View Full Version: Yet another twist on WWII

Haven Of Wiidom > What if... > Yet another twist on WWII


Title: Yet another twist on WWII


Solomon - March 16, 2009 09:35 PM (GMT)
The year is 1939, and Hitler has just signed the Nazi-Soviet Pact with Joseph Stalin. One month later the Nazi's storm into Poland thus starting WWII...You know the rest.

Now what if...

Operation Barbarossa never happened, and the USSR never entered the War?

Think about it, the Nazi's would not have to fight a two front war, and could devote their entire reforces to the western front. How would this have effected the outcome?

granobulax - March 17, 2009 03:38 AM (GMT)
The outcome would still be the same in the sense that we would win the war. It would just take a little longer to do is all.

If the US was having a really difficult time with the Axis, we most likely would have dropped an A-bomb on them as well as the Japanese, thus ending the war. I'm just glad it didn't have to come to that.

Solomon - March 17, 2009 09:32 PM (GMT)
I'm not sure if we would have even made up to that point in time Grano.

Think about it the Nazi forces could just bombard Britain. France was defeated as early as 1940, and there's no doubt in my mind that Italy would have been played a greater factor in the war. With the soviet union out of the picture Japan may have played a minor rule in the European front as well. So we Nazi Germany, Italy, and Japan all attacking Britian from 1939 to 1941. Question is would they have lasted that long?

granobulax - March 18, 2009 12:45 AM (GMT)
Whether they would have lasted that long or not wouldn't have mattered in the long run because even if Germany did take over all of Europe, they would still have had to come here to finish us off. Wouldn't have happened. We could have easily held off any advance against our country until we finished developing the A-bomb and then we would have ended the war at that time.

Solomon - March 18, 2009 01:35 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (granobulax @ Mar 18 2009, 12:45 AM)
Whether they would have lasted that long or not wouldn't have mattered in the long run because even if Germany did take over all of Europe, they would still have had to come here to finish us off. Wouldn't have happened. We could have easily held off any advance against our country until we finished developing the A-bomb and then we would have ended the war at that time.

You make it sound like we were unbeatable. Let's assume that worse comes to worse, and Britain falls. That makes it Nazi Germany, Italy, and Japan v.s the United States.

We came pretty close to loosing the war in the first place I'm not sure if we'd be able to win without the help of France, Britain, or The Soviet Union.

granobulax - March 18, 2009 03:18 PM (GMT)
What I mean is that there's no way an invasion would work. For as long as this country has been around, its citizens have been armed to the teeth, especially in the 1940's. We would have developed the A-bomb and then that on it's own could win the war. It would have been an unfortunate way to win, but it would have been likely.

M Bison - March 18, 2009 05:02 PM (GMT)
History study thus far has shown me this: The Soviets defeated Nazi Germany almost single handedly. Western Europe defended itself bravely, but that's all they did, defend. They did very little to actually damage the Nazis, that was all the USSR. Europe falls,m and with The Nazi's also working on their atom bomb, and actually not very far behind the USA in production, the USA falls also, as it has to fight both Germany and Japan, single handedly.

granobulax - March 18, 2009 05:21 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (M Bison @ Mar 18 2009, 05:02 PM)
History study thus far has shown me this: The Soviets defeated Nazi Germany almost single handedly. Western Europe defended itself bravely, but that's all they did, defend. They did very little to actually damage the Nazis, that was all the USSR. Europe falls,m and with The Nazi's also working on their atom bomb, and actually not very far behind the USA in production, the USA falls also, as it has to fight both Germany and Japan, single handedly.

Then most likely, the country who produces the atomic bomb first would be the winner.

M Bison - March 18, 2009 05:33 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (granobulax @ Mar 18 2009, 05:21 PM)
Then most likely, the country who produces the atomic bomb first would be the winner.

Not with the Nazis as close in production as they were, America would have to bomb literally every military base in the world, save the communists. It takes time and money to produce even one bomb.

Though I'd imagine under these circumstances the Soviets would become involved on their own accord rather than waiting for the Germans to break the pact, Stalin was horribly paranoid and would have recognised that the Nazis would attack communism if they managed to defeat the West.

granobulax - March 18, 2009 05:36 PM (GMT)
I have a feeling that if the Germans and Americans developed the A-bomb around realitively the same time there would be a mutual respect for each other and possibly treaty talks would take place.

At that point, Bison's probably right. The Germans would then turn their attention on the Solviets and then all hell would break loose at that point.

Darkender - March 18, 2009 08:57 PM (GMT)
America would have still won. It just britain just would hvae faked that letter of theres sooner.

Solomon - March 18, 2009 09:29 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (M Bison @ Mar 18 2009, 05:02 PM)
Snip*

@Hamboy:
"Western Europe defended itself bravely, but that's all they did, defend."
-For the most part it seems that to stop the Nazi's from advancing any further. Then in 1944 on the beaches of Normandy the allied forces took the offensive, but I agree the Soviets caused significant damage to the Nazi's especially at Stalingrad.

@Grano

"I have a feeling that if the Germans and Americans developed the A-bomb around realitively the same time there would be a mutual respect for each other and possibly treaty talks would take place. "

-Yeah, can't we all just get along?

Solomon - March 18, 2009 09:30 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Darkender @ Mar 18 2009, 08:57 PM)
America would have still won. It just britain just would hvae faked that letter of theres sooner.

:huh:

Darkender - March 18, 2009 09:41 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Solomon @ Mar 18 2009, 04:30 PM)
:huh:

...Shut up.

M Bison - March 18, 2009 09:58 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Solomon @ Mar 18 2009, 09:29 PM)
@Hamboy:
"Western Europe defended itself bravely, but that's all they did, defend."
-For the most part it seems that to stop the Nazi's from advancing any further. Then in 1944 on the beaches of Normandy the allied forces took the offensive, but I agree the Soviets caused significant damage to the Nazi's especially at Stalingrad.

True, but the West would have been crushed without the Soviets, the USSR did the most damage, and could have won that war single handedly.

granobulax - March 18, 2009 10:34 PM (GMT)
What if the US wasn't fighting Japan at the same time either and could focus all of it's forces on Germany?

Solomon - March 19, 2009 02:40 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (M Bison @ Mar 18 2009, 09:58 PM)
QUOTE (Solomon @ Mar 18 2009, 09:29 PM)
@Hamboy:
"Western Europe defended itself bravely, but that's all they did, defend."
-For the most part it seems that to stop the Nazi's from advancing any further. Then in 1944 on the beaches of Normandy the allied forces took the offensive, but I agree the Soviets caused significant damage to the Nazi's especially at Stalingrad.

True, but the West would have been crushed without the Soviets, the USSR did the most damage, and could have won that war single handedly.

No doubt. Without the significant damage caused by the Soviet Union the Allies would have a much more difficult time. However I disagree with you when you say that the USSR could have done it single handedly. First of they lacked the supplies to be ale to fight the Axis Powers alone.Think about this during the war sometimes Russian soldiers weren't even given rifles. Now your taking everyone else except the USSR? That's more fighting for them which means more supplies is being used. Secondly, on the ground Russia was insane. On the sea it was a different story. Without the US to deal with the Japanese navy they could have most likely blockaded the Russian harbors along the east coast. Third reason they wouldnt have been able to win is the fact that without the losses sustained from trying to break through western defenses Germany could have very well pushed the Russians backwards into their own territory. Then you have Japan coming in from the east, and Kapow! The USSR is done for.




Hosted for free by zIFBoards