Has anyone here ever done the math on what D-Day would've looked like if Hitler succeeded in taking Moscow with...

Has anyone here ever done the math on what D-Day would've looked like if Hitler succeeded in taking Moscow with Blitzkrieg in 1941?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=poz6W0znOfk
alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/the-anglo-american-nazi-war.211950/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

The same thing.
>Hitler went full sperg and thought Calais was landing point
>wouldn't let generals do anything
>Allied air superiority would have rekt his army

The landings would have never happened. The concentration of forces a including air, anti-air, comms, and logistics on the German side would have been 10 times greater or more. Landing would not have been possible at all.

germany would stack the shores with soldiers. IT wouldn't be possible

You sure they'd have enough soldiers to stack the shores? They would need an immense amount of soldiers to defend the new Reich borders which would be around Moscow, southern Russia, Black Sea, etc. The Reich would be enormous and there would also be plenty of uprisings happening all over the newly conquered territories.

More importantly the Luftwaffe would be on the western front in full force. Lots of heavy armor was destroyed because the allies had air superiority.

> Stormweenie theme tune

youtube.com/watch?v=poz6W0znOfk

Id depends upon Germany's losses in the Russian campaign. If we imagine that zero German soldiers died, or were occupying Russia, and all of Germany's forces were amassed on the channel, we probably would have just poured more forces into Italy, and pushed up from there. If Germany HAD defeated Russia, it would have been at the cost of most of its army. If the US had not supplied Russia, and just let Germany and Russia figh it out, both Germany AND Russia, no matter who won, would have been completely depleted, and easily destroyed by a US/British/Canadian alliance.

Why stack the shores when you can invade Britain?
Sealion could have been achievable after a win in the East.

No, it wouldn't. The Royal Navy would have easily thwarted any seaborne invasion, and the Germans could not air drop millions of soldiers and tanks and heavy artillery. Sealion was nothing more than a fantasy. Unless, of course, Germany had their unkillable super soldiers who managed to defeat Russia while suffering zero casualties. These super Nazis could have just used their super powers to fly across the channel, with their tanks and artillery strapped to their backs.

The Russians used a direct order system so with Moscow in German hands and Stalin and the Soviet high command taken out the entire Red Army would be reduced to a well equipped partisan gang over night. There wouldn't have been too many losses after that.
And what makes you think Italy would be easier when Germany has spare troops to send there?

I don't know the numbers, but obviously Germany would have had a much larger air presence. They were at a severe disadvantage.

It wouldn't happen, without moustache God Stalin to push the allies into opening a front in France they would try to land in Italy, by pushing through North Africa.
D-day could have been prevented if Hitler accepted Rommel's proposal to reinforce the atlantic wall with Panzers.

The allies were already in Italy. Did you ever read anything about the war?

If Moscow would have had fallen, Germany would have had won. Same if the USA would not have had joined the war or GB would have accepted peace after Dunkirk/ successfull uboat war.

Yeah, sure millions of armed resistance fighters would not have tied down an army several times the size of the Wehrmacht. Whatever you say.

The allies had invaded Italy a year before D-day....

With Russians it's not about taking Moscow. Moscow is just a figure head, an illusion, a fancy gem they use to entice you with. They just retreat further east until eventually they're in your towns and villages. Remember Russian tactics: when they're retreating, it actually means they're advancing.

If Russia is knocked out in 1941, in 1943 italy would've been defended by actual combat units though

Not in 1941. The Allies didn't reach Italy until 1943. If Operation Barbarossa was a complete success and Moscow was taken according to time schedule then that's basically it. There's no D-Day because literally an entire continent is under German control. The British would have to sue for peace. With all the new resources in the east Germany can continue the war almost forever. Additionally, there is now a way to attack British positions in the Far East through the newly conquered Caucuses. In fact if in this timeline the USSR and the UK invade Iran (As they did in our timeline) then the Germans will just sweep through Iran and Iraq (Who joined the Axis but was quickly conquered right before Barbarossa) and link up with Rommel in Egypt and be able to liberate India and maybe even link up with the Japanese. If Spain joins, emboldened by Germany's success and Gibraltar is taken then it's over. Britain will literally be starved into submission if they don't surrender. Germany wins and everyone goes home.

Have you? We were in Italy days after the Allies in this timeline. Had the Russians been defeated we'd have been there with many times the forces.

Bunch of retards ITT. The Normandy invasion was known to happen and also where. However the information were suppressed by high ranking resistance members but German spy plane saw everything two days before the invasion started.

If the Germans wouldnt have needed the troops on the eastern front, i.e. send 50% of these to the French shore, there is no way that the allies would have gotten through. The defenses there would be at least 10 times higher, more planes/spy planes flying, more resources available etc... Europe's mainland would have been safe. Considering Moscow would be down in 1941 and the invasion happened in 1944, 3 years time to increase submarine warfare and bleed the island dry of oil and lend-lease. I highly doubt that the war would have even lasted until 1944 if Moscow would have been conquered.

I know there was high treason in the Abwehr and in the High Command and Foreign Office but I did not know even D-Day preparations fell prey to their malice. This is fascinating. Please tell me where I can find this information.

D-Day would never have happened.
Germany would have focused its military efforts on conquering the British Isles and installing Mosley as a friendly government. Brits would have kept their empire and not become the nanny state shithole it is today.

Read chapter 6 (just like 40 pages) of "Hitlers Revolution by Tedor". You will be astonished what the resistance fucked up. Especially on the eastern Front. Just outright removing the resistance/Prussian aristocrats would have made the entire war look different. According to the author, the then Spanish foreign minister was lied to by Weizäcker (basically the highest resistance member) in regards to Hitlers outlook on the war, i.e. Hitler allegedly though that it can't be won in 1942... in reality Hitler was completely optimistic. The Spanish foreign minister said after the war that if he had know that Hitler is confident, Spain would have joined too.

>soviet union
>doing anything useful in WWII
Nice job falling for this leftist meme. Allied air superiority did the vast majority of damage on the Eastern Front.

You don't get it, do you? They'd be without fuel and food. Partisans can only tie you down if you're afraid to raze an entire village for hiding them.

>ywn live in the timeline where Barbarossa was a success

>Allied air superiority did the vast majority of damage on the Eastern Front.

Would it surprise you if I actually thought you would say this was from 'Hitler's Revolution' already? Because I just remembered that I did read this. I actually lent the book to my mother to read, she was interested surprisingly enough and said she'd give it a shot. But as a point of possible contention: I thought it was Canaris that was sent to Spain to convince Franco to join the Axis and purposefully lied about Germany's position, because of his fluency in Spanish and all that.

So Germany lost the war not because of Hitler, but a group who were working against him and the nation?

Maybe so, but from what is known about time and space isn't it exciting to think that there might actually be an alternate universe where Operation Barbarossa was a success?

sealion never happened because it wasen't worth spending a year to conquer an small island with little resources when you could have an extremely resources rich land with a high population, and at the same time destroy your mortal enemy communism.

Sea Lion never happened because the Germans failed to gain aerial superiority. Stop being a Wehraboo retard.
If Germany knocked Britain out, D-Day wouldn't have happened and half of their cities wouldn't have been reduced to rubble like Dresden.

They did more damage than you could possibly imagine both diplomatically and militarily. For instance you think a lot of the German blunders on the Eastern Front were made because Hitler was stubborn and didn't listen to his generals. It is true but you need more context. If the information Hitler had was accurate then what he ordered would actually have been a fruitful strategy. But it wasn't. He was purposefully withheld VITAL and I mean VITAL information by the Abwehr and the High Command as well as false information that impacted his decision making. Hitler's Revolution is an excellent book and it is downloadable via PDF.

If I could just give an example. The entire front line set up of Axis forces prior to Operation Barbarossa was not optimized for maximum efficiency but the information the OKW was working with was wrong or outdated. They were working with maps from the 19th Century, looking at roads and towns that didn't even exist anymore, while completely missing new towns or centers of industry and military accumulation. The sad part is that a German reconnaissance officer had taken thousands of photos of the USSR, mapping the terrain as well as cities and military installments. He passed this information to the Abwehr expecting them to pass it to Hitler. They purposefully hid it in a military attache in East Prussia where it was left to gather dust. Thus Hitler made his decision based on what he knew (If what he knew was the actual truth then his decisions were actually quite good) but alas he was betrayed from within at the highest levels. He admitted as much to Marshall Mannerheim of Finland in the only ever recorded conversation of Hitler (It's on Youtube) that if he had known prior to attacking he would have changed literally everything and precious time and resources wouldn't have had to have been lost.

Britain had no army to fend off an invasion. They left all of their equipment at Dunkirk.
If Germany established air control they could have landed paratroopers to secure airfields and then begin shuttling infantry and light artillery over.

It would have been difficult, but not impossible.

>So Germany lost the war not because of Hitler, but a group who were working against him and the nation?

The resistance made a huge impact, but it wasn't the only factor that would have changed the outcome I would say. Things needed to turn everything around

>Remove resistance members (huge impact)
>Start total war economy in 1941, not 1943 (also huge impact)
>Don't focus so much on Stalingrad
>Make joint strategy with Italy and Japan, just having Japan as an ally is worthless

Just these things would have changed the outcome of the war where the Nazis win. Winning in this sense means Britain is finally forced to surrender in 1943 or so and the US never really gets involved. Even if they somehow get involved, it will be some kind of cold war because they could never land on European mainland while the Nazis could never land on US soil (and didn't want to).

In terms of relevance of the resistance movement I would they just their doings cost 500-1000k soldiers on the eastern front, espeically the clusterfuck of Stalingrad would have changed.

If Moscow fell, D-Day wouldn't have happened at all. Where Hitler fucked up was devoting everything to Stalingrad just to rub it in the faces of the commies, when Stalingrad itself wasn't of much strategic value. He should have gone after the oil fields in Azerbaijan and Moscow, and just delayed the Red Army from a counter-attack. The reason why Stalingrad was a complete disaster is because American shipping kept reaching Russia and resupplying the Red Army long enough for a build-up to occur.

At any rate, it's pretty obvious Germany was the good side in WW2 and we're living in the apocalypse right now because they lost.

First time seeing someone who has also read the book here. Most "oldfags" left.

Interesting, I'd never heard of the book. I'll look into it.

What happened to these resistance members after the war? Were these the people found and executed after the failed assassination in 1944?

>What happened to these resistance members after the war?

Some were found out and executed by 1944. The remain ones who survived are a part of public history education and thanks to propaganda, they are seen as heroes by the public. They just continued their stuff, some held political office.

I doubt it desu

Is it Irving-tier pro Hitler?

Daily reminder that the Western Front was childsplay with the possibly exception of the Battle of the Bulge, the real war happened on the East.

NOT D-DAY THATS THE REHEARSAL FOR D-DAY CALLED EXERCISE TIGER HUNDREDS OF AMERICAN LIVES WERE LOST BECAUSE THE US ARMY IS FUCKING RETARDED AND SHOT AT THEIR OWN TROOPS

Hard to say. It just focuses on the parts barely known by the public, i.e. what changed for the better before the war and other facts. In general it is "pro" but just focuses on different aspects. It is no "Hitler was so great he did that and this" work.

Don't worry friend. I've been recommending this book to people here forever. There is also a second edition with more information that came earlier this year. I bought it and it was worth every cent. But you know, if you go on Natsoc General the book is always listed as required reading. Many people there have read it. It's just that instead of actually discussing theory the threads devolve in a shitposter arguing for Strasserism and every retard taking the bait.

Even if Hitler succeeded in the east he would need to leave behind a serious occupying force to maintain control of the Russians who would pounce on any signs of weakness and even with the surplus of soldiers to move on the Western Front the Allies where already in Italy and that is where the bulk of the German force would likely have been sent and not to the coast. And given this wouldn't change Hitler's poor military leadership since by then he had killed off most of his good commanders he likely would still have not anticipated the invasion being in Normandy leading to only a small increase in the German forces on D-day and no change in the outcome of the battle.

Without supply? Impossible I'm afraid. They'd be picked off one by one. In any possible version of Operation Sealion certain criteria must be met if the plan even has a small chance of succeeding. One is as you said, air supremacy. But two is even more important: Naval supremacy. Without control of the Channel to rotate troops and secure the supply lines any German landing force in Britain is doomed from the start.
Stalingrad did have strategic value. It was the gateway to the Caucuses. Control of the city not only disrupted the entire Volga-Caucus communication route but would also allow any attacking force to instantly pivot to the Caucuses and cut it off completely. However what may have been more fruitful would be to have a Leningrad situation and siege the city while continuing onwards rather than trying to capture it and risk sustained urban warfare.
>Is Irving Pro-Hitler
No, not explicitly pro-Hitler. But he paints much more balanced picture than other historians and has the primary resources to back it up. He doesn't take every opportunity to take a jibe at Hitler's personality or character like Kershaw or Hilberg or other 'noted' historians.

Again, the assumption is that Hitler captured Moscow which means Operation Barbarossa was a complete success and the war in the east was basically over in 1941. The Americans didn't arrive in Italy until 1943. Hitler's occupation force would not have to suffer as much as you think because by then it is assumed that Britain has no choice but to come to a negotiated peace. That's it. War over. And Hitler isn't Stalin. He isn't purging all his 'good' commanders nor did he in real life.

Well the scenario completely changes if Operation Barbarossa is a complete success however under realistic conditions even with an overall success of the operation military invasions rarely meet their expected time tables and given that the British had already beaten back the Luftwaffe's blitz by 11 May 1941 and operation Barbarossa began in 22 June the British would have no reason to sue for peace before Dec 1941 and the US joins the war bolstering their defenses unless Hitler could move his forces from Russia to France and land an invasion on the British isles in less than 6 months. There is no way that a D-day scenario becomes impossible even with a German victory in the east.

There is a good book, the anglo-american/nazi war that covers this basic topic. Free copy available online or on Kindle I believe.

alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/the-anglo-american-nazi-war.211950/

>Make joint strategy with Italy and Japan, just having Japan as an ally is worthless
Italy as an ally seemed worthless

How could Hitler have won the Eastern front easily? Have a false flag attack on a few worthless units with WWI era gas. Document the hell out of it. Claim Stalin has committed war crimes. Start using gas on Russian troops. Hell on civilians too. Those factories pumping out tanks? Drop gas. Need to clear Stalingrad? Gas. Don't worry Russians are undermensch

Well as I described previously if the war with the USSR ends in success let's say even after the US enters the war sometime in 1942 more options are opened for the Germans. Assume that the British and Soviets conducted a joint invasion of Iran (Like they did in real life). Now from the Caucuses Germany launched an assault to liberate Iran and Iraq (Who joined the Axis right before OB but were quickly conquered) and from there take back Vichy Syria, Trans-Jordan and link up with Rommel in North Africa while also makes his great push to Cairo. The Suez Canal is captured. Spain, emboldened by German success joins the Axis and with German support captures Gibraltar. That's basically it for Britain. Remember it also wasn't until 1943 that the U-boat menace in the Atlantic was defeated by the Americans and British. It takes time for America to fully aid Britain. Now Germany can turn all her industrial and military effort to the west once again. Either Britain surrenders or is starved into submission (Churchill actually did state that he would fight to the last child if need be) so maybe they would go on. But as you know public opinion usually outweighs the whims of mere politicians. Britain has no choice but to come to a negotiated peace. The need for Germany to actually land in Britain is almost negligible. Either the war ends completely with the fall of the USSR or Britain goes on for a few more months before a starving population overthrows the government and demands peace with Hitler (Much like Germany in WWI). No Operation Torch, no Dragoon, no D-day no Salerno Landings. It's basically over.

Interesting that the war was lost for Germany in early 1942 (after the defeat at Moscow and the Soviet counter-attack) Fritz Todt said as muchto Hitler. But Hitler had to keep the whole misery going for another 3+ years

The Eastern front was never going to be won easily but there are a few things that would have lightened the burden considerably. One was to purge the Abwehr of all traitors (So basically all of them) and replace them with loyal men who don't hide or destroy vital military information, sabotage relations with potential allies and collaborate with communist spy rings. That's a big one. Two, settle on a standardized tank model that is efficient and powerful and can be mass produced without being too complicated. Guderian was actually working on this but his plans wouldn't see the light of day until it was too late around 1944-45. Three, take better advantage of the oppressed people's of the Soviet Union. Now, granted the Germans were greeted as liberators in many parts of the USSR, particularly the Baltic's and the Ukraine but make your position clear, let Vlassov form his Russian Liberation Army with their own flag and promise them a national state even if it is in the form of Reichkommissariat Moskowien. Four, take Leningrad, cut off the Baltic Sea and link up with the Finns even if there isn't enough food to support the city. Five, go back to the logistics department and kill all the traitors so those hundreds of empty trains with supplies in them can be sent to your hard fighting soldiers. They deserve it. Assign Speer earlier as Minister of Armaments so he can crack down on logistical mismanagement (Both deliberate and benignly negligent) Five, assign more resources to Kampfgruppe Nord. Most of the supplies from America are coming in from Murmansk. Take the city and cut off a vital lend lease artery. These are just a few things but there are many more.

There's no math to do, you underage faggot. Different scenario to anything we could reasonably estimate.

>Hurrr what if Aliuns came in 1935 and gave the Japanese teleport technology?

Stupid question.

No, not necessarily. With careful planning and better organization if Fall Blau was conducted successfully then the Red Army's capacity to sustain itself would have been severely hampered. Some historians even contend that Kursk could have still resulted in German victory (That may be stretching it though) But it certainly wasn't over in early 1942. In any case, what would you expect Hitler to do.
>Alright guyz I am sorry about zis whole vore und all. I surrender vith all zis territory under mein control und mein armies still intact.
He would be a laughing stock and a disgrace. They'd be writing books on how 'Here's ten ways Hitler could have won' and all.

I think this would depend heavily on how effectively the Luftwaffe could perform in their second push on the isles. It took the Allies years for their bombing of German factories to take effect and while the Germans would not need to attack as many targets to achieve the same effect unless they could break the British war machine before the US's kicks into gear and can ship enough equipment and man power across the Atlantic to replace theirs I don't think that the British would be brought to the peace table without German forces conducting an invasion of the isles. Its hard to simply siege territory of that size into surrender as they are capable of producing their own food and water as well as equipment and manpower and so long as they can produce these things they are still capable of fielding a fighting force and I don't think any nation's air force had the capability to completely break a nation of that sizes productive capacity during WW2.

My source was the Wages of Destruction. Wehrmacht lost 49k defeating western europe, But the oll on the Ostfront was 60k Per Month (in the first 3 years) From June 41 to Jan 42 they lost over 400k and that was not sustainable? I agree AH boxed himself in. By 1942 they had already starved 3million russion POWs...

Britain, like any country does have the capacity to produce its own food. But not indefinitely. Without the resources from its empire to support it and its trade routes either cut off by military intervention (Suez, Gibraltar, Malta, Cyprus, Singapore (I assume the Japanese took their historical route as well) or its shipping lanes blocked by U-boats (Of which Germany can allocate much more resources to building now I might remind you) they will eventually begin to deteriorate as a functioning society. Additionally the psychological effect of the fall of the USSR would be enormous on the British both politicians and civilians alike who saw Russia as their last potential ally (Apart from the US) Germany now has the resources to continue a sustained war almost indefinitely. Germany would only continue to grow stronger while Britain grew weaker. Britain doesn't necessarily have to surrender unconditionally, Hitler would never demand that (Nor did he in any one of the over thirteen peace deals he offered to the UK) A negotiated peace with Britain would suit Hitler's interests better. America will not be able to offer Britain substantial aid for a while. In that time I can easily see British society devolving to a point where a peace treaty is not only requested but demanded under threat of violence.

Agree. If Russia was beaten (a big if, and I think it was too big a nut to crack) then UK would have had to come to terms. But the Ryal Navy was still far more powerful than Germany's and the RAF at least as effective, esp. in air defence. (I still think Alan Clark's "Barbarossa" is an excellent one-volume account, tho its from the 1960s)

If such a high mortality rate was kept up indefinitely then yes it would be unsustainable. However this scenario assumes that gains outweighed the losses. That is to say, Moscow was taken, therefore those losses corresponded to the sacrifice required to achieve this goal (Or even less if one thinks about it) Another poster postulated Moscow the Ostfront being decided in 1942. Well that's also fine. If the wars end in 1942 then those losses will rack up to our timeline's death count. As for those Soviet POW's, as you might expect feeding millions of enemy soldiers is difficult, especially when you have an entire continent to feed and a world war to win. Additionally the Germans didn't prepare for such number because their deliberately faulty intelligence told them that such an amount of Soviet divisions was impossible and not based in any form of reality. How wrong they were (Intentionally of course but wrong nonetheless) And lastly, the Germans didn't really feel any need to to particularly good care of them as the USSR was not a signatory to the Geneva Convention. Cruel yes, but a sly way to circumvent international law.

Yes. It is because of the Royal Navy's strength that I would almost never postulate an invasion of the British Isles as the path to victory for Germany. It's just too implausible (Not in the immediate future anyway. Give it enough time and a resource deprived Britain might not have the capacity to field such a large navy) But that is neither here nor there. In any case, my scenario seems to be the only way or at least the most effective way outside of total invasion to force the British to sue for peace.

So it all comes down to the rate the Germans can destroy versus the rate the allies can produce and resupply. Now of course if you add how the fall of the USSR affects the Pacific Theater this scenario gets extra spicy as if the US reallocates men, ships, and aircraft to the Atlantic they could in theory guarantee the British remain in the war but this would cripple the US against the Japanese who they already struggled greatly against at the start of the war. I still think Hitler would ultimately lose due to his rapid over expansion and I have a hard time believing Britain would not last at least until at least well into 1943 but this could potentially cost the US against Japan preventing the unconditional surrender we saw historically.

if it hadn't succeeded the allies would have doubled down on their effort to win the war
>nukes on European soil would be used
>European mainland would become as closed off as a giant version of North Korea
>shortages and bombings would have made civilian life terrible

I'm happy WW2 ended as quickly as it did and that we didn't get ourselves into a new 100-years war with Britan, again.

I don't see it happening. Relocating all those resources you mentioned to Britain will not be possible anytime in 1941 nor in 1942 especially if all of Germany's industrial capacity (Now expanded with conquered Russian industrial capacity - which is a LOT) now has the ability to churn out even more U-boats and planes. The time period upon which the US entered the war is known to German sailors as the Second Happy Time because a lot of convoys were successfully damaged. Now with the Mediterranean soundly decided in the Axis's favor those vessels of the German navy can be directed fully against the Atlantic. It would be a miracle if even half the supplies America got to Britain historically made it in this scenario. Hitler and Doenitz's vision of the UK being cut off from the US would come to fruition. All that industrial capacity means nothing if you can't use it where it matters. Additionally, I forget to mention that liberating Iran would also put Germany in a good position to liberate India as well and Nationalist forces in India such as the Azad Hind were already predisposed towards the Axis (Their leader Subhas Chandra Bose had already pledged allegiance to the Axis Powers) Revolts in India against the British would be even quicker than revolts against the Soviets in the Baltic States. It would not be impossible to see Germany and Japan linked by India. By then it is seriously over. Britain will be starved into submission before the year is out, probably even sooner once people cannot ignore the obvious futility in continuing a pointless war.
Well technically speaking, the bombs were actually originally to be dropped on Berlin and another large German city but Germany surrendered before that became a reality. Hitler knew of course, his bunker was nuclear proof (Including radiation) But life would continue as normal under German rule, they certainly had all the resources they needed to ensure stability. It would be a Cold War situation.

Hitler taking Moscow would have ended the war right there

Well, you can thank the Italians for the failure of the Russian campaign, due to their inept attempt at trying to recreate the Roman Empire by invading Greece and getting their asses kicked at every corner.

The German had to divert troops to rescue these idiots, delaying the Russian invasion well into the winter.

Should Barbarossa succeed and the troops diverted in time, The Normandy invasion would have been a Dieppe 2.0

>trying to justify the use of the word blitzkrieg

>allies doing anything of importance during ww2