What if suggestions about world war 2

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • What if suggestions about world war 2

      This is a thread where everybody will discuss a what-if world, like for example, what if the Germans won the battle of the Bulge? Or, what if the Japanese succeded in their objective of destroying the American navy in one blow during peral harbor? Place your what ifs here!
      "Nuts!"
      Brig. Gen. Anthony McAuliffe

    • For the first one, even if they kick out the allies completely, Soviet Russia still crushes them completely. We’d have more communism, though.

      America rebuilds anyway, and crushes Japan. Nothing except plot armor winning them every battle with the United States constantly could save them from defeat. They were up against a force 10x their size, along with China and the rest of the Allies. Although the fact America might take longer to defeat Japan means that the USSR could occupy all of Korea before Japan surrenders…

      CarKing the 6th of the Abrahamic Caliphate

    • NEPTUNE the great wrote:

      Stalin was smart to not join the war in the pacific until Germany surrendered, because unlike Germany, they learned not to have a two front war, which is why I believe Stalin refused to join the war on the pacific
      Pacific front wouldn’t change the war against Germany. There may be a longer war on that front, but they’d lose regardless.


      harb4u wrote:

      u.s. u.k. and allies pumped a whole hell of a lot of resources into russia including weapons/oil when russia was fighting off germany. if wasn't for that russia could possibly have been beat before weather kicked in. russia as the rest did not beat em by themselves
      Technically incorrect. 93% of lend lease took place in 1943 and after, with over 50% being in 1944-45. As you know, Stalingrad and Kursk had already been decided at that point. The Reich would have been ultimately defeated regardless of lend lease, they simply didn’t stand a chance against 3 superpowers at once. Though it would be bloodier and costlier, the USSR would manage. The Nazis had more shortages than they did anyway, not to mention that the Soviets could just trade for needed goods. Debt is better than death.

      CarKing the 6th of the Abrahamic Caliphate

    • NEPTUNE the great wrote:

      This is a thread where everybody will discuss a what-if world, like for example, what if the Germans won the battle of the Bulge? Or, what if the Japanese succeded in their objective of destroying the American navy in one blow during peral harbor? Place your what ifs here!
      I do not see any change just a prolonged war with the same results. The main thing is when America entered WW2 and it was Japan that tipped the canoe. That and germans sinking a few cruise ships with americans on them. America will tolerate only so much back then and then Pow the stick gets to wacking. Remember Walk softly and carry a big stick?

      We would have built more Nukes and maybe Japan might of had one done by then and Germany was not even close by the end of the war of which Japan was farther than Germany.

      You can only poke the bear or dog before it gets mad and goes into action.

    • harb4u wrote:

      u.s. u.k. and allies pumped a whole hell of a lot of resources into russia including weapons/oil when russia was fighting off germany. if wasn't for that russia could possibly have been beat before weather kicked in. russia as the rest did not beat em by themselves
      Now that is the truth. I do not think they could have defeated Germany without our help. They were a backwards government and killed their most skilled workers and military leaders before the war and even until the cold war ended they still could not hardly feed their own people without buying food from a lot of other countries.

      Once they learned how to build a military that is what the only thing the then know how to do even tho back in the late 1800's countries went over to show them how to grow food or make simple things.

      One thing they were good at and that is Intel on others and their people which is why the czars fell and did not trust anyone and locked their people in. Really sad.

    • A Eastman wrote:

      harb4u wrote:

      u.s. u.k. and allies pumped a whole hell of a lot of resources into russia including weapons/oil when russia was fighting off germany. if wasn't for that russia could possibly have been beat before weather kicked in. russia as the rest did not beat em by themselves
      Now that is the truth. I do not think they could have defeated Germany without our help. They were a backwards government and killed their most skilled workers and military leaders before the war and even until the cold war ended they still could not hardly feed their own people without buying food from a lot of other countries.
      Once they learned how to build a military that is what the only thing the then know how to do even tho back in the late 1800's countries went over to show them how to grow food or make simple things.

      One thing they were good at and that is Intel on others and their people which is why the czars fell and did not trust anyone and locked their people in. Really sad.
      No… because they literally did. Again, Lend lease only really became a factor in 1943 and after. 93% of it in those years. Kursk and Stalingrad were long decided before then. The Great Purge, while a complete waste of lives, didn’t kill all skilled people in the USSR. In fact millions of people who were purged were only fired or sent to gulags, and would be brought back once the war started. In the 1800s Russia was also a cultural center with massive amounts of literature and music. The people flourished regardless and despite their Tsars. I get you hate commies or whatever the hell but that doesn’t mean the USSR and Russia hasn’t achieved things in its history…

      CarKing the 6th of the Abrahamic Caliphate

    • Carking the 6th wrote:

      A Eastman wrote:

      harb4u wrote:

      u.s. u.k. and allies pumped a whole hell of a lot of resources into russia including weapons/oil when russia was fighting off germany. if wasn't for that russia could possibly have been beat before weather kicked in. russia as the rest did not beat em by themselves
      Now that is the truth. I do not think they could have defeated Germany without our help. They were a backwards government and killed their most skilled workers and military leaders before the war and even until the cold war ended they still could not hardly feed their own people without buying food from a lot of other countries.Once they learned how to build a military that is what the only thing the then know how to do even tho back in the late 1800's countries went over to show them how to grow food or make simple things.

      One thing they were good at and that is Intel on others and their people which is why the czars fell and did not trust anyone and locked their people in. Really sad.
      No… because they literally did. Again, Lend lease only really became a factor in 1943 and after. 93% of it in those years. Kursk and Stalingrad were long decided before then. The Great Purge, while a complete waste of lives, didn’t kill all skilled people in the USSR. In fact millions of people who were purged were only fired or sent to gulags, and would be brought back once the war started. In the 1800s Russia was also a cultural center with massive amounts of literature and music. The people flourished regardless and despite their Tsars. I get you hate commies or whatever the hell but that doesn’t mean the USSR and Russia hasn’t achieved things in its history…
      Don't hate anyone matter of fact. Just seen and read alot while getting my PhD but still I do not know it all.

    • What university taught you that Russia couldn’t do anything without “countries telling them how to do it” from the 1800’s to now? At that time Russia was one of the largest food producers… still is, even with their ass-kicking in the current war.

      CarKing the 6th of the Abrahamic Caliphate

    • The USSR won that war *almost* on their own. The Western allies ran a side show taking three years to defeat Italy and some ineffective bombing campaigns, while the real war was being decided between Warsaw and Moscow.
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.

    • Germany might have actually lost! They had no forces there, iirc a German general even stated they would lose. Attacking before Poland is too far gone is crucial, so you can hopefully buy the Poles time to really prepare their numbers to at least hold out. France could easily take the heavy industry of the Rhine, crippling the German war economy. Stalin attacking would probably still doom Poland, but Germany would be screwed. They could try pushing the French out, but by the time they are ready the damage is already done- their industry can be captured and destroyed, and the allies could buy enough time to truly mobilize. If they play their cards right they can doom Germany within a year by holding the Rhine, but if not they can at least save France proper, start WW1 2.0, and once they learn some lessons in combatting Blitzkrieg the Reich is doomed. Germany wouldn’t last long as people would realize the First World War is repeating and Hitler is not quite as popular as he would be ruling all of Europe. How this affects Asia without France and Indochina falling would be interesting… but if Japan attacks the war probably goes mostly the same for them but with a faster defeat since the UK and France can fully commit after crushing Germany. With how much more bloodless the war would be there may be some stomach in Stalin to start WW3… which he would probably lose if the US gets involved, though fully conquering Russia may not be feasible.

      CarKing the 6th of the Abrahamic Caliphate

    • 1936 would be a better option for that, when Hitler re-occupied the Rhineland (it WAS a part of Germany but they weren't allowed to have troops there by Versailles). Operational plans later revealed that Hitler was ready to abort the operation if France showed any kind of counter. They didn't.

      Actually there WAS a local French offensive in spetmeber 1939:
      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saar_Offensive

      It failed miserably because not enough troops were committed and the real enthusiasm to do it wasn't there, either. (even when there was not much opposition from German forces). Their troops were back in their starting positions in a month.

      Still about 30 divisions took part in that, and they decided they couldn't push on into the Siegfried line. France didn't have the resources to mount a bigger attack then, so if their generals decided they couldn't break the line then, they probably couldn't have broken it at all. When Germany gobbled up Poland much faster than the French army could mount an offensive, and victorious German troops started to get transferred back from Poland to the French front, the window of opportunity was closed, if it had ever existed in the first place.
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.

    • What if:

      General McAuliffe had said "Cashew" at Bastogne?
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.