| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
Hilux |
What if Barbarossa never happened? |
Lead | |
|
Posts: 3 (02/28/04 01:10:47) |
What do you think might have happened in Europe if Hitler never initiated Barbarossa? Would Britain and the USA be able to stage Overlord? Might Germany have won the war?
|
||
Pz gen |
non-starter | ||
|
Posts: 47 (02/28/04 02:08:24) |
Quote: Is a non-starter...Hilter always intended to invade the USSR...To not recognise that is to not recognise one of the under laying reasons for WWII. |
||
Michel Wittmann |
Is that so. | ||
|
Posts: 1 (02/28/04 05:36:34) |
lets try to thing what might have happen.... If Hitler didn't invade
|
||
Dave AAA |
Re: What if Barbarossa never happened? | ||
|
Posts: 315 (02/28/04 07:13:29) |
As Pz gen notes, that's not a likely thing but:
If Germany mobilzes anywhere near the strength they did historically, a successful invasion in 1944 becomes less possible. This means that the Allies then can decide whether to start dropping a few atomic bombs in 1945 or wait until they have enough to turn Germany into a radioactive wasteland. Even without atomic bombs, the USA alone had half of the world's total industrial capacity at the time. Add to that the combined capacity of the British Commonwealth and Empire. Once Japan is neutralized in 1945, even without invasion or nuclear weapons, the US can focus almost its entire capacity to wage war on Germany. There is no way Germany can win in the long run. One other positive change for the Allies, nearly all their tanks when they do invade will be Shermans and Comets, with M26's and Centurions in development or in service. The Germans will have about the same number of Tiger I's as they had Tigers historically, but will have no Panthers and almost certainbly no Tiger II's as these vehicles were developed in response to the Red Army's T-34 and KV series tanks. |
||
Pz gen |
If you use that line of reasoning | ||
|
Posts: 47 (02/28/04 17:06:50) |
Quote: If you use that line of reasoning...There would be no M26's and Centurions. |
||
Dave AAA |
Re: If you use that line of reasoning | ||
|
Posts: 315 (02/28/04 19:02:27) |
I do believe that both of them were in development before D-Day, thus the Panther had little or no effect on their existance. The Tiger, after all, was a known threat before then and it was in devlopment before BARBAROSSA.
|
||
Dave AAA |
Re: What if Barbarossa never happened? | ||
|
Posts: 315 (02/29/04 03:12:51) |
On land, Germany probably will not mobilize as many ground forces as it did historically. After France fell, they even partly demobilized. They would also need to keep significant forces in Poland in case of a Soviet attack. There has even been some speculation that Stalin would have launched a reverse BARBAROSSA in 1942.
Without BARBAROSSA, we can expect that the Mediterranean Campaign is somewhat changed. We would see somewhat more German strength sent to Africa. I doubt, however, that the logistics could support enough to allow a German advance to Iraq, or even past El Alamein. The Royal Navy is still going to smack the Regia Marina about and there is little more the Germans can do about it. The Germans should be able to send enough strength to the region that should the Allies manage a successful invasion of Italy, theyll have much less luck exploiting it. Fascist Italy should remain in the war until the end. If the Allies are feeling merciful, they might not get atom bombed, but be allowed to surrender one Germany is eliminated. The naval war should remain the same until mid to late 1945. At that time, Germany should have increasing numbers of Type XXI boats in action. This should affect targeting of nuclear weapons. Those should be entering service in increasing numbers by the end of 1945 or the beginning of 1946. In addition, RAF Lancasters and USAAF B-29s will be attacking U-Boat pens with six-ton Tallboys and ten-ton Grand Slams. The Me-262 should enter service as it did historically. Allied bombers should have a rough time in 1945, until more Meteors and P-80s are deployed. After that, things should return to the state they were in 1944. As Ive mentioned, the West would have fission bombs starting in August 1945. With Germany still in the war, theyll go there first. The question will be should the Allies start with a few and hope for some shock and awe or wait until they can completely destroy Germany? The former could end the war earlier, especially if one of the first ones kills Hitler, but does give the Germans time to react and implement countermeasures better shelters, a watch for bombers flying nuclear mission profiles, etc. A single massive attack avoids this, ends the war in a day, and makes a statement that a major war is too devastating to be contemplated. By 1947 the US should have enough nuclear weapons to remove every German town of 35,000 inhabitants or more off the map and kill eighty-percent of Germanys people. Meanwhile, in the pacific, the Allied blockade and bombing of Japan has by then served much the same purpose. ISTR that something like three hundred thousand people per month were already dying of starvation in mid 1945. This would only have gotten worse as food stocks were consumed and the remaining transportation infrastructure was destroyed. We could probably expect mass starvation and disease in 1946. |
||
sonder |
BARBAROSSA????? | ||
|
Posts: 247 (02/29/04 21:46:23) |
I have a little bit different take on this. Germany not invading Russia. 1. Germany and Russia stay allied. 2. Germany now sends a lot more A/C to the Med. 3. With more A/C Malta is now starved into surrendering. 4. R.N. looses heavly in ships trying to supply Malta. Fighting capacity now in the Med very low. 5. Rommel now has 3 to 4 Panzer Divisions, and several Motorized Inf. Divisions. And well supplied without R.N or Malta interfering. 6. Brits defeated in North Africa, Oil fields fall to Germans. 7 R.N. & RAF now tied to England in fear of invasion from Europe. 8. Russia, through Afganistan invades India, 9. Rommel now advances into India to protect Oil Fields. 10. Japan advances into S.E.A. taking Singapor. With fuel from Dutch fields and from German held M.E. 11. Passivism in the U.S. still holding strong. The U.S. does not enter the war- since not being attacked by Japan. 12. Russia, Germany, Italy, Japan, take just about what ever they want, from Europe, to M.E. to S.E.A. to Africia. 13. Britian, Australia, New Zeland, hold out (just by the skin of their teeth. 14. In 1944 or 45, the U.S. finialy decides to join the Allies. Only to protect them from being lost. 15. Axis and Allies sign a cease fire in 46 to 50. 16. 1952 to 55 War startes again. Hay!!!! we were going on possiblities here, So what do you think of these? THAT IS MY THOUGHTS SONDER |
||
Dave AAA |
Re: BARBAROSSA????? | ||
|
Posts: 315 (03/01/04 09:59:10) |
Quote:The RN is not likely to allow itself to become irrelevent in the Mediterranean, even if Malta is lost. RN ships and submarines will continue to make resupply of the Axis forces difficult. There is a limit to how much can be supported out of Benghazi, and the RN will still be able to interdict Tobruk. If the Axis does manage to breech El Alamein, htey still have to cross the Nile and the Suez. After that, they have a very long way to get to where the oil is located, and few roads to use once out of Egypt. Quote:You've now decided to make two major changes in the time line. I see no reason why the US would change its policies in the Far East or with regards to escorting Lend Lease to the UK. These were policies that predated BARBAROSSA, and were not much affected by the war in Eastern Europe. With Lend Lease, in place from 1940, the Commonwealth cannot be beaten. |
||
sonder |
WHAT IF | ||
|
Posts: 247 (03/01/04 22:11:56) |
AAA, Lets start with this. Quote; The RN is not likely to allow itself to become irrelevent in the Mediterranean, even if Malta is lost. RN ships and submarines will continue to make resupply of the Axis forces difficult. There is a limit to how much can be supported out of Benghazi, and the RN will still be able to interdict Tobruk. If the Axis does manage to breech El Alamein, htey still have to cross the Nile and the Suez. After that, they have a very long way to get to where the oil is located, and few roads to use once out of Egypt. You, I think are using the numbers of German A/C used in the Med when Hitler attacked Russia. If Hitler did not attack Russia he could have easily moved (say Luftwaffe 4) to the Med. (Since it would not have been used againest Russia) Luft. 4 had nearly 600 A/C, Fighters, Bombers, Stuka's, Recon, and ground attack A/C. This would have nearly tripled the number of A/C attacking Malta. And could have sunk most of the Capital ships that England sent into the area. With this number of A/C in the German attack, Malta's air defence would have been eliminated quickly. And supplies cut off, and most R.N. ships carring supplies or escorting them would have been sent to the bottom. Just how many ships could England loose with out putting the safty of the Home Islands indanger? With that done, then German supplies and troops could have arrived in N.A. unhindered, except by maybe a few subs. With the Germans now advancing across N.A. with NOW plenty of A/C. They would keep pushing the 8th army back and back. Also now the 8th army would get supplies around South Africa. Takes longer I think. Also with the over 1 million troops NOT used againest Russia, they could CONVINCE Turkey to let them cross through their land and attack the M.E. from there also. Now the 8th Army is trapped. Now this one. Quote; You've now decided to make two major changes in the time line. I see no reason why the US would change its policies in the Far East or with regards to escorting Lend Lease to the UK. These were policies that predated BARBAROSSA, and were not much affected by the war in Eastern Europe. With Lend Lease, in place from 1940, the Commonwealth cannot be beaten. Escorting Lend Lease to the U.K.- the U.S. lost TWO Distroyers, IIRC. and what did FDR do? Nothing!!! If FDR had tried to start something over the loss of two Distroyers. The people could have blamed him for their loss. By putting them in harms way. The people wanted to stay out of the war. And FDR could not afford to anger them. As long as the U.S. was not attacked, FDR could send supplies and Lend Lease. But could not repeat not get into the war. As to the policies for the far East. Just what were they? EMBARGO!!!!. FDR was NOT commiting troops, ships, or A/C to the Far East to stop Japan. Defend U.S. territory, YES, nothing else. Hitler attacking Russia was his fatal mistake. With out doing that he had plenty of troops, and A/C to do all of this and more. All he needed is for Japan not to attack the U.S. and the U.S. stays on the side lines. What do you think? SONDER |
||
Dave AAA |
Re: WHAT IF | ||
|
Posts: 315 (03/02/04 03:11:27) |
Quote:Nope. Luftwaffe fighters do not have the range to secure air superiority in the entire Mediterranean, no matter how many there may be. The RAF and RN should be able to restrict the Axis to Benghazi as their main port. Quote:Which is where they were getting their supplies for during this time anyway. Quote:The RN would know that. The Axis can keep the RN out of anywhere that is both within Bf-109 range, and outside Spitfire range. That still leaves a considerable area of the Mediterranean. They may lose one or two additional ships, but not more. Quote:Perhaps, but its more likely Turkey will stay out as they did anyway. They recall too well the last time they jumped on a German bandwagon. As the Germans I wouldn't fancy an assault crossing of the Bosporus followed by an advance through Anatolia in the face of the Turkish Army supported by a powerful and logistically well supported Allied force. Quote:How does Germany not attacking the Soviet Union change this? Assuming Hitler doesn't declare war when Japan attacks the US (almost certainly at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941), how many US destroyers sunk by the Nazis and German submarines lost at US hands will it take until one side or the other declares war? It's an excellent bet that it will be sometime before August 1945 - and extremely likely that it would be well before August 1942. |
||
sonder |
WHAT IF | ||
|
Posts: 247 (03/02/04 21:44:09) |
Hay Dave. Lets start with this one. Quote; Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You, I think are using the numbers of German A/C used in the Med -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nope. Luftwaffe fighters do not have the range to secure air superiority in the entire Mediterranean, no matter how many there may be. The RAF and RN should be able to restrict the Axis to Benghazi as their main port. From MALTA: THE HURRICANE YEARS, and Malta: the Spitfire years, both by Christopher Shores and Brian Cull. Shows that the ME 109F could fly to Malta from Sicily. Also on Dec 6, 1941 III/JG 27 arrived in N.A. to reinforce II/JG 27 all ready there with ME 109F's. Now they were not put on ships and sailed there. They flew with drop tanks. Also with Malta eliminated with Luft 4, A/C. They could spread A/C around the Med. On the N/A. coast, Crete, Benghazi, Tobruk Tunis, Cape Bon, Pantellera, Plenty of Airfields to support attacks on the RN if they came out. Also just what would the RN use as aircover with Malta's air support distroyed? Would they risk their few Aircraft Carriers? With out Brit fighters from Malta the 109's were not needed to escort the bombers and Stuka's. The Brits learned in the Pacific, that Capital ships with out aircover are EASY MEAT. Remember the Repulse and the Prince of Wales? (I think those are the correct names) Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Also now the 8th army would get supplies around South Africa. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Which is where they were getting their supplies for during this time anyway. And they were dealing with a two to three Division Africa Corp. With Malta eleminated, now 2 or more panzer Divisions could be shipped to N.A. and maybe 2 or more motorized Inf Div. That means the 8th army needs a whole lot more supplies than they were getting with just the maybe 3 Divisions Rommel had. And they needed them quicker. Going around Africa would be just too slow. Quote; The RN would know that. The Axis can keep the RN out of anywhere that is both within Bf-109 range, and outside Spitfire range. That still leaves a considerable area of the Mediterranean. They may lose one or two additional ships, but not more. As I said above with out Malta just where would the Spits come from? Egypt? With out Aircover the Brits Capitial ships are in grave danger. And outside Spit range from Egypt, the German Bombers don't need 109 escort. With Luft 4's 600+ A/C the Brits ships are DEAD MEAT. Quote; Also with the over 1 million troops NOT used againest Russia, they could CONVINCE Turkey to let them cross through their land -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Perhaps, but its more likely Turkey will stay out as they did anyway. They recall too well the last time they jumped on a German bandwagon. As the Germans I wouldn't fancy an assault crossing of the Bosporus followed by an advance through Anatolia in the face of the Turkish Army supported by a powerful and logistically well supported Allied force. You forget the start of this post. Russia is a allie of the Germans. Germany did not attack Russia. Turkey must deal with Germany AND Russia. Turkey is threatened in the west by the Germans and the East by the Russians. And with the 8th army tied up with Rommel, just who do you think Turkey will throw it's lot with? Quote; Escorting Lend Lease to the U.K.- . . . Defend U.S. territory, YES, nothing else. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How does Germany not attacking the Soviet Union change this? Assuming Hitler doesn't declare war when Japan attacks the US (almost certainly at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941), how many US destroyers sunk by the Nazis and German submarines lost at US hands will it take until one side or the other declares war? It's an excellent bet that it will be sometime before August 1945 - and extremely likely that it would be well before August 1942. [/b] You are assuming that Japan DOES attack pearl harbor. All the U.S. was doing is a embargo. It did not threaten Japan with military force. Why? because the American people were not willing to get into a war. All Japan had to do was not attack the U.S. and just go after SEA, leaving the U/S. territories alone. And No war with the U.S. With out Russia as a enemy Japan does not have to worry about Russia. And with the peace nicks running the congress, FDR has his hands tied. If FDR looses more Distroyers he is in trouble with the congress and the people. For putting the U.S. in harms way. FDR could have been forced by congress to pull back the DD's so they don't get hit. In closing, the only reason the U.S. got into the war was Pearl Harbor. The rest of the world was going down the tubes. And the peace nicks could not care less about it. All they wanted was to keep the U.S out of it. As I said in my last post, I think around 45-46 the U.S. might have woke to the danger. But with out a attack on the U.S. I don't think FDR could do much but maybe sign a alliance with the Brits hoping that would keep them afloat. what do you think? SONDER |
||
Pz gen |
...Hot air | ||
|
Posts: 47 (03/03/04 01:20:09) |
All this is so much hot air. The ultimate goal of German aggression was more living space in the East....To say they could ever be allies shows a lack of understanding of the deep distrust both sides.
If you are going to say what if the invasion of the USSR never happen, why not go the whole hog and poses the question...what if the Germans had settled on their gains prior to 1939. If Germany had waited long enough....a morally bankrupt France would have fallen under it's influence at some stage...similar to Italy. Let not forget that many people in many countries thought that the German had got it right. |
||
Dave AAA |
Re: WHAT IF | ||
|
Posts: 315 (03/03/04 02:24:02) |
Quote:I agree the Germans can probably neutralize Malta with airpower. Considering though that they had trouble supporting the force they had at Alamein historically through Tripoli (because of the distance and the inadequate transportation facilities), and that your now adding a Panzer Army and a much larger air force to their order of battle, I doubt they can keep the RN from interdicting Tobruk and giving Benghazi trouble. Quote:Considering that most Lend Lease supplies to the USSR went through the Indian Ocean around Africa until 1943, there would be no problem at all in getting enough supplies to operate against any force the Germans can send to Africa. As they did not practice just-in-time-logistics in WWII, they will stockpile so that response times will not be a problem, as they did later in Europe when most of their supplies were coming across the Atlantic to depots in England. Quote:So long as the FAA are there, the RN has little to fear from German bombers. In addition, Tobruk (and Benghazi as well, IIRC) are within RAF fighter cover. Quote:Since when and why? They werent historically, even before June 1941. Quote:Not really. Look at the ground. The Soviets cannot bring large forces to bear through the mountains. Nor do they have any reason to do so. Quote:That embargo was enough to provoke a Japanese attack on US and UK territories on December 7th. You have yet to explain how Germany not invading the Soviet Union would change this. Quote:Considering that an attack on the Dutch East Indies would historically have resulted in a US declaration of war, I wonder why they would not in this scenario. Quote:They werent worried about Russia anyway. It wasnt Japans enemy until 1945. Indeed, they had fairly cordial relations (all things considered). Japan even let non-military Lend Lease aid, like food and fuel, to go unmolested from the US to Vladivostok, so long as it was carried in neutral or Soviet shipping. Quote:They were already in the war in a very important way. US public opinion was supportive of Lend Lease aid to the Allies and of naval escorts for it. The US and Japan were heading for war quite independently of events in Eastern Europe. You may also wish to recall that it was Germany who declared war on the US, not the other way round. |
||
Dave AAA |
Re: WHAT IF | ||
|
Posts: 315 (03/03/04 08:01:28) |
One more thing. The Germans have airborne forces enough to take either Malta or Crete. Taking either would result in enough casuaties that the airborne force would be destroyed, as happened historically.
|
||
sonder |
WHAT IF? | ||
|
Posts: 247 (03/03/04 17:43:14) |
Hay Dave Here we go. Qoute; I doubt they can keep the RN from interdicting Tobruk and giving Benghazi trouble. Ju-88's and Ju-87's, Remember what Jap Nell level bombers did to the Repulse and Prince of Wales. It has been proved many times over that ships with out aircover are dead meat to attacking DIVE BOMBERS. Oh YES! German 109's escort from Tobruk. Quote; I agree the Germans can probably neutralize Malta with airpower. Considering though that they had trouble supporting the force they had at Alamein historically through Tripoli (because of the distance and the inadequate transportation facilities), and that your now adding a Panzer Army and a much larger air force to their order of battle, Do you remember that every time Malta was attacked by GERMAN aircraft for any amount of time. That Rommels supplies came through with out MUCH trouble. When the German Luftwaffa attacked Malta the RN most of the time did not send in anything much larger than a Distroyer. I think when they sent in the Ark Royal in range of the Luftwaffa, she was sent to the bottom. Now I could be wrong on the name of the carrier. Also convoys to Malta never got through with near the amout of supplies needed for the civies or military. Quote; Considering that most Lend Lease supplies to the USSR went through the Indian Ocean around Africa until 1943, there would be no problem at all in getting enough supplies to operate against any force the Germans can send to Africa. I think you should check out the fighting in N.A.. After compass, every time the Brits wanted to start a offencive thay had to wait for supplies to arrive. Remember the Tiger Cub convoy, that Churchill sent. The offencive had to wait till it arrived with much needed tanks. So there was very much a problem with getting supplies for the 8th army. Quote; So long as the FAA are there, the RN has little to fear from German bombers. In addition, Tobruk (and Benghazi as well, IIRC) are within RAF fighter cover. That does not jive with the history I know. Remember the Ark Royal. (I think that is the name) Any aircraft sent to Malta were launched from carriers OUTSIDE the range of German bombers on Sicily. There must be a reason for that. I think the RN did not want to risk carriers againest the Luftwaffa, Do you see it differently? If the RN did not have anything to fear from the Luftwaffa, then why did not the RN carriers just cruise around the med at will? They did not because they were at the mercy of the Luftwaffa. And with Luftwaffa 4 controling the skys over Malta, it would be hard for the RAF to get replacement A/C in a reasonable amout of time to keep their strenth up. And the Spits would have to take on many times their number of 109F's in fights over Tobruk. Quote; You forget the start of this post. Russia is a allie of the Germans. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Since when and why? They werent historically, even before June 1941. Remember POLAND? Germany and Russia attacked her and devided up the country. I think they would work well together in dIviding up several other nations. DON'T YOU? Quote; Not really. Look at the ground. The Soviets cannot bring large forces to bear through the mountains. Nor do they have any reason to do so Remember how the Soviets brought plenty of troops into and through those same mountains fighting Germans. What would stop them from doing it againest Turkey. And they may not have to. Just the threat of the Germans in the west and Russians in the east. And Turkey would in my opion say come on in. Then she remains in good with the Russians and Germans. With the 8th army tied up with a reinforced Rommel, NO help from there. Correct? A reason you ask? It clears the Russians western flank so they can go into India through afganistan. More places to take and rule. Quote; Considering that an attack on the Dutch East Indies would historically have resulted in a US declaration of war, I wonder why they would not in this scenario. First, What history? The U.S. did not do anything about the Dutch East Indies at any time that I can remember. If you know of when and where please let me know. And again the only threat the U.S. posed to japan was the embargo. There was no threat of war at any time as to what the Japanes were doing in China or anywhere else. Am I correct? Quote; They werent worried about Russia anyway. It wasnt Japans enemy until 1945. Indeed, they had fairly cordial relations (all things considered). Japan even let non-military Lend Lease aid, like food and fuel, to go unmolested from the US to Vladivostok, so long as it was carried in neutral or Soviet shipping. Then please explain why so many Japanese Divisions, and Airforce units were kept on the boarder with Russia in CHINA all during the war. As to leting Lend Lease through. Do you think the Russians would not take it kindly if the Japanese did stop the flow. And just may start to move toward open action with Japan if the Japanese did that. Japan and Russia fought a very short war in Kalken Gaul. (bad spelling) in the 30's. And Japan got it's butt kicked badly. They did not want to take on the Russians again. Quote; They were already in the war in a very important way. US public opinion was supportive of Lend Lease aid to the Allies and of naval escorts for it. The US and Japan were heading for war quite independently of events in Eastern Europe. You may also wish to recall that it was Germany who declared war on the US, not the other way round. Dave, I don't know where you get this. No offence ment. But FDR lost TWO Distroyers. And what did he do?NOTHING!!!!! Why? Again and Again, the PEACE NICKS controled the congress and held the national vote. That is why it took Pearl Harbor to bring the U.S. into the war. THE U.S. WAS ATTACKED AND NOW HAD TO FIGHT. Otherwise I ask you why did not the U.S. get into the war earlier??? The peace nicks did not care what happened in the war as long as the U.S. was not attacked. FDR had a hard time just to get Lend Lease through congress. There were calls that he was leading the U.S. into war. No as long as the U.S. was not attacked the U.S. would have stayed out of the war. Your point that Germany declared war on the U.S. PROVES my point. FDR did not ask congress for a state of war on Germany, in his speach to congress, a day or so after Pearl Harbor. Only on Japan. Sorry out of time. looking forward to your reply SONDER |
||
Dave AAA |
Re: WHAT IF? | ||
|
Posts: 315 (03/03/04 19:06:11) |
Quote:Because that's what actually happened. The US did continue giving aid to the UK, and escorted it. Germany did declare war o the US nafter Pearl Harbor. It seems to me that without BARBAROSSA, Hitler would be more likely to act historically in this case than not. Japan didn't move in the DEA until December 7. They attacked the US and UK in order to secure their flanks and forstall the inevitable Allied reaction. How does no BARBAROSSA change this? |
||
Dave AAA |
Re: WHAT IF? | ||
|
Posts: 315 (03/04/04 00:47:29) |
Quote:Which is, of course, within the range of Allied fighter cover. Quote:So at their best, they just had enough for one motorized corps and an Italian army composed mostly of infantry. You want to add a German Panzer army and a greatly increased air force to this. Quote:Your confusing a build up for a major offensive with a lack of day-to-day supplies. The Allies had no trouble getting supplies to North Africa as they were needed. With the extra shipping and supplies freed up by not having to send Lend-Lease to the USSR through Iran, the Allied forces in Egypt would be in even better shape, as well as being stronger. You can expect that the Eighth Army would be expanded to meet the new German threat. Quote:Again, your making the assumptions that the Germans could support a much larger air force in Africa, and that the Allies would not reinforce. Quote:And the Germans were initially unsure as to whether the Soviets were going to stop or not. This wasnt an alliance, this was two independent assaults on the same victim. Quote:Not unless it was in Stalins interest to do so. Regaining the Western Ukraine taken from the Soviet Union by Poland in the early twenties, as well as moving the frontier with Germany back a good distance was in the Soviets interest. Another campaign in the Caucasus against Turkey (which didnt work at all in 1915-17) to help Hitler does Stalin no good whatsoever. Quote:Into, perhaps. Through, no. Quote:There will be no Russians in the east and the Turks will not take kindly to being taken over by the Germans. There is no great upside to allying with the Germans, if there were, theyd have done it in real life. Quote:Theres a far bigger payoff for the Soviets by attacking Poland and Rumania, as it seems they may have had plans to do in 1942. Besides, Turkey can no more attack through the Caucasian mountains than the Soviets can. |
||
Admiral Oozel |
No Barbarossa in 1941? | ||
|
Posts: 23 (03/10/04 07:52:08) |
That would have changed the issue of the war.
First, that will have authorize Germany to concentrate all her forces against Great Britain. It is sure that the Mediterranean theater would have been a nightmare for the Royal Navy. The Reich could have heavily reinforced his forces in Northern Africa to give the Axis forces the capacity to destroy the British forces there and to isolate and take Malta and Gibraltar (operation Felix). Thus with the assistance of the Italian Navy and the air cover of the Luftwaffe from new bases in Africa, Malta, Crete Rommel could have launched a victorious campaign against Egypt providing at the end the perfect base to conquer India with the support of the Japanese forces. Those territories taken with the oil fields of Irak and Arabia, that should have provoked the fall of the Churchill government and the return of the "appeasers" like Lord Halifax. Even without that fall I can't imagine Churchill to continue the war with ease... In that plot, I'm just considering that the U.S.S.R remains neutral, but why not a proposal from Ribentropp to join the Axis or an agreement with a mutual share of the British Empire? I'm quite sure that Roosevelt would have been more cautious before to intervene in Europe. |
||
Dave AAA |
Re: No Barbarossa in 1941? | ||
|
Posts: 315 (03/10/04 09:00:17) |
The Germans couldn't take both Crete and Malta, couldn't support many more troops in Egypt from bases in Libya than they did historically, let alone advance further, and the Allies could fairly easily support and reinforce their forces in the Middle East.
|
||
Admiral Oozel |
No Barbarossa | ||
|
Posts: 23 (03/10/04 09:33:02) |
The Germans couldn't take both Crete and Malta
Why not? With all the military might spared by the absence of conflict with the U.S.S.R that would have been easy. Remember that Creta was finally taken by the Reich, Malta was on the verge to collapse in 1942 and the supply lines to this island were already in great strain in 1941. So, with all the planes available to harass the island and all the Royal Navy's forces you could be sure that the Nazi flag would have flown on La Valetta! the Allies could fairly easily support and reinforce their forces in the Middle East. How? From where? Without Malta, with Gibraltar taken and Rommel victorious on all fronts? That would have been difficult to prevent the utter loss of Egypt..... |
||