I’m taking WWII in this one. For me it boils down to innovation. No Navy? No problem. They can terrorize the Atlantic crossing with U-boats.
Tanks were top notch. Artillery was super effective. Infantry was professional and motivated. And the blitz changed the game. If Hitler wasn’t such a dipshit strategically, his scientists would have developed nukes and then its game over. Instead he wasted half his army in Russia, and wasted resources on the V-2.
I’d argue not finishing off England was their biggest mistake though. Without England as a staging ground, retaking Europe would have been really fucking hard. We didn’t exactly roll through Italy like we had hoped...
As for the importance of timing/delaying Barbarossa in 1941, taking Moscow by November would certainly have been more important than when Napoleon took it in 1812. Moscow wasn't even the capital in 1812; St. Petersburg was. By 1941, the Sovs had made the USSR into a highly centralized state, with Moscow as its indispensable hub. You take Moscow, you can use it over the winter as a forward base and roll come springtime (and, even without taking Moscow, the Germans did resume the offensive in the spring of 1942). Striking all the way to Stalingrad in late 1942 shows that the Germans could certainly do logistics, and having a central rail/road/comm hub like Moscow in their hands would have given them an excellent springbored to keep up the heat.
Not necessarily saying that Barbarossa would have succeeded if Moscow had been taken, but certainly not the case that it "always would have failed."
Once the invasion of the USSR failed by December 1941, Hitler was done. It was only a matter of time. Not only was the Wermacht's aura of invincibility shattered, it was the genesis of Hitler not trusting his (elite) generals and taking matters into his own fucktarded hands. "No retreat under any circumstances" policy? He's lucky his generals ignored him and pulled back some, or else losses would have been exponentially worse.
People point out to the delayed invasion start date, the swing south to Kiev, or the attacks on Greece/Yugoslavia as contributing factors, but honestly Barbarossa always would have failed. Hitler severely underestimated the fighting strength of the Soviet troops, their ability to quickly replenish their numbers (despite losing 3 million in '41 they had essentially replaced them by Jan '42), and Soviet armor (which to his horror was far superior than German, and Tiger tanks were 2+ years away anyway). Moscow falling wouldn't have changed a thing except stretch their supply lines even further. Ask Napoleon.
Once it became about attrition and not blitzkrieg by 1941's end, Hitler's doom was assured. The Americans played no real part in defeating Germany beyond preventing the Germans from retreating westward as the Red Army hordes advanced, preventing millions of women from being raped, and curbing Stalin's initial desire to spread communism to the shores of the Atlantic. Remember lend lease had no material influence until 1943 when 7/10 of the prime German fighting force was dead in the east or rotting away in some Kolyma gulag.
To accomplish what they did despite the bullshit though should easily qualify them as the winner of this pole, and probably top 5 fighting force of all time. Wermacht. Modern US. Mongol Empire under Genghis or Kublai Khan. Roman Republic/Empire after Marius's reforms. And....maybe the Grande Armée?
Yeah but the conference was down in 1940. There was more parity in 1914, where even a cellar dweller like Belgium could ruin a perfect season on the first weekend
And this is a key piece to my argument- i.e., WW1 Germany had a way harder schedule from the start and yet they lasted well into the 4th Quarter.
I’m taking WWII in this one. For me it boils down to innovation. No Navy? No problem. They can terrorize the Atlantic crossing with U-boats.
Tanks were top notch. Artillery was super effective. Infantry was professional and motivated. And the blitz changed the game. If Hitler wasn’t such a dipshit strategically, his scientists would have developed nukes and then its game over. Instead he wasted half his army in Russia, and wasted resources on the V-2.
I’d argue not finishing off England was their biggest mistake though. Without England as a staging ground, retaking Europe would have been really fucking hard. We didn’t exactly roll through Italy like we had hoped...
And once they went to unrestricted warfare in the Atlantic, things looked dire for England's food supply until convoy tactics and attrition turned things against Germany. Massie's Castles of Steel has a few good chapters devoted to this (and his recounting of the exploits of the Q-ships is entertaining).
Sure winners win and loser lose. But still....it's not like the USA circa 1941- 45 could have defeated Germany mano y mano. Same with 1917 USA vs Germany. In either instance, other countries killed far more Germans than we did.
We would have beaten them alone if need be. Only Russia killed more but they wouldn't have if we weren't supplying them and the Brits and France etc. We were the engine of that war and defeated the Japanese at the same damn time!
Doubtful; the cost if lives would have been far more than a democracy such as ours could bear. If you took all the divisions that Germany had in the East and lined them up along the Atlantic Coast, they could have repelled a US invasion of any size rather easily.
It’s tough to tell. Prior to WWI nobody would say that the US was a military power, but they had many successes against Mexico, Spain, and Filipino revolutionaries, and some quality wins in those fun “Banana Wars” . Plus the Navy had made some gains in modernization at that point. So we had the recruits/troops, newer facilities/weapons, and coaches/military leadership, we just hadn’t really played anybody yet. You could say we were the Boise State of the time.
In the ramp up to WWII in addition to the American people wanting nothing to do with European wars again, much of the US military budget had been slashed to help fund economic recovery/ FDR’s New Deal (interesting as he made one of his early career claims to fame in the Navy department).
So yes, if the US had to play the Germans at the start of the wars ala UW/Auburn on a non-neutral field, they would’ve gotten their asses handed to them, BUT they didn’t and if there’s one thing the US has smoked many other nations in militarily (besides technology) is resources - manpower, raw materials, sheer land mass (oh, and speed, speed, SPEED!). Even with fighting on multiple fronts, we would have eventually worn out Germany.
Sure winners win and loser lose. But still....it's not like the USA circa 1941- 45 could have defeated Germany mano y mano. Same with 1917 USA vs Germany. In either instance, other countries killed far more Germans than we did.
We would have beaten them alone if need be. Only Russia killed more but they wouldn't have if we weren't supplying them and the Brits and France etc. We were the engine of that war and defeated the Japanese at the same damn time!
Doubtful; the cost if lives would have been far more than a democracy such as ours could bear. If you took all the divisions that Germany had in the East and lined them up along the Atlantic Coast, they could have repelled a US invasion of any size rather easily.
It’s tough to tell. Prior to WWI nobody would say that the US was a military power, but they had many successes against Mexico, Spain, and Filipino revolutionaries, and some quality wins in those fun “Banana Wars” . Plus the Navy had made some gains in moderation at that point. So we had the recruits/troops, newer facilities/weapons, and coaches/military leadership, we just hadn’t really played anybody yet. You could say we were the Boise State of the time.
In the ramp up to WWII in addition to the American people wanting nothing to do with European wars again, much of the US military budget had been slashed to help fund economic recovery/ FDR’s New Deal (interesting as he made one of his early career claims to fame in the Navy department).
So yes, if the US had to play the Germans at the start of the wars ala UW/Auburn on a non-neutral field, they would’ve gotten their asses handed to them, BUT they didn’t and if there’s one thing the US has smoked many other nations in militarily (besides technology) is resources - manpower, raw materials, sheer land mass (oh, and speed, speed, SPEED!). Even with fighting on multiple fronts, we would have eventually worn out Germany.
I wish my wife would offer tuff military history hot takes.
I’m taking WWII in this one. For me it boils down to innovation. No Navy? No problem. They can terrorize the Atlantic crossing with U-boats.
Tanks were top notch. Artillery was super effective. Infantry was professional and motivated. And the blitz changed the game. If Hitler wasn’t such a dipshit strategically, his scientists would have developed nukes and then its game over. Instead he wasted half his army in Russia, and wasted resources on the V-2.
I’d argue not finishing off England was their biggest mistake though. Without England as a staging ground, retaking Europe would have been really fucking hard. We didn’t exactly roll through Italy like we had hoped...
And once they went to unrestricted warfare in the Atlantic, things looked dire for England's food supply until convoy tactics and attrition turned things against Germany. Massie's Castles of Steel has a few good chapters devoted to this (and his recounting of the exploits of the Q-ships is entertaining).
You still need to vote Russian / Soviet History Superioroty Guy.
Sure winners win and loser lose. But still....it's not like the USA circa 1941- 45 could have defeated Germany mano y mano. Same with 1917 USA vs Germany. In either instance, other countries killed far more Germans than we did.
We would have beaten them alone if need be. Only Russia killed more but they wouldn't have if we weren't supplying them and the Brits and France etc. We were the engine of that war and defeated the Japanese at the same damn time!
Doubtful; the cost if lives would have been far more than a democracy such as ours could bear. If you took all the divisions that Germany had in the East and lined them up along the Atlantic Coast, they could have repelled a US invasion of any size rather easily.
It’s tough to tell. Prior to WWI nobody would say that the US was a military power, but they had many successes against Mexico, Spain, and Filipino revolutionaries, and some quality wins in those fun “Banana Wars” . Plus the Navy had made some gains in moderation at that point. So we had the recruits/troops, newer facilities/weapons, and coaches/military leadership, we just hadn’t really played anybody yet. You could say we were the Boise State of the time.
In the ramp up to WWII in addition to the American people wanting nothing to do with European wars again, much of the US military budget had been slashed to help fund economic recovery/ FDR’s New Deal (interesting as he made one of his early career claims to fame in the Navy department).
So yes, if the US had to play the Germans at the start of the wars ala UW/Auburn on a non-neutral field, they would’ve gotten their asses handed to them, BUT they didn’t and if there’s one thing the US has smoked many other nations in militarily (besides technology) is resources - manpower, raw materials, sheer land mass (oh, and speed, speed, SPEED!). Even with fighting on multiple fronts, we would have eventually worn out Germany.
I wish my wife would offer tuff military history hot takes.
In your lovely bride’s defense military history isn’t exactly a subject offered to many women. I only got into it because Grandpa_de_Jour was a history nut and would take my brother and I to all these famous battlefields growing up. It was how we bonded.
Sure winners win and loser lose. But still....it's not like the USA circa 1941- 45 could have defeated Germany mano y mano. Same with 1917 USA vs Germany. In either instance, other countries killed far more Germans than we did.
We would have beaten them alone if need be. Only Russia killed more but they wouldn't have if we weren't supplying them and the Brits and France etc. We were the engine of that war and defeated the Japanese at the same damn time!
Doubtful; the cost if lives would have been far more than a democracy such as ours could bear. If you took all the divisions that Germany had in the East and lined them up along the Atlantic Coast, they could have repelled a US invasion of any size rather easily.
It’s tough to tell. Prior to WWI nobody would say that the US was a military power, but they had many successes against Mexico, Spain, and Filipino revolutionaries, and some quality wins in those fun “Banana Wars” . Plus the Navy had made some gains in moderation at that point. So we had the recruits/troops, newer facilities/weapons, and coaches/military leadership, we just hadn’t really played anybody yet. You could say we were the Boise State of the time.
In the ramp up to WWII in addition to the American people wanting nothing to do with European wars again, much of the US military budget had been slashed to help fund economic recovery/ FDR’s New Deal (interesting as he made one of his early career claims to fame in the Navy department).
So yes, if the US had to play the Germans at the start of the wars ala UW/Auburn on a non-neutral field, they would’ve gotten their asses handed to them, BUT they didn’t and if there’s one thing the US has smoked many other nations in militarily (besides technology) is resources - manpower, raw materials, sheer land mass (oh, and speed, speed, SPEED!). Even with fighting on multiple fronts, we would have eventually worn out Germany.
I wish my wife would offer tuff military history hot takes.
True. brb, yo.
People forget the US played all its 20th century wars on the road.
I’m taking WWII in this one. For me it boils down to innovation. No Navy? No problem. They can terrorize the Atlantic crossing with U-boats.
Tanks were top notch. Artillery was super effective. Infantry was professional and motivated. And the blitz changed the game. If Hitler wasn’t such a dipshit strategically, his scientists would have developed nukes and then its game over. Instead he wasted half his army in Russia, and wasted resources on the V-2.
I’d argue not finishing off England was their biggest mistake though. Without England as a staging ground, retaking Europe would have been really fucking hard. We didn’t exactly roll through Italy like we had hoped...
I’m taking WWII in this one. For me it boils down to innovation. No Navy? No problem. They can terrorize the Atlantic crossing with U-boats.
Tanks were top notch. Artillery was super effective. Infantry was professional and motivated. And the blitz changed the game. If Hitler wasn’t such a dipshit strategically, his scientists would have developed nukes and then its game over. Instead he wasted half his army in Russia, and wasted resources on the V-2.
I’d argue not finishing off England was their biggest mistake though. Without England as a staging ground, retaking Europe would have been really fucking hard. We didn’t exactly roll through Italy like we had hoped...
Except wars are not usually won by technology and innovation alone. In other words these things don't mean shit if your political leadership sucks and you have poor strategy. Again, in WWI Germany's strategy came within a C-hair of winning twice- i.e., Aug of 1914 and Spring of 1918. Germany in WWII never got that close to winning.
The ball bearing, the aircraft carrier, and the atomic bomb respectfully disagree with your anti technology campaign w/r/t WWII.
Sure there are examples of underpowered insurgents/revolutionary movements beating global powers with superior tech, but those were almost always political defeats. In large scale conventional conflicts, tech plays a massive role. I’d argue that German industry and science gave them the edge to do what they did. It wasn’t manpower. It wasn’t genius strategic leadership (obviously). And it wasn’t really natural resources or economic advantages. They had to seize those.
Tech MATTERS. I hope this post made you THINK and CARE.
Tech matters a lot, but maybe industrial base matters more. It's staggering how much shit we! built in four years.
Consider, of those bad ass Tiger I and Tiger II tanks, the Germans built 1,839 of them. We? built over 49,000 Sherman tanks. The Soviets built over 34,000 T-34's which was probably the most important tank of WWII.
Tiger I was a mediocre tank, too many straight flat surfaces to catch incoming rounds. Tiger II was much better, but it was a heavy tank, not a medium one.
Panthers were much better, more angled sloping lines to the chassis and turret, and they made about 6,000 of them. They also made 8,500 Panzer IV variants. So between the IV/Tiger/Panthers, there's 16,000 tanks.
The US went to full war footing/production almost immediately. Germany resisted doing that until around 1943. Even so, per capita, they made a comparable number of tanks to the US/USSR
And the atomic bomb had a lot less to do with the end of the war than the Soviet declaration of war on August 8
The cancelled invasion of the Japanese home islands disagrees. The war was over. I’m talking about ending it for good vs killing millions more before it was official.
I invite you to read the minutes of the Imperial War Cabinet meeting of August 10 1945. They figured they could hold out against a bombing campaign, and the US would sue for some sort of peace before it would take the casualties required for the invasion of the home islands. They knew damn well that Stalin had no such qualms about sacrificing hundreds of thousands of Soviet soldiers.
And I refer YOU to the Battle of Okinawa, which was practically considered a home island at that point. One of the bloodiest/nastiest battles of the entire war.
I also refer you to the American Navy plan to convert medium size troop/tank transports into missile platforms as part of the bombardment of Tokyo. Casualty estimates were in the millions (mostly Japanese civilians) and the time to pacify the islands was considered difficult due to the expected civilian resistance.
Keep in mind the deep cultural differences between the Germans and the Japanese as foes. Without the overwhelming show of force that was the atomic bomb, it’s likely the surrender would have been delayed enough to significantly add to the death toll.
Grandpa (WW2 Naval officer) told me I’d likely never have existed if that invasion took place. He knew the proposed battle plan first hand.
As for the importance of timing/delaying Barbarossa in 1941, taking Moscow by November would certainly have been more important than when Napoleon took it in 1812. Moscow wasn't even the capital in 1812; St. Petersburg was. By 1941, the Sovs had made the USSR into a highly centralized state, with Moscow as its indispensable hub. You take Moscow, you can use it over the winter as a forward base and roll come springtime (and, even without taking Moscow, the Germans did resume the offensive in the spring of 1942). Striking all the way to Stalingrad in late 1942 shows that the Germans could certainly do logistics, and having a central rail/road/comm hub like Moscow in their hands would have given them an excellent springbored to keep up the heat.
Not necessarily saying that Barbarossa would have succeeded if Moscow had been taken, but certainly not the case that it "always would have failed."
I've done a full 180 on this since I first got into WW2/EF stuff 10 years ago. I don't think it had any chance of succeeding at all. I took a history class elective my senior year at UW and was adamant it could have worked and got into actual arguments with my professor lol.
Barbarossa was based on a faulty assumption; that the Soviet Union would collapse before 6 months if struck hard enough. The Germans attacked on June 22, by mid-July it was already obvious that despite huge success the assumption was extremely incorrect.
No matter what changes are made to the plan, the Soviet Union will not collapse in 6 months.
But could Barbarossa have been changed to allow the Germans to win an extended, multi-year conflict? That is possible, but the changes you would need to make require Hitler and others to know that they are dramatically expanding the war on two fronts. If they do know that, they may not invade at all, and instead concentrate on a Mediterranean strategy to knock out Britain before attempting any attack on the Soviet Union.
A third option is that Barbarossa goes off as planned, but Hitler realizes that the Soviet Union has many more reserves than expected. In November, rather than keep pushing towards Moscow, he orders the Wehrmacht to prepare for defensive operations in the winter and a spring/summer offensive. This would make the Germans absorb the upcoming Soviet counter attack a lot better. It would decrease German losses and increase Soviet losses. Then in 1942, he might be able to take Leningrad as well as launch an earlier Case Blue. Then, if Hitler does not divert the 4th Panzer Army from Stalingrad or screw up logistical plans too bad, there might be a very different battle on the Volga.
But even then, you don't have a victory. You just have a more mauled Red Army, but not one absolutely defeated. So Hitler would have to hope for a decisive battle in 1943 to force the Soviets to the peace table. But at that time, the Soviets have gotten substantial Lend Lease aid, the Allied Bomber Offensive is taking off, Africa is in US and UK hands, and Italy is going to be attacked. So then we need a second major POD which is for Germany to not declare war on the US. But even then, we can still likely see some form of Lend Lease being given and the British finally pushing the Axis out of Libya.
It was the most spectacular gamble in the history of the world, with single battles and victories larger than the whole of the other campaigns combined. And it never had a chance.
Now what would have been interesting: if the Japanese acquiesced to Hitler's request to attack the eastern USSR instead of Pearl Harbor. This would have kept the US neutral. It would have prevented the Siberian reinforcements at Moscow 1941.
Pity Khalkhin Gol permanently scared the Japs from ever taking on Russia again.
Now what would have been interesting: if the Japanese acquiesced to Hitler's request to attack the eastern USSR instead of Pearl Harbor. This would have kept the US neutral. It would have prevented the Siberian reinforcements at Moscow 1941.
Pity Khalkhin Gol permanently scared the Japs from ever taking on Russia again.
The US’s entry into WW2 was inevitable. The Japanese had always planned to attack the Philippines (which was under US rule at this point) as they needed it’s resources and it’s air bases. That’s a big part of why Pearl Harbor was attacked, the Japanese wanted to take out the US’ best chance of protecting their overseas possessions in the area.
Sure winners win and loser lose. But still....it's not like the USA circa 1941- 45 could have defeated Germany mano y mano. Same with 1917 USA vs Germany. In either instance, other countries killed far more Germans than we did.
We would have beaten them alone if need be. Only Russia killed more but they wouldn't have if we weren't supplying them and the Brits and France etc. We were the engine of that war and defeated the Japanese at the same damn time!
Doubtful; the cost if lives would have been far more than a democracy such as ours could bear. If you took all the divisions that Germany had in the East and lined them up along the Atlantic Coast, they could have repelled a US invasion of any size rather easily.
It’s tough to tell. Prior to WWI nobody would say that the US was a military power, but they had many successes against Mexico, Spain, and Filipino revolutionaries, and some quality wins in those fun “Banana Wars” . Plus the Navy had made some gains in moderation at that point. So we had the recruits/troops, newer facilities/weapons, and coaches/military leadership, we just hadn’t really played anybody yet. You could say we were the Boise State of the time.
In the ramp up to WWII in addition to the American people wanting nothing to do with European wars again, much of the US military budget had been slashed to help fund economic recovery/ FDR’s New Deal (interesting as he made one of his early career claims to fame in the Navy department).
So yes, if the US had to play the Germans at the start of the wars ala UW/Auburn on a non-neutral field, they would’ve gotten their asses handed to them, BUT they didn’t and if there’s one thing the US has smoked many other nations in militarily (besides technology) is resources - manpower, raw materials, sheer land mass (oh, and speed, speed, SPEED!). Even with fighting on multiple fronts, we would have eventually worn out Germany.
I wish my wife would offer tuff military history hot takes.
True. brb, yo.
People forget the US played all its 20th century wars on the road.
I’m taking WWII in this one. For me it boils down to innovation. No Navy? No problem. They can terrorize the Atlantic crossing with U-boats.
Tanks were top notch. Artillery was super effective. Infantry was professional and motivated. And the blitz changed the game. If Hitler wasn’t such a dipshit strategically, his scientists would have developed nukes and then its game over. Instead he wasted half his army in Russia, and wasted resources on the V-2.
I’d argue not finishing off England was their biggest mistake though. Without England as a staging ground, retaking Europe would have been really fucking hard. We didn’t exactly roll through Italy like we had hoped...
Except wars are not usually won by technology and innovation alone. In other words these things don't mean shit if your political leadership sucks and you have poor strategy. Again, in WWI Germany's strategy came within a C-hair of winning twice- i.e., Aug of 1914 and Spring of 1918. Germany in WWII never got that close to winning.
The ball bearing, the aircraft carrier, and the atomic bomb respectfully disagree with your anti technology campaign w/r/t WWII.
Sure there are examples of underpowered insurgents/revolutionary movements beating global powers with superior tech, but those were almost always political defeats. In large scale conventional conflicts, tech plays a massive role. I’d argue that German industry and science gave them the edge to do what they did. It wasn’t manpower. It wasn’t genius strategic leadership (obviously). And it wasn’t really natural resources or economic advantages. They had to seize those.
Tech MATTERS. I hope this post made you THINK and CARE.
Tech matters a lot, but maybe industrial base matters more. It's staggering how much shit we! built in four years.
Consider, of those bad ass Tiger I and Tiger II tanks, the Germans built 1,839 of them. We? built over 49,000 Sherman tanks. The Soviets built over 34,000 T-34's which was probably the most important tank of WWII.
Tiger I was a mediocre tank, too many straight flat surfaces to catch incoming rounds. Tiger II was much better, but it was a heavy tank, not a medium one.
Panthers were much better, more angled sloping lines to the chassis and turret, and they made about 6,000 of them. They also made 8,500 Panzer IV variants. So between the IV/Tiger/Panthers, there's 16,000 tanks.
The US went to full war footing/production almost immediately. Germany resisted doing that until around 1943. Even so, per capita, they made a comparable number of tanks to the US/USSR
And the atomic bomb had a lot less to do with the end of the war than the Soviet declaration of war on August 8
The cancelled invasion of the Japanese home islands disagrees. The war was over. I’m talking about ending it for good vs killing millions more before it was official.
I invite you to read the minutes of the Imperial War Cabinet meeting of August 10 1945. They figured they could hold out against a bombing campaign, and the US would sue for some sort of peace before it would take the casualties required for the invasion of the home islands. They knew damn well that Stalin had no such qualms about sacrificing hundreds of thousands of Soviet soldiers.
And I refer YOU to the Battle of Okinawa, which was practically considered a home island at that point. One of the bloodiest/nastiest battles of the entire war.
I also refer you to the American Navy plan to convert medium size troop/tank transports into missile platforms as part of the bombardment of Tokyo. Casualty estimates were in the millions (mostly Japanese civilians) and the time to pacify the islands was considered difficult due to the expected civilian resistance.
Keep in mind the deep cultural differences between the Germans and the Japanese as foes. Without the overwhelming show of force that was the atomic bomb, it’s likely the surrender would have been delayed enough to significantly add to the death toll.
Grandpa (WW2 Naval officer) told me I’d likely never have existed if that invasion took place. He knew the proposed battle plan first hand.
Jesus Christ, man, what the fuck are you arguing? That an invasion would have been horrible? That's not up for debate. That is up for debate is how instrumental that atomic bombs were in getting the Japanese High Command to capitulate. We? like to think that it was because of the atomic bombs, because it validates the effort we? put into making them and it makes it all about us?, which is what Americans tend to like to do. But the minutes of the meeting that the Japanese Imperial War Council had one day after Nagasaki, and two days after Soviet troops poured over the Manchurian border, tell us that the Japanese were more concerned about fighting Soviet soldiers on land than they were about dealing with continued strategic bombing.
We did use the atomic bomb as quickly as we could because we wanted to try to get the Japanese to surrender before the Soviets came into the war, as they pledged to do within three months of the German surrender. As it turned out, the Soviet entry was sandwiched between atomic bombings. The minutes of the Japanese meeting tell us that both played a part in their decision (which was in no way unanimous), but that the prospect of dealing with Soviet armies was a bigger factor than the atomic bombs were. We'd already razed their cities. They didn't particularly care if we did it with 400 planes and 10,000 incendiaries, or with four planes and one big bomb.
Comments
The Krauts had U-Boats in WWI, too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_RMS_Lusitania
Not necessarily saying that Barbarossa would have succeeded if Moscow had been taken, but certainly not the case that it "always would have failed."
In the ramp up to WWII in addition to the American people wanting nothing to do with European wars again, much of the US military budget had been slashed to help fund economic recovery/ FDR’s New Deal (interesting as he made one of his early career claims to fame in the Navy department).
So yes, if the US had to play the Germans at the start of the wars ala UW/Auburn on a non-neutral field, they would’ve gotten their asses handed to them, BUT they didn’t and if there’s one thing the US has smoked many other nations in militarily (besides technology) is resources - manpower, raw materials, sheer land mass (oh, and speed, speed, SPEED!). Even with fighting on multiple fronts, we would have eventually worn out Germany.
People forget the US played all its 20th century wars on the road.
I also refer you to the American Navy plan to convert medium size troop/tank transports into missile platforms as part of the bombardment of Tokyo. Casualty estimates were in the millions (mostly Japanese civilians) and the time to pacify the islands was considered difficult due to the expected civilian resistance.
Keep in mind the deep cultural differences between the Germans and the Japanese as foes. Without the overwhelming show of force that was the atomic bomb, it’s likely the surrender would have been delayed enough to significantly add to the death toll.
Grandpa (WW2 Naval officer) told me I’d likely never have existed if that invasion took place. He knew the proposed battle plan first hand.
Barbarossa was based on a faulty assumption; that the Soviet Union would collapse before 6 months if struck hard enough. The Germans attacked on June 22, by mid-July it was already obvious that despite huge success the assumption was extremely incorrect.
No matter what changes are made to the plan, the Soviet Union will not collapse in 6 months.
But could Barbarossa have been changed to allow the Germans to win an extended, multi-year conflict? That is possible, but the changes you would need to make require Hitler and others to know that they are dramatically expanding the war on two fronts. If they do know that, they may not invade at all, and instead concentrate on a Mediterranean strategy to knock out Britain before attempting any attack on the Soviet Union.
A third option is that Barbarossa goes off as planned, but Hitler realizes that the Soviet Union has many more reserves than expected. In November, rather than keep pushing towards Moscow, he orders the Wehrmacht to prepare for defensive operations in the winter and a spring/summer offensive. This would make the Germans absorb the upcoming Soviet counter attack a lot better. It would decrease German losses and increase Soviet losses. Then in 1942, he might be able to take Leningrad as well as launch an earlier Case Blue. Then, if Hitler does not divert the 4th Panzer Army from Stalingrad or screw up logistical plans too bad, there might be a very different battle on the Volga.
But even then, you don't have a victory. You just have a more mauled Red Army, but not one absolutely defeated. So Hitler would have to hope for a decisive battle in 1943 to force the Soviets to the peace table. But at that time, the Soviets have gotten substantial Lend Lease aid, the Allied Bomber Offensive is taking off, Africa is in US and UK hands, and Italy is going to be attacked. So then we need a second major POD which is for Germany to not declare war on the US. But even then, we can still likely see some form of Lend Lease being given and the British finally pushing the Axis out of Libya.
It was the most spectacular gamble in the history of the world, with single battles and victories larger than the whole of the other campaigns combined. And it never had a chance.
Pity Khalkhin Gol permanently scared the Japs from ever taking on Russia again.
We did use the atomic bomb as quickly as we could because we wanted to try to get the Japanese to surrender before the Soviets came into the war, as they pledged to do within three months of the German surrender. As it turned out, the Soviet entry was sandwiched between atomic bombings. The minutes of the Japanese meeting tell us that both played a part in their decision (which was in no way unanimous), but that the prospect of dealing with Soviet armies was a bigger factor than the atomic bombs were. We'd already razed their cities. They didn't particularly care if we did it with 400 planes and 10,000 incendiaries, or with four planes and one big bomb.