This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
The ability of the Russians to move their manufacturing capacity to the east of the Ural Mountains surprised everyone, likely the Russians themselves.
I agree. No way England and France invade Germany over the sovereignty of the Soviet Union.
Norway was a sideshow. The attention of France and Britain was on preparing to defend France. That didn't work out well but it's beside the point.
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
What if...Eephus said:
A) Norway was far from a sideshow. It enabled Germany to level the playing field in the North Sea and also ensured iron ore supply from Sweden.Eephus said:
Barbarossa began in June. The Germans might have been able to push that up by four weeks but not four months. The halt before Moscow was as much due to overextended supply lines as it was winter. I don't think capturing Moscow would have as crucial as you think it is. It might win you a few victory points in a wargame but it would be another case of Russia's willingness to exchange territory for time. The fall of Moscow wouldn't have marked victory in 1940 or 1941 (or 1812 for that matter).
Norway was much more important to the Germans than it was to the Allies. The British were slow to commit the Royal Navy in part because they were still fighting WWI but once the Germans overran Denmark and established their Norwegian beachheads, there was nothing the Allies could have done.
Great strategy is for the UK to keep buying fighters and go park them in Russia. Russia supplies infantry cannon fodder to keep them alive and after a few rounds there's so many planes the Germans have no hope of taking there. At which point the US invasion begins and Britain can then quickly try to catch up in transports.
What is Germany gets a lucky technology roll and can eliminate their credits with super bombers?
The oil fields were absolutely not a distraction. Moscow might have been although it probably was (and is I would guess) a pivotal rail hub they would need to move the oil from the Caucasus in the absence of a Bosporus/Mediterranean route.
It (taking Moscow) didn't work for Napoleon and it wouldn't have worked for Hitler either.Eephus said:
Norway also gave them the heavy water plant that potentially could have been used for nuclear weapons.
I don't think it's right to judge Norwegians, or anyone, based on their weight. Especially if it's only water weight we're talking about.
Stalin and his generals opened up a can of whoop ### on the Nazis. Of course, they didn't really value the lives of their own soldiers either.
Based on their treaty from 1938(?), Germany would've been fine taking Poland up until they crossed into the Soviet half of the agreed-to carve up of Poland. You could say that it would have been on with Russia before the Nazis ever made it to Russia.
I was thinking more in the way of the Allies threatening Germany with war if Germany attacked Poland. Figure Germany would need to attack through Poland to keep lines of communication clear. If it did that, then it would have brought the Allies in, creating a war on both fronts.
Well, there's war and there's "war". France and Britain technically declared war on 3 Sept but Poland was defeated before the Allies could mobilize.
Take time to mobilize. No way were France and Britain going to physically defend Poland as it was a lost cause. Only people who didn't think Poland would fall were the Poles who thought rather highly of themselves (and their horse cavalry). Poland was a line in the sand. Chamberlain's appeasement policy was full on failure by that time and putting their heads in the sand was no longer an option.
Serious answer to a non-serious question. It could have had a major impact on the Mediterranean theater. The North African campaign was a result of Mussolini's attempt to overrun Egypt and get to the Suez. There also obviously would be no invasion required in Italy although attacking Germany over the Alps was pretty unlikely. The Balkans would have still been a mess.
If you think about what would have happened if Germany had only two fronts instead of three what they could have done. It's pretty amazing how successful they were with how divided their forces were.
Yea, quite a powerhouse. They flexed their muscle & defeated some African country that were armed with spears & clubs. Ethiopia maybe?
What Germany accomplished and how advanced they were compared to the rest of the world was nothing short of amazing. One of the more remarkable things in history.
Honestly the only thing that saved Europe was that Hitler was as bad at warmongering as he was good at public speaking. His decisions, from a strategic standpoint, were awful.
The drugs and delusions didn't help. But he was a nut, so his idea that he was some sort of God is probably the reason he thought he could take over the world anyway.
This is an interesting scenario but Germany was barely able to supply the Afrika Korps and the Italians because the British controlled the Mediterranean. It would have taken a much larger force to push past El Alamein through Cairo to the Suez and logistics would have been a huge problem.
The Germans never tried before they were deeply involved in Russia for a push to the Suez. And Rommel far exceded his orders and The logistics he had. The point is if not involved in russia, concentration of the luftwaffe and u boats in the medeterrian would be possible along with the best panzer divisions. German air superoity negates the royal navy in the med. and insures the supplies get through for the 20 or so German divisions that would of been needed. German numerical superiority vs. The british in these years practically insures success. This scenario was churchills biggest fear, and the german navys dream plan.
