What if...
-
phylo_roadking
- Patron
- Posts: 8459
- Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm
Another thought on "Iraqi" oil; the British actually had a VERY workable plan for destroying Iraq's oil production in 1941...which they did actually attempt to put into action at the very start of the officers' coup and iraq Rising, only being stopped because the Iraqis rose in far more places at once than expected, making travel very difficult. You have to remember this was in the very early days of oil production, technology-wise, and it was more than possible to completely destroy oilheads to the point that fresh drilling would be required....which could be interdicted by air from Persia.
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds
It seams sto me one of the most critical questions to answer is how does Great Britain leave the war?
If the Germans actually conquer GB via something like Sea Lion I don't see anyway they could be in shape to take out Moscow and Stalingrad in 41. On the otherhand if GB is acutally conquered the Commonwealth will probably fight on (I believe plans called for the Royals and Home Fleet to go to Canada). In this case the only areas where they can reasonably exert much effect is in North Africa and the Mideast at least until the US is in the war.
If GB sinds an armistace or peace treaty with the Germans then the rest of the Commonwealth will probably go with it. On the other hand once Japan attacks the US and Commonwealth the two are allied and GB and the Commonwealth may well be back in the war if Hitler declares war on the US (in this situation he probably wouldn't however). This situation probably results in more support to the rump Soviet Union and Germany will be stretched very thing with a longer front line in the East and even more area with active partizans.
By the way some consider the spelling of America with a "k" to be a bit of an insult.
If the Germans actually conquer GB via something like Sea Lion I don't see anyway they could be in shape to take out Moscow and Stalingrad in 41. On the otherhand if GB is acutally conquered the Commonwealth will probably fight on (I believe plans called for the Royals and Home Fleet to go to Canada). In this case the only areas where they can reasonably exert much effect is in North Africa and the Mideast at least until the US is in the war.
If GB sinds an armistace or peace treaty with the Germans then the rest of the Commonwealth will probably go with it. On the other hand once Japan attacks the US and Commonwealth the two are allied and GB and the Commonwealth may well be back in the war if Hitler declares war on the US (in this situation he probably wouldn't however). This situation probably results in more support to the rump Soviet Union and Germany will be stretched very thing with a longer front line in the East and even more area with active partizans.
By the way some consider the spelling of America with a "k" to be a bit of an insult.
-
phylo_roadking
- Patron
- Posts: 8459
- Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm
This is what happened anyway! Anthony Eden recalled in a TV interview that this was exactly the reason why the Western Desert Force was instructed to move against the Italians in North Africa, Britain had NO other way of taking the war to the enemy. Remember, at that time the Commandos weren't operational, and the RAF's long-range bombing capability was really negligible, as discovered in 1941.In this case the only areas where they can reasonably exert much effect is in North Africa and the Mideast at least until the US is in the war.
Not necessarily. Each of the Dominions had made an individual political decision to "lend assistance" to the UK - hence, for example, the Autralian government demanding the return of Australian forces from North Africa in early 1942...and this being done!If GB signs an armistice or peace treaty with the Germans then the rest of the Commonwealth will probably go with it.
Remember - nor could the UK parent company sign ANY treaty obligation on these governments. Any treaty with Great Britain would apply ONLY to her own armed forces and governmental policies.
So - IF the UK is defeated BEFORE Pearl Harbour and the German Declaration of War on the USA, her fleet sails to Canada, most likely carrying government and Royal Family. What then? many historians have thought that instead of fighting on, Canada would come under pressure from the USA NOT to carry out ANY offensive military actions against Germany/Europe. And prevent the Royal Family etc. travelling anywhere else. Thats why its more likely that the King and his ministers would fetch up in India or Australia.
HOWEVER, IF the UK wasn't defeated or surrendered until AFTER December 8th, then the US would be in the war, once again like it or not. In fact - being on british soil and gaining the upper hand over the British Army and all other resistance on land would actually make it MORE likely that Hitler would declare war on the US! Because HE would assume that without the UK, the US would be incapable or carrying out any action in Europe, leaving him free to make his plans for whenever!
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds
Well if the UK is defeated prior to the US involvment in the war then there is the very practical question of how the rest of the Commonwealth would carry on the war. If it is due to an armistace and leaves the UK unoccpied then I see little reason for them to carry on the war unless the UK gets back in.
In the case of the UK being occupied by Germany things are a bit different. I can't see the US putting pressure on Canada to stay out of it. In fact if Rooselvelt is president he may well encourage them to stay in.
In the case of the UK being occupied by Germany things are a bit different. I can't see the US putting pressure on Canada to stay out of it. In fact if Rooselvelt is president he may well encourage them to stay in.
I'm not sure winning at Kursk helps that much. It does depend a lot on what the German losses were but is a German victory (ie pinching off the Kursk saliant) going to stop the Soviet attack further south? I suspect that the German forces involved at Kursk are still going to be tied up there when the Soviets attack so even if they wanted to there is unlikely to be much exploitation of the victory.
As for a draw. That might be possible but I doubt it would happen right after Kursk. If the result does slow further Soviet advances and increase their casualties then some sort of agreement might be possible if Gemany is still fighting in late 45. However if the Soviets aren't going to make it to Berlin in the summer of 45 the west probably will.
So the biggest effects may well be post war.
As for a draw. That might be possible but I doubt it would happen right after Kursk. If the result does slow further Soviet advances and increase their casualties then some sort of agreement might be possible if Gemany is still fighting in late 45. However if the Soviets aren't going to make it to Berlin in the summer of 45 the west probably will.
So the biggest effects may well be post war.
lwd
You may be right. I'm just not sure what winning at Kursk means. Does that mean the attack on Orel doesn't happen? The ten blows?
Hard to say. But a draw was possible if Kempf and Hoth had locked arms and Manstein remained in command to tap dance on the Soviets. But Hitler pretty much doomed himself after Kursk - and assuming he'd become wise enough to let Manstein command is a pretty broad assumption.
cheers
Reb
You may be right. I'm just not sure what winning at Kursk means. Does that mean the attack on Orel doesn't happen? The ten blows?
Hard to say. But a draw was possible if Kempf and Hoth had locked arms and Manstein remained in command to tap dance on the Soviets. But Hitler pretty much doomed himself after Kursk - and assuming he'd become wise enough to let Manstein command is a pretty broad assumption.
cheers
Reb
-
phylo_roadking
- Patron
- Posts: 8459
- Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm
-
phylo_roadking
- Patron
- Posts: 8459
- Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm
But the thread refers to a very specific timeframe Autumn-Winter 1941.Dragonov
Like I said - the Germans could not really 'win' at kursk. But it was very important not to 'lose' and they blew that when Hitler, who fancied himself the quintissential tough guy, lost his nerve (over the Sicilian invasion).
Stalin's ten blows were waiting in the wings - lose at Kursk? Ok - only nine blows!
Berlin in autumn '45 instead of spring.
I think sometimes we in the west do not realize how badly battered hitler's legions really were. We read about the mighty panzers, forgetting that they were a tiny fraction of the Heer. The Army as a whole had been beaten to a frazze - look at the panzer stats at Kursk - the very best they could do only put one full strength pz div in action (GD).
Stalin otoh, lost 5th Tk Army and had it rebuilt like magic. There was no stopping Ivan by '43.
cheers
Reb
Like I said - the Germans could not really 'win' at kursk. But it was very important not to 'lose' and they blew that when Hitler, who fancied himself the quintissential tough guy, lost his nerve (over the Sicilian invasion).
Stalin's ten blows were waiting in the wings - lose at Kursk? Ok - only nine blows!
Berlin in autumn '45 instead of spring.I think sometimes we in the west do not realize how badly battered hitler's legions really were. We read about the mighty panzers, forgetting that they were a tiny fraction of the Heer. The Army as a whole had been beaten to a frazze - look at the panzer stats at Kursk - the very best they could do only put one full strength pz div in action (GD).
Stalin otoh, lost 5th Tk Army and had it rebuilt like magic. There was no stopping Ivan by '43.
cheers
Reb