What if Hitler had started WW2 in 1943?

[RF]

Karl in another topic has suggested that a sea-power savvy Hitler would have waited until 1943 to start WW2, with a far stronger German surface fleet, not to mention many U-boats.

Was this a realistic proposition?

Would a far stronger surface fleet have succeeded? And what about the Soviet Union without Barbarossa?

[Terje Langoy]

What could you expect when the commander of the Luftwaffe never were able to see beyond his own ego? It's not a matter of size but of coordination between the branches and control of strategical areas such as the gateways into the Atlantic. Great Britain had both of these...

[Karl Heidenreich]

OK.

Let´s see the contenders first:

Great Britain, as long as she remains under Chamberlain or any pacifist would not move against Nazi Germany while she didn´t invade another country. Because of it´s own internal policies the Brits would be slow in their arms construction program, specially the very expensive BBs and CV.

France. Give her four more years and her situation would be the same.

USA. In war with Japan because of Pearl Harbor. If we took for granted that Hitler didn´t want a war with GB at all he will avoid war with USA as well.

USSR. Uncle Joe the butcher is willing to expand his animal farm to Europe but Hitler stands in his path. He accomplished to kill his entire officer corps and he would not have another one until 1942-43. Anyway the war with Finland has tested the inoperance of the Red Army by 1940-1941. So he will wait also, to see what happens and took any oportunity chance might give him.

Nazis: They are for a brawl. They know Chamberlain and the French are weak. Between 1939 and 1943 the Germans could have a much more powerfull Heer than the world has seen: completely motorized infantry divisions, entire airborne divisions, Panzer Corps armed with Tigers and Panther tanks, a Luftwaffe with thousands of fighters and bombers and, in a year, with new jet planes... And a powerfull U-Boat arm with a naval doctrine in accordance with the surface fleet consisting in at least two H-type BBs, two (or 3?) Bismarck Class BBs, the Twins with new 15" guns, four pocket BBs, at least four Heavy Cruisers and the GZ with new Me fighter-bombers and modified Stukas.

In a 1943 blitzkrieg the 1939-1940 victories would be accompained by a bigger and bloodier battle in the Atlantic in which the USA must intervene from the very beggining. By 1944 Uncle Joe would be surrendering to Hitler and confined with his vermin to a red gulag in the Urals with the wolfs and bears.

By 1945 all this will not matter at all because the US will have the Bomb and the Nazis don´t because they manage to kill or spook all the jewish scientists that could build such a thing.

After negotiations the GB survives, continental Europe becomes a Nazi satellite, a buffer zone will exist somewhere between Moscow and the Urals in which the russian commies will be allowed to exist, the Japanese had surrendered and the asian commies would be winning in China because Truman will let them and the world will live a hundred year Cold War because Nazis were better financists than the russian commies.

... By 1949 the President of the US will be Douglass McArthur who will put as Defense Secretary either Georgie Patton or Curtis Le May so North Korea would never had the chance to say: "Inchon"...

[RF]

OK.

Let´s see the contenders first:

Great Britain, as long as she remains under Chamberlain or any pacifist would not move against Nazi Germany while she didn´t invade another country. Because of it´s own internal policies the Brits would be slow in their arms construction program, specially the very expensive BBs and CV.

When he was naval attache in Britain Mullenheim-Rechberg formed the opinion that British rearmament, just starting, was a serious proposition and had to be taken seriously by Germany.
Montgomery has recorded that the rearmament programme was intended to have Britain fully armed for global conflict by 1942.

[RF]

OK.


By 1945 all this will not matter at all because the US will have the Bomb and the Nazis don´t because they manage to kill or spook all the jewish scientists that could build such a thing.

About three years ago I read a ''what-if'' book which gave a different outcome of WW2.
Briefly it took May 1941 as the divergence point from reality:

May 1941 - German paratroops land in Malta instead of Crete and take the island.
August 1941 - Hitler reinforces Rommel with two extra Panzer divisions. Rommel captures Suez in 3 months, other German forces penetrate Turkey and from there capture the entire Mid-East oilfields.
Operation Barbarossa is postponed to 1942 and then to 1943. All German airpower and naval resources are targetted at Britain, which is forced by blockade to agree to a ceasefire.
Wenneker in Tokyo persuades the Japanese not to attack the Americans but to simply seize the Dutch and British territories in the Far East in early 1942. Without being attacked, the US is unable to intervene.
Meanwhile British scientists give the Germans enough information about nuclear physics such that they are in front of Oppenheimer et al.
May 15 1943 - Operation Barbarossa is launched, including another front from Iran, where 20+ divisions of Arabian Waffen SS are involved. They seize Caucasus oilfields at the same time Moscow falls, Stalingrad falls in October without a shot being fired. The war ends when Stalin is assassinated by NKVD men under the orders of Lavrenti Beria, who negotiates a deal with Hitler.
Early 1944 - Germany and Japan, acting in concert, declare war on USA. A German modified A4 rocket, launched from Goonhilly in Cornwall, England, carrying an atomic warhead, vapourises Bridgeport, Connecticut, causing also a seismic ''tidal'' wave that penetrates New Rochelle.
Ribbentropp issues the US with an ultimatum - surrender of face one nuclear missile each week. Acting on the advice of Oppenheimer, Roosevelt has to surrender to both Germany and Japan.

Result: Hitler and Hirohito rule the world.

One thing the book didn't mention - did Hitler then nuke the Japs before they got an atomic bomb?

Any comments anybody?

[Terje Langoy]

Hello...

First, I didn't consider the hypothesis to include the entire war machinery to begin with, only a larger KM, hence my first reply regarding the Luftwaffe...

As for the hypothesis, hopefully I'm not naive when asking this, would GB and US let the nazi pre-war armament progress to such a degree without taking serious political countermeasures? Maybe join forces at an earlier stage? And how long would Winston Churchill sit quietly and watch as Chamberlain postponed the unevitable? I mean, they ought to see it coming, right?

Regards

[Karl Heidenreich]

RF:

Result: Hitler and Hirohito rule the world.

No, man, then we will have a 600 million holocaust instead of a 6 million one. What you described is very spooky.

Terje:

As for the hypothesis, hopefully I'm not naive when asking this, would GB and US let the nazi pre-war armament progress to such a degree without taking serious political countermeasures? Maybe join forces at an earlier stage? And how long would Winston Churchill sit quietly and watch as Chamberlain postponed the unevitable? I mean, they ought to see it coming, right?

I´ll just answer with this. When Neville Chamberlain was on a train in his way to meet with Hitler and Mussolini over the Czeck problem he saw, at the station, tens of trains being loaded with German troops. What he saw? I don´t know because at his return to GB he shook a paper with Hitler´s signature and said: "I´ll bring peace in our times"He was blind. Even if Hitler had showed him the plans of the A-Bomb he wouldn´t saw it´s real implication.
About the US only a handfull of persons, FDR included, saw what was comming. Only Pearl brought USA out of isolation.

[Terje Langoy]

Incredible Simply incredible!!! This I didn't know!

I guess nothing is more dangerous than an indecisive politican.

[Karl Heidenreich]

Terje:

I can only conclude that Hitler was a very good politican while Chamberlain was a very naive one

I will not rate Hitler as a good politician but as a cunning one, like a fox. The other thing were his surroundings. He was lucky to have Chamberlain instead of Churchill. Churchill would have crushed him the moment his music band with some drunks cross the bridge to Rhineland (his first step into a greater Germany) shouting that a new order had awakened.
Anyway, great blame must be put on the shoulders of British and French goverments in the 1930ies. Even Charles Lindberg, the hero, was proclaiming in the US the need to isolate from Europe and let Hitler go his way.
Why don´t rent or buy this movie: "The Remains of the Day" with Anthony Hopkins and Emma Thomson. You´ll find it interesting.

Best regards

[Terje Langoy]

Terje:

I can only conclude that Hitler was a very good politican while Chamberlain was a very naive one

I will not rate Hitler as a good politician but as a cunning one, like a fox. The other thing were his surroundings. He was lucky to have Chamberlain instead of Churchill. Churchill would have crushed him the moment his music band with some drunks cross the bridge to Rhineland (his first step into a greater Germany) shouting that a new order had awakened.
Anyway, great blame must be put on the shoulders of British and French goverments in the 1930ies. Even Charles Lindberg, the hero, was proclaiming in the US the need to isolate from Europe and let Hitler go his way.
Why don´t rent or buy this movie: "The Remains of the Day" with Anthony Hopkins and Emma Thomson. You´ll find it interesting.

Best regards

Thanks for a great reply. I couldn't agree more, especially concerning your perspectives upon Winston Churchill. I'll be looking for the movie right away.

If anyone should wonder why Karl quote me without a reference to my post, that's because I edit my post later assuming that my quote fell as a natural conclusion, something it didn't...

[RF]

Hello...

First, I didn't consider the hypothesis to include the entire war machinery to begin with, only a larger KM, hence my first reply regarding the Luftwaffe...

As for the hypothesis, hopefully I'm not naive when asking this, would GB and US let the nazi pre-war armament progress to such a degree without taking serious political countermeasures? Maybe join forces at an earlier stage? And how long would Winston Churchill sit quietly and watch as Chamberlain postponed the unevitable? I mean, they ought to see it coming, right? :think:

Regards

If a politically savvy Hitler had publicly kept to the Anglo-German Naval Agreement the British would not have objected to the start of the Z Plan as they would remain unaware of its full intention; if British re-armament was delayed and Chamberlain remained in power, which would be likely - Churchill had no more power in the Conservative Party than say Enoch Powell did in the early 1970's - then this scenario is realistic as the British appeassors are basically on the German side, France is impotent, the US is more concerned about Japan.

[Terje Langoy]

I agree, RF. This might be a little digression of your topic but... Chamberlains reluctance to take actions undeniably raise a spooky conclusion. He seems to have been a politican dedicated to diplomacy in order to maintain peace but I guess that he unfortunately also lost his judgement by doing that. And I find it very ironic that his wish for peace gave him a war instead. That's hopefully an observasion of some value.

My sincerest apologies for the digression.

[Karl Heidenreich]

On Chamberlain´s behalf I believe he sincerelly wanted peace and a bright future to his country.
But the problem with pacifists is that they neglect the need to be prepared. Pacifists always ignore the military because they equate the military mind with war, when it is totally the contrary: military mind is paranoic and never feel they´re safe as a doctor always regard his client as unhealthy. War is dangerous to what military commanders build: the armed forces. Also war risk the security of the State, so is not advisable to fight but to be in a state of prepareness that will forbid the enemy to attack.
A strong country is not an easy prey. A weak country invites the agression.

[tommy303]

I would not say Chamberlain was necessarily indecisive, but he was in a hard spot. He probably was cognizant of the threat posed by a resurgent Germany under Hitler, but his delimna was how to contain that threat. Massive military expansion to deter aggression is very expensive and very time consuming, while diplomacy is cheap and can be acted upon immediately. Hitler was willing to embark on immediate military expansion, even if it brought Germany to the point of bankruptcy and made it necessary to initiate a war and absorb the gross national products of countries conquered in war (which was Hitler's main motive for beginning the war when he did--ie Germany could not sustain the level of military and public works spending without either beginning a war of conquest or lowering the living standards of the German people).

Chamberlain was unwilling to embark on a massive military program that could prove ruinous to his country when other means might suffice. It made sense to try and reach a political understanding with Hitler and see how that worked out. One can understand the desire to take back the Rheinland, and to a degree one can understand as well the German wish to incorporate the ethnic German areas of Czechslovakia, hence the Munich Agreement. However, when Hitler occupied the rest of the Czech state thereafter, Chamberlain made the decision to resist any further German attempts at expansion.

[RF]

Don't forget in all of this that Hitler was seen by many in Britain, France and elsewhere as the bulwark or barrier preventing the spread of Soviet Communism, hence the need to be on good relations with Germany.