Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Orlanth wrote:Without the US in the war Berlin would have fallen in 1948 to the Soviets, according to some military historians. There would be no D-Day, but the British could have got as far as Rome without help, further if there was no war in the far east and no loss of Singapore.

Without the Soviet Union in the war there would have been a stalemate. Hitler could not have invaded the continental US though.

Which is why we have [insert technobabble here] creating [insert more technobabble] so that there's now a portal linking Germany and California!

SilverMK2 wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:Okay, so the portal opens up in northern california, correct? I think the Americans got this, it would take them a while to mobilize and gear up for war

It took America almost 2 years to have as many trained fighting men as Germany, and that is with all their industrial capability. Granted, the urgency of invasion would perhaps create a much faster mobilisation, however, between the two lies a gap where Germany would run rough shod over much of America.

Whether they would then be able to hold on to it is another question.

I disagree. The US was throwing troops into battle by mid-1942, and in significant numbers by the end of '42 (Operation Torch). Troop buildups take time and planning. Not having to ship thousands of men, weapons, ammunition, fighting vehicles, etc. halfway around the world while under continuous attack from axis submarines is going to significantly shorten the time it takes to mobilize troops to a combat area.

Besides that, the US had 540 thousand ACTIVE men in the armed forces in 1940 (and over 1.6 million by the end of 1941...). In reality, the numbers of trained men were much larger, but due to the needs of war materiel many of the trained draftees were put into the reserves and sent back to work in industrial jobs instead of sent directly to a regular army/ national guard unit. I feel that if the US itself was invaded, that wouldn't be the case anymore.

Also realize that in the real world, the entire time we're building up these large quantities of troops, we're also fighting a war in the pacific and trying to clear out submarines in the atlantic. Take away the Pacific War and the need to even traverse the atlantic anymore (because you now have this nifty portal), and you have a lot of resources that were dedicated to shipbuilding instead going to production of tanks, airplanes, small arms, etc.

Oh yeah, and I should also mention that its only a matter of time before the Russians and Germans go to war with eachother. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact served to diffuse tensions, but both Stalin and Hitler knew that one side or the other would inevitably open up hostilities. In our timeline, the Germans beat the Russians to the punch, not necessarily so in this alternate timeline.

Germany Invades Russia
Develops nuclear bomb and delivery system
gives tech to Japan
Soviet Union nuked as too the East and West seaboards of the USA

The puppet King Edward VIII and Nazi apologist apologises to his American wife for the damage caused to her New York apartment by there dear old pal Addie.

Frazzled wrote:

ChrisWWII wrote:Arguably, the Red Army had better equipment than the opposing Wehrmacht Heer forces. However, they undboubtedly suffered from poor training and even worse leadership. The Heer liked to make it seem like they had a wall of top of the line Panzer IVs, but in reality a ton of the Panzers were older Panzer IIIs, IIs, and even some 38ts captured from the Czechs. The Yaks, and MiG-3s were at least equal to the Bf109s, and the Il2s were arguably superior to the Ju-87s in their job description.

In all honesty, the Russian victory was mainly because the Germans tried to blitzkrieg a country that blitzkrieg didn't work against. The Russians could just keep retreating and retreating and retreating until their massive industry was able to produce more, high quality tanks and other equipment that would steam roll all the way back to Berlin. The Heer DID have a chance at victory, but Hitler spoiled it for them....if they had concentrated on their drive to Moscow, they likely could have taken the city before the winter was in. However, Hitler being Hitler kept his military machine focussed on things to fuel his own ego.

In an invasion of the US, we'd probeably be WORSE off than the Russians. I'd anticipate a total collapse in California similar to the Soviet collapse in the western republics. As awesome as tank battles on the Great Plains would be, I doubt that the Germans would be that idiotic as to try and push through two gargantuan mountain ranges. I'd expect that they'd go north, and try to go around via Canada. This means that the big battles that decide the war would probably take place on Canadian soil rather than American.

Rather anticlimactic, no?

Oh no. It makes weather a factor. Of course, terrain is potentially substantially worse in north America. Extreme mountain chains backed by desert in the south. In the North Soviet like cold, but even longer distances before you hit stuff of major military value. Plus you've ticked off the Candians and interrupted their hockey games. The last time that happened WE lost to the Canadians...

Yep, Detroit was actually Canadian for a week but then we gave it up because well even you guys don't want detroit:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/detroit-sold-for-scrap,1931/

ChrisWWII wrote:In an invasion of the US, we'd probeably be WORSE off than the Russians. I'd anticipate a total collapse in California similar to the Soviet collapse in the western republics. As awesome as tank battles on the Great Plains would be, I doubt that the Germans would be that idiotic as to try and push through two gargantuan mountain ranges. I'd expect that they'd go north, and try to go around via Canada. This means that the big battles that decide the war would probably take place on Canadian soil rather than American.

But those mountains go all the way up Canada and into the arctic. The terrain gets worse. How does going North improve the terrain situation at all and get them around a mountain range?

I would expect the outcome to be the same as in WWII. Germany would lose in the end. but I agree that it would be harder for the US than it was for Russia. We didn't have a crazy dictator leading the nation willing to do whatever it took to win, even if it meant the death of millions of statistics

chaos0xomega wrote:[

Oh yeah, and I should also mention that its only a matter of time before the Russians and Germans go to war with eachother. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact served to diffuse tensions, but both Stalin and Hitler knew that one side or the other would inevitably open up hostilities. In our timeline, the Germans beat the Russians to the punch, not necessarily so in this alternate timeline.

I disagree based on historical fact. Stalin had no intention of breaking the truce, and hid himself away for a week when Hitler invaded, as he couldn't believe his counterpart didn't think the same. I recommend 'Young Stalin' and 'The Court of the Red Tsar' by Simon Sebag Montefiore for the most comprehensive analysis of Stalins character to date.

Why are Germany and the US fighting? Surely the US goes back to selling Germany stuff, everybody's happy (almost).

I'd like to see a passable theory for getting Operation Sealion to work.

America would win, they would take California and the western seaboard, but that would be it most likely. The interstate would still be in development so travelling cross country would be difficult even with a teleporter. By the time the Wehrmacht reached the midwest we would already be in Berlin.

Indeed America would win. The 2nd ammendment was put in just in case of the exact scenario of Merlin creating a portal and The US being invaded from England. Seriously, not even joking. Now, that doesn't make much sense in real life but it covers this thread's premise exactly. Basically, Frazzled and his friends save the world.

LordofHats wrote:[
But those mountains go all the way up Canada and into the arctic. The terrain gets worse. How does going North improve the terrain situation at all and get them around a mountain range?

I wouldn't say it improves the terrain situation, but it at least gives them somewhere to GO, rather than just sitting around their recently conquered California and asking. 'So what now?' or trying to fight their way through the mountains. Though, looking at a more accurate map, I can definitely see that they're not going to be able to 'flank' the Rocky Mountains at all. SOrry, Californian born and raised means I sometimes think of the Sierra Nevada as part of the Rockies.

In any case, I still hold that we won't see big tank battles in the Great Plains. To be honest, unless you're wiling to settle for California, the west coast is not a good way to invade the US from.

I would like to point out that there was a lot of oil and aircraft manufacturing in both SoCal and Boeing up in Seattle, so there is some key industry on the West Coast that the Germans would take out.

halonachos wrote:By the time the Wehrmacht reached the midwest we would already be in Berlin.

More likely the Russians would be in Berlin. GIven the US's reaction to even the tiniest SLIVER of an air strike hitting the mainland, I doubt the US would be willing to send troops to attack Europe while the Germans hold American soil. The US Navy and whatevers left of the Royal Navy should be enough to stop anything bad from hitting the East Coast, so the Atlantic would be a stalemate.

LordofHats wrote:

ChrisWWII wrote:In an invasion of the US, we'd probeably be WORSE off than the Russians. I'd anticipate a total collapse in California similar to the Soviet collapse in the western republics. As awesome as tank battles on the Great Plains would be, I doubt that the Germans would be that idiotic as to try and push through two gargantuan mountain ranges. I'd expect that they'd go north, and try to go around via Canada. This means that the big battles that decide the war would probably take place on Canadian soil rather than American.

But those mountains go all the way up Canada and into the arctic. The terrain gets worse. How does going North improve the terrain situation at all and get them around a mountain range?

I would expect the outcome to be the same as in WWII. Germany would lose in the end. but I agree that it would be harder for the US than it was for Russia. We didn't have a crazy dictator leading the nation willing to do whatever it took to win, even if it meant the death of millions of statistics

Someone never heard of FDR... Truman also fits the bill, minus the dictator part.

I disagree based on historical fact. Stalin had no intention of breaking the truce, and hid himself away for a week when Hitler invaded, as he couldn't believe his counterpart didn't think the same. I recommend 'Young Stalin' and 'The Court of the Red Tsar' by Simon Sebag Montefiore for the most comprehensive analysis of Stalins character to date.

http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/stalwarplans.html
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p501a_Weber.html
http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/suvorov.html
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v17/v17n4p30_Michaels.html


There is much more evidence to the contrary, including direct quotes from Stalin stating that war w/ Germany was unavoidable and that Molotov-Ribbentrop was only a way to bide time. Everything I read indicates that he himself away not because he was surprised that the Germans had broken the pact, but because they had broken it so soon. You have to understand that Stalin had just purged a large part of the military and was rebuilding his army when Hitler hit. He figured he'd have more time, instead he was caught with his pants down. In any case, it IS a hotly contested issue, but i'll take the word of people that were actually there and alive to have dealt with him/ involved in the situation, rather than someone who performs a post-mortum 'character analysis'.

America would win, they would take California and the western seaboard, but that would be it most likely. The interstate would still be in development so travelling cross country would be difficult even with a teleporter. By the time the Wehrmacht reached the midwest we would already be in Berlin.

Woah, noone here is talkin' about a counter-invasion... I don't think any serious military historian would think that the US on its own could march across Europe to Berlin. Taking back our continent is one thing, taking someone elses continent is another entirely.

Chaos, I could go into the war section of my University library, and dig up the relevant points from a dozen odd academically accredited sources that I've been over during essay writing, but I honestly can't be bothered. If you're just going to dismiss Montefiore's work, which is the most recent and detailed description of Stalins life to date, which includes all sorts of interesting things he's uncovered in the Soviet archives, so easily, you're clearly not the type I have any interest in pursuing an intellectual debate with.

chaos0xomega wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

ChrisWWII wrote:In an invasion of the US, we'd probeably be WORSE off than the Russians. I'd anticipate a total collapse in California similar to the Soviet collapse in the western republics. As awesome as tank battles on the Great Plains would be, I doubt that the Germans would be that idiotic as to try and push through two gargantuan mountain ranges. I'd expect that they'd go north, and try to go around via Canada. This means that the big battles that decide the war would probably take place on Canadian soil rather than American.

But those mountains go all the way up Canada and into the arctic. The terrain gets worse. How does going North improve the terrain situation at all and get them around a mountain range?

I would expect the outcome to be the same as in WWII. Germany would lose in the end. but I agree that it would be harder for the US than it was for Russia. We didn't have a crazy dictator leading the nation willing to do whatever it took to win, even if it meant the death of millions of statistics

Someone never heard of FDR... Truman also fits the bill, minus the dictator part.

OH come now. Frankie wasn't that bad I Just don't see FDR throwing waves of men with empty guns or ill trained and poorly equipped troops at Germans to slow them down like Stalin did (not that I'm an FDR expert mind you). Truman... I could see it He has a mean twinkle in his eyes. Like he's plotting something

Woah, noone here is talkin' about a counter-invasion... I don't think any serious military historian would think that the US on its own could march across Europe to Berlin. Taking back our continent is one thing, taking someone elses continent is another entirely.

The US probably could, if it retook its mainland. We had the industry. Maybe not Russian industry, but we could out produce the Germans easily. We did. I suspect it would however take a lot longer to do, and we may not have the stomach to do it. The war could end in a stalemate. I could see that.

Ketara wrote:
Chaos, I could go into the war section of my University library, and dig up the relevant points from a dozen odd academically accredited sources that I've been over during essay writing, but I honestly can't be bothered. If you're just going to dismiss Montefiore's work, which is the most recent and detailed description of Stalins life to date, which includes all sorts of interesting things he's uncovered in the Soviet archives, so easily, you're clearly not the type I have any interest in pursuing an intellectual debate with.

I could do the same thing and dig up evidence supporting my argument as well. In fact, I did at one point have to research this exact topic for my Evolution of Warfare class. You can choose to believe whatever it is you want to believe, but I've seen plenty of sources that make pretty clear Stalin's intentions, and very few first hand sources that are more than circumstantial evidence to the contrary. Out of curiousity, did you bother to read any of my links? Granted, they be internet sources, but they line up pretty well with what I have seen published in books. Additionally, at least one of these sources attempts to explain the differences between the 'new school' and 'old school' in regards to this topic. Personally, I adhere to the new school.

I doubt the US could marshall the political will to march on Berlin, especially after all the casualties they'd taken retaking their own continent. Let's not also forget that during this time, the Germans will be building up their Navy, building up the coastal defenses etc. etc. THis is also assuming Japan doesn't decide it wants to get in on the action while the United States is distracted, and the Pacific Fleet has lost its safe anchorage on the West Coast. They might have a much better chance of taking the Pacific.

I'm honestly interested by what the post war world would be like....it seems like we'd have three superpowers, and maybe even a Soviet-American Alliance to try and contain Germany. Not to mention, we'll have a Japanese Empire that likely would be undefeated.... This would be a very interesting world.

chaos0xomega wrote:

Ketara wrote:
Chaos, I could go into the war section of my University library, and dig up the relevant points from a dozen odd academically accredited sources that I've been over during essay writing, but I honestly can't be bothered. If you're just going to dismiss Montefiore's work, which is the most recent and detailed description of Stalins life to date, which includes all sorts of interesting things he's uncovered in the Soviet archives, so easily, you're clearly not the type I have any interest in pursuing an intellectual debate with.

I could do the same thing and dig up evidence supporting my argument as well. In fact, I did at one point have to research this exact topic for my Evolution of Warfare class. You can choose to believe whatever it is you want to believe, but I've seen plenty of sources that make pretty clear Stalin's intentions, and very few first hand sources that are more than circumstantial evidence to the contrary. Out of curiousity, did you bother to read any of my links? Granted, they be internet sources, but they line up pretty well with what I have seen published in books. Additionally, at least one of these sources attempts to explain the differences between the 'new school' and 'old school' in regards to this topic. Personally, I adhere to the new school.

To be perfectly frank, it wasn't the sources that make me unwilling to discuss this with you. It was the way you relegated the work of a perfectly excellent and thoroughly fascinating historical source to one side with an airy wave, rather than actually enquiring about the nature of the work in question. It's entirely possible you're correct on this topic, and I'm fully prepared to be proven wrong. But such a disdainful approach to me indicating a work I believe to be of considerable significance, that takes into account such an amount of previously unseen material salvaged from various archives in Russia, leads me to question as to whether you approach academic debate in such a similar way to myself. This being the internet, I'm erring on the side of caution and not taking the risk of wasting my time.

If no other country existed besides the US and Germany and both countries existed as they did during the 1940's we would win. We could out produce them and probably outman them in the end. Hell near the end of the war they had fighter pilots ramming into B-17's to lower morale, they were desperate people.

Frazzled wrote:The initial point was, without Russia, could Germany have beaten the US mano o mano on similar terms?

I'd pick the US to win, though it'd take a while. Thing to realise is that the industrial capacity of the US was immense. The military they put in the field during WWII wasn't on the scale of the Russians and the Germans, but that's only because the US wasn't anywhere near the total war footing of those two.

If the US actually faced invasion I think they could have more than matched Russian military production, and wouldn't have suffered any of the inefficiencies of the Soviets in the field.

Well, if we're assuming that Germany is invading the US the old fashioned way, instead of using Frazzzled's portal idea, then I'd have to say that there is no way in hell a German invasion would even be FEASIBLE. Maybe if they had captured the entirity of the Royal and French Navys and massed them with the Kriegsmarine they could beat the US Atlantic Fleet on the high seas, but even if they had cleared the seas, they'd have a hard time launching a proper amphibious invasion, and an even harder time supplying their forces.

I just don't see a full scale German invasion of the United States as possible, and a world where it is possible would be so divorced with our current reality that we really wouldn't be able to predict things.

But a Korean invasion is perfectly acceptable, prefaced with economic collapse and a massive EMP attack. Oh wait that's Homefront, not this thread.

ChrisWWII wrote:Well, if we're assuming that Germany is invading the US the old fashioned way, instead of using Frazzzled's portal idea, then I'd have to say that there is no way in hell a German invasion would even be FEASIBLE. Maybe if they had captured the entirity of the Royal and French Navys and massed them with the Kriegsmarine they could beat the US Atlantic Fleet on the high seas, but even if they had cleared the seas, they'd have a hard time launching a proper amphibious invasion, and an even harder time supplying their forces.

I just don't see a full scale German invasion of the United States as possible, and a world where it is possible would be so divorced with our current reality that we really wouldn't be able to predict things.

Are you responding to my edit, that I subsequently deleted? That was just me misreading where the portal opened, I missed the California part and assumed it would open in the East Coast.

But you're right, that any naval invasion was entirely impossible. The Germans lacked the sea and airpower to make an invasion of England viable, and they only had to cross the Channel. The US effort in crossing the Atlantic and invading Europe was immense, and they had the UK to use. So yeah, actual naval invasion is impossible, hence the portal.

Yeah, I am...I started that edit, and must have missed when you removed it. Apologies.

But even with the portal, I predict the Germans would control the western seaboard, that could still hurt US production of aircraft of petroleum products and aircraft given the size of the Boeing factories in Seattle, and the North American plants in SoCal, not to mention the oil operations down there. It would be a hard blow to the US. However, I agree that faced with an invasion of its home land, the US would likely mobilize very, very quickly, and focus on getting as many men to the front as possible, and eventually winning the war through attrition.

I would like to propose that it might be possible for the Germans to go a more southernly route if they wish to contiue their invasion. If they've defeated the British, I assume they've won in North Africa, and this would mean they have several units that'd be experienced with desert warfare. Given the fact that they'd be facing very few American units, it could be possible for the Germans to advance through the Southwest after they've taken the West Coast...

ChrisWWII wrote:Yeah, I am...I started that edit, and must have missed when you removed it. Apologies.

But even with the portal, I predict the Germans would control the western seaboard, that could still hurt US production of aircraft of petroleum products and aircraft given the size of the Boeing factories in Seattle, and the North American plants in SoCal, not to mention the oil operations down there. It would be a hard blow to the US. However, I agree that faced with an invasion of its home land, the US would likely mobilize very, very quickly, and focus on getting as many men to the front as possible, and eventually winning the war through attrition.

I would like to propose that it might be possible for the Germans to go a more southernly route if they wish to contiue their invasion. If they've defeated the British, I assume they've won in North Africa, and this would mean they have several units that'd be experienced with desert warfare. Given the fact that they'd be facing very few American units, it could be possible for the Germans to advance through the Southwest after they've taken the West Coast...

Nah, I probably shouldn't have deleted the edit, just explained my error and left it there. My bad.

I agree that the Germans could take much of the Western seaboard, though I think we might underestimating the sheer scale of the geography that needs to be occupied to reach Seattle. Like Russia, at some point the scale of the territory needing to be occupied becomes a distinct advantage for the invader.

If the Germans had defeated the British then they'd have access to mid east oil, and the lack of blockade would have given them greater access to core materials like tungsten, but I can't see that being so much of an advantage to change the final result.

Meanwhile the US would have been gearing up on a scale far beyond their real world efforts. Think of the Russian scale of total war production, albeit with the US economic engine, and put into the field with US command and officers, not the considerably more disfunctional Russian ones. If the Germans couldn't overcome the Soviets, how could the result have been any different when facing the US?

George Spiggott wrote:Why are Germany and the US fighting? Surely the US goes back to selling Germany stuff, everybody's happy (almost).

I'd like to see a passable theory for getting Operation Sealion to work.

At that period of time we were already effectively at war in the Atlantic.

Frazzled wrote:At that period of time we were already effectively at war in the Atlantic.

Dumping raw sewage into the sea counts as an act of war against it?

Frazzled wrote:

George Spiggott wrote:Why are Germany and the US fighting? Surely the US goes back to selling Germany stuff, everybody's happy (almost).

I'd like to see a passable theory for getting Operation Sealion to work.

At that period of time we were already effectively at war in the Atlantic.

Not in December 1940.

SilverMK2 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:At that period of time we were already effectively at war in the Atlantic.

Dumping raw sewage into the sea counts as an act of war against it?

Read up on history. The US had declared a safety zone on our half of the Atlantic at that time against all "pirates." German Uboats were viewed as pirates, and depth charged accordingly.

Frazzled wrote:Read up on history. The US had declared a safety zone on our half of the Atlantic at that time against all "pirates." German Uboats were viewed as pirates, and depth charged accordingly.

Sorry, I misread your initial post. I thought it said you were at war with the Atlantic

SilverMK2 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Read up on history. The US had declared a safety zone on our half of the Atlantic at that time against all "pirates." German Uboats were viewed as pirates, and depth charged accordingly.

Sorry, I misread your initial post. I thought it said you were at war with the Atlantic

Ah gotcha. We didn't declare war on the Atlantic until 1956.

Frazzled wrote:Read up on history. The US had declared a safety zone on our half of the Atlantic at that time against all "pirates." German Uboats were viewed as pirates, and depth charged accordingly.

Ok

September 1941, first US ship attacked by a U-boat. http://www.destroyerhistory.org/flushdeck/ussgreer/index.html April 1942, first U-boat sunk by an US ship. http://www.graveyardoftheatlantic.com/U85.htm

Again, why are they even fighting. With Britain out of the war due to the implausibly successful Operation Sealion. The way is clear to attack the Soviet Union not the US.