What If: Germany and co. won WW II?

Long-term they couldn't have held out really, and for the same reasons as the South winning the Civil War: inferior resources/logistics. Still, I don't even want to think about how ugly that could have made the following years....

Course whether or not we beat Japan would make a big diff too.

Would our "atomic abilities" have pounded them into submission as well?

IMO, Germany could only have womd WWII if they hadn't taken on the U.S. and Russia. The counterfactual scenario I think least unlikely is as follows:

- Germany maintain their treaty with Russia, Poland is partitioned
- Germany consolidate their position in mainland Europe
- The British Empire, growing weary of war reach an accommodation with Germany
- Europe becomes (includng the UK) an anti-Jewish ghetto
- The UK becomes a republic, the empire is disbanded
- The cold war takes place between the United States of America and the Third Reich
- In the mid 1980s, democratic elections take place in Europe, though the head of state continues to be a dictator
- by 2000, the Third Reich claim to be "really sorry" about the extermination of the Jews - no-one believes them
- the USA and Third Reich compete for influence in the Middle East

I agree with the Don. The only scenario in which Germany wins is America staying out of the war.

President John Garner (D) (1933-1940)
Let's say Giuseppe Zingara succeeds in killing FDR in 1933, making John Garner President. Garner runs for one more term, winning in 1936 and decides not to run in 1940, as that would be a third term and political tradition (Garner was a real political traditionalist) dictates that you don't serve more than two terms.

President Wendell "Wee Willie" Willkie (R) (1941-1944)
In 1940, a new, weaker President is elected. Let's say it's Wendell Wilkie, who lost to FDR in 1940. Willkie was a true-blue American isolationist. As President, Willkie does not embargo Japan for atrocities committed in China. Without this, there is no Pearl Harbor and no American involvement in the war.

Nor is there a lend-lease plan to aid the British. Without Lend-Lease, Soviet efforts to arm themselves are delayed and the British have severe shortages of armaments. This emboldens Hitler to invade England (reluctantly, as his ambitions are truly east-ward), which forces him to put off any plans to invade the Soviets. The German invasion of England drags on for several years, and most of England's remaining colonies end up spiralling off under the spheres of influence of the Soviets, Germany or (mostly Australia and the Americas), the United States.

President Robert Taft (R) (1944-1952)
Shorty before his election to a second term as President, Willkie dies in 1944 (as he did in the real world, although now itgets attributed to the "zero year curse"). Veep Robert Taft (sone of the former President Taft) wins election in 1944 and then re-election in 1948.

Under Taft, the post-WW II Cold War is mostly between the successful Axis powers and the Soviet bloc with the United States as a power broker between them. The Soviets continue to fund China in its guerilla war against Japan. The Middle East is reorganized under a new Ottomon Caliphate allied with Germany, the Soviets and Fascist Europs have numerous skirmishes in Africa and the Balkans. American interests are basically a ramped up version of the Monroe Doctrine, in which America continues to be directly involved in ensuring "friendly" American governments in the region usually by laying the communist and fascist factions off one another.

Americans secretly fund resistance movements in England, Scandinavia and Greece, while Germans and Soviets fund political parties in Latin America.

Australia and America (still in the Philippines) work quietly to limit Japan's influence in South Asia, but it doesn't take much as Japan is completely bogged down in a costly war in mainland China.

With the former colonial powers subjugated by the Germans, Africa is suddenly thrust into freedom, and is immediately manipulated by the "Neocolonial Powers" of Germany, Soviets and the United States (and, later, the rising Ottoman Caliphate), who manipulate puppet governments and proxy fights. Not much different from what actually happened in Africa during the Cold War.

India, hostile to the German-allied Ottoman Empire, allies itself with both the Soviets and America, depending on whom can offer it more aid.

The new Ottoman Empire quickly learns how to play the sides in this new world order. While nominally allied with fascism, it also courts America. Witht he advent of the automobile, the Ottoman Empire finds itself sittign on the largest oil reserve in the world and is soon flush with cash.

And, of course, nobody but the ocassional historian ever wonders why there aren't any Jews in Europe any more....

President Thomas Dewey (R) (1952-1960)
In 1952, Dewey wins (Harry Truman having never left Congress), with up-and-comer Nixon as running mate. Dewey/Nixon win again in 1956. This is a roughly uneventful decade, marked mostly by the nuclear arms race between Germany, Soviets and America. It is during this time that the horrors of the Holocaust are undertood (minimized by pro=fascist elements).

President Richard Nixon (R) (1961-1963)
Nixon narrowly beats JFK in 1960 (with Barry Goldwater, rather than Henry Cabot Lodge, as running mate). When Lee Harvey Oswald assassinates Nixon, Goldwater, becomes President. (Nobody ever discovers Nixon's paranoid theories. He is always remembered for his anti-communist and anti-fascist stances and his "opening up" of the the Ottomans.) Nixon is lionized as an American martyr after his death.

President Barry Goldwater (R) (1963-1968)
Goldwater defeats JFK in 1964 (JFK retires from politics for health reasons, letting his brother Robert pick up the family's political mantle). He stuns everybody by supporting the end of Jim Crow laws. (As Ike supporting civil rights in our world, Goldwater picks up the mantle here, particularly after the NAACP gets going in the 1960's.) Racist political backlash causes the Democrats to retake both Houses of Congress in 1964.

President Strom Thurmond (D) (1969-1972)
In 1968, the Southern Democrats take over their party (in a violent Demicratic convention in Chicago) and nominate segregationist Strom Thurmond (who never defected from the Democrats as the Democrats in this version do not take up the mantle of desegregation). Thurmonds ends a quarter-century of Republican Presidents. However, President Thurmond serves only one term, as the economy tanks and race riots become commonplace.

In 1969, Adolph Hitler dies. (Mussolini had died in 1950, leading Italy into political decline.) Hitler is succeeded by a variety of Nazi party hacks, none of whom have the charisma or the following of Hitler. Without Hitler, the worldwide fascist movement enters a period of slow decline.

President Nelson Rockefeller (R) (1973-1976)
Thurmond's racial politics is completely rejected by the voters (and the economy hasn't been improved. In 1972, pretty much any Republican nominee could be elected and in 1972 pretty much any Republican nominee is. Nelson Rockefeller, now 64 years old, becomes the oldest elected President. His scandalous marriage and various other personal issues (as well as deteriorating health) render his presidency ineffectual. At the end of four years, people begin to think there is no hope left in American politics.

President Robert F. Kennedy (D) (1977-1984)
In 1976, JFK's brother, Robert Kennedy, now 51 years old, defeats Rockefeller and wins the Presidency that his brother never could. He runs a campaign of hope and prosperity. He pushes through long overdue civil rights legislaton and essentially co-opts civil rights from the Republicans, framing their party as old, corrupt and greedy.

RFK serves two terms. By 1984, when he leaves office (havng broken the "zero-year curse"), it is clear that fascism and communism are failed systems, having worked themselves into poverty fighting one another, while American capitalist democracy appears to be thriving. The Third Reich lasted a bit more than a half-century, and the soviet bloc falls apart shortly thereafter. When Emperor Hirohito dies in 1989, it is scene as the final moment in the fall of fascism.

President George Herbert Walker Bush (R) (1984-1992)
President William Jefferson Clinton (D) (1992-2000)
President ?? (2000-??)
In the post-RFK era, new political faces emerge on the scene, including a young governor from Arkansas with an almost preternatural gift for politics, and the wealthy scions of the late, politically connected liberal Republican Prescott Bush...

And in the world, with the decline of fascism and communism, new powers emerge. China, now free of Japanese aggression, becomes a rising power. And the Ottman Caliphate, sensing a power vacuum, begins to reassert its territorial ambitions in Africa, India and the Balkans...

Meanwhile, on a Skeptics' forum, somebody wonders what would have happened if Germany had lost World War II...

marksman said:

I agree with the Don. The only scenario in which Germany wins is America staying out of the war.

Click to expand...

And Germany staying out of the Soviet Union.

Which, conceivably, might have happened if America stayed out of the war, in the very speculative alternate history I outlined above.

Maybe. Adolf seemed to have a real hard-on for the Communists though - and if he had good reason to think the US was going to sit it out, I think that would have made him more likely to invade the Soviet Union rather than less.

Of course, the Soviets did get some US materiel support during the winter of 1942, if the US was *completely* out of the war and didn't provide even that, things might have turned out differently for the Soviets anyway. I don't know enough about the topic to really know if that would have mattered or not.

The Don said:

- The UK becomes a republic, the empire is disbanded
-

Click to expand...

Why would the UK become a republic in this alternate history? Since they already had a parliament, I assume you mean that they would no longer have the royal family in power. But what social/political pressure would cause the UK to give up that up?

kbm99 said:

Maybe. Adolf seemed to have a real hard-on for the Communists though - and if he had good reason to think the US was going to sit it out, I think that would have made him more likely to invade the Soviet Union rather than less.

Click to expand...

Doubtful. Hitler withheld attacking the Soviets because of British saber-rattling, not American. Hitler invaded Russia because he thought he had the UK bottled up.

In my alternative history, Hitler's war is going so well, he decides to occupy the UK and make it part of the Reich. (Not out of the question, as he always hoped England would have more affinity for Germany than historical enemy France.) In this version, this becomes Hitler's miscalculation. The UK does fight them on the shores, in the homes, every inch, every foot and soon Germany is bogged down in a guerilla war it never wanted.

Because of this, Hitler is reluctantly forced to put off plans to invade the Soviets, plans which must be shelved indefinitely as soon as the Soviets and Americans jointly develop their own nukes (which is shortly after the Germans invent it in 1946). It is always Hitler's regret that he didn't invade the Soviets instead of the UK, never realizing that, had he done so, he would have lost the war.

What I like about this world is how interesting the politics become. "Europe" (and Japan) is now seen as the bastion of fascism, which gains "legitmacy" by being affiliated with Europe's long traditions of culture. Asia becomes a hotbed of communism (I think that's where India eventually goes, as this US is still fairly isolationist), which continues to attract impoverished former colonies. Capitalism is still seen as the young radical movement, strong only in North America and Australia (and accused by the fascists as being manipulated by the Jews -- given that's the only place there are significant number of Jews left).

marksman said:

In my alternative history, Hitler's war is going so well, he decides to occupy the UK and make it part of the Reich. (Not out of the question, as he always hoped England would have more affinity for Germany than historical enemy France.) In this version, this becomes Hitler's miscalculation. The UK does fight them on the shores, in the homes, every inch, every foot and soon Germany is bogged down in a guerilla war it never wanted.

Click to expand...

Not really paracticle. Strong resitiance would likely end with the loss of london If you look at britians definsive lines once you got as far as london there wasn't much else.

Post war war gameing suggests that the intervention of the royal navy would be descisive and the german forces would have been destoyed. After that a second invasion would be unlikely. Depending on what happend with the italians some kind of peace would likey have turned up at some point.

geni said:

Post war war gameing suggests that the intervention of the royal navy would be descisive and the german forces would have been destoyed.

Click to expand...

Not without lend-lease.

According to Britain's own history of the lend-lease program:

(Emphasis added.)

In my mind, Germany sustains major naval losses crossing the channel, but is ultimately successful. However, the London lines manage to hold for quite a while, turning the ordeal into a siege. By the time the siege of London is over, Hitler's advisors tell him that the Soviets have mobilized a surprisingly large army and invading Russia at this point would be suicide. The Nazi-Soviet COld War thus begins, with Germany consolidating its Western European holdings, the Soviets consolidating Eastern Europe and fighting a prozy war with Japan in China. And all three Powers (US, Germany and Soviet Union) scrambling to expand their spheres of influence throughout Latin America, Africa, the Second Ottoman Empire, and Southern Asia.

marksman said:

Not without lend-lease.

Click to expand...

At this stage of the war it was still cash and carry

According to Britain's own history of the lend-lease program:

Between the fall of France and Pearl Harbor sinkings of British ships amounted to a third or more of the total tonnage available to Britain in the summer of 1940.21 This was worse than 1917, when German submarines had come close to winning the war. There is no need to demonstrate further the British need for American shipping help. Exact calculation of the help rendered is not, however, a simple matter; even a rough calculation cannot be attempted except in the context of the shipping situation as a whole. This is the subject of the following chapter.

Here it will be sufficient to emphasise one central truth. What really counted in 1941 was the assurance of a great output of American ships in the future. Without this assurance, Britain's determination to go on fighting would have been no more than a defiant gesture​

(Emphasis added.)

Click to expand...

The longer germany left an invasion the more problimaticle it became.

In my mind, Germany sustains major naval losses crossing the channel

Click to expand...

From what with RAF south gone (if it isn't an invasion is basicaly imposible) and the Royal navy at scarpa flow there would be nothing to inflict any signifcant damage to an intial force.

but is ultimately successful.

Click to expand...

in the short term

However, the London lines manage to hold for quite a while, turning the ordeal into a siege.

Click to expand...

Two problems with this. First with little heavy equipement it is doubtful the british army could have held against the full might of the german army for long. At the same time the intial landing force would likely be suffering from major supply problems after the royal navy removed the follow up forces and supplies.

If you look at how hard the far better prepared D-Day landings were it is unlikely that a german invasion of the UK would have suceeded.

The day Germany invaded Russia they lost the war...

You need to be more detailed about how Germany goes about winning WW2. I'll make it easier and say halfway through the German advance in Russia, a giant meteor falls in the Moscow area. That would have killed the logistical ability of the soviet union, wiped out the leadership and everything else important. With that, the Nazis could have taken Russia but only under some crazy scenario like I outlined. I've studied the German invasion of the soviet union and the bottom line is they couldn't have won based on what Germany had. You have to alter the time line or something else for victory to be possible. No Stalin and a weak soviet state then it could be done.

What would had happened if the Germans achieved an early victory over the soviet union? England would have been next on the plate for sure. Imagine full German effort on U-boat production as well as aircraft . Britain would have been eventually been starved out, and surrendered.

We Americans of course tend to look this from an American perspective. America would not have had D-day or anything of the short. Germany had it's full effort on the Russians when America invaded and if you look at the numbers involved America only used a few hundred combat thousand troops in the European theater. If Germany beat Russia early on though... Germany would have Millions of VETERAN COMBAT troops at their disposal; it would have been impossible to invade Germany, much less from the sea.

Bottom line, Hitler would have achieved his basic plan for the third Reich. The Jews would no longer exist and from there I don't know. The Atomic bomb doesn't matter in this situation. At the time they were too few and too weak to change a war and the Germans would have built one eventually anyway.

Can't say what would happen in the pacific though, I think America would still have defeated the Japanese.

bigred said:

Long-term they couldn't have held out really, and for the same reasons as the South winning the Civil War: inferior resources/logistics. Still, I don't even want to think about how ugly that could have made the following years....

Course whether or not we beat Japan would make a big diff too.

Would our "atomic abilities" have pounded them into submission as well?

Click to expand...

Historical evidence indicates that if Germany had developed nuclear weapons first or simultaneously, and in particularly combined with missles that could reach the United States and Russia, at the least, the war would have ended with Germany holding on to most or all of its conquored territories. The long history of the Soviet Union and of China indicates to me that Nazi Germany could have been quite stable despite lack of representative government or civil liberties. European economic integration would probably have happened quicker and German would be the clear national language of Europe.

There's a big qualifier about the likelihood o this happening, because in my understand elite German scientists may have deliberately sabatoged nazi Germany's possibilities to develop weaponized nuclear technology.

Very imaginative Marksman. I don't agree with all of it but I think 2 points in particular are salient. (1) A Europe under nazi germany would basically play the same role the Soviets did during the Cold War, as the primary power competitor. I think that scenario happens if the Nazis develop nuclear weapons and ballistic missles before they're defeated. It doesn't matter if the US enters the war or if they fight with the Soviets or not. We see the deterrence power of a country as tiny as North Korea when it has those two elements in place. (2) I think in almost any alternate history, Bill Clinto would either end up as president, or as a competitive political candidate and a major political presence. He's sort of an affirmation of the "great man" theory of history, the power of political talent, particularly of the flexibly principled, self-promoting variety, to trump historical circumstance. In any history, I can see him concluding "I may not be able to be great as a musician, but I can be great in public service."

I differ with you and some others in that I don't think nazi germany can get away with invading England while staying conflict-free with America. I think that ignores significant non-transparent ties between wasp elites of America and of England. Similarly, I think nazis can get away with only limited brutality towards jews, due to non-transparent, social consensus forming media power of American jews of that era. The (non-transparent) rise of American jews as powerful within American media disturbed a lot of Americans, including Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh -that mainstream critiques have ended may in part be a testament to even greater success in members of the American jewish community developing social consensus forming media power. So, in short, I don't think nazi Germany would easily be able invade England and commit long-term genocide against European jews and keep America out of war with it. However, if both sides developed ballistic nuclear weapons (and if one side developed them, the other probably would within a couple years) then I could see mutual deterrence -America limiting anti-semitism and british invasion, nazi germany keeping America out of continental europe.

Another interesting question is, if by making an enormous R&D bet, nazi germany could have come up with nuclear weapons and ballistic technology first. If so, I wonder if it might be possible for nazi germany to force surrender of both Americans and Soviets the way Americans forced Japanese surrender. Would actual global hegemonic power force nazi government to be more cosmopolitan in its internal and external propaganda? Would a UN equivalent be created in Berlin, a NATO equivalent for Europe, would their be nazi german bases in 100+ countries in the world instead of American ones?

In some ways, the propaganda of racialism and exclusion may be a product of nazi Germany's outsider, also-ran status. As leaders of global hegemony, their rhetoric and worldview might change out of necessity and to promote simple efficiency in governance.

geni said:

At this stage of the war it was still cash and carry

Click to expand...

I wonder how successful even that would be without the FDR administration's express encouragement of aiding the British. A Garner administration would have been much more committed to neutrality and would not have taken the back-door measures that New York-based FDR took to reassure businesses that aiding the British would be supported.

Moreover, as the website I cited makes clear, the British Navy would have been spread thin if it hadn't been for American mercantile shipping interests working on their behalf to aid in logistics. FDR actively suported that. Garner would not.

The longer germany left an invasion the more problimaticle it became.

Click to expand...

A Willkie presidency would have been explicitly premised on America never getting involved in a European war. That would have emboldened Hitler to believe (rightly) that he had free reign to act against the UK. So I'd put a London assault at around 1941-42.

From what with RAF south gone (if it isn't an invasion is basicaly imposible) and the Royal navy at scarpa flow there would be nothing to inflict any signifcant damage to an intial force.

Click to expand...

I think you are unduly undeestimating London defenses. In my scenario, it would only require the invasion of England to take six-nine months with significant casualties before Hitler realizes going into England has prevented him from invading the Soviets. I think the UK could have entangled the Nazis for at least that long.

in the short term

Click to expand...

Short terms is all it takes.

If you look at how hard the far better prepared D-Day landings were it is unlikely that a german invasion of the UK would have suceeded.

Click to expand...

They would be totally different scenarios.

Dave1001 said:

I think that scenario happens if the Nazis develop nuclear weapons and ballistic missles before they're defeated. It doesn't matter if the US enters the war or if they fight with the Soviets or not. We see the deterrence power of a country as tiny as North Korea when it has those two elements in place.

Click to expand...

Exactly. And thanks for the kind words!

(2) I think in almost any alternate history, Bill Clinto would either end up as president, or as a competitive political candidate and a major political presence.

Click to expand...

The biggest problem with the scenario is that in a world in which FDR is killed in 1934, it is unlikely that anybody born after, say 1940, would even exist. The timeline would be too divergent. So it's actually unlikely Bill Clinton (or most of us writing here today) would have even been born.

But for argument's sake, I kind of assumed most people born before 1947 still exist.

He's sort of an affirmation of the "great man" theory of history, the power of political talent, particularly of the flexibly principled, self-promoting variety, to trump historical circumstance. In any history, I can see him concluding "I may not be able to be great as a musician, but I can be great in public service."

Click to expand...

Agreed. I actually think that Richard Nixon was also such a person who was going to be President no matter what it took. In addition, I think it clear that Joe Kennedy was going to spend every dollar he had to get one of his boys to be President, and that Prescott Bush had also inculcated his entire family with a burning need to ascend in politics.

But without WWII, I don't think Eisenhower, Truman, LBJ, Gerald Ford or Jimmy Carter would have ever made it farther than Senator or Governor. I briefly considered making Ronald Reagan the post-Thurmond Republican one-termer instead of Rockefeller. Frankly, anybody would work there.

I differ with you and some others in that I don't think nazi germany can get away with invading England while staying conflict-free with America. I think that ignores significant non-transparent ties between wasp elites of America and of England.

Click to expand...

I think it is very feasible that an isolationist President like Willkie would resist such pressures. Willkie won the 1940 Republican nomination on just such sentiments. He would not be beholden to the WASPy elite. He's a champion of the German, Italian and Irish immigrants as well as the know-nothings. And he'd have the support of the pro-fascists like Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh.

Similarly, I think nazis can get away with only limited brutality towards jews, due to non-transparent, social consensus forming media power of American jews of that era.

Click to expand...

The horrors of the Holocaust weren't fully known to FDR's America until the war ended. A know-nothing America would, well, know nothing.

Another interesting question is, if by making an enormous R&D bet, nazi germany could have come up with nuclear weapons and ballistic technology first.

Click to expand...

I think fear of Soviet aggression while Germany consolidated its Western holdings would have supplied that impetus. I believe that if Germany got the Bomb (say, in 1946), America and Russia would have gotten it by hook or by crook within two years of that date (1948). I don't think nuclear blackmail would have forced a surrender of Soviets the way it did of Japan. The Japanese did not believe America wanted to clean out Japanese islands to make way for Americans to live, even in an unconditional surrender.

The Soviets believed Hitler would have totally depopulated the Ukraine. Even a nuke in Moscow would not have caused surrender. In my mind, Nazis don't use a nuke on Moscow, preferring to use its deterrence to keep the Soviets out while Europe recovers from the war.

marksman said:

I wonder how successful even that would be without the FDR administration's express encouragement of aiding the British. A Garner administration would have been much more committed to neutrality and would not have taken the back-door measures that New York-based FDR took to reassure businesses that aiding the British would be supported.

Click to expand...

The UK still owned a heck of a lot of the planet at this point. It could have been sold if there were no other options.

Moreover, as the website I cited makes clear, the British Navy would have been spread thin if it hadn't been for American mercantile shipping interests working on their behalf to aid in logistics. FDR actively suported that. Garner would not.

Click to expand...

Bits of it would. Battleships would likey still have been in port.

A Willkie presidency would have been explicitly premised on America never getting involved in a European war. That would have emboldened Hitler to believe (rightly) that he had free reign to act against the UK. So I'd put a London assault at around 1941-42.

Click to expand...

about right.

I think you are unduly undeestimating London defenses.

Click to expand...

I think you underestimate the german army. Other than urban warfare when was the german army ever slowed by an inferior force?

In my scenario, it would only require the invasion of England to take six-nine months with significant casualties before Hitler realizes going into England has prevented him from invading the Soviets. I think the UK could have entangled the Nazis for at least that long.

Click to expand...

If the germans are able to continue suppying their forces I say less than a month. There just isn't enough land between the channel and London to drag out a war there. Thus the decideing factor is very likely to be wether the royal navy and RAF northen command could interupt resupply.

They would be totally different scenarios.

Click to expand...

Well then the landings in Italy not all of those worked out.

Shera said:

Why would the UK become a republic in this alternate history? Since they already had a parliament, I assume you mean that they would no longer have the royal family in power. But what social/political pressure would cause the UK to give up that up?

Click to expand...

Just a WAG that the royal family would have fled to the Empire (Canada ?) and remained a symbol of the struggle against the Germans. In their absence a new head of state would be required. An elected one under the "influence" of the Germans would have been ideal.

I think you are missing the main point in Germany invading Russia :Hitler needed the oil. Germany has no natural resources or very few and Hitler desperately needed the Ukrainean oil fields to keep his army. A scenario where he ignored Russia and occupied Britain would have been a hopeless situation energy wise.

geni said:

The UK still owned a heck of a lot of the planet at this point. It could have been sold if there were no other options.

Click to expand...

Sold to whom? The world is coming out of the Depression. The former colonies don't have any cash with which to buy their freedom. France is occupied. Russia is impoverished. Germany is the enemy. America isn't buying. Who is the UK going to sell their colonies to to fund the war effort?

Bits of it would. Battleships would likey still have been in port.

Click to expand...

Exactly, which means the UK navy is less effective in this alternate universe than it was in our own.

I think you underestimate the german army. Other than urban warfare when was the german army ever slowed by an inferior force?

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure London is considered an urban area.

Thus the decideing factor is very likely to be wether the royal navy and RAF northen command could interupt resupply.

Click to expand...

I think they very well could.

Well then the landings in Italy not all of those worked out.

Click to expand...

Exactly. The invasion and taking of Italy begins in July 1943 and continues through the fall. Five months.

But the point of the exercise is not merely the time of taking London, but the cost in materiel and personnel. Even if the invasion of London goes from, say April 1941 through August 1941, if there are enough casualties, Hitler would not be able to shift gears for Russia.

Ove said:

I think you are missing the main point in Germany invading Russia :Hitler needed the oil. Germany has no natural resources or very few and Hitler desperately needed the Ukrainean oil fields to keep his army. A scenario where he ignored Russia and occupied Britain would have been a hopeless situation energy wise.

Click to expand...

That's why I hypothesized that Hitler thought he could swiftly strike and capture London. One reason Hitler waited until June to invade Russia in 1941 was because his army needed more time to shore up the Balkans. What if he sees an opportunity to take out London in one swift strike. So he gives the Eastern Armies 1941 to consolidate the Balkans. He already decides Russia won't be invaded until June.

He invades London in later March 1941, figuring that the invasion would be complete by late May and then he can invade Russia in June as planned. In this scenario, London holds the army off only until mid-July. This delay means Hitler won't have the forces to invade Russia.

Winter comes early that year (it's one of the reasons why Hitler's army got stalled outside Moscow in our universe). By invading the UK, Hitler dodged a bullet. And 1941-42 is one of the most brutal winters on record.

In Spring 1942, the UK is conquered and has been occupied for ten months. Hitler sends in an Eastern Army in early Spring. But the Soviets are now prepared for invasion and this time and rebuffed. A stalemate in the Ukraine.

I think your analyzing is very presice Marksman and your scenario sounds plausible but then that would probably have meant that the iron curtain would be the atlantic. If Russia had gotten into high gear and Germany weakened by having to occupy Europe and UK the red army wouldn't have stopped until they reached the west coast of England...
And I would have been speaking russian today (shudder)...