Page 40 of 46 FirstFirst ... 31323334353637383940414243444546 LastLast
Results 586 to 600 of 686

Thread: WWII what-ifs

  1. #586
    Senior Contributor Monash's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Mar 10
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,495
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    The loss of Malta wuld give the Axis unimpeded access to North Africa and would likely cause a political crisis that would be the straw that broke the camels back with Churchill.
    The loss of Malta would have improved the Axis supply situation, particularly as far as fuel is concerned but in the longer term it wouldn't have impeded Allied reinforcements or supply lines much more than they already were. If pushed to interdict Rommel's supply lines the British also had other options based on their naval dominance in the Med, including the use of additional submarine and long range aircraft. Not ideal I grant you but there would have work arounds.

    By the same token given the fact that the disasters in Greece and Crete had already occurred without Churchill being called to account it's drawing somewhat of a long bow to suggest that the British Parliament would be moved to dismiss Churchill based on the loss of more one 'obscure' island (remembering of course that Malta's fame arose from it's ultimately successful resistance to the Axis siege). Absent that success why would the British government of the day really care? In the end a Malta that fell early in the war would merely be a footnote in history rather than something justifying the dismissal of a PM.
    Last edited by Monash; 02 Apr 16, at 12:59.

  2. #587
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    13,060
    if the point is to find an appropriate reason for british departure from the war in 1940 or 1941, it's not too hard: Churchill was not a very fit man, and actually suffered a heart attack in Dec 1941 when he was visiting Washington DC.

    for that matter Churchill almost died in a car accident in 1933.

    had either happenstance gone worse, well, we'd be living in a very different world today.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  3. #588
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,668
    It was not Churchill who started it and he got the post to finish it. If he suddenly dies, who sits?
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  4. #589
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    Hitler was going east come hell or high water
    The question is will his Generals balk? Malta would have told the Soviets how to defeat Blitzkreig. Deny manoeuver room.
    Chimo

  5. #590
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,550
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    The question is will his Generals balk? Malta would have told the Soviets how to defeat Blitzkreig. Deny manoeuver room.
    Not really practical in the Ukraine and even in the more constrained environs of the Baltics, the Soviets lost, they just didn't have the troop quality to stop the Germans.

  6. #591
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,550
    This no UK tangent got me thinking so let me throw this out there... How about a WW2 where Germany is waging war against the UK and USSR, the USSR is waging war against Germany and is technically at war with the UK, and the UK is waging war against Germany and is technically at war with the USSR. Finaldn is defacto allied with Germany and the UK. Had Hitler not invaded Norway, this could have been a real possibility. Churchill was considering sending allied troops to fight the USSR in Finland and after all the USSR invaded Poland. When the US jumps in, she is at war with Japan and Germany, but not the USSR (but not kindly disposed towards them either).

    How would Germany fare if there is no LL but there is still a two front war? How do the allies resolve the Soviet question in Poland and Finland if Germany is defeated ?

  7. #592
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    13,060
    any situation where the US ends up in a war with Germany will almost certainly mean a German defeat. any situation where BOTH the US and the USSR are fighting Germany will -certainly- end with a German defeat.

    my guess is that shortly after US entrance into the war, FDR pressures Churchill to concentrate his efforts on Germany and stop fighting it out with "Uncle Joe". no LL probably means the Russians and Germans are duking it out in the Ukraine by the time the Allies are ready to come out with Overlord.

    the big "dunno" factor here is that there's no Soviet buy-in to the post-war world, which means there's going to be a LOT of pressure for both sides to carve up Germany through de facto vs de jure means.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  8. #593
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    23,782
    Why would UK be at war with USSR? Just because of the invasion of Finland?
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  9. #594
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    13,060
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  10. #595
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    23,782
    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    Wow, weird. What's next? US war plan against Canada? oh...wait...
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  11. #596
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,550
    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    There was also talk about invading Norway in order to send troops to Finland.

  12. #597
    Patron
    Join Date
    07 Oct 14
    Location
    San Jose, CA.
    Posts
    279
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    This no UK tangent got me thinking so let me throw this out there... How about a WW2 where Germany is waging war against the UK and USSR, the USSR is waging war against Germany and is technically at war with the UK, and the UK is waging war against Germany and is technically at war with the USSR. Finaldn is defacto allied with Germany and the UK. Had Hitler not invaded Norway, this could have been a real possibility. Churchill was considering sending allied troops to fight the USSR in Finland and after all the USSR invaded Poland. When the US jumps in, she is at war with Japan and Germany, but not the USSR (but not kindly disposed towards them either).
    How does the UK support sustain it operation in Finland? The gap between the UK and Norway, Baltic, Norwegian Sea a German U Boat pond. How does Russian bring war to Britain? Kick the UK out of Finland, Russia has no long range strategic arm, most of her Naval tonnage will come from LL. UK in Finland Dieppe on a grand scale, but the consequences end there.

  13. #598
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    Not really practical in the Ukraine and even in the more constrained environs of the Baltics, the Soviets lost, they just didn't have the troop quality to stop the Germans.
    They don't have to be. They just need to be in the right place ... and die in place.
    Chimo

  14. #599
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,550
    Quote Originally Posted by Dazed View Post
    How does the UK support sustain it operation in Finland? The gap between the UK and Norway, Baltic, Norwegian Sea a German U Boat pond. How does Russian bring war to Britain? Kick the UK out of Finland, Russia has no long range strategic arm, most of her Naval tonnage will come from LL. UK in Finland Dieppe on a grand scale, but the consequences end there.
    UK/Fr planned on invading Norway, 1. it would cut the winter route for Swedish iron headed for Germany. 2. It would permit allied troops to transit to Finland to oppose the Soviets who were widely see as German co-belligerants at best and German allies at worse given the dual invasion of Poland and other acts of Soviet agression like the invasion of the Baltics and occupation of parts of Romania. Modern WWII history (popluar) often overlooks the fact that the Soviets invaded more countries than Germany until the spring of 1940.

  15. #600
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,550
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    They don't have to be. They just need to be in the right place ... and die in place.
    The Soiets had several armies in the right place, they did die and did not achieve much. Had Hitler not been fixated on numbers and thus diverted the panzers to bag a huge but immobile army near Kiev he would have taken Lenningrad and Moscow.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. How necessary were BB's in WWII?
    By USSWisconsin in forum Battleships Board
    Replies: 118
    Last Post: 14 Oct 10,, 23:54
  2. Who really won WWII?
    By Tarek Morgen in forum Ancient, Medieval & Early Modern Ages
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 28 Apr 08,, 18:25
  3. WWII Germany Vs WWII Russia
    By Cosmobreeze in forum The World Wars
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 28 Jun 07,, 23:33
  4. WWII Germany Vs WWII U.S.A.
    By Cosmobreeze in forum The World Wars
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 28 Jun 07,, 23:29
  5. WMDs During WWII
    By Amled in forum The World Wars
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 18 Jun 05,, 00:57

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •