Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What if the Allies won the war in 1939?

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

  • #46
    This is like reading stuff from the US in 1860 with people choosing up sides based on whether they were from Virginia or Maryland.

    But then I do know people lament the occupation of New Oeleans by "them damned Yankees" as if the were living there when it happened, so I shouldn't be surprised when a modern day Welshman curses the name of Longshanks or a Scotsman talks like he just had "wee dram" with Rob Roy.

    (And don't get me started on some Texans and the Alamo)
    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
      Given French doctrine of the period I can't imagine it. The French would have stopped advancing the second they hit any kind of real opposition. That would pretty much end their offensive.
      Well, I don't think 'end' is quite the word I'd use. Their doctrine demanded they bring up their artillery, deploy their mobile forces, plan their assault and then execute to the prescribed depth. Once achieved they would repeat as long as necessary. Not that this was the way to fight the Heer c.1939-40 but that's what the French believed would work.
      Signing out.

      Comment


      • #48
        While they were bringing up their artillery, the Panzers would've stepped around them and made a bee-line for Paris.
        Indyref2 - still, "Yes."

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by the ace View Post
          While they were bringing up their artillery, the Panzers would've stepped around them and made a bee-line for Paris.
          Well, I think part of the idea is that the panzers were engaged elsewhere, but in 1940 this was more or less what happened - the opportunity to counter-attack the Germans before they fully established their bridgehead over the Meuse was there but the French doctrine demanded that they prepare properly so by the time they were ready it was too late, France was effectively already lost, the panzers had already 'stepped around them'.
          Signing out.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
            Given French doctrine of the period I can't imagine it. The French would have stopped advancing the second they hit any kind of real opposition. That would pretty much end their offensive. Historically, the one time they did try an offensive that is exactly what happened.
            That is the real what if here: "what if the French developed a proper combined arms mobile warfare doctrine".

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by AdrianE View Post
              That is the real what if here: "what if the French developed a proper combined arms mobile warfare doctrine".
              Then Germany loses the campaign of 1940, and by extention loses the war fairly quickly. Perhaps the nazis are seen off in a coup in a few months, perhaps the agony drags on for a couple years. By 1942 the Allies have run through their rearmament program, both sides bankrupt or nearly so. And, the USSR is ready to intervene.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by ELLE View Post
                I see, like a 3 month war!
                How about the Rusians?
                And what would Stalin do with his 17 000 tanks prepared for world wide revolution ?
                Guerrero contra marxismo

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Bartek View Post
                  And what would Stalin do with his 17 000 tanks prepared for world wide revolution ?
                  Watch them rust?

                  When I had a few hours to burn last summer a hypothetical 1940s war between the USSR and west used up the time. The largest premise was the German rearmament of 1934-39 had not occured. The second premise was when the USSR begin aggresion vs the European border nations, a coalition of major Western powers slowly coaleces. Looking at the general industrial base and potiential military production of the combatants, and military performance of the 1939-1941 era, my take is the USSR makes some initial gains in Poland, Rumania, ect... then after a year or maybe two begins collapsing under the stress of the industrial and internal political demands of a sustained war. While the anti Soviet coalition has a strong industrial advantage politically they would have a problem with the large block of socialists and leftists amoung their population. Strikes, sabatoge, and a demoralized portion of the soldiers would hinder the war effort. On the up side they might be able to recruit a anti Bolshivik army from amoung the disaffected of the USSR.
                  Last edited by Carl Schwamberg; 23 Jan 10, 09:47.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Bartek View Post
                    And what would Stalin do with his 17 000 tanks prepared for world wide revolution ?
                    Suvorov's theories have been discussed and debunked here lots of times.
                    www.histours.ru

                    Siege of Leningrad battlefield tour

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Bartek View Post
                      And what would Stalin do with his 17 000 tanks prepared for world wide revolution ?
                      Real WWII against Soviet Union alied with Japan in 1941? They woud loose Around 1945, after this no cold war, higher standart of living in IIIrd world becouse the colonial system woud be in place and metropolies woud spend money on consupmtion rather than space program and armament? As to Israel it was decided to be create it after WWI and not after Holocaust so it coud be created a few years later but as 12 milion strong state.
                      And then around 1964 WWIII pitting Oceania (USA + UK) versus Eurasia (EU +Russia) versus Est Asia (China + India). Human nature is constant even without Hitler or Stalin.
                      Kosovo is Serbian.
                      I support United Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
                      Behead those who say Islam is violent!

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by ShAA View Post
                        Suvorov's theories have been discussed and debunked here lots of times.
                        You have build 21 000 tanks and more then 32 000 000 people died from hunger at the same time only just for fun .
                        You should spare such bullshits for usefull idiots .
                        BTW what about theories of Mark Solonin or Wladimir Bieshanow ? They are the traitors ,too ? Just like Suvorow ?
                        What about "Poligon of Satan " by I.Bunicz ? The next traitor ?
                        Or pour mother Russia , all time under siege ,all time under pressure of inside and outside enemies .
                        At psychiatry it is called persecution mania
                        Guerrero contra marxismo

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Bartek View Post
                          You have build 21 000 tanks and more then 32 000 000 people died from hunger at the same time only just for fun .
                          You should spare such bullshits for usefull idiots .
                          BTW what about theories of Mark Solonin or Wladimir Bieshanow ? They are the traitors ,too ? Just like Suvorow ?
                          What about "Poligon of Satan " by I.Bunicz ? The next traitor ?
                          Or pour mother Russia , all time under siege ,all time under pressure of inside and outside enemies .
                          At psychiatry it is called persecution mania
                          I can name you a big list of Holocaust deniers too. So what? I'm not going to bother arguing with you - you can read a lot of discussions here led by people from all over the world detailing the fallacies of this conspiracy theory.

                          And yes, change your tone or go spill your hate and inferiority complexes elsewhere.
                          www.histours.ru

                          Siege of Leningrad battlefield tour

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            The problem with the massive soviet tank fleet is that spare parts were not part of the production programs that produced this "mass". By 1941 as many as 2/3 of a Russian tank units inventory could be off the road for one reason or another. Further, many of these tanks ran across the spectrum from light tanks with machine guns only to the new T-34 and KV models.

                            Then there is Kulik's decision to disband the large armoured formations in 1939 as a result of the experience in Spain. This decision is then reversed in 1940 because of German experience in Poland. Then there is the reforms introduced in 1940 due to the poor performance of the army in Finalnd and one quickly finds that the Red Army was in a state of turmoil by the time Barbarossa began. In short,... there was no plan to attack Europe, far from it.

                            The 32 million deaths quoted as a result of the famine in the Ukraine and elsewhere in the 1930s is out by at least a factor 7 or 8 if not higher. It is cold war myth bordering on propaganda and a simple search of the threads in these forums will lead readers to links where modern research examines and explains the reality of the how and the why.
                            The Purist

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

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by ShAA View Post
                              I can name you a big list of Holocaust deniers too. So what? I'm not going to bother arguing with you - you can read a lot of discussions here led by people from all over the world detailing the fallacies of this conspiracy theory.

                              And yes, change your tone or go spill your hate and inferiority complexes elsewhere.
                              Typical russian way of lies , to imput other people words and things that they have never done .

                              You hadn't answer my question about Bieshanov, Solonin , Bunicz ,are they the members of international plot against Russia too ? Just like Suvorow .
                              Guerrero contra marxismo

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by The Purist View Post

                                The 32 million deaths quoted as a result of the famine in the Ukraine and elsewhere in the 1930s is out by at least a factor 7 or 8 if not higher. It is cold war myth bordering on propaganda and a simple search of the threads in these forums will lead readers to links where modern research examines and explains the reality of the how and the why.
                                And You don't see anything strange at the fact ,that during such terrible famine the government spent money and sources on building tanks ?
                                Guerrero contra marxismo

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X