Nazis make peace with UK, what then?

[Boroda]

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...

[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?

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??

[Boroda]

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.

[MajIssue]

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.

[B@tfinkV]

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.

[lazs2]

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

[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".

[B@tfinkV]

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?

[Viking]

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.

[KgB]

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.

[Angus]

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.

"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....

[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.

[Angus]

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......

[B@tfinkV]

holy crap did you guys write all that while i was editing one post?

man i need some munchies.

[KgB]

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.