154

A common topic in alternate history fiction works is what would have happened if a major war had been won by the other side. These usually focus on the events after the war, and the change itself is not depicted realistically: it's either not discussed, or attributed to a superweapon or deus ex machina.

I know that WW2 was a very complex war, with a huge number of social and economic factors in it so that there was no single realistic "miracle" which would have guaranteed a certain different outcome. Therefore I list a number of disclaimers in order to make this question fit into the topic of this site.

  • It doesn't have to guarantee an Axis victory, but it has to increase its probability significantly.

  • A victory doesn't necessarily mean global domination (which neither power had any realistic chance of achieving). If Germany ends up in control over most of Eastern Europe (like the Soviets ended up doing in real life after the war), with a Soviet Union unwilling to fight, and with a peace treaty with the western Allies at least slightly favorable to Germany, it counts as a victory for Germany.

  • The change has to be a single event, or a collection of tightly coupled and interdependent events. It has to happen either during the war, or not more than a few years before it. The war should, at least in the beginning, look very similar to what happened in real life: the alliances should be roughly the same, the events like the conquest of Poland, the occupation of France, an attack against the Soviet Union, and a naval war between the USA and Japan should occur (or at least begin), even if at different dates or different order. The major participants should be the same.

  • The change should have a realistic justification (so no secret Nazi super laser), I would think in the following changes: events progressing slightly faster or slightly slower than in real life, a single large battle or series of interconnected battles won by the opposite side (if that had even a small chance of happening)

I'm thinking along the lines of Germany and its allies advancing faster against the Soviets and crushing them before they had any chance of putting up a good defense, or Hitler not antagonizing scientists so they could develop even better equipment or maybe even a nuclear bomb, or Japan winning the battle of Midway and keeping the USA from entering the European theater, or a different sequence of diplomatic events leading a peace on one front which in turn could lead to a victory on the other front, etc.

yeah22
  • 123
  • 3
vsz
  • 11,248
  • 7
  • 36
  • 64
  • 32
    The nazis not invading Poland and thus turning the USSR against them. – Jake Dec 02 '15 at 20:28
  • 56
    The axis chances were actually not that great, they started with a huge standing army sure, but couldn't keep up with the rate the others could build up forces so it was just a matter of time until attrition took them down. The biggest change though would be a simple one, never attack Russia! They lost allot to Russian winter, and having an extra flank to defend divided what forces they had. I don't know rather or not it alone would have saved them, but I know avoiding attacking Russia would be a huge boon, and doesn't require a spectactical change, someone realized it was crazy – dsollen Dec 02 '15 at 21:10
  • 89
    I'd go with "not invading Russia" -- Napoleon. – Criggie Dec 03 '15 at 03:38
  • 7
    Considering that this question already has 20+ answers, it makes me appreciate history way more knowing that there were so many pivotal points during the war, and that any minor changes could have swung the victory in the opposite direction. I know with the benefit of hindsight it's easy to see what went right/wrong, and if things had happened differently at the time the other side would have reacted differently to counter it etc., but it's fascinating to think that the outcome of the conflict was balanced on a knife edge. +1 – Mike.C.Ford Dec 03 '15 at 11:08
  • 2
    May I recommend this book for a fascinating "small moment" that might have prevented the Dunkirk evacuation? – deworde Dec 03 '15 at 14:02
  • Perhaps Hitler not focusing that much on trying to gain the mythical superpowers and dei ex machinae? :-) – Pavel Dec 03 '15 at 16:58
  • 1
  • What’s not been suggested and I’m not knowledgable enough about: 1. Death of Stalin before 1943 results in Soviet/Russian civil war. 2. Franco’s Spain joins forces with Germany and Italy in 1940 or 1941, takes Gibraltar. – Crissov Dec 03 '15 at 20:25
  • 14
    Funny, we have a whole Stack Exchange spin-off for history, but this question would get crucified there. –  Dec 03 '15 at 20:47
  • 2
    anyone performing time travel. Regardless of the reason or destination, if Holywood has taught us anything it's that time travel of any kind causes the nazi's to win WWII : http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GodwinsLawOfTimeTravel – Joseph Rogers Dec 04 '15 at 09:48
  • Lots of good stuff here and 'some' rubbish :-). Consider looking at the many things which seem to have helped the allies win. You can find a large number of things which by themselves almost seem to have made THE difference. Knock out a good number and it may turn the tide.| Hitlers obstinate no-retreat fighj where you stand approach - good sometimes, more often fatal | Chamberlain won the war with Munich! - he gave them the extra year needed to gave them the Spitfire which swung the Battle of Britain which forstalled Sealion which ... ... – Russell McMahon Dec 05 '15 at 09:10
  • ... . (Hurricane was better than most credit it being - but not enough. | - Churchill was more human than many seem to realise but made a vast difference ... . C' dead = ...? | Enigma - your code has been broken - Imbeciles! | The bomb, as has been said. | Malta - agh - eliminate Malta and you have the Mediterranean and ... |. Realise how crucial African front is and resource it well enough. Small compared with other demands (even though the rest ever so urgent).Egypt gives you Palestine gives Caucasus access to Eastern oil fields gives ... - India was a major Britsh food source. | Much more – Russell McMahon Dec 05 '15 at 09:14
  • If the Bletchley Park four had never written their letter to Churchill, or Churchill never read it, or never acted on it. That Churchill did act on it, overriding his own generals and advisors is pretty surprising, so ignoring it is actually the more likely course. Almost every answer here could have been undone by Bletchley Park anyway ... unless Churchill never gave them the resources that they were being denied. – RBarryYoung Dec 05 '15 at 16:42
  • 2
    The keys of WWII are US resource committment and Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union. If US involvement had not taken place, or Germany had defeated the USSR, Germany would have been very difficult to remove from Western Europe. The key is Japan's entry into the war by attacking Russia instead of the USA. That would have both kept the US out of the war for some time and prevented the USSR from moving their Far East divisions. Siberian oil and mines would have given Japan interior lines of supply, and Western hatred of Communism reducing the amount of support offered to the USSR. – lonstar Dec 05 '15 at 22:40
  • Here is a great compilation of all the things Hitler screwed up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GK419Nlp8eU Basically, if he wasn't an idiot he could have won. – Chloe Dec 06 '15 at 07:26
  • Further reading: Philip Roth - The Plot Against America – Alexander Dec 06 '15 at 13:49
  • Please check out the book The Man In the High Castle by Philip K Dick. Excellent read. I believe they talked about how the US stayed very very firm to its isolationist policy, thus they couldn't mobilize or build up their armies or defenses, resulting in the Axis easily coming through to defeat them. Great new tv series with the same name is out there as well. – Registered User Dec 08 '15 at 02:40
  • 2
    Is it acceptable to remove Hitler pre-war? He was a decent demagogue but a poor leader in terms of policy, diplomacy and strategy. Also, not having the Holocaust would have alienated far less of the world. Imperialism and war was still "usual" at the time, and WWII would probably have happened, anyway, what with the terms of the treaty of Versailles (the dissatisfaction with which Hitler used and fueled but did not create) hanging over Germany. – Raphael Dec 08 '15 at 16:47
  • Would bottling up Pearl Harbor by successfully blocking the harbor entry with the Nevada have made a big enough difference? From what I recall, if the harbor entrance had been blocked with a shipwreck, most of the US naval fleet would have been trapped, severely limiting the US's ability to take part in the war for about 6 months. And it's a very viable "small change" that would cause major changes in the timeline. – Mar Dec 08 '15 at 23:04
  • 2
    An extremely important decision was done by Stalin in the beginning of 30-s: to develop new industrial areas to the east from Ural as opposed to that in Ukraine. If it was Ukraine, it would be occupied by German in the first weeks of the war. With the loss of the majority of industrial power, the war would be lost by USSR. – TT_ stands with Russia Dec 09 '15 at 00:01
  • Not invade Russia. Or at least not invade when they did is obvious. But what would be the alternative? Turn to the middle east and cut off the allies supplies of oil and gas. Invade the Levant, Iraq and then Iran. Threaten India. – wjousts Dec 09 '15 at 16:25
  • 4
    "The nazis not invading Poland and thus turning the USSR against them." @Jake: Germany and USSR invaded Poland together, they where allies that time. Later, Germany attacked USSR (attacked an ally). Seems that Hitler thought that Stalin would attak him if he was not faster. – Julian Egner Feb 03 '17 at 10:52
  • @JulianEgner Yes, invading Poland did not turn USSR against Germany. Tho it did turn Britian/France against Germany. Hitler thought that they wouldn't make good on their threat. In fact, Hitler never planned to make war with Britain as he envisioned a British Empire alongside his German One, which is one reason why he had too few U-Boats in 1940. – DrZ214 Apr 07 '17 at 03:22
  • Regarding the old answer that Hitler shouldn't have invaded USSR, however, did that to try to get to the Caucasus oil fields. The question is, would he have run out of oil if he hadn't done that? – komodosp Feb 02 '18 at 16:42
  • I'm voting to close this question because given the number of valid answers it has received it's definitely too broad. Furthermore it's being referenced as an example of what is currently ok. For the sake of a consistent site experience this should be closed to not confuse newcomers to the site. – sphennings Oct 27 '21 at 12:15
  • I'm beginning to think that "Hitler not being an idiot" would be too big a change. The most effective suggestions made seem to involve that. – EvilSnack Dec 07 '21 at 15:04

39 Answers39

138

Germany completes the Uranprojekt first

Germany, prior to the Nazi takeover, had the best physics research establishment in the world, bar none.

Imagine that the discoverers of fission, Hahn and Strassmann instead of ignoring Ida Noddak's suggestions for 4 years (as they do in our timeline), work with her and Lise Meitner to discover nuclear fission early in 1933 instead of 1938. The Heereswaffenamt, the Nazi equivalent of the American Skunk Works/DARPA , manages to catch the paper before it reaches publication stage, and Hitler immediately recognizes the potential of the weapon.

Uranprojekt is thus started under absolute secrecy 5 years early, and funded to a level equivalent to the Reichsautobahn (highway) project. Hundreds of German scientists disappear from public view and are tasked to work on the Uranprojekt full time. They focus on simpler gun-type designs, starting uranium enrichment as early as 1935, with hundreds of kilograms of enriched uranium generated before the war's start. Germany reaches deployable nuclear weapons in 1938.

Da bomb

A corresponding logical focus on developing heavy, long-range bombers enables them to deploy the bomb at considerable range, in the Schwerer Bomber Messerschmitt Me 264.

Messer Bomber

The Amerika-Bomber project was an initiative of the German Reichsluftfahrtministerium to obtain a long-range strategic bomber for the Luftwaffe that would be capable of striking the contiguous United States from Germany, a distance of about 5,800 km (3,600 mi).

The allies crumble in a matter of months under the German Bomb.

Statue of Liberty

Serban Tanasa
  • 60,095
  • 35
  • 188
  • 310
  • 48
    I came here to post "the Nazi get da bomb first", but your essay is a piece of art. well done sir. – Mindwin Remember Monica Dec 02 '15 at 18:46
  • 56
    In a delicious turn of history, it was Lisa Meitner's Jewish heritage, and the persecution that she endured at the hands of the Nazi government, that probably delayed the discovery of fission by years, and thus maybe prevented a successful German Atom Bomb project in our world. – Serban Tanasa Dec 02 '15 at 19:01
  • Related: http://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/a/22293/6751 – AndyD273 Dec 03 '15 at 21:07
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – Monica Cellio Dec 04 '15 at 02:31
  • 1
    In retrospect, the difference in some event, like a failure of Operation Gunnerside (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_heavy_water_sabotage#Operation_Gunnerside) could allow the Nazis to make the bomb. – Mints97 Dec 04 '15 at 19:29
  • 10
    I have to voice my disagreement. Building nuclear bombs is a difficult business, it took all of America's industry and focus (along with Germany's exiled Jewish scientists) to make it a reality by 1945, and even then they only managed to build two bombs by the August of that year. If Japan had kept the fight up, America would have had no more bombs to drop, at least for a while. For Germany a bomb may have been a deterrent for America's involvement in the war in Europe, but that alone would be unlikely to affect the outcome of the war. Very easily the A-bomb could've proven to be a V-weapon – Stumbler Dec 05 '15 at 15:29
  • 7
    @Mints97: it could have allowed the Nazis to make some kind of nuclear bomb, but such bombs probably wouldn't have changed the war much. Slowing down neutrons is a good strategy when you're designing a reactor that can be huge and heavy and is supposed to work smoothly. But even with heavy water, this doesn't really allow an effective bomb design; at best the Nazis could have used the heavy water to breed more radioactive isotopes more quickly, and perhaps build some really nasty dirty bombs, and those are pretty good for terror but not very effective against industrial infrastructure. – leftaroundabout Dec 05 '15 at 15:35
  • Did they also move the Statue of Liberty too? Because you can't see the Brooklyn Bridge behind the statue. – Chloe Dec 06 '15 at 07:37
  • 3
    @Stumbler, that's why I have them starting well before the war, and funding it to the level of the massive highway project. – Serban Tanasa Dec 07 '15 at 15:25
  • 1
    @SerbanTanasa interestingly Germany was bad at focusing on really useful projects until the last minute. The fighter jet, main battle tank, infantry launched anti-tank rocket, inter-continental missile, etc. were all back-burner projects until their introduction was deemed imperative (the Germans were shocked that their tanks were sub par when they attacked the USSR and had to quickly produce something that could counter the T-34). Something like the fission bomb would never do as a back-burner project suddenly kicked into life in the event of an emergency. – Stumbler Dec 07 '15 at 21:56
  • 2
    Germany actually wins World War 2? I did Nazi that coming! – WorldSpinner Dec 08 '15 at 16:00
  • 2
    @WorldSpinner: And the Wurst Prize for alternate-reality fascist victory puns goes to... – T.J. Crowder Dec 09 '15 at 11:41
  • @Stumbler: That apparent lack of foresight was a result of the high command being aware, well before the whole war kicked off, that they had no chance of winning the war by attrition. The plan was to defeat Russia by surprise attack, within one year or two at the most. They intended to win the war without having to put the whole nation into "wartime production" state. – DevSolar Dec 09 '15 at 16:05
  • 1
    @stumbler - the Nazi's were very close to producing nuclear weapons. Yes they may have been "dirty" bombs - but drop a few of those on London/Manchester/Birmingham/New York/Philadelphia and the UK/US would have sued for peace pretty damn quickly. You don't have to destroy a nation's ability to wage war, just their will to. – Jon Story Dec 11 '15 at 16:06
  • 1
    @Stumbler - Uranium enrichment is just too slow. The Manhattan Project waited for a long time just to get enough U-235 for a single gun-type bomb. They accurately concluded that plutonium bombs were necessary to produce bombs at a higher rate -- this required a complete redesign to use implosion. Though a more complex design., the US would have been able build 2-3 plutonium bombs per month very soon after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs (within 30-60 days), and actually had plans to use them on Japan - Truman put a stop to those plans. – Gary Walker Mar 13 '16 at 19:05
  • 1
    Just to let you know: the US project to build the B-29 superfortress cost more than the Manhattan Project (so heavy long-range bombers are a huge, huge industrial thing). To do both that and the A-Bomb, and both within 5 years, would cost more resources than Germany had in 1935-1940. Germany was very much a war-torn and despondent nation after WW1. – DrZ214 Apr 07 '17 at 04:17
  • And to be thorough, we also need to figure out where and how a huge supply of Uranium will come from to do intense research. America got lucky with the Shinkolobwe Mine in Africa. Only 3 other known Uranium sources existed: Czechoslovakia, Colorado, and The Great Slave Lake in Canada. None of those 3 had anywhere near the rich deposit of Uranium in Shinkolobwe. I recommend this book if you're interested: Uranium: War, Energy, and the Rock That Shaped the World, by Tom Zoellner. – DrZ214 Apr 07 '17 at 04:19
92

Assassinate Hitler
In 1941, mid war, Hitler is assassinated with the hope that this would weaken the German top ranks, cause infighting, hurt morale, and bring a faster end to the war.

Instead Erich von Manstein is able to seize control quickly and stop the march against Russia. Using this as a way to open ceasefire talks, they are able to avoid having to fight on as many fronts, directing more forces against England and the allies.
The "martyrdom" of Hitler also doesn't hurt morale as hoped, but give the German soldiers something to rally behind.

This gives them time to dig in, which brings the allies to the negotiation table to work out an end to the war.

Score: draw (but not a loss, satisfying bullet point 2).

Edit: After a bit more reading, it's possible, even likely, that Germany would still have attacked Russia if Hitler was killed in 1941, but some historians believe that it would have been successful (as it very nearly was) if Hitler had listened to his generals and focused Moscow first, instead of trying for the oil fields first.

Continued: (disclamer, I got a lot of what follows here if you want to skip to the source)
tl;dr: Why might they attack Russia? They needed oil. Their choices were to attack the British in Egypt on the way to the middle east, or attack Russia. Russia was the stronger of the two, and was massing troops along the border. The theory was that Russia could attack in the summer of 42, so they decided to attack first, before Russia was ready. And Russia was not ready at all. Despite Having a bigger army, they had poor leadership (Stalin killed a lot of the best officers), poor communication, and poor training.
Germany had victory after victory in Russia, capturing or killing millions of Russian soldiers. They got within 20 miles of Moscow before winter. They just couldn't push that last little bit.
The reason is that Hitler wanted to take the oil fields first, depriving the Russians of the resources, while the generals want to take Moscow first in order to remove the Russian leadership, and they could only put their main power behind one. Half way through Hitler decided the generals plan was better, but it was to late, and they didn't make it before winter. Russia was able to bring in more troops and push them back, hurting them badly.
Without Hitler the generals would have put the main push against Moscow and probably would have been able to take it by September.

Edit 2
Since comments were moved to chat, there have been some good comments about Germany attacking Russia that improve the answer

Mints97
just my couple of cents here: taking Moscow may not have necessarily meant taking Russia. Napoleon took Moscow, but he was as far from conquering Russia as he was when he started his invasion...

Agreed, and that's specifically why Hitler didn't want to focus on Moscow. He wanted to avoid the mistake that Napoleon made, and go after the resources first. For some reason his military leaders thought that Moscow was important, and managed to convince him to switch. Maybe it would have been better to stick to his original plan, or maybe they had information I don't know about.
I remember reading that the communist Russian army under Stalin was not very good at taking initiative, since he killed all the independent thinking ones that might try to take over. It wasn't the same Russia that Napoleon invaded.
It's possible that with the government gone that the army would have just folded up. Or maybe not. Another what-if.

AndyD273
  • 34,658
  • 2
  • 72
  • 150
  • 55
    Plus, the one of the Allies' greatest weapons against the German war machine was Hitler's incompetence as a military leader. His "strategies" got to the point where the British government actually stopped trying to assassinate him because they realized that he was winning the war for them. – Simpson17866 Dec 02 '15 at 17:36
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – Monica Cellio Dec 04 '15 at 02:33
  • 19
    @Simpson17866: Got any sources for that statement? – fgysin Dec 08 '15 at 10:09
  • 2
    Moscow was a better target, at least preliminary. There are huge rail hubs and communication hubs and other roads all leading to Moscow. In 1812, there were no railways... Taking and holding, or at least surrounding Moscow like they did Leningrad, would be a huge boost. But remember their factories were evacuated to the Urals and Stalin brought in many fresh troops from Siberia (which is one major reason why the USSR halted the approach to Moscow), so it's not over yet. – DrZ214 Apr 07 '17 at 03:39
  • @DrZ214 More good info! Yeah, I wonder if they would have been able to take Moscow before winter if they had moved against it first, instead of taking the route that Hitler wanted... If they had gotten in before the new troops had arrived. They may have been able to hold it through the winter if they were inside and the Russian troops were out in the cold. Or maybe not. – AndyD273 Apr 07 '17 at 13:39
  • @AndyD273 I encourage you to search youtube for "lecture barbarossa" and similar things. Lot's of good data from professors there. In particular, Hitler actually changed his mind several times during the invasion, losing time as some armies fickley zig-zagged back and forth between north and south. Personally I think Stalin still woulda brought in reinforcements whenever Hitler got close enough. Moscow could have turned into a Stalingrad. In any case, there is no way the Army woulda survived the winter without the clothing, and they cannot get it from Moscow without walking into a Stalingrad. – DrZ214 Apr 07 '17 at 23:24
  • Without wanting to be to harsh, I would like to point that the general idea of "German generals competent but were overruled by incompetent Hitler" has come under criticism lately. Some of Hitler decisions overruling his generals did make sense (defend in Stalingrad while the army in the Caucasus retreats, do not retreat to the middle of nowhere in the Soviet 1941 offensive) and his generals supported some of his bad ideas (specially invading the Soviet Union). But after the war, his generals could write books blaming Hitler and absolving themselves while Hitler could not do the same. – SJuan76 Aug 07 '18 at 22:24
  • "the gov't" would have just relocated to another city, as it was done in RL anyway, to the city Kuibyshev IIRC (Stalin stayed back in Moscow in RL, would just leave it to same Kuibyshev if it fell). The possible impact on Soviet morale of losing Moscow is an open question. – Will Ness Jan 17 '19 at 17:03
  • Yep, assassinate Hitler. He was needed to sweep up the German people into a furore, to start the War. But he was too erratic, too egotistic, to make a good war leader. Assassinate him, say while he is visiting Paris in june 1940. Make it obvious the assassin is British. Now Hitler is no longer a liability, but a Martyr! Operation Sealion gets fast-tracked, Britain is conquered (giving access to british oil in africa and middle-east). With UK gone, Usa might very well have negotiated peace/detente instead. With no UK or US support, Russia is ripe for the plucking. –  Nov 12 '20 at 11:37
61

Seeking a "minimal credible change", I would say that in May/June 1940 the Luftwaffe ignores the rest of the Battle of France and focuses in attacking the British troops evacuating Dunkirk.

Not only the BEF is captured whole, the RAF also suffers a crippling defeat (fighting over foreign terrain, with little fuel after crossing the channel and without the advantage of radar) and loses most of its planes and pilots, and the Navy also suffers some damage in desperate attempts to break the siege.

After France surrenders (a little later than in original history, due to the respite they got), the UK has no army and the Luftwaffe can guarantee the safety of an invasion fleet against the damaged UK Navy. Realizing that when (not if) German units land on British soil the UK will have almost nothing left to negotiate with, recently elected PM Winston Churchill makes an epic speech asking MP to preserve the greatness of the British Empire by signing a peace treaty that gives Germany free reign in Europe and North Africa.

SJuan76
  • 13,667
  • 1
  • 32
  • 58
  • 6
    That's a really good observation. If the Germans had not stood by and let the British escape, things easily could have been different. But I don't agree with your point about the RAF. At a minimum, the disadvantages you mention would apply equally to the Luftwaffe. But I also think the British would have been far more acquainted with northern France than the Germans would be. After all, they had just retreated through it. Plus, the channel is not so wide that it would have a dramatic effect on fuel. – Mohair Dec 02 '15 at 18:44
  • 5
    @Mohair both are reversals of the British advantages during the Battle of Britain. A German pilot parachuting on Dunkirk could fail into German or UK hands, but even if caught by the British he would have been freed when the pocket were captured. Similarly, a British pilot falling inside British lines would have ended as a POW in the end. And the Channel may not be wide, but a UK fighter plane (which had not much range to begin with would have had to cross it twice -and then go from and back the actual air base- severely limiting their fuel for actual combat – SJuan76 Dec 02 '15 at 19:00
  • Counter-move: I move 8 battleships and 3 carriers into the channel. The assault on Dunkirk has to endure 15-inch bombardment and the carriers can field enough fighters to keep the Lufwaffle off the battleships for awhile. The channel bases are so close that we can keep 60 fighters in the air almost continuously so long as we can keep refueling the carriers. – Joshua Dec 02 '15 at 19:09
  • 2
    @Joshua the issue with that is that the ships would become sitting ducks for LW (who had way more than 60 airplanes) and U-boots. – SJuan76 Dec 02 '15 at 19:19
  • 15
    The Luftwaffe did savagely attack the British troops at Dunkirk. They simply did not have enough planes to do enough damage. It was the tank forces that did not swoop in on the evacuating forces. – Serban Tanasa Dec 02 '15 at 22:30
  • 4
    Almost 200,000 BEF troops were evacuated from Dunkirk to the UK mainland over sea routes of only 70 - 100km. Even with a sustained German land assault on the evacuation (there was already a significant air assault) I think it's likely a good proportion of those troops would still have made it back to the UK, so it's fairly unlikely the BEF would have been "captured whole". In the real timeline the BEF did lose virtually all vehicles, tanks and equipment in the evacuation but the British were still able to recover from this fairly quickly. – Nathan Griffiths Dec 03 '15 at 04:25
  • May I recommend this book for a fascinating "small moment" that might have prevented the Dunkirk evacuation? – deworde Dec 03 '15 at 14:03
  • The Germans didn't possess the necessary landing craft to mount an invasion of Britain. Sea Lion was no more than a paper exercise. Nice idea though. – davidjwest Dec 08 '15 at 15:51
  • 1
    The LW did not have the capability to seriously damage the RN during a short mission. Even with no RAF cover at all, the LW simply didn't have suitable bombers to really hurt the RN and destroyers would have sunk the invasion fleet. The RN couldn't station a large fleet in the Channel long term, but they didn't have to. – Richard Gadsden Dec 11 '15 at 12:09
  • With apologies for the huge nitpick, Churchill was the recently appointed PM. He was not elected PM in any sense in 1940. – DJClayworth Aug 05 '22 at 17:25
57

Idea

I agree with many other answerers that one major factor in the Reich losing the war was Hitler. So it's reasonable to affect a change that removes him from the picture. I like the proposal for him to have served in logistics with the consequence that he would have been a more competent war leader. However, his other issues are unlikely to change.

I want to work from the following idea: there was considerable unrest in Germany when Hitler assumed power. Economy was down and the terms of the Versailles treaty were generally considered unfair. Short of a diplomatic resolution of this tension (not really the spirit of the time), war was inevitable. Given the situation, any skilled demagogue could have come to power.

So we let Hitler do this: let him come to power, unite the people behind his figure and prepare Germany for war. Then, limit his power so far that he can not hinder the war effort, ruin most international relations, and make the Reich a bad guy. Do not remove him completely -- he is a rally point -- but limit his influence.

Proposal

Disclaimer: I am not a historian. Any serious attempt at producing a believable piece of alternate fiction based on small changes will have to be the result of extensive research.

Have the Blomberg–Fritsch Affair in 1938 turn out differently. It becomes known in the party that Hitler had the thing set up to get rid of rivals. As a consequence, power shifts within the leading elite. While Hitler remains chancellor/president for appearances sake, his role degrades to a representative figurehead -- the real decisions are made elsewhere.

Rationale on why this influences the war effort in ways positive for the Reich:

  • Most of the preparation (arguably only possible with the somewhat crazy dedication of Hitler's) has already been finished. The armed forces are well-trained, well-equipped and ready.
  • Military leadership remains effective and competent. Other answers discuss multiple ways in which that helps.
  • International relations will be handled in a more rational way. Appeasement does not break completely, and the Reich does not attack everybody at once.
  • The Holocaust (a pet project of Hitler's) does not happen. This saves resources and causes less internal and international dissent, in particular post-war.

Perspective

It seems likely that much of what constitutes the EU today, with the possible exclusion of Great Britain, would have fallen under the rule of the Reich (which it pretty much was in the real time line, at some point during the war).

Looking forward, a non-Hitler Reich may not have been as scary a prospect as as the Hitler Reich we've seen in our real history. It may have actually been stable after the war, at least for some years. The US may not have entered the European theater at all. The biggest conflict would probably have been between the Reich and Stalin's USSR in case it did not fall during the war. It is somewhat plausible that we'd have gotten a Cold War similar to what we actually got, but with different parties: the Reich, the USSR, and maybe the US.

Brythan
  • 25,284
  • 10
  • 52
  • 103
Raphael
  • 876
  • 6
  • 9
  • 3
    I was thinking about accepting either the bomb or the assassination answers, then I saw this. I guess the low number of votes is only due to it arriving late, ending up on the second page, and not enough people noticing it. I'm accepting this answer now, but please comment whether it contains some major drawbacks and if so, I'll revise my decision. What I like in this answer the most is that it preserves the original participants the most. Hitler was a very strong rally point and inspiration for his followers, so keeping him active as a figurehead might be more effective than killing him. – vsz Dec 10 '15 at 21:52
  • 2
    Also, if he is not reduced to a figurehead but retains his power, but listens to his advisers and generals more than he did in real life, the scenarios in this answer also seem plausible. Good point about the Holocaust, but I think it still would have happened, but in a significantly milder form. There was already a huge mistrust against Jews, due to them perceived to have too much power and influence (very wealthy bankers, and their over-representation in important positions relative to their percentage of the population), but confiscating the fortunes of some of the wealthiest and and ... – vsz Dec 10 '15 at 21:59
  • 2
    ... and maybe exiling or resettling some of the more powerful Jews instead of creating the concentration camps might have satisfied the anti-semitic part of the population while not hindering the diplomacy options for Germany that much. This answer might also lead them discovering the bomb first, or among the first, but not required to use it recklessly. A decapitation strike against the Soviets, while not using it against the Western allies at all might have helped. (think about the proposals of some British at the end of the war IRL to re-arm Germany and march them against the Soviets) – vsz Dec 10 '15 at 22:04
  • 1
    @vsz I'm glad you like my answer! Regarding the Holocaust, that's an item requiring more research. My interpretation/feeling is that without the intense agitation by Hitler et al., the population would never have stood for the Holocaust. In fact, few even knew of it; it was mostly carried out in secret. The official story was one of resettling. Some looking-away happened, for sure, but no voting for it or anything, at least by the majority of the population. – Raphael Dec 11 '15 at 07:45
  • 1
    I like this, Hitler wasn't really dumb or even apart from few blind spots ignorant, the problem was that his mental state deteriorated to the point where it was unwise for people to disagree with him, which led to lots of very bad decisions. It is actually a common phenomenon not limited to Hitler, although his personality was probably a bad fit for absolute power. So I'd totally believe that having Hitler somehow "checked" behind the scenes so that he has to listen to advice or even delegate some decisions outright would greatly improve the chances of victory. – Ville Niemi Mar 13 '16 at 12:12
  • 1
    While it is true that the holocaust was driven by the nazis and Hitler personally. I think you need to spread the responsibility wider. It is not just the amount of support for holocaust that matters, but also the lack of support for resisting it. IIRC, the Greeks and the Dutch (?) had to be forced by German occupation and Finland actually, due to not being occupied, just said no. But in most of Europe Jews and other targeted groups were considered expendable. It wouldn't have happened without Hitler, yes, but there wasn't popular support for protecting targeted groups either. – Ville Niemi Mar 13 '16 at 12:31
  • What this means is that there was widespread prejudice and those groups were accepted as different and separate. Not part of us that should be protected. – Ville Niemi Mar 13 '16 at 12:32
  • In Finland and Greece the Jewish minority was well integrated to the general population and local governments, despite being on the same side as the nazis, simply did not see them as separate population or as a problem to be removed. So the governments tried to protect them the same as other citizens. – Ville Niemi Mar 13 '16 at 12:39
  • @VilleNiemi Your comments about resposibility for the holocaust miss the mark here. I'm not trying to shift blame; I'm trying to estimate how the war would have gone had Hitler not have as much influence as he did. I think it's plausible that the holocaust may not have happened, existing prejuidice notwithstanding, which in turn would have changed how other players dealt with the Reich. – Raphael Mar 13 '16 at 17:53
  • 2
    @Raphael Yeah, I got that, all I am saying that there was a pre-existing condition in much of Europe that made it possible, namely the prejudice and perception as "separate and different" against groups such as Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and so on. Even with Hitler "reduced" the leaders would still have been Nazis, right? So with "spreading the blame" I actually mean that it might have been too late to avoid holocaust at that point. It might have been more like the pogroms that preceded it with less resources and industrial efficiency, but I doubt it would have gone away. – Ville Niemi Mar 14 '16 at 05:32
  • @VilleNiemi Maybe not. The point is antagonism. As long as minorities would have been treated only slightly worse in the Reich than in other countries, nobody would have cared too much. (It's also a matter of who writes history; it's not as if Stalin had not had lots of people killed.) But again, the point here is not to discuss the Holocause more than in its role as antagonizing factor w.r.t. the war. – Raphael Mar 14 '16 at 13:13
  • @Raphael True, I think we got off on a bit off a tangent here. Seems to be a common hazard when the holocaust comes up. But one thing that I'll still mention: even with the holocaust happening most governments didn't really do much beyond refusing to return refugees to German control. Even helping people out was AFAIK up to the personal initiative of diplomats. So not sure how much difference the holocaust actually did in the political situation during the war. It might have been part of why Churchill and Roosevelt were willing to help Stalin and why Finland didn't help conquer Leningrad... – Ville Niemi Mar 14 '16 at 17:09
  • Without wanting to be to harsh, I would like to point that the general idea of "German generals competent but were overruled by incompetent Hitler" has come under criticism lately. Some of Hitler decisions overruling his generals did make sense (defend in Stalingrad while the army in the Caucasus retreats, do not retreat to the middle of nowhere in the Soviet 1941 offensive) and his generals supported some of his bad ideas (specially invading the Soviet Union). But after the war, his generals could write books blaming Hitler and absolving themselves while Hitler could not do the same. – SJuan76 Aug 07 '18 at 22:22
  • I feel like if this were the case, a WWII with the Allies fighting alongside the Reich against the Soviet Union might not be out of the question either. – majestas32 Sep 23 '18 at 22:54
51

The only thing that would have let the Axis win the war is if they somehow kept the USA out of it. In an alternate reality, this is possible. No super lasers or miracles required.

First, you need someone other than Roosevelt as President. The US Congress was all about neutrality at the time. Many were isolationist. Roosevelt was opposed to this, although he did play along to get his New Deal programs through. But Roosevelt actively supported the British before the USA entered the war.

Second, German U-Boats can't be attacking American shipping. This may not be an issue if the USA is truly neutral, and is staying out of the whole mess. It might be possible for the US to trade with both sides, although I can't see how the British Navy would allow any country to supply Germany. The British were dominant in the Atlantic and in the Mediterranean, so only blockade runners might make it through.

Third, Japan doesn't attack the US. With a more conservative, isolationist President in office, maybe Japan doesn't feel so threatened by the US, and therefore only makes non-threatening moves in Asia. If Japan only attacks the European colonies, then that's a European problem. The USA doesn't enter the war.

If the USA never enters the war, the British are defeated and the war ends. They gave it a really good fight, but Britain cannot do it alone. In the real time line, the USA helped keep Britain afloat before officially entering the war. In the alternate timeline, without that assistance, Britain is done by 1941. With all forces applied to the imminent defeat of Britain, Germany does not invade the Soviet Union in 1941.

After Britain leaves the war, the Germans turn on the Soviet Union, in much more favorable circumstances. By avoiding most of the Russian winter, the Soviets are easily rolled up and done by late 1942. Stalin is deposed. The war is over. Germany takes large chunks of territory and resources from the Soviets. The British, French, Dutch, etc., all have to pay reparations and lose parts of their Empire.

There is "peace" in Europe in 1943. In Asia, it's another story. Now that the allied forces have surrendered to Germany, Japan gets a free hand in Asia and the Pacific. Who is going to stop them? As long as they don't provoke the USA, Japan can do what it wants.

Mohair
  • 1,050
  • 6
  • 5
  • 63
    Entry of the US did not win the war, the US was not a superpower until after the war. There are a lot of Americans who are a little deluded about this, and as an American biased site, no doubt the truth will be shouted down but Hitler lost the war by attacking Russian during winter. – JamesRyan Dec 02 '15 at 19:51
  • 13
    Sorry no. With all German forces applied in Britain, USSR surely strikes first, and leaves no chance for Germany to survive. – user58697 Dec 02 '15 at 19:54
  • 4
    @user58697 USSR were in no position to 'strike first'. Germany won the majority of battles against Russia but was defeated in the war by attrition to the weather. In hindsight we can say that if Hitler had waited and timed it better he almost certainly would have won over a single summer campaign. Luckily for us he wasn't aware of that and didn't want to take the risk. – JamesRyan Dec 02 '15 at 19:59
  • 5
    @JamesRyan Soviets were perfectly prepared to strike. The German success in 1941 campaign is mostly due to Soviets not being prepared to defend. – user58697 Dec 02 '15 at 20:04
  • 6
    @user58697 sorry although that is another popular misconception it has been shown by historians to be a complete myth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_offensive_plans_controversy – JamesRyan Dec 02 '15 at 20:13
  • 1
    @JamesRyan I can't wait to hear the scenario where the USA stays out of the war and the Axis still loses. – Mohair Dec 02 '15 at 20:43
  • 14
    @Mohair I agree with JamesRyan. The US was not that powerful back then, they had limited standing army before the war, and their distance away from the war (other side of the world and all) made it harder to deploy troops and equipment. Our biggest advantage was that we hadn't been fighting yet, so we had more men and undamaged industry, both could have helped more if the war had gone on longer. However, the fact was the Axis was taking on too many enemies already and was not able to sustain it. We didn't get enough forces in time to be much difference compared to forces already fighting – dsollen Dec 02 '15 at 21:03
  • 3
    Basically, we helped, and the longer the war went the more drastic our assistance would help; once our industry was fully ramped up and everyone else was further crippled by the war. As it is though, the Axis was already facing a loosing proposition, too many forces to go up against and no way to renew their own forces fast enough. Our forces until the end were still tiny relative to what everyone else combined was contributing anyways – dsollen Dec 02 '15 at 21:06
  • 54
    @JamesRyan, the US was an industrial superpower prior to the war. If you look at production figures for the time period 1939-1945, the United States was turning out as much war materiel as everyone else combined. Whoever gets that capability on their side pretty much can't lose a sustained war. – Mark Dec 02 '15 at 21:36
  • 8
    USA had significant economic involvement in the war even before getting actively involved. If isolationist or radical anti-communist USA policies means that the historical Lend-Lease doesn't happen but instead there is some trade in deficit materials with Axis powers, then that definitely would be a big influence on both eastern and western fronts. – Peteris Dec 02 '15 at 23:04
  • 1
    @user58697 The USSR surely would remember Tannenberg, which was the last time they tried to attack Germany in the rear while its attention was elsewhere. It ended badly for the Russians, and it was history that was likely to repeat. – Mohair Dec 03 '15 at 00:05
  • 5
    @Mohair I agree with most of your proposal, but the opening statement that "The only thing that would have let the Axis win the war is if they somehow kept the USA out of it" is nonsense. As the other answers here show, there are numerous other possibilities that might have let the Axis powers "win". – Nathan Griffiths Dec 03 '15 at 04:14
  • 1
    One problem with this: how does Germany force Britain to terms without sinking any American ships delivering supplies to Britain? – Davislor Dec 03 '15 at 08:04
  • 3
    @Mohair Most of the officers didn't even hear about Tannenberg. It was different country who lose that. People in Russia remember that war as civil var not war with Germany. – talex Dec 03 '15 at 11:20
  • 25
    @JamesRyan We were not a military super power, but we had unrivaled production capacity, which is what really won the war. We had such a large population by then that it wasn't about how many men we could get to enlist, it was about how the hell are we going to supply them with "boots, beans, bullets, and bandages." – Jax Dec 03 '15 at 16:25
  • Philip Roth - The Plot Against America – Alexander Dec 06 '15 at 13:48
  • This was, of course, the key premise of the Star Trek original series episode They City on the Edge of Forever by Harlan Ellison, in which a peace movement started by a woman who "should" have died but is saved by a time-traveller (Dr. McCoy) delays American entry into the war. – T.J. Crowder Dec 09 '15 at 11:46
  • @JamesRyan don't forget the United States was also in the process of building up to be a military superpower. Most of those ships that won the war in the Pacific had been planned prior to Japan attacking Pearl Harbor. While surely the speed at which the USA became a military power changed as a result of WWII, but the Two Ocean Act drove a lot of the subsequent military powerhouse that was the USN. – enderland Dec 10 '15 at 14:31
  • 9
    @enderland The US was only barely coming out of the http://www.britannica.com/event/Great-Depression it was the war and concern leading upto it that brought money back into the US. It didn't turn up as an economic powerhouse to carry everyone else, in fact instead of supporting europe monitarily the US loaned it to us, effectively charging for it's involvement in the war and a large part of how it was able to become an economic superpower after the war. – JamesRyan Dec 10 '15 at 14:56
  • Add this, too: When the Wehrmacht goes into Soviet territory, they don't implement Hitler's racial policies. Instead of shooting non-Aryans, they instead present themselves as only wanting to overthrow Stalin. – EvilSnack May 20 '17 at 14:19
  • Jeez you Americans are really brainwashed. The US presense in the WW2 was not critical. The brunt of the war was beared by the Soviet Union: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwKPFT-RioU, without them the Germany would have took all of Europe. US surely gave some weapons and food from the safety of the Ocean and dropped two bombs on the citie of civilians, but that's about it. – Ans Nov 14 '18 at 10:05
  • Another variant on this scenario - Japan still attacks the USA but the USA only goes to war against Japan since Hitler does not declare war on the USA, leaving the European theatre as a three way between the UK, Germany and the Soviets. If the US focuses all it's resources on defeating Japan, Japan would potentially need to pull back forces from elsewhere in Asia and therefore the British territories in Singapore, Malaysia etc. are retained, along with the defending forces. With more of it's empire intact, Britain stands a much better chance of defeating Germany. – Nathan Griffiths Feb 12 '20 at 02:50
  • @JamesRyan Another idiot, beliving the lie of General Winter. – Erdel von Mises Oct 26 '21 at 04:03
  • @dsollen America was a superpotence. Just no militar (Thanks to WWI). If America is no involved, probably Germany wons. – Erdel von Mises Oct 26 '21 at 04:08
  • @JamesRyan US was a economic superpotence just after WWI. (All their competence was wiped out in WWI) – Erdel von Mises Oct 26 '21 at 04:10
  • @Ans The Soviet Union (A demon) really blood a lot, but it was really ineficcient. if the US had no contribuyed London is defeated. And Hitler wins against the URSS. – Erdel von Mises Oct 26 '21 at 04:13
  • @ErdelvonMises ask any historian and they will tell you that it was the soviet Union, and Hitler's idiot choice to open up another front by attacking them, which really spelled the end for the Axis. Even if the USA never joined the war at all most historians agree the war would have been won by the Allies. The US contributed sure, and the war ended sooner thanks to our help, but trying to claim we came in and magically saved the day from an otherwise losing war is just revisionist history. – dsollen Oct 26 '21 at 14:10
  • @dsollen The only "historian" that would have say it is Vladimir Putin. – Erdel von Mises Oct 26 '21 at 20:50
48

Excluding Jews from the Holocaust.

The Jews made up a significant proportion of the German workforce and elite prior to the rise of the Nazi Party. In Weimar Germany, a significant proportion of elite Germans were Jews, and many of them were important scientists. Many Jews fled Germany and settled in other countries, including Einstein, who was later instrumental in encouraging the Americans to develop the nuclear bomb in the Manhattan project.

In fact, had the Jews not been targeted for extermination, they could have played significant roles in the war, such as the German atomic bomb project, described in this answer.

While the exclusion of Jews would have halved the number of potential scapegoats for the war effort (6 out of 11 million civilians murdered by the Hitler regime were Jews), Hitler still had plenty of targets to choose from. Gypsies (Roma), Communists, Slavs, and other untermensch could be potentially targeted. The potential for singling out scapegoats for blame still remains in many parts of the population.

March Ho
  • 8,092
  • 2
  • 27
  • 55
  • 24
    This is a pretty interesting take on things, actually. Considering how much strategic and technological utility the Allies wound up getting by absorbing the Jewish brain drain, the impact would not have been insignificant. (Why kill off your most highly educated technicians?) This would require a rather deep alteration in the German mindset of the day, though -- Hitler was a product of that environment. He didn't invent ani-Semitism, he merely leveraged and augmented it to propel his own rise (and he really seems to have believed in it himself, but politically that is beside the point). – zxq9 Dec 03 '15 at 00:56
  • 12
    Germans (both as a whole and individually) benefitted quite a lot from robbing Jews, also killing (or expelling) them made sure they wouldn’t have the chance to demand back what was theirs later on. Their role as slave workers could mostly be substituted by POWs and civil Slavs on an even larger scale than in OTL (still violating the Geneva Convention). Since some Jews who fought heroically in WW1 received special treatment in the beginning of the holocaust, I could imagine a paradigm shift that made Jews having to earn citizenship, e.g. through military service or scientific contribution. – Crissov Dec 03 '15 at 13:23
  • 1
    … That way their role as scapegoat would not go away, but the Reich gets itself some very motivated forces, because life without citizenship in times of war – probably in ghettos like in OTL – would have been a slow death, also less brain drain and no resources wasted on maintaining KZs and transporting people and supplies there. Some nazi state accountant would probably also suggest, maybe successfully, that wealthy Jews could buy citizenship for insane amounts of money. Jewish artists, actors, musicians etc. would face work requirements that many of them would refuse to agree to. – Crissov Dec 03 '15 at 13:35
  • 2
    Then again, without the "other within" as a bogeyman, Hitler wouldn't have risen to power. Given that the Jews are the enemy being used to arouse the rump German population into getting behind a political party espousing aggressive military action beyond its own borders, how could you then succeed in excluding them from the Holocaust? – Euan M Dec 03 '15 at 22:56
  • 3
    @EuanM As mentioned in the answer, other despised ethnic minorities that are less productive to the economy can be targeted. While Jews are the obvious choice in terms of historical oppression, targeting the other minorities would result in far less negative effects. – March Ho Dec 03 '15 at 23:50
  • 2
    The other minorities were much less populous, and much less central to the rise to power of the Nazis. They were essentially minor addenda. – Euan M Dec 03 '15 at 23:52
  • 4
    e.g. it would have been hard for the Nazi's to make credible claims that Roma bankers were the cause of the people's poverty and the root cause of hyper-inflation. Where as "everyone knew" that the banks were controlled by Jews, so it was easy to have a claim that the Jewish bankers were causing hyper-inflation (and so unemployment) believed. – Euan M Dec 04 '15 at 00:33
  • @Crissov I would like to add a grain of doubt to that; if you start to offensively discriminate against e.g. Jews, I don’t think that especially the educated people like scientists and artists would agree to the terms of acquiring citizenship; at least not for long. I’d expect them to still flee the country. Also I wonder whether that really works (propaganda-wise and psycologically, when trying to sustain support from the people), building up an "enemy Jew", but excluding a small part of those who work for Nazi Germany or simply have enough money. – Jonas Schäfer Dec 07 '15 at 10:31
  • 4
    @JonasWielicki It’s a common phenomenon that when people hold strong prejudices against a certain group and finally meet a member thereof who then does not keep up to the superstition, they will attribute this to the individual, therefore not needing to reevaluate the group: “All Jews are bad, but the single one I actually know is an exception!” Earned citizenship – with precedents in ancient Rome etc. – just formalizes this. You’re either born German or proof yourself worthy, might really have worked. Jews throughout history had faced and taken tougher chances for (near) equality or safety. – Crissov Dec 08 '15 at 00:08
  • @Crissov Did not know that, thanks for the hint. This at least clears up the matter from the side of the remaining population. Still I wonder whether jewish scientists and artists would not have left the country nevertheless. There’s still the discrimination against other fellows, possibly friends, which do not have the means to prove themselves worthy. – Jonas Schäfer Dec 08 '15 at 10:22
  • @Crissov yes to what you're saying; moreover, Hitler could still have Jews ostracized on top of all that, and use that in his internal propaganda etc.. How? Just keep the ghetto system without murdering the Jews. Maybe create small exclusively Jewish province and deport all Jews there, to live, to work, to contribute to war effort there, while resettling the non-Jews from that small area in Germany proper. It would be much more profitable. Choosing mass murder as he did was an enormously evil madness on his part. Without that madness, Germany could have easily won the war. – Will Ness Jan 17 '19 at 17:21
47

One of the turning points of WWII was the shift from strategic bombing of the RAF sector bases by the Luftwaffe to the bombing of cities, ordered by Hitler in reprisal for the bombing of German cities by the English.

Had Hitler been a little more rational, had he taken the high moral ground and declared "The Tommies may have bombed our cities, but we will not stoop to their murderous ways" (even though the Germans were secretly exterminating Jews, Gypsies and gays), and carried right on bombing the RAF bases, the RAF would have crumbled under the onslaught, giving the Luftwaffe free reign to go after secondary military targets such as the Royal Navy and army bases in preparation for Operation Sea Lion, the invasion of England.

With the Germans publicly refusing to stoop to the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians in pointless bombing raids on cities, in contrast to the English' attacks on population centres, there would have been diplomatic counter-pressure on the other non-involved nations of the world with regard to becoming involved in this European affair, and if Operation Sea Lion succeeded in the face of a crippled RAF and RN, the US may well have stayed out of the European war entirely.

As a second example of Hitler's improved rationality, he would have held off on his negative propaganda regarding Communism and the invasion of the Soviet Union until after the defeat of Great Britain, and then choosing the appropriate time to strike to avoid the harsh Russian winters. With a greater number of experienced troops and battle-proven equipment against the Soviet Union's inexperienced troops and unproven equipment, the Germans would have been better placed to press their assault all the way to Moscow.

Monty Wild
  • 60,180
  • 11
  • 135
  • 304
  • 4
    I have read that the RAF was days away from defeat because of the bombing of their bases, when a German bomber, lost in the sky over the South of England, jettisoned its bombload at random, but managed to hit the outskirts of London. This provided the justification for the 'retaliatory' bombing of German cities, which led Hitler to target English cities instead of the RAF bases, as above. – peterG Dec 04 '15 at 17:45
  • I'm with this answer. However, had the Germans defeated the RAF and then either defeated or hobbled the effectiveness of the RN, they would also have been in a position to negotiate and possibly end the war directly with a large part of Europe under his control (assuming an unlikely level of sanity). – Keith Dec 10 '15 at 04:36
  • Would have been difficult (but not impossible) for Hitler to have claimed the high ground. Although they did not initially bomb British cities, they bombed many eastern European cities prior to invasion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_bombing_of_cities#European_theatre – ChrisFletcher Dec 10 '15 at 12:24
  • I think the "hidden" part of this answer is, don't write a book (Mein Kampf) in 1925 that tells everyone who you hate and what your overall plan is, before going to war in 1939. – DrZ214 Apr 07 '17 at 04:39
  • The idea that the RAF was days away from defeat is nonsense. 11 Fighter Group was under pressure, but 10 and 12 Fighter Groups, further to the north, were essentially untouched, and pilots from 11 were rotated the other groups for rest during the Battle of Britain. Had the Germans gained air superiority over southeast England, 11 would have withdrawn for rest and replenishment, well out of German fighter range, and then moved back down. And there was no way for the Germans to defeat the Royal Navy. – Keith Morrison Oct 26 '17 at 05:30
40

So many small things, mostly having to do with the Russian campaign. The simple fact is, if Germany had managed to conquer Russia in 1941, the war is over. Suddenly they have nearly unlimited oil, food and other natural resources and only one front to face. For all we like to talk about how the USA's resources would have won out, it was Russia who sucked the life out of the German Army, not the US.

Now certainly they would not have been able to resist without the supplies the US gave them. But the fact is, they were THERE. Without a coherent Russian Army to supply - and to be willing to take absolutely appalling casualties and continue - our resources would not have done us much good.

So what would have done it? Well skipping the Balkan diversion that put off the invasion by something like 6 weeks would have helped. Germany was in no danger of Yugoslavia invading them.

Or Hitler NOT ordering the Panzers south to trap all those Russians in the Ukraine pocket in late summer. Without that, they're in Moscow in weeks before the Russian have time to consolidate their defenses or Winter has a chance to set in.

People forget that back then, Moscow was the HUB. Russian communications were horrendous and they all went through Moscow. You take Moscow, cut the lines and Stalin is much harder pressed to command his army because he can't even communicate with most of it. Not to mention the morale blow that would have been. And Stalin was making a show of actually staying in Moscow. Odds are they might have capture him.

What Russia needed most of all was time. Time to get their recently moved factories running. Time to get the winter troops guarding the Japanese border to the West. Time to recover from the shock of the German attack. Time to stiffen the defenses of Moscow. Time for all the new commanders (who'd replaced the ones Stalin purged) to learn their jobs. The winter of 1941-1942 gave them that time.

Overall, having an actual military man in charge and not Hitler would have done the trick. It's often been said that Hitler was the best soldier the Allies had. So true. What is amazing is that even with the idiotic decisions the man made and even after years of being worn down, the Germans were able to last until 1945. Even as late as that year, anytime an allied army met a German army in anything resembling equal strength, the Germans would always do more damage than they took.

J Dwortz
  • 501
  • 3
  • 4
  • I assume you mean the Yugoslav diversion, The Czechs annexed it before Poland was invaded. However the spring 41 thaw was exceptionally muddy; while IIRC the Germans had planned on invading sooner the ground wasn't dry enough in much of the USSR to support their tanks until around the actual invasion date. – Dan Is Fiddling By Firelight Dec 03 '15 at 15:47
  • 21
    One major item you've overlooked is if the Germans hadn't started brutally mistreating civilians in occupied Russia immediately. Initially there was significant pro-german support (especially in the Baltics/Ukraine) because Stalin was seen as the greater evil; but German actions quickly eliminated any feelings of liberation and replaced them with partisan uprisings. – Dan Is Fiddling By Firelight Dec 03 '15 at 15:51
  • You are correct I meant Yugoslavia. I'm forgetting where the Balkans are. But Hitler didn't postpone Barbarossa because of wet ground. He postponed it because of the Balkans.

    While mistreatment of civilians certainly did not help the Germans, it also was not any sort of key to victory or loss; Partisan violence didn't come back to haunt them until it was already too late.

    You take Moscow in 1941 and the rest of Russia become a mop-up operation. They lacked the coordination, supplies and communication to use their numbers with any effectiveness at that point

    – J Dwortz Dec 03 '15 at 19:53
  • Winning in Russia while fighting on two fronts would have been a Pyrrhic victory. Depleted and exhausted German forces; a USSR with an eviscerated productive capacity; and then the ongoing need to occupy a vast territory against determined resistance fighters. At which point the Allies roll through Europe to Berlin. No change in result. – Euan M Dec 03 '15 at 22:47
  • 8
    Germans were fresh in 1941. Their losses in Russia up until that winter were minimal. They were making lighting gains, surrounding hundreds of thousands of Russians at a time. Even with their delays, they were literally within sight of the Kremlin. The point I am making is that if you take Moscow that winter, then the huge losses they took from late 1942 - 1945 don't happen because that eastern war ends. Plenty of time to mop up resistance fighters once there is no Russian army to fight (or keeping you from your oil). And there was no second front (in the west) then. Not until 1943. – J Dwortz Dec 03 '15 at 23:02
  • 7
    Who's "us" and "our resources" in this answer? That's rather unclear. – Angew is no longer proud of SO Dec 04 '15 at 13:05
  • "Us" is the Germans. "Our Resources" is many things, including the oil that the Germans needed from the Caucasus. Their only other source of oil at that point was the Ploesti oil fields. It's also the manpower/equipment resources that the east could have used (to invade Britain, stop the allies, etc) but were unable to due to them all being tied up in a Russian war – J Dwortz Dec 07 '15 at 20:34
  • Approximately 80% of German military deaths happened on the Eastern Front and most of those happened after 1941. Resources would also include former soviet armaments and factories – J Dwortz Dec 07 '15 at 20:48
  • Thanks for this answer. USA can be so self centered, while it was the Soviet Soldiers who weared the Germany the most: https://vimeo.com/128373915. I am a Russian and we did learn about the American supply lines and everything at school, but I don't think they teach Americans about the Soviet input quite as much. – Ans Nov 14 '18 at 10:27
  • America always seemed safely away, sending food and weapons, dropping bombs at civilian Japanese cities - all of which helped, but wasn't critical. The Soviets simply didn't have a choice, but to fight, it wasn't some European country that had that option, they knew they would be exterminated if they surrendered, so they would have fought no matter what. – Ans Nov 14 '18 at 10:28
24

If Nazi Germany had simply declined to declare war on the US after the US declared war on Imperial Japan, the US would have been all-in on the Pacific Theater; the American industrial advantage provided less of a strategic advantage there than in Europe.

With a faster westward sweep across the Pacific, too little time would have elapsed by the time US forces reached the home islands of Japan for the Manhattan Project to have been successfully completed; Operation Downfall would have proceeded resulting in far greater American & Japanese casualties. The appetite of the US to turn its attention to Europe afterward would be questionable at best.

Without the Combined Bomber Offensive, the Nazis could have held up more effectively against the Soviets on the Eastern Front, possibly leading to a stalemate and a separate peace like that at the end of WWI. Fortress Europe could have been prepared more thoroughly in the west, and Operation Overlord, if it was attempted at all, would have been later and smaller with poor prospects.

Ghillie Dhu
  • 801
  • 6
  • 8
  • 2
    Nice. Maybe you could add some demagogue using the "Ships for Bases" Treaty for impeaching Roosevelt "If we had had those ships the Japanese would not have surprised us! And now we have to fight a war without those, and defend pointless bases in the Caribean and North Atlantic!" – SJuan76 Dec 02 '15 at 20:59
  • 1
    The US would still have continued supplying Britain under Lend-Lease. The legal details of war declarations are not that important if the actual assistance comes through. – Sander Heinsalu Dec 03 '15 at 15:26
  • 2
    But no USAAF B-17 crews with Norden bombsights crippling German industry; just RAF carpet bombing. Lend-Lease only supplied materiel, not the manpower to leverage it. – Ghillie Dhu Dec 03 '15 at 18:59
  • The Germans had been carrying out acts of war on the Eastern seaboard of the USA prior to that. The USA had been declining to engage in war, despite those provocations, although it had been providing material support to the British. Once the USA has declared war and begun military action against the Japanese, why would they continue to ignore the German acts of provocation? – Euan M Dec 03 '15 at 22:51
  • 1
    In our actual history, FDR only asked Congress for a Declaration of War against the Empire of Japan despite German provocations. – Ghillie Dhu Dec 04 '15 at 00:21
  • 1
    @EuanM it would have been difficult to approve "We want revenge from Japan, so we must declare war on Japan. And at the same time we declare war against the more powerful Germany because that will distract us from our goal of revenge" makes not a lot of sense. Note that, while usually combined in the WWII term, Germany and Japan were mostly fighting two separated wars, with just a little collaboration. – SJuan76 Dec 04 '15 at 11:12
  • However, they were allied - an attack on one is an attack on all. – Euan M Dec 04 '15 at 11:20
  • 2
    @EuanM Arguably, the attack on one is an attack on all did not apply to a response to an attack by Japan. In any case, Hitler was not noted for adhering to treaties he found inconvenient. – Patricia Shanahan Dec 07 '15 at 01:16
  • 2
    Germany's sympathizers in the US would have argued for reserving all available materiel for the US war with Japan. Germany could have offered to stop attacking US shipping if the US agreed not to ship munitions to the UK and USSR. – Patricia Shanahan Dec 07 '15 at 01:22
  • @Patricia He'd been attempting to provoke war with USA for some time (by harrying shipping along the Eastern seaboard). It seems he found it convenient. – Euan M Dec 07 '15 at 03:10
  • @PatriciaShanahan I normally don't reply to questions that are over 2 years old, figuring that no one is looking at it anymore, but I'm going to make an exception. The Nazis agreeing to stop attacking US shipping would not have been sufficient -- President Franklin D. Roosevelt was a firm believer in "those that bless Israel shall be blessed" and would not have made peace with the Nazis as long as the Nazis were attacking the Jews (who shouldn't be painted with a broad brush, as I just did). Some sort of resolution of the Holocaust would have also been necessary, sooner rather than later. – Jennifer Feb 03 '18 at 15:28
24

The Allies not having cracked the Axis communication codes. Updating or replacing the codes the Axis used more often. Like the Enigma machine and the Japanese naval codes. It seems the Allies had the upper hand after they cracked the codes.

Example: The Battle of Midway. Japan takes heavy losses. "the most stunning and decisive blow in the history of naval warfare." Due to the Allies having cracked the Japanese naval codes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway

Example: The success of Ultra. This has a long list of wins for the Allies. One is the Allies could avoid the u boats, avoiding heavy losses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra

Xm7X
  • 423
  • 5
  • 10
  • 3
    The communication codes were cracked several times. The Enigma code machines were acquired by the Allies several times. (See the movie "U-571" It's true that, as the movie says, the Americans acquired a U-boat's Enigma machine. But the Brits had had one for ages, and it was the Brit's one that was used for the code-breaking that Turing et al engaged in). – Euan M Dec 03 '15 at 22:59
  • Breaking codes gives you a big advantage, but you still have to go out and win the fight. And, you can't be too successful or the codes will change. It's a tricky thing to manage correctly. And the closer you get to Germany, the less code breaking plays a role, because they don't have to use radios anymore. – Mohair Dec 04 '15 at 17:28
  • 2
    @Mohair If the German naval Enigma was not cracked, U-Boats would have sunk enough British shipping to completely starve them. It is also entirely possible for the Germans to make the Enigma much much harder to crack, through both better stricter operating procedures and better hardware. – GiantCowFilms Dec 09 '15 at 15:01
  • 2
    The plausibility that the Brit's could have declined to work with Turing because of his homosexuality should be highlighted here. Then maybe they would have not broken the Enigma. The u-boat war of Germany would have been much much more successful. The stronger u-boat force could also have lead to the allies to not being able to land in the Normandy. – JaBe Apr 25 '16 at 15:31
  • And not much better hardware. Adding one more rotor to the working set, and adding a few more rotors to the stock set would have multiplied the time that the bombes took to unscramble the messages. One of the key factors was that each message started with 3 letters repeated. (e.g. jkmjkm) This gave two encodings of the same set of letters, with the rotor shifting one step between. This eliminated a bunch of starting settings for the bombes. The rotors where easy to make. Would have been quite practical to use 5 rotors at a time chosen from a set of 8. – Sherwood Botsford Jan 03 '18 at 03:57
  • Even having an Enigma coding machine didn't break the code. You needed to know which rotors to use, and what position, and what the starting position of each rotor was. – Sherwood Botsford Jan 03 '18 at 03:58
24

Small change you need is Hitler in WWI serving in logistics, and realizing importance of logistics and supply for winning wars.

Then, not a single event, but more focus on logistics in each of decision points, more decisive follow-ups of existing events:

  1. Understanding the importance of Gibraltar and Malta for Britain's logistics, Hitler succeeds persuading Spain to take over Gibraltar and Italy over Malta, to weaken British supply lines in Mediterranean. Operation Felix and Siege of Malta.

1A. During battle of Dunkirk, focus on total destruction of the British Expeditionary force (300k soldiers). No diverting of Luftwaffe to bombing France. Dunkirk evacuation fails. Britain's is weakened, spirit broken. Invasion is not possible (only air raids) but not necessary, and support from USA is weaker (considered a lost cause).

  1. Following up more strongly during Battle of Britain to really won air supremacy (as @MontyWild correctly noted), realize the importance of radars and destroying them. Switching to bomb London instead of airfields gave RAF time to recover when it was almost broken.

  2. After taking over Greece in the spring of 1941, landing up in French part of Lebanon, following up to occupy British Palestine, Egypt and oil fields in Persian Gulf. Double whammy for British: losing oil weakens them, and outcome of Battle of El Alamein in 1942 would be different, and would avoid distraction of attacking Russia.

  3. In 1941 German paratroopers occupy Iceland, significantly improving effectiveness of their submarine warfare and complicating British supply lines from USA.

  4. While Goering continues pummeling Britain from air, Rommel wins Battle of Alamein, and attacks British positions in Iran, taking more oil. No more fuel shortages for German tanks, enough left over to supply Japan.

  5. Talking about logistics to Japan. During attack on Pearl Harbor, continue third (planned!) wave of attack of fuel reserves in Pearl Harbor, and on the way back occupies Midway, using it as unsinkable aircraft carrier. Basically winning Battle of Midway a year early. Japanese pilots and planes were superior at the beginning of Pacific war – just too many were lost during Battle of Midway.

  6. Japan, now understanding the importance of logistics, growing out of strategy of “single decisive battle of battleships” and focusing more on submarine warfare like Germans did, sinking merchant ships bringing fuel reserves and supplies to Pearl Harbor. Possibly even invading Oahu (which has 10% population of Japanese descent). Pacific war is about Hawaii for 2 years. There is no Doolittle raid. Japan will lose that battle, but by that time (1944) Soviet Russia falls to Hitler, and Japan occupied Australia and India.

  7. Hitler not declaring war on USA, which was completely irrational.

As a result, USA focuses on Pacific and Japan, and has harder time to get any traction. British fight valiantly but are starved to surrender in 1943. Japan has easier time to take over Southeast Asia and Australia.

Hitler’s attack on Russia is postponed until 1943, and is from both Poland and Iran, taking Baku's oil reserves quickly. With good enough spy network, Stalin in his paranoia executes even more of his military leaders, and when Germany with small help of Japan simultaneously attack in spring of 1943, use blitzkrieg tactic in fullest and avoid battles over cities like Stalingrad (surrounding and starving cities instead), Russia crumbles in less than 2 years.

World is divided between Germany, Japan, and USA, which stands alone.

  • 6
    One question with that: bullet five. There's no significant supply line between Germany and Japan. There's either India or an ocean still under British rule in the way. – Ghanima Dec 03 '15 at 00:23
  • Japan takes over India to join with Germany in Iran. They don't need much contact, just coordinate strategies. – Peter M. - stands for Monica Dec 03 '15 at 00:26
  • 1
    But India is quite a far stretch for the Japanese forces. Given how the battle of Malaya, the invasion of Burma and all naval warfare in the indian ocean went. – Ghanima Dec 03 '15 at 00:34
  • OK Japan even does not need to take over India. Taking over Australia is enough. Rommel taking over Iran oil fields is enough to weaken UK considerably - if all is left from British empire are colonies in Africa and India, and Canada, war is won. – Peter M. - stands for Monica Dec 03 '15 at 00:42
  • 2
    @Ghanima The Japanese were actively fighting the British in India. With the British surrendered, high on war exhaustion and low on national morale, it would be even less likely for them to send troops to aid its Indian colonies. – March Ho Dec 03 '15 at 05:09
  • 2
    @Ghanima The British were focussed on critical supply links across the Atlantic. British troops in the Far East were basically abandoned - they kept fighting, but they had very little support. The Indian Ocean wasn't anyone's concern. And if a tanker is carrying a month's supply of fuel, it doesn't really matter that it takes a couple of weeks to get there. – Graham Dec 03 '15 at 12:07
  • 1
    This is a great comment. The Germans were so incredibly hampered by Hitler's failure to grasp the basics of logistics. It's astounding what a fighting force they remained, even with this. – J Dwortz Dec 03 '15 at 20:03
  • 2
    How would Germany persuaded Spain to join the war? – sdrawkcabdear Dec 03 '15 at 21:43
  • It would have been impossible to supply Japan during the war. Shortly after the US joined it launched a very successful unrestricted sub campaign around Japan and sank 1,200 merchant ships and tankers and 200 warships https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_War#Submarine_warfare Though it is true logistics is a powerful tool. – sdrawkcabdear Dec 03 '15 at 21:50
  • That is exactly my points (6) and (7). With Hawaii occupied by Japan, with the help of 10% local population, Japanese supply lines would be safer. – Peter M. - stands for Monica Dec 03 '15 at 22:00
  • 3
    @sdrawkcabdear: Spain does not need to join the war at all. All Franco need to do is take over the Gibraltar, which is completely surrounded by Spanish territory. And do it as a "thank-you" for German help in winning the Spanish Civil war. They can do it anytime: Britain is weak, Germany is strong, but the earlier the better. – Peter M. - stands for Monica Dec 05 '15 at 00:21
  • @PeterMasiar Taking over Gibraltar is indeed joining the war. It is an act of war against Britain and Spain would hafta defend her coasts. Spain would not do that without at least allying with the Axis. And not as a "thank you". Spain had a war debt of around 200M to Germany. Better would be Germany offering to forgive it in exchange for Spain joining the Axis. Then maybe just maybe it would've worked out that way. – DrZ214 Apr 07 '17 at 05:49
  • When Hitler wanted Franco to take over Gibraltar, Canaris (chief of German spy agency, and part of clandestine Nazi oposition) persuaded him not to. Operation Felix. Also, it is unlikely that Britain could mount any significant retaliation on Spain for taking Gibraltar while under attack by Germany. – Peter M. - stands for Monica Oct 25 '17 at 16:23
  • Based on any reasonable analysis off technology, logistics, military capacity and the then current geopolitical situation Points No.s (2) (3) (4) (6) (7) & 9*) are non starters. Thees not enough space to respond in detail but - (2). they tried but the radar system had multiple back-ups and redundancies available and are point targets anyway - very hard to knock out for long. (3) required the Italian Navy to defeat the British navy. (4) Unless they swim there the Germans aren't getting to Iceland in force. (6) Japan cant win against the US no matter what it does, only delay the inevitable. – Mon Jul 29 '20 at 03:26
  • See point 6 above. Sink every ship in the US Pacific Fleet, occupy Pear Harbor it doesn't matter. During WW2 the US reproduced their entire pre-war fleet Pacific fleet tonnage plus more! in less than 4 years. Example? During the war the US produced almost 350 destroyers. Japan? less than 40. (8) Doesn't matter, following Pearl Harbor the US would have entered the war on the allied side anyway. The attack there pushed the momentum for active participation (vs isolationism) across the line.
  • – Mon Jul 29 '20 at 03:42