Possible End of the ww2

[trackend]

I can see where you're coming from Concorde but operation sealion was a very make shift plan and I don't think it ever really had a chance of success I agree the air force would have had to pull back but if the threat of invasion had actually happened the landing barges (as that was all they really had to use) would have been decimated by the Air force and Navy even if it had meant throwing nearly ever thing at them and suffering heavy losses.

In my scenario the soviets fail to stop the German advance they link up with the Japanese the industrial power of the soviets is used by the Axies forces to enlarge there capabilitys this then means a planned fullscale assault on the Uk, it succeeds the US has no chance of a second front so interest is concentrated in the far east with a planned invasion by the axies powers via the Bering sea whilst the Japanse keep pressure on in the pacific theatre end result stale mate and a truce is signed in 1947. the A bomb is never deployed because of M.A.D
(bet that causes a few comment )

 

[mosquitoman]

If the Germans weren't stopped outside Moscow, that might've happened

 

[hellmaker]

I'm not shure about that. The USSR was quite a big nation, and it's Red Army was numerous, though ill prepared... Hitler came as prepared as Napoleon. He wasn't ready to deal with the long "Siberian winter". Many of his soldiers were lost due to this disadvantage... My guess is that the soviets would have fought to the las man. Stalin would have never accepted defeat... Germany would have had a chance having all of Europe fighting along side it...

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I dont really see Operation Sealion haveing succeded even if Dunkirk had failed to bring the BEF back to England. The Germans were not prepared eneogh for it. I do however seeing this as a possibility for the Germans to prepare better and take Russia.

 

[Concorde247]

I remember that hitler once said that it was bad to have a secind front, but then he went did it with russia.

IF he had attacked Russia before coming westwards then i think that things could have have been different, as the russian winter wasnt as severe in 1939/1940

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I think he did this because of how the war was going at the time. With the success of the Blitzkrieg he thought he was invincible.

 

[delcyros]

This szenario is unlikely. But Hitler was very probable to get Moscow in 1941. The soviet defense and counterattacks were possible because 50 additional experienced far eastern divisions could be relocated to Moscow from (thanks to the spy Dr. Richard Sorge). I doubt that Stalin could hope to hold Murmansk, Moscow and even St. Petersburg without them in 1941.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I dont think he could have either, I think if Hitler had fully pressed ahead into Moscow it would have fallen. Also if the supplies and winter equipment for the eastern front had not ended up in Italy and the tropical stuff for Italy not ended up in Russia, the Wehrmacht micht have been able to hold on to there ground due to the fact they would have been better equiped for the winter.

 

[hellmaker]

I agree to the fact that if Germany would have first attacked Russia, and concentrate on deffeating it, the end of the war might have been verry diffrent from what we know today...

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I too agree accept for the fact that France had to be out of the way before he could attack Russia. If he had just gone into Russia the French and British would have attacked from west.

 

[mosquitoman]

The way Britain and especially France were behaving, we wouldn't have invaded. We were cowards for some reason

 

[trackend]

I dont think thats very fair calling them cowards mossie I think a lot of the reluctance on the part of the French and British to go to war in the first place was memories of WW1 and Chamberlin although in hind sight was very foolish in believing he could apease Hitler didnt want to be the one to plunge europe into another world war so foolish maybe even perhaps reluctant, but not cowards.
Having said that if that is your opinion mossie, then I strongly support your right to express it.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

we weren't cowards, were tried to prevent war however when the time came we were willing to declair war............

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I would agree with Lanc on this. They tried to prevent as much as possible, but when the time came they stood up and fought. Well the British at least did, cant say much for the French. However I do believe that you can only use diplomacy to a point and then it is time to act, and England and France waited too long to act.

 

[Concorde247]

The Allies were certainly NOT cowards!! there was also a matter of the strategy that the allies used. we were still living by the rules of trench warfare of the 1914-18 war, you only have to remember the Maginot line to understand that!

The Germans knew what it was like to be on the receiving end of a tank, and adapted the tanks principles for a more modern mobile war.

As trackend rightly said, none of the allies wanted the war, and didnt think another one would be possible so soon after the first. People had hoped that the right lessons had been learned the first time around!

Chamberlains "piece of Paper" bought this country time to re-arm its airforce though still using outdated tactics.

 

[hellmaker]

I'm shure that the allies weren't cowards... But they knew their own interests... they woldn't have interveened in the war aginst Germany when it attacked Russia... Especially with Prime Minister Chamberlain... He might have been a coward but only to prevent war on english soil... But with Russia eliminated, they might have thought the germans were doing them a favor... It's not like the russians wren't interested in expanding their borders... AND THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN MAKING A HUGE MISTAKE IN THINKING THIS WAY!!!

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

oh don't worry we knew what the russians were up to...........

 

[hellmaker]

Exactlly... that is way I think that Britain and France wouldn't have entered the war alongside the Russians in the event that the latter would have been invaded by the germans... Don't you agree???

 

[trackend]

At least the British didn't sign a pact with Adolf so they could try to invade Finland like the Russians. You could be right Hellmaker but in reality it didn't happen. And Britain was pretty much on its own after the fall of France it had support from its friends in some of the commonwealth nations and across the pond with lend lease ect but this remember was at a time when Mr Lindburgh and his mates had a big anti-involvement following, hence the Sept 5th US neutrality proclaimation to placate them. Russia had a pact with the Nazi's so I still say that there was nothing cowardly about attempting to buy some time before hostilites against a massive and up to that point unstoppable dictatorship like Nazi Germany. However The Battle of Britain made them cough a bit, some months later.
One other thing if it was cowardly why did the UK sign a mutual assistance treaty Aug 25, with Poland surley it would have been better to not sign it at all and keep their heads down ?
At the time Chamberlain was accused of weakness in not standing up to Hitler. It became apparent later that Britain's run down defence capability left few alternatives. The trouble was Chamberlain had misread Hitler's intentions badly.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

but it did buy us very valuable time...........