Theory on WW2

HavingCrack

Just interested to see what everyones opnion on this as a possible scenario would be.

A theory I've always had is if the Germans simply ignored the British and French declarations of war and did not invade the Low Countries and France in 1940 and simply posted enough troops to prevent an Allied invasion of western Germany they could have won. Instead of invading France they launch Barbarossa in April 1940 before the Soviet army is any ready for warfare and advance to capture Moscow, Leningrad and the Caucasus by October 1940. The western allies realise they have nothing to gain by continuing the 'Phony War' and sign a peace treaty with Hitler. USA never becomes involved in European theatre as a result. Guerilla warfare continues in the USSR throughout 1941-1943 but ultimately the Russian are not capable of physically ousting the Germans in open warfare leading to a scenario similar to that portrayed in 'Fatherland'.

Does anyone else think this is the route the Germans should have gone down??

who what when

Japan attacking the US was the downfall of Germany!
Britain would never have been able to carry out D-Day, let alone the invasion of greater Europe

Japan should have opened up an eastern front in Russia instead of attacking pearl harbour! Theres no way Russia would have held off the two of them with practically no support.

gbee

Most likely this was the very plan, it's discussed in a near identical thread.

Hitler's plans was to invade the RUSSIA, this was his gaol all along, his parries with France, of which he only occupied a portion of anyway, and his routing of the British expeditionary force should have led to a cease fire.

In cold calculations today, most normal people would have realised that they were out numbered, under gunned, under everything and sued for peace. But we had a war monger, already in trouble with his own government and previously sacked for his outbursts, Churchill took on Hitler and engaged him long enough.

Despite advice from his own Generals, Hitler ordered Barbarossa to go ahead anyway, more or less on schedule or after a short delay ~ much under strength as a result of the commitment of troops and equipment to the western front.

There are pivotal moments where Hitler lost, this is certainly one of them. Hitler beat the pants off Russia but he did not have the reserves in anything to consolidate his position, there is not doubt that had he not been engaged with a fire fight on the Western front, and he had set off Barbarossa on time, he'd have taken Moscow and the oil rich Ukraine and held them.

No doubt about it at all.

HavingCrack

who what when wrote: »

Japan attacking the US was the downfall of Germany!
Britain would never have been able to carry out D-Day, let alone the invasion of greater Europe

Japan should have opened up an eastern front in Russia instead of attacking pearl harbour! Theres no way Russia would have held off the two of them with practically no support.

The Japanese army actually had several engagements wit the Soviets in 1938 such as the battle of Lake Kasan (think that's the correct spelling) and were soundly beaten so its hard to know how effective this would have been. Also what was there to gain for the Japanese by invading Siberia? There wasn't any of the resources of SE Asia that they needed for the war.

marcsignal

who what when wrote: »

Japan attacking the US was the downfall of Germany!
Britain would never have been able to carry out D-Day, let alone the invasion of greater Europe

Japan should have opened up an eastern front in Russia instead of attacking pearl harbour! Theres no way Russia would have held off the two of them with practically no support.

+1

my thoughts also

The German attack in the west was necessary. Not doing so would have left Germanys western border vulnerable, and the Ruhr open to short range bombing by the French air force and RAF. The way it worked out, the French, Dutch, Belgians etc. were defeated, and the British ended up stuck on their island with little capability to affect Germanys war effort. As who what when said, without the USA, Britian would have been pretty much 'neutered' for the duration.


.

Empire o de Sun

It probably would have been fought to a stalemate with Russia. Germany lacked access to raw materials for a prolonged war.

Hitler ordered his armies to stop their advance at the start of the war, and this enabled the bulk of british, french, dutch forces to escape. If he had let his generals capture the british and french forces, britain probably would have been knocked out, or have delayed their ability to lauch d-day by a few years. As it would have ended up with only a skeliton army.

He probably did this as a gesture of peace to britain, but churchill only understood unconditional peace :rolleyes:

There are allot of things in WWII in terms of stratigy that don't make sense.

WWII signaled the end of european empire states (with the exception of the Soviet Union), thinking they could expand territory when their neighbours were weaker to satisfy their need for land and resources.

There are also allot of myths, (legacies from propeganda) about the war. The german army was only slightly mechanised when it invaded France and the low countries. But it was how they were used that made the difference, the vast majority of the army marched or used horses.

It Britain and especially france were better organised, they could have stopped the german army, but they were using tactics from WWI