Germany-USSR, the ultimate what-if

[Elfie]

Even if we look only at what happened after Nov 11 1918 - we have been torn apart by foreign invaders: Poles, Finns, Czechs, Americans, Brits, French, Japanese, etc, ant it continued until 1922.

[BlauK]

Pavel,
I know you are a very skillful provoker... maybe just to encourage more discussion or different opinions(?), but it gets kind of boring after a while. Why not just discuss on a more objective level?

About the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact, have you seen e.g. this page?
http://www.lituanus.org/1989/89_1_03.htm
.. or this one?
http://www.answers.com/topic/molotov-ribbentrop-pact

It is pretty obvious Finland was allocated to Soviet Union in the anticipated "territorial and political rearrangements"

Your "peaceful -why don't the nasty small countries leave us alone- nation" was an active expansionist and aggressor at that time. There is no way around it.

---

About Finland as a country and as its government having had "it's own plans of Greater Finland eastwards to Ural mountains" is just utterly ridiculous.
Even those extremist lunatics (don't we have such people in every country) who dreamed and talked about Greater-Finland in 1920's and 1930's would not dream of Urals. How could a poorly equipped army with less than 300 000 men with 250 000 rifles (1939 figures) have marched deep into Russia

In 1941 almost twice as strong Finnish army first took back what Soviets had taken in 1939-40 and then advanced as far as was reasonable, without stretching its lines to the extreme. It had no realistic power to go any further. The advance was halted before the winter came into defensively advantageous positions, lake isthmuses etc, and it sat their waiting to see how the big powers (Russia and Germany) would slug it out and decide the final outcome. That's all the small country's army was ever capable of. Trying to survive between two big powers.

[Angus]

Was just going to say that. The Finns were under extreme pressure from the Germans to continue eastwards and help finish off Leningrad for example, but they stopped when they had reached their previous borders.
BTW, when did the Americans invade Russia? Guess I lost something.
And BTW, stop hijacking my thread with such crap mr. Borod

[Angus]

Oh, BTW, did I mention that the USSR (Molotov) expressed claims to settle Denmark and access the Med? Now that looks to me like a nation thinking expansion and conquest, - but isn't that exactly what world communism was about? Settling the globe...now that is one defense perimeter.
Anyway, this took all doubt out of Hitler's mind, that the USSR-Germany conflict would be inevidable.
The best is though, that while Molotov was discussing with the Germans, they had to retreat to a bunker, for the RAF was bombing them

[Angus]

Just looked more.
Seems like Molotov was all eager to follow into the vacum of a collapsing UK.
So, his list of demands on the Germans (partially):
- annexing Finland
- to discuss the future position of Sweden (!)
- Military/naval bases in Denmark for good access to Scandinavia and the Atlantic.
- Access to the med and therefrom to the east by having Constantinopel.

Now Molo was not so daft. He had money for both colours. If Germany beats the UK, he could follow into the wake. If they keep fighting, Germany is less a threat to the USSR. Nice thinking Molotov!

[Angus]

Just read up more.
As far as I can see, there was no outcome for certain before Kursk. And the big factor was perhaps the war expanding with the USA joining in, as well as the weight of the lend-lease.
So, I will go from this:

- Britain makes peace with Germany on the 22th of July in 1940.
- It is a seize fire truce with Britain keeping the colonies (and perhaps getting the channel islands) while lifting the naval blockade of Germany.


IMHO the effect would have been this:

Direct things:
-The Luftwaffe, the Kriegsmarine, the Italian airforce and navy, as well as both their armed forces, completely escape the losses inflicted by the British and their allies in the one-year window.
- There is less delay on the date of Barbarossa, especially on the southern front.

Less direct things:

-The German power for invasion is more due to less occupation in the conquered countried of W-Europe.
- The whole planning is different due to a completely naval setup. I.E. the open Med, Atlantic and Arctic


Political

- Britain remains a neutral colonial power with lots of naval power but low economy for a while (Britain was practically bankrupt in 1940)
- THere will be no lend-lease deal (USA-UK) since there is no war.
- There might be trade between USA and Germany.
- Italy stays away from trouble with the UK,since the UK is now a strong and neutral power.
- Japan stays away from the UK for the same reason. (Hitler dreamed of the UK as a "Stabilizer" in worldwide affairs, navally).
- Japan has no benefit from war with the USA for the same reason.
- The axis press for useage of the med and the Suez canal.
- The Axis press (subtly) for the pass through the Turkish straights. (What Molotow wanted if the British were beaten)


Overall Political results:
- Japan's only feasible enemy would be the USSR
- Axis muster the full power of all 3, on fronts at their choice.

Pretty much the setup. Feel free to ponder

[Rich46yo]

I think many Americans overestimate the importance of Lend Lease to the Soviets. To say it was the reason they beat the Germans is a stretch beyond the beyond.

                           Yes, it was helpful, most of all the trucks and transports. But it was the Soviets , and Soviet industry, that beat the Germans. Not Lend lease.

[lasersailor184]

Originally posted by Rich46yo
I think many Americans overestimate the importance of Lend Lease to the Soviets. To say it was the reason they beat the Germans is a stretch beyond the beyond.

                           Yes, it was helpful, most of all the trucks and transports. But it was the Soviets , and Soviet industry, that beat the Germans. Not Lend lease.

Please...  Wake up someday, it's light outside.



While it's arguable how much of an effect it had, when Russia was so close to losing, without it they would have lost.

[Bodhi]

Originally posted by Bruv119
Hitler could have had it in the bag by the end 1942.  Merely a year after the U.S decided they wanted in.   Even so I believe America wouldn't have liked to fight in europe at all without the UK as a base.

The US would have done exactly like it did in the Pacific.  Convoy large numbers of troops across half the distance they did in the Pacific.  Do not count out an Army that has spent a month throwing up at sea.  They are going to want to take and hold a piece of land, and the only way they will be thrown back into the sea will be as dead bodies.

[Rich46yo]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Please...  Wake up someday, it's light outside.

      What the heck does that mean?

While it's arguable how much of an effect it had, when Russia was so close to losing, without it they would have lost. [/B]

      Now I want you to re-read the above four times real slowly and then tell me exactly what your saying. "without it they would have lost", but, "its arguable how much effect it had".

     And Im the one supposed to wake up?

[Angus]

Bear in mind that the USA wanted to open a second front in Europe in 1942. Churchill rightly thought that it would not work, and got his will through by deflecting the effort to N-Africa.
Now, anyway, with Britain NOT at war with the Germans, the Americans would NOT have been at war with the Germans....
Peace with the UK and the Suez open means that there wouldn't necessarily have been a war with Japan either, and for 2 reasons:
1. The embargo on Japan would have been useless.
2.  Japan has nothing to fetch from the British, since they are not the enemy of the Axis, and not in trouble as they were...


And you don't normally stay seasick for a month, - most shake the puking out in a couple of days by the way....and I speak from own experience in the N-Atlantic and the Denmark strait in the middle of winter

[Elfie]

Now I want you to re-read the above four times real slowly and then tell me exactly what your saying. "without it they would have lost", but, "its arguable how much effect it had".

You have it backwards.

While it's arguable how much of an effect it had, when Russia was so close to losing, without it they would have lost.

It is arguable just how much of an effect the lend lease program had. The arguments cover both extremes and everything in between.

Yet, early on, before the Soviets moved all their factories and really started cranking out war materiel the lend lease equipment probably did save them from losing the war.

Even after the Soviets started cranking out all those tanks, planes, guns, artillery and ammunition the thousands and thousands of trucks certainly helped keep their armies supplied and let them focus on the production of things other than what we were supplying them with.

[Elfie]

Originally posted by Angus
Just read up more.
As far as I can see, there was no outcome for certain before Kursk. And the big factor was perhaps the war expanding with the USA joining in, as well as the weight of the lend-lease.
So, I will go from this:

- Britain makes peace with Germany on the 22th of July in 1940.
- It is a seize fire truce with Britain keeping the colonies (and perhaps getting the channel islands) while lifting the naval blockade of Germany.


IMHO the effect would have been this:

Direct things:
-The Luftwaffe, the Kriegsmarine, the Italian airforce and navy, as well as both their armed forces, completely escape the losses inflicted by the British and their allies in the one-year window.
- There is less delay on the date of Barbarossa, especially on the southern front.

Less direct things:

-The German power for invasion is more due to less occupation in the conquered countried of W-Europe.
- The whole planning is different due to a completely naval setup. I.E. the open Med, Atlantic and Arctic


Political

- Britain remains a neutral colonial power with lots of naval power but low economy for a while (Britain was practically bankrupt in 1940)
- THere will be no lend-lease deal (USA-UK) since there is no war.
- There might be trade between USA and Germany.
- Italy stays away from trouble with the UK,since the UK is now a strong and neutral power.
- Japan stays away from the UK for the same reason. (Hitler dreamed of the UK as a "Stabilizer" in worldwide affairs, navally).
- Japan has no benefit from war with the USA for the same reason.
- The axis press for useage of the med and the Suez canal.
- The Axis press (subtly) for the pass through the Turkish straights. (What Molotow wanted if the British were beaten)


Overall Political results:
- Japan's only feasible enemy would be the USSR
- Axis muster the full power of all 3, on fronts at their choice.

Pretty much the setup. Feel free to ponder

Under this scenario the Soviets lose imo and the Third Reich would still be standing today.

[FrodeMk3]

Originally posted by Elfie
Under this scenario the Soviets lose imo and the Third Reich would still be standing today.

I agree as well, Elfie. However, going from this point on, starts' to rely much more on conjecture, and becomes more problematic.

Due to cause-and-effect, what impact does Hitlers' success have on diplomatic relations? With the Neutrals? With even his own Allies? If you remember, Mussolini's invasion of the Balkans' was tinged with his dissatisfaction with Hitler.

Without a war for the U.S., How does that impact American domestic politics? Does FDR win another election? I know that he does not get any 'War Emergency' Third term. How does the next President handle things? Without Lend-Lease, or an active wartime economy, What is the economic status of the U.S.? Do we still suffer from the latter part of the Great Depression? What about British Politics? Without a war, What kind of leader is Churchill? Does another MP replace him?

Another thing. How long does it take Germany to actually defeat Russia totally? Or do they ever? It was said, that the Soviets' simply considered Moscow just another city. Do they keep retreating Eastwards? Do the Japanese really open a second front in Siberia? Or do they treasure their holdings' in the Pacific more, and are reluctant to strip the necessary manpower from the islands?

Lastly. And I know this subject is gonna be hotly debated, but...The Bomb. The Germans' were working on one as well as we were. But if their research is unfettered by things' such as Allied bombing, and problems' securing the materials, What position does that put their program in? Do we build one, without the war driving such a project?

[Elfie]

Originally posted by FrodeMk3
I agree as well, Elfie. However, going from this point on, starts' to rely much more on conjecture, and becomes more problematic.

Due to cause-and-effect, what impact does Hitlers' success have on diplomatic relations? With the Neutrals? With even his own Allies? If you remember, Mussolini's invasion of the Balkans' was tinged with his dissatisfaction with Hitler.

Without a war for the U.S., How does that impact American domestic politics? Does FDR win another election? I know that he does not get any 'War Emergency' Third term. How does the next President handle things? Without Lend-Lease, or an active wartime economy, What is the economic status of the U.S.? Do we still suffer from the latter part of the Great Depression? What about British Politics? Without a war, What kind of leader is Churchill? Does another MP replace him?

Another thing. How long does it take Germany to actually defeat Russia totally? Or do they ever? It was said, that the Soviets' simply considered Moscow just another city. Do they keep retreating Eastwards? Do the Japanese really open a second front in Siberia? Or do they treasure their holdings' in the Pacific more, and are reluctant to strip the necessary manpower from the islands?

Lastly. And I know this subject is gonna be hotly debated, but...The Bomb. The Germans' were working on one as well as we were. But if their research is unfettered by things' such as Allied bombing, and problems' securing the materials, What position does that put their program in? Do we build one, without the war driving such a project?

So many questions and most of them could have whole threads devoted to each one.

I'll just go with the last paragraph.

No, the US doesn't build a nuke without a war to drive their efforts. Without a war, there just isn't a need to build a nuke. Germany does build one and uses it against the Soviets to force their surrender. Germany and Japan become the two military Superpowers in the postwar era.