[AverageExcellence]

This question has often made me wonder, say if the situation came where Hitler didn't attack the USSR and instead focused on the conquest of GB and the UK eventually offered to declare peace (which was offered by Nazi germany) which effectively wrote britain out of the war without being occupied.

Then invaded the USSR so it was a one front war and managed to get up to the height of its power and maintain the very height of its power to the point of just before Stalingrad.

Who would win? The USA or Germany at the height of its power? If it was just them two head to head. (No japan or italy involved). Discuss and justify!

[Snagprophet]

We could've been neutral like Switzerland. Anyway it's hard to say because firstly we were stretched over the empire. Our desert rats could've ambushed the Germans on an Italian front, those who we had in south Asia fighting Japanese could've been also up in Europe fighting the Germans, so I don't see why we'd be declaring peace because we'd have more people. Coupled with the USA, who probably wouldn't have joined because of no Japan attack, we would've won but we could've drawn with Germany.

[cl_steele]

Probably the Germans whilst the USA had massive industrial might the germans would have been able to utilize an extraordinary amount of man power and resources against the US

[Arbolus]

I take it that the Soviet Union is out of the war as well. Has it been completely occupied, or did it sue for peace like Britain?

Unlike in the Pacific there aren't many Atlantic islands which are close enough to the mainland to provide air cover, and so the island hopping strategy wouldn't work. If Britain was out of the war then any potential American invasion of Europe or a German invasion of North America would rely heavily on aircraft carriers, of which Germany didn't have any. Of course it would start building some as soon as it realised their importance, but it would take several years before the carriers were ready. So for that reason, within the timeframe of the real WWII, America would be the only side that could possibly win.

[TheHistoryStudent]

(Original post by Arbolus)
I take it that the Soviet Union is out of the war as well. Has it been completely occupied, or did it sue for peace like Britain?

Unlike in the Pacific there aren't many Atlantic islands which are close enough to the mainland to provide air cover, and so the island hopping strategy wouldn't work. If Britain was out of the war then any potential American invasion of Europe or a German invasion of North America would rely heavily on aircraft carriers, of which Germany didn't have any. Of course it would start building some as soon as it realised their importance, but it would take several years before the carriers were ready. So for that reason, within the timeframe of the real WWII, America would be the only side that could possibly win.

Surely though if Nazi Germany had the industrial and human capacity of practically all of Europe they could hold off an American invasion though? You'll have to forgive my ignorance on the topic but this is just my initial reaction really. I'll be honest and say I agree with you on the tactical advantage of Aircraft carriers, but... an American victory against the manpower and industry of most/all of Europe just doesn't seem possible to me. I suppose the one shot they'd have at it is if they went to Ireland first, then Britain, then launched their invasion of main-land Europe from there...

[King Kebab]

USA I think.

[Hewitt]

I think it would be a stalemate. Assuming each side had no allies it would be very hard for each side to mobilise their men to the respective areas. The Nazi's could not have managed an amphibious attack on the USA as their navy was weak and they would have had no air cover. Heck they couldn't even invade the UK.

The USA would struggle because on land the Nazi's were a formidable opponent and the American's would just not be able to get a sufficient stream of manpower all the way over to Europe.

The only thing that could break the situation would be Nuclear weapons. But that's for a different thread...

[Steevee]

Also, if we're talking a Nazi Germany straight after taking the USSR, then USA all the way.

The countries Nazi germany was occupying would all have had resistance movements, and the Nazi War machine would be in ill repair after a Soviet conquest. And then we have to consider the terms of British-Nazi Peace, because we still held India and other territories at the time, would we have been forced into an embargo with the US? Anyway, certainly the Nazi's could not have projected their power against the US.

Overall I don't think the Nazi's could have rolled over the USSR and then the USA. However, had the Nazi's rolled over the USSR and taken a peace with the UK, and then had a period to consolidate their power they may well have been more than a match for the USA.

[KasanDude]

Even if the Nazis managed to occupy UK and Russia before the US got involved, the whole atomic bomb thing would have put them in line. Instead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it would be Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Berlin.

[Arbolus]

(Original post by TheHistoryStudent)
Surely though if Nazi Germany had the industrial and human capacity of practically all of Europe they could hold off an American invasion though? You'll have to forgive my ignorance on the topic but this is just my initial reaction really. I'll be honest and say I agree with you on the tactical advantage of Aircraft carriers, but... an American victory against the manpower and industry of most/all of Europe just doesn't seem possible to me. I suppose the one shot they'd have at it is if they went to Ireland first, then Britain, then launched their invasion of main-land Europe from there...

You're right - America would have a hard time of it. All I'm saying is that there's a small chance that America could have won, but no chance at all that Germany could within the timeframe of the real war.

The most likely outcome would be a truce where both sides agreed to leave each other alone. America was always reluctant to get involved in the first place, and if all its allies were out then it would have no problem with cutting its losses and going for peace. Instead we'd have a different version of the Cold War, in which Germany consolidated its control of Europe and built new weapons such as aircraft carriers and nukes. What would happen then is a question for another time.

[TheHistoryStudent]

(Original post by Arbolus)
You're right - America would have a hard time of it. All I'm saying is that there's a small chance that America could have won, but no chance at all that Germany could within the timeframe of the real war.

The most likely outcome would be a truce where both sides agreed to leave each other alone. America was always reluctant to get involved in the first place, and if all its allies were out then it would have no problem with cutting its losses and going for peace. Instead we'd have a different version of the Cold War, in which Germany consolidated its control of Europe and built new weapons such as aircraft carriers and nukes. What would happen then is a question for another time.

Yeah, that point touches on another important aspect to look at - the political will in America for such an adventure. If the world was in the hypothetical situation I mentioned in my original quote, I honestly dont think America would have the political will to fight a Nazi war machine which had dominated all Europe, because you'd be looking at a war where even if the Americans could gain a foothold in western Europe, they'd then have to fight tooth and nail for every inch of land from France to east Russia, which even if they had the man-power and industry to do (which I dont think they would have, even for such a powerful nation as America) the political will would probably run out at home due to the massive losses which would be incurred in the process, and the lack of potential benefits to America if such an adventure was successful. I guess the point I'm making is that it's all well and good being the great liberator/crusader, but not if you're going to bankrupt and ruin your own country in the process...

[pr0view]

I imagine if Russia was overrun, which it probably would have been if Germany was only fighting one front, Britain would soon have been forced to become a puppet state like Vichy France or totally occupied and assimilated into "Greater Germany" (supposedly Hitler admired the English) and the Empire would break up with countries such as Canada been adsorbed into America and Australia, India, NZ etc becoming independent.

[Super Cicero]

(Original post by pr0view)
I imagine if Russia was overrun, which it probably would have been if Germany was only fighting one front, Britain would soon have been forced to become a puppet state like Vichy France or totally occupied and assimilated into "Greater Germany" (supposedly Hitler admired the English) and the Empire would break up with countries such as Canada been adsorbed into America and Australia, India, NZ etc becoming independent.

No, no, no. From 22 June 1941 until 6 June 1944, Germany effectively was fighting a one front war against the USSR. Over 80% of the German military and industrial output was directed against fighting the Soviets, prior to D-Day. The USSR would not have been defeated by Germany, no matter what. Germany cannot win the Battle of Moscow due to re-inforcements (which the Soviets would bring from the Far-East even if Japan attacked Siberia), even if Germany launched Operation Barborossa earlier (which is possible if Italy doesn't invade Greece, resulting in Germany having to conquer the Balklans prior to Barborossa). By 1942, due to movement of industry eastwards, the USSR was inevitably going to outproduce the Germans. Germany winning Stalingrad isn't possible unless Stalin continues to idiotically not listen to Zhukov and other generals. If you think Germany could have defeated the USSR by directing all of its forces at Moscow rather than splitting them in 3 (one aiming for Leningrad, one for Moscow and one for Ukraine/Caucasus oil), then this is wrong. Attacking on such a massive front is what made Barborossa (initially) so successful - if the Germans had concentrated on Moscow there would have been room for their forces to be flanked. If there was no lend lease the Soviets still would have won, they would just have lost more people and it would have taken them longer.

As for your point about Britain being "forced to become a puppet state like Vichy France or totally occupied and assimilated into "Greater Germany", this is also nonsense. Operation Sealion cannot succeed under any circumstances. Germany successfully invading and conquering Britain is more impossible than Germany successfully conquering the USSR. Even if the Luftwaffe could have destroyed the RAF (highly unlikely - if it was possible why didn't they do it in real life? Britain was their only enemy from May 1940-June 1941), then the Germans would still have had to get past the Royal Navy, the world's most powerful navy. Look at the plans for Operation Sealion - the Germans planned on using Rhine river barges to cross the Channel - they would have failed miserably. And even if (which is virtually impossible), the Germans managed to land troops on the English coast, are they really going to be able to send supplies and reinforcements to the Wehrmacht in England quicker than the British can supply their army? In case you think "the allies were able to liberate France following landing in Normandy", then remember that in June 1944 the majority of the German Army was in the east fighting the Soviets, where as the entire British Army would be able to defend Britain from the invading Nazis if Sealion had any success at all.

So there is no way Germany could have successfully invaded Britain. Even if Germany secured control of the entire European continent and defeated the USSR, and the US remained neutral, Britain would not capitulate and become a German satellite, it would continue to fight or on, or (less likely) sign an armistice with Germany. And EVEN IF (which is impossible), the Germans successfully conquered Britain, Hitler would not have annexed Britain into Germany. German would have had enough land to annex in the east.

[SebCross]

(Original post by AverageExcellence)
This question has often made me wonder, say if the situation came where Hitler didn't attack the USSR and instead focused on the conquest of GB and the UK eventually offered to declare peace (which was offered by Nazi germany) which effectively wrote britain out of the war without being occupied.

Then invaded the USSR so it was a one front war and managed to get up to the height of its power and maintain the very height of its power to the point of just before Stalingrad.

Who would win? The USA or Germany at the height of its power? If it was just them two head to head. (No japan or italy involved). Discuss and justify!

Antony Beevor notes in his excellent new volume The Second World War that the armaments industry of the United States was without parallel. The rate at which they were able to churn out new tanks, aircraft, rifles, machine guns, ammunition was just beyond belief. Germany might have been able to come somewhere near if it could utilise the oilfields near the Black Sea, the Black Sea ports and the vast mineral resources of the western-most part of the USSR, but even if all of that is accounted for, I'm just not sure Nazi Germany would be able to match the productivity of the US's war economy.

You also need to consider the political systems of the two countries. The military decision-making of Nazi Germany was controlled by the General Staff, technically, but after October 1943 it was increasingly Himmler and Hitler making major military decisions. Fear was the lubricant of the Nazis's military hierarchy; such a system of control, dominated by threats and coercion used to get subordinates to carry out their orders, was bound to create the kinds of tension which led to generals disobeying orders as in the case of General Paulus's surrender at Stalingrad. (Again, Antony Beevor writes about how Hitler was livid that Paulus didn't do what a 'good officer' did and take his own life.) The US's system, entrenched in the liberal values of representative democracy, meant that soldiers, airmen and naval personnel were fighting for positive, desirable ideals. They believed in the values of their country and were fighting for those values. That's not to say that plenty of Nazi Wehrmacht officer didn't wholeheartedly believe in Nazi racial theory - for instance - but the spectre of execution for cowardice or for a lack of success always hovered around Germany soldiers. Totalitarian systems rely upon the fear of reprisal to get people to coalesce with the orders coming from the top. That's, in essence, the real weakness with Nazi Germany; fear is ultimately counter-productive because it doesn't engender solidarity between the individual and the system. The individual lacks a stake in society and will therefore be less likely to defend it to the last.

[pr0view]

(Original post by Super Cicero)
No, no, no. From 22 June 1941 until 6 June 1944, Germany effectively was fighting a one front war against the USSR. Over 80% of the German military and industrial output was directed against fighting the Soviets, prior to D-Day. The USSR would not have been defeated by Germany, no matter what. Germany cannot win the Battle of Moscow due to re-inforcements (which the Soviets would bring from the Far-East even if Japan attacked Siberia), even if Germany launched Operation Barborossa earlier (which is possible if Italy doesn't invade Greece, resulting in Germany having to conquer the Balklans prior to Barborossa). By 1942, due to movement of industry eastwards, the USSR was inevitably going to outproduce the Germans. Germany winning Stalingrad isn't possible unless Stalin continues to idiotically not listen to Zhukov and other generals. If you think Germany could have defeated the USSR by directing all of its forces at Moscow rather than splitting them in 3 (one aiming for Leningrad, one for Moscow and one for Ukraine/Caucasus oil), then this is wrong. Attacking on such a massive front is what made Barborossa (initially) so successful - if the Germans had concentrated on Moscow there would have been room for their forces to be flanked. If there was no lend lease the Soviets still would have won, they would just have lost more people and it would have taken them longer.

As for your point about Britain being "forced to become a puppet state like Vichy France or totally occupied and assimilated into "Greater Germany", this is also nonsense. Operation Sealion cannot succeed under any circumstances. Germany successfully invading and conquering Britain is more impossible than Germany successfully conquering the USSR. Even if the Luftwaffe could have destroyed the RAF (highly unlikely - if it was possible why didn't they do it in real life? Britain was their only enemy from May 1940-June 1941), then the Germans would still have had to get past the Royal Navy, the world's most powerful navy. Look at the plans for Operation Sealion - the Germans planned on using Rhine river barges to cross the Channel - they would have failed miserably. And even if (which is virtually impossible), the Germans managed to land troops on the English coast, are they really going to be able to send supplies and reinforcements to the Wehrmacht in England quicker than the British can supply their army? In case you think "the allies were able to liberate France following landing in Normandy", then remember that in June 1944 the majority of the German Army was in the east fighting the Soviets, where as the entire British Army would be able to defend Britain from the invading Nazis if Sealion had any success at all.

So there is no way Germany could have successfully invaded Britain. Even if Germany secured control of the entire European continent and defeated the USSR, and the US remained neutral, Britain would not capitulate and become a German satellite, it would continue to fight or on, or (less likely) sign an armistice with Germany. And EVEN IF (which is impossible), the Germans successfully conquered Britain, Hitler would not have annexed Britain into Germany. German would have had enough land to annex in the east.

Surely Germany garrisoned a lot of men and machinery in its "Atlantic Wall" though that could have been used on the Eastern Front?

And if we say Russia was defeated could Britain not be forced into submission through blockades much like it nearly was in reality?

Please don't take this heart its based on prediction, its not like you actually know what would have definitely happened.

[Super Cicero]

(Original post by pr0view)
Surely Germany garrisoned a lot of men and machinery in its "Atlantic Wall" though that could have been used on the Eastern Front?

And if we say Russia was defeated could Britain not be forced into submission through blockades much like it nearly was in reality?

Please don't take this heart its based on prediction, its not like you actually know what would have definitely happened.

Ok sorry if I sounded arrogant, its obviously all just in my opinion since we can't know what would've definetly happened.

The only way Germany is going to send virtually all of its Atlantic Wall men and machinery towards the Eastern Front, is if Britain is no longer at war with Germany. Having Britain at peace with Germany isn't impossible - just have someone other than Churchill, e.g. Halifax, take over as Prime Minister after Chamberlain. A PM other than Churchill could have made peace with Germany following Dunkirk. Such an armistice would have kept Britain fully independent, with it retaining control over the British Empire. Getting Britain (under any Prime Minister) to accept being a German satellite is far far less likely.

As for the blockade point, I doubt it. People in Leningrad during the siege survived on daily rations far far less than that which an average British person would get, and the people of Leningrad never surrendered, so why would the British? Do not underestimate the Royal Navy.

[internetguru]

USA their population and financial might was just way superior.

[DontBeJelBeReem]

Technologically, Germany were years ahead. Germany would have won, at the end of the war the Americans actually 'stole' many of the top German scientists to work in America.

[supercali2]

Anybody interested in this should check out a book called Fatherland by Robert Harris. Its a thriller novel, but set in a 1960s where the UK surrendered and there's a Cold War situation between the Nazis and the USA, while a guerilla war continues against the Soviet, which imho would have been the most likely outcome if Halifax and not Churchill had become PM.