"Shocking Ways the Second World War Could Have..." Topic

…. Ended Differently.

"Decisions during wartime are monumental things. Each move and countermove has the potential to change the course of history. Here are ten shocking ways the Second World War could have unfolded differently than it did….."
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Such an article presupposes that the author knows basic WWII history. For example #2 Shocking Way was news to me. I was not aware that the Japanese ever invaded Pearl Harbor! Others like #1, Hitler attacks UK not Russia, are debatable both from the feasibility and motivation perspectives. The Battle of Britain destroyed any slim chance Hitler had of successfully invading England and besides he wanted to attack Russia much more than England. Similar problems with the other "10" reasons. In order to have an interesting What If discussion you need plausible scenarios not an I Hoped The Axis Had Won Wish List!! Cheers!

Agreed many are very implausible. An invasion of Britainin 1941 would have been a much tougher proposition. The Japanese not attacking Pearl is also not plausible. Roosevelt had manoeuvred the Japanese into a position where they could either knuckle down and do what Uncle Sam told them or starve to death. The Japanese would never have accepted either. German A bomb gets brought up a lot, but the truth is the German scientists were pursuing a blind alley that would never have produced a bomb. That left them well behind.
Of the 10 the most plausible is the Germans taking Moscow in 1941. Hitler's Panzers East discusses it in depth. Whether it would have won the war in the east outright, leading to a collapse of the Soviet regime, is debatable, but it puts the Germans in a very strong position.

ok

Amicalement
Armand

Agree, not a lot of thought in the 'invade Britain' one. Churchill was so concerned about a German invasion that he sent hundreds of tanks out of Britain and to the Middle East. A second BoB in 1941 would have found Fighter Command relatively stronger – it was already more numerous in October 1940 than in June and more skilful. The FW190 was better than the Spitfire V, but only turned up in August and it couldn't have won it in time for an invasion, if at all.

Postponing Barbarossa to 1942 would have made it less likely to succeed, not more, because more T34s. Invading Britain instead of Russian overlooks the fact that Russia was the easier target.

As for "Russia and Germany Make a Separate Peace", why would either side do so unless they were losing; why would the other side agree if they were winning; and was a treaty with Nazi Germany worth the paper it was written on anyway?

For my money, if the USA had not got involved (and let's not forget that it was Germany who declared war on the USA, not vice versa), there would have been stalemate until British nukes exploded over Berlin in about 1947.

Nukes in an European Capital City?…. I don't think so… less thinking in Great Britain as the first who did it…

Amicalement
Armand