WHAT IF MOLOTOV-Ribbentropp alliance was uphold:

[unmerged(1463)]

There where many things that was almost put into action that would, almost for certain have made a huge diffirence on the war. One of the reasons is that the British parlament and Churchil was ready to declare war on Russia when they invaded Polan, what if they did.

That would have lead to that Russia and Germany together had England as a foe, would that have changed the outcome of the war ?

 

[Dark Knight]

Originally posted by Mikael XII
One of the reasons is that the British parlament and Churchil was ready to declare war on Russia when they invaded Polan, what if they did.

Just want to point out that Chamberlain was Prime Minister at this time, not Churchill.

 

[Agelastus]

Originally posted by Mikael XII
That would have lead to that Russia and Germany together had England as a foe, would that have changed the outcome of the war ?

Almost certainly, although war was more likely to occur during the Winter War-the British and French tentatively planned to send troops to help the Finns.

No Russo-German hostilities gives Germany more time to beat Britain, to strangle her supplies, to build the ships needed for an invasion. The Soviets have trouble reaching the British Empire in strength. but they have plenty of submarines, and lots of opportunities for mischief in India etc.

 

[unmerged(1463)]

Yeah i agree there, as the germans greatest fear was to fight on two fronts and if the eastern front was against their only real enemy in west, that could invade , they would have won.

 

[unmerged(4745)]

Take in consideration the limited German shipbuilding capacity. Even with the huge Russian raw material resorces it have taken Germany at least three year to build a fleet to match RN. The Russian naval capabilty was limited and Mr. Mussolini would have avoid the war as long as possible.

The Axis would have needed seagoing 6" cruisers and large destroyers, to maintain a such operation. Their lacked also landing and transport vessels.

But what would have happend is that the Russians have occupied Sweden and Finland as the Baltic states.

 

[Demagog]

If Germany never had declared war on Russia they would have had far bigger air strenght to continue the Battle of Britan. And they would have had alot of tanks and soldiers to send to North Africa. And after a hypotethical win in North Africa they could have bullied Spain and Turkey to join the war on their side. And with the help of the Spanish they could have captured Gibraltar faerly easy and then had Musulinis big fleet to help with an invasion on England. They could also have pushed farther east and taken India (prolly with the help of Japan). But the biggest mistake Germany did in the war was to bring in USA. The moment they did that they sealed their fate (unless they had been a bit quicker with the A-bomb). If they on the other hand had joined forces with the Japanese against the Russian and not involving the Americans we would all be speaking German now. And this they tried too but the Japanese had allready taken all the land they wanted from the Russians in the war of 1905, so they where unwilling to a war such as that.

 

[unmerged(592)]

Germany could have concentrated on the med by pressuring mussolini to let him take part in the campaign. With massive, coordinated airpower there was a good chance to secure supplies, eliminate malta and take suez and gibraltar. The BoB was a no-win, there just weren't the right planes for the right time. Also Germany could have concentrated on more and better U-boats and air recon over the see.(FW200 Condor)

 

[Emperor of Europe]

Yes, the Axis could probably have won in North Africa, and they might even have been able to push through to India, but so what?

A British defeat in Africa, the Middle East and India would probably not have pushed Britain out of the war, so it would essentially be a non-war winning option. In other words: A strategic dead-end.

Regards,

EoE

 

[Agelastus]

Originally posted by Sten Sture d:ä
Even with the huge Russian raw material resorces it have taken Germany at least three year to build a fleet to match RN.

So? That's the idea....................

That's exactly the sort of time-scale I was thinking of. Don't forget that the Germans have to build the invasion transport as well-the Sealion barges are just plain inadequate.

This may seem a long time, but with no realistic way for the British to seriously threaten the German hold on France, and Mussolini providing a distraction at the very least in the Mediterranean (don't forget exactly when he entered the war), Germany has the time to undertake such a program.

 

[Mariani]

Part of me almost wishes this had been the case. Allied victory would still have been likely, and the end result would have been the overthrow of Hitler AND Stalin...though the human cost on both sides would be mind-boggling...but the world would be a very different place...

 

[unmerged(592)]

Kicking the British out of the med is needed to keep the war "hot". You need a series of victories to win the war, just stopping after france and building shps for ages doesn't do it.

 

[Demagog]

Originally posted by Emperor of Europe
Yes, the Axis could probably have won in North Africa, and they might even have been able to push through to India, but so what?

A British defeat in Africa, the Middle East and India would probably not have pushed Britain out of the war, so it would essentially be a non-war winning option. In other words: A strategic dead-end.

Regards,

EoE

If North Africa hadnt mattered then why did they fight there?
Do you seriously belive that places like the Suez channel, Gibraltar and then the Arabic oil didnt matter?. And the fact that the Italian navy and army could have been fighting somewhere else after a win. And India was a big supplyer to Great Britain, so there products didnt matter then???

 

[Agelastus]

Originally posted by Demagog
If North Africa hadnt mattered then why did they fight there?
Do you seriously belive that places like the Suez channel, Gibraltar and then the Arabic oil didnt matter?. And the fact that the Italian navy and army could have been fighting somewhere else after a win. And India was a big supplyer to Great Britain, so there products didnt matter then???

EoE's probably right in that as long as Churchill stayed in charge the loss of these areas wouldn't cause Britain to surrender-but I agree that they were important, particularly the Middle East and the Gulf oil supplies. Had the Axis grabbed them, as in our reality they tried to sieze the Baku fields in the Caucasus.......................

 

[Emperor of Europe]

Originally posted by Demagog


If North Africa hadnt mattered then why did they fight there?
Do you seriously belive that places like the Suez channel, Gibraltar and then the Arabic oil didnt matter?. And the fact that the Italian navy and army could have been fighting somewhere else after a win. And India was a big supplyer to Great Britain, so there products didnt matter then???

Did I say somewhere, that it didn't matter? Of course I didn't.
What I mean is, that it is not essential for the British, so the Germans could not win the war against the UK by kicking them out of Egypt. Therefore it can be argued that it was a strategic dead-end and a waste of scarce resources.

If you look at why the Germans got involved in North Africa, the reasons were purely political.

Regards,

EoE

 

[unmerged(4253)]

the war

The Germans weren't trying to win a war against the brittish. All that the germans wanted was a, "white peace." That might have happened had they captured INDIA.

 

[Emperor of Europe]

Re: the war

Originally posted by CoolElelphant
The Germans weren't trying to win a war against the brittish. All that the germans wanted was a, "white peace." That might have happened had they captured INDIA.

As far as I know the Germans were at war - they were not playing EU So I guess what you mean is, that they were trying to force a favourable peace settlement - in other words: trying to win a war.
I find it highly unlikely that a United Kingdom under Churchill would have fallen, had India fallen. The Brits had suffered setbacks before and with the entry of the US in the war the balance of power had shifted to them in the long-term. A continuation of the war would be better than a peace settlement in any rational analysis, and in a political/emotional context anything else would be out of the question.
I also find it extremely unlikely that the Germans could capture India. Their supply lines were already stretched to the limit at El Alamein. Any advance beyond the Suez Canal would stretch it to the breaking limit, and besides: every tank and vehicle would have worn itself out on the long, long journey to India - even if it was unopposed.

Regards,

EoE

 

[unmerged(5578)]

England and France were scared. Hitler knew that. He also knew that invasion on France was very dangerous becouse of Polish army behind German's east border. All that "West" wanted was peace in Europe, and they had it but 6 years later .
Russians? When they started moving their troops? On 17 IX 1939. It was easy and safe. England and France hadn't enough pride to fulfill their declarations. USSR was very carefull and didn't want to be a participant of global conflict. So it's very possible that USSR wouldn't attack if Chamberlain (not Churchill) had more selfrespect and didn't left Poland alone on battlefield.

 

[pithorr]

Originally posted by Waltan
England and France were scared. Hitler knew that. He also knew that invasion on France was very dangerous becouse of Polish army behind German's east border. All that "West" wanted was peace in Europe, and they had it but 6 years later .
Russians? When they started moving their troops? On 17 IX 1939. It was easy and safe. England and France hadn't enough pride to fulfill their declarations. USSR was very carefull and didn't want to be a participant of global conflict. So it's very possible that USSR wouldn't attack if Chamberlain (not Churchill) had more selfrespect and didn't left Poland alone on battlefield.

Becareful with your opinnions. Agelastus and Sean are close...

 

[Keynes]

Two problems here:

1) There was never an alliance -- just a temporary understanding between two mortal enemies.

2) Even if Germany didn't invade in 41, they would have had to spend enormous resources to defend the border over the long haul.

 

[Agelastus]

Originally posted by pithorr
Becareful with your opinnions. Agelastus and Sean are close...

A rustling in the shrubbery...................

It's always nice to be welcomed/expected-but we had this particular little contretemps before. It was fine once, but after a while the views get to entrenched. WWI was enough for me...............pity that in real life Europeans didn't agree.

Waltan-six years of fighting, including over four years of occupation suffered by the French, is hardly not having "enough pride to fulfil their declarations". Go find the thread on the "1939 French offensive possibility" etc. I'm sure Pithorr can find it for you.