Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Suppose this:
German forces press home the incirclement of British and French troops at Dunkirk at the same time Luftwaffe forces gain and maintain control of the air over the coast and all Kriegsmarine assets both surface and subsurface make a no holds barred push into the channel...... England is forced to her knees!
I'm not sure that the Germans completely destroying the BEF at Dunkirk would really have amounted to Britain being forced to her knees. Certainly the rescue of over 200k British troops (the evacuated French numbering over 100k were sent back to France before the French surrender) was an important moral victory, but it wasn't the manpower that was important and could have been far more easily replaced than the equipment that was lost.
The British left the equivalent of 10 divisions worth of equipment at Dunkirk. The whole of Britain at the time only contained enough equipment to re-equip two of those divisions. It took the British until almost the end of 1941 to replace the lost equipment. In total the British left behind:
Quote:
...among huge supplies of ammunition, 880 field guns, 310 guns of large calibre, some 500 anti-aircraft guns, about 850 anti-tanks guns, 11,000 machine guns, nearly 700 tanks, 20,000 motorcycles and 45,000 motor cars and lorries.
So while the rescue of the soldiers was a great moral victory, that rescue did little in terms of actually bolstering the effectiveness or defense of Britain itself.
To be honest, I don't think Germany could have done much to increase its chances to win the war once it started in 1939. In fact, even before the war its strategic position was unenviable. It had no major allies except Italy and Japan, the first being fairly week and the second too far away. All of the other Great Powers were highly suspicious of its motives and predisposed against it.
The second point is that once the war got under way, there was no way to keep it contained from a becoming a global conflict. Britain would not accept a dominant power on the continent under any circumstances. This was their policy for centuries. The USSR felt it was too weak to enter the fray at the moment but it was building up its military at a breakneck pace. It definitely had the intention to play its hand at an opportune moment. The non-aggression pact was a tactical time out that neither side indented to keep. In the United States, the Roosevelt administration was fully behind Britain and simply needed time to work through the conservative isolationists in Congress. Through Cash-and-Carry, Destroyers for Bases and finally the Lend-Lease, the vast industrial might of the US was providing plenty of wind for the British sales well before December 1941.
I think the biggest blunder that the Nazis made was not fully mobilizing their resources and manpower in the first half of the war. Until as late at 1943, they were on the so called "guns-and-butter" economy in an attempt to shield Germany's population from the deprivations of war. Had they mobilized the full 100% of their resources from the start, they may have overwhelmed the Soviet Union in 1941. But other than this I don't think they made any blunders big enough to make a difference.
Everything you wrote about Stalin and the Soviet Union's military ramp-up is quite true. I'm not arguing that at all (heck, I'm not arguing anything, just what-if'ing).
Now, let's go back to my original what-if. What if Hitler had (truly) honored his non-aggression treaty with the Soviet Union, and concentrated his efforts on his Western Front? What if he altered this thoughts and plans so that his "Lebensraum" was to be carved from the West, not the East? (At least, for a few years.)
With all the animosity between the Soviet Union and Imperial Japan, might it not be possible that Stalin would transfer his rapidly-burgeoning military might to face the clear and present danger in the East rather than the (seemingly) non-existent danger in the West?
And, after they had been in the East for a few years... ?
If Hitler had not attacked the Soviet Union then they would have really been quite an unstoppable force. The number of men the Soviets had and the fact that they were rolling T34 tanks off the production lines every 20 minutes or something. If the Germans had a better commander rather than Hitler trying to give out instructions then they to would have been truly strong.
Combined with the bravery and determination of Japan, we would be looking at a very different world right now.
Someone said about the Germans over extending themselves. Don't forget that the Germans had to postpone operation Barborossa by a few months in order to help Mussolini in Greece. This meant they attacked when the rains had come. Lack of roads meaning they had to go through muddy fields in order to get to Moscow and by the Start of winter they coudl see Moscow, with a clear run they would have got there if it had not been put back.
Everything you wrote about Stalin and the Soviet Union's military ramp-up is quite true. I'm not arguing that at all (heck, I'm not arguing anything, just what-if'ing).
Now, let's go back to my original what-if. What if Hitler had (truly) honored his non-aggression treaty with the Soviet Union, and concentrated his efforts on his Western Front? What if he altered this thoughts and plans so that his "Lebensraum" was to be carved from the West, not the East? (At least, for a few years.)
With all the animosity between the Soviet Union and Imperial Japan, might it not be possible that Stalin would transfer his rapidly-burgeoning military might to face the clear and present danger in the East rather than the (seemingly) non-existent danger in the West?
And, after they had been in the East for a few years... ?
Enguiring minds, and all that...
Regards,
-- Nighteyes
First, the reason I mentioned the Soviet Union is that it was a rising threat that Hitler had to deal with sooner rather than later and, second, invading the USSR was actually part of Hitler's plan to get Britain to sit down for negotiations. So East and West were part of the same whole and so are very much related.
Now, when you say "concentrated his efforts" in the West, are you talking about another attempt at the Battle of Britain? Maybe TonyT can elaborate but I'm not really sure that Germany's chances were any better in 1941 than they were in 1940. To be sure, Germany was still bombing Britain at night and the wolf packs were still active as ever in the Atlantic. But without a large navy it is just tough to invade an island that is continually being reinforced with resources and equipment form the colonies and the United States.
I'm not sure that Germany had the necessary equipment and logistics to launch a D-Day style invasion across the English Channel. (Remember that in 1944, the allies had an almost total control of the skies and seas, and a vast logistical infrastructure (landing craft, floating piers) in place. And the majority of the German forces were distracted in the Eastern Front. Despite all that, the success of D-Day was not guaranteed. A proper invasion force would have taken Germany years to prepare and they simply didn't have that much time.
WRT to the Soviet Union's eastern border, it simply wasn't as threatened by the Japanese as the western border was by Germany. Sure, the USSR had scores to settle (going back to 1905) but Japan, unlike Germany, was simply too far away from the Soviet heartland to pose a serious threat. I don't think that Joseph Stalin would asses these threats incorrectly. Going after Japan when there is a Germany that controls most of continental Europe would be foolish to say the least.
First, the reason I mentioned the Soviet Union is that it was a rising threat that Hitler had to deal with sooner rather than later and, second, invading the USSR was actually part of Hitler's plan to get Britain to sit down for negotiations. So East and West were part of the same whole and so are very much related.
Now, when you say "concentrated his efforts" in the West, are you talking about another attempt at the Battle of Britain? Maybe TonyT can elaborate but I'm not really sure that Germany's chances were any better in 1941 than they were in 1940. To be sure, Germany was still bombing Britain at night and the wolf packs were still active as ever in the Atlantic. But without a large navy it is just tough to invade an island that is continually being reinforced with resources and equipment form the colonies and the United States.
I'm not sure that Germany had the necessary equipment and logistics to launch a D-Day style invasion across the English Channel. (Remember that in 1944, the allies had an almost total control of the skies and seas, and a vast logistical infrastructure (landing craft, floating piers) in place. And the majority of the German forces were distracted in the Eastern Front. Despite all that, the success of D-Day was not guaranteed. A proper invasion force would have taken Germany years to prepare and they simply didn't have that much time.
WRT to the Soviet Union's eastern border, it simply wasn't as threatened by the Japanese as the western border was by Germany. Sure, the USSR had scores to settle (going back to 1905) but Japan, unlike Germany, was simply too far away from the Soviet heartland to pose a serious threat. I don't think that Joseph Stalin would asses these threats incorrectly. Going after Japan when there is a Germany that controls most of continental Europe would be foolish to say the least.
MrMarbles,
Are we having fun yet? I certainly am!
I love engaging (so to speak) someone who defends his/her position with information, facts, data, and fact-supported speculation rather than resorting to less "honorable" tactics (again, so to speak).
I see your points and am tempted to concede some of them. But that wouldn't be nearly as much fun now, would it????
I love engaging (so to speak) someone who defends his/her position with information, facts, data, and fact-supported speculation rather than resorting to less "honorable" tactics (again, so to speak).
I see your points and am tempted to concede some of them. But that wouldn't be nearly as much fun now, would it????
Location: Finally escaped The People's Republic of California
11,317 posts, read 8,656,908 times
Reputation: 6391
Even without Soviet involvment I doubt that Britian would have fallen to the Nazi's. The British had allready won the battle of Britian. The Royal Navy ruled the waves. and the British are just plane old Tough sons of britches.....
Even without Soviet involvment I doubt that Britian would have fallen to the Nazi's. The British had allready won the battle of Britian. The Royal Navy ruled the waves. and the British are just plane old Tough sons of britches.....
Yeah but the British army of below 1 million men. The USSR with something insane like 20million and the Germans with their well trained troops. I think they would have won. It all comes down to numbers. And please no one mention Hannibal because the circumstances are completely different.
Well, not so much in the 1940's, though they certainly tried.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cali BassMan
... and the British are just plane old Tough sons of britches.....
No argument here!!!! Stiff upper lip and all that...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
