WI: Alternate-led WW2 Germany

[Ameise]

Just to start out, I'm writing this due to most of the responses to people asking "What if Hitler didn't..." being "Then he wouldn't have been Hitler." With that in mind, I decided... why have Hitler at all, then?

What if, leading up to the demise of the Weimar Republic, the party that ended up leading the Fascist movement in Germany was not the NSDAP, but some other Fascist party, led by someone else, someone with similar ambitions to Hitler in regards to seeking a war and German dominance over Europe, but without the racial ideology. Imagine this person also had the same willpower - pushing for Anschluß, pushing for the Sudeten, etc. How would the post-Weimar possibly years differ, and in particular, how would the war possibly differ?

(Yes, this is basically a mostly-sane and non-racist Hitler, but still ambitious and quite militaristic.)

 

[Julian]

Most of Hitler's gambles would likely not have been attempted by another, more rational leader.

 

[Evil Opus]

I'm assuming this fictional leader - let's call him Hans - probably doesn't attempt to invade the Soviet Union. That leads to interesting implications for the Battle of Britain, as the Germans can focus their full military strength against the British. If Hans isn't espousing the same anti-Semitic and Aryan superiority line that Hitler did, then I don't think its a stretch to imagine many of those people end up fighting for Germany. Perhaps Albert Einstein never immigrates to the United States, and the Germans develop the nuclear bomb sometime in the early 1940s.

With powerful allies in the Soviet Union, Italy, and Japan, plus a burgeoning nuclear program, perhaps this Hans-led Germany conquers Britain and its African holdings while Japan and Italy gobble up remaining parts of the British Empire. I'd think that this more powerful Axis alliance would ultimately defeat the United States and Canada, and German dominance of North America would become a reality.

 

[pedmore1202]

Actually Opus, I think you're wrong.

Bear in mind, AFAIK, Germany had to deploy forces elsewhere in Europe for defensive purposes (even if after the Battle for France, they aren't at war with anyone else in Europe). They need forces, especially the airforce, to maintain defences around their conquered territory, plus there would be units down for R&R, rebuilding losses etc, meaning that there won't be much more forces available for the Battle of Britain than in OTL, and Britain was able (barely, but able none the less) to hold out against that.

Early 1940's for a Nuke? no way. The main reason America got a nuke in 1945 was because of Britain's Tube Alloy's project, which helped them out a lot, and various Scientists from around the world, especially Europe. Germany may have access to the scientists if they are non-racist etc, but they won't have access to the Tube Alloy's project, and they won't have the resources and funding needed to develop the bomb, not when they are pouring resources into other projects, such as tanks, planes etc.

Regarding North Africa, AFAIK, the DAK was the absolute limit that could be deployed to Libya, not because resources, equipment and men were needed elsewhere, but because the infrastructure of Libya could not support any more men. One reason why offensives often petered out was not only because of enemy resistance, but because of a lack of supplies, which had to be landed hundreds if not thousands of miles away from the front lines, and there just was not enough infrastructure to transport them all.

Germany beating America? Just out of interest, what are you smoking? because whatever it is, I want some of it. Never going to happen. America is just too big and powerful to be beaten. Sooner or later, their massive infrastructure and manufacturing base is going to come into play and they will just out produce Germany, even a Germany that has conquered all of Europe and is not at war with anyone nearby

 

[MonAngel]

Bear in mind, AFAIK, Germany had to deploy forces elsewhere in Europe for defensive purposes (even if after the Battle for France, they aren't at war with anyone else in Europe). They need forces, especially the airforce, to maintain defences around their conquered territory, plus there would be units down for R&R, rebuilding losses etc, meaning that there won't be much more forces available for the Battle of Britain than in OTL, and Britain was able (barely, but able none the less) to hold out against that.

I think you are underestimating here. Why do you think Germany can't deploy more force on Battle of Britain without Eastern Front? IMO there would be massive increase in force than OTL
In Barbarossa Axis deployed 3.8 million personnel 4'300 tanks, 4'389 aircrafthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa#cite_note-6, 7'200 artillery pieces.
In Battle of Britain Axis deployed 2,550 aircraft.

 

[pedmore1202]

I think you are underestimating here. Why do you think Germany can't deploy more force on Battle of Britain without Eastern Front? IMO there would be massive increase in force than OTL
In Barbarossa Axis deployed 3.8 million personnel 4'300 tanks, 4'389 aircrafthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa#cite_note-6, 7'200 artillery pieces.
In Battle of Britain Axis deployed 2,550 aircraft.

And, Barbarossa didn't occur until a year after the Battle of Britain. Approximately 2550 aircraft were used by the Luftwaffe during the BoB, of which just less than 1000 remained afterwards. However, that number includes all those built during the BoB and then used for it, not just those the Luftwaffe had available at the beginning of the battle. Those 4000 odd planes won't be available to the Luftwaffe until mid 1941, as in OTl, they just didn't have them built until then.

Plus, even if Germany has no plans to attack Soviet Russia, they still would have to keep forces on the border with Russia in order to provide protection in case of a Russian attack on them. Russia is Communist and Germany, although not Nazi, is still Fascist, and they are idealogical enemies. It stands to reason that they would go to war at some point

 

[MonAngel]

And, Barbarossa didn't occur until a year after the Battle of Britain. Approximately 2550 aircraft were used by the Luftwaffe during the BoB, of which just less than 1000 remained afterwards. However, that number includes all those built during the BoB and then used for it, not just those the Luftwaffe had available at the beginning of the battle. Those 4000 odd planes won't be available to the Luftwaffe until mid 1941, as in OTl, they just didn't have them built until then.

Plus, even if Germany has no plans to attack Soviet Russia, they still would have to keep forces on the border with Russia in order to provide protection in case of a Russian attack on them. Russia is Communist and Germany, although not Nazi, is still Fascist, and they are idealogical enemies. It stands to reason that they would go to war at some point

So you admit that by mid 1941 in Western Front will be massive force?
Also Russia wasn't going to attack Nazi Germany, this is out of question.

 

[Willmatron]

Wasn't the battle of Britain that resulted in the bombing of Germany by Britain and the U.S. Could France fully side with Germany given enough time?

I read the idea of a no Operation Barbarossa in a book called Third Reich victorious and one idea was Germany could pour more resources into seizing and taking North Africa.

Won't with an eventual allied France and control of North Africa couldn't Britain be forced out of the war?

 

[pedmore1202]

I read the idea of a no Operation Barbarossa in a book called Third Reich victorious and one idea was Germany could pour more resources into seizing and taking North Africa.

Won't with an eventual allied France and control of North Africa couldn't Britain be forced out of the war?

Again, possibly, but the number and types of troops deployed there is severely limited by the infrastructure in place. IIRC, there's only 1 road running east to west on which everything had to travel. That gets damaged, it cuts the supply line to the front down to a trickle, and seeing as that supply line has to carry everything, food, water, fuel, ammunition, spare parts etc, combat ability of the frontline troops will drop pretty quickly, and it will do the same if the numbers are increased beyond the capability of the supply line.

MonAngel: Yes, I will agree that by 1941 the Germans would have a massive force of aircraft available to conduct a second Battle of Britain, but, at the same time, Britain would also have increased its capabilities, learnt lessons from the first Battle of Britain and would be ready for a second time.

 

[Ameise]

Most of Hitler's gambles would likely not have been attempted by another, more rational leader.

The premise as I wrote it was that the person was still ambitious and willing to take gambles.

--

Is there a chance, when Barbarossa or whatever it happens to be called in this TL comes around, that the far better treatment that the Germans give to the Ukrainians and Belarusians will alter the course of the war in Russia?

Alternatively, is there a chance that Poland and Germany ally prior to 1939 in this scenario?

 

[redlightning]

If it wasn't Hitler and the communist party didn't take control over Germany, than maybe some military does who vows to remove the Versailles Treaty, reunite all of old Germany, and reclaim some colonies in Africa. There was still enough demand for revenge after the outcome of World War I.

Germany still occupies the Rhineland, annexes Austria, and the Sudentenland. Germany invades western Poland and reclaims its old borders and which would probably still subsequently causes France and Britain to declare war and threaten an invasion. Germany defeats France and subsequently has enough logic and common sense to put enough effort and technology into destroying the RAF with jet air craft and managing to mount an invasion of Britain that succeeds. Germany probably would annex the colonies of France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and some British territory as well and make these nations into puppet allies to use against an invasion on part of the Soviet Union. It would just be the return of the German Empire. A military dictatorship after this ensues.

 

[J. de Vos]

Unless a defeated Britain recalls its navy or if its destroyed, its fleets will keep the Germans from conquering the non-African colonies quickly.

Untill the fleets run out of money and resources. I wonder how long they'll last.