End of WW2 -- second part

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

The war wasn't almost won by Germany though. Once Germany had failed to take Britain out of the picture - they lacked a real chance of total victory. The British Empire had a much larger economic base than Germany - even with European slaves.

Once Britain had been unsettled, the longer it was left the larger the production became - and the less the chance Germany had.

North Africa had a big strategic value to the Axis as a whole. It would secure the southern flank of Europe - for a start. Leaving the British troops there would leave the European flank open to invasion - giving Britain the chance to knock Italy from the war.
Also, N.Africa has many ports for repairing the large capital ships of the Kriegsmarine - and even stop off points for the U-Boats. N. African oil was desirable - Germany was deprived of it.

And the most important thing for the Axis - the Suez Canal. With that the Royal Navy could quickly transfer from CBI to MTO then ETO. If the Axis held that canal - the Japanese and Germans would have a valid meeting point in the oceans.
 

The 'almost won' was in reference to the Russian campaign - my bad. Had the Germans allowed the Brits to retreat at Dunquirk and persued an peace with them, I think Britain would have settled down after a few months when Hitler went East. Going with that, the battle of the atlantic would have been delayed eliminating the immediate need for the ports in N. Africa.

Once he had Russia, the Balkans and the Northern Mid East, Hitler would have the natural resources and the space to continue his build up in secrecy for any conquest he wanted at a later time.

His big mistake was not concentrating on Russia to begin with, not only were they not prepared but in '37 Stalin had killed a very large majority of his Military's seinor leaders leaving them wide open.

The Suez is a good point but wouldn't be so important until Phase II, Britain. If he's done a good job of masking his intentions Britain would be fairly close to the level they were in '42. Remember without a direct threat you can't maintain a high level of rediness for long - the economy can't sustain it and the populace won't accept the sacrifices required And the US would have still been asleep. Britain alone does not have the resources.

Peace, at least temporary, with Britain would be criticle and could have been persued two ways a. To have gone East First. or b. to have allowed the British to retreat saying "I have no quarel with you" and demonstrating it by going East immediately but still in the Spring (Timing is criticle Russia MUST be conquered before winter).

wmaxt
 
No, sorry wmaxt but I don't think you understand British culture. We are a proud nation - our pride comes before almost anything and we entered the War as a matter of principal. We had a pact with Poland and we would stick to it - no matter how much Hitler tried to appease us, Britain would not back out of the war unless Germany got out of Poland and stayed within it's borders.

In 1934 Churchill noted that Germany was a threat to world peace - with Churchill coming to office in 1940, he would stay on Germanys' back. The British had been rattled - and the production of the British Empire would be thrown into full swing to stop Germany ever achieving total victory.

And the British Empire was huge - even in 1940. It was massive, had a massive influence and man power...Germany didn't have a chance.
 

I understand what your saying, the US is much the same and it probably comes from the same place.

Even then resources were limited (Remember the Mossie it never would never have existed had it not been the shortage of Aluminum) would they bankrupt the economy for a treaty they really couldn't do anything about for several years if ever. The Empire was great but what were the contributions? Oil, Most (war time) up to 90% came from the US. Aluminum, Most came from the US, 60%? Man Power, 70% US? Ships, 70% US? Not to mention Food, Powder, steel and Misc. (Not completely sure about the percentages it's been a long time) India, Singapore, Africa, Hong Kong their main contributions were land area to defend, though India did supply some troops to the CBI.

Would "If given an out" The British give literaly everything they have for something they may not be able to do anyway. And remember I'm basing this on the expanded Nazi Europe/Aisa AND depending on exactly how you play the scenario Poland/West Europe doesn't have to be involved at this point. Support from the US is small, slow and iffy because nothing so far has Jolted us out of our stupid isolationion mentality. Remember too the British DID give everything they had, including most of the Empire, WITH the help and support of the US the way it actually happened.

To clarify, Three possibilities all three leaving an "Out" for Britain:
1. Nazi's go to the channel first.
2. Nazi's go East not touching Poland/Western Europe until he's consolidated his eastern conquests and his resources.
3. Nazi's go to the channel leaving the Treaty countries France/Poland unharmed?

Remember my hypothisis is that the Brits arn't drawn in and at least until the delayed point the US is forced to step in.

Anyone else?

wmaxt
 
plan_D said:
How does Germany secure the East without going through Poland?
Click to expand...

Then I have to plead Brain Fade It's been awhile since I've looked closely at a map of Europe and I was thinking Poland was more southerly.

Ok, Poland is a must, does that really change the scenario? If Hitler had gone East without threatening/supplying Britain with an out what would have happened?

In real life the Allies won, why?
1. Hitler was over extended too much to fast.
2. Hitler had run out of resources Oil, Metals of all kinds, Manpower, Food.
3. The Allies won because they pulled together and had Together the resources to over come an over extended Axis.


Britain by itself was not any better manpower resource wise than Germany.

Had Hitler consolidated Russia he would have had all he needed and I don't think All the Americas and Britain could have done it with certainty.

wmaxt
 
Once Germany moved into Poland - Britain is drawn into the war. Britain itself is no matter than Germany in man power - no but Britain and her Empire are on terms, if not above, the man power of the Soviet Union.

The largest British Army was in the CBI, the 14th Army. If the numbers deployed in the CBI were deployed against Germany, then Germany would have felt it hard.

Under this 'what-if' am I right to assume that the U.S is still supplying Britain with the vital war resources under Lend-Lease? In reality, that's the only way Germany could beat Britain - by cutting off that life line. No direct assault was ever going to work.

The Channel stops Germany ever bringing it's full man power and tactical skill to bare. The Kriegsmarine surface fleet isn't exactly the best in the world and the U-Boat fleet could be tied up pretty quickly with the introduction of light carriers and long range maritime patrol aircraft.
 
plan_D said:
We had a pact with Poland and we would stick to it - no matter how much Hitler tried to appease us, Britain would not back out of the war unless Germany got out of Poland and stayed within it's borders.
Click to expand...

Yes but the Allies as a whole did not really honor there pact with Poland in the fact that they let Germany stand by and take Poland. When Germany attacked Poland they left only 23 2nd Rate Divisions in the West with the Allies having 110 Divisions with which to invade Germany. If the allies had attacked Germany at that time they could have ended the war much sooner.

I do however agree that there was no chance for Germany. The odds were just stacked against them. They had a lunatic in a leader who underestimated his enemy and most of all I would say the lack of recources.
 
Britain was in no position to invade Germany in September 1939. You must remember that France was practically forced into declaring war on Germany by Britain making it feel guilty.

The Allies as a whole did not invade Germany - but nowhere in the pact did it say "The nations of Britain and France would invade Germany if Germany invaded Poland." but I am sure that if Britain was in a position to do so, she would have done so.

Britain only had 350,000 people on the continent of Europe - it was in no situation to save Poland.
 
Britain was all for it but Britain could not force France into the offensive - it had already forced her into declaring war on Germany in the first place. All France had to do in the early years was appear in the Rhineland when Germany occupied it and German forces would have gone running back across Rhine - that's what was planned.

It was France if anyone who let Poland down in the early years - Britain were the only nation willing to do something. Unfortunately for Poland - Britain being Britain was in no fit state to go into total war at a moments notice.
 
I still disagree. The Allies could have acted quickly and ended it. Gerneral Guderian himself even said that Germany would not have been able to stop the Allies that early.

I do agree though that if the French had acted in the Rheinland and the Allies had stood up about Austria and the Czech the war may have been prevented.
 
What I am saying is that Britain alone couldn't have stopped Germany, not even in September 1939. France could have stopped Germany on her own in September 1939 - I don't doubt that. I certainly do not doubt that all the Allies could have stopped Germany then. I have read Guderian's memoirs and Von Mellenthin's 'Panzer Battles' which mentioned the "mighty" and "impregnable" West Wall as being nothing more than shoddy built and ill-manned fortifications only made strong by the propaganda surrounding them.

The British could not bait France into acting because France was not willing to bear the full brunt of the action. It cost Europe dearly...
 
Because what you quoted was me solely refering to Britain - that was my point in Britain being a proud nation and joining the war out of principal in sticking to that pact with Poland.

France alone could have defeated Germany in September, 1939. Even if not total victory - they could have made Germany pull out of Poland.
 
And that is what I am saying, the Allies could have defeated Germany in 1939.

"What we have here is a failure to comunicate! Some men you just cant reach!"
 
Your right, Adler, the Allies could have stopped it in '39 but the US had their heads where the sun don't shine, the French wern't threatened directly yet, and the Brits didn't have the where with all to do it alone.

If Hitler had kept going East and consolidated his resources before everyone woke up, he might be there still. We got lucky because he is a lunatic!

Anyway thats my thought.

wmaxt
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Was the Hispano-Suiza 12Y the worst ≥25L V-12 of WW2?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
3K
ThomasP
T
G
Ditching qualities of WW2 Aircraft
Replies
14
Views
2K
ThomasP
T
German WW2 seaplane bases
Replies
1
Views
597
Dimlee
A
Perun: Building the Worst WW2 Air Force
Replies
13
Views
1K
pinehilljoe
WW2 Fantasy Aircraft
2 3 4
Replies
62
Views
2K
Zmauky
Z
Menu
Log in
Register