Originally posted by tbm3fan
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
What if we didn't ally with USSR in 1941?
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by MilkToast View PostIf we had not allied with the USSR, the lend lease program, which supplied large numbers of trucks, tanks, and equipment for the Soviets would not have happened. Russia at the time was a third rate industrial power, and the Germans would likely have taken Moscow in '42, and then pushed Stalin (if he hadn't been captured at Moscow, where he refused to leave) back to the Urals. The Soviets would have sued for peace, similar to WW1. A big factor would have been how much territory the Germans and Finns gave back to the USSR after the cease fire, and if Japan would be granted Eastern Siberia. The USSR might have turned into a German puppet state and been remade.
That's a lot of hostile territory to hold though, and the amount of troops the Germans would have been able to remove from the area and turn toward the west for defense would be an interesting debate. You're talking about +10,000 sq miles and 200 million people (counting Poland, France, the Balkans, Norway, and former USSR) that you have to keep in check, all the while beating off aircraft from the West.
Bottom line is that it was probably for the best that we did make a deal with Stalin.
However, he really despised the Austrian Empire or Austria-Hungary, that had more than enough lebensraum but was a multi-ethnic fest. Every thing that he did in peace time, and also in war doesn't contradict this notion:
He declared Alsace Lorraine again as part of the Reich, but he did not invade Switzerland or Italy to get the South Tyrol back. His main goal was to make a Reich with all of the Germans possible inside of it and connected by land.
If you take that into consideration you will understand his despise for colonies and also that he wouldn't annex any big chunk of land that there wasn't at least a significant minority of Germans that could increase in population and germanize the other Europeans there over long periods of time. Taking that into consideration, I believe he would make the Soviets cut their Army to less than half and pay reparations to Germany, but would not take actual land out of them.
At the same time, he would probably give independence - even if only as a puppet state - to Ukraine and possible Belarus. This, together with the very diminished Poland (He would expand significantly further than the 1914 borders) would be buffer countries if the Soviets ever tried to take that territory back and would raise their own armies. That would make it even longer and harder for the Soviets to take that land back, what they might try to do some decades after.
Europe would look almost exactly like this:
Attached Files
Comment
-
What if America hadn't traded with Germany? How many Russians wouldn't of died?
But the heartbreaking truth is that a number of financial and industrial figures of World War II and several members of the government served the cause of money before the cause of patriotism. While aiding the United States' war effort, they also aided Nazi Germany's.I first came across this fact in 1978 when I was declassifying documents in the course of writing a biography that dealt with motion picture star Errol Flynn's Nazi associations. In the National Archives Diplomatic Records Room I found numerous cross-references to prominent figures who, I had always assumed, were entirely committed to the American cause, yet who had been marked down for suspected subversive activities.
Comment
-
Because in 1939 Britain and France had (finally!) realised that Nazi Germany was aggressive and expansionist and planned to take over the whole of Europe, and was powerful enough to do it if nobody stopped them.
On the other hand, nobody back then really took Soviet Russia seriously. Oh, they didn't trust Stalin, and were wary of Communism; but everybody - both the Germans and the Western Allies - thought that the USSR would be useless in a fight. They could defend themselves well enough, simply by retreating into the steppes and letting the Russian winter do its work, but they were no big threat to the rest of Europe. The military might the USSR showed in 1941-45 came as a nasty surprise to everybody.
So the alliance Britain and France made with Poland was specifically directed against Hitler. It was a line in the sand, saying "Attack the Poles, and you'll have to face us too." It wasn't about Poland as such; Poland was just the excuse. (They tried to make a similar deal with Romania at the same time).
As for the Winter War, some people in Britain did say that they ought to go to Finland's defence. But since they were already at war with Germany, and Germany had a far larger army than Britain and was winning the war on all fronts, then picking a fight with the Soviets at the same time would have been suicidal.
Comment
-
Originally posted by hanneknut View PostThere are lots of historians who point to basically three different turning points of the war. If any of these had gone differently, the war would have turned out dramatically different.
Comment
-
Originally posted by zraver View PostMore than three. Nothing Japan could have done would win her the war. For Germany to win she has to do everything right and this is not possible with the Nazi regime running things.
Pearl Harbour was between Japan and US. I think the Nazi leader got carried away in excitement and traded off easy upfront U-boat victories in the opening shots of war against US against major mobilization of the US industrial base that came to bite him not long after.
Although 60 years later it might feel impossible to think that Germany could have stayed out of a Japan-US conflict. It was very possible given that Tokyo and Berlin were not natural allies. A good example is how Japan stayed neutral with USSR (even though the latter was at war with Germany) until the invasion of Manchuria in August '45. Which was really you snooze you loose (loose the Far East) scenario for the Soviet Union at that point.
People often talk about how USSR bore the brunt of war, but it was US that wipe out the Luftwaffe and tied up 1.5 million German troops in Ruhr and Berlin region to man the 88s against the Anglo-American bombing campaign.
Comment
-
I don't see a way for a US/Germany war to be avoided, even if Hitler hadn't declared war. FDR & an increasing percentage of Americans saw a Nazi-controlled Europe as a threat to their view of the world. America was getting deeper & deeper into the conflict there. With war underway in the Pacific America was already allied with Britain & the exiled Dutch government. Domestic support for Britain was very high in the US - well ahead of a more general acceptance that war was inevitable. At some point another US ship was going to get sunk helping Britain & it would be on.
I'm not even convinced the timing of US direct involvement would have changed much. FDR would have similar resources as he did in 1942 and most likely plans with the British on how to deploy them. He might even start moving forces to Britain to support his ally before war started. Won't be hard to sell with US & British personnel already fighting and dying together in Sth East Asia. 'Torch' was 12 months after Pearl Harbor. In this scenario that might not change much, if at all.sigpic
Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bigfella View PostI don't see a way for a US/Germany war to be avoided, even if Hitler hadn't declared war. FDR & an increasing percentage of Americans saw a Nazi-controlled Europe as a threat to their view of the world. America was getting deeper & deeper into the conflict there. With war underway in the Pacific America was already allied with Britain & the exiled Dutch government. Domestic support for Britain was very high in the US - well ahead of a more general acceptance that war was inevitable. At some point another US ship was going to get sunk helping Britain & it would be on.
I'm not even convinced the timing of US direct involvement would have changed much. FDR would have similar resources as he did in 1942 and most likely plans with the British on how to deploy them. He might even start moving forces to Britain to support his ally before war started. Won't be hard to sell with US & British personnel already fighting and dying together in Sth East Asia. 'Torch' was 12 months after Pearl Harbor. In this scenario that might not change much, if at all.
BF,
i don't disagree with the powerful anti-nazi sentiment in the FDR administration. But that just wasn't enough for FDR to declare war against Germany.
Pearl Harbour's rallying cry was to kill the Japs. Not Germans. Hitler solved FDR's problem for him on Dec 13, 1941.
It is just that USSR-Japan managed to keep their neutrality pact for several years before war became inevitable. With a Germany-first Japan-second FDR administration, perhaps that 'neutrality' would have lasted much shorter (i.e. only half-year) before US was pulled into the German war. But perhaps, that may have not changed much at the end, to your point about 'Torch'.
Comment
-
Xerxes,
U.S. Navy ships were already escorting ship convoys to an exchange point in the Atlantic. U.S. Marines had "occupied" Reykjavik with the intent of securing an early version G.I.U.K ASW barrier. We were, in the FDR administration, a cocked trigger even if our ground forces were wholly inadequate to the immediate requirements.
That thing with Germany was going to quickly happen."This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
"The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs
Comment
-
Originally posted by xerxes View PostBF,
i don't disagree with the powerful anti-nazi sentiment in the FDR administration. But that just wasn't enough for FDR to declare war against Germany.
Pearl Harbour's rallying cry was to kill the Japs. Not Germans. Hitler solved FDR's problem for him on Dec 13, 1941.
http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/s...s-the-u-boats/
It is just that USSR-Japan managed to keep their neutrality pact for several years before war became inevitable. With a Germany-first Japan-second FDR administration, perhaps that 'neutrality' would have lasted much shorter (i.e. only half-year) before US was pulled into the German war. But perhaps, that may have not changed much at the end, to your point about 'Torch'.sigpic
Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C
Comment
-
Originally posted by xerxes View PostThe one that I will always remember as the critical mistake was to declare was on US after Pearl Harbour. Dec 13th was date I believe.
Pearl Harbour was between Japan and US. I think the Nazi leader got carried away in excitement and traded off easy upfront U-boat victories in the opening shots of war against US against major mobilization of the US industrial base that came to bite him not long after.
Although 60 years later it might feel impossible to think that Germany could have stayed out of a Japan-US conflict. It was very possible given that Tokyo and Berlin were not natural allies. A good example is how Japan stayed neutral with USSR (even though the latter was at war with Germany) until the invasion of Manchuria in August '45. Which was really you snooze you loose (loose the Far East) scenario for the Soviet Union at that point.
People often talk about how USSR bore the brunt of war, but it was US that wipe out the Luftwaffe and tied up 1.5 million German troops in Ruhr and Berlin region to man the 88s against the Anglo-American bombing campaign.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
I'm not even convinced the timing of US direct involvement would have changed much. FDR would have similar resources as he did in 1942 and most likely plans with the British on how to deploy them. He might even start moving forces to Britain to support his ally before war started. Won't be hard to sell with US & British personnel already fighting and dying together in Sth East Asia. 'Torch' was 12 months after Pearl Harbor. In this scenario that might not change much, if at all.
Comment
-
Originally posted by zraver View PostDeclaring war on the US shaved off critical time he could have had in Russia and doomed him to fight a two front war in 44. Six months, just six months and Normandy would be a 1945 event and he gets an extra 6 months production before the bombers wreck things. Overall though the list of mistakes is the Nazi's made is huge. 1. Operation pause of Armygroup Nord in August 41. The decision to go after Kiev instead of Moscow. The failure to take Malta. Not pushing the Me262 into a bomber interceptor as early as possible. The Elephant and Tiger, building battleships in the 30's instead of U-boats, no true strategic bomber, not going to war time footing before early 1943, Hitler commanding field armies from Prussia, Nazi racial hierarchy, wasting millions of rail cars, untold supplies and tens of thousands of men on Jews instead of logistics for the army, not building enough trucks.... the list of critical mistakes is never ending.
Mostly valid points, except your comments about battleship vs. u-boats
Heading toward Kiev, declaring war on US with no major upfront gain etc. were gambles and strategic blunders.
Whereas aiming to build a large surface fleet under Raeder was actually pretty conventional and in fact perhaps expected from a large power. In the hindsight perhaps, one can say the focus ought to have been on u-boats but that is the hindsight. It wasn't a gamble.
Hitler taking over the army, labour camps and other Nazi related points etc. were just a natural consequences of whom the German choose to lead them. So not a mistake or blunder but rather a by-product of the decision made in the 30s to elevate NSDAP to the leadership position.
As for ME262 or strategic bomber, the air war was pretty new at time. Their mistake was not learning from their mistake.
Comment
Comment