www.ditl.org

In 1944, there were vast tracts of empty land all over the US (there still are); simply send company after company with the needed supplies into some unoccupied area, then attack en masse, with complete surprise. Maybe send a few tank divisions. In Storm Front, the Russians weren't involved, right?

They only held the eastern seaboard, IIRC. Meaning that the Appalachians did halt their advance.

Hmm, here's an idea that may have helped somewhat on the manpower front.
Perhaps instead of invading Russia, Hitler offered Stalin the chance to invade the US by allowing him to use his mass transporters, with the Russians appearing in the west of the US and the Germans hitting the east. With both the Red Army and the Wehrmacht suddenly appearing without warning in force outside US cities and bases, the first strike could have crippled the US military to the point where they could be defeated by the Russians and Germans.

It'd still be damn near impossible to hold in the long run, but would explain how they came to occupy parts of the US in the first place.

Rochey wrote:Hmm, here's an idea that may have helped somewhat on the manpower front.
Perhaps instead of invading Russia, Hitler offered Stalin the chance to invade the US by allowing him to use his mass transporters, with the Russians appearing in the west of the US and the Germans hitting the east. With both the Red Army and the Wehrmacht suddenly appearing without warning in force outside US cities and bases, the first strike could have crippled the US military to the point where they could be defeated by the Russians and Germans.

It'd still be damn near impossible to hold in the long run, but would explain how they came to occupy parts of the US in the first place.

There was no Stalin. Lenin was assassinated in 1916 so no Communist Revolution, so no Soviet Union. So supposedly Hitler didn't see Russia as a threat which is why he didn't invade. Though I think Imperial Russia would've had something to say about a growing, nationalistic, expansionist country near their border. What are the odds Imperial Russia might've joined the English against Germany in that scenario?

Depends on if Russia and Germany were both agreed to avoid war on their home turf. Instead fighting proxy wars elsewhere in the world.

As to Rochey's thoughts about Russia. We have nothing to say they were involved. There has to be a way that the Germans landed in the US and at the least took over a good portion of the east coast.

Imperial Russia was weak-minded, and easily swayed by Western fashion. They'd make an unreliable ally at best for either the Axis or the Allies.

There was no Stalin. Lenin was assassinated in 1916 so no Communist Revolution, so no Soviet Union.

Uh, the Revolution would hardly have been stopped by Lenin's assassination. The people were roally pissed at Tsar Nicholas. Killing one of the heads of the revolution wouldn't have made the population of Russia forget why they were so pissed. The USSR, or some analogue, would still have been formed. Maybe with a different guy in charge, but that would have just made it an even greater threat to Hitler if Stalin isn't shooting generals willy-nilly.

Seriously, this is like saying that the American War of Independance wouldn't have happened if Washington had been killed beforehand. It completely ignores the whole reasons for the uprising in the first place.

So supposedly Hitler didn't see Russia as a threat which is why he didn't invade.

As I already pointed out, a Russia without Stalin in charge may have been even more dangerous to Hitler's policies.

The only way Russia ceases to be a danger is if the revolution becomes a long, drawn-out civil war that lasts up until the start of WW2, leaving most of the country and its military crippled and divided. But even then, that would just make Hitler even more likely to invade. He considered the Russians just slightly above the Jews, and he's hardly going to ignore all that lebensraum just to the east, is he?

Would Kerensky have remained in power?

Rochey wrote:...a Russia without Stalin in charge may have been even more dangerous to Hitler's policies...

If Trotsky had been in charge, I guarantee things would've been worse for the Nazis.

I thought he was still in good ol' Mexico at the time. I'd have been very interested to see what would have happened with old Alex in charge - a socialist military government...

*Points at sig*

He'd probably have viewed the Nazis as too great a threat to ignore, and declared war on them first.

Now that I think about it, Stalin may have ended up in charge anyway. If Lenin was killed, someone else would have just taken over the revolution. Stalin clearly had no problem in knocking off his rivals. He could have seen the death of Lenin as a perfect opertunity to increase his rank in the new government.

He probably wouldn't have become leader of the revolution, as he was far from well known by the start of the whole thing. But I can see him worming his way up through the ranks during the inter-war period, perhaps eventualy taking over himself.

With no Lenin and Trotsky in exile, I still don't see anyone strong enough at the time to supplant the Kerensky junta.

Fair point. Though why are we assuming Trotsky is still in exile?

Erm... he was while Lenin was preaching in Moscow - why would he assume he wasn't with less support back in Russia?

Uh, yeah. Ignore me, I'm getting a tad mixed up with what happened to who and when.