Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Angus on November 16, 2007, 04:23:26 AM
-
Now here's the teaser for those who like to ponder on what-if's.
(Special thread for Boroda actually :t )
Okay, here's the setup. It's 1940. Hitler sends his "Appeal to reason", which basically is a peace offer, to the British. Lets say that the British would have agreed, with the terms of still bossing their colonies and the commonwelth. (That was one of Hitler's pet thoughts ,Britain he said is necessary for global stability)
Okay, Hitler turns to the maps of Russia in July 1940. Operation Barbarossa is launched in May 1941. What would have happened?
I have some list to ponder on, as well as some input, and then the inevidable conclusion.....here goes
1. What would the Strength of the Axis army have been
2. Would they have applied more naval power?
3. The LW, both as a fighting and transport force, would it have become a much bigger factor?
4. Who would have won and when would it have been over?
My thoughts is that the Axis would have been quicker on the calendar, quite stronger by numbers, twice as strong in the air, and with Naval power to open a front from the Black sea. I think they would have had Moscow in 1941 - worst case 1942, crushed the USSR, but with many years of mopping up to do in Russia.
And you?
-
The Soviets would still reverse the trend in 1943, just as they did in RL.. maybe a few months more had Hitler not fallen for the Stalingrad trap or with the additional troops which would've been available with no deployments in the west.
With the UK out (and probably no subsequent US entry into the war), you'd see a lot more people speaking russian today.
-
i dont know what the outcome would have been in such a hypothetical scenario but i take issue with the claim that britain bossed its colonies and the commonwealth and that they were somehow subservient to british wishes. not so nz. of course the ties were very close but nz had its own views and policy on the rise of fascism in europe in the 1930s and vocalised them independently of britain at every chance it got, the league of nations etc. this stance was followed through with nz declaring war on germany, which was timed to coincide with, but was independent of britain's declaration of war with germany
-
From Ledpig in another thread:
"Germany would've had a hell of a time trying to invade America though. I think he either wouldn't have tried or gave up and the cold war would've been very different. Well maybe not that different. Rather have the Soviet Union than Nazism. I think i've heard that prediction somewhere before though."
They would not have had war with America. Just business, and lots of it.
Bear in mind that they were open to business with the USA, they just didn't get past the RN. Germany was even open to business with the USA despite the lend-lease deal between the UK and USA, - the embargo was executed by the British.
They declared war because of their deal with the Japanese. The Japanese went to war partially because of a US embargo who would have lead to the military and Navy running out of resources at a time the Japanese were getting their foothold in China. However, with the British at peace with the Axis, you have an open business for the Japanese, so no need to go to war with the USA.....
And Leitwolf...I don't see Stalingrad as a trap, and actually as it was, the Germans almost made it. How long would Stalingrad have stood with a third Axis force encirling it from the south, long before 1943? What would the importance of Stalingrad have been, if Axis forces had foothold over the Volga in many places in 1941? Even in the real Battle of Stalingrad as it was, how would the Axis have faired with completely good supply status, no war elsewhere, many times the LW, and maybe 500.000 well equipped soldiers more? I tend to think they would have squashed the Russians.
Remember that at the peak of Stalingrad, it was the peak in N-Africa, where 300.000 Axis or more were taken prisoners, and the major airlift capacity of the LW was destroyed.
With the UK out, I think you would see the Russians speaking German today ....
-
The big question is: Would peace with Britain have had any effect on the Battle of Moscow?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Moscow
That is the place the war was decided in the east, and ultimately the whole world.
-
Right to the point! Good one!
I tend to think Moscow would have fallen...
-
I'm not sure ... it's all speculation anyways. :)
-
Originally posted by Angus
Right to the point! Good one!
I tend to think Moscow would have fallen...
will it have changed anything ?
-
Oh, yes.
A lot?
-
The Russians lost Moscow before and the enemy wasn't able to capitalize on it. Why would it be different in WW2?
-
With an enemy with even more numbers than the Russians? And reasonably good logistics? A hell of a difference. Not just catching Moscow, but holding it.
BTW, Viking, or some of you guys, do you have any idea how much troops the Germans had tied up in Europe (From Norway to the Balcans) in 1941, adding Africa afterwards as well + the Italians. Quite a force I think...
Now take all force out of Africa, half the force out of Europe, add all losses of Navy and LW from July 1940 onwards (W-Front+med) and then you are beginning to see the forces that would have been in Russia, - like 2 months earlier.
Now, with Japan getting oil from Burma, there could have been another front in the eastern parts of the USSR, since the Japs would not have had to look at the USA. So, there would have been no USSR reinforcements from the east. Moscow would have been firmly in German hands IMHO.
-
Angus you're overestimating the effect of the Afrika Korps.
The partisans across Europe would still require vast numbers of the German Army stationed away from the eastern front, and the Italians were hard pressed to even keep ground in africa. Germany didn't send troops to africa because it happened to have surplus soldiers. Take a look at the differences in size of the german troops in africa and the reserves the Red Army had around Stalingrad.
There's no contest.
-
Ok to make your what-if scenario work you need to set a few more parameters:
Why would Great Britain lose against Japan without war against Germany at the same time?
What happens to Italy and the UK? Without the Italian fleet a large portion of the Royal Navy isnt bound to the Med and could go to the pacific and given this would the Japanese Navy still attack Pearl and go for Singapore at the same time?
The war would've been a little bit different :)
-
Show me numbers.
The fall of just Tunisia yealded what, some 330.000 Axis POW's
That doesn't count those who escaped, and they did not go to the eastern front.
The occupation of Europe from the Arctic down to the med took many times the troops with the British so near.
And I'm not really talking of 1943, but 1940-1941. +
USSR with an open fron on the eastern side, as well as perhaps a 50% stronger Axis force on the western side = bad bad.
Also, look at the speed of the Germans in particular. They were at the gates of Moscow in mere months, even beginning so late. It took the Russians a couple of years to get that slab back!
And look at how close things went, in places like Stalingrad. The Axis ALMOST had it. Well, I tend to think that even in that 1943 particular scenario, some extra 1000 fighters and attackers, hundreds of transports, hundreds of tanks and artillery pieces, a supply line from the south and some 350.000 troops might have made a difference....And that's just by Anglo-American forces dumping N-Africa, say in September 1942....
Anyway, I'd rather try to limit the speculation to the possible force and tactics of the Axis in 1941. It's simpler.
-
Angus, I don't see where the Axis would get any additional major forces from. Barbarossa was already an all-out attack on the Soviets.
The number of Axis troops captured after Torch is a lot larger than the number of troops in africa in 1941. You get maybe two german divisions (the 5th Light and 15th Panzer) and thats it.
Except Italy, the other axis powers already had all their troops on the eastern front.
The CSIR had ~200,000 men on the eastern front and by and large the Italians (being totally unprepared for the war) had no men to spare in africa, being bogged down in Somalia and Ethopia, not even counting British resistence.
The rest was already there.
Two divisions on the eastern front are getting you nowhere.
-
"The Furher offers guarantees!"
"History has shown that Herr Hitler's gaurantees guarantee NOTHING."
"Be reasonable, we can walk into Britain anytime we like."
"Well what's stopping you? We know how difficult it is to get an army across the channel. The last little corporal who tried it came up a cropper! So don't try and dictate to us unless you are marching up Whitehall...and even then we won't listen."
The British would never had agreed to that Angus.
:)
-
i am not sure about this, it is just a random thought, but it was my understanding that throughout history very few nations have been 'ganged up on' and anihilated completly.
so that being true (or not) it is unlikely that the russians would have been whiped out completely, and equaly unlikely that so many other nations would have entered the war. It would have been Axis vs Western Europe+Russia with little involvement from the Orient, imo.
another thing we should maybe consider:
If the combined Allies had not joined in the war so early, what was to stop the Axis steam rolling over Europe?
i think without UK+US involvement the Nazi war machine would have engulfed the whole of France very quickly, then later moved on and taken most of Europe and alot of Africa.
Now if the Axis had such an easy war as this with such rich rewards, who is to say they would have even bothered with Russia?
i rekon they would have defended the eastern borders and ploughed through western europe creating a huge and unstopable power base from which to, years later, start WW3. This 3rd war would have been much the same as the 2nd one that actualy happened, the world fighting against a dark lord for the good of freedom, only now the Nazis have 5 times the land, 5 times the economy and a heck of alot more options when it came to invading the world. If that was the case, the Nazis would have had more luck invading America than fighting the Russians. The Japanese wouldnt have even bothered with Pearl Harbour in the 40s because they would have been fighting America alone and stood no chance.
-
Originally posted by leitwolf
Angus, I don't see where the Axis would get any additional major forces from. Barbarossa was already an all-out attack on the Soviets.
The number of Axis troops captured after Torch is a lot larger than the number of troops in africa in 1941. You get maybe two german divisions (the 5th Light and 15th Panzer) and thats it.
Except Italy, the other axis powers already had all their troops on the eastern front.
The CSIR had ~200,000 men on the eastern front and by and large the Italians (being totally unprepared for the war) had no men to spare in africa, being bogged down in Somalia and Ethopia, not even counting British resistence.
The rest was already there.
Two divisions on the eastern front are getting you nowhere.
You forget the troops tied up all over Europe, the losses combined, the LW, and the Navy, as well as the growing artillery on the continent of Europe.
I am trying to find out the total musterable strength on the Axis in 1941, had the UK decided to pull out in 1940, and the effect there.
Here are some grains on the scale, already having impact in 1941....
(For the Axis)
- Open acess through the med and into the Black sea.
- Much more Naval power for that source. No naval ops to speak off in the N-Atlantic, resulting in a practical naval embargo of the USSR, both north and at the black sea, as well as a Black-Sea front. Maybe doesn't weight too much though, except at the Black sea.
- Italian navy as well as transport available. (Much more powerful navy than anything from the USSR)
- Italian airforce available. (not to be underestimated)
- Open business with the USA.
- No BoB or W-front LW losses for a year. That makes some 2000 aircraft and some good cream of the best pilots. if not more.
- Minimal troops in the occupied countries.
- No mediterranian frontier
- No Med. losses, such as Crete and N-Africa
- Minimal troops necessary in the Italian (and German) colonies in Africa.
- More USSR forces tied up in the east (These were rerouted for the rescue of Moscow)
For the USSR:
No benefit.
I think this list makes more than 2 divisions. . .
Anyway, of course this didn't happen, the Brits were after all pretty much set in their minds, especially under Churchill. So I'm just pondering, WHAT IF IT HAD HAPPENED. And it was both a tempting thought to some pacifists, some UK politicians, as well as the fact is that the USSR was after all supporting the Nazis in the war on the European continent with raw materials for their war machine.....
-
Originally posted by Curval
"The Furher offers guarantees!"
"History has shown that Herr Hitler's gaurantees guarantee NOTHING."
"Be reasonable, we can walk into Britain anytime we like."
"Well what's stopping you? We know how difficult it is to get an army across the channel. The last little corporal who tried it came up a cropper! So don't try and dictate to us unless you are marching up Whitehall...and even then we won't listen."
The British would never had agreed to that Angus.
:)
I know, but what IF?
This is a strategical and economical speculation who might prove healthy to those that think that USSR won WW2 on their own, easy-go. :D
-
Great topic,what if Jesus wasnt born?
-
No BoB or W-front LW losses for a year. That makes some 2000 aircraft and some good cream of the best pilots. if not more.
The Luftwaffe deployed only 2,700 or so aircraft against Russia, out of the 4,800 or so they had available at the time. They had lost 3,000+ between the fall of France and the start of Barbarossa.
If you combine those figures, the Germans could have had up to 8,000 aircraft by the time of the attack on Russia, and easily deployed 7,000. Instead they had less than 3,000 available to fight the Soviets.
-
One of the reasons the Axis advanced so quickly in the early stages of Barbarossa was that they caught the Soviets on the hop. Stalin was convinced that Hitler would not attack while Britain was still a threat to the south and west of Europe. Indeed, after their experience in WW1, many in the German high command were very nervous about starting a two front war, with good reason as it eventually turned out.
So Stalin, despite numerous intelligence sources indicating the Nazis were about to attack, refused permission for the Soviet armed forces to go to a state of readiness. He was worried Hitler might see the preperations and assume he was about to attack. Having purged the officer corps recently, he was desperate to avoid a war until the army could reorganise itself.
The result of this was that when Barbarossa was launched most of the USSR's frontline army was still in its barracks and was quickly routed. Most of the VVS's front line aircraft were destroyed on their airfields. The few Soviet commanders who ignored Stalin and prepared their troops did a lot better than those who did not.
Now if Britain had surrendered, Stalin would have surely realised he was next on Hitler's shopping list. Mein Kampf wasn't exactly a secret after all. He would have stopped supplying Nazi industry with raw materials for a start. Any Wehrmacht and LW build up in Poland would have been matched by a Soviet one.
So I don't think Barbarossa would have had quite the success it had in RL in the initial few weeks, even with the extra resources the Axis forces would have had at their disposal. Soviet armed forces at a state of readiness would have been harder to overrun than they were in RL.
In the longer term, the Soviets might have struggled more without British and US aid and useful distractions like the Sicily, Italy and Normandy invasions. German industry wouldn't have been bombed day and night. The RN and USN wouldn't have been attacking Axis shipping either.
-
are you guys forgetting the japs? I don't think that they would be too happy with a policy of leave America alone. What would the new axis do when japan attacked America?
lazs
-
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
Now if the Axis had such an easy war as this with such rich rewards, who is to say they would have even bothered with Russia?
Hitler was dead set on invading Russia!
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
The Luftwaffe deployed only 2,700 or so aircraft against Russia, out of the 4,800 or so they had available at the time. They had lost 3,000+ between the fall of France and the start of Barbarossa.
If you combine those figures, the Germans could have had up to 8,000 aircraft by the time of the attack on Russia, and easily deployed 7,000. Instead they had less than 3,000 available to fight the Soviets.
Russians had 18,700 aircraft available and 23,106 tanks in june 22 1941.If Stalin made preporations i dont think Brits as German allies would make much difference.
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
Hitler was dead set on invading Russia!
true, but was this only as a byproduct of the resistance europe showed?
without resistance in europe stopping him taking a huge ammount of land why would hitler have bothered with russia?
it is impossible to determine what would have happened, i just think that with an easy dominance in europe the nazis would have not been that interested in a frozen land mass that stretched from their eastern borders half way round the world.
just my thoughts tho, not worth anything much.
-
The Japanese were after the Dutch oilfields in the South Pacific and they needed to take out Singapore to get it. With no war in Europe, Britain could have had a substantialy bigger naval and air presence there. I reckon the Japanese would have been very wary of taking on the combined Commonwealth and US armed forces in the Pacific without a war in Europe to distract the British. One option for them would have been to hit Singapore with all they've got and hope the US stay out of it.
-
This is as far as they ever got.Still a lONG way to go.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v676/N22/ussr19501.gif)
-
So.. you think that germany would have dissolved ties with japan in order to keep from fighting england and America?
lazs
-
since Japan and USA/UK were not definitely going to be at war in this scenario, i do not see a need for them to dissolve ties with the japanese, it would have been more likely to create new ties with USA/UK rather than deconstruct older alliances.
it is historical 'fact' by many sources that should the Nazis have been in power 100 years earlier the brits would have been fighting on their team
-
Nazis would have worn themselves down to the nub sooner or later. The Russian citizenry, namely their partisans, played a major role in the victory, and would have continued to do so.
You say 'mopping up' like it's an afterthought. If modern history has shown us anything, ending a committed partisan presence is anything but easy.
-
I was thinking about the Japan angle too. One of the reasons for Japan's attach on Pearl Harbor was a preemptive strike because they wanted to expand in the Pacific for more resources. Hitler might have presuaded the Japanese to hold off on expanding east to the pacific and could have suggested they attacked Russia instead.
-
out of all the allies in WW2 i think the Russians were the most determined and the best at fighting.
Even more than the Americans, the Russians were then, and always will be, an extremely hard nation to go to war with and win.
Hitler knew this and would have been a fool to attack Russia if he had no resistance to the south, north and west.
-
soo.. japan attacks America and then America declares war on japan.
And then what happens?
lazs
-
why would japan bother? their involvement was purely on the grounds that 'everyone else is at war we might as well try and cash in too'.
-
Hmm? I thought that they "expand or die"? they had no natural resources.. the US was helping china. we would never allow them to become rulers of the asian world. we would not have done anything differently and neither would they.
I think the euros here are very myopic on the war... for us.. it was a two front war.. it was inevitable and it was just.
It just seems that the euros here tend to marginalize the whole pacific war. Simply because we took the load. we shouldered the burden.. the english were driven from the pacific with little or no effort by the japs. I believe that the brits would have had every bit as much trouble... more.. than we had if they had tried to take on the japs.
because of us.. they didn't have to.
Is there no mention of the pacific war in your-0-peeean history books on WWII?
lazs
-
The success of Germany against the soviets rested solely with the cutting of the Murmansk Run. Regardless of what happened to Britain, had it been cut, the soviets probably would have fallen.
-
actualy lazs, when i was in school (this was rare) we were told that the brits won the BoB and the Americans won WW2. not too different to what your books say, i'd wager.
on the other hand we spent 2 years learning about hitler and germany's politics, and about 2 lessons learning about the rest of the war.
most of the euro historians are far more interested in the mind and politics of a fascist dictator than 'who won the war' where as americans only seem to care about who kicked the crap out of who.
-
..and what is interesting is that the US vets who fought the war appear to be alot less concerned about getting pats on their backs for "saving Europe or the world" than Americans who weren't even born when they did so.
-
great point right there.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
are you guys forgetting the japs? I don't think that they would be too happy with a policy of leave America alone. What would the new axis do when japan attacked America?
Soviet counter-attack near Moscow started on December 5th. I doubt the information on the scale of counter-attack was understood before mid-December.
Japanese thought that USSR is already done with, so they decided to attack the US.
One week - and Japanese call off Kido Butai, no Pearl-Harbor attack, now this is a "what if"...
-
The Japs were after resources that they needed badly. The "embargo" that the USA had on them meant a choice between war or some submission, - which doesn't exactly suit a Samurai.
With the UK out, at peace with Axis, Japan would have had it's trade and resources within the British resources. Burma. Malasya. British parts of China.
The USA could not muster a power to stop that, and the only foe of Japan apart from China would be...USSR. Time for revenge after the 1937 (or was it 1938) disaster.
And Lazs, you didn't take the load. IMHO the Russians did, and as a relative thing, the British.
The British took the heading course in the summer of 1940. So this is just a speculation what would have happened if they hadn't.
Now, back to Barabarossa.
Someone said that the USSR would have been prepared much better had Britain been out. While the USSR would then only have to worry about Germany, they only had to worry about Germany! In my "scenario" They would also have to worry about Japan! On a funny side, the USA was USSR's big Ally in the far east by keeping Japan tied up on their resources, and eventually getting into a state of war.
Germany would have been much faster as well as much stronger (as Nash has pointed out regarding the LW, although I only guessed at losses from&with BoB + the med + the western fron untill spring 1941, - carefully!!). You see, lingering on with some plans of invading Britain in 1940, and testing the UK resolve took quite some time. Instead of turning to the USSR maps in July 1940, Hitler firstly did so in December. So I'd rather discard the theory of the USSR being prepped because of UK stepping out, - I'd put the scale on trouble brewing up in the east as well as Hitler being much faster and much stronger.
Then on to the airforces. The numbers didn't tell much. The USSR had numbers, but lacked quality, training, experience and tactics.
The LW had those, but needed more numbers. Yet, with what they had, they really gave the red airforce a bloody nose. Even in 1943 or 1944 the huge red airforce never even closed in on the LW's losses in the med and the W-front. So, I have little doubt who would have been the ABSOLUTE king of the air with thousands of extra aircraft and expert crew over Russia, - if not just in 1941, then in a prolonged war.
-
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
true, but was this only as a byproduct of the resistance europe showed?
without resistance in europe stopping him taking a huge ammount of land why would hitler have bothered with russia?
it is impossible to determine what would have happened, i just think that with an easy dominance in europe the nazis would have not been that interested in a frozen land mass that stretched from their eastern borders half way round the world.
just my thoughts tho, not worth anything much.
Europe showed almost no resistance at all.
Stalin's mistake was expecting France and UK to get nazis sucked into a positional war like WWI. In fact "allies" implemented Stalin's plan: interfering at the point when both sides are exhausted enough to make them easy targets.
On June 22nd Soviet leadership was scared to death expecting Royal Navy operating in the Baltic Sea together with nazis against USSR. In June Baltic Fleet made desperate attempts of laying mines in Baltic Straights...
-
Boroda:
"On June 22nd Soviet leadership was scared to death expecting Royal Navy operating in the Baltic Sea together with nazis against USSR. In June Baltic Fleet made desperate attempts of laying mines in Baltic Straights..."
In 1941??????????????????????????????????????????????
LOL, I guess they had too little sense of realism, for the British were locked in a fierce war with the Axis at sea, in the air, as well as in the Med (land sea and air).
It expresses the fear of a Black Sea opening though, so Boroda, I guess you would know the area much better than many of us others, - A Black Sea Scenario with both the Kriegsmarine and the Italian navy would be quite bad as well.....
There was a plug in the bottle, - the Royal Navy.
-
thanks boroda, good infomation.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Boroda:
"On June 22nd Soviet leadership was scared to death expecting Royal Navy operating in the Baltic Sea together with nazis against USSR. In June Baltic Fleet made desperate attempts of laying mines in Baltic Straights..."
In 1941??????????????????????????????????????????????
LOL, I guess they had too little sense of realism, for the British were locked in a fierce war with the Axis at sea, in the air, as well as in the Med (land sea and air).
After Hess flying to UK Stalin was almost sure that UK and Germany are negotiating on alliance against USSR. There were many other reasons to think so. And at the same time British were sure that Stalin is going to join Hitler in a war against UK... Allies even planned aerial bombing of Baku oil fields.
You "What-if" scenario is too comlpicated, I mean - too many factors to keep in mind.
Is UK neutral? If so - then both US and UK trade with USSR, so USSR gets as much goods as in our reality, it's all payed with gold. Arctic convoys are complicated, but OTOH routes through Iran and Far East remain intact If Japan doesn't start a war on USSR or US - Far East becomes the most important supply line, I doubt Germans could be able to use raiders to stop it.
If UK becomes a nazi ally - then Baltics is controlled 110%, Soviet Baltic Fleet gets destroyed, Tallin and Libava fall in a matter of days since June 22nd, Leningrad has some time until "allies" sweep mines - and then it's doomed. Without forts on Northern side of Finnish Gulf it's only a matter of time.
Black sea will be probably as you described it, but anyway I doubt Germans/Italians will be able to perform an amphibious operation. Chechen oil fields get destroyed, and "axis" has a very small chance to break through to Baku.
Then we come to more "what ifs". What if Turkey takes Red side? What if Japans does so too? (that's unlikely because is this case USSR will supply it with raw materials they need badly and USSR doesn't get any American equipment).
And it is only if we assume that nazis attack USSR on June 22nd 1941. If they delay an attack - USSR has time to re-arm and prepare, if they attack earlier - they don't have enough power themselves. Too many "if"s.
Like USSR buys 3 more giant automobile factories from Ford and GM, like GAZ, and there is no need for American truck supplies. Or before 1942 USSR already evacuates industry from Western part to Urals and they start working full power like 6 months earlier then in our reality, so the gap in production is 6 months shorter...
Combining several dozens different "ifs" you can write uncounted number of "alternative history" fiction.
Most popular one here, "Variant Bis" by Sergey Anisimov: USSR doesn't screw 1941 so bad, there is no Stalingrad, Leningrad gets "coventrized" instead of a siege, in 1944 "allies" see Soviet Army plunging through Southern coast of Baltic sea, up to liberating Denmark, and join remaining German troops to attack Red side. Baltic Fleet task force, including battleship Sovetskiy Soyuz, battlecruiser Krondshtadt and light CV Chapayev breaks through into the Atlantic, seriously disrupts "allied" supply lines and barely escapes to Murmansk. VVS has really hard time fighting strategic bombers, ground armies make series of desperate counter-attacks, but when "allies" have to really fight instead of disintegrated German troops - the peace is signed. The resulting border-line is the same as in our reality, so it's just more blood for the same result... Good book, it's a shame it will never be translated...
-
so Boroda are you saying that WW2 could be fought in many different 'what ifs' but no matter what happens 1939-45 in any version, the end result will be the same?
this does make sense.
so, maybe the way it really did happen in our reality was the best way possible ? (for the winners) Also that the other reality of fictions that we make here would be more costly in human life for the same result.
how do you think the world would look today if for instance:
UK - signed alliance with Nazis
USA - neutral, not in the war
Russia - fighting for themself and for the small northern european countries
Axis - Fighting for western european, med sea, african and russian land
Japan - neutral, not in the war
would the map today look different??
-
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
so Boroda are you saying that WW2 could be fought in many different 'what ifs' but no matter what happens 1939-45 in any version, the end result will be the same?
Leaving the rest for the later answer maybe...
I seriously believe that what we got is the most probable result. Nazism simply can't survive, such regimes sooner or later "detonate" as Khazars that I mentioned in another thread. It's a "negative" ideology, while Communism is "positive".
US position was sounded by sen. Harry Truman in 1940: US wanted to join the loosing side to exhaust both opponents. And if we look at the map we'll see that there could be only one winner: the US.
Also I have to say that I see a scenario when USSR goes all the way to the Atlantic as worse then what we got here.
-
Originally posted by Greebo
One of the reasons the Axis advanced so quickly in the early stages of Barbarossa was that they caught the Soviets on the hop. Stalin was convinced that Hitler would not attack while Britain was still a threat to the south and west of Europe. Indeed, after their experience in WW1, many in the German high command were very nervous about starting a two front war, with good reason as it eventually turned out.
So Stalin, despite numerous intelligence sources indicating the Nazis were about to attack, refused permission for the Soviet armed forces to go to a state of readiness. He was worried Hitler might see the preperations and assume he was about to attack. Having purged the officer corps recently, he was desperate to avoid a war until the army could reorganise itself.
The result of this was that when Barbarossa was launched most of the USSR's frontline army was still in its barracks and was quickly routed. Most of the VVS's front line aircraft were destroyed on their airfields. The few Soviet commanders who ignored Stalin and prepared their troops did a lot better than those who did not.
Now if Britain had surrendered, Stalin would have surely realised he was next on Hitler's shopping list. Mein Kampf wasn't exactly a secret after all. He would have stopped supplying Nazi industry with raw materials for a start. Any Wehrmacht and LW build up in Poland would have been matched by a Soviet one.
So I don't think Barbarossa would have had quite the success it had in RL in the initial few weeks, even with the extra resources the Axis forces would have had at their disposal. Soviet armed forces at a state of readiness would have been harder to overrun than they were in RL.
In the longer term, the Soviets might have struggled more without British and US aid and useful distractions like the Sicily, Italy and Normandy invasions. German industry wouldn't have been bombed day and night. The RN and USN wouldn't have been attacking Axis shipping either.
Don't forget the Molotove-Ribbintrop Pact and the de-facto alliance of 1939 would have still been in effect! Stalin was reluctant to provoke Hitler more out of fear after seeing how rapidly the Whermact ran over the rest of Europe. I don't see this changing in this "what if" scenario.
Also the Italian bungle in the balkens caused the OKW to move Barbarossa back a full month... factoring in the forces gained by not having to defend the West and having the invasion of the Soviet Union kick off as originally planned would have been the end of the USSR west of the Urals. Additionally since the UK would not be at war with Nazi Germany or allied with the USSR the supply of lend lease military equipment from the US would probably not have happened.
A good "what if" book on this subject is titled "Fatherland" I forget the author. It was made into a Rutgar Howard [sp sorry] film of the same title.
-
Boroda, it is great for me to hear your opinion, this forum is overpopulated with americans (no offence guys) and therefore the majority of posts here do neglect the russian or european side of the story.
you do not have to answer the 'what if' i wrote, just only if you are bored and have spare time (:
thank you, i am learning good stuff here.
-
angus... sorry I am not seeing much british involvement with the pacific war other than a string of really bad defeats. I see no involvement to speak of in the island hopping that eventually brought the japs down.
As batfink pointed out.. the pacific war wasn't even really taught.
I don't think that the japs could have been defeated without the massive effort that the US put out. I don't know of any other country that was capable of doing that and fighting russia at the same time... or any group of countries.
lazs
-
The law of unintended consequences makes sure that any such "what if" scenario quickly becomes far too complicated, if the time frame is pushed more than a few months from where the scenario breaks with history.
As I mentioned earlier the Battle of Moscow is probably the most important battle of the whole war and generated a million Soviet casualties and about half that many German; and it is the only point in time where Germany could have won the war. If Germany still fails to capture Moscow they would most likely still lose the war, even without British and American (direct) involvement. However if they succeed in capturing Moscow the USSR would have been doomed.
Stalin felt that if he left Moscow in the "11th hour" the defense would collapse and the city would fall to the Germans. This is probably a correct assumption on his part; however by staying he made the Battle of Moscow a "do or die" moment for the entire USSR. If the city had fallen then so would the Soviet leadership and any semblance of organized nationhood and resistance. The USSR was a strict authoritarian regime that could not and would not function without the head of state and core body politic of the communist party.
Despite Mr. KgB's pretty map of the (truly) vast Soviet landmass, the fact of the matter is that beyond the Urals there is very little industrialized civilization and even today less than 20% of the population lives beyond European Russia (which ends at the Urals).
(http://bd.english.fom.ru/image/graphics/geo02092713.gif)
With Moscow lost, and Stalin with it, Russia would slowly, but surely fall to the Germans/Axis. There would be resistance of course, but nothing so organized and industrialized as to stop the German war machine.
At least that's my take on this "what if". :)
-
and that shows that Stalin was a leader of unquestionable quality. i grew up in the 80s and popular history at that time hailed stalin a cruel and evil tyrant, not fact but entrails still rotting around my nation from the cold war.
If what your post says is accurate viking, Stalin was a leader more wise and all powerfull than any of the paultry super powers of todays world.
sure, today i dont have to fight and die along with one million of my country men in a single battle to end all battles, sure I'm free to do, say and live roughly as i choose in an 'equal' and relatively safe society with good selections of 'jobs'.......but my prime minister is a raving queen compared to Stalin....I'm actualy serious and thats one reason why life in my 'free' and 'equal' country makes me bored to tears and pray for humanity.
The fight for moscow and the impending fate of your entire empire with your galant leader on the battle field to the end, sounds like something worth dying for to me.
fighting some pissed off muslims isnt quite the same.
edit: and i was thinking, hitler was pretty much more of a militant expansionist than julius ceaser, the world had seen it before. thats why it went the way it did go for the most part. the what if's could focus more on what germany would have done without key nations opposing it, the ball was in their court for the most part of the early war, what they did, or could have done is the most questionable variable besides who took part or not.
in my view, it didnt matter which nations joined the war. The nazis did the same as the romans. they blitz through europe raking the profits and expanding futher and further untill running perfectly at capacity for thier forces. problem with being the single lord of europe is that other europeans over the centuarys have usualy been pretty keen to have a crack at you after a while. Hitler spread himself out in such a calculated gamble with high odds in his favour and rich reward, he simply lost and cumbled just like the romans. the only change is that the romans took a few hundred years to do what hilter almost did in three years or there abouts.
you see theres a funny thing about europe, we just aint all the same, and over many years of kicking crap out of eachother in every way possible we have to accept dont mind the french smelling of garlic and trying it on with our women or the germans making bad porn, we have come to the fact that we are never going to have one lord to govern europe because it would be seriously boring.
above all things this is where America has held the most perfect grade card in world standings. a huge empire that rivals europe easily in size all governed by one master, and happy with it, with relatively few civil wars to worry about. and to keep it from the boredom i mention you have different states the size of our countries so you can all be different and ok with it.
you guys have created your country from the ground up and it has grown to epic proportions.
we ask 'what ifs' about hitler and its all fun and games to let the mind wander.
maybe we should even be considering what will the great GWB do next?
-
Originally posted by KgB
Russians had 18,700 aircraft available and 23,106 tanks in june 22 1941.If Stalin made preporations i dont think Brits as German allies would make much difference.
Your numbers hide the unfortunate fact that not until the advent of the T-34 did the Red Army posess a tank that could stand up to the German panzers. In the air the quality gap was even greater. The Red air force was horribly ill equipped to take on the Luftwaffe; a hundred biplanes against ten Bf 109's is still a victory for the 109's. Even the most modern Soviet fighters at the time, available in preciously small numbers, were markedly inferior to their German counterparts. And if we bring training and command & control into the equation ... the Red air force might still have lost if all their planes were Spitfires.
-
Originally posted by Viking
The law of unintended consequences makes sure that any such "what if" scenario quickly becomes far too complicated, if the time frame is pushed more than a few months from where the scenario breaks with history.
As I mentioned earlier the Battle of Moscow is probably the most important battle of the whole war and generated a million Soviet casualties and about half that many German; and it is the only point in time where Germany could have won the war. If Germany still fails to capture Moscow they would most likely still lose the war, even without British and American (direct) involvement. However if they succeed in capturing Moscow the USSR would have been doomed.
Stalin felt that if he left Moscow in the "11th hour" the defense would collapse and the city would fall to the Germans. This is probably a correct assumption on his part; however by staying he made the Battle of Moscow a "do or die" moment for the entire USSR. If the city had fallen then so would the Soviet leadership and any semblance of organized nationhood and resistance. The USSR was a strict authoritarian regime that could not and would not function without the head of state and core body politic of the communist party.
Despite Mr. KgB's pretty map of the (truly) vast Soviet landmass, the fact of the matter is that beyond the Urals there is very little industrialized civilization and even today less than 20% of the population lives beyond European Russia (which ends at the Urals).
With Moscow lost, and Stalin with it, Russia would slowly, but surely fall to the Germans/Axis. There would be resistance of course, but nothing so organized and industrialized as to stop the German war machine.
At least that's my take on this "what if". :)
Moscow was lost before, it was burned to the grown before given up to Napoleon.By capturing Moscow they would achieve nothing.
And as we all know at the beginning of the war factories were moved to Ural.
If it weren't industrialized or populated in 1941 it became in 1942.Within 10 months Russians matched Germans in production.
-
Hehe, Boroda:
"After Hess flying to UK Stalin was almost sure that UK and Germany are negotiating on alliance against USSR. There were many other reasons to think so. And at the same time British were sure that Stalin is going to join Hitler in a war against UK... Allies even planned aerial bombing of Baku oil fields.
You "What-if" scenario is too comlpicated, I mean - too many factors to keep in mind.
"
Well, for simple minds, I tend to stick to UK stepping out in 1940, giving Hiler free hands from July to work on the USSR project, which he always had in mind, while a conquest of the UK was NOT in his mind. :D
"Is UK neutral? If so - then both US and UK trade with USSR, so USSR gets as much goods as in our reality,"
Would they? There would have been no "aid" I'm afraid, as well as the USSR not having much favour with either the USA or the USA. Anyway, you have often and promptly declared even the aid of the western allies through products, i.e. via the Murmansk route as "minimal".
"If UK becomes a nazi ally - then Baltics is controlled 110%, Soviet Baltic Fleet gets destroyed, Tallin and Libava fall in a matter of days since June 22nd, Leningrad has some time until "allies" sweep mines - and then it's doomed. Without forts on Northern side of Finnish Gulf it's only a matter of time."
Apart from using the word "allies" I agree with this one. The Gerries would have owned the Baltic. Remember, I look at the UK as a neutral. Just lifting their Navy power off, as well as closing their eyes.
"Black sea will be probably as you described it, but anyway I doubt Germans/Italians will be able to perform an amphibious operation. Chechen oil fields get destroyed, and "axis" has a very small chance to break through to Baku. "
Are you sure? For their attack would have been an equal to other fronts, carefully selected, and with enormous support.
The western Allies got themselves a foothold in Normandy, on a much smaller area, prepped for an assault with the aid of millions of labourers through years.l.....The black sea coasts and the crimean noodleula had no comparible defences....
"Then we come to more "what ifs". What if Turkey takes Red side? What if Japans does so too? (that's unlikely because is this case USSR will supply it with raw materials they need badly and USSR doesn't get any American equipment)."
Turkey kept a dead side, with both the British and the Germans negotiating.....
"And it is only if we assume that nazis attack USSR on June 22nd 1941. If they delay an attack - USSR has time to re-arm and prepare, if they attack earlier - they don't have enough power themselves. Too many "if"s."
How about 22nd of APRIL 1941 with very much more strength. Basically, with the UK out of the books in July 1940, the Axis could have spent 5 more months on preparations with a very much simpler equation and much less losses on various projects.
"Like USSR buys 3 more giant automobile factories from Ford and GM, like GAZ, and there is no need for American truck supplies. Or before 1942 USSR already evacuates industry from Western part to Urals and they start working full power like 6 months earlier then in our reality, so the gap in production is 6 months shorter..."
American production and supplies as well as transport units proved useful very muchlater in the war, since the USSR wasn't yet up to the job.
"Combining several dozens different "ifs" you can write uncounted number of "alternative history" fiction."
Try reading "Fatherland" by Robert Harris. Quite nice "alternative history fiction" ;)
"Most popular one here, "Variant Bis" by Sergey Anisimov: USSR doesn't screw 1941 so bad, there is no Stalingrad, Leningrad gets "coventrized" instead of a siege, in 1944 "allies" see Soviet Army plunging through Southern coast of Baltic sea, up to liberating Denmark, and join remaining German troops to attack Red side. Baltic Fleet task force, including battleship Sovetskiy Soyuz, battlecruiser Krondshtadt and light CV Chapayev breaks through into the Atlantic, seriously disrupts "allied" supply lines and barely escapes to Murmansk. VVS has really hard time fighting strategic bombers, ground armies make series of desperate counter-attacks, but when "allies" have to really fight instead of disintegrated German troops - the peace is signed. The resulting border-line is the same as in our reality, so it's just more blood for the same result... Good book, it's a shame it will never be translated.."
Does it also have martians in it? I love the Navy part already.
"Japanese thought that USSR is already done with, so they decided to attack the US. "
I merrily agree with you there Boroda. On the flip side, had the UK been selling Oil to Japan, I think they would have had a go at the USSR. After all, they needed raw materials, and hated (as well as feared) the USSR.
Lazs:
"angus... sorry I am not seeing much british involvement with the pacific war other than a string of really bad defeats. I see no involvement to speak of in the island hopping that eventually brought the japs down. "
You're right on there IMHO. It was as described and published in a book, "Bloody Shambles".
However, the Japs had ongoing trouble and skirmishes with the British after their crushing victories. Burma, Borneo, etc. And in the late Pacific war, the Brits were ready to make a bad Japanese day.
"I don't think that the japs could have been defeated without the massive effort that the US put out. I don't know of any other country that was capable of doing that and fighting russia at the same time... or any group of countries."
Not sure what you're exactly meaning there, except emphazising the Japanese toughness. If so, I agree with you.
Had the Japs focused on the USSR (their enemy from BEFORE Pearl Harbour), the USSR would have had a crapload of "new" trouble. A tough, mobile, supported, navalized, airborne, and INSANE force!!!
(I take my hats off for the USA leathernecks after learning about hell-holes like Tarawa, Iwo, Okinawa...)
And Viking....
"As I mentioned earlier the Battle of Moscow is probably the most important battle of the whole war and generated a million Soviet casualties and about half that many German; and it is the only point in time where Germany could have won the war. If Germany still fails to capture Moscow they would most likely still lose the war, even without British and American (direct) involvement. However if they succeed in capturing Moscow the USSR would have been doomed."
I think you are right. I only disagree with " If Germany still fails to capture Moscow they would most likely still lose the war, even without British and American (direct) involvement"....that.
For there were 3 major points in the eastern war, all lost to the Axis by rather a margin. Moscow, Stalingrad, and Kursk. The turnpoint being normally named STALINGRAD. I think that with the western allies and the following attrition from their behalf replaced with an eastern foe as well as trade supply and transport would easily have overweighted those margins.
Maybe just me....
-
This debate seems to have become a matter of national pride for you KgB; this is perhaps understandable considering the topic. :)
In any event I shall not debate the issue further. It serves no purpose except flaring up nationalistic feelings and old hatreds.
-
Originally posted by KgB
Moscow was lost before, it was burned to the grown before given up to Napoleon.By capturing Moscow they would achieve nothing.
And as we all know at the beginning of the war factories were moved to Ural.
If it weren't industrialized or populated in 1941 it became in 1942.Within 10 months Russians matched Germans in production.
My point is that the USSR wouldn't have had that time. And even, 2 years later they relied heavily on western support. After all, the German army fought very effectively, always and in any field inflicting more losses than it received.
And I haven't even started dumping out interesting numbers yet......
-
holy crap did you guys write all that while i was editing one post?
man i need some munchies.
-
Originally posted by Viking
This debate seems to have become a matter of national pride for you KgB; this is perhaps understandable considering the topic. :)
In any event I shall not debate the issue further. It serves no purpose except flaring up nationalistic feelings and old hatreds.
I'm not even Russian my friend,i actually ran from Russia due to conflict in Chechnya.Thers still quiet a large group of morons that will never know the difference between Armenians,Georgians,Turks,Chechens.....
Pride?I don't think so.It's respect,after all my grandfather fought for me.
-
Originally posted by Angus
I think you are right. I only disagree with " If Germany still fails to capture Moscow they would most likely still lose the war, even without British and American (direct) involvement"....that.
For there were 3 major points in the eastern war, all lost to the Axis by rather a margin. Moscow, Stalingrad, and Kursk. The turnpoint being normally named STALINGRAD. I think that with the western allies and the following attrition from their behalf replaced with an eastern foe as well as trade supply and transport would easily have overweighted those margins.
Maybe just me....
I don't think so Angus. I don't think it was possible for the Germans to win the Battle of Stalingrad; in essence it wasn't a battle, but a trap set by Zhukov to destroy the German sixth army. With the forces available to him Zhukov could have held the city indefinably, but what he did was to just commit enough forces to the battle to keep the Germans interested ... and bleed them dry. All the while Zhukov was massing his tank armies just beyond Stalingrad to make a decisive blow once the sixth army was reduced to combat ineffectiveness.
-
Originally posted by KgB
I'm not even Russian my friend,i actually ran from Russia due to conflict in Chechnya.Thers still quiet a large group of morons that will never know the difference between Armenians,Georgians,Turks,Chechens.....
Pride?I don't think so.It's respect,after all my grandfather fought for me.
Never said you were Russian ... However, in 1941 all the people you mention were part of the same ... nation ... as in national pride. Back then Russia wasn't a nation, the Soviet Union was, and if I'm reading you correctly your grandfather was a Soviet citizen and fought in the GPW?
-
Originally posted by Viking
Never said you were Russian ... However, in 1941 all the people you mention were part of the same ... nation ... as in national pride. Back then Russia wasn't a nation, the Soviet Union was, and if I'm reading you correctly your grandfather was a Soviet citizen and fought in the GPW?
Yes,IL2 pilot. 42'nd attacker air division(42øaï),i think,id have to look in the papers.Yeah,you right.Honestly i dont see Russians loosing any war,lol.
But its just me.
-
Then this debate is perhaps a wee bit personal to you. ;)
to your grandfather.
-
Man, this seems like a cool thread. WHats it all about?
-
I think it was Angus that requested a list of German forces in other theaters.
http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=7288
-
Originally posted by Viking
Then this debate is perhaps a wee bit personal to you. ;)
to your grandfather.
Thank you,you right.Im out....doesnt mean that you should be.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Man, this seems like a cool thread. WHats it all about?
Geeks arguing "what if" 66 years after the fact? ;)
-
hey geek, i already moved to the future but you missed it with youre geeky (very good to read) lectures :)
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
above all things this is where America has held the most perfect grade card in world standings. a huge empire that rivals europe easily in size all governed by one master, and happy with it, with relatively few civil wars to worry about. and to keep it from the boredom i mention you have different states the size of our countries so you can all be different and ok with it.
you guys have created your country from the ground up and it has grown to epic proportions.
we ask 'what ifs' about hitler and its all fun and games to let the mind wander.
maybe we should even be considering what will the great GWB do next?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Hmm? I thought that they "expand or die"? they had no natural resources.. the US was helping china. we would never allow them to become rulers of the asian world. we would not have done anything differently and neither would they.
I think the euros here are very myopic on the war... for us.. it was a two front war.. it was inevitable and it was just.
It just seems that the euros here tend to marginalize the whole pacific war. Simply because we took the load. we shouldered the burden.. the english were driven from the pacific with little or no effort by the japs. I believe that the brits would have had every bit as much trouble... more.. than we had if they had tried to take on the japs.
because of us.. they didn't have to.
Is there no mention of the pacific war in your-0-peeean history books on WWII?
lazs
its pretty simple lazs. britain was too over stretched to defend its asia/ pacific interests from the japanese. and nobody was more alarmed about this situation than australia and new zealand who had been given assurances of british security while their forces were commited to the european war. With the paper tiger exposed, and under imminent threat from the japs, Australia pulled a division of its troops out of north africa to face the threat at home, and the aussies did significantly contribute to the defeat of the japanese. likewise, nz simply didn’t have the man power to fight in a european theatre and at the same time commit 100% to the defence of nz and the defeat of the Japanese. So like the aussies, and despite churchills arguments against it, the nz government decided to bring the nz division home from north Africa and pit them against the Japanese. and the fact that the 2nzef division stayed in the european theatre for the duration of the war was down to roosevelt’s influence rather than the more official reason that it would have been logistically difficult to transport the division such a long distance.
Letter from the United States Naval Attaché (Wellington) to the Prime Minister of New Zealand
8 December 1942
My Dear Mr. Prime Minister:
I have the honour to transmit the following radio message from the President of the United States of America:
I have been delighted to learn you are leaving the New Zealand Division in the Middle East for the present. This action on the part of your Government is a renewed evidence of our mutual military interests. I believe you have done the right thing. It is altogether generous. Roosevelt
but hey, in the end it all worked out for the good, can't complain about the result.
and angus, for comming up with such an unapealing and unlikely scenario you have obviously got too much time on your hands.. go milk some cows or something ;)
-
Snefens, TY for your list. Although I'm looking for the manpower tied upin the occupied countries, but maybe I can find it through this website.
And Viking. OK, we're at Stalingad....
Originally posted by Viking
I don't think so Angus. I don't think it was possible for the Germans to win the Battle of Stalingrad; in essence it wasn't a battle, but a trap set by Zhukov to destroy the German sixth army. With the forces available to him Zhukov could have held the city indefinably, but what he did was to just commit enough forces to the battle to keep the Germans interested ... and bleed them dry. All the while Zhukov was massing his tank armies just beyond Stalingrad to make a decisive blow once the sixth army was reduced to combat ineffectiveness.
Here is Wiki on the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_stalingrad
Little things like:
"Soviets relied extensively on "Workers militias" composed of workers not directly involved in war production. For a short time, tanks continued to be produced and then manned by volunteer crews of factory workers. They were driven directly from the factory floor to the front line, often without paint or even gunsights.
By the end of August, Army Group South (B) had finally reached the Volga, north of Stalingrad. Another advance to the river south of the city followed. By September 1, the Soviets could only reinforce and supply their forces in Stalingrad by perilous crossings of the Volga, under constant bombardment by German artillery and planes.
Amid the debris of the wrecked city, the Soviet 62nd and 64th Armies, which included the Soviet 13th Guards Rifle Division anchored their defense lines with strongpoints in houses and factories. Fighting was fierce and desperate. The life expectancy of a newly arrived Soviet private in the city dropped to less than 24 hours and the life expectancy of a Soviet officer was about 3 days"
"Fighting on Mamayev Kurgan, a prominent, blood-soaked hill above the city, was particularly merciless. The position changed hands many times.[6] During one Soviet counter-attack, the Russians lost an entire division of 10,000 men in one day"
"In November, after three months of carnage and slow and costly advance, the Germans finally reached the river banks, capturing 90% of the ruined city and splitting the remaining Soviet forces into two narrow pockets. In addition, ice-floes on the Volga now prevented boats and tugs from supplying the Soviet defenders across the river"
...Tell you that the Soviets narrowly escaped from competely loosing the city, which would have enabled the Axis to secure it from north and south before the Volga froze over. And here is the thing that was the Axis undoing at Stalingrad. They fought too long, and didn't guard their flanks. The Russians held the fighting in the city untill Zhukov could launch his tried and tested pincher attack over the Frozen river. Hitler concentrated on the city and refused reinforcements to the flanks. In the meantime, you have El-Alamein and operation Torch. Operation Torch goes around the same time as Zhukov's pincher is closing. Axis rely on an airbridge for supplies, but take the desicion of sending the brunt of their transport to the butchery in Tunisia.
My point is that the USSR won Stalingrad by a margin. Time and winter was their ally, and the Axis didn't have the strength to be fast enough.
Would 400.000 troops and 2000 aircraft have made a difference?
Anyway, had Moscow fallen before, this would have looked way different. And BTW, nice map you posted thereViking :aok
-
You're all missing the big picture..USA got the bomb in 1945.Sneak a few B29's into England and war's over folks.
-
If the UK's out of the war, developing their own A bomb would seem like a very wise move. The possibility of Hitler disposing of the USSR and then reopening the war to cross the channel would have seemed very real. Stalin sitting across the channel wouldn't have looked a whole lot better either.
Britain had the scientific know how to build the A bomb and if they aren't being bled dry by the war, they should have been able to spare the resources.
-
... sorry I am not seeing much british involvement with the pacific war other than a string of really bad defeats.[]/b]
The Pacific was part of the Far Eastern conflict. The British were fighting in Burma and tying down the Japanese there.
It's called the 'Forgotten War' over here. Did they teach alot about that in US schools?
-
About the only thing commonly taught about the CBI is the story of the Flying Tigers. And probably not that, anymore.
The "Forgotten war" over here is Korea.
-
dowding.. do the research.. how much of japans resources do you think you were tying down in burma? How many carriers and ships and troops and.. how much did you contribute to the island hopping campaign? I didn't see a lot of british ships and carriers and brit carrier planes and troops landing on those beaches.
lazs
-
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
Stalin was a leader of unquestionable quality..........but my prime minister is a raving queen compared to Stalin....I'm actualy serious
Don't say you don't have a Daddy ? "Uncle Joe">"Uncle Adolf">"Uncle Gordon"? :rolleyes:
-
Tim if i was to choose who i would want to die for?
stalin - battle to end all battles with leader on the field, pretty heroic and historic
brown - very rich, fat, ugly, womanizer who reeks of coffee and bagals in a war he is fighting from the other side of the world behind armed gaurd...not what i call a glorious way to go
never voted here, and never will till i see a leader i want to vote for.
Originally posted by Greebo
If the UK's out of the war, developing their own A bomb would seem like a very wise move. The possibility of Hitler disposing of the USSR and then reopening the war to cross the channel would have seemed very real. Stalin sitting across the channel wouldn't have looked a whole lot better either.
Britain had the scientific know how to build the A bomb and if they aren't being bled dry by the war, they should have been able to spare the resources.
hey greebo, do you think it possible that us brits might have made a bomb, and have done it fast enough to stop anyone else doing it too?
wouldnt the UK using an atom bomb been a bit like signing her own death warrant?
-
.
-
Short about the A-bomb...
AFAIK the USA were able to build one from resources supplied by the British.
BTW, the lend-lease contract was accepted by a margin, - YES INDEED, - it was almost declined despite the terms of payments in gold, delivery of certain naval bases, and,,,,,open files to every tecnical apect.
Through the history of the A-bomb development there were may milestones, and not all from the USA.
And Dowding, - I have a good book from a fighter pilot who fought over Burma. Was always interested in that part. Seems that the Japs actually had quite some force tied up because of the old commonwealth. Not a lot of people know that the RAF and their Aussie fellows had squadrons all over the east, Burma as well as Australia. And then you had that mad general in ...Borneo. Now what was his name again? Anyway, the only allied force that put the chills to the japs in jungle warfare. Wingate? fediddleing mad he was.
Anyway, that was no big numbers, but big distances and concern always weight within a long war.
Same was the case in the Nazi-USSR war on the eastern front. Nazis lost by logistics. Supply worked against them, while their skill on land and in the air was superior. Beating the USSR being supplied by the western Allies, as well as dealing with the western Allies in the air, at sea, in Africa, as well as being bombed and the med giving no open line into the Black sea (so supply lines would be long-long, - one must study a map to see this).
So, USSR was too big, Western allies too much of trouble, - the combined was too much for the Axis. Just so...
-
The British only have to develop an A bomb ahead of the Germans. The Soviets did no significant research on it until after Hiroshima. German atomic research was pretty chaotic in RL and they made very little progress towards a bomb.
One issue would be uranium supply. Canada and Australia have the world's largest deposits, but I don't think they were discovered until the 50s. Given an A bomb project, uranium deposits would have been searched for more actively than in RL though. Namibia apparently had a uranium mine back in 1928 however.
I don't think the British aircraft industry would have had much trouble developing an aircraft to carry it either. A Griffon powered stretched Lanc would have probably done it.
The thing about an A bomb is not to use it, its the threat of using it. "Herr Hitler/Comrade Stalin, are you SURE you want to go to war with us?"
-
Well. "want to go to" was years past, when the A-bomb finally was ready with a combined effort of UK & USA.
As for carrying it, the Brits had tha capacity already in 1942 or so.... if not before.
Anyway, back to the USSR...
I was working with one particular thought, - what if the British had decided to take Hitler's "Appeal to reason" with a "yes, allright" rather than replying "stuff it into your foul mouth"
My whole thought on this is what the British impact was on the Nazi-Train. Our Russian friends seem to look at it as nothing, or at best light-weighted.
When I started digging deep and deeper into history, I was first baffled about how unsuccessful the UK was, then it started to dawn on me that they had one thick neck, and the influence for the Nazi war machine, simply being at war (standstill war or whatever) tied down enormous resources. Hence, that influenced in a big way how the Axis could tackle the USSR.
So, if the subject is 1941, I'd go with Viking's theory, that the Axis would have grabbed, held, and defended Moscow, then defeated the USSR.
That one is even thought without a Black Sea front, which I think that would have been an enormously interesting scenario, and our Russian partners on this BB could perhaps fill in some gaps about the geographical parameters. Boroda has already posted something.
Now, if we go on to the prolonged war on the eastern front, which was basically a result of the Axis primary objective failing, - no Moscow, no business-break before winter, etc, - it was still dicey, as well as taking years beforebeing absolutely clear. And as this state went on, there was one new front, before Normandy. The bombing campaign.
Now, the Bombing campaign failed it's objective. It was supposed to cripple German production capacity, and/or even force the nation to surrender.
Incredible damage was done, but the Germans soldiered on.
Now, one would have tobe a fool to claim that it didn't affect their production capability. But the world of totaliarism, with a shield of conquered nations will not buckle so easily. However, just defending from the allied air-raids as well as bringing new weapons of revenge demanded enormous, ENORMOUS resources.
I have found some numbers.
1943, - more than 2.000 flak Batteries just in the Reich. (I got to know and work for a guy who was pulled from school to serve in a Flak battery in 1943 together with his whole class. He was 15. Most of them died, he got out with bad health and one eye)
At the end of '43 the Gerries had 500.000 gunner-crew with 10.000 heavy guns firing enormous amounts of ammo into the air.
The eastern front was indeed big. But I will tend to think that double power would have secured the Axis Both in Moscow and Stalingrad. And then there would have been no Kursk. But with double power there, victory would have gone to the Axis as well anyway.
30 Miles to grab Moscow.....
2 miles to grab Stalingrad....(?)
IMHO, it was very close, as it went...
-
The issue with the bomber is not just carrying the thing, but getting clear of the explosion. Don't think a conventional Lanc would have done it. Maybe one with two stage Merlins might have.
-
Originally posted by Greebo
The issue with the bomber is not just carrying the thing, but getting clear of the explosion. Don't think a conventional Lanc would have done it. Maybe one with two stage Merlins might have.
It would've just needed a parachute that deploys at approriate time after drop to give the bomber time to get away.
The biggest problem would be fighters. B-29's would been in alot more trouble against the LW than japs, let alone british bombers.
-
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
Tim if i was to choose who i would want to die for?
stalin - battle to end all battles with leader on the field, pretty heroic and historic
brown - very rich, fat, ugly, womanizer who reeks of coffee and bagals in a war he is fighting from the other side of the world behind armed gaurd...not what i call a glorious way to go
never voted here, and never will till i see a leader i want to vote for.
snip
Why compare apples and oranges temporally? It would be more relevant to compare contemporary leaders, wouldn't it? I care naught for Brown myself, but surely you admire men of your own nation such as Churchill and "Bomber" Harris, don't you?
-
Originally posted by Curval
..and what is interesting is that the US vets who fought the war appear to be alot less concerned about getting pats on their backs for "saving Europe or the world" than Americans who weren't even born when they did so.
I think you misunderstand, sir. We don't want any pats on our backs from you, we don't give a damn what you think. We're too busy patting ourselves on the back while we're gloating at you :)
-
Originally posted by culero
Why compare apples and oranges temporally? It would be more relevant to compare contemporary leaders, wouldn't it? I care naught for Brown myself, but surely you admire men of your own nation such as Churchill and "Bomber" Harris, don't you?
sure Churchill was also someone worth dying for. battle in the skies? death or glory! 19yo boys given spitfires to play with? hell yeah! what a way to go.
-
alternate history is fun but.. it is like predicting the climate of the planet with a computer model..
There are just to many variables to get an accurate idea. You are left with an almost infinite number of possibilities.
lazs
-
Infinite, well...
Reading up more on the whole deal, with all the available data, I see the major things hairing down to some few important "what if's".
Makes a rack of fun ;)
Oh, BTW, about Burma, - not sure how much resources it tied down for the Japanese, - however the importance is more about the resources they were after. Oil, and rubber if I remember right.
The British were holding out on many resources in the far east. Japanese needed those, and their only way to get them, as well as going past the U.S. embargo, was either by dropping the war in Chine, or going to war with the western Allies.
Remember that not all Japanese were too happy about waging a war with the USA, wasn't it Yamamoto who said that ig Pearl Harbour failed, there would be no way to win a war with the USA?
My wat-if is after all, based on one thing. Britain Stepping out of the war in July 1940. That basically means that the Axis have secured Europe at that time, and if you picture that Britain would be able to hold her Navy and colonies (Hitler's own words within his own circle, - he had some admiration for the British as well as defining their colonial and naval power as necessary for world stability), against trading with the Axis, - it gives a very different picture!
There was no lend-lease deal in 1940. The USA held themselves on the sideline, somewhat expecting the British to buckle. Trade was open between USA and Germany untill 1941. And the Lend-lease deal was only agreed by a margin of votes, - there were strong names against it!
So, it leaves a question. The Japanese, who after all have a deal with the Germans, and the Germans have open business with everybody. The British have their raw materials in the far east, which the Japanese need.
My money goes to the British being forced to trade (rather than just give), and they were after all pretty much bankrupt in 1940. Japanese would not have to deal with the USA under those cirkumstances. So, No Pearl Harbour.
What big blocks of the world do you have? The USA, the European Axis, the Commonwealth, The Japanese Empire, and the USSR. And who likes the USSR :D
-
imo its all conjecture way up there in the ether with martian invasions as britain never would have bent over for hitler. he was an arrogant deluded mad man and his insane desire for a neutered bulldog to pat on the head and play fetch with just reinforces that. sorry, but i cant take anything the mad ****er said seriously
-
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
above all things this is where America has held the most perfect grade card in world standings. a huge empire that rivals europe easily in size all governed by one master, and happy with it, with relatively few civil wars to worry about. and to keep it from the boredom i mention you have different states the size of our countries so you can all be different and ok with it.
you guys have created your country from the ground up and it has grown to epic proportions.
we ask 'what ifs' about hitler and its all fun and games to let the mind wander.
maybe we should even be considering what will the great GWB do next?
I think questions/argument on GWB should be in a separate thread. That said: I think you're asking the wrong question. What GWB will do next is to retire from mainstream politics. The real question is who will be the next US President, and what will he/she do next? ;)
-
Originally posted by Excel1
imo its all conjecture way up there in the ether with martian invasions as britain never would have bent over for hitler. he was an arrogant deluded mad man and his insane desire for a neutered bulldog to pat on the head and play fetch with just reinforces that. sorry, but i cant take anything the mad ****er said seriously
Well, thank God that they didn't. Hence my "IF"
However, one can imagine that it was a tempting thought for many a politician. Here are some grains:
- British peace-movements actually had pushed through some disarmings shortly before the war, - while Hitler was mobilizing.
- PM could have been Halifax instead of Churchill, - that was a possibility.
- There was some unrest in the Royal Family, and a German plot in that business.
- Britain had just suffered a crushing defeat on the European mainland
- Britain's position in economy and raw materials was getting ugly.
- Axis had a big trade with the USSR
- USA wanted to stay away.
- Many U.S. Persons of influence expressed the opinion in the open that Britain was bound to loose the war, so stepping down would be a better option.
That was just some bits of the atmosphere. However, of course it's an "IF" question. It didn't happen, but what IF ;)
-
angus... I am saying that to ignore japan as a "variable" in WWII is like the climate scientists who ignore or don't know about a lot of the variables that make up their climate model computers..
That is why they have to constantly modify their findings..
to ignore japan means you ignore a whole set of variables.. any change in direction with japan has a huge ripple effect that you can't predict. What would we do if japan did not go to war with us? if they retreated back to their island and were happy with their situation? What if they didn't and didn't have germany's help? what if.. what if... what if... ad nauseum.
Like I said.. alternate history is fun but only as a fictional tool for a book or series of books
Harry Turtledove does it better than you guys.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Viking
I think questions/argument on GWB should be in a separate thread. That said: I think you're asking the wrong question. What GWB will do next is to retire from mainstream politics. The real question is who will be the next US President, and what will he/she do next? ;)
a good point!
:eek:
-
Lazs:
"to ignore japan means you ignore a whole set of variables.. any change in direction with japan has a huge ripple effect that you can't predict. What would we do if japan did not go to war with us? if they retreated back to their island and were happy with their situation? What if they didn't and didn't have germany's help? what if.. what if... what if... ad nauseum."
Ignoring, - no. I listed them as a part of the possible big-blocks.
Japan would have gone on with the conquest of the SE Asian area had they posessed the material for it IMHO. That includes parts of the USSR.
They made war with the USA and the UK exactly because they did not accept the idea of "retreating to their island".
Their plan was to cripple the US naval power for some time, and by conquest get the British out. Thereby, Japan would have owned resources in such a scale that the US could not easily have bent them. Grab, then meake peace, - much like Hitler was thinking of in 1940.
Bear in mind, that the "what if" there was not far from the mind of many a thinker in the US. "What if the British loose in Europe?" This Position is more than a year before Pearl Harbour!
I have to dig in the books to see the dates of desicions, but with the Brits out of the game, and then with the US embargo rather ineffective, there was no reason for Japan to try their luck with the USA.
But they were forced down to 2 simple desicions. Abandon the Chinese campaign, or make war with the British and the USA.
Since the British were in the way, and already in trouble, the bigger desicion was with the USA. So there was the chance of getting luck with a K.O....
Nauseum? why? Too much thinking?
And here:
"Like I said.. alternate history is fun but only as a fictional tool for a book or series of books"
Fun, yes I agree. But I think it is also one big tool to teach us that we can possibly learn from History. It is a challenge for drawing conclusions from data brought afterwards, with lots of information and scrutiny not avalable at the time. "Fun" from comparing what we now know to the 2 other factors, what people thought and planned at the time, and what actually happened.
So, I'd say that Alternate history is a tool to learn about what is yet to happen as well....
Anyway, Lazs, are you well in on the Pacific war? I alwaysthink that our Russky friends completely underestimate the vast warfare that was going on there. So, to emphasize what I said before, I do not ignore Japan as a fprce, just play with the position and alternatives. But IMHO our Russian friends seem to "discard" the weight that the UK and USA put on the scale. It is as if WW2 was the eastern front only, while the rest was some engagements and mistakes. Pisses me off....
-
you might have a fair point Angus, but why let it get to you?
the Insurgents at present in Iraq will remember the Battle of Iraq, they wont maybe recognise the global 'war on terror' becuase their lives are firmly sheltered by their own conflicts.
why should you care if the russians become self absorbed with their own battles and victories? The brits always remember the BoB, USA always remembers D-Day. The French always remebr the Gauls. or whenever they last won.
why does it bother you so?
-
Originally posted by Angus
I think you are right. I only disagree with " If Germany still fails to capture Moscow they would most likely still lose the war, even without British and American (direct) involvement"....that.
For there were 3 major points in the eastern war, all lost to the Axis by rather a margin. Moscow, Stalingrad, and Kursk. The turnpoint being normally named STALINGRAD. I think that with the western allies and the following attrition from their behalf replaced with an eastern foe as well as trade supply and transport would easily have overweighted those margins.
Maybe just me....
Good points Angus, but if Barbarossa had kicked off when scheduled the Whermact would have had better weather and wouldn't have had the winter logistics issues to deal with until after Moscow was theirs. The biggest blunder after the month long delay of Barbarossa was the OKW's (Hitler's) decision to divert some Army Group Center (objective Moscow)units (divisions) to Army Group South (who's objective was Stalingrad). This decision was necessitated again by the late "kick off". Additionally if the Invasion was started on schedule the seige of Leningrad by Army Group North would have likely been concluded before the onset of winter. In conclusion if Hitler Hadn't had to recue Moussolini's chesnuts from the fire in the Balkins thus preventing Barbarossa from starting on schedule and with a reduced order of battle, the whole eastern offensive would have had a different outcome.
What If Barbarossa had been launched as planned and scheduled? No Leningrad Seige, Moscow falls and Stalingrad is never a factor... Stalin should have awarded Moussolini The "Hero of the Soviet Union".
:eek:
-
The Balkans side trip didn't make any difference since there was a wet spring and the ground was too wet to have Barbarossa kick off on time.
-
I can see no case where the US would not have gone to war with japan and no way that japan would not have lost.
lazs
-
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
you might have a fair point Angus, but why let it get to you?
the Insurgents at present in Iraq will remember the Battle of Iraq, they wont maybe recognise the global 'war on terror' becuase their lives are firmly sheltered by their own conflicts.
why should you care if the russians become self absorbed with their own battles and victories? The brits always remember the BoB, USA always remembers D-Day. The French always remebr the Gauls. or whenever they last won.
why does it bother you so?
Very good point, and a healthy question!
It bothers me to see mankind constantly proving one thesis, - "The only thing you learn from history is that you DON'T learn from history"
IMHO, a good study of history, included with "what-if's" and a broader perspective (culture, timeframe, setups etc...) will give "lessons from history". The "What-If's" looked at with some knowledge, will encourage people to "go digging". And interesting setups will possibly turn students from dozing in their classrooms into having hot debates and fast learning from their own initiatives and thoughts.
It bothers me so, when millions of people have died and turned to "history", only to be repeating a tragic history, then forgetting and denial kicks in, and then we have voices that say "why does it bother you so".....
P.S. Lasz...hehe will be back
-
good answer indeed. i was just wondering why, not saying you are wrong for it bothering you.
-
Batfink, if you want to read up on these "if's", they're really all over the books. And there are may traps for you if youjust dip your toe in.
So be warned, - the subject is massive, and highly addictive! Yes, - I am trying to infect you all!
Well, - really, if you are a reader with some aero-related interest, I would have some recommedations for you to read/buy, - and very many of others here on the board.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Well, thank God that they didn't. Hence my "IF"
However, one can imagine that it was a tempting thought for many a politician. Here are some grains:
- British peace-movements actually had pushed through some disarmings shortly before the war, - while Hitler was mobilizing.
- PM could have been Halifax instead of Churchill, - that was a possibility.
- There was some unrest in the Royal Family, and a German plot in that business.
- Britain had just suffered a crushing defeat on the European mainland
- Britain's position in economy and raw materials was getting ugly.
- Axis had a big trade with the USSR
- USA wanted to stay away.
- Many U.S. Persons of influence expressed the opinion in the open that Britain was bound to loose the war, so stepping down would be a better option.
That was just some bits of the atmosphere. However, of course it's an "IF" question. It didn't happen, but what IF ;)
I get ya.
those were bleak days for britain and as remote as the chance may be.. no harm in a "if" :)
just out of interest, the new zealand government had concerns and doubts over the pre-war week kneed way chamberlain's government had handled hitler. but once war was declared and the politics was shoved out of the way there was never any question as to britain's resolve in handling any situation thrown at it, either by prevailing, or if the worst came to the worst, going down fighting. of course churchill's inspiration was a big bonus when he became prime minister but when war was declared the nz prime minister summed up the general feeling amoungst new zealanders at the time pretty well
Both with gratitude for the past, and with confidence in the future, we range ourselves without fear beside Britain. Where she goes, we go, where she stands, we stand. We are only a small and young nation, but we are one and all a band of brothers, and we march forward with a union of hearts and wills to a common destiny.’
-
The commonwealth forces must not be forgotten, for those were many hardened people with incredible performance.
Al Deere,Evan "Rosie" Mackie from NZ, and all the Australians, S-Africans, Canadians, etc etc, as well as those from already conquered nations like Polish, Czech, Norway....
There was spirit indeed, and those may have been a crucial weight in both British resolve as well as performance.
The "IF" remains partially because of those. WW2 wasn't just the USSR in a land war and USA jumping in and saving the day.
Lovely "if"
:aok