the UK is not so overstretched.

Well, a lot of things were wrong with the plan. For one, it depended heavily on a victory in the Battle of Britain, which obviously didn't happen. Also, the Royal Navy would've probably destroyed either the landing ships before the landing or blocked any resupply. However, what if the Germans had won the air battle? And what if the Germans had been able to hold off the RN? Pretty big "What if's" I know, but still, something to think about.

[Poach]

If you guys wish, I can provide you a link to the transcript from the Wargames the British and Germans carried out a few decades back on Sealion. In summary itt resulted in a decisive British victory.

If, somehow, the Germans had managed to destroy the RAF entirely (not just the airfields, because there were airfields in the midlands out of German fighter range, bombing attempts on those would've meant heavy Luftwaffe bomber losses) and kept the world's mightiest navy at bay for several months (an ungodly number of coastal batteries in the Straights of Dover coupled with huge numbers of Destroyers and anti-ship-armed fighters?) and managed to break the GHQ line, take London and force the British Army into a guerilla war in the Highlands then the Germans would have, most likely, won the war.

Without the UK still in the fight, the US has both no one trying to get them into the war and nowhere from which to stage an invasion of Europe. They couldn't even dream of launching a trans-atlantic assault, as the Royal Navy would have been decimated trying to hold the Isles and the USN would have to shoulder the task of escorting a fleet through the Atlantic which would have both German and Italian forces operating within it. Also, when Japan attacked Pearl Harbour it would be likely that the US would see that as "her war" and ignore Europe completely to focus on Japan.

This would have allowed the millions of men and huge numbers of tanks and other weapons stationed in France, the Low Countries and Norway to instead focus on the Russians. With such a hugely reinforced assault, Barbarossa could have utterly annihilated the Red Army rather than drive it back in confusion. Most of western Russia would have fallen and the Red Army would be stuck defending the Urals. Hitler would have all his oilfields and the majority if the Russian population and industrial base under his control. Perhaps the Japanese army in Manchuria would have taken this oppertunity to seize eastern Russia? The Red Army would certainly be in no position to offer any serious resistance as most of their divisions would be either destroyed or deploying to the Urals.

The Third Reich and the US would still be at war, though what would happen would depend on how Russia went. Did the USSR surrender quickly enough to allow German transfer of resources across Russia into Japanese manchuria? Would the Wolf Packs be able to transfer out of the Baltic and Northern Atlantic soon enough to aid the Japanese in the Pacific? With German resources pouring into Japan and German soldiers and sailors reinforcing the Japanese effort in the Pacific, would the US Navy be able to control the seas as she did after Midway? Would a German presence arrive fast enough to aid in Midway and turn it into an Axis victory? The sealanes may have become so hotly contested that the US would be unable to safely launch her island hopping campaign, Australia may have been invaded and India would likely have fallen.

On that note, does the UK capitulate and join the Axis or continue the fight from Canada? The Royal Navy and Australian forces may have turned against the US and the British Fourteenth Army in Burma deployed into the Pacific to oppose the US also.

The US would have been likely fought to a standstill in the Pacific, neither side able to make a concerted push against each other's homelands. The Germans would have likely stepped up their east coast U-Boat raids as well and, being able to do their work in peace, the Third Reich may have developed their atomic bomb before the US, or on par with the US, forcing each other to settle for a white peace.

In today's world, we'd probably have some form of German controlled Europe, with States enjoying some small autonomy but their Armed Forces being integrated with the German Forces and their foreign policies etc dictated by Germany. The US wouldn't have many allies, unless they'd turned around after the war and entered friendly terms with the Germans. Japan would have an Empire, and perhaps the British Empire would have remained propped up by the new British fascist government supported by German soldiers.

[conon394]

If you guys wish, I can provide you a link to the transcript from the Wargames the British and Germans carried out a few decades back on Sealion. In summary it resulted in a decisive British victory.

Unfortunately that German defeat still involved a huge number of biases just to get the Germans ashore on the Islands so they could loose. A tentative RN, perfect weather, no issues with the amphibious assault even though Germany a zero experience at it, a defeated RAF (or as I recall again a surprising tentative one). The simple fact is the oft referred war game made just about everything go more than right for Germany and they still lost... the actual experience of the US and UK should show things hardly ever when that good.

------------------

Well, a lot of things were wrong with the plan. For one, it depended heavily on a victory in the Battle of Britain, which obviously didn't happen. Also, the Royal Navy would've probably destroyed either the landing ships before the landing or blocked any resupply. However, what if the Germans had won the air battle? And what if the Germans had been able to hold off the RN? Pretty big "What if's" I know, but still, something to think about.

Problem A: Germany could not win the air battle. Germany had no strategic bombers and no long range escorts - thus Fighter Command always had the option of simply refusing battle and simply waiting for the invasion. Give the relative rate of pilot training and aircraft production the RAF would only get stronger than the the German air force. In the interim Germany had no means to inflict significant punishment on the UK.

Problem B: I don't see how Germany could hold off the RN. It's own navy was virtually destroyed, the channel was hardly prime sub territory, and the extreme success of barrier minefield usually cited as some avenue of German success is not very credible. That would require far more army,navy air force cooperation than existed in fact (and a sudden miraculous increase in German Air force anti naval warfare training than exited at the time). It still also assumes the RN was willing to see the Britain invaded rather than risk a fight in the channel at any cost- which is frankly bizarre. Honestly this last point is critical to the assumption made that allows Germans to land in Sea Lion- that the RN would stand by and not risk its ships or personal in some bureaucratic/doctrine issue when the the fact of King and Country hung tin the balance.

Sea Lion was important for one and only one reason it expense and cost was Hitler's beast means for insuring Stalin ignored every warning that an invasion was immanent.

[Vermelho_Steele]

Germany could have seized the straits of Gibraltar, then steadly drained Britain of her resources and men as Britannia would have been isolated from her colonies (the Atlantic was crawling with subs). I read in a study book relating to Germany's war efforts that they could have weakened Britain that way and then strike when attrtion had set in.

Or at least hold Britain at bay until Ivan had been defeated in the East.

[pannonian]

Can you post in plain text rather than colour? Your posts are unreadable.

[Scipio Africanus Maximus]

Germany could have seized the straits of Gibraltar

Germany could not have seized Gibraltar. Gibraltar was attacked several time by Vichy France and Italy and came out unscathed each time. It was a fortress dug into the rock. Taking it would've been time consuming and costly, if not impossible.

[Vermelho_Steele]

Can you see this?

[conon394]

Germany could have seized the straits of Gibraltar

How?

Britannia would have been isolated from her colonies (the Atlantic was crawling with subs). I read in a study book relating to Germany's war efforts that they could have weakened Britain that way and then strike when attrtion had set in.

Painful but hardly devastating. The subs could not be everywhere (so unless your also assuming a vast new sub building effort as well) and its not like holding and defending the Med was easy anyway.

[Vermelho_Steele]

I see, the fun with Alternate History is nothing is certain.

Here is another question, if Japan had not provoked the USA into war (regardless of wether or not you believe in the Roosevelt business about Pearl Harbour) could the Axis Powers then isolate Britain while pounding the USSR into defeat?

[Landsknecht_88]

I see, the fun with Alternate History is nothing is certain.

Here is another question, if Japan had not provoked the USA into war (regardless of wether or not you believe in the Roosevelt business about Pearl Harbour) could the Axis Powers then isolate Britain while pounding the USSR into defeat?

It was the U.S. that provoked Japan to attack their holdings in the first place because of their, Britain's and the Netherland's oil embargo against the Japanese, and in turn the Japanese provoked them into the embargo because of their war against China and their occupation of French Indochina.

The Japanese leadership found themselves in a position where they had to attack the American, British and Dutch holdings in the Pacific to obtain oil, or their military power would have been shattered and their civilians would have suffered.

The Japanese never hoped to carry out any landing on American soil. Their ships would not have been able to travel that far. Rather, what they planned was to conquer as many islands as possible in the Pacific, forming a formidable defense, and get the weak Americans, British and Dutch to come to the negotiation table and negotiate a peace and continued trade.

But looking past that the Japanese saw a war against the U.S. as a necessity (the U.S. was the World's #1 exporter of oil), the Japanese Navy could hardly have reached Europe. The Royal Navy dominated the seas, the Kriegsmarine was confined to the Baltic, and with British control over Gibraltar and the Suez channel, the Regna Marina(sp?) was confined to the Mediterranean.

Why would you believe lunatic fringe conspiracy crap???

Lunatic? Hardly. There's no evidence to support the theory and I don't believe in it myself, but I don't exactly consider politicians to be honest. As a rule they come to power through BS and lies.

[Heavy Weapons Guy]

I see, the fun with Alternate History is nothing is certain.

Here is another question, if Japan had not provoked the USA into war (regardless of wether or not you believe in the Roosevelt business about Pearl Harbour) could the Axis Powers then isolate Britain while pounding the USSR into defeat?

My grand father was fighting in Eastern Front in German side and said:''If USA hadn't joined allies, Germany would win''.
Russians had no food, they would die from hunger and Germany would win Battle of Kursk.

[Landsknecht_88]

My grand father was fighting in Eastern Front in German side and said:''If USA hadn't joined allies, Germany would win''.

Well, it was Hitler's one big mistake to declare war on the Americans... Germany's odds would have looked significantly better had he not done it, but sadly I think that the overestimated the abilities of the Japanese, while underestimating those of the U.S..

Russians had no food, they would die from hunger and Germany would win Battle of Kursk.

This is not known by everyone, but the Americans actually intervened against Germany before the German declaration of war. They sent large amounts of supplies to Britain and Russia without being at war with Germany. So there was clearly an interest in the American leadership to intervene, and perhaps it would have happened even if Germany hadn't been the one to declare war. Sunken merchant ships could probably have been used as an excuse, but now Hitler saved them the trouble...

In summary, Germany's odds would have increased had the U.S. not been in a state of war with them. They would not have had to worry about a second front, as Britain and the Commonwealth didn't have enough soldiers for such an operation as Overlord. But they would nonetheless have been fighting a war against time in the east.

[conon394]

Here is another question, if Japan had not provoked the USA into war (regardless of wether or not you believe in the Roosevelt business about Pearl Harbour) could the Axis Powers then isolate Britain while pounding the USSR into defeat?

No the policy of FDR – toward Japan, with LL (for both the UK and USSR) and his aggressive dismantling of US neutrality policy, the Manhattan Project, etc -> no Axis victory.

Sure without Japan supplying the means in late 41 the ‘allies’ might have to wait for Hitler to loose his temper but overall the US acting aggressively as a nominally ‘neutral’ third partner to the wars of the UK and USSR meant the Axis would loose perhaps a year or two later - but loose they would.

regardless of wether or not you believe in the Roosevelt business about Pearl Harbour

Why would you believe lunatic fringe conspiracy crap???

[Vermelho_Steele]

I know of Japan's situation, but they could have attacked the Soviets in the east while Germany did so in the west. The Soviets pushed the Nazis back only because the eastern Armies were transported en masse to the West when Stalin learned through his brothel owning Tokyo spy that the Empire of Japan wasn't going to attack.
But Japan could have reached south-east Asia (a rich source of coal and oil, last I looked) to fufill their needs.

[Landsknecht_88]

I know of Japan's situation, but they could have attacked the Soviets in the east while Germany did so in the west. The Soviets pushed the Nazis back only because the eastern Armies were transported en masse to the West when Stalin learned through his brothel owning Tokyo spy that the Empire of Japan wasn't going to attack.

What held the Germans back was the massive conscription during the first months of the invasion. The Russians raised ~240 286 divisions. The importance of the Siberian divisions is greatly exaggerated.

And looking past that it wouldn't have been in Japan's interests to run Germany's errands, they wouldn't have made much of a difference. The Russian forces along the border were throughout the war stronger than the Japanese and Manchurian forces there, and keep in mind that the Japanese were pre-occupied with holding onto large parts of China. And even if the Japanese had been successful in defeating the Russian border forces, then what? The Japanese army was obsolete by European standards, the Siberian far east wasteland had little significant resources compared to Russia's European holdings, the infrastructure was in a horrible state and there was only one railroad, which would have been easy for the Russians to sabotage had they been forced to fall back. The Japanese army wouldn't have been able to sustain an offensive deep into Russia. At best they could have hoped for occupying Russia's border and coastal provinces.

Here's a good link that shed some light on the matter for me before: http://operationbarbarossa.net/Myth-...hbusters3.html

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

An individual examination of the history of each Red Army division that existed on 22nd June 1941 reveals that from 23rd June to 31st December 1941, a total of 28 divisions were transferred west. This included 18 rifle divisions, one mountain rifle division, three tank divisions, three mechanised divisions and three mountain cavalry divisions. The transfers occurred mainly in June (11 divisions) and October (nine divisions).

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

So the question is; who stopped the Germans in December 1941 if it couldn’t possibly have been hordes of newly arrived Siberian or East Front troops? The answer is a massive number of newly mobilised and deployed divisions and brigades. The Soviet land model shows that 182 rifle divisions, 43 militia rifle divisions, eight tank divisions, three mechanised divisions, 62 tank brigades, 50 cavalry divisions, 55 rifle brigades, 21 naval rifle brigades, 11 naval infantry brigades, 41 armies, 11 fronts and a multitude of other units were newly Mobilised and Deployed (MD) in the second half of 1941. If Mobilized and Not Deployed (MND) units are included then this list is considerably higher.(2) Even if the few Siberian divisions exhibited a higher than average combat proficiency in the winter of 1941/42, their contribution was almost insignificant compared to the mass of newly mobilised units. There is no doubt that the 1941 Soviet mobilisation programme was simply the largest and fastest wartime mobilisation in history. The multitude of average Soviet soldiers from all over the USSR that made up these units saved the day, and definitely not the existing units transferred west after June 1941, or the mostly non-existent and mythical Siberian divisions.

It seems very likely the term ‘Siberian’ was applied to any division that exhibited an above average proficiency or resilience in combat. This was similar to, but less official than, a ‘Guards’ designation which the Stavka started awarding to such divisions in 1941. Ultimately it cost nothing to name a division ‘Siberian’, ‘Guards’ or ‘elite’, and if it enhanced morale, scared the enemy and enabled better divisions to be easily identified then it was certainly worth while. It is easy to forget that all combatants in WWII were waging a morale and propaganda war alongside the real one. Unfortunately much post WWII history calls on the same propaganda based stories as the basis of historical fact. This then results in certain war stories, legends and myths become cemented over the years as unquestioned historical events.

But Japan could have reached south-east Asia (a rich source of coal and oil, last I looked) to fufill their needs.

Where exactly? Keep in mind that some oil fields were discovered post-war. Saudi Arabia was not the major exporter of oil back then for one thing. In the Middle East, Persia accounted for the oil production.

[RVFVS]

What would have happended if the Democratic Westerners (The USA, Britain, France, the Scandinavians) had allied with the Axis Powers (Germany, Italy, Japan, Austro-Hunagry) to fight the Soivet Union?

The Nazis had never really wanted to fight the Allies, Hitler knew Germany couldn't have fought a two-fronted war. Both Hitler and the Allies were anti-Communist, so they could have worked together to defeat the Russians.

The way it could have worked is that the West would have supplied the Fascists with weapons and money to fight socialists, when the USSR had crumbled, the Axis Powers would have Germany, Italy, the Blakans, Russia and Finland to cover, with roughly a 100 million people to govern this Axis Empire and defend it's huge empire. There would have been many uprisings against the German imperialists. Exhausted, overextended and damaged the West could use India and France as springboards to then overthrow the Fascists and keep Socialism as a mere fantsy, thus sparing the world of the gulags, secret police and repression of the 'Perfect Workers Paradise'. Japan would be friendless and exhausted form all the fighting in Asia.


So what do you all think of this and what would the world look like if it had happended?

Another problem, Hitler would have be worse then Stalin in that he would ethnically cleanse every single area he took. And despite the new idea Hitler was a madman he was actually a competent (if fanatical) leader and I doubt that there would be large enough rebellions that he could not put down. Besides, he would not simply outright attack the USSR. He would see through the scheme of the West and simply wait it out. Chances are same thing would happen as it did in our life except the war would end in 1955 instead of 1945 with TONS more Jewsih casulties.

[Vermelho_Steele]

Landsknecht_88:

I know olifields are discovered over time, but if Japan had South-east Asia and eastern Russia, then their energy needs would have been sovled.

@Sultan Mustafa: The sheer weight in numbers of Soviet forces and their superior tanks (the T-38 was hands down better to the Mark II's) would have allowed the Soviets to win, Western intervention only hastened the inevitable. If Germeny had invaded one or two years earlier and not so late into the Russian warm seasons, then things would have been different.