I would guess the war would have ended pretty much the same way.  As 7/8 of the entire German war effort was for the Eastern front against Russia, clearly the East was the decisive battlefront anyway.

It would have made the Western contributions smaller as there is no disputing the value of the Canadian contribution.  And the convoys would have been smaller and forced to travel farther distances to Europe.  Still, the US industrial capacity (as well as the UK) would still have enabled the convoys, the D-day invasion, and the other events that occurred in the Western front.

What I think might have happened is that the D-day invasion would not have been ready as soon so that either it would have been delayed a couple months (perhaps ready in Aug or Sept.) or there would not have been an invasion of Italy.  These would have enabled Russia to control more of Europe during the cold war; Austria, more of Germany proper, and perhaps even Italy.

@Yavid:

@Gargantua:

You know what could be considered the WORST of the worst?

OPERATION PAPERCLIP.

Where scientists, in particular, Japanase Scientists ,who had mountains of data gathered on thousands of human experiments (chemical/biological weapon research), traded the data they gathered FOR THEIR FREEDOM.  Spending the rest of their lives in comfort.

Just saying…

+1

+2, especially considering the scientific value from this data and future scientific discoveries from these “scientists”  was quite minimal.  (with perhaps a few minor exceptions such as rocket scientist Werner Von Braun, though even this can be debated)  There might have been a case made for this had the scientists actually been necessary for the cold war effort, but in hindsight I do not believe so.

@ABWorsham:

I wonder how a Germany ruled by the Crown Prince Friedrich Wilhelm would have faired had WWI been just a large Balkan Conflict?

I think quite well.  The breakup of the Austrian-Hungary empire would probably have happened in which case I think Austria becomes very politically tied to Germany (perhaps it even becomes part of Germany).  Either way (or even without Austria) Germany would be the economic leader of Europe by the mid 1950’s.

@Nozdormu:

Question. Given this topic is about politics (one way or another) and I just saw a topic “Why politics are not allowed on this board”. Isn’t this topic a violation of the rules?

I had thought this was a topic of a significant event in Russia and Ukraine, slightly different than a political discussion.

The moderators are the sole judge if a topic is too political (it is impossible to completely isolate politics in any discussion of geopolitical events).  As they have not yet taken actions such as warnings to participants, thread locking or the like, then this thread still falls within the bounds of acceptable discussion.  If you still think this it too political, feel free to report it to the moderators for their consideration.

One of the big items you are overlooking is that the conversation here, at least so far, is reasoned discourse without any flaming, name-calling, etc.

If Putin is ever going to be able to rebuild the USSR (which I am sure he dreams about), he will have to re-absorb the breakaway republics such as Ukraine.  He already intimidates his neighbors in many ways (such as by witholding gas during the winter), but intimidation isn’t going to be enough to annex them…it just pushes these nations into NATO, the EU, and other alliances.  He will, at some point, need to use military force to annex the fallen soviet republics.

Why not start in the Crimea, a part of the Ukraine which is majority Russian (sort of like the Czech republic Sudetenland) where he could make a somewhat legitimate claim that it should be Russian anyway?

At that point in the war, the Allies had complete domination of the sky (except for the ME262, which was too little and too late).  Any German offensive was was doomed to stall and fail as soon as the weather permitted the allies to use this air power against the Germans (in fact, the Bulge offensive was stopped at Bastogne before the skies cleared).

When anything German that is moving gets shot, they can’t do anything, so no.  Any of these plans were doomed.

It seems clear to me that the choice of theatre depends on what one would hope to accomplish.

If I were seeking glory (assuming I would survive the conflict), as a citizen of the USA I would select Normandy, or maybe Bastogne.

If I were seeking to help enact victory (assuming my presence could somehow do this such), probably I would choose one of the turning points of the war.  The naval battle of Midway or Guadalcanal would be tempting…but I under this assumption I would choose the battle of Wake Island because it was possible for a US victory.  Had this happened, a naval turning point 6 months earlier than the battle of Midway, I presume the Pacific war could have ended 6 month sooner…though of course the necessary surrender of Japan might still have required the A-bomb.

If I were seeking to survive the war, I would definitely want something like the US coast guard defending the Panama canal.  Nice and quiet with no casualties.

I had to vote other as I think a good proximity fuse ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximity_fuze )could have made a tremendous difference in the naval battles the Japanese lost.  It certainly made a difference for the Americans.

Aequiteas,

Yes, it goes unappreciated by most but the Russian industrial cities east of the Urals were extremely important to the Russians.  If I, as Germany, had only one A-bomb, I might destroy Magnitogorsk (or as much as 15 kT will) instead of any other target (perhaps including even Moscow).  Most of the Russian steel was produced in this relatively small city…without which there would be very few Russian tanks…without which, I don’t see how the Russians win the war.

If I were Germany early in the war, say in 1942 then I use them to destroy Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad…if Russia is still fighting after that, use them against the remaining industrial cities in the East (Chelyabinsk, Magnitogorsk, etc.).  In either case, the point is to decisively win in the East (where the vast majority of the German war effort was focused…).  In 1943 or 1944 (after the tide of the war has turned) use them tactically such at the battle of Kursk to increase my defensive capacity, the idea being to bleed the Russians into capitulation.  In 1945, the war is lost so hit London, Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad, New York and Washington DC (via submarine) to try to bluff a negotiated peace.

If Russia, then Berlin and tactical use on the east front.

If Japan, then the American West coast cities (Los Angeles, Seattle, San Francisco) the Panama Canal, Pearl Harbor, and probably Sidney, Australia.  For them, the war was against the USA and UK.

If the USA, then I would pretty much do what they did, unless I had the A-bomb earlier in the war in which case I would bomb the larger cities of Japan and Germany (Tokyo, Osaka, Berlin, etc.) instead of Hiroshima and tiny Nagasaki.

If Great Britain, I absolutely use them to destroy the U-boat pens and would probably bomb the larger cities and industrial areas of Germany with the remaining bombs.

@Herr:

Good point. But I’d say it would be a distinct advantage to know what to aim for

Which is how the Soviets were able to build them so quickly with a fraction of the resources available to the United States…