Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

sebster wrote:Why wouldn't the Balkans campaign have still happened? There wouldn't have been British troops there, but they didn't shift the timelines that dramatically. Even still, German troops were massing on the border with Russia long before the end of the Balkans campaign.

It may or may not happen, but what is important is that the Germans are not involved. My reasoning being is that Hitler has secured peace with Britain explicitly to gain an open hand when attacking the Soviet union. I don't see him throwing that away for a 1/3 share of Greece. I don't see him throwing it away to help the Japanese either.

sebster wrote:I agree that the Japanese wouldn't have been able to defeat all three, in fact I doubt they would have been able to defeat the UK at all if they weren't tied up in Europe, just as they were incapable of defeating the US. But would the Japanese have to fight all three? Again, this is where I'm not sure what we can and can't assume after the crazyland position of Britain aiding Germany. With this new, bizarrely amoral UK siding with Germany, might they have been willing to look on with indifference at a Japanese attack on the US, and just ensure it's own colonies remain protected?

I don't see the major 'Allied' powers allowing Japan to snipe their colonies one by one. In contrast eastern Russia is relatively easy pickings if Germany is doing better than they were historically.

Re: "crazyland position": Both you and Frazzled point this out, and you're both right but the "crazyland position" is the concept conceived by the OP ("what if Britain had joined with Germany?"), I'm just fleshing it out. I don't believe it's possible any more than you two do.

My take on this is that sometime between September 1939 and June 1940 the "crazyland position" happens. As a result Britain, Germany and France become best fascist buddies. It doesn't work in reality but it works in crazyland. I can't think of any other outcome that works, not even in crazyland.

Frazzled wrote:I'm still trying to get how Germany invades France but Britain doesn't go to war. Are you really saying Germany does nothing after invading Poland but gear up and attack the USSR? You do know France and Britain were at war with Germany at that point correct?

Well, yes. The point of a what-if scenario is to wonder what might have happened if things were different. In this case, the OP's what-if speculates over a UK that doesn't consider Poland sufficient cause to start a war with Germany, and maybe they even even ally with Germany (one is more likely than the other, but neither is plausible).

You didn't comment on the issues I raised with your speculation over Japanese expansion into British colonies...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

George Spiggott wrote:It may or may not happen, but what is important is that the Germans are not involved. My reasoning being is that Hitler has secured peace with Britain explicitly to gain an open hand when attacking the Soviet union. I don't see him throwing that away for a 1/3 share of Greece. I don't see him throwing it away to help the Japanese either.

Would occupation of the Balkans be a trigger for breaking the peace with the UK? That's where the crazyland position comes up again... if we've changed the UK's stance to be alright with occupation of Poland, why would the Balkans be any different?

]I don't see the major 'Allied' powers allowing Japan to snipe their colonies one by one. In contrast eastern Russia is relatively easy pickings if Germany is doing better than they were historically.

I'm wondering if this newly amoral Britain might have been willing to deal with the Japanese, and simply ignore the Japanese attack on the US. Which, isn't actually that unlikely, everyone knew about the Co-Prosperity Sphere and what it meant for the French, UK and US, yet the US didn't step in to help while Japan was attacking UK colonies. Is there any reason to presume the UK would act any differently if US assets were attacked? Particularly when we consider this new, evil UK...

It's hard to envision Germany having done better than they were in 1941, and the Japanese still didn't screw with the Russians. The navy had won the debate by that point, and the nation was now committed to expansion southwards, and even it wanted to shift back North the Japanese were piling so many troops into China to keep it pacified that another primarily land based invasion would have been an incredible stretch.

Re: "crazyland position": Both you and Frazzled point this out, and you're both right but the "crazyland position" is the concept conceived by the OP ("what if Britain had joined with Germany?"), I'm just fleshing it out. I don't believe it's possible any more than you two do.

Absolutely, I'm just pointing out that if you make such an extreme change it will tend to have greater ramifications than just that one instance. In this example, we've made the UK indifferent or inclined towards fascism, and indifferent to the territorial expansion of Germany. Would they not be equally indifferent to Japanese expansion towards US assets in the Pacific?

sebster wrote:Would occupation of the Balkans be a trigger for breaking the peace with the UK? That's where the crazyland position comes up again... if we've changed the UK's stance to be alright with occupation of Poland, why would the Balkans be any different?

True enough. Without direct German intervention the whole thing is a sideshow anyway. It's truer to actual history to say Britain intervenes. I believe Britain will act to limit Italian dominance in the Mediterranean (and ultimately Suez). If Italy expands its influence in the Mediterranean it will come to blows with Britain sooner or later.

I'm wondering if this newly amoral Britain might have been willing to deal with the Japanese, and simply ignore the Japanese attack on the US. Which, isn't actually that unlikely, everyone knew about the Co-Prosperity Sphere and what it meant for the French, UK and US, yet the US didn't step in to help while Japan was attacking UK colonies. Is there any reason to presume the UK would act any differently if US assets were attacked? Particularly when we consider this new, evil UK...

Historically Britain's colonies are attacked on the same day as the US fleet. Even evil UK or evil US will see the long view if one of them is attacked, or maybe they won't and Japan gets its Co-Prosperity Sphere. I still think acting together is the more likely option.

sebster wrote:It's hard to envision Germany having done better than they were in 1941, and the Japanese still didn't screw with the Russians. The navy had won the debate by that point, and the nation was now committed to expansion southwards, and even it wanted to shift back North the Japanese were piling so many troops into China to keep it pacified that another primarily land based invasion would have been an incredible stretch.

Again, non intervention in the Balkans as well as the non happening of Northern Africa, the Battle of Britain, the Blitz, the loss of most of Germany's surface fleet plus a submarine fleet literally twiddling it's thumbs for a year must surely have some beneficial effect on their attack on the Soviet union. It is illogical to deny that the Germans could have got further in Russia in 1941 if these events had not occurred. You yourself say that in this timeline the Japanese will adapt. This timeline cannot produce a stronger Soviet state (without some other change) it is reasonable to assume the Japanese could react to a weaker Soviet position.

George Spiggott wrote:True enough. Without direct German intervention the whole thing is a sideshow anyway. It's truer to actual history to say Britain intervenes. I believe Britain will act to limit Italian dominance in the Mediterranean (and ultimately Suez). If Italy expands its influence in the Mediterranean it will come to blows with Britain sooner or later.

Is a fair point. Earlier I was assuming that British neutrality/alliance required the Germans to respect Belgian neutrality in their attack on France, and I wonder if the same thing were possible with Italy and the Mediterranean? To ensure Britain stays on-side the Germans may well have told the Italians to stow their ambitions...

Or maybe not, Hitler was willing to push the French and Germans over Poland, so maybe he'd be willing to push Britain over Italian expansion. Again, this is the problem with crazyland...

Historically Britain's colonies are attacked on the same day as the US fleet. Even evil UK or evil US will see the long view if one of them is attacked, or maybe they won't and Japan gets its Co-Prosperity Sphere. I still think acting together is the more likely option.

Ah yes, of course the attack was the same day. Silly mistake there by me...

You could well be right of course, but it all depends on the circumstances of our crazyland scenario - are the UK part of the Axis, could they even work with the Japanese? Who knows, because we're in crazyland.

Again, non intervention in the Balkans as well as the non happening of Northern Africa, the Battle of Britain, the Blitz, the loss of most of Germany's surface fleet plus a submarine fleet literally twiddling it's thumbs for a year must surely have some beneficial effect on their attack on the Soviet union. It is illogical to deny that the Germans could have got further in Russia in 1941 if these events had not occurred. You yourself say that in this timeline the Japanese will adapt. This timeline cannot produce a stronger Soviet state (without some other change) it is reasonable to assume the Japanese could react to a weaker Soviet position.

But there's two things - the early stages of the war couldn't have gone any better for the Germans, whether they struck sooner or with a handful more men. What cost them was their failure to encircle the Soviets completely in the early stages. Even if they penetrated further into Moscow, then they'd just be in another meatgrinder, albeit even further from home.

The second point is that even with the troop losses in China, I just don't see how Japan could summon a force to take and hold Russian assets in the far East. Especially considering the relatively light nature of Japanese infantry in comparison to their Russian equivalents (seriously, what the Russians did to the Japanese forces in the last stages of the war was scarily effective).

You didn't comment on the issues I raised with your speculation over Japanese expansion into British colonies..

I missed those in all the postings– what were they?


You also note the USSR’s epitomy of an effective armored attack into Manchuria. I don’t think under any scenario - absent a Soviet collapse – that the Japanese actually attack the USSR. They had what they wanted in Manchuria and their defeat by Comrade Zhukhov was enough to seriously warn them off. Further, I’d posit they’d only attack if the Siberian divisions leave to fight Hitler and by then its too late. I could see the Russians giving up land in the East as well for time to fight the Fascists, then turn around and get really nasty with the Japanese (of course the Japanese would have been bagged by the USA at that point).

sebster wrote:But there's two things - the early stages of the war couldn't have gone any better for the Germans, whether they struck sooner or with a handful more men. What cost them was their failure to encircle the Soviets completely in the early stages. Even if they penetrated further into Moscow, then they'd just be in another meatgrinder, albeit even further from home.

The second point is that even with the troop losses in China, I just don't see how Japan could summon a force to take and hold Russian assets in the Far East. Especially considering the relatively light nature of Japanese infantry in comparison to their Russian equivalents (seriously, what the Russians did to the Japanese forces in the last stages of the war was scarily effective).

This seems to have boiled down to our single sticking point. I think you're doing the German's chances to do better a disservice but I'm willing to concede the possibility that they don't attack until mid 1942. The Germans are doing well in '42 in reality and I still hold out that they can do better in '41. That still leaves a window of opportunity for reality to happen in December 41 with the same predictable results, only more so, the war probably ends in say 1943 as Japan never gets as far initially and is overwhelmed faster. Meaning that while I think a Japanese attack on the Soviet Union is possible, it juist never gets chance to happen in 'crazyland'.

That just leaves the outcome of the Sovio-Fascist War of 1941-...

Anyone care to speculate on the possibility of Lend Lease to the Germans and Royal Navy blockades of Soviet ports? Nobody likes the 'Commies' and nobody wants to see Europe overwhelmed when the Germans start losing again in 1943. In 1939/1940 there was a plan to send Polish troops to Finland to fight the Soviets so there's real life precedent.

Lend Lease was US-are you inferring a British Lend Lease? I doubt that, although if we'regoing down this path, why not British divisions along with the other Fascist divisions encircled along with the Germans at Stalingrad?

Here's the other part. If Britain allies with Germany against USSR, what do they do when the Soviet juggernaut makes it to the English Channel?

Frazzled wrote:Lend Lease was US-are you inferring a British Lend Lease? I doubt that, although if we'regoing down this path, why not British divisions along with the other Fascist divisions encircled along with the Germans at Stalingrad?

I'm using it in reference to any military aid to the forces fighting the Soviets. Ground troops are always the last thing a country will send but they are an option.

Frazzled wrote:Here's the other part. If Britain allies with Germany against USSR, what do they do when the Soviet juggernaut makes it to the English Channel?

How is this not a possibility if Britain remains neutral? Are the Soviets just going to pack up and go home when they get to the Rhine? Either the Germans win or Europe becomes a Soviet Client State.

I've just taken a more aggressive foreign policy position than you. I think I win some sort of internet award.

Frazzled wrote:I missed those in all the postings– what were they?

Third last post of page 4, it's attached to posts I made in response to Emperors Faithful and George Spiggott.

You also note the USSR’s epitomy of an effective armored attack into Manchuria. I don’t think under any scenario - absent a Soviet collapse – that the Japanese actually attack the USSR. They had what they wanted in Manchuria and their defeat by Comrade Zhukhov was enough to seriously warn them off. Further, I’d posit they’d only attack if the Siberian divisions leave to fight Hitler and by then its too late. I could see the Russians giving up land in the East as well for time to fight the Fascists, then turn around and get really nasty with the Japanese (of course the Japanese would have been bagged by the USA at that point).

I agree.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

George Spiggott wrote:This seems to have boiled down to our single sticking point. I think you're doing the German's chances to do better a disservice but I'm willing to concede the possibility that they don't attack until mid 1942. The Germans are doing well in '42 in reality and I still hold out that they can do better in '41. That still leaves a window of opportunity for reality to happen in December 41 with the same predictable results, only more so, the war probably ends in say 1943 as Japan never gets as far initially and is overwhelmed faster. Meaning that while I think a Japanese attack on the Soviet Union is possible, it juist never gets chance to happen in 'crazyland'.

I agree that the Germans could have performed better. Had they been more organised they could have completed an encirclement of the Russians forces in the opening stages of the blitzkrieg, and the whole thing would have almost certainly been very different.

But if we allow that possibility, we also have to allow for the possiblity of the French doing much, much better (and really, 'halfway respectable' would be much, much better). Or the possibility that the British might do a better job in Singapore...

I'd suggest that England (and thereby France) remaining neutral is more beleivable. Germany would have been just fine with that, and it's unlikely they would have sought a war later on.

sebster wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:I don't see why you think that, we are still talking about Pre-WWII right?

Because I can't think of a democratic, developed country that's allied with a non-democratic country to undertake a war of expansion. Can you?

The USA and France. Twice if I recall correctly. Though that's quite irrevelant in a scenario nearly 150 years later.

That and France and the UK allying with Russia in WW1. Arugably not a war of expansion, unless you include the disupted territories between France and Germany.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:But if we allow that possibility, we also have to allow for the possiblity of the French doing much, much better (and really, 'halfway respectable' would be much, much better). Or the possibility that the British might do a better job in Singapore...

You've already said that an increase in these cases likely wouldn't have improved the catastrophic defeats of the allies by much, wheras the German campaign in Russia would certainly have benefitted from the additional forces that would not be needed in occupying France or pursuing a war in North Africa.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Though, the munitions captured in France is certainly a factor that has to be kept in mind.

On a related but not necessarily exact note... have any of you read Harry Turtledove? He has a ten book epic on what would have happened if the South won the Civil War - after France and the UK recognize it when they win Gettysburg and promise to free their slaves. If you can get through the much repeated superiority of southern tobacco, you have an awesome multi generational story - basically, a second war between the states breaks out when the Confederacy annexes Sonora and Chihuahua and gains Pacific access; the South quickly wins a few battles and the North sues for peace.

From there it goes into a trilogy of the Great War, in which an embittered United States finds an ally in the German Empire, while the south is allied with the French and Brits. The war starts the way it did in our timeline, though it ends with a strong German and US victory. There are three books in the interwar period, chronically the severe economic problems in both the restitution- bankrupted south and eventually the stock market crash hitting everyone. This serves as a backdrop for the rise of the Freedom Party, under the Southern version of Hitler, who advocates that the Confederacy lost the Great War due to the socialist uprisings and sabotage among the impoverished black freemen of the south.

Following are the four books on WW2, in which the South, (with Kentucky serving as the Rhineland) and their alliance of Britain, France, and Tsarist Russia (having defeated the Reds IIRC, go to war against the US and Germany. It is a damn good series. It almost entirely concentrates on the American theatre, but it is still a good read.

George Spiggott wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Lend Lease was US-are you inferring a British Lend Lease? I doubt that, although if we'regoing down this path, why not British divisions along with the other Fascist divisions encircled along with the Germans at Stalingrad?

I'm using it in reference to any military aid to the forces fighting the Soviets. Ground troops are always the last thing a country will send but they are an option.

Frazzled wrote:Here's the other part. If Britain allies with Germany against USSR, what do they do when the Soviet juggernaut makes it to the English Channel?

How is this not a possibility if Britain remains neutral? Are the Soviets just going to pack up and go home when they get to the Rhine? Either the Germans win or Europe becomes a Soviet Client State.

I've just taken a more aggressive foreign policy position than you. I think I win some sort of internet award.

If Britain supports Germany in WWII it ends up like all the other countries that supported Germany in WWII.
Rubble.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:But if we allow that possibility, we also have to allow for the possiblity of the French doing much, much better (and really, 'halfway respectable' would be much, much better). Or the possibility that the British might do a better job in Singapore...

Cute doggie avatar!

Agreed. We have to open the easy possibility that, with no German focus on the West, the USSR is more cautious and has a better response in the opening days than what actually occurred.

Additionally it opens the possibility, if the USSR sees a Fascist Europe, what if my dear friends, it attacks first?

Frazzled wrote:Additionally it opens the possibility, if the USSR sees a Fascist Europe, what if my dear friends, it attacks first?

If Germany doesn't go to with with Britain or France, why would there be a Fascist Europe immediately after Poland?

Frazzled wrote:Cute doggie avatar!

Cheers! I figured if I was going to have my Dakka name be my dog's name, I might as well have a picture of him. Well, a picture of a Cavalier King Charles, at least, given the mood took me while I was at work and couldn't get any pictures of my own.

Agreed. We have to open the easy possibility that, with no German focus on the West, the USSR is more cautious and has a better response in the opening days than what actually occurred.

Interesting question... and I'm not sure. I wonder if, with all of Europe turning directly against the Soviets, Stalin's paranoia might have been even greater, and produced even worse purges?

Additionally it opens the possibility, if the USSR sees a Fascist Europe, what if my dear friends, it attacks first?

Good question. Could the Soviets have managed any kind of meaningful attack in 1939 or 1940, in the midst of the purges?

What if the attack had come in the 1935, instead of the purges?

well everything would have gone to plan with the US until they defeated Japan with the atom bomb and decided to use it on europe to get rid of the Nazi's until they realised it was killing the earth and everthing ends up in the Fallout universe.

Good question. Could the Soviets have managed any kind of meaningful attack in 1939 or 1940, in the midst of the purges?
***I'm proffering they wait until 1941 to get their forces more in gear. IIRC but the Wehrmacht was actually building for this invasion later than it actually occurred.

What if the attack had come in the 1935, instead of the purges?
***I don't think Germany is capable politically or militarily of launching a strike against anyone in 1935. Thats not long after Hitler comes to power, and improvement post Depression is just beginning.

Frazzled wrote:***I'm proffering they wait until 1941 to get their forces more in gear. IIRC but the Wehrmacht was actually building for this invasion later than it actually occurred.

I thought the Russians were looking at more like 1944 or 45 as their ready date?

***I don't think Germany is capable politically or militarily of launching a strike against anyone in 1935. Thats not long after Hitler comes to power, and improvement post Depression is just beginning.

No, I mean what if the Russians had attacked in 1935? Like the Chinese did in the Korean war, insted of throwing all the politically unreliable folk in camps, you give them a chance to redeem themselves by making suicidal attacks on the enemy? So instead of the purges Stalin attacks Germany in 1935...

Admittedly, most of the Russian industrial strength wasn't in place, but they weren't far from it, and Germany was much, much weaker.

sebster wrote:No, I mean what if the Russians had attacked in 1935? Like the Chinese did in the Korean war, insted of throwing all the politically unreliable folk in camps, you give them a chance to redeem themselves by making suicidal attacks on the enemy? So instead of the purges Stalin attacks Germany in 1935...

Admittedly, most of the Russian industrial strength wasn't in place, but they weren't far from it, and Germany was much, much weaker.

I wonder if that would be grounds for Britain and France to side with Germany. They had little love for Communism, as demonstrated after the Great War.

If the UK had joined Germany then in 1996 we would all have singing along to: "Erzählen Sie mir, was Sie wollen, was Sie wirklich wirklich wollen."

Avoiding that alone is reason enough to be happy they didn't side with Germany.

AT-43.CO.UK wrote:If the UK had joined Germany then in 1996 we would all have singing along to: "Erzählen Sie mir, was Sie wollen, was Sie wirklich wirklich wollen."

Avoiding that alone is reason enough to be happy they didn't side with Germany.

I don't know why you even think that. If the UK lost the war and was occupied, maybe. But an alliance is different.

However, we would all be driving damn fine cars.

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote:***I'm proffering they wait until 1941 to get their forces more in gear. IIRC but the Wehrmacht was actually building for this invasion later than it actually occurred.

I thought the Russians were looking at more like 1944 or 45 as their ready date?

***I don't think Germany is capable politically or militarily of launching a strike against anyone in 1935. Thats not long after Hitler comes to power, and improvement post Depression is just beginning.

No, I mean what if the Russians had attacked in 1935? Like the Chinese did in the Korean war, insted of throwing all the politically unreliable folk in camps, you give them a chance to redeem themselves by making suicidal attacks on the enemy? So instead of the purges Stalin attacks Germany in 1935...

Admittedly, most of the Russian industrial strength wasn't in place, but they weren't far from it, and Germany was much, much weaker.

Now thats an interesting question. I don't know. But weren't they best buds then?

Frazzled wrote:If Britain supports Germany in WWII it ends up like all the other countries that supported Germany in WWII. Rubble.

Like Spain? Really, in this situation how does being neutral avoid this scenario? Even being pro-Soviet opens the door for 40+ years of the threat of a Britain reduced to rubble courtesy of the cold war.

sebster wrote:I agree that the Germans could have performed better. Had they been more organised they could have completed an encirclement of the Russians forces in the opening stages of the blitzkrieg, and the whole thing would have almost certainly been very different.

But if we allow that possibility, we also have to allow for the possiblity of the French doing much, much better (and really, 'halfway respectable' would be much, much better). Or the possibility that the British might do a better job in Singapore...

Except that we haven't changed the time line for France, but if we did what additional help are we going to give them. I believe I've already covered the possibility of Britain doing better in Singapore, so much better that the Japanese dare not attack in the first place.

Frazzled wrote:Now thats an interesting question. I don't know. But weren't they best buds then?

They were best buds in 1941 as well. They were best buds right up until one of them was ready to put the knife in.

George Spiggott wrote:But if we allow that possibility, we also have to allow for the possiblity of the French doing much, much better (and really, 'halfway respectable' would be much, much better). Or the possibility that the British might do a better job in Singapore...

Except that we haven't changed the time line for France, but if we did what additional help are we going to give them. I believe I've already covered the possibility of Britain doing better in Singapore, so much better that the Japanese dare not attack in the first place.

sebster wrote:The thing is, the Germans really didn't have the capability to run a protracted campaign, that's why they gambled on driving through the Ardennes. Had the French been more competent the war would have turned out a lot differently.

So you're saying we could modify the French/German outcome because we can (I don't actually have a problem with this in any way BTW) but if we give the Germans more time and more resources vs. the Soviets (and weaken the Soviet position) we cannot change the outcome nor even elements of it? I'm not sure I follow your reasoning.

George Spiggott wrote:So you're saying we could modify the French/German outcome because we can (I don't actually have a problem with this in any way BTW) but if we give the Germans more time and more resources vs. the Soviets (and weaken the Soviet position) we cannot change the outcome nor even elements of it? I'm not sure I follow your reasoning.

What I'm saying, really, is that if we're willing to speculate on a Germany that performed better in the East, we need to consider how lucky they were to be in that position in the first place. It's just that I think there's a tendency for history buffs to ponder what if Germany had done this or if that had turned out differently and conclude Germany was unlucky not win, when we need to keep in mind how lucky they were to get as far as they did.

Sebster has the way of it.

sebster wrote:What I'm saying, really, is that if we're willing to speculate on a Germany that performed better in the East, we need to consider how lucky they were to be in that position in the first place. It's just that I think there's a tendency for history buffs to ponder what if Germany had done this or if that had turned out differently and conclude Germany was unlucky not win, when we need to keep in mind how lucky they were to get as far as they did.

We could if luck was such a large factor like it was in France (By 'luck' we're talking about events that could not reasonably be predicted right?). There's a lot of 'bad luck' for the Germans on the Eastern front in 1941 such as having to support the Italians in the Balkans and the unusually cold winter or the UK immediately supporting the Soviets. The Eastern front campaign wasn't decided by good luck for the Germans in 1941. Remember the hard fight the Finns gave the Soviets a year before.