Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Which Allied power did Nazi Germany have a better chance against solo?

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by Javaman
    Key word for there mate, "mobilized". Are you adding french mobilization to the scenario? In the absence of mobilization why does Germany need to do much of anything in the west other than buy french goods?
    The French would be stupid not mobilise with the out break of war between Germany and whomever. Germany would also be stupid not to deploy a significant force on their western frontier. Up until the French defeat the high command still had a healthy respect for the French military and they certainly would not risk a sudden attack against a weakly defended western frontier.

    And why on Earth would France or Britain (especially France) sell anything to Nazi Germany? And with what is Germany going to pay for these goods considering their disastrous economic policies and scarcity of foreign currency? While the democracies may be quite happy to have Germany exhaust itself in a war against the Soviet Union there is zero evidence in the real world to suggest that the French and British would want, or even support, a German victory. All this would do is place Germany in the position of continental hegemon. As the French left had considerable political power within France (as did the left in Britain), there would be support for the Soviet Union. Once news got out of German behaviour in the Soviet Union that support would only grow.

    When examining such flights of fancy it is worth fleshing out the scenario as close to to real world as possible in order for there to be even a sliver of plausibility. Containing the Soviet Union was one thing, standing by while Germany becomes a hemispheric superpower is not something in the national interests of either France or Britain to say nothing of the United States. The Soviets would get the economic help they need while the Germany military grinds to halts in the forests far west of Moscow. It would be an ugly war but it is not one that ends well for Germany.

    Nazi Germany simply does not have the wherewithal to defeat the Soviet Union and the western democracies were not (and would have been) stupid enough to risk a German victory.

    So, no, Germany cannot defeat any of three powers in the original OP.
    The Purist

    Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

    Comment


    • #62
      the question I have is who disliked more by England Russia or Germany

      and I am not sure it as clear cut at the time that Germany is the bigger threat

      There is a fairly large anti communism block

      Comment


      • #63
        There was, on the right in both France and Germany, the left in France was stronger. In any case this would not stop the democracies from doing what was necessary to prevent Germany from becoming dominant on the continent and standing by while the USSR is destroyed only means a stronger Germany later.

        The French were well aware of their own waning power and could not tolerate and even stronger Germany after a win against the Soviet Union. Britain was still looking to maintain the Westphalian system of 'balance of power' in Europe. There is no way either power would sit by and watch Germany win,

        The view that they might is more a "lost cause" fantasy of the modern right brought up with Cold War views that simply did not exist in the 1930s
        The Purist

        Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by The Purist View Post
          There was, on the right in both France and Germany, the left in France was stronger. In any case this would not stop the democracies from doing what was necessary to prevent Germany from becoming dominant on the continent and standing by while the USSR is destroyed only means a stronger Germany later.

          The French were well aware of their own waning power and could not tolerate and even stronger Germany after a win against the Soviet Union. Britain was still looking to maintain the Westphalian system of 'balance of power' in Europe. There is no way either power would sit by and watch Germany win,

          The view that they might is more a "lost cause" fantasy of the modern right brought up with Cold War views that simply did not exist in the 1930s
          That's honestly why when I posted my thoughts, I was basing it upon the idea of Germany being triumphant in the west - crushing France and obtaining a beneficial peace with the UK, so it had nothing to fear from ain invasion and was free to trade with other nations, etc.

          Without a secure flank, the idea of Germany being successful on either front is a near impossibility.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by The Purist View Post
            The French would be stupid not mobilise with the out break of war between Germany and whomever. Germany would also be stupid not to deploy a significant force on their western frontier. Up until the French defeat the high command still had a healthy respect for the French military and they certainly would not risk a sudden attack against a weakly defended western frontier.

            And why on Earth would France or Britain (especially France) sell anything to Nazi Germany? And with what is Germany going to pay for these goods considering their disastrous economic policies and scarcity of foreign currency? While the democracies may be quite happy to have Germany exhaust itself in a war against the Soviet Union there is zero evidence in the real world to suggest that the French and British would want, or even support, a German victory. All this would do is place Germany in the position of continental hegemon. As the French left had considerable political power within France (as did the left in Britain), there would be support for the Soviet Union. Once news got out of German behaviour in the Soviet Union that support would only grow.

            When examining such flights of fancy it is worth fleshing out the scenario as close to to real world as possible in order for there to be even a sliver of plausibility. Containing the Soviet Union was one thing, standing by while Germany becomes a hemispheric superpower is not something in the national interests of either France or Britain to say nothing of the United States. The Soviets would get the economic help they need while the Germany military grinds to halts in the forests far west of Moscow. It would be an ugly war but it is not one that ends well for Germany.

            Nazi Germany simply does not have the wherewithal to defeat the Soviet Union and the western democracies were not (and would have been) stupid enough to risk a German victory.

            So, no, Germany cannot defeat any of three powers in the original OP.
            So basically you've rearranged the OP's scenario? I did look at the scenario holistically and surmised that it was quite possible for the western powers to take a pass on going out of their way to help either the SU or Germany considering the behavior of both in the lead up to war.
            France/UK almost sent troops to Finland to fight the Red Army in 1940, France was a guarantor of Romanian sovereignty (though out of the picture when the USSR sent its ultimatum) and then there is the conquest of the Baltic states.
            Whether you care to consider it or not, the behavior of the USSR left plenty of room for the West to look at a major war between Europe's 2 largest threats as favorable. Perhaps they would try to affect the outcome one way or another, but there is no guarantee that they would be successful or what they would even do. I know that the US at that time would have no issue selling goods to either party. DuPont selling war materials? Henry Ford helping the Germans? These are no brainers and very big players in the economic game (just to name a few).

            As for the conduct of any war in the East, I see no reason for 1941 to play out much different than it did in the OTL. The Wehrmacht would have material weakness in some areas and added strength in others, so no real change. I see no changes the Soviets could/would implement that make any sense beyond what they did in the OTL. Therefore, 1941 pretty much as per OTL. After that the economic issues of this ATL change the scenario dramatically as Germany (and Finland, Romania) have a single theatre of war and open seas for them to trade with the world.
            "Amateurs study tactics; professionals study logistics"
            -Omar Bradley
            "Not everyone who studies logistics is a professional logistician, and there is no way to understand when you don't know what you don't know."
            -Anonymous US Army logistician

            Comment


            • #66
              The OP is totally wrong : there was never a chance for Germany to fight against one of the allies solo .

              There was already a virtual second front before 22 june 1941 which was helping Stalin, and between june 1940 and december 1941 there was a virtual war between Germany and the SU .

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Javaman View Post
                France/UK almost sent troops to Finland to fight the Red Army in 1940,
                This is totally wrong : France and Britain planned to send forces to Norway to cut of the iron ore transports to Germany ,besides:to send forces to Finland was impossible ,unless France and Britain would violate the territory of Sweden .

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by ljadw View Post
                  This is totally wrong : France and Britain planned to send forces to Norway to cut of the iron ore transports to Germany ,besides:to send forces to Finland was impossible ,unless France and Britain would violate the territory of Sweden .
                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco...the_Winter_War

                  The above link does not constitute "totally wrong" in any way whatsoever. The plans were on the table so to speak and clearly the British and French were open to fighting the Soviets over Finland (which is the point here, not the feasibility of the plan). The intent was there, which demonstrates the political stance of the UK/France towards the USSR.
                  "Amateurs study tactics; professionals study logistics"
                  -Omar Bradley
                  "Not everyone who studies logistics is a professional logistician, and there is no way to understand when you don't know what you don't know."
                  -Anonymous US Army logistician

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    No :what the (mainly) French newspapers were demanding was not the same as what the governments were planning .

                    Besides : planning is not the same as intention .

                    During the Cold War, US planned a nuclear attack/riposte on the SU : that does not mean that the US had the intention to start a nuclear war against the SU .

                    Comment

                    Latest Topics

                    Collapse

                    Working...
                    X