Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Anther what if, Germany vs Russia.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Anther what if, Germany vs Russia.

    What if..... What if Germany had not invaded Poland in 1939, what if instead Russia had? Of course Russia did,,but Stalin did so after the initial invasion by Germany. But what if armed with the knowledge that Russia had the desire to control sections of Poland, Germany had held back until Russia made the first move?
    Germany would have been counter attacking with the full might of its forces, without having to protect its rear, the Russians would be operating on extended lines and maneuvering away from its logistical support.
    Who would the west support?
    How would this scenario play out?
    Last edited by Urban hermit; 16 Nov 13, 21:55.
    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
    What if..... What if Germany had not invaded Poland in 1939, what if instead Russia had? Of course Russia did,,but Stalin did so after the initial invasion by Germany. But what if armed with the knowledge that Russia had the desire to control sections of Poland, Germany had held back until Russia made the first move?
    Germany would have been counter attacking with the full might of its forces, without having to protect its rear, the Russians would be operating on extended lines and maneuvering away from its logistical support.
    Who would the west support?
    How would this scenario play out?
    Germany would have supported Poland at this point as would Western feeling.

    Comment


    • #3
      Certainly, but what would the west have done?
      How would such a conflict play out?
      Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

      Comment


      • #4
        Germany vs. Russia, 1940, just the two facing each other down. With no support for either from the west, who would win?
        What strategies would each side have used?
        Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

        Comment


        • #5
          So long as the Poles can count on Germany not stabbing them in the back their army stomps the snot out of the Red Army much like Finland did. This leads to a stalemate with the British and French supplying Poland more equipment.
          For Germany it creates quite the dilemma: Does Hitler invade anyway after the Soviets? If so he runs the risk of still ending up in a war with France and Britain.
          Does he do nothing and let Russia and Poland annhilliate each other in a war of attrition?
          What does he do about the loss of strategic materials flowing from Russia to Germany?

          Comment


          • #6
            In this scenario, the Russians attack first. What would the west have done?
            Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

            Comment


            • #7
              How can only 1 republic of a union of republics that make up 1 country invade another? Can North Dakota invade Canada?
              Кто там?
              Это я - Почтальон Печкин!
              Tunis is a Carthigenian city!

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                So long as the Poles can count on Germany not stabbing them in the back their army stomps the snot out of the Red Army much like Finland did. This leads to a stalemate with the British and French supplying Poland more equipment.
                First of all, Stalin would've never invaded without securing diplomatic guarantees of the non-intervention of other countries, thus the whole scenario is flawed from the start. Secondly, no matter which scenario involving the Red Army Mr. Gardner considers, it either ends in its ignominious defeat, described in juicy detail, or when such statement would be way too obviously ridiculous to make, he goes out of the way to depreciate Red Army's victory. This is getting way too familiar
                www.histours.ru

                Siege of Leningrad battlefield tour

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by ShAA View Post
                  First of all, Stalin would've never invaded without securing diplomatic guarantees of the non-intervention of other countries, thus the whole scenario is flawed from the start. Secondly, no matter which scenario involving the Red Army Mr. Gardner considers, it either ends in its ignominious defeat, described in juicy detail, or when such statement would be way too obviously ridiculous to make, he goes out of the way to depreciate Red Army's victory. This is getting way too familiar
                  Stalin had no reason to attack Poland except to get at Germany. That may have happened in 1943, but there was zero chance of that in 1939 or even 1941. Stalin was very careful, and patient, and was no doubt biding his time prior to Barbarossa, but the Red Army was in no state to launch a war against Germany. This was something Stalin and his colleagues understood very clearly. The rearmament program initiated in 1939 had yet to bear fruit, and even by 1941 was nowhere near as far along as was anticipated.

                  If Stalin intended to attack Germany, something that is still debated, it would not have been before 1943 and even then, would likely depend on whether Germany was still engaged in a shooting war with the French and British in Western Europe.

                  Regards
                  Scott Fraser
                  Ignorance is not the lack of knowledge. It is the refusal to learn.

                  A contentedly cantankerous old fart

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Stryker 19K30 View Post
                    How can only 1 republic of a union of republics that make up 1 country invade another? Can North Dakota invade Canada?
                    i know of a few guys in texas would love for chance to go in and sort out mexco or at the very least protect their borders.
                    you think you a real "bleep" solders you "bleep" plastic solders don't wory i will make you in to real "bleep" solders!! "bleep" plastic solders

                    CPO Mzinyati

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Could the USSR have blitz poland like the germans did, i don't think they had that level of competence in 1939. It would have been a longer war and may have spurred UK and France to send in ground forces and build up there military with a lot more gusto.
                      you think you a real "bleep" solders you "bleep" plastic solders don't wory i will make you in to real "bleep" solders!! "bleep" plastic solders

                      CPO Mzinyati

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by andrewza View Post
                        Could the USSR have blitz poland like the germans did, i don't think they had that level of competence in 1939. It would have been a longer war and may have spurred UK and France to send in ground forces and build up there military with a lot more gusto.
                        Most probably not, but extrapolating the experience of the Red Army in the Winter War, when it attacked without even having a 2 to 1 advantage and didn't concentrate its heavy artillery to the front until over a month from the start of the war, etc. etc. is like speaking of the speed of advance of US Army in Europe in 1944 by considering only the campaign in Hurtgen Forest.
                        www.histours.ru

                        Siege of Leningrad battlefield tour

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by ShAA View Post
                          First of all, Stalin would've never invaded without securing diplomatic guarantees of the non-intervention of other countries, thus the whole scenario is flawed from the start. Secondly, no matter which scenario involving the Red Army Mr. Gardner considers, it either ends in its ignominious defeat, described in juicy detail, or when such statement would be way too obviously ridiculous to make, he goes out of the way to depreciate Red Army's victory. This is getting way too familiar
                          I agree, Stalin would never have gone for this without huge guarrentees of support and non-intervention.
                          As for the Red Army in 1939-40 it isn't the powerhouse steamroller it became from several years of hard fighting. If you look at the original Soviet invasion of Poland after the German invasion the Red Army barely managed to advance across about a little less than half of Poland virtually unopposed. The Poles are going to give the Soviets just as hard a fight, and possibly a harder one than the Finnish did.
                          You are not talking the Red Army of 1944 but the one of 1940, the one that has units that are poorly trained, often ill equipped with broken down vehicles, and suffering from shortages of most equipment not to mention ammunition.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Ok folks....this is the Alternate Time line forum. Throw away your history books.
                            What ifs are just that...not what was....
                            If Germany had not attacked Poland, but Russia had, and then Germany counter attacked.
                            What would the BEF and the US reaction?
                            The easier way to think about this, if Russia has been the aggressor, and it came down to just Germany and Russia facing each other in 1940 how would history have changed?
                            Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                              I agree, Stalin would never have gone for this without huge guarrentees of support and non-intervention.
                              As for the Red Army in 1939-40 it isn't the powerhouse steamroller it became from several years of hard fighting. If you look at the original Soviet invasion of Poland after the German invasion the Red Army barely managed to advance across about a little less than half of Poland virtually unopposed. The Poles are going to give the Soviets just as hard a fight, and possibly a harder one than the Finnish did.
                              You are not talking the Red Army of 1944 but the one of 1940, the one that has units that are poorly trained, often ill equipped with broken down vehicles, and suffering from shortages of most equipment not to mention ammunition.
                              But that's exactly because the decision to enter Poland was taken in haste and without due planning and preparation on part of the Soviet authorities. No one expected the Germans to crush Poland that fast. As for Finland, the idea the Soviet commanders had was that the Finns would flee in panic and surrender in a few days, hence no proper preparations either (although the Finnish case is more complicated).

                              In this scenario we're dealing with a carefully planned and premediated aggression, which is anything but what happened on the eastern borders of Poland in September 1939.
                              www.histours.ru

                              Siege of Leningrad battlefield tour

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X