Not much but the best I could find on short notice:

http://www.haciendapub.com/randomnot...strategic-plan

The Ark of the Covenant and a mind-reading Cate Blanchet. Duh.

Since you didn't read Otters hypothetical, he asked what would've happened had the two allied. And that answer is simple: they'd have overrun Europe (including England) in a matter of weeks.


Your nuke rebuttal won't work because by the time America developed and tested it, we were already deep in 1944. All allied lands would've already been conquered and hence those forces would've been impossible to dislodge. If you're arguing for raining nukes down on Berlin and Moscow, they'd retaliate instantly by liquidating allied civilian populations under their control.

Europe, YES. But, well, actually, Germany did that all by itself, so that's not giving up much.

England is still going to be a huge problem. The fundamental problem the Germans had was that they couldn't dominate either the skies over England and the English channel, or create a safe environment for ships to transport troops to England, and then resupply them.

Would Russia/Germany together (assuming no US involvement) be able to get there eventually? Yes. Really no doubt.

"in a matter of weeks"? Absolutely not. WTF were they going to do? Row over there with no ****ing tanks, no local air superiority and no naval superiority? That ain't happening.


What "allied lands"? Allied territory in Europe? Yes.

If the US gets involved earlier, however, due to Russia/German designs on England (it's all a big hypothetical), then England never gets invaded. With US focusing assistance on England, Germany/Russia will take absolutely forever to get the necessary sea/air power to mount a serious offensive, and though that eventually could be done I think, the US/UK will develop nukes first.

Keep in mind you have a logistical problem here -- the Soviets are pretty freaking far away from England, have no navy worth the name, no heavy bombers, not really even good medium bombers, and their best forces, like the Germans, are their ground troops, which are going to have a real problem crossing that little patch of water between Frnace and England.

Not really even worth answering. Nor would it necessarily matter. At this point it's literally a struggle for survival. If A-bombs are what are needed to bring the enemy to its knees, they are what will get used.

Besidess that, we were pounding the shit out of Germany long before we took back control of France. It's not necessarily a useful or effective war fighting technique to kill civilians. We would destroy their leadership and their capacity to fight (industrial centers, etc.). Murdering innocents in France or whatever isn't going to balance those scales.

The U.S. couldn't have saved England from a combined war machine of that magnitude. And most of the bombing soirees into Germany were launched from England so short-haul nuke raids wouldn't have been possible. It'd have to be done with long-range bombers (as it was in Japan) with serious air control and ground cover below. It *could* have been successful but it was no given.


The far likelier scenario is Europe would've been ruled by the two in perpetuity and America wouldve seen any action as futile. Germany alone nearly held off all allies over a 3-front war (I include Italy as a front they defended)

How does one get an invite to a bombing soiree? Are they black tie?

No matter how big the "war machine", they gotta cross the Channel. Depending on when the US enters the war, then that could be a major problem.

If there was no Channel, you're right. As it was, the German war machine was similarly overwhelming, vis-a-vis England, after France's fall, and couldn't get the job done. "More overwhelming" doesn't necessarily matter, unless T-34s have some kind of previously unknown swimming capability.

I've been bombed at a few soirees myself....

Err...no, it's a two front war. Two different enemies on different sides equals two fronts. Unless you want to say the US/UK were also fighting a "two front war" in Europe (in Italy and France), which makes no sense at all.

Second "nearly held off"? In what sense? The German military's high watermark came at the height of Barbarossa, which was the summer of 1941. Once the Russians stopped them at Moscow, and the US entered the war, they just steadily lost the war. They didn't nearly hold off anything -- they just managed to hold them off for four years, which is pretty impressive, but it wasn't like a close call or anything. After Barbarossa failed, there really weren't any "close calls" anymore, either for the Russians or the Brits, much less the Americans.

I usually like to launch my heat seeking missile after getting bombed at a soiree, personally. I've been to some soirees where I got bombed listening to the B-52s.

Correct. Sea Lion was canceled because the Germans hadn't gained air or sea superiority. Add to that the fact that they really didn't have an amphibious force that would have been required to cross the channel...

Hypothetical are fun to a point, but the facts are more fun. The Brits, with a little help, won the BoB and Hitler turned his intentions toward the country he really wanted to fight. The BoB was the first turning point in the European theater and it's victory can't be overstated.

What, you mean barges on the Rhine aren't ideal amphibious assault naval vessels to cross the English Channel?!?!

LMAO

No, not quite.

The fun fact about the BoB is that ONE German bomber changed the course of the battle. One. If that hadn't happened, the RAF very well could have been destroyed.

Yes. A little accidental bombing on civilians, a little retaliation, and suddenly...

I've read Marvel "What If" comics that were more plausible than Hitler and Stalin being allies.