What is Britain had not entered WWII

[Fragony]

Galipoli? It was Australia who took a beating there

[El Barto]

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?

[spmetla]

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

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.

[ReluctantSamurai]

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?

[Montmorency]

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).

[ShadesWolf]

I always found it of interest how Nazi Germany divided up France. Very much inline with Henry V France