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.

Maybe.

Given how Hitler acted, he'd probably be so occupied with putting them in concentration camps he wouldn't consider how they'd be useful.

Spend 10 years brainwashing the locals into being your cannon fodder, then release them on the world.


My guess would be they'd simply occupy the western area of Russia. The Soviet Government retreats behind the Ural Mountains, losing most of their industrial power. The Germans would establish a defensive line to keep them out.

The smart thing to do would be to consolidate power. After maybe 5-10 years, the Germans move south. Taking south-eastern europe and Turkey, with other expansions into the Middle East.

After some more consolidation, they could begin advancing into Africa.

 purplefood wrote:
Would Britain and France really have objected if Germany invaded Russia?
They might have even joined in given the feeling towards Russia at the time...

Its mostly rendered moot by Poland. Germany can't get to Russia without getting to Poland, which necessitates fighting Britain and France.

I think Britain and France were still in chicken-mode at that point. An immediate offer of a peace treaty would probably have been accepted. Or at the very least a cease-fire.

Ask Poland nicely to get access through them as part of a mutual defence pact against Russia (Germany could easily claim they are worried about aggression from the Soviets)
Germany could partially upgrade the Polish forces to be able to defend their rear quarters and supply lines meaning they have somewhere to fall back to in case things go wrong and a clear line of supply for the initial invasion.

AFAIK the Soviets were very much disliked by pretty much everyone in Europe and most of the world...

Britain didnt surrender when it was all alone against Nazi-Germany, so it would most probably only have fallen with a direct invasion.

What most people tend to forget was that Nazi-Germany had plans to kill a good deal of the population west of the Volga line. At the end of 1941 a great deal of territory west of the Arkhangelsk-Astrakhan had already fallen, yet Soviet industry had already been moved and they kept on fighting. Most what-if scenarios dont have a strong basis in reality. One of the best and realistic ive heard so far was improving the Afrika Korps strike force and moving Barbarossa together with a thrust from Rommel trough the Caucasus.

Edit: The Polish didnt allow troop movements from both sides, Hitler had tried getting an alliance with Poland at first (against the Soviet Union), but they refused and stayed neutral to both sides.

Nobody likes Russians. Even all their hot women are signing up to be spys so they can shag foreign men.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I may be wrong on this, but at the time Poland was taken the Russians weren't fully mobilized or prepared for eventual war with Germany.

No more or less than when Germany actual invaded. Russia's best defense was its sheer size. Even Russia east of the Urals is massive. Germany didn't have the manpower to cover the territory with sufficient force or the logistical ability to project into Russia adequately. As Barbarossa showed, once the initial shock of the Blitz was expended and the defense started to form, Germany just couldn't fight its way through all the bodies.

The T-34 was not yet in full production at the time so the Germans would have had an advantage on this front.

The T-34 wouldn't be that big till long after Babarossa fail. During Barbarossa the life saver for Soviet armor were the BT7 and the KV1. The BT7 was fast enough to make a real pain of itself. The KV1 actually couldn't be killed by German weaponry in 1942 and even into 1943 remained a total pain (a single KV1 held up supply lines to the 7th Panzer Division for a week). More KV1's were disabled by running out of gas or ammunition than by German fire.

Heck, the actual invasion of Russia could have been successful if the Germans had been a little quicker at getting to the factories before the Russians moved them away from Moscow. And had Hitler not been meddling in the war plans.

Hitler didn't do that much initial meddling in Barbarossa. By the time he started getting directly involved the Soviets had already started moving. The German advance was one of the fastest in history. It's unlikely they could have moved any faster.

Russia is just too damn big.

Hitler needed Jimmy McMillan as an adviser. "Russia, its just too damn big to invade"

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Britain didnt surrender when it was all alone against Nazi-Germany, so it would most probably only have fallen with a direct invasion.

It's a complete toss up. It's feasible that a peace could have been negotiated. Choking off supplies with the U-Boats, slowly crippling the British fleet. The failure of the Kriegsmarine in WWII pretty much rests solely on Hitler being a propagandist first. The Kriegsmarine could never win a fight with the Royal Navy but they could more than adequately cripple it and British supplies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

What most people tend to forget was that Nazi-Germany had plans to kill a good deal of the population west of the Volga line. At the end of 1941 a great deal of territory west of the Arkhangelsk-Astrakhan had already fallen, yet Soviet industry had already been moved and they kept on fighting. Most what-if scenarios dont have a strong basis in reality. One of the best and realistic ive heard so far was improving the Afrika Korps strike force and moving Barbarossa together with a thrust from Rommel trough the Caucasus.

Most of them ignore just how good the Russians really were. Stalin planned to fight Hitler from the beginning. If Hitler didn't strike first Stalin would, so waiting to fight Russia wasn't going to work. Germany's only real chance in WWII was to force a stalemate with Russia and sue for peace which was a slim to none chance that completely evaporated after the Battle of Kursk.

I feel like we've moved so far into speculation mode that we might as well try and determine how aliens landing would have changed things.

And Germany could have just ignored Britain till they were able to squash them with certainty. Shore up the Atlantic Wall and keep the U-boats busy. And make sure not to poke the Americans(Thanks Japan)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:
I feel like we've moved so far into speculation mode that we might as well try and determine how aliens landing would have changed things.

Don't be silly. there's a game for that

 LordofHats wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Britain didnt surrender when it was all alone against Nazi-Germany, so it would most probably only have fallen with a direct invasion.

It's a complete toss up. It's feasible that a peace could have been negotiated. Choking off supplies with the U-Boats, slowly crippling the British fleet. The failure of the Kriegsmarine in WWII pretty much rests solely on Hitler being a propagandist first. The Kriegsmarine could never win a fight with the Royal Navy but they could more than adequately cripple it and British supplies.

A direct invasion would have probably happened sooner then being crippled due to U-boats. The Luftwaffe almost broke the RAF in 1940 and a invasion could have started, but Hitler changed the tactics for the Luftwaffe just before this crucial point, just like a year later for Heeresgruppe Mitte. I guess the best chance at a what-if scenario would have been a warmongerer like Hitler, but not Hitler.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
I feel like we've moved so far into speculation mode that we might as well try and determine how aliens landing would have changed things.

Don't be silly. there's a game for that

Just get a friend to play Hearts of Iron with you and play the Soviets and Germans

An invasion was never going to happen. It's funny because Hitler told his big wigs to plan an invasion of the British Isles and they talked about it for a bit and their response was basically "well feth this isn't going to work." XD The Royal Navy would have crushed such an overt move easily and Germany didn't have the boats to attempt a channel crossing anymore than the British did. You don't just load a bunch of soldiers into a battleship and take them across the water. You need landing craft and the ability to put them on the ground. Neither Britain or Germany could have pulled that off.

For historical context (wink) the English Channel has only been crossed 3 times with lasting military success. Aulus Plautius, William the Conquerer, and Operation Overlord.

It was all down to the ability of the Luftwaffe to take out the RAF. For historical context look at the HMS Prince of Wales and Repulse. The British army would have probably been unable to even push a small German force of the beaches with German air cover, seeing as how the lost most of their heavy equipment at Dunkirk.

 LordofHats wrote:
An invasion was never going to happen. It's funny because Hitler told his big wigs to plan an invasion of the British Isles and they talked about it for a bit and their response was basically "well feth this isn't going to work." XD The Royal Navy would have crushed such an overt move easily and Germany didn't have the boats to attempt a channel crossing anymore than the British did. You don't just load a bunch of soldiers into a battleship and take them across the water. You need landing craft and the ability to put them on the ground. Neither Britain or Germany could have pulled that off.

For historical context (wink) the English Channel has only been crossed 3 times with lasting military success. Aulus Plautius, William the Conquerer, and Operation Overlord.

And the first 2 times were without the landing itself being contested IIRC.

I don't doubt that after Dunkirk an actual invasion would have worked. The problem is that Germany had no means of delivering an army to British shores. The Luftwaffe couldn't take out the Royal Navy. The Royal Navy was the largest fleet in the world when the war started, and was capable enough to fend off the inadequate bombing capability of the German airforce (The Atlantic Fleet didn't initially make a habit of small bands of its ships roaming around without their own air cover). Combined with the Germany Navy they could possibly contain the Royal Navy but never defeat it outright.

Even if Germany could, they couldn't get across the channel. It's a catch-22. Germany would probably win if they got there, but they were never going to get there.

EDIT: It took the Japanese over 10 hours to sink the Prince of Wales and the Repulse. Force in the Atlantic was much more concentrated the Germany bombing capability more limited (in this sense) than Japan's. Germany never fielded much by the way of torpedo bombers which were the key to Japan's success and they never really applied the idea of air power against naval power (in spite of the British doing it all the time XD).

The German invasion of Norway proved Germany was capable of dropping of an invasion army. You overestimate the ability of a fleet being able to fend off aircraft. WWII offers the prime example of ships being unable to fight aircraft effectively enough to win or even fend off an enemy invasion. Japan providing one of the better examples. The Luftwaffe only had to keep the Royal Navy bottled up in its ports and it would have been over.

I don't doubt air power over naval power I doubt German air power over naval power. They didn't have adequate training for the operations or planes designed for it.

Japan sank the Repulse and Prince of Wales primarily through the use of Torpedo planes (namely a really lucky Torpedo that knocked out the PoW's propeller). Germany only produced a few such designed and they numbered less than 200 for the course of the entire war. The Stuka was more scary than combat effective. German air power wasn't equipped to fight the Royal Navy. German fighters couldn't even make it far across the channel and back, while Japanese planes had a fairly good range and it still took 10 hours and three separate attacks to sink the Prince of Wales.

Dive bombing would be adequate enough, provided by the example of Midway or the Soviet Baltic fleet confined to Leningrad due to the threat of German bombers and minefields. It can be argued that Germany possesed the best dive-bombers at the start of the war. Poor planning but operational succes was shown in the end with the invasion of Crete, the Germans pulled it off, even though the Royal Navy enjoyed naval supremacy in the Meditarranean.

How could I forget june 6th?

Thats when both my grandad's went to visit Europe.

I miss those guys, they had some great stories and attitudes towards life.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Dive bombing would be adequate enough, provided by the example of Midway or the Soviet Baltic fleet confined to Leningrad due to the threat of German bombers and minefields.

Dive bombing capabilities among the US navy were way ahead of the Germans. The Stuka had bad deployment sytem that caused the bombs to almost always fall off target. Not an issue against clustered ground targets but its surprising how hard hitting a boat can be.

It can be argued that Germany possesed the best dive-bombers at the start of the war.

They had the most famous dive bomber. The Stuka practically tore itself apart in a dive and was slow as dirt. Once the British adapted it would pose little threat. German twin engine bombers meanwhile were... Just bad.

In spite of its reputation for being Zero fodder, the Dauntless was probably the best dive bomber designed in WWII.

Poor planning but operational succes was shown in the end with the invasion of Crete, the Germans pulled it off, even though the Royal Navy enjoyed naval supremacy in the Meditarranean.

The Crete Invasion was committed with airborne assets against a comparatively light defense. Such tactics on their own would have been ineffective in invading the British Isles. Frankly given the defenders Crete should have been a walk in the park. That it wasn't speaks largely to how lucky Germany was in that operation not to how capable they were.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Dive bombing would be adequate enough, provided by the example of Midway or the Soviet Baltic fleet confined to Leningrad due to the threat of German bombers and minefields.

Dive bombing capabilities among the US navy were way ahead of the Germans. The Stuka had bad deployment sytem that caused the bombs to almost always fall off target. Not an issue against clustered ground targets but its surprising how hard hitting a boat can be.

It can be argued that Germany possesed the best dive-bombers at the start of the war.

They had the most famous dive bomber. The Stuka practically tore itself apart in a dive and was slow as dirt. Once the British adapted it would pose little threat. German twin engine bombers meanwhile were... Just bad.

In spite of its reputation for being Zero fodder, the Dauntless was probably the best dive bomber designed in WWII.

Poor planning but operational succes was shown in the end with the invasion of Crete, the Germans pulled it off, even though the Royal Navy enjoyed naval supremacy in the Meditarranean.

The Crete Invasion was committed with airborne assets against a comparatively light defense. Such tactics on their own would have been ineffective in invading the British Isles. Frankly given the defenders Crete should have been a walk in the park. That it wasn't speaks largely to how lucky Germany was in that operation not to how capable they were.

Well the capabilities might have been better developed, but they were not involved yet. In the first years it was the Germans that preformed best among the combatants. The Stuka worked best in an air superiority situation, for the reasons you provided, but its effectiveness against tanks, trains and ships were proved during the invasion of the Soviet Union. The Stuka as an aircraft was probably one of the worst and already at the end of its servicable years in 1939, but due to air superiority it worked.
Saying Crete was luck is just throwing away almost all of the first years of German succes, most of it was luck, they didnt have numbers or quality at their side, but training and luck. But Crete was a similar situation, the British had just evacuated Greece, leaving behind their equipment, just like Dunkirk and the only missing part was the total air superiority. The invasion of Britain would also have used airborne assests followed by ground elements, like in Norway. The defenders of Britain would have faced quite a similar situation as the soldiers on Crete, demoralized and without most of their equipment.

Germany would have needed a lot more time to develop the ability to invade England. It was possible, but not in the decade the war started possible.

I seem to recall Oberst Hans Rudel, the most successful ground attack pilot in human history to date (2,500+ sorties, 2000+ tank kills, aviation ace... with a Stuka, Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross in Gold with Swords and Diamonds) getting a look at a Dauntless after the war and saying something to the effect of "What I could have done with one of these!"

The defenders of Britain would have faced quite a similar situation as the soldiers on Crete, demoralized and without most of their equipment.

Except they would have been too many for paratroopers to fight. They wouldn't have come right out on the heels of a defeat (Crete was immediately preceeded by the massive defeat in Greece). Germany would never have been able to quickly follow up on Dunkirk and that makes a big difference. Lastly, Germany could never have delivered an army onto British soil substantial enough to defeat Britain. They didn't have the expertise or the equipment or anything close to either. Russia would have attacked before either could be developed.

I was hoping to watch history channel all day with shows abut D-Day.
Nope, Pawn Stars

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I was hoping to watch history channel all day with shows abut D-Day.
Nope, Pawn Stars

Because it was all on History 2.

"The Color of War" ran all day on June 6th.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I was hoping to watch history channel all day with shows abut D-Day.
Nope, Pawn Stars

I don't think History Channel has done anything historical in years. It is Aliens and reality shows at this point.

They could have said something about how aliens might have influenced D-Day.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
They could have said something about how aliens might have influenced D-Day.

Harry Turtledove already covered that in his "Worldwar" series of novels.