Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
16-01-2021, 11:08   #256
Samsonsmasher
Registered User
 
Samsonsmasher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 420
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chinese whospers View Post
Hitler was literally surrounded with nowhere to go. Stalin had a multitude of options even if Moscow had fallen including a government in exile.
If Moscow had fallen the Soviet system would have collapsed and Stalin would have been overthrown. The Soviet Union would have disintegrated. Stalin would have been better off shooting himself or else be killed by his own side or be handed over to the Nazis for trial.
Samsonsmasher is offline  
(2) thanks from:
Advertisement
16-01-2021, 12:50   #257
Chinese whospers
Registered User
 
Chinese whospers's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 3,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samsonsmasher View Post
If Moscow had fallen the Soviet system would have collapsed and Stalin would have been overthrown. The Soviet Union would have disintegrated. Stalin would have been better off shooting himself or else be killed by his own side or be handed over to the Nazis for trial.

That's one perspective.
Chinese whospers is offline  
16-01-2021, 13:14   #258
Markcheese
Registered User
 
Markcheese's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 6,595
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chinese whospers View Post
Hitler was literally surrounded with nowhere to go. Stalin had a multitude of options even if Moscow had fallen including a government in exile.

If the the Germans hadn't needed to get involved in greece , and more likely north africa ,they'd have had a bit more fuel and a bit more transport capacity,
So probably would have been able to take moscow ...
The further east the Germans got from moscow the more difficult transport links would have been for the Russians ( Even as german logistics grew more difficult .. ( most rail led to moscow ), and the less of the Russian heart land would have been left to the soviets ,
A Japanese attack on eastern russia , or just the real threat of one would have meant the eastern divisions wouldn't have been able to be released In Numbers for a counter attack on the Germans ...
If leningrad had fallen quickly there'd have been a lot more german troops available for the centre ..
A lot of ifs in there ....
Markcheese is offline  
Thanks from:
16-01-2021, 14:42   #259
1874
Registered User
 
1874's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chinese whospers View Post
I think the Russians would have kept falling back rather than Sue for peace. It's not like the leadership had regards for the civilians, and Russia is massive.

Once Western Russia was occupied (had that even mostly occurred) it would have been game over for the Soviets, they could not simply have just kept falling back, the war would have been over, there would be no way the Soviet Union could have sustained a war and likely no way in which it could have continued as a nation, I think the Soviet Union would have collapsed.

The Germans intention was to lay claim to all of what was west of the Urals. Any Soviet retreat further than that would have ended fullscale war. Had the Soviet Union clung on somehow I doubt any remainign military would have been capable of attacking. The Germans forces could have dealt with that piecemeal over a significantly shorter frontline around Perm, but it wouldnt be a full on war imo. Its possible the Germans would have more strategic capable bombers such as the He-177 or He-277 by then.
But more likely that Russia might have been White Russia (East of the Urals) maybe a demilitarized zone around Perm, and effectively a vassal State of Germany, supplying raw materials, potentially in return for food products.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Samsonsmasher View Post
Hundreds of thousands of German troops were needed to garrison their conquests - the ports and coastal defences of Northern and Western Europe the Mediterrean and Balkans and Greek islands and North Africa - because of the threat from Britain. If Halifax had been PM certainly many of those troops would have been freed up to make up for casualties on the Eastern Front.
As I said before Hitler had only one shot - capture Moscow in 1941. Moscow was the nerve centre of the Soviet Union - seize it and decapitate the leadership take Stalin alive or dead and the system would have collapsed.
German victory would still have been a long shot but it is the only chance history would have turned out differently.

The Winter of 1941 was one of the worst, had the delay been longer, imo so long while the Soviets were still supplying war materiale to Germany, giving the Germans time to knock Britain out of Europe effectively (capturing her 335k odd expeditionary army troops and keeping them as POWs at Britains expense), ie instead of bombing british cities, drop propaganda on them saying we cant feed your troops, you need to help, but you declared war on us, so we're not relaeasing them and remember Churchill set your own army, tanks and all on you in the 20's (before a citizen army was created), I think Britain might have caved and Hawks like Churchill would not have gotten in.
Britain might have had to sue for peace and may have had very restrictive terms applied regarding access to the Med, maybe rewarding Spain with a German co-occupied Gibralter, out of Malta, that might have knocked Britain out of the Med with either no fight or left them so weakened to be easier to deal with/disregard/access to Iran for oil via shipping.


With Britain not just out of Europe, but out of the Med, that would have a significant effect on encouraging cooperation among other nations without even engaging in military action, Greece, Yugoslavia, which broken up were more of a danger and problem for Germany.


Dealing with Russia, single handed after that, they may have had other resources than horses, they might even have gotten away with using horses, they'd likely have better aircraft than they started out with, more FW190 rather than only Bf109, More Ju88's than Me110 and He111, and possibly longer ranged strategic bombers if they even needed them at that point.
While the Soviets may have been more prepared, I believe at one point the Soviets even offered a truce or there was the potential of peace when they thought they were going to collapse before the Russian winter set in and even after 1941. Stalins suspicions of this even after the Anglo-American alliance was established in Britain left the allies susceptible to breaking up later in the war, but with a knocked out Britain and a USA not even in the war, I think this was a high possibility with huge concessions from the Soviets,


Quote:
Originally Posted by Samsonsmasher View Post
Stalin could not have continued to rule the Soviet Union if Moscow was lost. If the Germans had succeeded in encircling the city Stalin would have probably have shot himself just as Hitler did in Berlin.

Agreed, had the Germans been more like the Allies in conducting their war, fighting to their strengths and not even engaging in outright war, but a more hostile war diplomacy (basically threats), they might have achieved more (while buying time themselves).
If that occured, even if it took fighting to achieve, I belive it would have weakened Stalin t the extent that he'd have been shot in a basement in the Kremlin, shot and thrown off a train on its way east of the Urals or handed over to the Germans and shot. That imo would have been prior to, during or just after the collapse of the Soviet Union.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Chinese whospers View Post
Hitler was literally surrounded with nowhere to go. Stalin had a multitude of options even if Moscow had fallen including a government in exile.

Govts in exile don't hold that much power, unless there is a nation at war directly with the occupier. Britain couldnt do anything for the Poles in exile when the Soviets rolled in, France and Greece was different because the British and French forces were so near and french forces armed with US equipment were allowed/used to participate after D-day. Greece was withing the British sphere of influence of the Med, because the RN and the allies had access everywhere in the Med they saw fit.
There is no way a Govt in exile could have retaken a defeated Soviet Union. I dont think the British and US would have supported it, where to? China? in a timeline where Germany knocks Britain out of a war early by rapid defeat as occured and then have them sue for peace, doesnt look like a war where the USA substantially got involved until too late, either Japan focused on China, no benefit to Soviets or a seperate White Russia expels or shoots Soviet leaders and commisars they capture.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Samsonsmasher View Post
If Moscow had fallen the Soviet system would have collapsed and Stalin would have been overthrown. The Soviet Union would have disintegrated. Stalin would have been better off shooting himself or else be killed by his own side or be handed over to the Nazis for trial.

I think that would have happened.
1874 is offline  
16-01-2021, 16:38   #260
RGARDINR
Registered User
 
RGARDINR's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 629
Yeah I think you have made good points. I think Hitler should of just been a bit more smarter on decisions, just build more allies, let's say Greece and Turkey he got to join the Axis. Got Spain to put pressure on Britain by saying we are going to join the war on the axis side and declare war on you unless you hand us over Gibraltar, if you do that we won't declare war on you and join the axis. If the British do hand it over then don't let their ships etc enter from that point into the med, Spain didn't even have to join the war and Hitler would of know less shipping could of entered that way. They weren't even major things to do just things that would of increased the size of the axis forces with men and materials.
RGARDINR is offline  
Advertisement
16-01-2021, 17:51   #261
Samsonsmasher
Registered User
 
Samsonsmasher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 420
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGARDINR View Post
Yeah I think you have made good points. I think Hitler should of just been a bit more smarter on decisions, just build more allies, let's say Greece and Turkey he got to join the Axis. Got Spain to put pressure on Britain by saying we are going to join the war on the axis side and declare war on you unless you hand us over Gibraltar, if you do that we won't declare war on you and join the axis. If the British do hand it over then don't let their ships etc enter from that point into the med, Spain didn't even have to join the war and Hitler would of know less shipping could of entered that way. They weren't even major things to do just things that would of increased the size of the axis forces with men and materials.
Again as I said in a previous post my scenario doesn't allow for a fictional smarter sensible Hitler. It only allows for the actual historical Hitler.
Samsonsmasher is offline  
Thanks from:
16-01-2021, 18:46   #262
RGARDINR
Registered User
 
RGARDINR's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 629
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samsonsmasher View Post
Again as I said in a previous post my scenario doesn't allow for a fictional smarter sensible Hitler. It only allows for the actual historical Hitler.
Just wondering then for operation Typhoon if the Germans had of taken say half of army group north and south and used this as well on the attack of Moscow would it have worked, could they have then went onto the defensive in these 2 areas with the other half and used the other 50% of those forces to take Moscow with army group centre they had to take Moscow i think that would of been the death kneel of the soviet Union, especially if they had of got Stalin or killed him in the battle. I say once Moscow is taken the moral collapse of soviet soldiers would of been unreal i say a lot of desertions then.
RGARDINR is offline  
Thanks from:
16-01-2021, 18:52   #263
Chinese whospers
Registered User
 
Chinese whospers's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 3,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samsonsmasher View Post
Again as I said in a previous post my scenario doesn't allow for a fictional smarter sensible Hitler. It only allows for the actual historical Hitler.

Unless you've purchased Distilled media threads are allowed to develop beyond the OP.

Besides actual historical Hitler made the decisions he did. It is impossible for actual historical Hitler to make any other decision than he already made.
Chinese whospers is offline  
(2) thanks from:
16-01-2021, 19:13   #264
RGARDINR
Registered User
 
RGARDINR's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 629
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chinese whospers View Post
Unless you've purchased Distilled media threads are allowed to develop beyond the OP.

Besides actual historical Hitler made the decisions he did. It is impossible for actual historical Hitler to make any other decision than he already made.
Exactly
RGARDINR is offline  
(2) thanks from:
Advertisement
16-01-2021, 20:51   #265
Samsonsmasher
Registered User
 
Samsonsmasher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 420
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chinese whospers View Post
Unless you've purchased Distilled media threads are allowed to develop beyond the OP.

Besides actual historical Hitler made the decisions he did. It is impossible for actual historical Hitler to make any other decision than he already made.
Any speculative history would have to be informed by Hitler's real world ideology and belief systems the real world mistakes he made and why he made them and the real world limitations of the German war machine. My timeline departs from the real timeline by having Halifax become PM who accepts Hitler's peace offer after the Battle of France. Churchill came close to death in a cavalry charge as a young soldier and of course risked his life to escape Boer captivity and was once struck by a car in New York before he became PM so he might not have been around to put a spanner in the works for Hitler. Halifax backed down to Churchill due to a failure of will even though he had the strong backing. Churchill was simply more vocal charismatic and dominant.

Last edited by Samsonsmasher; 16-01-2021 at 21:10.
Samsonsmasher is offline  
Thanks from:
17-01-2021, 11:01   #266
Azza
Moderator
 
Azza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,458
Well if we are trying to look at alternate histories that could of been in terms of how Hitler could of World War II, I'd try to keep to it to reality/feasibility as close as possible, as in what was achievable with Germany's known capabilities, leadership and ideology with the benefit of hindsight. Otherwise one could literally suggest anything, i.e Hitler should of built a fleet of Star Destoyers and crafted the One Ring and he would of won.

Samsonsmaher suggestion about Britain accepting peace if Halifax became PM has the strong merit that it doesn't require any change or out of character decision on Hitlers part. He didn't want to be at war with Britain and did offer them peace terms. Peace with Britain did not conflict with Hitlers ideology. My issue though with the suggestion is the leadership of Britain is not something Germany could ever have control over.

The Germans did have control over the Halt order at Dunkirk. Had that decision been made to attack ,most of the BEF would have been destroyed at Dunkirk (I've never read or heard any historian say it was beyond the Germans capability to do this), there is a possibility that Britain with no army left to speak of, would of accepted peace terms. Yes had the Germans attacked the British at Dunkirk, the conquest of France might have taken longer and the Germans might have sustained overall higher causalities than they did historically, but the Battle of France had already been decided at that point, the French where beaten. With Britain out of the war, the Battle Of Britain does not have to be fought meaning the Luftwaffe is considerably stronger for Operation Barbarossa, there would also be no war in North Africa which was incredible resource (oil) intensive from a German perspective, no war in North Africa that resources sent there would of been freed up for Barbarossa as well. Finally the naval blockade of Germany/Occupied Europe also would come to an end, allowing Germany to trade for oil, increasing their supply for Barbarossa. Combining these factors, there is a chance that the German's take Moscow in 1941. There would also been no aid sent to the Soviet Union by Britain either, though its debatable how much the aid they sent them historically actually mattered.
Azza is offline  
Thanks from:
17-01-2021, 13:56   #267
saabsaab
Registered User
 
saabsaab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azza View Post
Well if we are trying to look at alternate histories that could of been in terms of how Hitler could of World War II, I'd try to keep to it to reality/feasibility as close as possible, as in what was achievable with Germany's known capabilities, leadership and ideology with the benefit of hindsight. Otherwise one could literally suggest anything, i.e Hitler should of built a fleet of Star Destoyers and crafted the One Ring and he would of won.

Samsonsmaher suggestion about Britain accepting peace if Halifax became PM has the strong merit that it doesn't require any change or out of character decision on Hitlers part. He didn't want to be at war with Britain and did offer them peace terms. Peace with Britain did not conflict with Hitlers ideology. My issue though with the suggestion is the leadership of Britain is not something Germany could ever have control over.

The Germans did have control over the Halt order at Dunkirk. Had that decision been made to attack ,most of the BEF would have been destroyed at Dunkirk (I've never read or heard any historian say it was beyond the Germans capability to do this), there is a possibility that Britain with no army left to speak of, would of accepted peace terms. Yes had the Germans attacked the British at Dunkirk, the conquest of France might have taken longer and the Germans might have sustained overall higher causalities than they did historically, but the Battle of France had already been decided at that point, the French where beaten. With Britain out of the war, the Battle Of Britain does not have to be fought meaning the Luftwaffe is considerably stronger for Operation Barbarossa, there would also be no war in North Africa which was incredible resource (oil) intensive from a German perspective, no war in North Africa that resources sent there would of been freed up for Barbarossa as well. Finally the naval blockade of Germany/Occupied Europe also would come to an end, allowing Germany to trade for oil, increasing their supply for Barbarossa. Combining these factors, there is a chance that the German's take Moscow in 1941. There would also been no aid sent to the Soviet Union by Britain either, though its debatable how much the aid they sent them historically actually mattered.

The aid to Russia was vital. In the Moscow defense something like 20% of the tanks were British. Even more so the supplies and material see what Khrushchev said about this later. I read that 90% of the red armys food rations were from US/Britain in 1944.
saabsaab is offline  
17-01-2021, 14:37   #268
Azza
Moderator
 
Azza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by saabsaab View Post
The aid to Russia was vital. In the Moscow defense something like 20% of the tanks were British. Even more so the supplies and material see what Khrushchev said about this later. I read that 90% of the red armys food rations were from US/Britain in 1944.
That's not quite accurate, the British tanks made up to 30-40% of the Soviet tanks classified as medium or heavy around Moscow but that's not the same as 30-40% of the total tank forces. The British tanks where superior to the vast majority of the tanks the Russians had but its very difficult to say how much of an effect they had.

They reached the front in early December 1941. The German offensive came to a halt on the 5th of the December and the Russians counter attacked on the 8th. The majority of the British tanks (but not all) had seen combat by the 9th, maybe 90 tanks of so of the first 140 available. Its difficult to imagine that so few tanks operating for just a few days could have been the decisive element in stopping the Germans. The Germans had at this point reached their limits of endurance and where exhausted. I don't they could have taken Moscow even had no British tanks not been present. The Soviets counter attacked and pushed the Germans back, but by the time the counter attack occurred the Germans had already given up trying to take Moscow in the short term. The British tanks proved useful in the counter attack no doubt and the Germans where thrown back some way, but the only made up a small part of the force used in the counter attack, an attack which was mishandled so you could argue the full potential of those tanks was wasted.

You could argue that the distance the Russians where able to push the Germans back with the aid of the British tanks could of played a factor in the Germans opting to go South into the Caucasus in 1942 as opposed to trying to take Moscow again but that's mere speculation which opens up a whole load of other questions.

From my understanding of it, Britain supplied more aid in 1942 to the Soviets than America did but it was still a relatively small amount compared to Soviet production and compared to the scale of the aid sent from 1943 onwards by America. However by the 1943 the outcome of the war was already decided and the aid sent to the Soviets simply the Soviets to win quicker and with less losses, but they where going to win regardless at that stage.

Looking back, its difficult to say one way or another whether the aid the Soviets got was critical in allowing them to survive 1941 and 1942. In pure numbers terms the aid sent was very small, but the timing and quality of that aid at critical periods of the war may have been decisive.
Azza is offline  
Thanks from:
08-02-2021, 15:29   #269
feargale
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 8,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Schomberg View Post
Well its a good job we were up for the fight - unlike DeValera, fueling U-boats and directing German bombers to Belfast. That Fenian was a disgrace to those Free Staters that did take up arms against evil.
Hitler defeated by orange flutes.
feargale is offline  
26-02-2021, 10:34   #270
Snickers Man
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 4,828
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azza View Post
That's not quite accurate, the British tanks made up to 30-40% of the Soviet tanks classified as medium or heavy around Moscow but that's not the same as 30-40% of the total tank forces. The British tanks where superior to the vast majority of the tanks the Russians had but its very difficult to say how much of an effect they had.


Weren't British tanks famously crap, though?

I gather that by the time of D-Day the British had largely switched to using American Sherman tanks, and even they were not considered to be much good compared with the best German tanks that they faced. Many writers of the period point out that the advantage the Shermans had over Tigers and Panthers was merely that there were more of them. Also, that they were more serviceable and repairable and could be patched up and put back into the fight after suffering minor damage more easily than the Germans which had to be abandoned or destroyed by their own side once they suffered any significant damage.

Just a brief anecdote: my late father was a child in England during the War. He used to visit a convalescent centre with his mother where wounded soldiers were recuperating after hospital treatment. He said he once spoke with a wounded British tank driver (he would have been about 10-11 years old) and asked him "Are those Tiger tanks any good?"
"Too ****ing god, son!" was the reply.
Snickers Man is offline  
Thanks from:
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet