Assuming all other things remain the same (ie, Japan strikes Pearl Harbour, Germany declares on the US etc) then Germany's position on mainland Europe would be much stronger - right up til 1945ish when the US runs a double knockout blow by hitting both Japan and Germany with a nuclear weapon each.

 

There's also the entertaining possibility that the USSR would have struck against Germany at some later point in the war too - relationships between the two formerly allied countries were always matters of convenience after all,

 

Ian

 

 

 

 

I wonder how long would it take for nazi politics to wreck the German WW2 army. I have a hunch that a lot of the most effective WW2 generals would not have been kept in their position if there wasn't a dire need for them at the time, that is at the East front. If I'm not mistaken some generals were quite annoying to Hitler.

 

Without the need to keep such generals Hitler might have been much faster in replacing them with the Goering type of generals, who are more desirable ideology wise.

 

 

Well, as others have said, the relationship between the Soviets and Germany at the time were matters of convenience.  Had Germany not invaded there is a good possibility that in a couple years the Soviets would have when they felt the time was right. 

 

What is guaranteed is that Germany's position is much, much stronger.  Considering how much of their forces were concentrated in Russia that frees up an awful lot of troops.  Where else WOULD they gone?  Dont say England either, the change in bombing targets during the BOB doomed the air campaign there to failure and they didnt have the amphibious assault shipping to successfully invade. 

 

Greater support of Rommel in N. Africa might yield interesting results, but he was defeated due to supplies rather than troops mostly.  Greater numbers would have made his push easier though.  Would be an interesting scenario.  If the Nazi's wanted to invade somewhere else a destination would be hard to pick: Turkey would be a bitch to invade through due to rough terrain and if the allies figured out where you were going they could rush troops up to the Bosporus and plug you anyway.  N. Africa is limited by Royal Navy intervention but the greater Luftwaffe assets that could be committed due to no Barbarossa would help there. 

 

 Russia, while not ideal at all given the sheer size of the country, was perhaps the easiest place to go at the time...

Had there been Drang nach osten, then Rommel might have prospered and been in a position to defeat Britain and open the USSR to a two-front advance.  Rommel lost due to poor logistics...had Rommel taken Malta, without the distraction of the Eastern Front the Germans might have actually occupied, not just bombed Malta, then Rommel gets the supplies he needs for his advance in the Summer of 1942, possibly even enough troops to take the Levant.  This severs Britain's link to the east and removes the Middle Eastern Oil Fields from Britain's control.  NOW, the USSR must face an advance by a German-Turkish force into their Caucasus region as well as an advance into the Western USSR.  Conceivably the USSR losses the Ukraine, its industry AND it's oil, a combination blow it might not recover from.

 

Certainly no Barbarossa changes things greatly....though Stobiewan makes a good point about the possession and use of the Atomic Bomb, by the US, might make the above fairly moot, or mayhap not.  IF Britain is forced out of the war by Rommel, THEN there is no US intervention against the Germans and no impetus to develop the fission bomb, and no reason to employ it, even if developed, as the US would be at peace with Germany.

Rommel and Guederian were political/Nazi generals,

Yes, I know that Rommel was defeated due to logistics.  One of the primary reasons for this was the consant headache of the RN and the RAF pounding his supply ships.  He lost because the allies were able to slow him down enough and force enough maneuver he used more fuel than was shipped in.  I dont think that scenario would be any different but it could be.  Without Barbarossa two questions dictate whether Rommel would be successful:

1)  Would the greater number of available troops been enough to force his way through more rapidly and "outrace" the allied blockade?  Rommel almost got Egypt without additional forces.  Put more intial forces there and he has a greater chance of blowing past the Allies without the numerous withdrawals and extreme maneuvers which bled him dry. 

 

2)  Would the greater available Luftwaffe assets been able to pressure the Allied presence in the Western Med. enough to cause their blockade to slacken?  If more supplies could get through Rommel has more time to get to Egypt.  Once he gets to the Eastern Med the Germans have Crete, and the Allied suppy lines either go all the way round the continent or through the heavy Luftwaffe presence of the Eastern Med.  Egypt is key: he gets to the Nile/Sinai, he wins. 

 

The allies barely hung onto Egypt as it was, especially with Monty at the helm.... *shudders*  If either of those two answers are yes then the allies have a big, big problem.

 

As far as taking Malta is concerned I dont think it was feasible.  Maybe they could have been starved out via blockade but the Germans lacked amphibious capability.  Invasion by sea was out.  Alternatively, after Crete Hitler forbade any large airborne operations.  Malta was going to remain British for the duration IMO.  Those are the only two ways you can take an island.  Their presence there could be neutralized though in a way akin to what the U.S. did to Rabaul in the Pacific.  Of course, this demands naval supremacy which Germany/Italy never had...

 

As an aside: the Atomic Bombs were not knockout blows.  If Japan hadnt been on the ropes initially it would not have led to surrender.  Hell, even with two Nuclear Weapons, and the Soviet Invasion blowing through Manchuria the hardliners were still arguing to fight back.  They are powerful weapons, but it would simply have marked an escalation.  Would we have used them if Japan could have retaliated?  If we had nuked Germany then there V2's would have begun raining down poison gas on London.  Using nuclear weapons against an opponent that is not cornered with no practical response is an escalation, nothing more.  The one and only way this could have managed to force Germany to the bargaining table is if the Fat Man or Little Boy tagged Hitler.  THAT might result in something.  Just nuking a city...that just angers/scares your oponent and forces them to launch a WMD in kind. 

I would argue that by 1941/42  Crete would be German, and that Malta would be German, that the Luftwaffe would be able to dominate the Med. and allow an airborne/amphibious landing on Malta.  That the Wehrmacht would have several divisions available to send to No. Africa, and that Britain would lose the Middle East and her oil.

 

I think nuclear weapons would have been the knock-out blow, but it wold have taken more than two, ASSUMING the US was involved in the European conflict.  But if Britain is out of the war, there is no conflict to be involved in, so it's not clear to me that the US would have gotten involved and so would there have been a Manhattan Program at all, and would the US have the need to use the "bomb" against Germany?

V2's and gas on London would result in the 1000 bomber Lancaster raids decimating a city in Germany each night with gas. You forget that Britain had massive stocks of chemical weapons, but like hitler did not use them because of the possibility of retaliation.

 

Which raises an interesting point, were chemical weapons used on the eastern front and could their use have slowed or stopped the Russian advance into Germany?

If I'm not mistaken Guderians comments on using gas during WW1 in his book "Achtung Panzer".  He commented that using gas during WW1 really was only effective the first time, because of suprise. After that the enemy adapted and the use of gas wasn't effective anymore. So on top of a possible retaliation and negative side effects, there is the fact that the use of gas hasn't proven to be really all that effective.

Using gas on the Eastern front would IMHO be effective for a very short time if at all. It depends on how many of the Russian soldiers were issued gas masks during WW2.

Also when you compare it to more modern times the Iraqi use of gas during the Iran Iraq war effectiveness rapidly declined after the Iranian leadership finally decided to equip their forces with gas masks.

 

 

 

Please note,

The first paragraph above is a quote from JFKY, I missed putting the marks.

Cheers,

Mac