Alternate History, or What Might Have Been....

[Sea Skimmer]

Disconnected meaning no declaration of war period. Even in 1939 Germany was being drained by the loss of its overseas commerce.

As for supplies to Russia, American factories and resources are still around even if America is not at war with Germany. The stuff stills gets shipped, and in even greater amounts since Germany can't touch the shipping without causing an instant war with America. Of course shipping would be hit and war would come, and the Nazi boot would be rapidly sliced down to the tattered nazi sole.


As for starving the UK into submission, never once did Germany ever meet its required monthly quota for sunken tonnage to starve out the UK. And the quota assumed the US was at peace and not making any effort to help the UK beyond selling it stuff. And by the time they even got close, the US was in the war, making the number much too small. As it was lend lease make the goal too small. Germany can't pull the trained crews and U-boats it needed to win out of nothing, as it was they had few unused dockyard and training resources available historically.

[Sea Skimmer]

If Germany proclaimed its neutrality in a US/Japan war, FDR would have had a hard time indeed justifying to Congress the diversion of vitally needed equipment to a country that many Americans even then saw as just as bad if not worse than Germany while putting the war that we were fighting on the back burner.
You forget that a majority of Americans did not want to enter the war before Pearl Harbor. FDR even proclaimed that he would not send our sons to die in a foreign war (all the time planning to do just that)

Germany had already sunk American merchant shipping and two destroyers by Dec 1941. The public ignored this for the most part because they didn't want a war. Once war is already on them they will very much give a damn.

A slim majority developed that favored aid short of war to Britain, but that majority did not exist for aid to the USSR.

If public opinion polls where the sole driving force behind US policy, several nations would have utterly destroyed and every last person in them killed by now.

Hell, Harry Truman once said (before the US entry in the war) that the ideal outcome of the war would be for the Nazis and the Communists to bleed each other to death.

Truman was also far more hard line against the communists then Roosevelt

A US/Japan war without Hitler's declaration on the US would have resulted in Lend-Lease to the USSR probably being shut down in order to divert resources to rebuild the US fleet and build up the US military.

The USN had an absurdly overwhelming building program historically, thats why so many capital ships got where scrapped on the ways. The Admirals knew it and the civilian leadership knew it.

As for other equipment, the US produced several times more equipment then it could possibuly man, and it never fully mobilzed. Indeed tenso f thousands of tanks, planes and guns never got unpacked and ended up being scrapped or thrown into the ocean.

USAAF/USN air strength on VJ day was over 100,000 aircraft, and that was after nearly a year of production being reduced.

The US historically had more equipment then manpower with Lend Lease and a war with Germany. Mobilzation levels wont be to be lower, but the US demand will be.

Somehow I think it's more likely the equipment and supplies will find there was to Roosevelt's Socialist friends then just being used to add a second story to the existing surplus dumps.

[Sea Skimmer]

Little note, The 100,000 planes in service the US had in mid 1945, exceed German aircraft production for 1942, 43 and 44, by 20,000 aircraft. Germany would produce only about 30,000 additional aircraft in 1939,40,41 and 45.

The US could spare aircraft by the tens of thousands, tanks and guns by the thousands easily. And all this without full mobilization and only 20,000 more combat deaths then the UK. Germany on the other hand was fully mobilized from 1942 and 2.8 million military dead, 2.3 million civilian.

[Thunderfire]

Mussolini's Balkan adventures cost Hitler 2 months of spring weather before he finally launched Barbarossa.

Doesn't work the weather was bad in russia during spring 41. This means the balkan had no negative effect on barbarossa. A japanese entry in 1940 would have a bigger effect. Especially if the US stays neutral.

[Typhonis 1]

What if Japan didnt invade China save for Manchuria.How would history look then?

[Tsyroc]

The movie Fatherland deals with a post victory Nazi Germany. In the movie, an american reported is investigating reports of deathcamps (noone knows about them in the story) and the Gestapo is out to stop her. Hitler is still alive and is 60 or so and seems to have mellowed out.

The book is pretty good too.


Another book where the Nazi's one is Moon of Ice. It was rather weird and really goes into some of the pseudo-scientific mystical mumbo-jumbo that, in the story at least, the SS became associated with.

As far as Harry Turtledove goes so far I've liked his "Darkness" series. Basically a version of WWII set in a word where magic replaces scientific technology. Dragons=planes, Behomeths=tanks. Leviathans=submarines. There is some tech but is still based on magic.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

It's entire possible that the British Empire and USSR alone, without American help and with just a few minor allies/colonial remnants of defeated European powers, could have defeated Nazi Germany in an extended duration contest of attrition.

The combined economic strength of the British Empire and the USSR - even with the western part beyond the Volga, excepting the north around Moscow and above, or the logistical limits of the German advance (Which were historically reached) - Noticeably exceeds that of Germany and her allies, and with partisans and British strategic anti-city firebombing hampering the expansion of German industry, the Soviets would have had breathing room to regroup behind the Urals, while the British concentrated on fighting the U-boats, a war which despite many popular misconceptions, they would have eventually won even without American help, and especially with Germany unable to commit to a naval challenge whilst fighting in the USSR.

The German atomic programme was a farce, and under these conditions, as long as the British Empire can be held under control and Japan kept occupied in China and not tempted into a grab for the colonies - Perhaps a deal could even be made to recognize Japanese claims in China in exchange for Japanese assistance against Italy and Germany, considering historical British-Japanese ties - the eventual result would be a Soviet drive through Europe while the British firebomb German cities out of existance and tip and tuck with amphibious raids at the Mediterranean underbelly of the Axis and send what supplies they can east.

Tens of millions more people would die, and all of continent Europe except the Iberian Penninsula, Thrace, Norway and Sweden, and maybe Greece and Italy, would go communist (Discounting Switzerland) - Depending on the British willingness to land troops, and Italian resistance.

But it would be entirely possible for them to win.

Quite simply, Nazi Germany had started a fantasy war it couldn't win, and despite the sheer audacity and early brilliance of the enterprise and the resulting initial stunning successes, it was doomed. The USA just assured a relatively painless defeat compared to the true "Twilight of the Gods" it could have been.

[Sea Skimmer]

What if Japan didnt invade China save for Manchuria.How would history look then?

That’s not really a conceivable history. If Manchuria gets taken, that means civilian rule is dead in Japan. After that there's really no way they won't make an attempt on the rest of China.

Now if Japan never seizes control of Manchuria, and civilian rule continues throughout the depression in Japan, things could get very interesting. For one we could easily see Japan fighting Germany alongside the UK.

It would have a smaller military by far though, in 1941 Japan spent somthing like 60% of its GDP on its military! Even North Korea is only at about 27%.

[Thunderfire]

the eventual result would be a Soviet drive through Europe while the British firebomb German cities out of existance and tip and tuck with amphibious raids at the Mediterranean underbelly of the Axis and send what supplies they can east.

Tens of millions more people would die, and all of continent Europe except the Iberian Penninsula, Thrace, Norway and Sweden, and maybe Greece and Italy, would go communist (Discounting Switzerland) - Depending on the British willingness to land troops, and Italian resistance.

I don't think that the brits alone would be able to defeat the luftwaffe. German
nightfigher will get more attention in this scenario. A much larger force of HE-219
would be a very serious threat to the british bombing campaign.

[Glocksman]

Some interesti8ng points:

As for supplies to Russia, American factories and resources are still around even if America is not at war with Germany. The stuff stills gets shipped, and in even greater amounts since Germany can't touch the shipping without causing an instant war with America.

Sure they are still around, but you're forgetting the 1935 Neutrality Act that prohibited the selling of arms on credit and the purchasers had to ship the arms overseas on non-US craft.

The USSR's merchant marine was nowhere large enough to carry the burden. Stalin just might have had the money. After all, the 'loyalists' in Spain stole the Kingdom's gold reserves and shipped them to Moscow. I addition to that, the USSR had significant gold stocks in its own right.

They could have paid for significant quantities of arms, but they could not have transported them overseas.

And after the USSR's invasion of Finland, many Americans thought that Stalin was just as bad as Hitler. There may have been a bare concensus to aid Britain, but there was no such concensus on aid to the USSR.

Really, the whole key to a German victory (and by victory, I mean a stalemate that allows the Naxi regime to survive) scenario would be the defeat or death of FDR in 1939-1940.

FDR and the Eastern elites were the driving forces behind the the Lend-Lease Act.

FDR was also instrumental in getting the Selective Service (draft) and subsequent renewal passed.
Don't forget the renewal passed Congress by a single vote in August 1941.

FDR was the public face of the propaganda drive to drag the US into the war.

I use the term propaganda deliberately because much of what he said during that period was simply a lie. For instance, that famous speech where he waived around a map that he said was evidence of Nazi plans to take over Latin America. The map was indeed German. It was a Lufthansa map of airports and fueling depots for airliner flights. It was no map of any German partition of SA, and FDR knew it.

In September, 1941 the USS Greer was attacked by a German submarine as it broadcast the submarine's position to a British patrol plane. Lying through his teeth, Roosevelt publicly branded the attack as unprovoked and issued orders to the navy to shoot on sight at those "rattlesnakes of the sea."

FDR was hardly the first President to lie to the American people in the name of what he perceived as a greater good, and he certainly wasn't the last.

As for starving the UK into submission, never once did Germany ever meet its required monthly quota for sunken tonnage to starve out the UK. And the quota assumed the US was at peace and not making any effort to help the UK beyond selling it stuff. And by the time they even got close, the US was in the war, making the number much too small. As it was lend lease make the goal too small.

I agree that the period of greatest success for the u-boats was the period immediately after the declaration of war. Operation Paukenschlag was initially very successful.

The U-boat success in this scenario depends upon lend-lease never happening. Without FDR pushing for it (and the huge propaganda campaign supporting it), it never would have passed. 'Cash & Carry' was as far as the public was willing to go between 1939 and mid 1941.

If public opinion polls where the sole driving force behind US policy, several nations would have utterly destroyed and every last person in them killed by now.

Agreed, but Congress certainly considered public opinion when voting on the changes needed in the law to aid Britain.
Lend-Lease passed easily after a sustained propaganda campaign. The Draft extension passed by a single vote. A consensus developed to aid Britain. No such consensus existed to declare war. In fact, FDR had to wait until the Nazis declared war first before asking Congress to declare war on Germany.

Truman was also far more hard line against the communists then Roosevelt

And Truman was proven correct. FDR was far too trusting of Stalin and was easily manipulated by him.

The USN had an absurdly overwhelming building program historically, thats why so many capital ships got where scrapped on the ways. The Admirals knew it and the civilian leadership knew it.

As for other equipment, the US produced several times more equipment then it could possibuly man, and it never fully mobilzed. Indeed tenso f thousands of tanks, planes and guns never got unpacked and ended up being scrapped or thrown into the ocean.

USAAF/USN air strength on VJ day was over 100,000 aircraft, and that was after nearly a year of production being reduced.

All of this was after war was declared and the economy converted to war production. The Chrysler plant here in town was making Plymouths during 1941 and .45 ACP ammunition only after the US entry into the war. The local LST shipyard and Republic Aviation plant weren't even built until 1942.

In 1940, the US Army was the 17th largest in the world and roughly the size of Romania's. The USAAF had only about 150 fighters and 50 heavy bombers.

Somehow I think it's more likely the equipment and supplies will find there was to Roosevelt's Socialist friends then just being used to add a second story to the existing surplus dumps.

During the period we are talking about (1939-1941) there were no huge supply dumps. Hell, we didn't even have enough rifles, machine guns, and tanks to arm our own forces after the instatement of the draft in 1940. Troops were training with broomsticks and trucks with 'Tank' painted on the side.

The only part of the military that was world class at the time was the US Navy.

Perhaps a deal could even be made to recognize Japanese claims in China in exchange for Japanese assistance against Italy and Germany, considering historical British-Japanese ties - the eventual result would be a Soviet drive through Europe while the British firebomb German cities out of existance and tip and tuck with amphibious raids at the Mediterranean underbelly of the Axis and send what supplies they can east.

Perhaps, but then the UK would risk really pissing off the USA at that point. FDR also disliked the Japanese because of their imperial ambitions.
Don't forget that in 1940-1941, the USA not only had an embargo against Japan but also froze Japanese accounts in the USA.

A British deal with Japan would have really angered FDR or his successor.

In 1940-1941, Germany was the master of continental Europe. She had the resources of the entire continent at her disposal. Rumanian oil, tungsten from the friendly countries of Portugal and Spain, iron ore and ball bearings from neutral Sweden, finished goods from an encircled Switzerland that were financed by Swiss credits. Germany was hardly 'on its own' versus the USSR and Britain.

Spain even contributed troops (the 'Blue Division') to fight in the East. Hitler and Goebbels were fairly successful in painting the war in the East as a 'Crusade against Communism'. The SS even recruited divisions from Belgium, France, and the Balkans to fight against the Russians.


It's not as simple as 'Germany vs. the rest of the world'.

[The Dark]

I don't know of this has been discussed already or not (read through the thread earlier, don't remember all the arguments), but the best thing Hitler could have done is not attack Russia. If he instead had gone through Turkey (a weak country) and continued through to Iraq, where a Nazi-friendly leader had been installed, he would have had access to the oilfields he needed. Continuing West, he could have caught the British units in Africa in a pincer and won Africa. Or, continuing East, he could have attacked India from the west, catching them in a pincer between Germany and Japan. While Stalin would have been far stronger if this plan were undertaken, Germany and Russia had a neutrality pact, as did Russia and Japan. If Russia took the first step in attacking Germany, Japan would no longer have any reason to believe Russia would hold their end of the neutrality pact, and Russia would have been fighting a two-front war. Without that depth to pull their infantry back to, the scorched earth policy would have been far less effective.

Essentially, if Russia doesn't attack, the British colonies are conquered one by one, giving Germany more resources in case of a Russian attack. If Russia does attack, they find themselves fighting a two front war, a losing proposition. Taking the oil fields would also have allowed Germany to send oil to Japan, quite possibly causing Pearl Harbor not to happen and leaving the United States out of the war. It would still require improbable luck, but it stands a far better chance than an attack on Russia.

[Sea Skimmer]

I don't know of this has been discussed already or not (read through the thread earlier, don't remember all the arguments), but the best thing Hitler could have done is not attack Russia. If he instead had gone through Turkey (a weak country) and continued through to Iraq, where a Nazi-friendly leader had been installed, he would have had access to the oilfields he needed. Continuing West, he could have caught the British units in Africa in a pincer and won Africa. Or, continuing East, he could have attacked India from the west, catching them in a pincer between Germany and Japan. While Stalin would have been far stronger if this plan were undertaken, Germany and Russia had a neutrality pact, as did Russia and Japan. If Russia took the first step in attacking Germany, Japan would no longer have any reason to believe Russia would hold their end of the neutrality pact, and Russia would have been fighting a two-front war. Without that depth to pull their infantry back to, the scorched earth policy would have been far less effective.

Essentially, if Russia doesn't attack, the British colonies are conquered one by one, giving Germany more resources in case of a Russian attack. If Russia does attack, they find themselves fighting a two front war, a losing proposition. Taking the oil fields would also have allowed Germany to send oil to Japan, quite possibly causing Pearl Harbor not to happen and leaving the United States out of the war. It would still require improbable luck, but it stands a far better chance than an attack on Russia.

Hitler tried very hard to Get Turkey into the war. Never worked. If Turkey joined Germany the RAF would burn its wooden cities to the ground. If they joined the Allies the Germans would do the same, Hitler kept bombers in Greece though out the war for this purpose. Turkey did declare war in the end, but by that time the Russians where busy shelling Berlin.

As for attacking through the country, there where almost no roads, bad terrain and only a few single tracked railways. There's no way you could support a significant mechanized force through it.

You'd need months of prep time to move though anything, and the UK could have a corps or two waiting for any force. Turkey had 800,000 men, a wide water gap and awful terrain to defend. A forced entry wasn't an option at all. You plan ignores logistics, the death of many an army.

Meanwhile Stalin is filling his tank park with T-34's.....

[consequences]

Has anyone here ever read "Patton's Spaceship" by John Barnes? It presents a fairly reasonable Germany winning scenario, involving serious outside intervention.

[Pablo Sanchez]

I don't know of this has been discussed already or not (read through the thread earlier, don't remember all the arguments), but the best thing Hitler could have done is not attack Russia. If he instead had gone through Turkey (a weak country) and continued through to Iraq, where a Nazi-friendly leader had been installed, he would have had access to the oilfields he needed. Continuing West, he could have caught the British units in Africa in a pincer and won Africa. Or, continuing East, he could have attacked India from the west, catching them in a pincer between Germany and Japan. While Stalin would have been far stronger if this plan were undertaken, Germany and Russia had a neutrality pact, as did Russia and Japan. If Russia took the first step in attacking Germany, Japan would no longer have any reason to believe Russia would hold their end of the neutrality pact, and Russia would have been fighting a two-front war. Without that depth to pull their infantry back to, the scorched earth policy would have been far less effective.

There are a few problems with this:

A) Hitler was idealogically incapable of such a plan of action. He was no genius; in point of fact he was a rather stupid man. For him, it was a frontal attack on the USSR or nothing.

B) By 1941 the Japanese were committed to East Asia and the Pacific. The 'Strike North' movement was alive in the Japanese government up until Khalkin-Gol, at which point it dropped like a plague-infested rat (the Japanese peed themselves every time they contemplated the USSR--which was superior at every military level, barring fighter plane design, from 1935 onwards). By the time that the USSR would actually feel prepared to attack Germany, or Germany finished sweeping around the Middle East, the Japanese would be fully embroiled in China, or possibly in a war with the US, and could offer no significant help.

C) Stalin, unlike Hitler, was cunning and wily. He would not attack until he was fully ready to do so; i.e., he had total superiority over Germany. In your time line, this would have occurred around 1943. In your prospective concept, it might be some time later. But the problem is that the USSR has the second largest industrial potential in the world at this time, and every second after he reaches his peak of success in 1939, his rate of growth is much slower than the comparable Soviet figures. So much so, that by 1943 his victory is just as likely as a Polish win during the first blitz.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Meanwhile Stalin is filling his tank park with T-34's.....

What were the Soviet's planned production figures for 1941-42 again? I want to read them and cackle evily.

[Sea Skimmer]

Meanwhile Stalin is filling his tank park with T-34's.....

What were the Soviet's planned production figures for 1941-42 again? I want to read them and cackle evily.

They planned for 4,620 T-34's by mid 1942 to equip 29 new mechniazed corps.

Historically they ended up building 2800 T-34's in 1941 and 12,500 in 1942, and this was dispite having the move the factories east. Though even removing that the lower mobilzation levels would reduce the number by a fair amount.

Still Russia having 10,000-12,000 T-34's by the spring of 1943 is quite possibul, indeed its likely. Light and heavy tanks would add many thousands more to this number.

[Sea Skimmer]

I should note, the above numbers are only T-34-76 production.

[The Dark]

You'd need months of prep time to move though anything, and the UK could have a corps or two waiting for any force. Turkey had 800,000 men, a wide water gap and awful terrain to defend. A forced entry wasn't an option at all. You plan ignores logistics, the death of many an army.

I'm not entirely convinced, though you do make good arguments. I had been going off some hypotheticals posited by John Keegan and expanding on them, since he felt it was possible to take Turkey, considering their military was still at roughly the same level it had been during the First World War. If Hitler could have deceived the Brits by massing forces in Bulgaria near the Greek border and swinging south rather than west, the entire French force was 38,000 soldiers and the Brits had 7 divisions already dedicated to battle with the Afrika Korps.

A) Hitler was idealogically incapable of such a plan of action. He was no genius; in point of fact he was a rather stupid man. For him, it was a frontal attack on the USSR or nothing.

Agreed. I was merely trying to posit a more reasonable course of action.

B) By 1941 the Japanese were committed to East Asia and the Pacific. The 'Strike North' movement was alive in the Japanese government up until Khalkin-Gol, at which point it dropped like a plague-infested rat (the Japanese peed themselves every time they contemplated the USSR--which was superior at every military level, barring fighter plane design, from 1935 onwards). By the time that the USSR would actually feel prepared to attack Germany, or Germany finished sweeping around the Middle East, the Japanese would be fully embroiled in China, or possibly in a war with the US, and could offer no significant help.

I doubt the US...Pearl Harbor occurred in December 1941, and Germany had Bulgaria (the only stepping-off point for a Turkish invasion) by March 1941. Japan could have been asked to ignore the US for a time to help gain the Middle Eastern oil fields. If Japan focused solely on China, Chiang Kai-Shek's forces couldn't hold for long, given that they were more concerned with Mao Zedong's Communist forces than the Japanese.

C) Stalin, unlike Hitler, was cunning and wily. He would not attack until he was fully ready to do so; i.e., he had total superiority over Germany. In your time line, this would have occurred around 1943. In your prospective concept, it might be some time later. But the problem is that the USSR has the second largest industrial potential in the world at this time, and every second after he reaches his peak of success in 1939, his rate of growth is much slower than the comparable Soviet figures. So much so, that by 1943 his victory is just as likely as a Polish win during the first blitz.

Probably. I am curious as to how the Continent's industry would have improved if not constantly being bombed by the RAF and USAF, though. And if Hitler took Iraq/Iran and met up with Japan in India, then Stalin would have to fight a two-front war. I'll concede he would probably still win, but I feel it would be a close thing.

OK, so if Turkey's out, what about using Crete and Rhodes? Those were already held by Italy, and would have allowed access to Syria and Lebanon, bypassing Turkey and facing only the 38,000 French soldiers. The Italians could use some of their remaining battleships after Taranto. Naval resupply would be the major problem, but if Italy could be convinced to keep that line open rather than rush off and attack in Europe with their forces, could that be a viable option?

[Sea Skimmer]

Rhodes was held by Italy. Crete was Greek, capturing it requires going through Greece, passing away an airborne division and about 500 planes and a lot of other resources. Both prove useless as bases for the Axis historically though. They where isolated, and very poorly developed.

The RM is a non-issue. At one point they had six battleships active and the RN had none in the theater, they still couldn't take control of the med because of crippling fuel shortages. However the RN soon got some more capital ships into action.

As it was the RM was defeated in every engagement it fought. In one case two British cruisers and a destroyer squadron fought off two Italian battleships and four cruisers while protecting a convoy. In another case five British destroyers sank two Italian cruisers, actually that happened twice.

The Italian fleet had almost no amphibious capability, and its merchant fleet was overtaxed already. An invasion the Middle East would be hard for no naval or air opposition. With what the British could deploy, it was utterly impossible.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I'm not entirely convinced, though you do make good arguments. I had been going off some hypotheticals posited by John Keegan and expanding on them, since he felt it was possible to take Turkey, considering their military was still at roughly the same level it had been during the First World War. If Hitler could have deceived the Brits by massing forces in Bulgaria near the Greek border and swinging south rather than west, the entire French force was 38,000 soldiers and the Brits had 7 divisions already dedicated to battle with the Afrika Korps.

Keegan is good at tactical analysis and depicting battle, but he has failed at grand strategy - the Second Persian Gulf War comes to mind - before.

Remember that the Germans would have to attack down a very narrow front in Thracia, where the terrain is very heavy. Likewise, there are several bridges across the Bosporus for railroads which could be used to reinforce a stout defence even of European Turkey, giving time for a measured fighting retreat in what is hardly tank country (And the Greek Resistance would be Germany's left flank).

The Germans could try a combined amphibious assault and aerial envelopement of European Turkey, but that would mean sending an amphibious force to land at Gallipoli - The exact same place the British had failed some twenty-five years prior; and this time the Turkish Navy could be entirely concentrated against that force (While the Italians are NOT going that far east, they'd never dare) - While any effort to seize the Bosporan bridges would involve urban combat against a dedicated army where the German paratroopers would totally surrounded and their relief having to come up through an enemy in rough terrain who's only disadvantage is the need to detail some men to help clear out the drops behind them.

The Germans would really be forced to advance frontally, and try to take Istanbul in what would turn into urban combat, and cross the Dardanelles against the Turkish Navy and Air Force and defending artillery on the far side of the straits. The Germans and Italians alike were very bad at amphibious warfare and even when Istanbul had been seized, the two crossings - it's unlikely they'd take any of the bridges intact on the Bosporus section - Are dubious endeavours.

While they are being prepared for, the survivors of the Turkish Navy can regroup on the Black Sea coast to hinder a German offensive along it, the British have the naval strength to provide at least a few cruisers on the Mediterranean side, and some French and British Colonial troops might be available up from the south, though the latter would be doubtful (It depends, however. The Jewish communities of the OE, for instance, had very good relations with the Turks, and the Jewish militias in Israel might go to fight for the Turkish Republic for instance).

Once the Germans are across, they will be harried by aircraft and by submarines in the Sea of Marmara, where submarines already could operate in WWI. Then they must punch their way across the Anatolian Plateau and the mountains of southern and eastern Turkey - some of the best defensive terrain in the whole world - to reach their objectives of the oil fields, against a very stout resistance.

The Turkish Army might be little better than it was in WWI; but it performed superbly in WWI, holding out against the concentrated efforts of numerous states for far longer than any of the other central powers, and decisively defeating the Greeks in the 1920s when they penetrated onto the Anatolian plateau.

The Germans will have more men - Well, in theory, supply might dictate otherwise - and better equipment; but the terrain negates many of the advantages of their equipment.

End result is, yes, they could win, but against the considerable size of the Turkish Army, the good terrain and the fierce nationalism of the people, and the possibility of reinforcement from the south, the campaign would be absolutely brutal and quite extended.

And in the meantime, Stalin is massing his forces.

I actually think that Hitler made exactly the right move. Barbarossa was the only choice he had, short of proposing to withdraw from most of his gains in exchange for peace and then being able to consolidate them so as to focus on and fight against his single and true enemy, Stalin.

[Thunderfire]

I actually think that Hitler made exactly the right move. Barbarossa was the only choice he had, short of proposing to withdraw from most of his gains in exchange for peace and then being able to consolidate them so as to focus on and fight against his single and true enemy, Stalin.

The germans had a theoretical chance to beat the russians in 41 - they have to
be nice to the russians. But this is incompatible with the nazi ideology.

[Sea Skimmer]

I actually think that Hitler made exactly the right move. Barbarossa was the only choice he had, short of proposing to withdraw from most of his gains in exchange for peace and then being able to consolidate them so as to focus on and fight against his single and true enemy, Stalin.

The germans had a theoretical chance to beat the russians in 41 - they have to
be nice to the russians. But this is incompatible with the nazi ideology.

Not quite sure what you mean...

If the theory involves no active Russian resistance, perhaps. It logistically impossible for the Germans to advance as far as was necessary to destroy the Soviet Union.

Accurate maps of the Soviet rail and road system didn't exist until the 1950's and 60's when US aircraft and satellites photographed much of the country. The Russians of course published maps, but they showed cities that didn't exist or where hundreds of miles from there real locations. Other cities got ommited. The same was done with the maps of the transport network. Heck the maps of Moscow tourist got where not even accurate

So as you can see, the fact that the people who created Sealion didn't realize they couldn't win isn't surprising. Like the Japanese there where far too many times when German planning relied on wishful thinking.

If the theory is some form of appeasement with no attack, Stalin will very gladly accept it and attack anyway.

[Peregrin Toker]

I personally like the premises of alternate history, but sadly I haven't got the time to read any....

BTW, ever heard of the "Steampunk" subgenre of alternate history sci-fi, where computers were invented in the Victorian era, Luminiferous Ether was proved to exist and man landed on Mars in 1870??

[Ro Jo-Mu]

As far as Harry Turtledove goes so far I've liked his "Darkness" series. Basically a version of WWII set in a word where magic replaces scientific technology. Dragons=planes, Behomeths=tanks. Leviathans=submarines. There is some tech but is still based on magic.

Darkness series is cool, though the repeated phrase thing bugs me a bit....
Ro Jo-Mu shivered, but it had nothing to do with the cold....

[Ro Jo-Mu]

Does anyone else see the similarities between the world today and the Race in the latest Colonisation book?
In the book the unconquered countries develop nucleur capabilities and the Race say, no you cant have them, you lot are starting to get close to us technology wise and might end up being a real threat to us and our homeworld. And we, (well I) sympathise with the humans saying we should be able to do what we like its our bloody planet/country.
Now look at the whole UN/Iraq/North Korea situation.
I'm not pro Iraq or anything, but it makes you think.