[MAGNA]

This may go in hand with the Sealion thread.

What if Germany had deferred the invasion of Russia until 1943 to allow the concentration of effort to be put on taking Britain out of the war ?

This would include a larger presence in the Mediterranean area. Would Egypt have fallen ? Gibralatar ? Malta ?

Would the sealanes around Britain have been choked ?

Would it have been possible to force Britain out of the war ?

Note - this still includes US participation with a German declaration of war after Pearl harbour.

[McCoy]

For starters the German war machine wouldn't hav had as much heavy tanks as the Panther for example wouldn't have been developed n' thus they would have considerably more problems with a better equiped Russian army.

[Panzermacher]

McCoy said:

For starters the German war machine wouldn't hav had as much heavy tanks as the Panther for example wouldn't have been developed n' thus they would have considerably more problems with a better equiped Russian army.

Urban, that's true. Panthers were the answer to T-34's... And Like you I am sure the Russians would not have sat idle....they would have beefed up there Forces.

I am not real sure if the KM could have "Ruled the seas" Takes ships to do that...and Germany just wasn't building and developing them fast enough. Some carriers would have been useful, and Many more submarines. With the US entry, that pretty much sealed the fate of the Sea War. US and British forces then could share knowledge and tactics. The US had many ships to put out in the sealanes..Civilian and military. And when the US geared up for full war, Germany was still building at pre-war quotas. Can't rule an Ocean if you don't have the ships to do it...

[Jim O]

By 1943 Stalin may have made the first move and the war might well have been a long drawn out affair, perhaps mainly in Poland.

[Aussie Dave]

Well assuming Stalin remained a close ally of Germany till then, it could have changed the war's timeline radically.

But thats again ASSUMING that the invasion of Russia was timed perfectly and went better than Unternehmen Barbarossa did in 1941 and Hitler just left the operation for his Generals to oversee instead of hindering them.

Also Russia would have to be defeated very quickly because invasion on Germany's western front was inevitable and they would have to split their resources just as they had to after the Normandy invasion.

How long would the US have stayed out of the war if Japan hadn't attacked Pearl?
Japan's attack stopped us from knowing that exactly and sealed their's and Germany's fate at the same time when they did.

IMHO it would have for Germany prolonged the war at best, but the war's eventual outcome would be the same.



Cheers,
Dave

[MAGNA]

i was what iffing mainly from the perspective of knocking Britain out of the war in 1941 / 42 before the US resources came in too hard.

Could it have been done if the USSR was put on the back burner for another year ?

If it could, what would need to happen ?

Submarines, Aircraft, concentration in the Med ?

This is taking into account more forces being available too.

[Aussie Dave]

MAGNA said:

i was what iffing mainly from the perspective of knocking Britain out of the war in 1941 / 42 before the US resources came in too hard.

I'm afraid that wasn't going to happen.

The english channel meant Britain could only be defeated by a massive seabourne invasion by the germans and we know all about the "What If's" of that actually happening.

Nah, Britain was never going to give up and surrrender and Germany couldn't have forced them to.


Cheers,
Dave

[MAGNA]

I agree. There doesn't seem to be any way Germany could have done it considering what was available even with resources earmarked for Russia. Air and sea were the areas they needed to dominate and I can't find anything to suggest they could have. Never mind. It was a thought.

[Tom Houlihan]

Had there been a little more emphasis on the U-Boat fleet, without US intervention, there might have been a chance for a negotiated peace with England. In the first war to end all wars, the subs were alleged to have put a major hurt on England's economy and dinner table. Mayhap no Seelöwe, but had they gotten Winston down to about a 32" waist, he might have been willing to talk.

Weren't there enough anti-communists in England to have accepted a truce or peace with Germany if it meant that Germany would be fully engaged with the SU?

[MAGNA]

That's a possibility for sure. Britain suffered in 1917 from the U-Boat activity to the extent where Jellicoe and others gave a time of six months before they would have to negotiate with Germany, such was the extent of the problem.

I don't know whether anyone in Germany ever realised or found out about this but if they had you would think there would have been more emphasis on U-Boat design and production. The first Hydrogen peroxide boats were working early on together with good training facilities. The number of boats in operation was still low though.

The other factor that could have swayed things was the escape of the BEF. Another subject but it ties in. Had the bulk of the BEF been captured there were those in the English government who would have been pushing very hard for an armistice.

[Panzermacher]

One cannot be Britain without first ruling the seas....That would have been a massive undertaking from a Nation that really didn't have a colorful seagoing tradition. U-boats may have turned the tide IF the US had not been dragged into the fray. (Which is not very likely, American transports would have still went on to Britain, and some would have been targeted, eventually forcing the US to side with Britain more vocally.)

The Soviet Union would have been another story even a year later...Some evidence I have seen in various books have pretty much stated that if the Germans had not attacked in 41', they and their Allies may have BEEN attacked. The Russian army was said to have been building up on the borders of the Axis Satellite states in the year before Barbarossa. (Could this be why AG Central had alot of resistance in that area?) I am sure Stalin would have been busy in a "Land grab" attempt to had the Germans been occupied in the West. He still viewed many areas of Europe as "Soviet territory that needed to be liberated." ie Parts of FInland, Rumania, Poland, The Baltic states (Parts of Poland and the Baltics had ALREADY been snatched up) Bulgaria, and East Prussia.
The end would have still been the same...but some borders may have been very different in the post-war world....

[Aussie Dave]

Now we are getting off-topic.

But before we go back I would like to point out that in WWI it was Germany that suffered far worse from Britain's shipping blockage than the british suffered from losses incured by U-Boats.
(Germans were starved, the British were not.)

The british blockage is one of the main reason for the adoption of the U-Boat by the germans as one of its main weapons in the war.

Quote

Jutland was undoubtedly a material victory for the German High Seas Fleet whilst being a strategic victory for the British Grand Fleet.

The Germans had inflicted heavier losses on the numerically superior Grand Fleet and had escaped near destruction but had failed to break the British blockade or control of the North Sea and had not altered the balance of power in any meaningful way.

After the battle between the British Grand Fleet and the German High Seas Fleet at Jutland, the German High Seas Fleet would never leave port again during the war.
So Germany needed a new strategy to get the allies (Britain) to the peace table and break the blockade and U-Boats seemed to be the answer.


(Part 5 of 6.)

Its an interesting documentary of Britain's Naval Bockade of German Shipping during WWI and well worth watching.
You can see the effects it had on german thinking and its future impact on WWII Germany's U-Boat tactics as well.



Back on the subject:


Germany was doomed by other things besides its invasion of Russia.

Take "Enigma" and "Ultra" as one example of this.
The germans had no idea the Allies were able to read their mail and using that information against them.
How much did that cost them?

It still amazes me that the germans over-looked so many of their obvious weaknesses and carried on regardless.
(Its proverbly something to do with Germany and its armed forces being run by a "Corporal" instead of those qualified to lead them.)


Cheers,
Dave

[MAGNA]

That last sentence reminds me of another what if I have seen.

It went something like what if Hitler had not lead Germany during WWII. The first answer back almost killed the whole thing - with no Hitler there probably would not have been a World War II.

[PanzerBob]

Along with the delay, many things would have to have occurred before Barbarossa could have been pulled off.

(Pardon any repeated topics)
First and foremost, A Hitler who maintained his sanity and allowed his Generals and other experts to do their jobs.
2. Final Solution and Jewish Persecution in general are dumped in favour of a Campaign of Propaganda aimed at totally convincing the German People that a War against Communism is imperative. While playing Stalin like a fiddle.
3. Ramped up war production.
4. Good intelligence picture of what the Red Army is up to.
5. Acting on that information.
6. Bringing Spain into the Axis, and any other country "liberated".
7. Control of the Middle East, A Win in North Africa.
8. Cessation of hostilities against Britain.
9. A better understanding of America.
10. No Pearl Harbor.

I know there is more and the details of any of the above make room for much discussion.

IMHO if June 41 never occurs, the Soviet Army would have better off by 43, but providing the Germans still were going to launch Barbarossa, they would have been better off as well. This of course is, if, Stalin still mistrusts his Army and they have not changed tactically and strategically. Now if Stalin clues in and starts preparing his forces in advance then a slugfest would have ensued if either party moved on the other. 41 0r 43, the Hilterites would had to have won before the second Winter or as before the Russians would finally get their Collective Stuff together.

For now Bob out:coffee:

[Freightshaker]

Tom Houlihan said:

Had there been a little more emphasis on the U-Boat fleet, without US intervention, there might have been a chance for a negotiated peace with England. In the first war to end all wars, the subs were alleged to have put a major hurt on England's economy and dinner table. Mayhap no Seelöwe, but had they gotten Winston down to about a 32" waist, he might have been willing to talk.

Weren't there enough anti-communists in England to have accepted a truce or peace with Germany if it meant that Germany would be fully engaged with the SU?

Even Churchill admitted after the war that the oonly thing that really scared him was the Uboat campaign. IMO, the Battle of the Atlantic is the pivotal battle of the European theater. To tie this into the topic: if the German's win the Battle of the Atlantic, Lend-Lease stops.

[MAGNA]

One thing I have always wondered about was Hitler's declaration of war on the US after Pearl harbour. It just seems to be really stupid on his part. The only reason I can see for it was that he hoped Japan would either draw much more US and British resources away from Europe and/or that the Japanese may attack the USSR.

Not very well thought out though.

[Tom Houlihan]

PanzerBob said:

This of course is, if, Stalin still mistrusts his Army and they have not changed tactically and strategically. Now if Stalin clues in and starts preparing his forces in advance then a slugfest would have ensued if either party moved on the other.

That's interesting. The bulk of the officers that ended up directing the Army and saving the SU were those who had been purged, but were now considered "rehabilitated," and allowed back into service. Had the Germans not invaded in '41, the problems in the Red Army wouldn't have come to light. How many of those officers might have been shot by '43, instead of getting the chance to be rehabilitated overnight?

Boy, we could really do some cool alternate history stuff around here. The various perspectives and opinions here could combine for a helluva story!

[Panzermacher]

Tom Houlihan said:

PanzerBob said:

This of course is, if, Stalin still mistrusts his Army and they have not changed tactically and strategically. Now if Stalin clues in and starts preparing his forces in advance then a slugfest would have ensued if either party moved on the other.

That's interesting. The bulk of the officers that ended up directing the Army and saving the SU were those who had been purged, but were now considered "rehabilitated," and allowed back into service. Had the Germans not invaded in '41, the problems in the Red Army wouldn't have come to light. How many of those officers might have been shot by '43, instead of getting the chance to be rehabilitated overnight?

Boy, we could really do some cool alternate history stuff around here. The various perspectives and opinions here could combine for a helluva story!

Always the writer, eh Tom? It does offer up some very thought provoking ideas.... Germany wins the "Battle of the Atlantic".....Starves out Britain, wins Africa and the Mid-East... Then turns East in '43. What a slug-fest that would have been. I still think the Soviet Union would have been no push over, and been stronger in weaponry by then. And since Stalin was paranoid, he would have watched and copied the Germans every move. (as far as weapons and Machinery were concerned)

[Roddoss72]

Salutations All

Well for this to happen certain things in my humble opion would have to occur.

1, Conquest of Poland (this did happen)
2, Securing our iron ore shipments through Norway (This did happen with the invasion of Norway).
3, Attack the west with a view to destroying the Western Alliances Armed Forces and especially the British Exenditionary Forces (the last did not happen), (Hitlers first mistake of the war)
4, Hitler concrete decision to invade Britian, having advance plans to do so, and carry out those plans. (this did not happen)
5, Operation Sea Lion (including the BoB should have been conducted at the same time) launched within 3 weeks of France's Armistice with Germany.
6, Ordered Mussolini not to go on any offensives in North Africa until the British have to recall the Royal Navy to protect home waters. Then go on the offensive.
7, Once Britian and North Afirca is under Axis control then plan to invade The Soviet Union.
8, Under no circumstances what so ever declare war on America, thus leaving the Soviet Union all by herself.

Regards

Roddoss72:emperor:

[MAGNA]

Roddoss72 said:

Salutations All

Well for this to happen certain things in my humble opion would have to occur.

1, Conquest of Poland (this did happen)
2, Securing our iron ore shipments through Norway (This did happen with the invasion of Norway).
3, Attack the west with a view to destroying the Western Alliances Armed Forces and especially the British Exenditionary Forces (the last did not happen), (Hitlers first mistake of the war)
4, Hitler concrete decision to invade Britian, having advance plans to do so, and carry out those plans. (this did not happen)
5, Operation Sea Lion (including the BoB should have been conducted at the same time) launched within 3 weeks of France's Armistice with Germany.
6, Ordered Mussolini not to go on any offensives in North Africa until the British have to recall the Royal Navy to protect home waters. Then go on the offensive.
7, Once Britian and North Afirca is under Axis control then plan to invade The Soviet Union.
8, Under no circumstances what so ever declare war on America, thus leaving the Soviet Union all by herself.

Regards

Roddoss72:emperor:

That's a good list mate. Add in Germany's ability to produce superior submarines much sooner (another thing they did not do), and the Atlantic becomes an extremely dangerous place for the US if Britain falls. It may be just as well that Hitler relied on so many sycophants.