“Hitler doesn't invade Russia” That’s just a decision. Hitler had plenty to keep Germany busy without attacking Russia in 1941. Like fully “digesting his prey” –economically exploiting his conquests. Also a decision to not attack the USSR in 1941 in no way forecloses his ability to attack the USSR later. “Stalin forget about his european ambitions” Say what? Stalin had taken about 40% of Poland and a bite out of Finland and completely absorbed the Baltic States and sliced Bessarabia off Romania. I’d say Stalin had gotten all he realistically thought he could get. He had more or less restored the 1914 Imperial Russian frontiers. “Hitler doesn't lose his most experience aircrew during the battle of Britain” He could have made good those losses within about eight months by not attacking Russia. Even thought the historical Russian campaign was wildly successful in the 1941 time frame its sheer size imposed a lot of attrition on the Luftwaffe and Wehrmacht. “Hitler has no problem shipping thousands of troop and material to africa despite the british control of the mediteranean…” If the Germans take Malta the Italians control the central Mediterranean, particularly the convoy routes from Naples to Tripoli. They could easily have supported six additional German divisions if Malta were reduced. “The usa would pass on the chance to make a fortune by selling old destroyers and supplies to the british.” My scenario in no way precludes the US selling stuff to Britain. It just precludes direct military and naval support. “Germany wouldn't run out of fuel forcing her to produce cheaper synthetic fuel that destroyed her over engineered tank engine and froze in cold weather.” It wasn’t the tank engines that froze in the Russian winter. It was the German troops. The gasoline made by the Fischer-Tropsch process was only 80 octane but the German engineers knew perfectly well how to get adequate performance out of low octane gas. For instance, the 14 cylinder BMW 801 engine made the same amount of power as the 18 cylinder American Pratt & Whitney Double Wasp which required gasoline with an honest 100 motor octane. The engines weighed about the same and were equally reliable.
IMO, if the us did not enter the war, actively, in 1942, AND germany did not invade russia, england would be speaking german. The blitzkrieg could have made pretty short work of the brits, as they did in france earlier. It was these early, easy victories that emboldened hitler to open up another front. Had he kept his alliance with stalin, they could have waited until the 50's or 60's to do battle with each other. With no foothold in europe, america would likely not have gotten involved, but worked for a treaty with hitler, as well as japan. Japan's attack on pearl harbor was one of the biggest tactical blunders of all time. It awoken the sleeping giant, & changed everything. Japan could have run china & most of asia as they wished for decades, had they tread a little more softly around america. But it was their disdain & underestimation of the us that was their undoing as well. I don't see much future for the Americans ... it's a decayed country. And they have their racial problem, and the problem of social inequalities ... my feelings against Americanism are feelings of hatred and deep repugnance ... everything about the behaviour of American society reveals that it's half Judaised, and the other half negrified. How can one expect a State like that to hold together? ~Adolf Hitler If it were not for the us dominance in WW2, the rest of the world would probably still see us this way, & many people do, in spite of grudgingly acknowledging our military superiority. There was such a pervasive sense of 'destiny' & racial superiority among both the japanese & nazis that they could not imagine defeat at the hands of a mongrel nation such as the us. The vast size of the us, & the distance from the enemy nations made it difficult to hamper our military machine. Raw materials, food, oil.. all these things the us had in great supply, & could build their war machine internally. Had hitler been able to get mexico or some other south american countries to bring the war to our shores, it might have affected our input in europe. Of course, this is all speculation, & really no way of knowing. But most military historians agree that both germany & japan did not make good tactical moves at this time. They thought they were good ideas at the time, but history proved otherwise.
From what I've gathered, Hitler was not that interested in conquering the UK. As much as I hate Yahoo answers the first two entries are actually pretty interesting regarding the mindset of the Nazis. http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081227172740AACQ6IB After all we were only at war with Germany because we declared war after the Polish invasion. Believe it or not the Blitzkrieg wasn't as easily executed it is commonly believed. For example when the invasion of France happened only 10% of the German forces were motorised and about a third of the airforce had been taken out of action after Poland. The real advantage for Germany was the fact that they had the best armour at the time and bypassed the Maginot line plus the Italians in the south.
I don't quite know how to tell you this but blitzkrieg wouldn't work in Britain it would be a long hard slog of the Germans after a landing. The South of England would fall very quickly as would the midlands, however as the Germans move into Wales and Cumbria the British would stall them in the mountains than counter attack. I doubt the Germans could get into Scotland, let alone try and take a part of the world which has never been taken by a invading power in the Highlands of Scotland. I am finding this rather funny, all the Americans think the Germans would win easy and all the Commonwealth people think the British could hold the Germans.
"The Germans couldn't have taken Malta." Taxcutter says: The fallschirmjaeger took Crete - a much bigger island with a large garrison of excellent Australian and British troops. There were more air bases in southern Italy than in Greece and they were closer to Malta than the bases in Greece were to Crete, so the fallschirmjaeger would have good close air support. The garrison of Malta was small and mostly a bunch of overaged reservists manning guns in the forts around the Grand Harbor of Valletta. these forts were not designed to withstand assault from the landward side. Yeah, it would have been a bloodbath - air assaults in world War II always were. Once the fallschirmjaeger took the airfields west of Vallettta the Germans and Italians could air transport light infantry in. They'd take the fishing villages south of Valletta and get enough combat engineers and (fairly) heavy weapons ashore to assault the Grand Harbor forts. NATO has gamed out this scenario numerous times. Once the thin British fighter forces were swept from the skies over Malta, it was just a matter of time.
It wouldn't have been a bloodbath because it just wasn't possible. Many of the paratroopers would have drowned say 20%. If the Germans landed 10,000 they would be lucky if 5,000 hit the ground. You also forget about the locals and they would have put up a fight, there is also many places that the Germans would need to clear where tanks and heavy artillery couldn't be used. The Germans bombed the crap out of Malta and it did nothing. The Germans tryed and they couldn't take it. I have been to one of the forts with a 100 ton gun with 8 miles range, it was built to take naval gun fire and withstand attack from land with large store rooms. If the British can keep supplying Malta the Germans can't take it, simple as that.
Most of the forts at Malta dated back to the nineteenth century. The forts at Eben Emael were modern and fully manned. The Germans took Eben Emael in a matter of hours. If the Germans took the airfields, they could just starve out the old forts. A couple of staffeln of Bf-109s and a geschwader of Stukas on Malta and the Royal Navy could get close. Maybe one of their dinky little submarines a day (25 tons of supply, maybe) - nothing bigger. Taking Malta would not be cheap, but it was entirely possible and doing so made supplying Tripoli very possible.
I noticed that, too! Had the outcome of the war been different, the germans would be debating this point, i suppose.. But it is tough being a declining hegemony.. we know about that this side of the pond, too.. & our reign was much shorter... But you guys were lucky.. that was an era of unapologetic imperialism. If the fleet didn't come back loaded with the spoils of war, the citizens would be very disappointed. When our troops come home, they hand us a big bill, not only for their pay, but also rebuilding the nation we just bombed into oblivion!
If forts are anything like castles then the older they are the better. They become hardened to the weather and any problems in their use are found out and overcome. This happened with the castle building program in Wales by the English. Also the Malta forts is very small not every long or wide, not clider can land on it and from behind is a hill about the same height as the fort walls and a ditch or moat in front of it. So the forts aren't the same and were build for different things, the gliders and paratroops couldn't land in it or even near it. So the Germans take the air fields and the British no longer having to worry about Japan move more ships back to Europe including carriers. So you need to take into account not only what the Germans have if they don't invade the Soviet Union, but also what Britain has if it doesn't have to worry about Japan. I don't know German so I don't know how many aircraft you are talking about. Also in the Germans shipping what would the British submarines be doing, most likely attacking German and Italian shipping which Italy and Germany can't replace as fast as the British can replace their ships.
If the Germans take the airfields, the naval base at Valletta is untenable. All the Royal Navy would have to bug out or get bombed to scrap metal by Stukas. Stukas were exceptional good shipping attack planes but they were short ranged. No problem if they are based just a few miles away. Even if the Germans make no move on the forts their influence of the Malta garrison reaches no further than the guns of the forts. No planes because the Axis holds the airfields. No ships or even subs because those pesky Stukas drove them off. The Italian convoys placidly steam by a few miles away as things get hungrier and hungrier in Malta. Why would the Japanese move carriers to Europe? British subs were short-legged as a rule. The closest they could base to the Naples-Tripoli route is Alexandria or Gibraltar. They could make it but they couldn't stay on-station long. If they miss the convoys they have to go back empty-handed. How long do you think Malta could hold out?
Stuka were crap at attacking moving ships. They did well at dunkirk because the boats had to stop to let the retreating troops climb aboard. The italian navy was a joke. Half of their ships never left the docks. The brits layed enough mine along the italian coast that someone could have walked across the med by stepping on them. And you are still trying to stack the deck in favor of the german. They don't have thousands of experienced aircrew by 1941... They lost 1,562 planes and experienced crews in the battle of britain. It went downhill after that. And germany never even considered building a heavy long range bomber because hitler, the jelly brain corporal, only believe in blitzkrieg and dive bombers. Malta is the same as england in regard to air battle. A downed german or italian plane means a lost crew, while the british can get patch up and fly again. Read up on George Beurling, the canadian ace for an exemple of that. So, the british are still in full control of the med, germany as no way to break that hold. He can barely supply the africa corp with the few ships he can find. But, hey, keep going with your one sided fantasy scenario...
The Germans tried bombing ships during the Battle of Britain. Except for some merchant ships they failed utterly at bombing warships. They weren't trained for it and their weapons weren't designed for it.
"Stuka were crap at attacking moving ships." Taxcutter says: You might ell that to the officers and crew of HMS Gloucester, Fiji, Calcutta, Kelly, Greyhound, Kashmir, Dive bombers in general (Stukas, Dauntlesses, and Vals) were deadly anti-shipping aircraft. Until the (American-only) VT fuse came along, they were immune to flak once they started their dive and their 250 kg bomb was more than enough to sink a 1,000 ton destroyer with a single hit amidships.. Accuracy? These aircraft easily hit targets as small as tanks. You don't think tank drivers didn't take evasive action? these aircraft made a living hitting fast, maneuverable T-34s. A destroyer would be meat on the table. The Stuka had two drawbacks not shared with the Dauntless and Val. They were slow and short-legged. Dauntlesses were maneuverable and fast enough to be used as makeshift fighters during the Guadalcanal campaign. They were effective (though not as much as a real fighter) against Kates and some IJA bombers. Being creatures of the vast Pacific, Dauntlesses and Vals had to have great range. An air campaign over Malta based on an air assault would not be particularly bloody to Luftwaffe aircrew. Malta did not have much of a fighter force. Where they could better the italian CR.42 biplane fighters, the Bf-109Es would slaughter the Gloster Gladiators of the Malta air garrison. Once the skies were clear, waves of Ju-52s would bring in the fallschirmjaeger, and the issue would be decided.
Immune to flak? Stukas missed tanks almost 100% of the time. Warships have a lot more armour than a tank. The bombs they dropped weren't designed for antishipping. Destroyers though are designed to be expendable. Their bombs wouldn't do much to larger ships.
He's living in a white nationalist dream world where everything in ww2 would have gone germany's way, which every military person know would never happen in real life. The german army wasn't prepared for an extended conflict. It didn't have the ressources to last as history has shown. They were lucky that the french command structure was (*)(*)(*)(*) and innefective because it would have crush the germans the moment they reoccupied the ruhr. And beside, even if germany didn't attack russia in 41, it was only a matter of time before the russian attacked germany. Stalin had plans for such a move since the spannish revolution. His plan for a communist europe weren't something that came out of the blue.
Behold an account of the end of the HMS Gloucester - a modern RN cruiser - caused by German dive bombers. http://www.world-war.co.uk/gloucester_story.php3 No Spitfires? You are dogmeat. Stukas were murder on destroyers and light cruisers. When the destroyers are lost, what will stop the U-boats?
Take the US and Russia out of the equation, just make it a battle of Germany vs Britain, and Germany would have whooped them for sure.
Which country are you from? - - - Updated - - - What if the RN brough carriers to stop the Stukas or escort carriers?
The air groups on British carriers was not enough to stop the escorted Stukas, even if the whole air group was fighters. In 1941, the RN had no Seafires or Martlets. Just Sea Hurris and Fulmars. Sea Hurris, because of the weight of arrestor gear, had very short range. They could barely get out of sight of their carriers. Fulmars - - they couldn't out-fight Bf-110s. The Messerschmidts would exterminate them. HMS Eagle had to have specially trained pilots because she had no arrestor gear. Once these guys were attrited, Eagle was out of business. The carriers the British had available in 1941 would just be targets. A single jagdgeschwader of Bf-109Es would overwhelm their CAP and their flak was too weak to impress the Stukas. Who knows the Italian SM.79s might get lucky with a torpedo.
True. But aircraft carriers could of been used to ferry superior fighters over to Malta which is what happened during the siege. Yes but that was not the only carrier we had. There were other far more capable vessels. Well that's why in naval warfare you add destroyers to the carriers group. In the end you don't need to occupy Malta in order to keep the German supplies coming into N.Africa just as long as the sea lanes are clear. Also the German plans for Malta were similar to Crete which was not ideal as despite that being a victory had cost the Germans a serious amount of troops.
"...aircraft carriers could of been used to ferry superior fighters over to Malta..." Taxcutter says: They did this by stripping their air groups of more than a token CAP. The planes ferried in attrited quickly with only the Italians raiding. With Germans joining the Italians, each ferry run worth of planes would last maybe three days. Once the fallschirmjaeger take the airfield, British ferry missions are foreclosed.
