Bored and I love thought experiments like this. Only rule is consequences must stay within timeframe of said conflict to keep from getting too abstract, i.e. Alexander conquers Afghanistan and the Twin Towers don't fall sorta thing.

The one I ponder on most is Dunkirk. Briefly put. Germans capture or kill all Brit and Canadian ground forces at Dunkirk. Germans risk a ground invasion despite lack of air superiority knowing Brit ground forces would be few and inexperienced. Germany succeeds and sues for peace with America. Resources are allocated back to Eastern Front and hold off Russians indefinitely. Third Reich becomes a reality.

Feasible?

The Germans manage to repel the Normandy invasion.

Lee withdraws from Gettysburg and chooses a new battlefield to engage the Army of the Potomac.

The Japanese, in support of the Germans, attack Russia in full force June 1941

Nice! Thanks for giving me something to do. Stuck at home bored to tears. I will give my thoughts on each of these for fun. Feel free to disagree or refute anything I say! Makes it all the more fun and what I love about these kinds of discussion.

Quote:

---

What if the Japs launch the third wave or if the carriers where in Pearl

---

A third wave would have been devastating, especially since they almost assuredly would have went after the fuel farms. machine shops, and weapons and parts store that were left mostly untouched after the first two waves and were paramount in being able to quickly mount a response fleet back into open waters. If the carriers were lost, Midway falls no doubt. Would have been the next link in the chain for Japan. US might have reached a point of no return for taking back the Pacific. Hawaii may have been invaded. The Mainland of course would have been fine, but Australia, and the Philippines may have been lost forever.

Quote:

---

What if Ewell presses the attack on the first day of Gettysburg and takes Culp's Hill and Cemetery Ridge?

---

Firm believer that if this happened the battle would have been won by the second day by the confederate forces. Tactically would have changed everything. Strategically not a damn thing IMO. Gettysburg was a strategic null in the war. Just happened to be the place where two blobs of men smashed into each other. I do not think it would have been a knockout blow to the Feds. Might have drug the war out a little longer but the end result would have been the same in my eyes.

Quote:

---

I still don't think that the Germans could have conquered England even if they captured or wiped out the English troops at Dunkirk. The Germans never developed a way to transport troops across the English Channel.

For BQ90, even if the Japs had sunk the Pacific carriers, I don't think they could have taken Hawaii. Without that, the US production would still win, it just would have given the Japanese a larger head start in the Pacific.

---

An invasion of England would have been incredibly dicey. They did have a way to invade via converted barges. Would have been an oldfashioned invasion though which means a port would have to be captured first. A lightning strike into a small port to secure the first wave of Nazis I think might have worked. That mixed with a concentration of Luftwaffe aircraft to suppress RAF fighters and bombers and what naval units were there at the time MIGHT have led to a successful invasion. Whether sustainable or not is another story of course. The fact that a poorly led and trained Home Guard and nothing else ground wise definitely helps swing it back to the Nazi's side. Especially once airfields were captured and used by the Luftwaffe themselves. One of the scenarios I love pondering.

Hawaii I agree would not have fallen. no matter what. (barring same outcome out of Pearl as it happened historically)

Quote:

---

We wouldn't have let Britain fall.

---

America would have been in zero position to do anything in 1940, to do anything about it.

Quote:

---

The Germans manage to repel the Normandy invasion.

Lee withdraws from Gettysburg and chooses a new battlefield to engage the Army of the Potomac.

The Japanese, in support of the Germans, attack Russia in full force June 1941

---

A ghastly proposition for Allied High Command for sure. I do not think it would have changed the outcome...just the timing and the body count. Even if it nullified a French invasion period afterwards the Italian front would have slogged it's way up eventually. With Russia going nuts on the Eastern Front, I think it was a sealed deal one way or another.

I always thought Lee was kind of an idiot for engaging there in the first place. Then again, I have the nice ability to know the aftermath and second guess a great general. If on a battlefield of his choosing and preparation, I believe he could have kept his North Virginians intact and at that point who knows what could have happened. I also think with his victory at Chancellorsville and the need to answer to Grant at the time led to why he decided to go all in at Gettysburg.

An interesting one that I have not put much thought into. Hmmm...From what I do know I imagine it would not have made a very large difference overall. Maybe. It would come down to timing. I believe there existed a very brief time frame where Russia, if under more pressure, may have buckled. Another front by a hardened enemy could have been just the thing to tip the scales. I think it would then come down to what kind of power Japan would have been able to project against Russia in 1941. They were absolutely bogged down in China and Korea at the same time. I am not aware of any meaningful Japanese power that could have been projected against Russia during that year. If you take the timing of Russia collapsing and the power of a Japanese force as sliding scales, I am sure that there is some point where both could line up however to have an appreciable outcome on the war.

Easy:
Germany starts the war with 120 U-Boats. England is defeated before they can perfect ASDIC and Huff-Duff. It's really the only change-on-thing and the Germans can win. With enough boats, Dnitz could have dealt a crushing blow to England. I'd say if you wanted to pair two what-ifs and say adequate U-Boats AND a defeat at Dunkirk and England was done. Sure, Germany couldn't invade. But England would be starved into submission. Unless Roosevelt wanted to start straight-up American convoying of ships in 39-40 instead of mid 41, it's over.

One I have always wondered about is what if there had not been any atomic spies for Russia in the Manhattan project? It is widely acknowledged that the Russians got a huge head start from the info they got from Klaus Fuchs, Cohen, Hall, etc.

It has been estimated it may have saved the Russians up to a decade of time to develop their first nuke. Truman used our nuclear monopoly to threaten Stalin to withdraw Soviet troops from Iran in 1946 after the Russians failed to withdraw like they had agreed to.

Let's assume it really saved the Russians a decade, meaning the Russian's first nuke was late 1950s. What else would have been different? Would the Korean war have happened? Would the East German worker's revolt in 1953 been successful? Or the Hungarian revolution of 1956? Meaning we could have threatened Russian to back off or else? Would we have invaded Cuba after Castro took power in l958? Or on a larger scale, without the atomic spies, would the US even have acknowledged the communist threat in the early 1950s?

EMY92 said:

---

I still don't think that the Germans could have conquered England even if they captured or wiped out the English troops at Dunkirk. The Germans never developed a way to transport troops across the English Channel.

For BQ90, even if the Japs had sunk the Pacific carriers, I don't think they could have taken Hawaii. Without that, the US production would still win, it just would have given the Japanese a larger head start in the Pacific.

---

Well the Japs would have taken Midway without much effort. Also would they have been successful in Coral Sea and could have taken all of New Guninee and then maybe even Australia.

The Original AG 76 said:

---

Eliminatus said:

---

Another one from me.

Treaty of Versailles is fair and even generous regarding Germany in all aspects. Does the Nazi Party still rise? Would there even be a Hitler to cast the world into fire?

---

Adolf still has the "stab in the back" angle plus the Depression still destroys the German economy. Doubtful Weimar survives no matter what. Germany was not ripe for any form of democratic governance. If not the nazi's it would have , more likely , been the communists in power.
Now that is a good what if.
What if the reds out "thuged" the brown shirts in the early 30's ? The numbers and popular support were close . A 1930's alliance between Soviet Russia and Soviet Germany ? Europe would absolutely fall except for the U.K.
Interesting

---

I can definitely see your top point as being feasible. The Weimar Republic's death was a foregone conclusion anyways. Not counting reparations the entire country was devastated anyways. Leaving that power vacuum where the Nazi's slid in. Not a far stretch, at all, to imagine the Reds taking that same vacuum.

As far as your second 100% agree. Nazi Germany is what kept us from an entirely Red Europe. I am absolutely convinced of that.

titan, what are your thoughts on the impact if the Japanese do NOT attack Midway? I thought you and your co-author made many good points in Shattered Sword about how the attack on Midway was perhaps strategically pointless. Curious what you think might have happened if Midway doesn't happen like it did.

Thanks.

Quote:

---

First battle of Bull Run, Confederate forces pursue the routed Union army all the way to DC.

---

Quote:

---

Burgoyne travels fast and light and defeats the Americans at Saratoga and links up with Howe in NYC

---

These two are easy. Confederates win the civil war. And British defeat the Colonials(at least for the time being, not sure if that would have ended the Revolution per se...militarily it would have for sure though.)

Quote:

---

Roman history fans have to wonder just how much may be different if Cleopatra and Antony somehow pull off victory against Octavian. Remember in ancient history especially, `victory' can just as likely take the form of something like Octavian falling to illness at the wrong time, or an inclined assassin that made one choice rather than another. The personalities matter so much, as they certainly would make a difference here.

For example, if Antony and Cleopatra do prevail, at Actium, or ashore, you don't get the 1st Century Roman Empire of Augustus. Because even though the Republic would continue to unravel, and there would be an empire in all likelihood --- the temperament of Antony and Cleopatra is unlikely to have been methodical and special blend of `real-politik' by which Octavian became Caesar Augustus and established the Principate.

Change the Augustan stamp of the 1st C BC and AD alike, and much, much else also changes, even if the Roman Empire and many of the players continue (as they surely would) on the stage much like before.

---

Really need to bone up on my Roman history. This gives me the motivation to do so. It ahs always been one of my weaker spots.

Quote:

---

One I have always wondered about is what if there had not been any atomic spies for Russia in the Manhattan project? It is widely acknowledged that the Russians got a huge head start from the info they got from Klaus Fuchs, Cohen, Hall, etc.

It has been estimated it may have saved the Russians up to a decade of time to develop their first nuke. Truman used our nuclear monopoly to threaten Stalin to withdraw Soviet troops from Iran in 1946 after the Russians failed to withdraw like they had agreed to.

Let's assume it really saved the Russians a decade, meaning the Russian's first nuke was late 1950s. What else would have been different? Would the Korean war have happened? Would the East German worker's revolt in 1953 been successful? Or the Hungarian revolution of 1956? Meaning we could have threatened Russian to back off or else? Would we have invaded Cuba after Castro took power in l958? Or on a larger scale, without the atomic spies, would the US even have acknowledged the communist threat in the early 1950s?

---

Same as above. Fairly hazy on my eastern Europe's history in that time frame. Can't give a decent response to this one either.