Hypothetical alternate WWII strategic scenario

[Karl Heidenreich]

We all know that on June 6th, 1944 US, English and Canadian troops land in Normandy.
The western allies, in that campaing, sent their best against the Germans occupying Western Europe. The Germans defended themselves with a splitted army because the bulk of their troops were fighting against the onslaught of the biggest offensives in human history happening in the East, against millions of russians.
So, the western allies sent everything they have against what Germans could muster.
That determined the outcome in Europe.

Then, what if...

In the summer-fall of 1942 Operation Blue succeded when the Germans ignored Stalingrad and crossed the Volga (this is the premise, so it´s not up to discussion). Stalin lost his nerve and ask for negotiations. Sometime in November Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia signed a peace treaty that let USSR exists in a buffer zone east of the Urals. Germany´s main battle army is freed from the Eastern Front.
Not in time to save Rommel at Alamein. Anyway Hitler´s lost any interest there. North Africa´s campaing finish much in the way it did historically, maybe faster. In Sicily and Italy the Germans give a much more stronger stand which the allies are not capable to win. The operations in the Mediterramean fail.
Then, the allies face in France not half an army consisting in old men, wounded men and children. They will face the main German Army with all of Hoth´s Waffen SS Panzer Units, all the Luftwaffe, not half of it, and not Rundstedt with Rommel on command but Manstein with Hoth and Paul Hauser.
Which options we are facing:
1. Well. On June 6th the allies land in Normandy. Maybe they stand in place a couple of days whilst Hitler decides. Anyway the allies face a much more stronger enemy. In Normandy the Germans just deployed a couple of crack Waffen SS divisions. The Luftwaffe, much more stronger, avoids allied air force superiority (Eric Hartmann downs six P-51 in a day, four of them Tuskagee ones). The German armor manouvers with more freedom than in the original scenario. And they have more PZ divisions and the infrantry is not as weak as the one faced by the allies. One week after the landings Ike calls off the invasions and a disaster, much more worse than Dunkirk takes place. Germany will prevail in Europe until 1979 when Hitler´s dies from old age and the youth of all Europe inssurects.
2. Option 2: The allies don´t invade on June 6th. They know the disaster to do so with such a German strenght. So they wait until Japan is defeated (or the Atomic Bomb is ready). But since then the German tank production, aircraft production, rest for the troops and scientific advances gives them a real edge with the "wonder weapons" as JagdTiger, hundreds of Me-262s, V1 and V2 rockets and the two stage V rocket. Even, without the stress of fighting ruskies and yankis simultaneously, some atention is given to Kaiser Wilhelm Institute and the Germans are highly advanced with their own Bomb. When Japan surrenders the Germans have the capability to defend themselves in a much more efficient way. Maybe the Russians and the Germans could ally themselves facing a Anglo American nuclear alliance. A Cold War against the Germans?

Any way, the numerical superiority that overwhelm the Germans in June 1944 does not take place. In a one vs. one fighting there is no chance of a successful landing in Normandy or, if doing so, the result is a German victory.

[dougieo]

You think that the allies would use the A-bomb on Germany, if just after Japan is defeated they drop one on Berlin would Hitler even consider surrender.

[Karl Heidenreich]

In reality I think that, given this scenario, the western allies will not prosecute any attack on Europe if an invasion in 1944 is either defeated or aborted. The great advocate of Europe First and the nazis are the bad guys was FDR. Once Russia gets out of the conflict I do believe FDR would lose interest in the conflict because he can no longer help the commies (just to be sure, nobody gave a dime for the rest of Europe after the war, just look how the "western democracies" left Poland in hands of the bloodsucking commies as Hungary, Bulgary, Checkoslovaquia, Lituania, Estonia, Latvia, etc. etc. etc.). The aim was to help the commies all the time, which is why there are so many documentaries called "Why We Fight" trying to make a Crusade from a Leftist Political Agenda of FDR.
Then, going on in 1945 FDR finally dies and Truman cames. He finishes Japan but, as in the historical scenario the US is already weary of the losses and the effort (losses that add only to a 1,5% of those fatal ones of USSR). Germany is testing his brand new two stage rockets, deploying hundreds of Me-262 and a new generation of U Boats. Manstein is in command of all western armies which are no old men and children units but tough eastern front veterans with thousands of brand new Tigers. No... America will not strike. Both, America and England will finally negotiate on the table and that will be the end until Hitler dies of old age.

But the issue, here, was not the above but the western front hypothesis in which this time "all that the allies could throw to Hitler" will face with "all that Hitler could throw to them". Then this time Third Army will have to try to penetrate Hauser´s Waffen SS PZ Divisions under a very disputed air cover scenario where Hartmann and hundred of German aces will be giving a real hard time to US and RAF forces. And if we see that even Patton couldn´t move in Bastogne after the Army Air Corps did achieve air superiority, this seems very far... more than the bridge that was too far.

[Bgile]

Your basic premise is the Nazis win WWII and we have a long period of Horrible domination of Europe by one of the most brutal regimes ever imagined. The ovens would burn a very long time, because after the Jews were all hunted down, they would go on to the next least "perfect" race, and so on.

What is the point of discussing this?

[Karl Heidenreich]

Bgile:

Your basic premise is the Nazis win WWII and we have a long period of Horrible domination of Europe by one of the most brutal regimes ever imagined. The ovens would burn a very long time, because after the Jews were all hunted down, they would go on to the next least "perfect" race, and so on.

The basic premise isn´t that. I´m refering about the issue that a unified German Army would have resisted and prevailed any attempt of the western allies to land anywhere in Europe.

But, in order to answer your direct question I would like to bring forth some data that EVERYBODY seems to forget when talking about this:

1. Adolf Hitler was the responsible of at least 12 million inocent civilians as a direct result of his criminal and genocidial policies. In accordance to the "Why We Fight" doctrine those 12 millions are a very good reason to go to war against Hitler, indeed. The problem is that during WWII no one knew about that or is claimed that no body knew except from the nazis. These crimes were "discovered" by the allies as they advance over nazi occupied territories.

2. United States of America did ally themselves with Soviet Russia and did nothing to prevent the communist power takeover of China which, later, they look for friendship with Mao Tse Dong being it´s dictator.

3. Stalin is being held responsible for at least some 23 million inocent persons as a direct result of his criminal and genocidial policies. Twice as much as Hitler. The sin these victims commited for being forgotten, specially by the American public, is that there is not a Spielberg amongst the survivors to make a Oscar wining movie or, more important, that is better for the USA to ignore such a fact because they supported and send munitions, money, tanks and planes to the regime that commited such despictable acts. And, in a basic difference from Nazi Germany to Stalin´s Russia, the US president FDR was warned by his former ambassador that Stalin was perpetrating such crimes.

4. Mao, on the other hand, is suspected to have killed 49 to 78 millions inocent people during his policies to "re structure" his country. Truman and Ike knew very well what Mao was doing. What did they do? How did they react? How they over threw such an insane and criminal mind? Many of those crimes were already known by the US when Kissinger visited China and promoted relations only because for that time US and USSR were no longer allies.

So, what´s the fuzz about leaving Hitler in Europe if the US did all in it´s hands to help Stalin and then be Mao´s pals? The moralist speech must be much better served if we start being honest and not political correct. Hitler was evil: yes. Stalin was worse than Hitler: yes. Mao get´s the podium: yes. Was the US responsible in a great measure for Stalin and Mao: yes. Hitler was peanuts compared with the commies.

Again, what´s the fuzz?

[Bgile]

I'm not proud of some of the things my country has done over the years, but I don't understand why the US was responsible for those evil regimes. As far as I know, they exist today in spite of US efforts to the contrary. I do know that whatever happens in the world that is evil, the US will be blamed either for causing it or for not preventing it.

[RF]

You think that the allies would use the A-bomb on Germany, if just after Japan is defeated they drop one on Berlin would Hitler even consider surrender.

The Allies originally started the A-Bomb project ''Manhatten'' in the expectation that Germany, not Japan, was the target. No formal identification of the initial German target was decided, apart from that it would not be Berlin. Munich was suggested as a target - the birthplace of the nazi party, it was felt that Berlin be avoided because the Allies would want some semblance of German political/military leadership to survive in order to sign the instrument of unconditional surrender. In the case of Japan, that was why Hiroshima/Nagasaki were targetted and not Tokyo.

[RF]

The Normandy campaign without the Russian Front.

Bgile, as a case of military study and wargaming I think this is a valid subject. If we inject morality and politics into this it would be unethical to consider any military campaign because in war people get killed or maimed. We wouldn't even be able to discuss Bismarck.

Karl, before I respond in any great detail on this, I have three questions which will directly bear on how a revised Normandy campaign could happen. These are:

1) Hitler could not make peace with Soviet Russia which leaves it in existence, or Stalin alive. If the Germans win in 1942, it has to be on the basis of capturing Moscow and Stalin being toppled, ie. no campaign in the South, but a winning thrust on the Central Front. One condition of victory is that the Caucasus oilfields are accessed by the Germans intact.
This is important in that the minimum of military occupation forces are required in the East.

2) Meditteranean - a stiffer defence of Sicily and Italy could mean that Eisenhower pulls out in order to concentrate on Normandy. This could mean the Allies win in Sicily but the Italian mainland is left to the Germans.

3) In Normandy how can the Luftwaffe avoid the full strength of Allied bombing of airfields etc in order to provide a challenge in the air? Eisenhower would invade only with air superiority, and with no ''race to Berlin'' with the Russians I think D-Day would be put back until the Luftwaffe was degraded. This would mean heavier ground flack (the flack artillery otherwise on the Russian Front) versus Allied airpower rather than German planes

[Karl Heidenreich]

RF,

Very interesting comments. I address them:

1. The first issue, of how the USSR was put out of action is merely academic (well, all the thread is). The idea is to leave Germany free of the Eastern Front. I don´t consider that Hitler was so troubled about the existence of a buffer commie state as the fact that he needed Liebesraum. Once achieved that all European USSR was in German hands and that any threat from Russia is eliminated by the partial destruction of it´s army he would have accepted favorable terms to go negotiating a peace.

2. The Mediterranean was a British side show. It was Churchill, not Ike, the one that push in favour of those campaings. As important as they were I agree that Ike would have go for a troop muster for Normandy.

3. The Luftwaffe will not avoid the bombings. But a much stronger Luftwaffe (and we are talking big numbers here, maybe 40 or 50% stronger) would have interdicted, heavily, the air operations during Overlord. That doesn´t mean Germany adquires air superiority but deny it to the allies in the measure that the German armor could operate more freely. Anyway, even with allied air superiority the German strenght on the ground would have been so massive that what happened at Viller Bocage could have been the norm of the week long campaing.

Best regards,

[Bgile]

The Normandy campaign without the Russian Front.

Bgile, as a case of military study and wargaming I think this is a valid subject. If we inject morality and politics into this it would be unethical to consider any military campaign because in war people get killed or maimed. We wouldn't even be able to discuss Bismarck.

Fair enough. In which case, as Karl has laid it out, I don't see the war ending for many many years until everyone is exhausted. The Germans will not stop firing V rockets at London and so the Allies will not stop bombing Germany. A Normandy invasion is not possible, and that will be obvious to Ike and everyone else, so no failed invasion either. Because of that, invasion of Italy, Southern France, Norway and Greece are all possible.

My first reaction was due to my belief that the war would just go on forever or until everything was radioactive, and I have trouble discussing that "rationally".

[Karl Heidenreich]

Are we so sure that Hitler will continue London? How long a Churchill goverment will stand in such a situation? It´s 1944, not 1941. Fuel and food shortages will have effects in the population of any country, specially a democracy in which the will of the people could force a goverment to change it´s policies.
Let´s remember that Hitler never wanted a war with Britain, which he regarded to be not a natural enemy for Germany.

Let´s say that no D Day Invasion but a lot of action in the side shows. Both sides will face attrition for that: German supply lines into the continent are far better than those the allies must face, only by sea. No decisive action on neither side.

But 1945 will bring changes! FDR dies. And with him every sense of urgent action on Europe. The marines and the navy are fighting in the Pacific. The US will have 300 K+ casualties by then.

Don´t believe the war will go any longer. Sooner or later the three powers will go to the negotiating table.

Best regards,

[RF]

Karl,

Your responses to 1) and 2) I can go along with. However I do not find 3) very convincing.

Even if Luftwaffe strength is doubled I cannot see them having the strength to seriously interdict allied attacks either on the German ground forces or on the rear and hinterland areas. Only a massive increase in the provision of planes and pilots can do this, implying FULL MOBILISATION for total war months prior to D-Day.

However suppose this is done. German airpower is stronger, D-Day happens in late summer 1944. The scenario now presented is somewhat like the Gallipoli campaign in 1915. The landings are made, but the breakout cannot be made.
Alternatively the Normandy landings are cancelled.

So what alternatives are there? Attack eleswhere? Yes, but where? And how about peace negotiations?

If I were Allied supreme commander I would be asking in this position whether Germany was capable of winning the war. Would it pose (if I were American) a threat to mainland USA? My answer would be yes, because of rockets and the race to develop the A-Bomb. Peade negotiations? Well, the experience of the 1930's was that any international agreement with Nazi Germany wasn't worth the paper it was written on, the nazies broke their agreements.
So you can't negotiate with them, you have to remove them.

I would have gone ahead with D-Day, just to tie down German troops. For the same reason I would have gone into Italy or at least the toe of Italy and also invade Crete to bring the Balkans into the range of Allied bombing attack.
For France I would have multiple landings, to leave the Germans guessing which one was the real invasion. I would have a landing in the Gironde, to threaten U-boat bases and to draw German troops as far west as possible. I would land in the south of France and try to drive up the Rhone Valley. I would even have another go at Dieppe, but this time avoid a frontal assault by using paratroops in the rear and seaborne landings either side. Perhaps even a similar operation at Dunkirk....
Of course by doing this I am dissipating the main strength of my forces - but at the same time I am not trying to blast my way out of Normandy by bloody frontal attacks, but probing the Germans for their weakest points. My objective is simultaneous breakout to achieve a sudden cutting of of the bulk of the German forces in France in a pincer movement. That is why I want to draw German forces west of Paris.
Whether Ike would follow such a strategy I don't know. But that is what Iwould try to do.

[RF]

How long a Churchill goverment will stand in such a situation? It´s 1944, not 1941. Fuel and food shortages will have effects in the population of any country, specially a democracy in which the will of the people could force a goverment to change it´s policies.

Don´t believe the war will go any longer. Sooner or later the three powers will go to the negotiating table.

Best regards,

There was never any ''peace movement'' during WW2 in Britain. Appeasement died in July 1940 with the ending of Chamberlain/Lord Halifax presence in the British cabinet. From that point on the British people would see it through.

Yes, rationing was tough. But it was also seen as fair, as everbody had the same. There was even evidence that some of the very poor were actually better fed during wartime rationing because the restrictions improved their diet. And remember that food rationing became more severe in Britain after WW2 ended and was not finally abolished until 1951!

No, there would be no cop out then. Today, yes it would happen. But in WW2 the British were made of sterner stuff.