Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Angus on February 13, 2008, 03:39:54 AM
-
I know this has been adressed before, but here I go again.
I am assisting in a project (Essay for a masters-degree) and the topic is WW2 related. There were many to chose from, but it ended up with the thesis "If Germany would have made peace with the UK (I think the offer was issued 19th of July 1940), then the USSR would have lost the fight with the Germans".
This is in some 2 main phases, - the 1941 campaign and then the aftermath at Stalingrad.
Each phase takes into account the direct losses that Germany sustained from the UK at a given date (accumulated), then other effects such as strategical disadvantage due to the war as well as indirect losses of force due to binding up troops instead of using them on the battlefield.
Then there is the final "if", which is trickier, possible difference in connections with nations that later joined in, - Japan and the USA...but that's something to slippery to use as a basis, just good for the fun factor...
I've been doing some digging, but all points and input is welcome.
I found John Keegan to be a good source, but I'm all ears for more!
Oh, and my opinion on the thesis is a yes. It was before, but now it's definate!
-
Winter?
-
Well, this oughta be alot of fun. First off;
"If Germany would have made peace with the UK (I think the offer was issued 19th of July 1940), then the USSR would have lost the fight with the Germans".
Now, it depends' on the kind of treaty that is. Is it a general Armistice? Is it merely a cease-fire? Does it entail resumption of trade between the U.K. and Germany? Does it make the U.K. give concessions'(overseas' bases, territorial holdings, right-of-passage through Suez?) That needs' to be clarified first. If said treaty did not mention giving support to the USSR, Lend-Lease is still a factor in a Germany-USSR conflict. With Britain not actively fighting the Germans', British Industry would be free to make more war material to sell to the USSR. Also, U-boats' would not be able to fire on British-flagged merchantmen, thereby ensuring those materials' getting to Russia.
Now, complete British inactivity opens' up quite a few possibilities' for Germany and Italy. It allows' Axis Naval forces' free access to the Mediterranean, and the Crimea/Black Sea area. With this, The Axis is able to supply any outflanking army, and improves' its' ground situation immensely.
Now, the second thing is, Does America step up it's support more, due to the withdrawal of Great Britain? If it does, It could mean a lend-lease base in Soviet Asia, which might be granted if the Russian's are really against the wall without a second front to relieve the pressure.
Thirdly, Does Great Britain jump back into the war, once it get's time to recover and re-arm from it's initial losses' and setbacks' in France, and the BoB? I doubt that Churchill would be willing to sit still for long, especially since He knew that every day the Axis grew stronger, was one less day for G.B. And with British re-armement, can the Germans' afford to shift all of their forces' away from the Atlantic (Not that they really can, anyway. With partisan activity alone, they were stuck having to Garrison France.)
-
I would say if Britain were completely neutral the Germans wouldn't have rushed key decisions and life would have been alot easier.
With proper planning and equipment the whole of the German forces I believe would have taken Stalingrad and Moscow. With the Russians forced into partisan action and their means of production overrun it would have got very ugly. Hitler would have gone totally nuts and killed every living thing that didn't speak German all the way to China.
-
Just read up a lot of Hitler's mindset and his offer in 1940.
ok, he wanted Britain out of the fight, first and foremost. So there is a catch, - would there have been a deal? What Hitler would have wanted is probably the UK releasing the Navy blockade, and possibly entrance to the Med.
The USSR was giving Hitler some concern, so he belived a conflict to be inevitable. He knew the USSR wasn't ready to go yet, so he wanted the speedy-deal.
On a meeting between the German High-command and Molotov, these thoughts were manifested when Molotov gave out the USSR interest for Denmark (to get a good access to the Atlantic) as well as the med.
The Germans were planning other things as well regarding the med, - catching Atlantic islands as well as Gibraltar, so the Mediterranian seems to have been on the maps.
That seems logical, for one reason, - access to the Black sea, which would have unleashed an enormous transport capacity for Ucraine for instance.
BTW, in 1940, Hitler wanted with all means to avoid a conflict with the USA, and the lend-lease pact (USA-UK), passed through the senate by a margin, and did not have much effect before Hitler was at war with the USSR.
Some high leaders, notably Raeder were very sceptic on a two front war, - something that German leaders usually tried to avoid.
Anyway, being just a seize-fire, or something more, - that's tricky ;)
IMHO it's enormously interesting to try and set your mind into the pðlanning on both sides.
I guess I'll work from an armistice in July 1940 with negotiations on naval matters vs release of western territory. In Hitler's chair I'd have played that card and in the other chair as well.
More thoughts?
-
Originally posted by Bruv119
I would say if Britain were completely neutral the Germans wouldn't have rushed key decisions and life would have been alot easier.
With proper planning and equipment the whole of the German forces I believe would have taken Stalingrad and Moscow. With the Russians forced into partisan action and their means of production overrun it would have got very ugly. Hitler would have gone totally nuts and killed every living thing that didn't speak German all the way to China.
Pretty much it IMHO. I think he would have started at the same time though, with better planning and a lot more force. I'll bring some numbers later....
-
I think what makes your challenge so nebulous is the fact that Hitler sort of made it up as he went along. Having no real grasp of military and geo-political strategy, he became a mad dog conquistador. Grabbing as much real estate as his military could subdue.
Add to that his personal shortcomings I think it's unlikely he would have ever prevailed over the Soviet Union. Assuming the Japanese/U.S. conflict was still ongoing, the U.S. would have soundly defeated Japan in fairly short order, China may have gathered it's wits and looked north and west to create another thorn.
His economic policies were laughable, I've always said that Germany would have been bankrupt irrespective of the resources attained through conquest. And I doubt he would have loosened the hold on western Europe enough to facilitate any meaningful occupation of the U.S.S.R.
Russia was Hitler's "Sleeping Tiger", Germany was about at it's limit by the time Sevastopol started, taking the pressure off North Africa, The Med and The North Sea might have bought some time but considering the gross incompetence Hitler demonstrated with regard to economic policy, and the Russian people's capacity to endure, the only thing that would be different is the post war political landscape.
Then we could ponder how the last 60 years would have worked had there been no Yalta and Stalin wound up with all of continental Europe.
-
Well, Hitler had his days, and he got very close to bending the USSR (probably it was his own fault that he didn't).
There was fighting in the outskirts of Leningrad, Stalingrad just held on a belt of 1 km, and German generals were 10 miles away from the red square...
But he screwed up by dividing his forces to north and south, taking to long in the process. So to try and see through the nebula, my theory goes that if he'd had another 70 divisions or so, as well as a route through the black Sea, he'd have toasted the USSR.
Second theory, is different, the losses related one.
-
Well, not to sound to disagreeable. Hitler had his strong points. He was a excellent orator. He too Germany, a poor broken and beaten country and in a few short years built it up to stand on the brink of world domination.
That being said He was a idiot militarily and with world affairs.
Hitler totally screwed the pooch by attacking Russia. That being said and in answer to your query.
If germany and the U.k. had made peace I think the germans would have easily taken Stalingrad and then Moscow. However due to Hitlers complete lack of military strategy, he would have severely hampered his forces with unrealistic demands and as he showed in history, ignored his generals.
Now how would things had progressed if he had been assassinated? Or at the least let his generals run the war like they wanted to?
I think things would have turned out very different.
i think Russia, as they really did do would have moved their industrial forces east out of reach (atleast for awhile) of German forces and A/C. They would have had less time however Russia has huge natural resources as well has its large population to call on for reinforcments.
After the U.S. defeated Japan we would have probably assisted Russia to halt the Nazi aggression by creating the 2nd front either from the west like we did or up from the south and sending supplies thru china. One of Hitlers bigest blunders imho was opening up a 2 front war and that would still hold true if Briton had stayed outta the fight.
Then there would have been the Atomic bomb issue. in 45' do we still get it? If we used it on Japan, would the U.S. have used it on a major German city to aid mother Russia?
I think any world conflict back then as now hinges on what the U.S. would have done and in what capacity.
-
He may have been able to do considerably more damage had there been no western front but I don't think he would have made much progress beyond the Caucasus or the Volga.
Hitler's military success was about fast hard strikes on feeble opponents. The supply chain issue, the vast areas of countryside and the wide dispersion of population centers in the Asian part of the Soviet Union would have presented he German military with challenges they were just incapable of overcoming.
Being an army of conquest, not occupation, the sheer size of the U.S.S.R. would have been too much to chew. 70 divisions may have either helped secure the Western cities but the insurrection from the countryside would have kept him in Europe.
Now, had they captured they Stalin?
Different story. I don't think it likely though.
Besides, Hitler spent money like a drunken sailor, his social/economic template was simply unworkable, he would have burned out by '46 max even if he left France alone IMO.
-
Germany attacked the USSR when the germany military was at it's strongest and the USSR was at it's weakest, and they still lost. The red army was in shambles in early '41. Peace with the UK wouldn't have made a difference.
There's two main different opinions about the german invasion of soviet union.
1. Stalin, like everybody else, expected wwII in the west to be much the same as wwI. Stalin thought that germany would be mired and expend themselves in the west, and then he would invade and conquer. Considering the nature of stalin and the USSR, and then the fact that the USSR had deployed the largest mechanized force in history on the western frontier of the USSR. This theory has some weight to it. If this were the case, then Hitler had no choice but to attack premptively, when the time was best. And it would never be better than early '41.
2. Stalin truely did want peace with Germany, so much so that he decieved himself into believing that there was a diplomatic solution. History does show that he did make earnest attempts at diplomacy and negotiation. Allegedly when the nazis did attack, Stalin was so shocked and in disbelief that he reclused to his dacha for a week or so incommunicado.
The more I learn about it, the more I believe that the number 2 scenario is closest to the truth, although not as tastey as scenario 1.
Still I speculate that Hitler allways truly believed that it was just a matter of time before the communists would attack, and why wouldn't he believe that?
-
Still I speculate that Hitler always truly believed that it was just a matter of time before the communists would attack, and wouldn't he believe that?
Correct me please if I'm wrong. But prior to Afghanistan, did the Soviet Union ever preemptively invade a foreign Country?
Not by proxy mind you, but an actual overt act of war?
-
About Moscow. Hitler could preach a dynamite sermon, that's really the only thing he was good at. He was a very good preacher. He was fortunate that he had a highly professional millitary with brilliant generals. Germany could have taken Moscow which would have been devastating to the USSR. The army commanders could plainly see this. But Hitler regarded Moscow as irrellevant and dismissed their advise. The military protested adamantly, if I recall correctly at least one marshall resigned over his decision not to move on Moscow.
When things began to go badly for the nazis in russia Hitler denied permision to withdraw, he ordered his army groups to hold their ground and fight to the last. With these orders he doomed the germany army, thus began the defeat of germany.
-
The real cause for The Soviets winning was the Lend Lease program and all the supplies that america fed them. Or at least, the reason they didn't lose was because of these programs.
Now here's where it gets tricky. The reason that Japan attacked American interests in the pacific, and NOT the Soviet Union was because of the level of infiltration of Soviet Agents in the Japanese government.
Had the spies not convinced Japan to attack America, I would put the odds at 50/50 whether or not the soviets would ultimately lose, even with the Lend Lease programs.
-
Thruster,
what do you actually mean by "pre-emptively"? ... with other countries' concent? .. or something else?
Soviets invaded or tried to invade e.g.:
1939 Poland
1939 Finland
1940 Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania
1940 Romania (Bessarabia)
The 1940 events above did not come into fighting though... I think, but 1939 events did.
-
Originally posted by Thruster
Correct me please if I'm wrong. But prior to Afghanistan, did the Soviet Union ever preemptively invade a foreign Country?
Not by proxy mind you, but an actual overt act of war?
That's an odd question. They kicked off WWII by an invasion of Poland coordinated with the nazis. Then they gave an ultimatum to the baltic countries and finland. Finland was the only one to call their bluff, hence the Winter War. As for pre afghanistan, well Hungary and then Czechaslovakia.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Now here's where it gets tricky. The reason that Japan attacked American interests in the pacific, and NOT the Soviet Union was because of the level of infiltration of Soviet Agents in the Japanese government.
Wow... :confused:
Do you actually have some sources to support this claim?
AFAIK, the Japanese goals were at the Pacific. There would have been nothing to gain to these ends by attacking Soviets. Japan had already kicked their butt and repulsed Russia's expansion attempts towards far east in 1905.
-
Something else to consider is Americas isolationist mentality. Had Great Britan not been at war with Germany, it is entirely possible that America would have stopped with Japan.
-
Originally posted by Suave
As for pre afghanistan, well Hungary and then Czechaslovakia.
Yup,
(Germany 1944)
Hungary 1956
Checkoslovakia 1968
Poland 1980
Notice the 12 year intervals... I wonder what would have happened in 1992 without their "collapse" in 1991. :eek:
-
Originally posted by BlauK
Wow... :confused:
Do you actually have some sources to support this claim?
AFAIK, the Japanese goals were at the Pacific. There would have been nothing to gain to these ends by attacking Soviets. Japan had already kicked their butt and repulsed Russia's expansion attempts towards far east in 1905.
Sorge, Ozaki and Saionji were all well connected Japanese communists who used as much influence as they had with Japanese leadership to convince them to attack the pacific, as opposed to Soviet Union.
This is page 69 of "Blacklisted by History: The Untold History of Senator Joe McCarthy." For this piece, the author M. Stanton Evans cites the US army espionage case against Richard Sorge which had help from Japanese Prosecutors.
-
Originally posted by BlauK
Thruster,
what do you actually mean by "pre-emptively"? ... with other countries' concent? .. or something else?
Soviets invaded or tried to invade e.g.:
1939 Poland
1939 Finland
1940 Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania
1940 Romania (Bessarabia)
The 1940 events above did not come into fighting though... I think, but 1939 events did.
Another one with this...
Poland ceased to exist by Sept 17th 1939, USSR just got back what belonged to it. Churchill said that Stalin saved several million people from Hitler, and he was right.
Finland is the only case of preemptive attack, to have some space and bases in case of "indirect aggression", and look, 1941 proved that Stalin was right.
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania - what invasion? They were allowed to join the Union after a proper democratic procedure, I mean - really democratic, not like "democracy" in Iraq we see now.
Bessarabia/Bukovina - was it an "invasion"? I thought Romanians agreed to give up this lands, there were no hostilities.
All this "invasions" are just kid's games in sandbox compared to Western foreign policy.
-
Angus,
have you by any chance seen this page?
Valtakunta (http://www.valtakunta.eu/blog/?page_id=2)
"You are reading alternative history. Reich - The Comprehensive Solution is a fiction set in a parallel universe in which history has diverged from the course of events generally known, or more simply put, it tries to answer to the captivating question: “What if Germany had won World War II”?"
Neuropa - in english (http://www.valtakunta.eu/blog/?p=21)
-
Hitler smelled an upcoming struggle with Stalin, and I tend to think he was right.
He lost the campaign by a margin, - Leningrad-Moscow-Stalingrad,- bear in mind that the outcome at Stalingrad is more than a year after the outcome at Moscow,and Stalingrad is very far east.
With that line held, he would have sat on most of the USSR's production capacity, - probably in the region of 2/3rd to 3/4th. So IMHO, had he held that, the USSR would have been doomed.
The biggest issue about the U.K. IMHO is that they existed as an enemy. That bound down a stunning amount of troops and resources, - much more than ever used to get as far as the gates of Moscow. (70 divisions were used).
Then is the real factor of losses, but it's much smaller.....still:
- From July 1940 to Barbarossa, the LW looses more aircraft to just the RAF than to the USSR in the whole of 1944! And 1944 is a high production year there and the LW had as well lost air superiority over the eastern front.
- Losses in land-forces were not so great between 7/40 and Barbarossa, except in the mediterranian pocket where there were some. But not enough to make a difference IMHO.
-Axis losses (KIA, WIA, POW) in the med untill the time of Stalingrad & then Kursk were considerable. You are talking of 300.000 Axis POW's alone in Tunisia at the time of Stalingrad.
- Same goes to air and sea. Untill the turnaround in 1943, the Axis lost a lot on the western side,and 1943 marks the year when Uncle Sam (who in 1940 Hitler wanted to avoid war with at all costs) starts kickin in with a heavy boot.
-
Well they did invade Lithuania in 1991.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Another one with this...
#############
Shoo, shoooo... comrade Pavel. This is not your discussion ;)
Naturally we all know how all smaller countries WANTED to give some or all of their land to the big peaceful bear :rolleyes:
-
It has to be noted that not until D-Day did the US and UK have "enough" forces built up to attempt to invade. This is with the UK acting as an aircraft/ naval blockade on Germany.
The amount of Axis forces tied up to defend and fight in N africa unleashed on Russia would have been mutliplied big time. Allied Bombing in Europe non-existant with Germany not having to worry about defending their production.
In my cynical view it was as if us allies sat back let the bulk of the german army freeze to death then go for it. Stalin no doubt was certain of this.
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.
-
Originally posted by BlauK
Yup,
(Germany 1944)
Hungary 1956
Checkoslovakia 1968
Poland 1980
Notice the 12 year intervals... I wonder what would have happened in 1992 without their "collapse" in 1991. :eek:
Poland 1980!?
Can you please tell me what happened there? Please, educate me on this subject!
-
Originally posted by Suave
Well they did invade Lithuania in 1991.
Just like US troops invaded LA in 1993
-
Originally posted by Angus
I know this has been adressed before, but here I go again.
I am assisting in a project (Essay for a masters-degree) and the topic is WW2 related. There were many to chose from, but it ended up with the thesis "If Germany would have made peace with the UK (I think the offer was issued 19th of July 1940), then the USSR would have lost the fight with the Germans".
This is in some 2 main phases, - the 1941 campaign and then the aftermath at Stalingrad.
Each phase takes into account the direct losses that Germany sustained from the UK at a given date (accumulated), then other effects such as strategical disadvantage due to the war as well as indirect losses of force due to binding up troops instead of using them on the battlefield.
Then there is the final "if", which is trickier, possible difference in connections with nations that later joined in, - Japan and the USA...but that's something to slippery to use as a basis, just good for the fun factor...
I've been doing some digging, but all points and input is welcome.
I found John Keegan to be a good source, but I'm all ears for more!
Oh, and my opinion on the thesis is a yes. It was before, but now it's definate!
Angus....a good place to begin your thesis would be Neville Chamberlain....I think he'd be a good catalyst for all the "what ifs" to stem from...and be related to...since Chamberlain has gone down in history as a failure for trying to make peace with hitler.
-
INteresting BlauK. TY.
ANyway, as an alternative history example, I am trying to begin with seeing how much force Hitler could have mustered, had he been able to concentrate on only one enemy after the summer of 1940.
As for my belief what would have happened had he succeeded (and this you would agree with, Boroda), I think it would have been ugly and sick bloodbath with no comparison in human history as we know it today.
After all, the campaign against the USSR was not just a conquest, it was a cauldron plan, aiming at the destruction of the USSR forces. This is one example where Guderian protested to Hitler, he found it most sensible to catch key-points (Leningrad + Moscow at least) and lock in before the winter. For an army, it makes a difference WHERE you are on a bad (and cold) day, as the Germans learned quite bitterly.
So, IMHO, the Germans would have needed a lot more troops to succeed, since they played it this way. A whole lot!
Will be back with some strength numbers later.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Just like US troops invaded LA in 1993
Actually that would be more like the Estonians invading Tallinn in 2007.
-
Stalingrad isn't *that* far east, at least in terms of land mass.
There is a great deal of speculation that Hitler should have by-passed Stalingrad and kept on going towards the oil rich areas to the east.
I'm really not so sure that would have mattered. The millions of Soviet troops that eventually surrounded the Stalingrad kessel didn't appear out of no-where. Hitler wanted to take out Stalingrad because his troops needed somewhere to bunker down for the winter, aside from the fact that he wanted to take the city named after the Soviet leader. Those millions of Soviet troops would have been "in the way" of the German army and the oilfields regardless....and the German supply lines would have been streched even further.
-
Its my opinion that regardless of the UK's status, the Soviet Union would have eventually defeated Germany, all by itself. Between the massive area, manpower, and resources, even with technology, short of the A-bomb, it was just to big a bite to swallow.
-
Originally posted by FiLtH
Its my opinion that regardless of the UK's status, the Soviet Union would have eventually defeated Germany, all by itself. Between the massive area, manpower, and resources, even with technology, short of the A-bomb, it was just to big a bite to swallow.
Don't forget that the USSR was a mere 100-200 yards away from losing the war. I can pretty confidently say that had Germany beaten the russians all the way to the river (Volve or something), Soviets would have never recovered. When you consider how close they were to losing, small or moderate things like Lend Lease or UK's involvement suddenly becomes huge.
-
Yup Pavel,
maybe more in 1981-82... practicing the "normal politics" in a foreign country and at its borders ;)
Well, there goes my flimsy 12-year-conspiracy-theory :cry
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Don't forget that the USSR was a mere 100-200 yards away from losing the war. I can pretty confidently say that had Germany beaten the russians all the way to the river (Volve or something), Soviets would have never recovered. When you consider how close they were to losing, small or moderate things like Lend Lease or UK's involvement suddenly becomes huge.
EXACTLY! And that goes only for the binding of German troops in Europe for instance, which were necessary as long as the UK was an enemy of the third Reich. Each and every division count if you have to cover just something less than 20 miles!
And had the UK unplugged the med and the Black Sea for Axis traffic you'd have had a new route for transport, deadly close to the Oil of the USSR. Express to Sevastopol, escorted with big guns....no USSR naval traffic vs quite a navy, for the Italians had quite some merchant navy.
-
I don't think those 100 or 200 yards would have made any difference at all unless Germans had taken Stalingrad right away with their first attacks in late summer/early autumn. Later on it would have made no difference, since the Soviets would have encircled the 6th army anyways.
IMO the two biggest problems the German war engine faced (not counting the actual fighting) were lack of oil and lack of winter suitable equipment. In summer time they prevailed and in winter time Soviets kicked their butt big time.
I believe the 6th army could not have retreated with their motorized vehicles even if they weren't encircled. They would have had to abandon tanks and trucks and all.
It is said that the Winter War (1939-1940) had some effect on these later events. Germans imagined Soviets much weaker because of their 1939 "performance" and on the other hand the Soviets had learned their lessons about fighting in winter time.
-
It's kinda funny, I didn't recall any Soviet Invasions but of course forgot about the Finns. Otherwise none of the other examples qualify. Point is, Russia, up to the point of the war was a target for foreign hostilities, albeit a paranoid one. The country was still trying to get on the tracks, Hitler knew it. Besides being a formidable orator he was also extremely canny. He worked the leadership of the free world much as he worked his constituency.
My point is that Hitler's Germany had no chance of any long term solvency. it was a flash in the pan. A really big flash but those are the ones that burn out the quickest.
I said earlier that the regime would have died by '46 even if France was left alone. He certainly would have been out of power earlier had he not gone to war.
-
Really? That's surprising you think that since finland was only one of the parts of europe that russia and germany chose to take. Russia would get the east half of poland and germany would get the west. Russia invaded only 16 days after germany invaded.
WWII started when the USSR and Germany executed their plan to divide up eastern europe for themselves. Better known as the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact.
(http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/800px-Ribbentrop-Molotov.PNG)
-
Wonderful inputs!!!
Was just digging up some facts & data. Ok, - here goes. Some may have been mentioned before, since I've been working with notes.
-USSR outnumbered the Finnish (troops) by incredible numbers. (will find more about this if I need, - I have a hunch that a Fin may beat me to this)
- Germans were easy about the exchange rate of 1 to 3 (3 being USSR) in manpower or tanks (especially).
- USSR had way more aircraft than the Luftwaffe.
- Sir John Keegan (Historian) regards it as relatively safe that had Zhukov not arrived to defend Moscow with the Siberian troops (10 Divisions, 1000 aircraft, 1000 (?) tanks), Moscow would surely have fallen.
- Strength of the Germans on the eve of Barbarossa was 198 divisions.
- Loads of those kept tied up in W-Europe.
- The Luftwaffe had by the eve of Barbarossa, lost roughly the amount of airplanes and crew to the guns of the RAF as they mustered for Barbarossa. (7/1940 to 7-1941)
- Hitler met with Franco (Spain) in order to be able to push through the occupation of Gibraltar, - the door to the med. Franco said "NO"
- THe supply problem for Barbarossa was a manyfold challenge, it was the train track width, it was the seasons, it was the size of the front, it was the routes to the front (i.e. through the Balkans), it was the depth of the assault, and the widening perimeter, and more...Not just the winter.
- Had the German initial plan (of speed) worked, most of the USSR's industries would have fallen into German hands. (The USSR were moving entire factories to the Urals at amazing speed right under the German noses)
So, I keep to my theory. The Germans lost by a margin, and even that margin lasted a year or so. In a cauldron like that, just a few divisions along with an ally will count a lot....
-
-
Hey Angus, it might make it a lot easier for you (especially in this alternate-history scenario) If you take off from the first devation from actual history, and game out the immediate consequences' from that, and each one in turn.
I wouldn't worry yet about whether or not Stalingrad would fall, until you have determined' all of the results' from a seperate peace treaty signed by Britain.
If you have some time, take a look at this:http://www.planetpapers.com/Assets/5097.php
This might help too:http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=tdihArticleCategory&id=7021
However, as I stated in my first post, you probably are going to wind up with more questions' than answers.
Does a seperate German peace with Britain, also entail the same thing for the other Axis' Powers? (e.g, Italy and Japan.) You might want to read up on the pact' that formed the Axis nations, there.
What happens' in the U.S.? Does the America First party gain a foothold in American politics, because of this? With a seperate peace with Germany, does Lend-Lease continue? Without Great Britain on the line, would the United States' even bother to help the Russians? For that, you need to give an in-depth examination of American politics' and diplomacy from around 1935-1940.
Btw...Good Luck with this thesis, Angus.
-
Originally posted by Suave
Really? That's surprising you think that since finland was only one of the parts of europe that russia and germany chose to take. Russia would get the east half of poland and germany would get the west. Russia invaded only 16 days after germany invaded.
WWII started when the USSR and Germany executed their plan to divide up eastern europe for themselves. Better known as the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact.
(http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/800px-Ribbentrop-Molotov.PNG)
So someone can at last read the map and see that the whole "secret protocol" to Non-Aggression Treaty is a fake and a lie.
Some corrections: including Finland into Soviet sphere of influence is quite silly.
It could be even more educating if you could provide a post-war map of the same region, like 1946, post-Potsdam.
Kinda funny when you go hiking in Ukrainian Carpathians, and see a border-line between Poland and Czechoslovakia marked in 1919-21, and then understand that during a War this area belonged to Hungary.
Your maps don't give you a correct idea of what Poland and Hungary cut from Czechoslovakia that was raped by Western powers in Munich in 1938. USSR was the only country that offered assistance to CzS.
-
Originally posted by Thruster
It's kinda funny, I didn't recall any Soviet Invasions but of course forgot about the Finns. Otherwise none of the other examples qualify. Point is, Russia, up to the point of the war was a target for foreign hostilities, albeit a paranoid one. The country was still trying to get on the tracks, Hitler knew it.
Exactly!
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. And only 7 years later another stage of conflicts began with Japanese attacks at the Chinese-Eastern Railway. Pacifying and restoring order in Central Asia (at the scale of some major European wars) was just a small nuisance.
Can you imagine if USSR left Baltic "republics", Western Ukraine and Belorussia to Germans? Only about 40km to go to Leningrad from Estonia, 32 km from Finland. Or do you thing that Hitler could graciously leave this so-called "countries" (I don't mean Finland, it had it's own plans of Greater Finland eastwards to Ural mountains) alone?!
Angus's "what if" starts too late. If Western powers didn;t let Hitler rape CzS - then it could all turn into an earlier version of cold war, much more interesting setup IMHO.
-
I think any scenario with Germany defeating the USSR needs to also consider the Balkans campaign, Greece, and North Africa. Because Mussolini bungled his end Hitler had to pull his bacon out of the fire. Troops, equipment, and supplies that could have been used in Russia were tied up elsewhere.
I always thought that a "what if" would be; What if Hitler had waited until the Spring of 42 to launch Operation Barbarossa. It possible that the Mediterranean, the Balkans, and Greece may have been secured and maybe even North Africa
-
Ahh, the Balkans. Well, it was a successful campaign for the Gerries, and they did not waste a lot of troops. Holding the balkans also helps with access to the Eastern front.
But of course, everything counts,- after all, Moscow almost fell.
-
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.
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
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. :D
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 :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rofl
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.
-
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
-
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 :D
-
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!
-
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 ;)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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 :D
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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. :D
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.
-
The only way Hitler could have defeated USSR is by surprise attack(which they almost did)..If England have come to terms with Germany in 1940,USSR would have known what was coming & mobilized near it's borders...It would have been a standoff phony war with perhaps the USSR launching on Hitler as early as 1942.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
So many questions and most of them could have whole threads devoted to each one. :D
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.
Don't forget that without a war, America would still be stuck in a depression.
Without a war, FDR would have screwed this country into the ground even worse then he already had.
-
I do have the data for how much materials the USSR got through the western allies. It was actually quite staggering.
I also have numbers about how much of the USSR resources such as oil and wheat fell into German hands. Also quite impressive.
As for Mussolini, he went to the same channel as some others....thinking that the Germans had the Brits in the bag. Brits in bag = let's go grab.
Those who took that conclusion were the Italians, and then the Japanese.
(Japan was NOT after U.S's resources, but since the USA and UK were getting into the same boat, the U.S. Navy would have to be neutralized for Japan to have their peace to overtake the weakened UK's resources in the far east)
The Italians attacked the French when France was about to fall. They took a tiny part in the BoB. Then, beliving that Britain was on the knees, they went for some colonies in N-Africa. Same to the Balkans. In all cases, Germany had to make a rush to fix things. And it was at times, costly.
The Japanese, pressed by the U.S. embargo, either had to bow, or go for resources. They decided to go for the UK's troubled colonies rather than their former foe, the USSR. UK was in trouble, and their colonies close and rich of necessary materials. But the USA would have to be "castrated" in order fot the Japanese to gain some proper hold. So basically, Japan chose the UK & USA instead of the USSR because the UK was in trouble already with Japan's ally.
Bottom line, UK's existance as an enemy of the German REICH, changed the whole decision-making of the Italians and the Japanese.
As for the USSR, I remind you guys that Molotov was also stating his demands for the setup if the UK would go to it's knees.....he wanted access to the med and atlantic as well as through the Suez....from the black sea.
So in short, USSR, Germany, Italy and Japan were all drooling over the gains of a broken British empire....
-
No. If you want (as a favor) I can cite to you the passages that explains the reason that the Japanese attacked America over Russia as I mentioned before.
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
The only way Hitler could have defeated USSR is by surprise attack(which they almost did)..If England have come to terms with Germany in 1940,USSR would have known what was coming & mobilized near it's borders...It would have been a standoff phony war with perhaps the USSR launching on Hitler as early as 1942.
Hitler had a deal with Stalin, and did his utmopst for the bluff.
Actually, the Balkan war was quite difficult for Hitler in this regard, since it could be looked at as moving closer to the south-eastern borders of the USSR.
Never the less, Stalin ignored the threat of the Germans, and looked at the westerners as the future foe. He even completely discarded the UK's warnings of a German attack, forwarded to him from the British ambassador.
Had Britain submitted to a truce with the Germans, or subdued to them, there would have been an environment that Molotov was expecting, since he already had his claims for the behalf of the USSR prepared for the Germans, and promptly promoted them.
So, I think it would not have been much of a difference in the reality of the USSR had the UK made a non-agression pact. The USSR was hoping for the UK to bow or loose and had their act ready for picking up the goods....
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
No. If you want (as a favor) I can cite to you the passages that explains the reason that the Japanese attacked America over Russia as I mentioned before.
You mean the embargo?
Anyway, please do. In the meantime I can dig up some of my stuff on the subject.
Quite a story really....
-
Don't forget that without a war, America would still be stuck in a depression.
Maybe, maybe not.....
If the US starts selling war materials to the Germans or Soviets, that could have kick started the US economy. Of course, that would depend on just how much crap we produced and sold.
If that doesn't happen, then the US probably does stay stuck in a depression, at least until FDR was voted out of office and someone else took over.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Ahh, the Balkans. Well, it was a successful campaign for the Gerries, and they did not waste a lot of troops. Holding the balkans also helps with access to the Eastern front.
But of course, everything counts,- after all, Moscow almost fell.
Let's look at some facts to assist you. Tito and the Balkans Campaign were deliberately staged by MI6 to stall the "then upcoming Barbarossa Campaign". It was delayed 6 weeks and that first Winter brought about a Major flaw in the German Army/Luftwaffe.
This would be the poor coordination and planning of the Logistics of such a massive Offensive. Field Marshal Erhard Milch had to fly to Russia and sort out what "needed to be done and what needed to go where". Shortly after he left, it uncoiled again. A very subtle reason for the Germans having a hard time with the Russian Winter (besides improper clothing) was the constant jamming of the rifles. The Germans were constantly cleaning their rifles, the problem was their gun oil would freeze. The Russians had a simple additive to their gun oil that prevented jamming (basically freezing though) rifles. They added Kerosene to their gun oil.
Germany never had a snowballs chance to "win in Russia". Not even close.
-
Originally posted by Angus
You mean the embargo?
Anyway, please do. In the meantime I can dig up some of my stuff on the subject.
Quite a story really....
I think I said it in this post. Anyway, the reason why Japan attacked the US instead of the Soviets was because the Soviets had planted agents in the Japanese government.
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
The only way Hitler could have defeated USSR is by surprise attack(which they almost did)..If England have come to terms with Germany in 1940,USSR would have known what was coming & mobilized near it's borders...It would have been a standoff phony war with perhaps the USSR launching on Hitler as early as 1942.
Angus already mentioned naval power in another thread on this subject.
Without Hanko base complete and a full mine-artillery position a-la WWI USSR couldn't prevent "allies" from entering Finnish Gulf. Building forts like Ino could take years, so until 1943 Leningrad was helpless against British navy. So was Black Sea.
OTOH with proper brave command Baltic dreadnoughts and some railway-based artillery could serve as good as forts at Northern side of Finnish Gulf, but Finns went back to old border quite fast.
I quoted Gabriel Gorogetsky here, he wrote that on June 22nd Soviet command was sure that British navy entered Baltic Sea to attack. In June Baltic Fleet was acting according to pre-war plans, frantically trying to lay mines around Bornholm and in Dutch Straits.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Maybe, maybe not.....
If the US starts selling war materials to the Germans or Soviets, that could have kick started the US economy. Of course, that would depend on just how much crap we produced and sold.
If that doesn't happen, then the US probably does stay stuck in a depression, at least until FDR was voted out of office and someone else took over.
The power of economy behind a lend lease program is a tiny fraction of the power behind a war economy.
While it is easy to say that the great depression would have continued til FDR got voted out of office, I'm not sure I have enough faith in any period of Americans to pull the trigger. Unfortunately, the results and expectations of the time show us not to expect anything of quality.
The people of the great depression were willing to sacrifice a long term result for a short term good feeling. It's not like they traded a "Friends with Benefits" for a single BJ. They traded what could have been a FWB for a BJ without the happy ending.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Let's look at some facts to assist you. Tito and the Balkans Campaign were deliberately staged by MI6 to stall the "then upcoming Barbarossa Campaign". It was delayed 6 weeks and that first Winter brought about a Major flaw in the German Army/Luftwaffe.
This would be the poor coordination and planning of the Logistics of such a massive Offensive. Field Marshal Erhard Milch had to fly to Russia and sort out what "needed to be done and what needed to go where". Shortly after he left, it uncoiled again. A very subtle reason for the Germans having a hard time with the Russian Winter (besides improper clothing) was the constant jamming of the rifles. The Germans were constantly cleaning their rifles, the problem was their gun oil would freeze. The Russians had a simple additive to their gun oil that prevented jamming (basically freezing though) rifles. They added Kerosene to their gun oil.
Germany never had a snowballs chance to "win in Russia". Not even close.
Never seen anything about the MI6 staging the Balcans campaign, which BTW was a disaster for the British.
As for the invasion delay, it was on the northern side partially due to late spring thaws. However that would not have counted for a southern front.
The Germans had a problem with the winter indeed, particularly because they did not plan on fighting in the winter at all! It was not just the rifles, - it was engines, coolants, oil, fuel, tracks, aircraft, everything.
Yet, a year later, the deal was not sorted on the eastern front, - the doomsday bell was sounding though, for Germany was in war against the USA as well as loosing rapind ground and resources in the med.
And they came close to winning the USSR....it was a matter of miles in some cases, and cities like Moscow only held by a few divisions....
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Angus already mentioned naval power in another thread on this subject.
Without Hanko base complete and a full mine-artillery position a-la WWI USSR couldn't prevent "allies" from entering Finnish Gulf. Building forts like Ino could take years, so until 1943 Leningrad was helpless against British navy. So was Black Sea.
OTOH with proper brave command Baltic dreadnoughts and some railway-based artillery could serve as good as forts at Northern side of Finnish Gulf, but Finns went back to old border quite fast.
I quoted Gabriel Gorogetsky here, he wrote that on June 22nd Soviet command was sure that British navy entered Baltic Sea to attack. In June Baltic Fleet was acting according to pre-war plans, frantically trying to lay mines around Bornholm and in Dutch Straits.
Boroda, - in my study I regard the UK as absolutely neutral and lifting the naval embargo on the Axis. So the USSR would not have the UK as a foe, nor as an ally. (After all, untill Barbarossa, the Germans and the USSR were allies of a sort and the USSR was supplying Germany with war materials which were applied to fight the British, so I bet on a totally icy-cold status)
Nothing the USSR could have mustered would have stood a chance against the RN anyway, nor the combined Kriegsmarine and the Italian navy, both with several battlewagons, - and then there was some stuff from the french as well....even after Dakar. (The RN sank French Battleships so they would not work for the Germans)
So my naval teaser goes to the question of both the Northern front (Baltic and even the Arctic) as well as a southern supply/invasion route through the Turkish straits all the way to Crimea and the opening of the Don and Kuban.
A good supply route assisted with proper gunpower would IMHO have been disastrous to the Crimea. Germans having foothold in Ukraine in June 1941 already while starting a heavy assault on the northern line....baaaaad.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Never seen anything about the MI6 staging the Balcans campaign, which BTW was a disaster for the British.
As for the invasion delay, it was on the northern side partially due to late spring thaws. However that would not have counted for a southern front.
The Germans had a problem with the winter indeed, particularly because they did not plan on fighting in the winter at all! It was not just the rifles, - it was engines, coolants, oil, fuel, tracks, aircraft, everything.
Yet, a year later, the deal was not sorted on the eastern front, - the doomsday bell was sounding though, for Germany was in war against the USA as well as loosing rapind ground and resources in the med.
And they came close to winning the USSR....it was a matter of miles in some cases, and cities like Moscow only held by a few divisions....
As for MI6, read "A Man called Intrepid" by Sir William Stephenson. The Balkans were merely a "distraction". Good book.
-
I have the loss numbers for the Germans in the Balkan campaign. It is absoltely stunning how little they lost, however for the Italians, it was a disaster.
I'll try to bring them on along with other things. (Data)
Now, some German Generals do actually blaim the Balkans for slowing the beginning of Barbarossa, as well as swallowing up force.
While IMHO this is true, it's double edged, for holding the Balkans means a safer and easier route to the east.
I cannot see any British benefit of promoting a war there, nor any British benefit from the outcome.
BTW, the German losses at Crete only were really much more serious, and the force applied there (Elite Fallshirmjaeger) might have been at good use in the Barbarossa plot, as well as all the transports that got butchered over there.
-
Angus, if UK is neutral - USSR occupies all Iran, not only the Northern half. Then it uses Gulf ports for importing materials bought from other countries, just as it did in current reality.
I think it may be just a small addition to your work.
-
The power of economy behind a lend lease program is a tiny fraction of the power behind a war economy.
I was assuming actual sales, not a Lend/Lease program. The arms sales would have had to have been on a very large scale as well.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Angus, if UK is neutral - USSR occupies all Iran, not only the Northern half. Then it uses Gulf ports for importing materials bought from other countries, just as it did in current reality.
I think it may be just a small addition to your work.
I do not get your point there.
With UK neutral, I mean that the IK would not be at war with Germany, lift the Naval embargo off Germany and go around with the business.
This would mean a stronger Germany as well as a stronger UK, since neither of them wouldn't be fighting anybody.
Had the USSR wanted Iran, it would have been more complicated with the British empire to move at will, than it was in 1940 when the British were pressed in the war with Germany.
So, in short....I see no point at all...
-
Oh, Boroda, BTW, in that reality, the Axis naval power is vastly more than the USSR's. So had both been open to the Suez (With the RN as a police), either one or both would be closed in the cause of war. The one definately having problems would be the USSR, since the Italian navy alone outguns them easily.
I must thank you for this point though. I never considered the USSR using the possibility of benefitting from this angle in a "truce" environment. But they definately were considering it in case the UK collapsed, so it's logical.
1940 - 1941 might thus have brought naval trade to the USSR from the middle and far east.
About oil though, the Axis needed it more I think, so the benefit would probably have been more on their side. After all, they were buying oil from the USSR.
-
About time to waky-waky!
Got a question for....Boroda perhaps?
It was mentioned that the USSR had an interest in accessing the med and the canal of Suez.
Did that happen after the USSR and UK/USA became allies, or was there never time for it?
Then, on to the Baltic. Does anyone have some figures of USSR naval strength and engagements in the Baltic in WW2, noteably in the fall of 1941?
-
Oh, and another important issue.
How was the USSR-Turkish relation during WW2?
From WWI they were no friends, and the Battle of Gallipoli was all about the western allies trying to open the searoute to the black sea to be able to supply the Russian forces, but losing the game to the Turks.
But that was the Ottoman empire and not the later Turks, and thet was the Zarist Russia and not the USSR.
What I know is that Turkey was a little bit pro-Axis perhaps, selling crucial Ore to the Germans, and trying to stay out of trouble, while the UK was trying to get them to join the Allies....
-
I haven't followed all of this thread, but have you considered the impact of British neutrality on events in the far east? If Britain made peace with Germany, maybe Germany/Japan could attack the Soviet Union on two fronts?
-
Ahh, DING, the Bosphorus would have been open if not for the RN, for any "cargo"
"Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Turkish Straits was a 1936 agreement that gives Turkey control over the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles. The representatives of ten nations attended the conference held in Montreux. The principal contenders were Britain, the Soviet Union and Turkey; the main issue was the passage of combatant vessels in war.
The 1936 Montreux Convention came about due to the Turkish desire to remilitarize the Straits, which under the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne had been demilitarized. They also wanted the international Straits Commission created back in Lausanne abolished, seeing it as an obstacle to Turkish sovereignty in their internal waters.
The Convention agreed to consists of 29 Articles, four annexes and one protocol. Articles 2-7 consider the passage of merchant ships. Articles 8-22 consider the passage of war vessels. The key principle of freedom of passage and navigation is stated in articles 1 and 2. Article 1 provides that "The High Contracting Parties recognise and affirm the principle of freedom of passage and navigation by sea in the Straits". Article 2 states that "In time of peace, merchant vessels shall enjoy complete freedom of passage and navigation in the Straits, by day and by night, under any flag with any kind of cargo."
So, my hunch that the Black sea was refused to the Axis by the RN seems to have been right.
Furthermore, my diggings revealed that the Germans actually planned that way, but they needed Gibraltar, and were refused a land entry there by Franco (Spain).
Some Generals still clinged on using Bosporus, to access the south of the USSR, but with the RN on the move there, as well as some severe blows delivered to the Italian Navy, and the lack of connection with the Atlantic because of Gibraltar made the idea sound bad. Hitler discarded it, well he was never the navy guy...
Anyway, it was on the table, but rendered unusable because of the British.
-
More studies reveil the same.
With the med open to the Axis powers, which would be the strongest military power in the world in 1941 without the UK fighting, there would be no stopping them entering the Black Sea.
Even if the Turks would have tried such feat, I remain doubtful that they'd been able to, nor even wanted to.
Now, Gallipoli was about the exact same deal, and the Turks held their land at great cost, - in order to deprive the Russians of supplies from the western powers.
But that was before concepts like air power and airborne power came into the equation.
So, in short, with UK out of war with Germany, lifting the Naval blockade, the maps and entrance to the USSR would have looked entirely different.
One northern route from land ending in Moscow, one southern route from the sea and perhaps through Romania and Besarabia, beginning in Ucraine.
With no Balcanese or N-African campaign, the Axis could have launched their complete strength some month earlier, notably in the south.
With considerably more strength, twice the airforce, much better and swifter transport, extra time, Naval support, and no detour between the Northern and southern fronts of the USSR, I have little doubt that the Axis would have had the USSR in deep doo-doo well before the winter settled in.
Now where's Viking and Boroda when you need them :D
-
I've read a book concerning the German-Turkish relationship during WW2, but can't place it's exact name atm.
Anyway it had correspondance between German and Turkish diplomats, as well as internal directives, about what it would take for them to get involved and the result basically was that only if German was in complete control of entire Caucasus was a Turkish "Occupation force" in USSR maybe possible.
I'll get back to you with the name of the book.
Oh, and as for the Baltic fleet you can have a look here (http://www.orbat.com/site/ww2/drleo/012_ussr/41_oob/navy/baltic-fleet/bf_.html)
-
Found it:
Weber, Frank G.
"The evasive neutral : Germany, Britain, and the quest for a Turkish alliance in the Second World War"
-
Thanks a lot Snefens.
Any Idea on Axis-USSR naval engagements in the Baltic? And Minelaying? I know the Brits were dropping mines in the Baltic, at the German coast, did the USSR manage that one as well?
-
Angus, if UK is neutral - USSR occupies all Iran, not only the Northern half. Then it uses Gulf ports for importing materials bought from other countries, just as it did in current reality.
I think it may be just a small addition to your work.
Being as Iran even at that time was a source for British oil, That would have a profound effect; It would be considered a warlike move against the UK, which already harbored strong anti-Bolshevik sentiments. I couldn't see Stalin doing that; the potential of facing Germany AND the UK (although I doubt that the Germans' and the Brits would openly throw in with one another, it would be more like the USSR fighting 2 different wars' on 2 different fronts' at the same time) would be un-palatable.Plus, the diversion of forces' to Iran would further weaken the Red Army where it needed them most, at that time-against Germany.
-
Agree with you there.
And since Stalin didn't go for the move while:
A. Already having a pact with Nazi Germany in RL
B. Already with a much weaker UK in RL than had the UK made peace with Germany.
Then.....no go.
BTW, the UK invaded and conquested Iraq in ...1940 or 1941....got to look. There was some fighting.
In my speculation there would be no war in Africa or the mid east BTW, since there is ... peace with the UK. Same might go with the Baltics, - Greece and Yugoslavia. Axis focus would be on the USSR.
And with no Naval blockade from the behalf of the RN, things look very different in the planning room...
-
The real cause for The Soviets winning was the Lend Lease program and all the supplies that america fed them. Or at least, the reason they didn't lose was because of these programs.
Now here's where it gets tricky. The reason that Japan attacked American interests in the pacific, and NOT the Soviet Union was because of the level of infiltration of Soviet Agents in the Japanese government.
Had the spies not convinced Japan to attack America, I would put the odds at 50/50 whether or not the soviets would ultimately lose, even with the Lend Lease programs.
Sort of pinging this one up, - lol, took me ages to find it.
Anyway, I mentioned Gallipoli, and after looking into it better, it all boils down to the same, - wether or not there is access between the Atlantic (or Suez for that sake) AND the black sea. An enormous issue in the plans of conquering the USSR, and discarded by the Axis because of the British blockade, - at Gibraltar, then N-Africa.
As for the quote above, I think that one of the big reasons of Japan choosing the USA as a target was that the British empire was on wobbly legs. Remember that the RN was absolutely the biggest sea power at the time, and they had their hands full.
With Britain at peace with Germany and the blockade lifted, the Japs would have absolutely no chance against the united navies of both the UK and the USA. Well, compare that with a co&pro-Axis assault on the USSR where the USA and UK would have been at bay.....
(Both not happy with communism, and the UK holding a grudge against the USSR because of their pro-German stance regarding Poland and their pacts with Germany in the first place)