Russia might have been pretty pathetic at the beginning of the war, but by '43 or so the show was their's. Russia could never have won without the Allies coming from the West, and the Allies could only have done it with unacceptable casualties without Russia.

Americans kicking arse on the Western Front? The Germans deployed 300 divisions in the East, 30 in the West. Nine out of every ten German soldiers killed in the war were on the Eastern Front. The Allies were by and large civilians in uniform. Most just wanted to go home (and this is not to belittle their sacrifice, I am incredibly proud of all of them). Contrast that with the fanatical and militarised nature of the German/Russian troops. Germany lost the war on the Eastern Front. I am doubtful D-Day would have succeeded with ten times the number of German soldiers waiting on the Atlantic Wall.

If would have succeeded if the atom bomb was ready...

I hadn't thought of that. Good point...though I don't know how the Free French would have felt about irradiating Normandy.

If England had been conquered isn't very interesting. It just ends up with Germany slugging it out with Russia indefinitely.

More interesting is if England had agreed to a ceasefire with Germany after Dunkirk. I think we would've seen a war with England-Third Reich-USA-Japan against Russia.

England, Germany, and the US had a shared hatred for Russia, while Japan's territorial ambitions would have propelled it to take on Russia in the East (again).

The US would never have joined that war if it were not attacked. And why would England support Germany against Russia? All that would do would be make Germany stronger as Russia couldn't have held off the Wehrmacht in the early years without American aid. America would NEVER have aided Russia if it didn't have a common foe with Britain, and even then it was a near thing.

Also, why would Japan bother with a war in Siberia when there are all the new orphan European colonies are right there for the taking?

With a successfull Operation Sealion and the unsinkable carrier invaded in 40, the US would not have got involved in Europe. There were strong peace and isolationist movements in the US at the time. The only reason we did was because Hitler declared war on the US after Japan attacked. Than German military would have had several more critical panzer divisions, and air wings freed to be used in the east. The partisions in the Western, Central Europe and the Balkins were supplied mostly by the Brits. Without those supplies and the trained men the partisions would not have had the affect they did have. Supplies, oil, and rubber blockaided by the US and Britian would have been available and unmolested by bombing factories would have been more productive. Than there is the critical supplies the Russians were given by the Brits and the US. Most of their trucks and halftracks were made in the US, freeing up their factories to replace all the tanks they lost in 41-42. Large portion of their airforce were US aircraft, even a large number of Sherman tanks were on the eastern frount. Countless C-rations were sent to Russia to feed there armies, all there rubber, and many other critcal supplies came from the US and Britian. Russia would have fallen without all that aid. That would have left only 2 world powers. Germany in Europe the Med and Near East, and the US in the Pacific and the Americas. Most of Asia would have been in caos with Japan defeated by an single mined US.

@diplomat1824 - Soviet troops were those that actually got to Berlin and Eastern Germany - hence the divisions of the Federal and Democratic Republics post WWII and the fact that Russia had about half of Berlin

@Hereward77 - if you count that there was more than one King of England that was a Viking, I'd say that was a successful conquest. The Normans didn't reach all parts of England, yet their conquest is deemed a success.

Invictus:

Because the political philosophies of the United States, Germany, and England were all relatively close, while that of Russia was the polar opposite (capitalism v communism). Furthermore, the cultural similarities between the US and Germany (England and the US, too, obviously) were much closer than to those of the Slavic Russians.

Japan would have taken on Russia simultaneously. It took on China and the orphan colonies at the same time, didn't it? And even if it didn't attack Siberia immediately, it would eventually.

@ Invictus I agree with the first part, but Japan did attack Russia in the 30's and had there heads handed to them. They did not have the number of tanks or tactics needed.

After the conquest of ‘England’ properly know as the UK – a conquest I do not believe possible:

I think it is more likely that Germany and Russia would have reached some form of political agreement as Hitler was more interested in land and resources than his ideology (he actually made an agreement with Russia over the invasion of Poland).
You would then be in a 1984ish situation with a fascist state (ruled from Berlin), a communist state (ruled from Moscow) and a capitalist state (the USA). Communism and fascism are both oppressive regimes and subject to eventual collapse because of the resentment felt towards leaders.
I believe that had Germanys Lebensraum expansion been completed the USSR and the third Reich would have by now disintegrated in the same way that the USSR did.

hippykin interesting but Hitler had his heart set on Russian plains and the oil in the Caspian.

I think that Hitler would have been satisfied with a ceasefire, leaving the UK intact, but out of the war.

If that happened, then he would be able to turn his attention totally towards the USSR, but that's essentially what he did anyway. The reason he couldn't devote all his troops there was not fear of British invasion, but to secure the nations he conquered (and bail out Italy).

However, if Britain was defeated, then D-day would have been impossible for the simple reason that there wouldn't have been anywhere to land before the invasion. Assuming that the US still gets involved due to Pearl Harbor, then they'd have to invade though Africa. I think that Germany would probably still have been defeated, but it would have been much more difficult for the Allies.

Its hard to say how it would have affected the USSR, but assuming that Hitler still makes the mistake of abandoning his forces at Stalingrad, it would have probably turned out the same.

In the Pacific, the US would have been weakened by Germany, but they still had a better navy, and eventually nukes.

@Hippykin - The agreement Hitler made with Stalin regarding Poland was merely one of convenience: Stalin's Soviet Union was not ready for a full-scale war at that time, and Hitler didn't start off wanting an immediate war against the Soviet Union. Hitler's biggest tactical error during the war (in my opinion) was that he didn't finish off Britain when he had the chance, before THEN moving onto the Soviet Union. But there's always the distinct possibility that he'd gone a little bit mad by then already!

Soviets had plans for a preemptive strike at Germans in Poland around May 15th 1941, but Stalin decided not to provoke Hitler.... Such a wise decision ;)

Denzel73 +2

I'm glad someone brought it up.

I thought it was planed for 42, not 41?

Would it have done much good, though? The Soviet Union was a mess at that time after all the purges and famines, while Germany was at the height of its power.

If that had happened, would the USSR have gotten any aid? A soviet first strike would have proven that World Communism was a threat to Europe, and even England might have been content to watch Russia fall.

Let's try to stick to the original topic.

I seem to remember someone promised to only start threads directly related to Diplomacy.

Yeah, well, other people were getting away with non-Diplomacy threads, *cough cough Sicarius cough cough* and I felt left out.

I think a much more plausible and interesting scenairio would be if WW2 had ended early.

Public opinion in Britain was for a ceasefire. Many top-level Brits were mroe than ready to negotiate and Hitler offered a truce. It was Churchill that was stubborn and decided to stick it out. But if you listened to one of the other guys you probably would have ended up with a compromise position.

So under my scenairio the Germans conced by withdrawing from France, Belgium and Norway. This means they still have control over Austria, Czechoslovakia, most of Poland, Holland, Denmark and Luxemburg (all countries with German populations) as well as the large united German territory.

So we have a large continental German power, with the Brits, Americans, Japanese, Italians and Soviets all relatively intact but the French still ravaged. It would certainly have made the cold war more complicated.

@Centurian I think the Germans would have held on to Norway for strategic reasons plus they were considered "Aryan", some even were recruted by the SS. As for the Soviets many of you forget Mein Kampf his blue print for conquest clearly stated he was going for Russia.

Yeah, Germany would never leave Belgium. Belgium was even made into two Gau (that's the German singular, I don't know the plural) for eventual incorporation into the Reich. Norway also was destined to be enveloped into the Greater German Reich.

And what position was Britain in to negotiate? I think they would have been satisfied with keeping the Empire and maybe keeping what they took from Italy. Then the full weight of Germany would immediately go against the Soviet Union. Stalin would probably be better prepared in that situation, but Russia would be lucky to even survive in that kind of scenario.

Hitler was a madman who wasn't afraid to end treaties. He would have waited a year or two, then he would have launched a massive invasion of Britain, just like he did in Russia.

Japan and America were having a small-scale cold war against each other ("cold war" referring to a state of political noncooperation, not the "Cold War" between East and West) Japan ended this bloodless war with a "preemptive" airstrike on Pearl Harbor. Japan and America would have fought each other, with America winning before 1943 (because it was a fast-paced, island-hopping war, and America's industrial capacity would be fully used against one country, not 2 countries)

To sum it up, there would be a massive war in Europe and a massive war in the Pacific. Russia would probably win the European War, and America would win the Pacific War.

Maybe Russia and Britain would ally against Russia. Either way, the outcome would be a three-way cold war with an uncertain outcome.

The Soviet Union could not have won without American aid and Hitler's need to devote even a token force for the whole Fortress Europe thing. Russia was broken by the invasion and held on do to massive supplies from the US. There might have been a massive resistance for years to come in the East, but the USSR as a government could not have survived something like Barbarossa alone.

Morale was too low on the Eastern Front (for Germany). They were freezing cold, were fighting in a place where every breath could be their last, and where citizens were prepared to kill them with bricks, if necessary. However, on the Western Front, morale was slightly higher, because they were literally defending their homeland. They were on the defensive.

I think the value of western supplies for the USSR is overrated. Keeping some kind of second front open (North Africa, Italy, and finally France) was much more important, as well as the Battle of Atlantic and strategic bombing of Germany.
USSR would not have survived alone.