If Hitler for no explainable reason ignored the soviet union

>>1697951

Eventually. It would be bloody, and take years longer than the historical war, but they would batter their way in through superior industrial effort.

If nothing else, come late 1945, the atomic weapon comes into play.

>>1697951
that's an interesting question, and I'm inclined to say no
>Soviet cool with Germany means Soviet cool with Japan; Japs are now able to concentrate 100% of war effort on America
>Hitler would have little to no forces on eastern front; millions of dollars and lives saved for the Germans
>>1697954
>superior industrial effort
If the war dragged on Germany would have absolutely obliterated when it comes to industry
>rockets
>jets

we'd have to nuke germany instead of Japan, and they might have nuked back. It would have been fucking horrible

Yes, definitely. If memory serves, the British alone outproduced Germany in most resources/products which is kinda what you want in a prolonged total war.

>>1698013
>>Soviet cool with Germany means Soviet cool with Japan; Japs are now able to concentrate 100% of war effort on America


Because they had ships employed against the USSR? Because China suddenly disappears from existence? Because seriously, what the fuck? How does the USSR not going to war with Germany imply friendliness with Japan?

>If the war dragged on Germany would have absolutely obliterated when it comes to industry

With their smaller populations, less efficient factories, and bombs falling all around them? Not likely. Britain alone outproduced Germany on little, unimportant things like ships, artillery, and planes. And the U.S. war economy was huger still.

>rockets

Killed more poeple making them than amomng the enemy.

>jets

You do realize both the Americans and the British had jets of their own, and declined to use them in favor of props, right? When you have huge air superiority, their deficiencies in range and maintenance don't make up for the increase in speed, especially when you're escorting bombers going along at around 250 kph. If Germany put up a better fight in the air (unlikely, as most of the Luftwaffe was arrayed against the West, not the East), they could actually take the radical step of deploying the jets they were building and keeping around.

>we'd have to nuke germany instead of Japan, and they might have nuked back. It would have been fucking horrible

With the nuclear program that never even managed to get where the Americans were at in 1942, with a self-sustaining nuclear reaction? How does that work exactly?

File: Nuke.jpg (172KB, 717x476px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 717x476px

Lazy answer but no.

>>1698032
Not to forget that the Germans must also assemble the technology needed to build airplanes to transport nukes with as well as gain the air superiority needed to deliver it.

>>1698032
>imply friendliness with Japan?
it implies no risk of war with Japan; Japan and Germany were allies, so if Japan went to war with Russia then Russia and Germany would have gone to war with eachother. If the scenario demands peace between Russia and German, it then demands peace between Japan and Russia.
and yes, Japan and the Soviet union both had military readiness for conflict between one another
>China goes away
Japan had China well taken care of well before 1941
>Britain alone outproduced Germany on little, unimportant things like ships, artillery, and planes. And the U.S. war economy was huger still.
if Germany wasn't at war with Russia then it would have outproduced them; You seem to forget that if Russia and Germany were at peace with eachother Germany still would have expanded Eastward. Much of central Europe would have been overtaken by the Third Reich and it's people/resources exploited for the war effort.
>bombs falling all around them
again, if Germany had all of its efforts focused on the Western Front this wouldn't have been happening.
>killed more people working than in battle
not if the war dragged on and technological advancements made them safer and more effective, which is the point
>how does that work
only point I'll cede; I have less knowledge about the nuclear programs of nations outside of America than I do about the rest of the war

No because in this scenario, Japan would be assisting Germany and Italy granted if there aren't any atomic bombs on the American side.

>>1698045

Ehh, they wouldn't necessarily need air superiority, although developing a 4 engined bomber that can transport one of those things is a good point I should have mentioned.

You look at the RAF night bombing campaigns though, and you get bombs delivered, albeit at an ugly cost, pretty reliably over their targets, just by sending unescorted bombers deep into Germany. Get 250 planes together, put the one with the nuke in the center of the formation, and he'll probably get through. Unescorted RAF loss rates at night were about 6% per mission, and a good chunk of those were to flak or damage sustained in flight that prevented them from landing, destroying the plane after it delivered its bomb load. (On the other hand, that figure's an average over the entire war performance, and it drops off sharply later on.)

>>1697951
Britain would face far more casualties and would be completely obliterated. The full brunt of the entire German war machine would have been too much to bear.

As for America, it would arrive at a stalemate. The US wouldn't be able to launch a European offensive without Britain, but likewise the Germans would not be able to land on the US. The battle for the Atlantic would be far more bloody and we'd probably see an armistice rather than a clear victor.

It would be the best case scenario as far as the survival of the Reich is concerned.

>>1698048
>Japan had China well taken care of well before 1941
What's your definition of "well taken care of"?

>>1698054
Didn't the air campaigns happen with some sort of air superiority for the Brits though?
Also, I think the US and Anglo secret services by far outclassed the German one, so they should have been able to cede some sort of warning no?

>>1697951
I think there's no question that the Axis would still lose. The more interesting question is whether the Soviet Union invades Europe to pick up the scraps after the war is over. They'd be primed and ready to go and could probably just roll through Europe if they wanted to. Britain might be moved to make peace with them because of massive war fatigue. A less energetic America would have to fight against them.

Of course this scenario assumes both powers are armed with nuclear weapons so I guess in that case all bets are off.

>>1698048
>RRRRREEEEEEE DON'T SHIT ON MY GROBGERMANIUM
that is what your post feels like 2bh

>>1698060
>Britain would face far more casualties and would be completely obliterated. The full brunt of the entire German war machine would have been too much to bear.
How? When Operation Barbarossa started the Brits had already won the air war and the Germans had no navy to bring their land force over to the Islands with.

>>1697951

Of course. Germany would have got nuked.

>>1698048
>it implies no risk of war with Japan; Japan and Germany were allies,


Which is why Japan went to war with the USSR along with their "ally", oh wait, that never happened. It's why Germany was supplying China with weapons and training while they were at war with Japan. Japan's foreign policy and Germany's foreign policy were pretty much independent. Peace with Germany has literally 0 bearing on peace with Japan.

>Japan had China well taken care of well before 1941

Then why did they still need almost 2.8 million troops in the theater?

>if Germany wasn't at war with Russia then it would have outproduced them;

I don't think you understand what "production"means. Just because the war broke out with the USSR, and resources allocated to that front, doesn't mean that they weren't building shit. You look at the sum total of planes that were built by the CW from 1939-1945, and it's bigger than the sum total of planes built by Germany in the same time period.

>Much of central Europe would have been overtaken by the Third Reich and it's people/resources exploited for the war effort.

You mean like it was historically? How would that yield a higher production figure?

>again, if Germany had all of its efforts focused on the Western Front this wouldn't have been happening.

Yes, it would have, because the number of luftwaffe assets available to shore up Reich defense would be relatively small.

http://don-caldwell.we.bs/jg26/thtrlosses.htm
1/2

>>1698048

2/2


>not if the war dragged on and technological advancements made them safer and more effective, which is the point

So you're banking on innovation happening to a technology that when introduced is noticeably ineffective on actual use. Good plan there. It worked so well for their strategic bomber program.

>only point I'll cede; I have less knowledge about the nuclear programs of nations outside of America than I do about the rest of the war

That's a scary thought, since you don't even seem to realize rather basic facts about the war, like how Germany expanded into central Europe BEFORE the war with the USSR, and you don't understand the difference between production and industry on one hand and technology on the other, nor did you seem to be aware that the Western Allies had jets.

>>1698074
Wouldn't the Germs have much more aircraft on hand for the Battle of Britain than previously due to not diverting resources to plan for Barbarossa? I think that would be a major bonus for them.

>>1698064
>Didn't the air campaigns happen with some sort of air superiority for the Brits though?


Not for most of the war, until about 1944 or so, they were operating completely without fighter cover, striking far past the range their own fighters could escort them.

>Also, I think the US and Anglo secret services by far outclassed the German one, so they should have been able to cede some sort of warning no?

Secret services won't have a whole lot to do about it, unless they get lucky and catch an enigma message about this particular nuclear strike. Radar's a better bet, but I mean, Frejya did a pretty good job of detecting inbound bombers on the other side, and they still weren't able to wipe out every incoming strat bomber attack.

>>1698087

Not him, but the order relocating forces to the East to plan for Barbarossa was issued in December, after it was already manifestly apparent that they weren't getting into England.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Adolf_Hitler%27s_directives

It's number 21 on the list.

>>1698087
Though the German navy apart from its submarines ((Who the Allies began to sink as crazy later in the war)) was pretty much depleted since the Invasion of Norway and I don't really see how they were supposed to get that back.
Also, the Brits alone outproduced the Germans when it came to airplanes already before Barbarossa so I don't see how it not happening will change things much.

>>1697951
Yes

>>1698100
>Protip
The USSR spied Germany with raw materials and products until 1941
Most importantly, oil.
An oil independent Germany could have easily matched the UK industry.
The USSR also supplied bearings and steel, both of which Germany desperately needed in 1944.
1944 was the year when brits outproduced the Reich.

>>1697951
It might've end up in stalemate, since Germany would be totally incapable to invade US and US would likely won't be capable to penetrate concentrated German defense

The logistics necessary to face an unimpeded Wehrmact would make my answer a solid no. 1942 plays out largely the same, with the Axis losing North Africa, but 1943 either sees no invasion of mainland Europe or an incredibly bloody one, as the Germans would have dedicated hundreds of thousands more men to defending Sicily and Itaky proper.
D-Day just doesn't happen. You'd need too many men to secure a beachhead. The Axis army in the West would be around 2 million strong which would dwarf any possible invasion force.

The war would be fought in the air even harder though.

aMERICA WOULD HAVE WON SINGLEHANDEDLY BECAUSE THEY HAD THE BEST TANK OF THE WAR

Garrisoning the border with the USSR would tie down a lot, but not enough to enable a landing in in France, perhaps not even Italy because if the Eastern Front wasn't a thing more would have been available for the African Theatre.

>>1698285
>The war would be fought in the air even harder though.

The air war the Brits had already won.

It would just be a stalemate until the US and UK developed nukes and then bye bye Berlin.

File: Economic info, WW2.png (96KB, 1021x891px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 1021x891px

>>1698250

Not him, but

>1944 was the year when brits outproduced the Reich.

Is completely wrong. The British outproduced the Germans as early as 1940, and it's no surprise, given the much larger size of their economy once you factor in their imperial possessions. Pic related, from the following paper.

https://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/public/ww2overview1998.pdf

>>1698285


> but 1943 either sees no invasion of mainland Europe or an incredibly bloody one, as the Germans would have dedicated hundreds of thousands more men to defending Sicily and Itaky proper.

You can't; you just can't really fit that many more men into Siciliy and Italy than were already deployed, which is one of the reasons the Peninsula was attacked historically instead of risking Roundup.


>D-Day just doesn't happen. You'd need too many men to secure a beachhead. The Axis army in the West would be around 2 million strong which would dwarf any possible invasion force.

Because the transport plan wouldn't have happened?

>The war would be fought in the air even harder though.

Not much harder, given that the Western Allies already had defeated much of the Luftwaffe, and the extra 20% or so of their single engined fighters almost certianly wouldn't have turned the tide

http://don-caldwell.we.bs/jg26/thtrlosses.htm

>>1698323
>won
>implying
First off without Russia there'd be a lot more German planes around, as well as AA guns, and Hitler would probably quintuple down on anti air research.

Secondly I have doubts on what the nuke would have really done. If it had been used would Germany really sued for peace?

Would the war even last so long? With no prospect of an invasion by either party would the West demand Hitler release all French and Low Country territories + Norway prob and in return the war stops and Hitler can keep the rest?

>>1698439
>First off without Russia there'd be a lot more German planes around, as well as AA guns, and Hitler would probably quintuple down on anti air research.
The vast majority of the Luftwaffe was already deployed in the West in the defense of the Reich, as were the majority of heavy AA guns.

>>1697951
Germany would simply collapse own it's own probably since the war with the SU was a economical necessity
>captcha says Lebensräume

>>1698326
i recognize you(r posting style), anon

i like you, anon

There is a big emphasis on resources and economical strength in this thread. You need to remember that Hitler started his wars for ideological reasons. War with the British Empire was something the nazi's never wanted. Englishmen were seen as a brother race.

Another question: if Churchill hadn't been PM at the time, would the British government have contemplated a peace treaty more seriously?

>>1697951
And if my nan had wheels would she be a bicycle?

>>1697951
No, not by a long shot unless Japan stayed out of the war too, in that case it'd be an extremely bloody conflict and the atomic bomb would have been dropped on Berlin.

Through financial/industrial dominance they doubtless could. That's certainly a cynics view of warfare.

Militarily with Germanys full attention on the Western Front it would be such a horrendous war of attrition I really doubt they would or could have justified fighting Germany to total destruction as they did.


Also worth mentioning how much of a massive gamble D Day genuinely was and how miraculous it was to be successful. With Panzer divisions actually focused there rather than essentially holidaying from the real war (exaggeration) and actually deploying this time a beachhead into Nazi occupied France would have surely have been completely impossible so where would the war take place. Entirely in Africa and Italy?

At sea? The Allies certainly could win there.