[scoundtrack]

Originally posted by Heraclitus
The real question is what happens to the Soviet Union and the resistance movements across Europe. How much better off is the USSR economically speaking, also would Hitler have invaded the USSR later in lets say 1944 or 1945? I would think that once nuclear weapons are made, any such possibility fades into oblivion.


Also would have Sealion been a succes? Also what happens in north Africa and in the Middle east? Tough call.

If Germany doesn't make the same mistakes in the summer of 1940 - i.e. they destroy the BEF and focus on RAF objectives instead of cities, they might have a chance.

As for a possible Mediterranean strategy, there's a huge thread about that buried in the forum.

[Wr8dIAUk]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
If Germany doesn't make the same mistakes in the summer of 1940 - i.e. they destroy the BEF and focus on RAF objectives instead of cities, they might have a chance. The BEF was destroyed, in terms of materials.

The Germans had no amphibious craft to launch an attack and would need to maintain air superiority for an extended period of time. Also, the Battle of Britain would have to have been a complete annihilation of aircraft, airstrips and other support infrastructure (despite extreme destruction of the same in the real time line, most airstrips, radar stations etc had downtimes on the order of hours). The chances of reducing the RAF to a sufficient level that the Royal Navy daren't intercede in the event of a channel crossing is, low.


The invasion of the Soviet Union was a long time after the loss of the Battle of Britain. I don't see a second bite at the cherry (a second attempt to invade the UK with materials and manpower reserved for Barbarossa) as being any more productive than the first time around.

[Grzqbmhy]

I don't know, if the germans had dedicated their industry to aircraft and submarine construnction, the UK would have had to cave eventually.

[gernica]

Originally posted by Dauphin
Are you basing that on gut feeling, or do you have a reason why you think that? The Germans could outproduce Britain, untill 1941 they would have had just Britain to beat.

[L0KoxewQ]

Originally posted by Dauphin
That ignores Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, South Africa etc. It also ignores the US's armed neutrality. Yes, it does since if Germans had control of the middle east & north africa and a had the chance to build more submarines and planes to keep the island isolated. The USSR's contribution to WW2 was immense, the UK and eventuallly the US (if they joined the war) would have to shoulder that as well. But just Britain vs. Germany would have resulted in a German victory, but not nesecarily the occupation of Britain.


BTW What would Stalin be up to while all this is going on? And what of the Japs, do they still go for America or do they try to attack Australia and New Zeland?

[Doncarlito]

Originally posted by CerberusIV

Stalin wasn't going to do anything after purging virtually anyone with any military competence from the Red Army. Most likely right. He got a feeling of his army not being ready, after the Finnish winter debacle, and seeing how Germany had pwned France.

[Mello]

Originally posted by CerberusIV
Invading Britain isn't necessary - provided you can cut, or at least massively reduce, the amount of food imported by ship. Who knows, a tighter lock on food imports may have lead to more victory gardens and an even greater increase in the nutritional intake of the populace.

[spineeupsenry]

According to B.H. Liddel-Hart, the USSR was building its military for a planned attack in Germany around '43-'44.

[cliceperperIa]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
According to B.H. Liddel-Hart, the USSR was building its military for a planned attack in Germany around '43-'44. That is interestig, assuming this scenario how well do you think they would have done? And where would the Nazis be in 1944 assuming they had focused big time on submarines and aircraft production to fight Britain and had got away with a complete victory in North Africa (including Egypt) and had made less shining but still very good progress in conquering Iraq and other British colonies in the ME.


Also where would Franco's Spain be in such a 1944?

[vdw4Epsi]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
According to B.H. Liddel-Hart, the USSR was building its military for a planned attack in Germany around '43-'44. I was under the impression, that the initial success of Barbarossa was partly due to the soviets being allready in offensive stance.

[Staillateno]

Originally posted by Tattila the Hun


I was under the impression, that the initial success of Barbarossa was partly due to the soviets being allready in offensive stance. AFAIK no. There was some debate some years back about Barbarossa being an explicit "preemptive war" against an already planned Soviet offensive for 41, but IIRC the idea has been thrown out by most historians.

[Ubgvuncd]

The Germans were already winning the Battle of the Atlantic before the US entered, if Germany could have focused on long range bombers (people forget how the few Germany had were effective at convoy raiding) and Uboats it would have been no contest against Britain alone, probably in Germany's favor even with the US.

And has been said, there is no chance of a US/UK invasion of the continent without Russia.

[Infiseeenvelp]

I blame three of Germany's defeats/missed opportunities (Dunkirk, Battle of Britain, Stalingrad) on Hermann Göring. So he dies in a car wreck in like January of 1940, and Hitler replaces him with a capable leader. The Germans sweep the British from the beaches at Dunkirk, then win the Battle of Britain, and Britain surrenders in 1940. Hitler ignores Yugoslavia in 1941, and invades around April of 1941 still catching the Soviets flatfooted. Japan also declares war on the USSR at this time. Germans occupy Moscow around October of 1941. By mid 1942 the Soviet Union crumbles, and the axis win WWII.

[uphokyhuP]

The Germans should have taken Austria and the Sudaten as they did and then left the rest of Czechoslavakia alone. It was that land grab of non Germans that showed Hitler's true aims and turned the democracies solidly against him. If then he had cut the same deal with Chamberlain over Danzig he could have reunited Germany and developed a closer relationship with GB, possibly culminating in a defensive pact vs the Sovs who were a threat to GBs southern empire. Hitler knew the Sovs were preparing for war and having GB and other democracies on his side would have made a huge difference when the Sov attack occurred later. At that time Germany could have held on until the noose tightened around Stalin, then grabbed the Ukraine bread basket and the southern Russian oil fields. Food and oil, these were Germany's aims. He never really had to take on the West to get them. GB (not France) would have been glad to see the Sovs taken down a notch. France would not have sided with the Sovs in the case where the Sovs were the aggressor. France would have been marginalized without performance in their pact with Russia.

I'm posting this because if this forum gets folded back into the OT this thread should get alot more replys. That is if they get it done before everyone leaves the site finally.

[RooldpalApata]

You make Hitler seem fallible and WWII doesn't start. If he's too powerless to take the rest of Czechoslovakia, then he isn't gonna take on Poland.

Lancer, no way the French would have gone to war over the USSR, even with the Socialist Party in charge. They didn't aid the Spanish Republic against the fascists, they aren't going to die to save commies.

[BoomBully]

Pilsudski probably could have been enticed into an alliance with Germany against the USSR. The Western powers very likely would have, at the very least, looked the other way at German-Polish aggression against the Soviets, and likely would have sent aid.

That was precisely the scenario Stalin feared and was working feverishly against in the 1930s, selling out revolutions in Spain and Bulgaria to prove how responsible a leader he was.

Without a non-aggression pact with Germany, no way Stalin makes a move on Eastern Europe.

[BebopVT]

Germans could have been the masters of central europe all the way to the Caspian, all they had to do was sell out the non aggression pact in alliance with the democracies after Stalin attacked Finland. GB and France almost went to war with Russia over Finland anyway during the sitzkriege. Instread they are today slaves to Russia who can turn off the oil on a whim.

[replicamuse]

I think the only way that dogpile works is if Germany hasn't attacked Poland yet and the Soviets start WW2 with Finland. In that case Germany is the lesser of two evils and gets allied support to fight the Soviets.

I just don't see the Soviets doing their historical aggression without the NA pact with Germany, and/or Germany engaged in another war.

[adultcomicssitedessaa]

I think they were afraid of either a German or Western response. Which is why they waited for a treaty with Germany and a war which should have meant both Germany and the west would be too busy to respond.

Maybe I am wrong and they would have gone after Finland and/or the baltics anyway.

[Arrocousa]

Oh yeah, Germany would use that as an excuse.

So if it was in partnership with the west what would happen to Poland? Would they participate as part of the German-Western Allies? Germany couldn't easily invade without going over land. If they refused help would the allies invade them to get at the Soviets?