Re: What is Britain had not entered WWII
Quote:
Simply not true, IMO, for all the reasons I've cited. I'd be curious as to what leads you to believe that either the US, the UK, or France would even remotely entertain such an idea
The very things you cite though point toward the inherent distrust between France, the UK, and the USSR.
The USSR were seen as co-belligerents during the Spanish Civil-War. The threat of exporting revolution and sponsoring socialist and communist movements in France and UK were seen as a threat.
Bear in mind that the Soviets were exclude from the discussions at Munich because they were seen as too likely to hole the chance for peace.
Up to the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact the soviets were negotiating for a full alliance with France and the UK which was refused.
I think it's unlikely that any of the Western powers would fight alongside or ally with the Germans but I was thinking more of an invasion of the USSR to secure interests and prevent German take over there. Sorta like Operation Roundup was planned in case the Nazis collapsed quickly and the US and UK would have needed to seize as much formerly occupied territory in order to prevent Soviet occupation there.
The eventual alliance was just one of convenience. The Germans were the bigger threat. Ten years earlier the Bolsheviks were seen as the bigger threat. If the Germans looked as they were to be satisfied with Poland and not make war with France whats to say that the Allies wouldn't be hostile to the Soviets which were always a threat to British and French interests in the Balkans, Turkey, Iran, and the Far East. An Alliance with Germany is a step too far, yes but hostility toward the Soviets should surely be thinkable, right?
Quote:
It appears to me that even before Poland was attacked, that Germany was perceived as the primary enemy by all involved, and that alliance overtures were made by each. (Now there would be a much more plausible what-if....a USSR/British/French alliance going to war with Germany)
That alliance was far more likely but in this scenario in which the British and French abandon Poland they'd be left with another German diplomatic or military victory over Poland. Assuming molotov-ribbentrop pact is still implemented that would leave the Soviets taking the role of the belligerent bugbear in international politics as they take the Baltic states, fight the winter war, and sieze bessarabia. This would leave the Soviets as the most recent 'bad guy' in public portrayal.
Quote:
Only Britain was in any kind of position to bring forces to bear against Japan. The Dutch had only minimal forces covering the DEI, and France had even less. Britain had two major naval bases, Colombo on Ceylon and Singapore in Indonesia. Both have extremely long and vulnerable supply lines, and neither was in any sort of readiness to resist the Japanese (the Malayan campaign took only six weeks concluding with the surrender of Singapore on 15 Feb 1942). With only 150 or so front-line aircraft (the Brewster Buffalo as the main fighter) ) and Force Z consisting of two antiquated BB's and four DD's at the ready, the outcome is a foregone conclusion (as events showed). Colombo is probably outside Japan's logistical reach, but her subs are much more capable of interdiction than Britain's, and could conceivably render the base useless.
In this alternate scenario the Western powers would have no pressing commitments to defend Britain, the Mediterranean and those Atlantic sea lanes. While the Asiatic fleets and forces were all at a minimum for all the above powers they had far more to draw upon together than Japan.
A Japanese war against the British, French, or Dutch would bring either of the other two powers in and eventually far more forces to bear than the Japanese could match.
Who's to say the Burma and Malaya campaigns would go as they did in our timeline if the British weren't sending all from the factory and training depot to defend their island and fight in North Africa. Same for the French and Dutch. Only the Dutch were truly and completely vulnerable but a war against them brings the bigger powers in which would never give the Japanese the breathing room to exploit the seized resources and refineries.
As for vulnerable supply lines the Japanese could only threaten the Indian ocean and perhaps the South Atlantic. The waters off South East Asia and Indonesia are shallow and bad for submarines, especially of the size and slow dive time that the Japanese used. The Japanese could threaten theater supply lines but not the means of production in their European homelands.
As for the Japanese sub fleet, it is one of examples of outstanding failures in WW2. While technically the subs were good they employed poor tactics throughout the Pacific war and were very slow to adapt to the interdiction role of the submarine. The only thing the Japanese submarine force had better than the competing navies was it's good reliable torpedoes at the start of the war.
The British submarines service adapted quickly to the needs of the Mediterranean environment and their small showing in the Far East only points to their likely adapting well to that theater as well. As for their shorter range, that was never seen as much of an issue because there were far more ports and bases availble to operate out of than the Japanese which designed their subs to threaten the West Coast and Panama (both of which only suffered nuisance attacks nothing serious).
Quote:
Given that Japan needed access to both China's and Korea's coal for making coke (steel-making folks...not the other kind), why would they agree to this? To say nothing of losing face to what Japan considered as a sub-human race...
I wasn't saying that they'd give up Manchuria or Korea or not take massive concessions from the Nationalist Government. A favorable peace is just that.
Re: What is Britain had not entered WWII
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ReluctantSamurai
...
In 1938, Churchill wrote a memorandum to Lord Halifax (Britain's Foreign Secretary), urging closer co-operation with the Soviet Union, the US, and a possible united front of France, the UK, the Soviet Union, and, at the least, a benevolent neutrality with the US. For it's part, the Soviet Union informed France that it would go to war with France against Germany during the Sudetenland crisis, and that it would support a Czech request for League action if France did not honor her treaty obligations [quoted from FDR by Conrad Black].
The soviet offer came to nothing because the polish government rightfully mistrusted Stalin’s intentions and would not accept that soviet armies march over their country. I would see Stalins offer in the same light that the UK offered to send forces to help Finland in the Winterwar that had to cross Norway and Sweden and whose real purpose would have been to secure the iron in the area.
Don’t forget the Polish-Soviet war that happened after the end of WW1 either and the polish mistrust is understandable.
Quote:
After Bohemia and Moravia were annexed in 1938, the Foreign Policy Committee of the British House of Commons called for conscription, an all-party coalition government of national unity, and an alliance with the Soviet Union [FDR]. These views were also held by Britain's principal Dominions (Canada and Australia).
Austria and the Sudetenland were annexed in 1938. Bohemia and Moravia turned into a protectorate in 1939
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German...Czechoslovakia
Quote:
In the spring of 1939, the Soviet foreign minister, Maxim Litvinov, called the British ambassador to Moscow and gave him a proposal for a tripartite defensive pact between the USSR, Britain, and France. According to the proposal, each would be obligated to go to war to support any of the others in case of attack and to defend Poland, Romania, and Greece if any of those countries were attacked. [FDR]
It appears to me that even before Poland was attacked, that Germany was perceived as the primary enemy by all involved, and that alliance overtures were made by each. (Now there would be a much more plausible what-if....a USSR/British/French alliance going to war with Germany:quiet:)
Churchill did see the USSR in the same light as Germany. Not only did the western Allies of WW1 occupy parts of Russia to prevent their equipment falling in soviet hands but the USSR was just as much a Pariah in international politics as Germany was - which was a major reason that both cooperated between the wars.
Quote:
Material aid was considered and actually planned for the Finns, but thankfully was never carried out as it would have been crushed either by the Soviets or the Germans, and would have gone a long ways towards pushing the USSR and Germany into an alliance (at least for the short term).
The plans to aid Finland came twice
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco...the_Winter_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_R_4
and both had their problems.
The first problem is that the plan required neutral states like Sweden and Norway to let the armies of the western allies pass through. Both were not amused. Remember that military forces passing through neutral states is usually condemned by the same western allies (e.g. Belgium in WW1, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxemburg in WW2). At the very least that would have given Germany a valid casus belli as both would be aiding the Allies.
The second problem is that the whole plans true intention was to send some token aid to Finland but to occupy the northern part of Norway and Sweden to prevent the sale of iron from there to Germany.
Quote:
Would have been a disaster for the very same reasons cited above. Bolsheviks and Nazis would certainly be an odd couple, but you can't box them both in and not expect them to co-operate with each other on some level:shrug:
and odd couple? Churchill spoke out against communism almost in the same vein as Hitler, yet both cooperated with the USSR
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winsto...e_Soviet_Union
That is Realpolitik.
Quote:
Given that Japan needed access to both China's and Korea's coal for making coke (steel-making folks...not the other kind:laugh4:), why would they agree to this? To say nothing of losing face to what Japan considered as a sub-human race...
Because Japan needed oil from imports more than coal from China. After all coal was already present in Korea and Manchuria (and even FDR’s embargo if understood correctly only ever asked them to get out of China proper, not Manchuria or Tsingtao).
Quote:
After the debacle at Khalkin Gol in 1939, only the extreme IJA hardliners still favored war with the USSR. It had become painfully obvious that Japan's deficiencies in armor, artillery, and especially in unit mobility would make any venture against the USSR costly until those deficiencies could be rectified. (In fact, Japan's AGS felt that an initial breakthrough could be managed against the Soviets, but exploiting such a breakthrough would be extremely difficult due to Japan's lack of trucks and mechanization.) Personally, I don't believe they could even manage a breakthrough in any kind of terrain where Soviet tanks could operate:shrug:
What would Japan stand to gain other then a very long casualty list? The oil, bauxite, and rubber in the DEI was much easier to acquire against a much weaker opponent. Siberia/Mongolia has lots of.......well, one has a lot of very dry badlands, the other a lot of snow and ice:creep:
First of all losing against the USSR at Khalkin Gol lead to some feelings for revenge in part of the japanese army. It showed them that Russia was no more the pushover it had been in the war of 1905 in which imperial Russia lost Sachalin and the protectorate of Manchuria and any naval credibilty to them. However from Japans point of view (as in being even more isolationist than the US have ever been and woken up by Perry’s naval forces to a world in which imperial powers turn anyone outside Europe into colonies) that means that the USSR had become the same obvious threat that Russia had been when it pushed it’s colonial border into China three times
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...0/Ct002999.jpg
Japan operated a while pretending not to pursue imperial ambitions but - just like the US in the Americas with their Monroe doctrine - as a liberator of native asians from colonial overlords. So war against the USSR would have been a justified war with a casus belli - after all Pu Yi was the emperor of Manchuria and the last heir of the Quing so a war to get the USSR to give back their stolen lands could at first look be justfiable for the view of the US so that they would stay neutral and deliver oil and further their agenda to be seen as the Liberator of Asians from european colonialism.
Quote:
One other note; the German attack on the USSR came as a complete surprise to the Japanese as well as the Soviets. Japan's closest ally hasn't even bothered to inform her of Germany's plans to invade:oops:
Surprise - sure. Complete surprise? Everyone at the time who read "Mein Kampf" or listened to the speeches given about "Lebensraum" would have known that the Nazi party intends to go beyond just revoking the treaty of Versailles in the east sooner or later.
Re: What is Britain had not entered WWII
Quote:
The very things you cite though point toward the inherent distrust between France, the UK, and the USSR
None of the Western nations were all warm and fuzzy about Stalin, but they had far more common interests with the USSR than Germany. An alliance (uneasy though it might be) was in all those nations best interests. Distrust doesn't mean common ground can't be found...which, in reality, those nations did.
Quote:
If the Germans looked as they were to be satisfied with Poland and not make war with France whats to say that the Allies wouldn't be hostile to the Soviets which were always a threat to British and French interests in the Balkans, Turkey, Iran, and the Far East
Everything Hitler did pointed to Germany continuing it's belligerence. Eventually, that belligerence would engulf both France and the UK in war, because a) Germany could simply not afford to leave such a large military presence in it's rear while it sent the bulk of it's forces east; b) the humiliating Treaty of Versailles was still a bone of contention with Hitler
Quote:
A Japanese war against the British, French, or Dutch would bring either of the other two powers in and eventually far more forces to bear than the Japanese could match
It's nearly 7000mi from London to Singapore by sea...that's over five weeks transit time at 10kts (average transport fleet speed). Singapore is wholly unprepared to defend itself against the kind of assault the Japanese could bring (as events showed). Any move by the British to beef up Singapore's defenses by naval means will bring a swift retaliation by the Japanese. The innovative tactic of placing multiple aircraft carriers into a single strike force will ensure that a lot of Royal Navy tonnage ends up on the bottom of the Indian Ocean. Coupled with the use of long-range land-based torpedo bombers, the fate of Force Z would be repeated.
Quote:
Who's to say the Burma and Malaya campaigns would go as they did in our timeline if the British weren't sending all from the factory and training depot to defend their island and fight in North Africa
In any timeline, IMO, the outcome wouldn't be much different. The Japanese have far shorter logistic lines, far superior aircraft, far superior ships, and better tactics.
Quote:
The Japanese could threaten theater supply lines but not the means of production in their European homelands
I wasn't referring to a blockade of Britain. But Japanese subs could choke off the resupply of Colombo after Singapore falls.
Quote:
While technically the subs were good they employed poor tactics throughout the Pacific war and were very slow to adapt to the interdiction role of the submarine
Of course in a revisionist scenario, one side is allowed to make favorable changes while the opposing side has to make the same mistakes all over again~;)
Bottom line..."what-if's" can be a lot of fun but I prefer they be based on events that could possibly have happened and not sheer fantasy. There's no way Britain can not get drawn into the conflict, nor would they stand idle while Germany overruns Europe.
My 2cents.....
Re: What is Britain had not entered WWII
Quote:
The second problem is that the whole plans true intention was to send some token aid to Finland but to occupy the northern part of Norway and Sweden to prevent the sale of iron from there to Germany.
Yep, but it would certainly do a lot to push Germany and the USSR even closer than the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact:shrug:
Quote:
So war against the USSR would have been a justified war with a casus belli
Japan had always known the real fight for dominance in the PTO would come against the US. Why else build the navy they did? After Khalkin Gol, only extreme hardliners like General Tanaka (commander in Chief of the Eastern District Army), and other high-ranking officers in the Kwantung Army who wished to further their own careers wanted to continue the struggle with the USSR. But the beat-down administered by Soviet tanks and artillery, and the subsequent horrendous casualty list, was sobering to many others who had wanted war with the USSR. Japan was simply not equipped to take on the Soviets. They had neither the armor, the mechanization, nor the artillery to make any real headway. As stated earlier, in the Japanese AGS own assessment, they felt that a limited breakthrough could be managed in Mongolia, but that they didn't have the rapid mobility required to exploit such a breach of Soviet positions.
An attack north would have required the withdrawal of large numbers of troops from China to be inserted into Manchuria, which the generals prosecuting the war in China opposed. In any case, what's the objective? Oil is of paramount importance, and there's none to be had (at that time) in either Mongolia or Siberia. The DEI is weakly defended, and the IJN can now do what Japan had intended it to do...conquer the Pacific.
And that means war with Britain. Even if fantasy prevails in Europe, what happens when the Brits have to go to war with Germany's ally?
Re: What is Britain had not entered WWII
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ReluctantSamurai
Yep, but it would certainly do a lot to push Germany and the USSR even closer than the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact:shrug:
And would be a diplomatic disaster as there are certainly some states who later joined WW2 on the allied side without providing any real support just for the show, that would think otherwise if the allies would ignore the status and borders of neutral states themselves repeatedly (the anglo-soviet invasion of Iran was a case were it historically happened already).
Quote:
Japan had always known the real fight for dominance in the PTO would come against the US. Why else build the navy they did?
Because of admiration for England just like Germany :2thumbsup:
Most people might see that as just a stupid joke but historically William II. of Germany (the grandson of Queen Victoria who was at her funeral) took part in ship races in England and admired the british empire and it’s navy. That is one of the reasons that he saw the future of Germany with a set of colonies and a navy just like England while ignoring that both Prussia and later Germay had better concentrated on the continent.
The japanese after being woken up by Perry’s flotilla forcing them to open their ports for US trade quickly modernized and militarized in a scramble to not become the next India, Indochina, Indonesia or whatever other nation was a colony. And in doing so they at first looked admiringly to England. They took part in freeing the diplomats from Pekings diplomats quarter as one of the 8 powers just like the UK, they allied the UK as both wanted to contain Russian expansionism, the UK indirectly supported Japan in the 1905 war against Russia as France could not come to Russias aid lest it would provoke the UK into the war, Japan joined the UK in WW1 (thus gaining the former german colonies of Tsingtao as a foothold in China, the Marianas and Karolinas) - that is until the UK itself ended the anglo-japanese alliance in favour of closer ties to the US.
And about the japanese navy - one must not forget that the US itself at the time was an imperial power. They annexed the kingdom of Hawaii and the Phillipines (instead of letting them go free after defeating the spanish and so contradicting their own claims of being a former colonial nation itself that would seek no colonies) making them a direct neighbour of Japan and controlling the shipping lanes to the rubber and oil of southeastasia. So while the US navy was larger than the japanese navy (because the US wanted a navy on both oceans) the japanese built a navy with larger battleships than the Panama Canal would let through, so that 1:1 the japanese ships could defeat their US counterparts and the reinforcements that would first come through Panama (whose independance from Columbia was the result of the US intervention as Columbia would not allow the US to militarily control a channel through it’s territorry as nowaday few remember that Panam once was part of Columbia).
Re: What is Britain had not entered WWII
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ConjurerDragon
And would be a diplomatic disaster as there are certainly some states who later joined WW2 on the allied side without providing any real support just for the show, that would think otherwise if the allies would ignore the status and borders of neutral states themselves repeatedly (the anglo-soviet invasion of Iran was a case were it historically happened already).
Because of admiration for England just like Germany :2thumbsup:
Most people might see that as just a stupid joke but historically William II. of Germany (the grandson of Queen Victoria who was at her funeral) took part in ship races in England and admired the british empire and it’s navy. That is one of the reasons that he saw the future of Germany with a set of colonies and a navy just like England while ignoring that both Prussia and later Germay had better concentrated on the continent.
The japanese after being woken up by Perry’s flotilla forcing them to open their ports for US trade quickly modernized and militarized in a scramble to not become the next India, Indochina, Indonesia or whatever other nation was a colony. And in doing so they at first looked admiringly to England. They took part in freeing the diplomats from Pekings diplomats quarter as one of
the 8 powers just like the UK, they
allied the UK as both wanted to contain Russian expansionism, the
UK indirectly supported Japan in the 1905 war against Russia as France could not come to Russias aid lest it would provoke the UK into the war, Japan
joined the UK in WW1 (thus gaining the former german colonies of Tsingtao as a foothold in China, the Marianas and Karolinas) - that is until the
UK itself ended the anglo-japanese alliance in favour of closer ties to the US.
And about the japanese navy - one must not forget that the US itself at the time was an imperial power. They annexed the kingdom of Hawaii and the Phillipines (instead of letting them go free after defeating the spanish and so contradicting their own claims of being a former colonial nation itself that would seek no colonies) making them a direct neighbour of Japan and controlling the shipping lanes to the rubber and oil of southeastasia. So while the
US navy was larger than the japanese navy (because the US wanted a navy on both oceans) the japanese built a navy with larger battleships than the Panama Canal would let through, so that 1:1 the japanese ships could defeat their US counterparts and the reinforcements that would first come through Panama (whose independance from Columbia was the result of the US intervention as Columbia would not allow the US to militarily control a channel through it’s territorry as nowaday few remember that Panam once was part of Columbia).
We were in the process of standing the Phillipines up on their own. After conquering the place, we were doing what we refuse to do now in places like Iraq and Afghanistan -- suppressing an insurgency and then taking the decades needed to build up institutions and education for a state to stand up on its own. They were independent as of 1935 (though obviously the apron strings were still there).
Re: What is Britain had not entered WWII
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Seamus Fermanagh
We were in the process of standing the Phillipines up on their own. After conquering the place, we were doing what we refuse to do now in places like Iraq and Afghanistan -- suppressing an insurgency and then taking the decades needed to build up institutions and education for a state to stand up on its own. They were independent as of 1935 (though obviously the apron strings were still there).
The Phillipines already fought for their freedom against the colonial spanish rule and declared independance as the first philippine republic before Spain lost the US-Spanish war.
And instead of accepting that the independant republic rules it’s own country the US brutally conquered the place as if Spain could cede them a foreign country like a piece of property where in the Americas they established the Monroe doctrine that essentially meant that no european power should colonize any part of the Americas or return there once having left.
Ceding a colony would be normal after a lost war, however due to the picture that the US had in WW2 of itself as the defender of democracy and liberator from colonialism vs. the later evil Empire of Japan it has to be pointed out that they behaved no better than any other colonizing nation including death camps where in average 20% died
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip...can_atrocities
And all for establishing a naval presence to protect their trade with China for the "open door" policy.
Just for comparison that would be like Japan conquering Canada from the possession of the British Empire and brutally establishing japanese rule there.
Re: What is Britain had not entered WWII
Quote:
Because of admiration for England just like Germany
One does not spend millions of yen to build the finest fleet in the world, at the time, for admiration. Power in the PTO means you need to have a strong maritime navy in order to "swing the big stick". Given Japan's desire to exert their influence, their dominance, in SE Asia and beyond, they saw what the US and Britain were doing in terms of ship-building and took countermeasures...their own "big stick".
Quote:
it has to be pointed out that they behaved no better than any other colonizing nation including death camps where in average 20% died
No country has ever been immune to such behavior.
Even more reason for Japan to strive for a Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere...:deal:
little did anyone know that the Japanese would be far, far worse...
Re: What is Britain had not entered WWII
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ConjurerDragon
The Phillipines already fought for their freedom against the colonial spanish rule and declared independance as the first philippine republic before Spain lost the US-Spanish war.
And instead of accepting that the
independant republic rules it’s own country the US brutally conquered the place as if Spain could cede them a foreign country like a piece of property where in the Americas they established the Monroe doctrine that essentially meant that no european power should colonize any part of the Americas or return there once having left.
Ceding a colony would be normal after a lost war, however due to the picture that the US had in WW2 of itself as the defender of democracy and liberator from colonialism vs. the later evil Empire of Japan it has to be pointed out that they behaved no better than any other colonizing nation including death camps where in average 20% died
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip...can_atrocities
And all for establishing a naval presence to protect their trade with China for the "open door" policy.
Just for comparison that would be like Japan conquering Canada from the possession of the British Empire and brutally establishing japanese rule there.
It was an era of jingoism and imperialism. Atrocities were committed by both sides and the USA was not notably worse to the Phillipinos than we had been to our own Native Americans (admittedly not the highest of standards). Had we failed to become the dominant player in the Phillipines, it seems likely that one of the other great powers would have done so.
History is an endless tale of murder, theft, and racism. The US of A has had its share. We like to think less so than others, but probably not.
Re: What is Britain had not entered WWII
I watched the Darkest Hour today. It's about how Churchill handled the early part of WII and the Dunkirk evacuation. I knew that the British originally wanted to stay out of a war. I didn't know that Churchill faced a lot of opposition in the parliament. He was originally unpopular to his colleagues. It also showed the private side of Churchill, some of which I heard of before. I wonder how the Brits think about this film? Is it close to actual history?
Re: What is Britain had not entered WWII
I do know that prior to WW2 allowing Churchill to rehabilitate his reputation he was very understandably tied to the Gallipoli catastrophe and not seen as a man that thought things through completely.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today...00/8234106.stm
Quote:
PROS
• Churchill's rhetorical powers set him apart from all other politicians. Often imitated, never bettered, his delivery and phraseology sparked the adjective "Churchillian" And who could deny the potency of lines like "we shall fight them on the beaches", "blood, sweat and tears" and "their finest hour"?
• During his "wilderness years" in the late 1930s, Churchill was one of the first to warn against Britain's appeasement of Hitler, arguing that defence spending should be increased to combat the Nazi threat.
• A man of exceptional personal courage, Churchill was also able to make difficult political decisions. This was shown in his order to attack and destroy the French fleet, not then an enemy, at Oran in July 1940 in order to prevent it from falling into German hands.
CONS
• In 1915, as First Lord of the Admiralty, Churchill was a prime mover behind the Gallipoli campaign, a disastrous attempt to land troops on the shores of the Dardanelles strait prior to capturing Istanbul and forcing route through the Black Sea to Russia. In nine months of fighting the Allies sustained 140,000 casualties and the ensuing defeat damaged Churchill's political career.
• Churchill's Budget of 1925 has become infamous for returning Britain to the gold standard, at a fixed rate of $4.80 to the pound. The aim was to restore Britain's position at the centre of the world's financial system. Many now argue that this high exchange rate made British industry uncompetitive and prolonged the slump.
• The spring of 1940 saw Churchill, once more First Lord, back the disastrous invasion of Norway. Intended to prevent the country from being occupied by Nazi Germany, the operation's failure saw a German invasion and led to the downfall of prime minister Neville Chamberlain, Churchill's predecessor in Downing Street.
Re: What is Britain had not entered WWII
Galipoli? It was Australia who took a beating there
Re: What is Britain had not entered WWII
Well, we can do necra-futurology.
Supposing that somehow the UK and France had not entered the war or just made a peace during the sham that was the Phony War, what if Hitler had ordered the invasion of the USSR there and then (perhaps provoked by border disputes in Poland, or defending the Baltic Germans, or whatever other pretext was needed), when the Soviet armed forces were still reeling from the purging of more or less any capable officer from their ranks - how far would the Axis have advanced? And, also, wouldn't it have forced an eventual war with the powers to the West of Germany, anyway?
Re: What is Britain had not entered WWII
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fragony
Galipoli? It was Australia who took a beating there
And Churchill's idea to send them there.
http://www.history.com/news/winston-...d-war-disaster
Quote:
Although the political head of the Royal Navy, the ambitious Churchill also fancied himself a military strategist. “I have it in me to be a successful soldier. I can visualize great movements and combinations,” he confided in a friend. The young minister proposed a bold stroke that would win the war. Abandoning his earlier plan to invade Germany from the Baltic Sea to the north, he now championed another proposal under consideration by the military to strike more than 1,000 miles to east. He proposed to thread his naval fleet through the needle of the Dardanelles, the narrow 38-mile strait that severed Europe and Asia in northwest Turkey, to seize Constantinople and gain control of the strategic waterways linking the Black Sea in the east to the Mediterranean Sea in the west. Churchill believed the invasion would give the British a clear sea route to their ally Russia and knock the fading Ottoman Empire, the “sick man of Europe” that had reluctantly joined the Central Powers in October 1914, out of the war, which would persuade one or all of the neutral states of Greece, Bulgaria and Romania to join the Allies.
Re: What is Britain had not entered WWII
Quote:
what if Hitler had ordered the invasion of the USSR there and then...how far would the Axis have advanced
Without all of the experience gained during the Norwegian and Low Countries/French campaigns, probably not as far as one might think. Co-operation between close air support from the Luftwaffe and armored formations, which was so crucial for breakthroughs, would lack the refinement gained though battle testing. And who commands? Guderian would likely still be in command of only a Panzer Corps instead of a Panzer Group; Hermann Hoth would still be commanding a Motorized Corps instead of a Panzer Group; Kleist would lack the experience of the Polish, France, and Balkan campaigns; Hoepner, like the other Barbarossa Panzer Group commanders would likely still be leading a Corps also. It was the experience of these commanders, as well as that of the tank crews, that allowed the sweeping advances during the initial stages of Barbarossa.
What would German armored formations look like? The Low Countries and France showed the PzI and PzII to be wholly inadequate, and the PzIII's 37mm was incapable of defeating the French Char bis or the British Matilda frontally. Numerically, the PzI/II constituted the bulk of German armored formations in 1940 into early 1941, so production of the PzIII would have to be greatly accelerated. Without battlefield experiences from previous campaigns, would that have happened? The T26, which constituted the bulk of Soviet Mechanized Corps, was inferior to the PzIII, but outclassed the PzI & II.
And I will repeat my earlier statement about one side being able to change in revisionist scenarios, but not the other. What if Stalin heeds the warnings that Germany is going to attack? Particularly if Hitler signs some sort of agreement with France and Britain to secure his western flank should Germany attack the Soviet Union. With better front preparation, with formations deployed in depth instead of crammed too close to the border (which aided the huge initial encirclements seen historically), and a German army with far less experience, and with lower quality equipment, how far do they get?
Re: What is Britain had not entered WWII
Germans would not forgive Britain their lands and political existence. They were to be invaded sooner or later same as USSR.
Re: What is Britain had not entered WWII
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ReluctantSamurai
And I will repeat my earlier statement about one side being able to change in revisionist scenarios, but not the other. What if Stalin heeds the warnings that Germany is going to attack? Particularly if Hitler signs some sort of agreement with France and Britain to secure his western flank should Germany attack the Soviet Union. With better front preparation, with formations deployed in depth instead of crammed too close to the border (which aided the huge initial encirclements seen historically), and a German army with far less experience, and with lower quality equipment, how far do they get?
A parallel came to mind.
In 1940 Hitler didn't quite see Britain as an enemy. It wasn't an ally exactly, but he at least somehow imagined that Britain might be brought to accommodate German designs on the Continent. To that end he prosecuted a political operation to break British morale (as opposed to destroy its military capacity). Similarly, 200 years ago Napoleon invaded Russia in order to knock it out of alignment with Britain, not to depose Tsar Alexander or destabilize Russian social relations by inciting revolution among serfs.
Because both prioritized narrow political objectives over more realistic and/or decisive alternatives, they suffered irreplaceable setbacks (Germany 2000 combat aircraft, Napoleon nearly a half-million soldiers).
Re: What is Britain had not entered WWII
I always found it of interest how Nazi Germany divided up France. Very much inline with Henry V France
