NationStates Jolt Archive

Berlin and Frankfurt would have been nuked instead of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Okay, I don't know if this has already been done; but if it has...we will just have to do it again.
What are your opinions? What would have happened if the Nazis had beaten the Soviet Union at Stalingrad?

They'd still have lost. Even if they'd captured Stalingrad, victory for Germany was logistically impossible. Victory for the Germans at Stalingrad would just have made the war longer and bloodier.

Berlin and Frankfurt would have been nuked instead of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

What exactly would "winning" mean?

If you mean capture and hold the city, then the same Soviet armies would have been used a few weeks later. The furthest German recon units were still too far away from Baku, so they'd never have made it in 1942. So you'd have a whole lot of massively overstretched, thinned-out divisions trying to hold a huge pocket through the Winter.

So the Soviet offensive would have come from the north and aimed for Rostov. Once they capture the city (which was the scene of fierce fighting to allow the Germans to escape west a few months later), they'd have cut off even more troops somewhere in the Russian wilderness.

A super-Stalingrad, perhaps. Or rather, a super-Cherkassy. Maybe some of the units would have made it back from the Caucasus, but they wouldn't have been in fighting form.

Personally I maintain that the Germans could only have won in Moscow in 1941. They still had the momentum then, taking the city would have broken the communist party's back.

What exactly would "winning" mean?

If you mean capture and hold the city, then the same Soviet armies would have been used a few weeks later. The furthest German recon units were still too far away from Baku, so they'd never have made it in 1942. So you'd have a whole lot of massively overstretched, thinned-out divisions trying to hold a huge pocket through the Winter.

So the Soviet offensive would have come from the north and aimed for Rostov. Once they capture the city (which was the scene of fierce fighting to allow the Germans to escape west a few months later), they'd have cut off even more troops somewhere in the Russian wilderness.

A super-Stalingrad, perhaps. Or rather, a super-Cherkassy. Maybe some of the units would have made it back from the Caucasus, but they wouldn't have been in fighting form.

Personally I maintain that the Germans could only have won in Moscow in 1941. They still had the momentum then, taking the city would have broken the communist party's back.

I would tend to concur. The Soviets were out producing the Nazis and unless our hypothetical allows the Nazis to take the Caucasus (and the oil therein) it wouldn’t’ve made a difference. Only the political – and more importantly logistical – problems caused by loosing Moscow would’ve taken the Soviets out of the war.

Although with the fall of Moscow there is a decent hypothetical raised there. Would the USSR have self destructed or could we have expected another damming treating like Brest-Litov? (I find the idea that the Germans could’ve pushed into the Urals and beyond absurd of course.)

Maybe a Soviet Peoples revolt?
Capitulation?
Further over extension?
Hungarian, Rumanian and Italian Allies that actually could fight together?

Heck is it possible to generate such a scenerio on HOI or something else?

Although with the fall of Moscow there is a decent hypothetical raised there. Would the USSR have self destructed or could we have expected another damming treating like Brest-Litov? (I find the idea that the Germans could’ve pushed into the Urals and beyond absurd of course.)
I'm thinking that the Nazis wouldn't have accepted anything less than the line Astrakhan-Archangelsk. So whatever was left of Russia would be a rump-state, and probably not ruled by the communists.

The partisans would still have been a problem though.

The best they could hope for is nuclear bomb dropping on berlin.

I think a Japanese advance into the Soviet Union quickly though China and the like would have been much more dangerous when combined with the Soviet Union having to divert resources from Stalingrad front and the like. Combined with Barbarossa actually using the Blitzkrieg doctrine, I think the Soviet Union maybe could have been successfully annexed. It should be remembered that time was key, and that the Nazis only needed time to develop nuclear warheads for their jet rockets, and remember also that the US was at one time neutral and was only aiding Britain, until Hitler declared war foolishly. So I feel that maybe Axis could have won a minor victory in annexing the Soviet Union. But again it's very difficult to speculate on such things.

I actullay did play this out on HoI 2 a few days ago.

I organized my men a bit different but o well.

I have conlcluded that Moscow faling would have stopmed the Soviets. The fact that Leningrad would have been next = crippled Soviet Union forever.

In my game of HoI 2 I launched Barbarossa 2 years early and I overran Russia by the end of 1939. (Except Karelia) The next 3.8 years was a total attrition war, Von Mannstein made it to Tannu Tuva by January of 1942 and my men were at Lake Baikal in August of 1942 when the Soviets went for peace. Which I accepted. Then I through my cold computer outthe window when it gave them back all of the lands I took that Germany didnt aim for in the real war.

I don't think the Nazi's could have ever developed Nuclear Tech. What we know puts them very far behind the US efforts. Given that, The nazi's couldn't have kept any gains winning at Stalingrad would have given them. Even The Golden Horde had problems with that.

I actullay did play this out on HoI 2 a few days ago.

I organized my men a bit different but o well.

I have conlcluded that Moscow faling would have stopmed the Soviets. The fact that Leningrad would have been next = crippled Soviet Union forever.

In my game of HoI 2 I launched Barbarossa 2 years early and I overran Russia by the end of 1939. (Except Karelia) The next 3.8 years was a total attrition war, Von Mannstein made it to Tannu Tuva by January of 1942 and my men were at Lake Baikal in August of 1942 when the Soviets went for peace. Which I accepted. Then I through my cold computer outthe window when it gave them back all of the lands I took that Germany didnt aim for in the real war.

That is a bit annoying, although partisans drop from 25% to 2% on the land you keep. You can also attack again when peace treaty expires :)

I don't think the Nazi's could have ever developed Nuclear Tech. What we know puts them very far behind the US efforts.

Not to mention they were literally bleeding scientists and engineers; the Nazi regime was pretty much anti-intellectual in a lot of ways, and combined with their anti-Semitic, sexist and racist policies they had no chance of keeping up with either US or Soviet science.

Even if they got nukes, they would be technologically outclassed in a short while.

Not to mention they were literally bleeding scientists and engineers; the Nazi regime was pretty much anti-intellectual in a lot of ways, and combined with their anti-Semitic, sexist and racist policies they had no chance of keeping up with either US or Soviet science.

Even if they got nukes, they would be technologically outclassed in a short while.
How unfortunate this could never be accurately represented in Hearts of Iron II, leading to some scenarios that were otherwise impossible in reality. It was that, and the simple fact that the game took so long to play before showing anything of value that made me give up on it completely.

Not to mention they were literally bleeding scientists and engineers; the Nazi regime was pretty much anti-intellectual in a lot of ways, and combined with their anti-Semitic, sexist and racist policies they had no chance of keeping up with either US or Soviet science.

Even if they got nukes, they would be technologically outclassed in a short while.
Ummm, what are you talking about? Rhetoric is one thing, but it's hard to explain just how much more advanced German military and the like technology actually was. I mean German tanks had like 1 to 5 kill ratio to US Shermans, only thing is, they were always outnumbered and never had enough fuel. Germany were very close to an atomic bomb and had jet engines and the like.

Ummm, what are you talking about? Rhetoric is one thing, but it's hard to explain just how much more advanced German military and the like technology actually was. I mean German tanks had like 1 to 5 kill ratio to US Shermans, only thing is, they were always outnumbered and never had enough fuel. Germany were very close to an atomic bomb and had jet engines and the like.

He's right. The Nazis depended upon the product of an excellent educational system that was established well before WWI. Once they rose to power they changed the nature of higher education in germany, eliminating things like 'jew-science'.

Even had they won, they would soon have run short of actual educated technicians to fill the ranks.

He's right. The Nazis depended upon the product of an excellent educational system that was established well before WWI. Once they rose to power they changed the nature of higher education in germany, eliminating things like 'jew-science'.

Even had they won, they would soon have run short of actual educated technicians to fill the ranks.
Well loosing anthrology, zoology and philosophy ain't exactly going to make your Panthers have 2 inches less armor plating, in terms of military advancement were far ahead of the allies until the end of the war. Why do you think the Soviet U and US need German rocket scientists after the war? I still have to disagree, indoctrination and ideology are one thing, but Hitler never compromised Germany's advancement of military technology etc. You do know right that Germany had heavy water plants?

Well loosing anthrology, zoology and philosophy ain't exactly going to make your Panthers have 2 inches less armor plating, in terms of military advancement were far ahead of the allies until the end of the war. Why do you think the Soviet U and US need German rocket scientists after the war? I still have to disagree, indoctrination and ideology are one thing, but Hitler never compromised Germany's advancement of military technology etc. You do know right that Germany had heavy water plants?

The german rocket scientists were all products of the pre-hitler education system. Yes they were good, better than anything the allies had at that time, but there was no-one in the pipeline to replace them.

As to the rest, apart from the strong tradition in aeronautics which had been encouraged in germany under the von seeckt program, generally the germans were decades behind the western allies.

Hence their crap planes, hence their crap radar &c.

Germany were very close to an atomic bomb and had jet engines and the like.
Germany had some very capable engineers, but not particularly good physicists, because they all left.

Heisenberg was never quite clear on whether a nuclear bomb could work. There is some evidence that he overcalculated the critical mass by quite a bit. Add to that the political leadership deciding that the V-2 would be a better option (in terms of financial and industrial effort the V-2 was the German Manhattan project), and the German nuclear program concentrated on energy generation, not a bomb.

Plus, late in the war the German tank design started to fall behind. If the war had gone on another few years, the Germans would have fielded the Tiger II and the Maus as well as upgraded Panthers (I'm sceptical of the whole "Standardpanzer" idea, it seemed to be in the very earliest stages of development when the war ended).

The Americans would have had Pershings and Pattons, the British Centurions and the Russians IS-3 (and eventually the T-54). More mobility and new ways of armouring the things were discovered, and the Germans didn't show any signs of moving in that direction.

They'd still have lost. Even if they'd captured Stalingrad, victory for Germany was logistically impossible. Victory for the Germans at Stalingrad would just have made the war longer and bloodier. Japan, Germany, and Italy, had an estimated 5% chance at conquering the world at their height in 1942.

It would have required the following:

Soviets losing at Stalingrad allowing the Germans to reach the oil fields and Persia.

Destroying the British Army in Africa before the Americans could arrive.

Japan making India revolt against the british, weakning the British greatly and allowing the Japanese armies to link up with the Germans somewhere near Afghanstian.

With the Soviet army crippled, the british military destroyed in Africa, and thousands of allies from India. All the Axis would have to face would be the Americans.
(A lot of things that would be near impossible to happen.)

Okay, I don't know if this has already been done; but if it has...we will just have to do it again.
What are your opinions? What would have happened if the Nazis had beaten the Soviet Union at Stalingrad?

The war would have been longer, but the outcome would have been the same. The Nazis were running out of fuel and men. If they had taken Stalingrad, they would still have had to hold it and the invasion of France by the allies would have made that impossible.

Ummm, what are you talking about? Rhetoric is one thing, but it's hard to explain just how much more advanced German military and the like technology actually was. I mean German tanks had like 1 to 5 kill ratio to US Shermans, only thing is, they were always outnumbered and never had enough fuel. Germany were very close to an atomic bomb and had jet engines and the like.

Actually later models of the Sherman matched up quite well with all but the largest German tanks. It wasn't just superior numbers that defeated the Germans, American artillery was far superior to that of the Germans and the Americans held complete air superiority over all of Europe. It doesn't matter how much better a Tiger is than a Sherman when a P-47 can kill it with ease. Also, the weakness of American tanks had more to do with doctrinal differences than technological inferiority. The American Pershing, introduced right at war's end, was just as good as anything the Germans had and the British Centurion was even better.

Oo the subject of German A-bombs, at war's end the German's still hadn't achieved a sustained chain reaction, a feat American scientists carried out in 1942. So much for German superiority.

Actually later models of the Sherman matched up quite well with all but the largest German tanks. It wasn't just superior numbers that defeated the Germans, American artillery was far superior to that of the Germans and the Americans held complete air superiority over all of Europe. It doesn't matter how much better a Tiger is than a Sherman when a P-47 can kill it with ease. Also, the weakness of American tanks had more to do with doctrinal differences than technological inferiority. The American Pershing, introduced right at war's end, was just as good as anything the Germans had and the British Centurion was even better.

Oo the subject of German A-bombs, at war's end the German's still hadn't achieved a sustained chain reaction, a feat American scientists carried out in 1942. So much for German superiority.



I agree totally... the Germans would have lost anyway. AND they killed their own cause when they invaded soviet Russia, end of story. With the soviet union backing them the nazis would have been able to cement their control over europe and the invasion of France probably wouldn't have happened.

Ummm, what are you talking about? Rhetoric is one thing, but it's hard to explain just how much more advanced German military and the like technology actually was. I mean German tanks had like 1 to 5 kill ratio to US Shermans, only thing is, they were always outnumbered and never had enough fuel. Germany were very close to an atomic bomb and had jet engines and the like.

Actually it's not as advanced as you suggest. The Tiger tank had many flaws. Hell I remember even hearing P-40 pilot talking how they found if they bounced bullets just behind the tank, they would go in the tank from the unprotected bottom.

The JSII was a superior tank. The only thing the Germans could counter with the King Tiger. Big problem was the fact they only had 500 while the Russians had 5000.

Close to the atomic bomb doesn't mean much. They would have had it if they hadn't of chased away all the subhuman jew scientists.

Jet engines sure. The 162? Meh. Now the 262. yes.

Actually later models of the Sherman matched up quite well with all but the largest German tanks. It wasn't just superior numbers that defeated the Germans, American artillery was far superior to that of the Germans and the Americans held complete air superiority over all of Europe. It doesn't matter how much better a Tiger is than a Sherman when a P-47 can kill it with ease. Also, the weakness of American tanks had more to do with doctrinal differences than technological inferiority. The American Pershing, introduced right at war's end, was just as good as anything the Germans had and the British Centurion was even better.

Oo the subject of German A-bombs, at war's end the German's still hadn't achieved a sustained chain reaction, a feat American scientists carried out in 1942. So much for German superiority.

Glad you mented the M-26. Took out a King Tiger with ease.

It is likely that Nazi Germany may have won the Second World War had they won Stalingrad. A Nazi advance toward the Middle East would have almost certainly got the nations up in revolt, similar to what happened in 1941 (the revolts were due to the anti-semitism that has tended to be rampant in that region of the world). This would almost certainly have messed up the North African campaign by the Allies and the Russians would have been pressed to fight in Turkestan, as well as the Caucasus, as well as the main part of Russia. Chances are that within a few years, Russia would have fallen, and the Allies would almost certainly have lost the war

I agree totally... the Germans would have lost anyway. AND they killed their own cause when they invaded soviet Russia, end of story. With the soviet union backing them the nazis would have been able to cement their control over europe and the invasion of France probably wouldn't have happened.

Not really. If they managed to launch the invasion of the Soviet Union on time, encircled Stalingrad and leveled Moscow, it's possible that the Soviet Union would have collapsed.

Oh, if they treated the Russians on their side well, they would have had a strong local support base as well, reducing partisan problems.

Okay, I don't know if this has already been done; but if it has...we will just have to do it again.

In some form or another, 3-4 times at least in the past year alone. ;)

What are your opinions? What would have happened if the Nazis had beaten the Soviet Union at Stalingrad?

The best case scenario for the Germans, IMO, would have been to bottle up and bypassStalingrad and concentrate on taking Baku.

I think a Japanese advance into the Soviet Union quickly though China and the like would have been much more dangerous when combined with the Soviet Union having to divert resources from Stalingrad front and the like.

That's why Zhukov's little known victory at the Battle of Khalkhin Gol was, IMO, the first turning point in WWII. By defeating the Japanese relatively easily, the looming war with Germany was kept to a one front war, freeing many Soviet divisions. It alsao led directly tho the entry of the US, as the Strike North faction was discredited, and the Strike South faction's strategic plan required the attack on Pearl Harbor.

They'd still have lost. Even if they'd captured Stalingrad, victory for Germany was logistically impossible. Victory for the Germans at Stalingrad would just have made the war longer and bloodier.

:(

I agree.

The Russians won thanks to numbers alone - of how many degrees below zero and of how many million cannonfodder they could throw against the Wehrmacht and of how many slaves they could use to build tanks.

One little point about German tech superiority: many people refer to the panther or tiger as the best tanks of the war, but most people don't remember that they were used only after the great successes of the Germans. The tanks that won the blitzkrieg were not tigers, but pz3. When tigers came along Germans were already in a slow decline.

Really, the advantage Germans had was not superior tanks but superior doctrine and tactics. The bad part about those is that the advantage they give is fleeting; when facing a smart enemy, sooner or later he is going to adapt to or adopt your tactics.

When Hitler found his doctrine no longer worked, he resorted to super weapons that brought the economy to it's knees. Germany would very likely had been better off without tigers, concentrating more on cheaper and more mobile tanks like the continuation of the pz4-series or even the stug 3, which, while not technically a tank, was the German equivalent of sherman or T34, and armed with the long 75mm gun well capable of acting as a tank hunter.

As for Moscow... Don't forget Leningrad and Murmansk, both strategically vital for the Soviet war effort. One of the reasons Finns strictly refused to invade them, wanting only to get their territory back and avoid any unnecessary aggression after the turn of the tide that was certain to come later.

Joona

It is likely that Nazi Germany may have won the Second World War had they won Stalingrad. A Nazi advance toward the Middle East would have almost certainly got the nations up in revolt, similar to what happened in 1941 (the revolts were due to the anti-semitism that has tended to be rampant in that region of the world). This would almost certainly have messed up the North African campaign by the Allies and the Russians would have been pressed to fight in Turkestan, as well as the Caucasus, as well as the main part of Russia. Chances are that within a few years, Russia would have fallen, and the Allies would almost certainly have lost the war

Probably would not have achieved too much since the Germans tended to treat people like crap. Lithuania etc were happy they came and then they were abused.

Most likely the same would have happened elsewhere.

Fried Tuna;12391684']One little point about German tech superiority: many people refer to the panther or tiger as the best tanks of the war, but most people don't remember that they were used only after the great successes of the Germans. The tanks that won the blitzkrieg were not tigers, but pz3. When tigers came along Germans were already in a slow decline.

Really, the advantage Germans had was not superior tanks but superior doctrine and tactics. The bad part about those is that the advantage they give is fleeting; when facing a smart enemy, sooner or later he is going to adapt to or adopt your tactics.

When Hitler found his doctrine no longer worked, he resorted to super weapons that brought the economy to it's knees. Germany would very likely had been better off without tigers, concentrating more on cheaper and more mobile tanks like the continuation of the pz4-series or even the stug 3, which, while not technically a tank, was the German equivalent of sherman or T34, and armed with the long 75mm gun well capable of acting as a tank hunter.

Ahh but you have to admit the Germans did miss the heavy tank doctrine.

Even when they got them, they were used as a "fire fighter" rather then to punch holes so the lighter tanks could exploit openings.

I've read that Zhukov believed that without the support of the resources received from the United States, the USSR was gone after the winter of 1942. And given that this statement comes from Zhukov, one of the great logistics generals of all time, I lend it an awful lot of credibility. Great Britain survived because of the transatlantic lifeline to the United States, which provided the necessary war-making materials to permit them to continue to feed their people and fight the Germans.

These examples illustrates the point that World War II was won by economics, not by battles. Had the Germans triumphed at Stalingrad, they were faced with inevitable defeat at the hands of the Anglo-American-Soviet Alliance, as there was just too much arrayed against them.

I've read that Zhukov believed that without the support of the resources received from the United States, the USSR was gone after the winter of 1942. And given that this statement comes from Zhukov, one of the great logistics generals of all time, I lend it an awful lot of credibility. Great Britain survived because of the transatlantic lifeline to the United States, which provided the necessary war-making materials to permit them to continue to feed their people and fight the Germans.

These examples illustrates the point that World War II was won by economics, not by battles. Had the Germans triumphed at Stalingrad, they were faced with inevitable defeat at the hands of the Anglo-American-Soviet Alliance, as there was just too much arrayed against them.

I don't know about economics deciding the whole. It had a play no doubt.

Zhukov was speaking primarily of the trucks, meds and some food they received.

Battle was still a large factor.

So you are suggesting the communistic system is better then the capitalistic when you consider the amount of equipment they produced?

?

The United States produced 76% of the World's total munitions during the war. How does that equate to the Soviets having the most equipment output?