Switch Theme:

Alternate WWII scenarios (spun off from the Special Forces thread)  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka






Not Online!!! wrote:
 AndrewGPaul wrote:
The war machine wasn't at full steam, though. The US managed to out-produce almost everyone else at once without really trying.


To quote Mark Hammilton: Tanks:https://www.statista.com/chart/8269/industrial-production-tanks-second-world-war/

So no, certainly not with ease.


I'm not sure what your argument is here. My point is that the USA never re-tooled for war production to the same extent that other countries did. That graph shows that the USA managed to outproduce everyone else except the USSR combined - as has already been discussed upthread - but they could have done even more if it had been required.
   
Made in ch
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 AndrewGPaul wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
 AndrewGPaul wrote:
The war machine wasn't at full steam, though. The US managed to out-produce almost everyone else at once without really trying.


To quote Mark Hammilton: Tanks:https://www.statista.com/chart/8269/industrial-production-tanks-second-world-war/

So no, certainly not with ease.


I'm not sure what your argument is here. My point is that the USA never re-tooled for war production to the same extent that other countries did. That graph shows that the USA managed to outproduce everyone else except the USSR combined - as has already been discussed upthread - but they could have done even more if it had been required.

Do you have the numbers then?

Pls enlighten me.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.  
   
Made in gb
[SWAP SHOP MOD]
Killer Klaivex







Gathering up the responses thus far (thanks to those who contributed), the consensus/application of logic seems to be that:-

-Japan would not have joined Germany in declaring war on the USSR at the same time. Their most likely strategy at this point in time (January -June 1941) would appear to be to sit very still, continue amassing military power as best they could, and wait for an advantage to present itself. Be that in a failing USSR, or a divergence of interests between the UK and USA (allowing a war against just the one power).

-The USA is also likely to have simply carried on sitting on their hands. With no Battle of the Atlantic and no British war against Germany, there simply isn't the necessary incentive to bring the USA into large scale conflict with the Nazis.

-Britain would carry on rearming to the utmost of its ability.

-Germany would continue to consolidate its gains across Europe, albeit potentially with a few minor alterations (no invasion of Greece, for example). The timing of affairs means the alliance with Japan would still have been signed, and the Bulgarians and co. would still have jumped on the Nazi bandwagon.


With that all established, the next question to decide is how the opening phases of Barbarossa would have gone down (July - December 1941). With that in mind, the primary points would be:-

1) What additional resources would the lack of a second front in the Balkans/the Middle East/Africa free up for Germany? Would those assets be substantial enough to impact on the Eastern Front? If so, to what extent?

2) What would America and Britain's policy be with regards to aiding the Soviet Union? Would they still be willing to supply/subsidise Stalin to the same degree? Or would Stalin have found cold hard commerce his only option? Or would they have refused to supply him even on a trade basis for fear of irritating Germany?
How would any changes in this state of affairs have impacted upon the Soviet position?

3) What would Britain and America's policy have been for trading with Nazi Germany?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/04/11 15:38:48



 
   
Made in ch
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





-Japan would not have joined Germany in declaring war on the USSR at the same time. Their most likely strategy at this point in time (January -June 1941) would appear to be to sit very still, continue amassing military power as best they could, and wait for an advantage to present itself. Be that in a failing USSR, or a divergence of interests between the UK and USA (allowing a war against just the one power).


the northward expansion would get a lot more interesting and feasable for Japan, only IF, Japan is not embargoed though and not tied down in China. You would need to see a massive geopolitical turn for Japan to participate in another doctrine in essence.

-The USA is also likely to have simply carried on sitting on their hands. With no Battle of the Atlantic and no British war against Germany, there simply isn't the necessary incentive to bring the USA into large scale conflict with the Nazis.


The powergames between Japan and the USA continue regardless if Japan is bogged down by an Embargo. Also Tripartie pact. Hence before why i stated a Japan that needs to be capable of invading the CCCP needs to be free from a war in China and not under Embargo, maybee tentatively stretch out to the USA for support against communism in this case.

-Britain would carry on rearming to the utmost of its ability.

Depends vastly on how they capitualte and what the peace terms are.

-Germany would continue to consolidate its gains across Europe, albeit potentially with a few minor alterations (no invasion of Greece, for example). The timing of affairs means the alliance with Japan would still have been signed, and the Bulgarians and co. would still have jumped on the Nazi bandwagon.


this is the big question, first: What happens to France, basically if there is no need to occupy France anymore due to a british capitulation then the most likely scenario would be a petanist Regime, (with or without Elssass-Lothringen is debatable altough the Nzais had not so much interest in the region) Luxemburg would be annexed, as would the german speaking part of Belgium.

The Dutch would maybee forced to hand over some Colonies, maybee, or just left intact.

Norway would mostlikely also remain a puppet government.

With the Capitualtion of Great britain, what would happen with the Suez chanal?

Greece would also most likely remain untouched or just Anschlussed to italy, depending on how desperate they deem their situation.

Also Yugoslavia might still happen due to Hungary aswell as Italy staking claims in Yugoslavia, alternative they force Yugoslavia to be complaiant with their rule and bully them into the axis. Basically the biggest Question mark.

The opening date for Barbarossa is completly up to debate due to these points above which could be vastly extended.

Hitler might also try to split up or just simply annex Switzerland before such a War. Mostly due to industry and ideological reasons.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.  
   
Made in gb
[SWAP SHOP MOD]
Killer Klaivex







Not Online, it's a spot late to re-open those points given we've moved onto the next batch now.

On top of that, you should probably go back and read my last post with regards to the scene we're setting here. We could spend years dickering about whether or not Barbarossa would have been declared on the 18th June or the 25th July in our new setting all day; but the scenario as set is assuming it goes off at roughly the same time. Likewise, the nature of the ceasefire between Britain/Germany has already pinned down from the starting point (note ceasefire; not capitulation - a British 'capitulation' was a historical impossibility and is consequently not really worth discussing).

If we don't pin down one or two solids for the beginning of our hypothetical scenario, we've got nothing to trace our (highly speculative and likely completely inaccurate if fun) chain of causation from.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/04/11 15:59:45



 
   
Made in us
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau




USA

 Ketara wrote:
1) What additional resources would the lack of a second front in the Balkans/the Middle East/Africa free up for Germany? Would those assets be substantial enough to impact on the Eastern Front? If so, to what extent?


Not that much I think. Germany didn't take much damage in the Balkans, and Afrika Korp was a mere 2 divisions of German troops. I have a hard time seeing 2 divisions making a substantial impact in the east when the foremost problems were logistical in nature.

I don't see Italy putting much dog in the race, or being much help if they did. Actually, something we haven't really accounted for is would Italy take up a ceasefire agreement just because Germany did? I don't know a lot about the internals of Italy at the time so I don't know.

2) What would America and Britain's policy be with regards to aiding the Soviet Union? Would they still be willing to supply/subsidise Stalin to the same degree? Or would Stalin have found cold hard commerce his only option? Or would they have refused to supply him even on a trade basis for fear of irritating Germany?


For Britain, I don't know. The USSR is more clear cut. FDR kind of had the weasel support to them with some political gamesmanship, cause while America was ambivalent in general toward Nazi Germany, Red Fear was already something going on. People didn't trust Communism and they didn't trust the USSR. I think it's very hard for FDR to get them anything in an environment where he can't tie the conflict between the USSR and Germany to a conflict with a more likeable power. America might even just supply Germany as part of normal commerce which would arguably completely change the equation in the conflict between Nazi Germany and the USSR.

3) What would Britain and America's policy have been for trading with Nazi Germany?


For Britain, again, IDK. But the US generally liked to see itself as politically neutral and having no dog in anyone's race. Which of course wasn't true, but that was a prevailing cultural perception, especially among American industrialists and the elite. A class of citizen who would be particularly opposed to the USSR, was probably the heart of American anti-semitism at the time (and Communism being a Jewish thing was a prevailing conspiracy theory of the period), I think it's highly likely the US would have resumed normal trade with Nazi Germany with no war the muddy things.

(note ceasefire; not capitulation - a British 'capitulation' was a historical impossibility and is consequently not really worth discussing)


Indeed. I see no scenario where Britain capitulates. Hitler didn't even want them to. He hoped himself for a ceasefire leading to a formal peace, which was a far more realistic goal.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/04/11 16:09:31


   
Made in ch
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Ketara wrote:
Not Online, it's a spot late to re-open those points given we've moved onto the next batch now.

On top of that, you should probably go back and read my last post with regards to the scene we're setting here. We could spend years dickering about whether or not Barbarossa would have been declared on the 18th June or the 25th July in our new setting all day; but the scenario as set is assuming it goes off at roughly the same time. Likewise, the nature of the ceasefire between Britain/Germany has already pinned down from the starting point (note ceasefire; not capitulation - a British 'capitulation' was a historical impossibility and is consequently not really worth discussing).

If we don't pin down one or two solids for the beginning of our hypothetical scenario, we've got nothing to trace our (highly speculative and likely completely inaccurate if fun) chain of causation from.


which is the whole under part of the thing.....


this is the big question, first: What happens to France, basically if there is no need to occupy France anymore due to a british capitulation then the most likely scenario would be a petanist Regime, (with or without Elssass-Lothringen is debatable altough the Nzais had not so much interest in the region) Luxemburg would be annexed, as would the german speaking part of Belgium.

The Dutch would maybee forced to hand over some Colonies, maybee, or just left intact.

Norway would mostlikely also remain a puppet government.

With the Capitualtion of Great britain, what would happen with the Suez chanal?

Greece would also most likely remain untouched or just Anschlussed to italy, depending on how desperate they deem their situation.

Also Yugoslavia might still happen due to Hungary aswell as Italy staking claims in Yugoslavia, alternative they force Yugoslavia to be complaiant with their rule and bully them into the axis. Basically the biggest Question mark.

The opening date for Barbarossa is completly up to debate due to these points above which could be vastly extended.

Hitler might also try to split up or just simply annex Switzerland before such a War. Mostly due to industry and ideological reasons.


All off this is relevant due to impact on manpower,further support, added ressources like rubber and oil, etc.
F.E. alone the situation with the dutch might lead to a lot less oil required from romania, allowing italy to better project naval power.

Yugoslavia is also off importance. Partisan effort there was at a peak throughout the occupation.
Manpower situation is also relevant. More available allies, means more manpower that can be used.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 LordofHats wrote:
 Ketara wrote:
1) What additional resources would the lack of a second front in the Balkans/the Middle East/Africa free up for Germany? Would those assets be substantial enough to impact on the Eastern Front? If so, to what extent?


Not that much I think. Germany didn't take much damage in the Balkans, and Afrika Korp was a mere 2 divisions of German troops. I have a hard time seeing 2 divisions making a substantial impact in the east when the foremost problems were logistical in nature.

I don't see Italy putting much dog in the race, or being much help if they did. Actually, something he haven't really accounted for is would Italy take up a ceasefire agreement just because Germany did? I don't know a lot about the internals of Italy at the time so I don't know.

2) What would America and Britain's policy be with regards to aiding the Soviet Union? Would they still be willing to supply/subsidise Stalin to the same degree? Or would Stalin have found cold hard commerce his only option? Or would they have refused to supply him even on a trade basis for fear of irritating Germany?


For Britain, I don't know. The USSR is more clear cut. FDR kind of had the weasel support to them with some political gamesmanship, cause while America was ambivalent in general toward Nazi Germany, Red Fear was already something going on. People didn't trust Communism and they didn't trust the USSR. I think it's very hard for FDR to get them anything in an environment where he can't tie the conflict between the USSR and Germany to a conflict with a more likeable power. America might even just supply Germany as part of normal commerce which would arguably completely change the equation in the conflict between Nazi Germany and the USSR.

3) What would Britain and America's policy have been for trading with Nazi Germany?


For Britain, again, IDK. But the US generally liked to see itself as politically neutral and having no dog in anyone's race. Which of course wasn't true, but that was a prevailing cultural perception, especially among American industrialists and the elite. A class of citizen who would be particularly opposed to the USSR, was probably the heart of American anti-semitism at the time (and Communism being a Jewish thing was a prevailing conspiracy theory of the period), I think it's highly likely the US would have resumed normal trade with Nazi Germany with no war the muddy things.

(note ceasefire; not capitulation - a British 'capitulation' was a historical impossibility and is consequently not really worth discussing)


Indeed. I see no scenario where Britain capitulates. Hitler didn't even want them to. He hoped himself for a ceasefire leading to a formal peace, which was a far more realistic goal.


Italy wanted to seize egypt to connect their colonial possesions and rebuild rome, well atleast Mussolini wanted to do that, what we never should forget, that Mussolini never was as undisputed as Hitler was.
A Capitulation is very likely, the terminology is only washed down now due to the last two worldwars ending in Total ones. A capitaltion does not mean always a total one. Altough that may have to do with me beeing german, (we differ between total and honorfull, the later a lot less harsh then the first.)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/04/11 16:12:41


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.  
   
Made in us
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau




USA

Not Online!!! wrote:
A Capitulation is very likely, the terminology is only washed down now due to the last two worldwars ending in Total ones.


The term has changed a bit contextually, but not that much.

Britian would never have capitulated, and if Hitler tried to push for capitulation he would have never gotten it. Capitulation would have been unacceptable to the Imperialists in British government (who were at the time the dominant political force). A ceasefire they might accept to bide their time or to shore up overseas possessions. A capitulation would have come with terms and expectations they'd never live with and that was frankly giving Germany too much credit.

   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka






Not Online!!! wrote:
 AndrewGPaul wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
 AndrewGPaul wrote:
The war machine wasn't at full steam, though. The US managed to out-produce almost everyone else at once without really trying.


To quote Mark Hammilton: Tanks:https://www.statista.com/chart/8269/industrial-production-tanks-second-world-war/

So no, certainly not with ease.


I'm not sure what your argument is here. My point is that the USA never re-tooled for war production to the same extent that other countries did. That graph shows that the USA managed to outproduce everyone else except the USSR combined - as has already been discussed upthread - but they could have done even more if it had been required.

Do you have the numbers then?

Pls enlighten me.


Actually, upon looking, it appears I was imagining things. I was under the impression that US civilian car production continued during the war, when that appears to not be the case.
   
Made in ch
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





Spoiler:
 AndrewGPaul wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
 AndrewGPaul wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
 AndrewGPaul wrote:
The war machine wasn't at full steam, though. The US managed to out-produce almost everyone else at once without really trying.


To quote Mark Hammilton: Tanks:https://www.statista.com/chart/8269/industrial-production-tanks-second-world-war/

So no, certainly not with ease.


I'm not sure what your argument is here. My point is that the USA never re-tooled for war production to the same extent that other countries did. That graph shows that the USA managed to outproduce everyone else except the USSR combined - as has already been discussed upthread - but they could have done even more if it had been required.

Do you have the numbers then?

Pls enlighten me.


Actually, upon looking, it appears I was imagining things. I was under the impression that US civilian car production continued during the war, when that appears to not be the case.


Ah no worries it is often the case in modern historical assumption that the general picture does quite diverge from the real situation.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.  
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Not Online!!! wrote:
 AndrewGPaul wrote:
The war machine wasn't at full steam, though. The US managed to out-produce almost everyone else at once without really trying.


To quote Mark Hammilton: Tanks:https://www.statista.com/chart/8269/industrial-production-tanks-second-world-war/

So no, certainly not with ease.


That American civilians during WWII never suffered anything close to the privation of the British civilians - much less the German, Russian, and Japanese civilians - tells you that the American war machine never took over the WHOLE economy. Germany, Japan, and Russia were at full capacity and it shows in what the civilians went through even when they weren't in the line of fire.

CHAOS! PANIC! DISORDER!
My job here is done. 
   
Made in ch
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Vulcan wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
 AndrewGPaul wrote:
The war machine wasn't at full steam, though. The US managed to out-produce almost everyone else at once without really trying.


To quote Mark Hammilton: Tanks:https://www.statista.com/chart/8269/industrial-production-tanks-second-world-war/

So no, certainly not with ease.


That American civilians during WWII never suffered anything close to the privation of the British civilians - much less the German, Russian, and Japanese civilians - tells you that the American war machine never took over the WHOLE economy. Germany, Japan, and Russia were at full capacity and it shows in what the civilians went through even when they weren't in the line of fire.


Germany wasn't at full capacity though, they only sparesly f.e. Recruited women for works and even then only after around 1943,..

Edit: infact the total war speech of goebbels was aimed to make the Party mobilize these women for the war which the Party was highly reluctant to apply until well the whole thing went to gak.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/04/11 17:26:52


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.  
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 Ketara wrote:
With that all established, the next question to decide is how the opening phases of Barbarossa would have gone down (July - December 1941). With that in mind, the primary points would be:-

1) What additional resources would the lack of a second front in the Balkans/the Middle East/Africa free up for Germany? Would those assets be substantial enough to impact on the Eastern Front? If so, to what extent?

2) What would America and Britain's policy be with regards to aiding the Soviet Union? Would they still be willing to supply/subsidise Stalin to the same degree? Or would Stalin have found cold hard commerce his only option? Or would they have refused to supply him even on a trade basis for fear of irritating Germany?
How would any changes in this state of affairs have impacted upon the Soviet position?

3) What would Britain and America's policy have been for trading with Nazi Germany?


1) There's a lot of good videos on YouTube discussing this. In general, the consensus is that no, it wouldn't have made a big difference. They might have managed to get into Moscow, but the government would have left by the time they got their and been running things from somewhere else. It's unlikely they would have been able to take Moscow entirely, instead being faced with a second Stalingrad-style meatgrinder.

And if there's one thing 300 million Soviets can withstand better than 30 million Germans, it's throw men into a meatgrinder. Even if they lose men five times faster they still run the Germans out of men first.

2) I can't see America being too worried about upsetting Germany under any circumstances. Britain, maybe. But the Brits certainly wouldn't interfere with the Americans dealing with Russia; if Germany stomped them out of the war they'd have to be aware of what America could do to them if sufficiently irritated.

I can't see the Brits getting involved in trading with the Nazis right after losing to them, though.

Now whether America would have continued dealing with the Soviets, started dealing with the Nazis, dealt with both, or even embargoed both combatants I could not tell you without a heck of a lot more research than I have done thus far. Although I expect that once news of the concentration camps came out American support for the Nazis would fall off pretty fast...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not Online!!! wrote:
-Britain would carry on rearming to the utmost of its ability.

Depends vastly on how they capitualte and what the peace terms are.


I would expect Britain to honor such an agreement every bit as diligently as the Nazis had honored their own agreements.

I.e. mostly in the breech.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/04/11 17:48:07


CHAOS! PANIC! DISORDER!
My job here is done. 
   
Made in gb
[SWAP SHOP MOD]
Killer Klaivex







 LordofHats wrote:
Not that much I think. Germany didn't take much damage in the Balkans, and Afrika Korp was a mere 2 divisions of German troops. I have a hard time seeing 2 divisions making a substantial impact in the east when the foremost problems were logistical in nature.

 Vulcan wrote:
1) There's a lot of good videos on YouTube discussing this. In general, the consensus is that no, it wouldn't have made a big difference. They might have managed to get into Moscow, but the government would have left by the time they got their and been running things from somewhere else. It's unlikely they would have been able to take Moscow entirely, instead being faced with a second Stalingrad-style meatgrinder.

And if there's one thing 300 million Soviets can withstand better than 30 million Germans, it's throw men into a meatgrinder. Even if they lose men five times faster they still run the Germans out of men first.

Yeah, I just looked up the German casualty rate in the Balkans and found it to be numbering in the thousands. They were large scale operations, but the Germans took very little damage. It wouldn't appear to do a huge amount regarding the manpower basis for the push in Russia. So it would seem to be the case that in an absolute best case scenario, deployed at the point of maximum impact (or Schwerpunkt) the lack of distraction would give Hitler's forces sufficient extra oomph to commit the final push into Moscow's streets.

But was Moscow prepared to fight to the last Stalingrad style? And would this have affected Stalin's place at the top? Floor is open to those of you who know it better than me!

 LordofHats wrote:
I don't see Italy putting much dog in the race, or being much help if they did. Actually, something we haven't really accounted for is would Italy take up a ceasefire agreement just because Germany did? I don't know a lot about the internals of Italy at the time so I don't know.


I suspect Mussolini would have invaded Greece regardless of any German-British peace; but given how badly his arse was getting kicked, the Italians would have been bogged down there in no time. And as both Britain and Germany would only just have watched the ink dry on the cease-fire agreement? I suspect that both would then simply avoid the complication altogether and wander off whistling, leaving Mussolini and Greece to tussle it out as a local border war (whilst discreetly supplying their respective favoured combatant).

Tied up in a war with Greece, Mussolini would then consequently have little time to waste playing in North Africa, and would likely sign the same ceasefire with Britain (albeit with the intent of breaking it the minute it seemed convenient to do so).

Not Online!!! wrote:
All off this is relevant due to impact on manpower,further support, added ressources like rubber and oil, etc.
F.E. alone the situation with the dutch might lead to a lot less oil required from romania, allowing italy to better project naval power.

Yugoslavia is also off importance. Partisan effort there was at a peak throughout the occupation.
Manpower situation is also relevant. More available allies, means more manpower that can be used.

Then you need to lay out the details/relevancy!

Frankly put, I don't know what kind of numbers would have been bogged down dealing Yugoslavia, or what sort of trade advantages might accrue through the Netherlands if things were done differently. If you know these fields, I'll be quite happy to listen to your (and everyone else who might have an idea) best estimate on those points. Then we can incorporate it in with all the other discussion to try and speculate what would be the next logical development in the chain of events.

That's the fun of the entire exercise, after all.

 LordofHats wrote:
For Britain, I don't know. The USSR is more clear cut. FDR kind of had the weasel support to them with some political gamesmanship, cause while America was ambivalent in general toward Nazi Germany, Red Fear was already something going on. People didn't trust Communism and they didn't trust the USSR. I think it's very hard for FDR to get them anything in an environment where he can't tie the conflict between the USSR and Germany to a conflict with a more likeable power. America might even just supply Germany as part of normal commerce which would arguably completely change the equation in the conflict between Nazi Germany and the USSR.

But the US generally liked to see itself as politically neutral and having no dog in anyone's race. Which of course wasn't true, but that was a prevailing cultural perception, especially among American industrialists and the elite. A class of citizen who would be particularly opposed to the USSR, was probably the heart of American anti-semitism at the time (and Communism being a Jewish thing was a prevailing conspiracy theory of the period), I think it's highly likely the US would have resumed normal trade with Nazi Germany with no war the muddy things.


 Vulcan wrote:
2) I can't see America being too worried about upsetting Germany under any circumstances. Britain, maybe. But the Brits certainly wouldn't interfere with the Americans dealing with Russia; if Germany stomped them out of the war they'd have to be aware of what America could do to them if sufficiently irritated.


The implications of the two above would appear to be that normal commerce would prevail, in that case. America would likely sell to whoever had the most cold hard cash ready to go. Given their geographic position, neither Soviets nor Nazis would be in much of a position to interfere with shipping to the other.

With regards to the Brits, my thought is that a degree of regular commerce would resume. Britain would need to show willing and maintaining a blockade would be contrary to any terms of a ceasefire. But industrial output in Great Britain itself would be largely absorbed with arms production; and there wouldn't be much likelihood of large quantities of raw materials trade going on. It would, I should think, be primarily limited to more basic commercial goods, such as food, drink, clothing, and so on. There might be some material discreetly sent to Russia; but given the need to prop up the Greeks and their own forces, it wouldn't be anywhere near as much as was committeed in real-life.

The logical corollary question of the conclusions reached above leads me to consider; if British output is largely absorbed by other concerns and American capacity is split between both Germany and the Soviets at top dollar prices; what effect does this have on Soviet resistance in the first six months? Does anyone know to what degree foreign material and supplies featured in Russian forces in the initial stages of the conflict? [July-December 1941 specifically]

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/04/11 19:02:22



 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 Ketara wrote:
 LordofHats wrote:
Not that much I think. Germany didn't take much damage in the Balkans, and Afrika Korp was a mere 2 divisions of German troops. I have a hard time seeing 2 divisions making a substantial impact in the east when the foremost problems were logistical in nature.

 Vulcan wrote:
1) There's a lot of good videos on YouTube discussing this. In general, the consensus is that no, it wouldn't have made a big difference. They might have managed to get into Moscow, but the government would have left by the time they got their and been running things from somewhere else. It's unlikely they would have been able to take Moscow entirely, instead being faced with a second Stalingrad-style meatgrinder.

And if there's one thing 300 million Soviets can withstand better than 30 million Germans, it's throw men into a meatgrinder. Even if they lose men five times faster they still run the Germans out of men first.

Yeah, I just looked up the German casualty rate in the Balkans and found it to be numbering in the thousands. They were large scale operations, but the Germans took very little damage. It wouldn't appear to do a huge amount regarding the manpower basis for the push in Russia. So it would seem to be the case that in an absolute best case scenario, deployed at the point of maximum impact (or Schwerpunkt) the lack of distraction would give Hitler's forces sufficient extra oomph to commit the final push into Moscow's streets.

But was Moscow prepared to fight to the last Stalingrad style? And would this have affected Stalin's place at the top? Floor is open to those of you who know it better than me!


Never mistake Stalin for the Soviet government. He may have been the leader and the driving force, but the bureaucracy was perfectly capable of carrying on without him right there standing over them.

I can easily see the bureaucracy being sent out of town while Stalin remained behind to inspire the troops. From there, barring a lucky sniper or artillery barrage, I do think the Russians would have indulged in a Stalingrad-style meatgrinder right there under Stalin's eyes.

The logical corollary question of the conclusions reached above leads me to consider; if British output is largely absorbed by other concerns and American capacity is split between both Germany and the Soviets at top dollar prices; what effect does this have on Soviet resistance in the first six months? Does anyone know to what degree foreign material and supplies featured in Russian forces in the initial stages of the conflict? [July-December 1941 specifically]


The flip side of that is... exactly how much aid went to the Soviets in those first six months and is statistically relevant against what the Soviets had stockpiled or could produce themselves in that time? I lack the data to say one way or the other at this point. Likewise, yes, aid to the Soviets was a huge thing... and yet was it really all that large in comparison to what the Soviets did on their own?

CHAOS! PANIC! DISORDER!
My job here is done. 
   
Made in ch
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





Then you need to lay out the details/relevancy!

Frankly put, I don't know what kind of numbers would have been bogged down dealing Yugoslavia, or what sort of trade advantages might accrue through the Netherlands if things were done differently. If you know these fields, I'll be quite happy to listen to your (and everyone else who might have an idea) best estimate on those points. Then we can incorporate it in with all the other discussion to try and speculate what would be the next logical development in the chain of events.

That's the fun of the entire exercise, after all.


So i will try to lay out Yugoslavia to the best off my knowledge:
Basically: Invasion, easy, maintaining Controll difficult:

Offical the Wehrmacht stated that 24'000 died and 12'000 missing with no figure off wounded personell:
Some Historians belive the the Numbers were infact 3 times higher for germany ALONE. Rüdiger Overmans put the number of casualities on about 103,693.

Rüdiger worked over a long time to determine German military casualities and losses and published his results in this: "German Military Losses in World War II" which to this day is basically the best we got.

the Italians suffered another 30'000 CA.

Now to the question of OIL. Maybee you have heard of Curacao? The biggest Refinerie is there at the time.

https://cw.usconsulate.gov/our-relationship/policy-history/current-issues/
According to this:
The oil refineries on Curaçao and Aruba provided 70% of the fuel used by the Allies Forces. U.S. forces assumed from British forces the defense of these strategic islands on February 13 and 14, 1942. Just two days later, on the night of February 16, German U-boats attacked the refineries and oil tankers in the waters surrounding Curaçao and Aruba.

Now put the oil use of the whole allied airforce with the USA included down and the brits and, etc.....
Then you get the picture about oil.



This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/04/11 19:27:40


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.  
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: