Three World War II questions

[Roman Soldier]

9) Had Japan helped Germany by invading the Soviet Union, would the USSR been able to defeat both Axis powers?

 

[Injured Soldier]

7) I read a book about how Hitler could have won World War II. It said that he should have listened to his generals and sent his armies through Egypt and conquered the Middle East. This would give him control of the oil fields of present day Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuiwait, and possibly Iran. Germany would then have an unlimited fuel supply while cutting the British supply off.

Would this have worked? Would that, combined with bombing Britain's airfields have been enough for him to win the Battle of Britain?

It wasn't by chance How Hitler Could Have Won WWII: the Fatal Errors that led to Nazi Defeat by Bevin Alexander, was it? The Suez Canal in German hands would have been a huge blow to Britain's resistance, and there were a lot of Middle Eastern regimes that supported Hitler. Who knows how it would have turned out though? Germany and Japan would have been so much closer, part of the reason these two racist regimes remained allies during WWII was they didn't even get close to each other in theaters of operations. Anything could have happened, any outcome we try to say for sure is just a guess. Britain would be weakened, but in the long run so would Germany. And if that invasion of the USSR was delayed, the Soviets would be in a much better position to fight Germany. That way would only strengthen Stalin's position, and Hitler did not want to do this.

8) What is the difference between the SS and the Gestapo?

Gestapo were secret police. SS was Hitler and Himmler's army, with different branches doing different things. Himmler arranged for the SS to gain a lot of power in occupied countries.

9) Had Japan helped Germany by invading the Soviet Union, would the USSR been able to defeat both Axis powers?

Oh yeah. In my opinion it would have been even faster than to beat Germany alone. The Soviets beat the Japanese so decisively in 1938 and 1939 in Manchuria, the Japanese generals almost fell over each other to decide on a peace agreement. In 1945 a smaller Soviet force beat the million man elite Japanese force in Manchuria. The Japanese fought the Russian communists a number of times since 1917, and everytime the Japanese ran away with their tail between their legs. If they attacked the USSR, they would be seen as the weakest link, and pushed unmercifully, then the gaps in the German plan and loss of morale at seeing their allies beaten would see Germany lose. But Hitler didn't want to share the spoils with Japan anyway.

Soviet tanks could run rings around the inferior Japanese tanks. By 1939, the Japanese had an almost psychological fear of fighting the Soviets, which is why the Non-Agression Pact was signed between Japan and the USSR. The Soviets invading on the 8th of August, 1945 was another psychological blow to the Japanese that helped bring about a surrender.

 

[signalerror]

1. Why weren't all of the obstacles on Omaha beach (barrackades, bunkers) destoyed by bombs dropped from the air? Did the Allies try to destroy these and simply fail?

2. I've heard the reason that France fell to the Germans was because they lost so many resources (ie people) during WWI that they weren't able to replenish their armed forces by 1940. In other words, so many men and women were killed between 1914-1918 in France that they weren't able to produce enough people in the next generation to fight against Germany. Is this true? If it is, then wouldn't Germany have had the same problem?

3. The United States firebombed dozens of Japanese cities, killing thousands. After hearing about these firebombings it is suprising that anyone in Japan was able to survive them. How is it that there are so many people in Japan today when so many were killed during the war?

4. The Nazi concept of an "Aryan" is a non-Jewish person who has Nordic features. There are four features to Nordic people (according to the dictionary).

A) Blond hair
B) Blue eye
C) Enlongated Head
D) Tall

Would the Nazis have eventually gone after people who were blond/blue-eyed but short and without enlongated heads?

Sorry if these questions sound stupid.

1. Tactical reasons. If they spent hours bombing the coast, the german high command would have had more time to react to any invasion. Also the beaches would have been much harder to pass if they were riddled with craters.

2. France lost because of many stupid mistakes.
A. Outdated wartime tactics and ideolgies - They were ready for another trench war and also failed to update most of their weapon technologies.
B. the Maginot Line - A long defence line of tunnels, bunkers, and pop-up turrets along the east side of france. It would have taken months for nazi forces to break past the line if they attacked it from the front. So they just went south and around the line. After they took most of france they went pack and hit the line from behind.

3. only a few cities were fire bombed. And some were able to flee from the fires. Not to mention japan had many island portions that were never bombed.

4. I have never looked into this too deeply. So your best looking to someone else...

 

[Praetor]

Here is how I think Germany could have won World War II:

First of all, if Hitler didn't invade Czechoslavakia after occupying the Sudentenland. This would have led all of Europe into a false sense of security.

Second, if Hitler waited until 1944 when the Werchmact was fully developed and mechanized. Germany could also have had dozens of jet fighters by then as well as the A-Bomb.

Third, if Hitler didn't interfere with the development of the "wonder weapons" that could have changed the outcome of the war. Germany developed a jet fighter in 1944. But Hitler ordered the fighter to be stripped of its weapons and to be used as a bomber. Had they remained jet fighters, hundreds of RAF and US Warplanes could have been shot down.

Fourth, if Hitler put Germany on a wartime production level. Hitler thought if he put the nation on a wartime production level, he would be overthrown like the Kasier was in WW1. So he kept the German people happy by not putting the nation on a wartime production level.

Fifth, if Hitler anhillated the British and French forces at Dunkirk as they tried to escape after the fall of France. Hitler halted the Panzer attacks on the BEF and the French army at Dunkirk. The result was the nucleus of the Free French Forces was formed which lead to the downfall of the Third Reich.

Sixth, if Hitler built Aircraft carriers, an amphibious fleet, and a Marine Corps. Aircraft carriers would have provided substantial more airpower to defeat the British Navy and the RAF. He would also have been able to carry out "Operation Sea Lion"

Next, had Hitler didn't switch the Luftwatte attacks from the RAF airfields to the cities, giving the RAF a chance to recover. Hitler could have eliminated the RAF and then switched to the bombing of Britian into submission.

Next, had Hitler actually carried out Operation Sea Lion, he could have either conquered Britian or at least damaged Britian so badly that it would be put out of the war for a good period of time.

Next, had Hitler had taken those three million troops that invaded Russia and sent them to Libya to reinforce the Afrkia Corps, or invaded Turkey, and the French Levant. The Afrika Corps would have defeated the British at Al Ahmien, conquered Egypt and the Middle East, and then move into India, Africa, or into Russia in a Pincer move.

If Hitler had to invade Russia, Hitler could have promised autonomy to the "Soviet Republics", made them allies of Germany, promised to break up the collectives, promised land reform, and ensured that Nazi Germany treated the people of the USSR better than the Stalinist regime. That would have given Hitler millions of volunteers to fight against Stalin and overthrow his Regime.

Meanwhile, Japan could have made different decisions too:

For one thing, Japan should have never invaded China. Instead, Japan should used the two million troops that invaded China to invade Australia, New Zeland, and India, finishing off what was left of the British Empire.

Another thing was Japan should have destroyed the tank farm at Pearl Harbor which could have crippled the American fleet. Japan also should have carried out its planned invasion of Hawaii.

Meanwhile, America would have had to focus on defeating the Japanese. Leaving the British and French on their own to defeat the Germans.

The end result would have been Japan may have eventually been defeated. But Germany, occupying Eurasia and Africa, would have been so strong that not even America would have been able to defeat Nazi Germany and Hitler would have ruled the world.

Thank God Hitler wasn't that bright.

 

[Roman Soldier]

There are a few errors to your theories. Germany never came close to producing an atomic bomb, and probably wouldn't have been able to for decades considering the number of scientists they had.

Hitler wanted as many Soviets to be killed as possible for "Master Plan East," which would have eliminated the Soviet Union and turned it into a German colony. He was in no mood to make friends with the Soviet people, even if it would have helped him take over the Soviet Union.

I doubt that Japan could have won the war in the Pacific. They were running low on oil, so they had no choice but to attack the US in 1941 in order to march south and take over the oil fields of Indonesia. Japan didn't have the resources to defeat the US, and they couldn't take over Asia without going to war with us.

 

[Agrippa]

Praetor,

A few problems with your scenario.

A-Bomb - the Germans were going in the wrong direction with their development of the bomb and Hitler gave it very little support.

Waiting til '44 - the German economy in '39 was on the ropes from Hitler's extensive rearmament campaign. The economy needed the plunder from occupied countries to stay afloat. Additionally, it would have allowed the Allies to close the technological and tactical gap with Germany.

Dunkirk - Dunkirk was very poor tank country. If the Germans had attacked, the British and French probably wouldn't have done the evacuation and would instead have bloodied the panzers in a WWI type battle that the Allies (especially the French) were ready for. The Allies would have lost in the end, but heavy German losses may have sparked a coup on the part of the Wehrmacht against Hitler.

Aircraft Carriers - I don't think the Germans had the resources to create a fleet to challenge the Royal Navy. It would have had to create a naval air arm from scratch as well.

Operation Sea Lion - The best thing for GB would have been an attempted German invasion. The Germans lacked a dedicated amphibious transport force, so they used river barges instead. In the event of an invasion, British destroyers could capsize them with their wake, they wouldn't have had to even fire a shot to wipe out a good portion of the Wehrmacht. (Think of the seaborne element of the attack on Crete.)

 

[Injured Soldier]

Dunkirk - Dunkirk was very poor tank country. If the Germans had attacked, the British and French probably wouldn't have done the evacuation and would instead have bloodied the panzers in a WWI type battle that the Allies (especially the French) were ready for. The Allies would have lost in the end, but heavy German losses may have sparked a coup on the part of the Wehrmacht against Hitler.

That's only one scenario, any competant panzer commander had the training to work the problems caused by the terrain at Dunkirk. If it came down to terrain, the Luftwaffe wouldn't be used to harass the enemy at Dunkirk either. But I also disagree with Praetor's assessment, the decision to stop had nothing to do with Hitler. There was a difference of opinion in the higher ranks about the coordination of movements of two Army Groups, and the decision was made to stop them. By the time the order was found, reversed, and the panzer groups were underway again, it was too late to capture the escaping British and Free French. But it was close, much British weaponry was left on the beaches.

On the German side, the halting of the advance near Dunkirk was due to bureaucratic stuff-up.

 

[Agrippa]

That's only one scenario, any competant panzer commander had the training to work the problems caused by the terrain at Dunkirk. If it came down to terrain, the Luftwaffe wouldn't be used to harass the enemy at Dunkirk either.

I disagree. The terrain combined with a dug-in British/French force would have resulted in a replica of Rommel's first assault on Tobruk, and we all know how well that turned out. The Allied force would have been annihilated in the end, but it would have cost the Germans dearly and bought some spare time for the French. Now, if the panzers had pushed forward a few days earlier, before the BEF and the French had arrived, naturally the situation would have been different and the entire force could have been destroyed like the French First Army around Lille.

 

[Roman Soldier]

Would it safe to say that the Soviet Union could have defeated Germany by itself had the United States not entered the war?

 

[Injured Soldier]

Would it safe to say that the Soviet Union could have defeated Germany by itself had the United States not entered the war?

Yep. It's a matter of how soon though, and whether Russia would have allowed Britain and France a say in a post-war settlement. If the Americans had not joined and Lend Lease not been sent to the USSR, the Russian push for Berlin would have been a lot slower, giving more time for Hitler to attempt to worm his way out of things, and adding to the death toll. The US and Britain needed the USSR for defeating Germany though.

But that is only half of WWII. The Russians might definately have beaten the Japs too, but that would be extending the war by a lot, something no one wanted to do. And they didn't want to start that bit until the war with Germany was over.

But it could drive you mad thinking of the what ifs in history. And you'd never know for sure.

 

[Agrippa]

Would it safe to say that the Soviet Union could have defeated Germany by itself had the United States not entered the war?

Huh, I post a reply and it didn't appear. Very strange...

Anyway, I don't think the Soviet Union could have beaten Germany if the US hadn't entered the war. It's not so much American military aid, rather, it's American Lend Lease. American made trucks carried most of the supplies for the Red Army while that army marched in American made boots eating American produced food. Soviet factory workers also ate American food; the losses of the war, in land and men, meant that the Soviet Union couldn't produce the necessary food for itself. Without American food, the USSR would likely have starved. World War II was very much a joint effort.

 

[Injured Soldier]

American made trucks carried most of the supplies for the Red Army while that army marched in American made boots eating American produced food. Soviet factory workers also ate American food;

Good point, it was the less glamourous items like food and trucks that were the essential items of Lend Lease to the USSR. But everyone focuses on the tanks and aircraft.

On a side note, can anyone tell me one of the only countries in the world to actually have the US owe it money by the end of WWII?

 

[Agrippa]

On a side note, can anyone tell me one of the only countries in the world to actually have the US owe it money by the end of WWII?

Hm...Australia? I know they were a big producer of cattle and some other goods the US might have imported and I can't remember them getting much Lend Lease in return (they used most British equipment if I'm not mistaken).

 

[Injured Soldier]

Hm...Australia? I know they were a big producer of cattle and some other goods the US might have imported and I can't remember them getting much Lend Lease in return (they used most British equipment if I'm not mistaken).

No, Australia had a shift in allegiance during the war, in 1942 we threw in our lot with America rather than Britain. Australia got weapons from Britain, America and on it's own, but it was still woefully undergunned. On the Kokoda Trail, most Australian soldiers used WWI rifles.

It was New Zealand. For the small number of tanks and planes it got from the US, it still suppled more worth in wool, diary and agriculture products. Actually after the war NZ tried to keep some of their Lend Lease equipment, thinking the US would back down due to their debt. Both World Wars made for really complicated loaning and supply issues.

 

[Jeremiah the Bullfrog]

Good point, it was the less glamourous items like food and trucks that were the essential items of Lend Lease to the USSR. But everyone focuses on the tanks and aircraft.

Don't forget waterproof telephone wire.

Australia got weapons from Britain, America and on it's own, but it was still woefully undergunned. On the Kokoda Trail, most Australian soldiers used WWI rifles.

Interestingly enough, throughout World War 2, U.S. troops used weapons designed during World War 1 as well. I know that the BAR was designed during WW1. Also, the bolt action rifles that most major powers used were designed around WW1 or the turn of the century as well.

 

[Roman Soldier]

We all have an idea of the kinds of obstacles the Germans used on their beaches. What were the Japanese going to use to stop the Americans? All I know is that they were preparing to fight us with wooden pikes.

 

[oldrooster]

1) The allies were probably counting on high tide to go over the obsticles, bombing is not realistic due to the sand effect.
2) France had no heart for war again, her socialist politicians had wiped out any real backbone for reistance to Germany. Losses from the first world war were catastrophic. The French army had terrible morale, and the only goal of the French soldier was to get out of the army. Germany's propaganda machine was very effective before the war, demoralizing much of Europe.
3) Japans birth rate, as all of Asias, was high enough to replace losses.
4) Who knows who they would have gone after next, since they did not follow a logical pattern, it is hard to say

 

[oldrooster]

8) What is the difference between the SS and the Gestapo?

The Gestapo was the secret state police, mainly concerned with internal security of the Reich itself. The SS was a quasi-military force made up of police, concentration camp guards, and its military arm the Waffen-SS. Think of it as the SS wore a uniform and the gestapo didn't.

 

[oldrooster]

6) I've heard that Stalin planned to ignore the non-agression treaty and invade Germany. Is this true?

No that is not true, Stalin was counting on a long period of peace with Germany to build up the Red army after the purges of the '30s. He did everything he could to avoid war with Germany.

 

[oldrooster]

Would it safe to say that the Soviet Union could have defeated Germany by itself had the United States not entered the war?

Yes they could have, it would have taken many more years than it did. The USSR had space and population on its side. Had the Germans treated the Russian people well they probably would have won that conflict.