It's July 1, 1940 . . .

[SLD]

You are the German chancellor. Your armies have swept Europe under your feet. You have defeated France and kicked out the daggum Brits from the continent of Europe. Even if they did escape with their army, they've left the bulk of their equipment to you. You control Austria, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Norway, and are allied with Italy, Hungary and Romania.

But there are problems on the horizon. The dreaded Bolshevik menace still exists in the East. The British empire still has 500 million total subjects and control of the sea trade. They have vowed to fight on whatever the cost. They refuse to discuss peace. You're short of oil and key raw materials. You have trouble feeding your population. And your Army. You suffer serious transportation problems due to lack of standardization and inability to mass produce as the Americans do. You're even short of ammunition.

So what do you do?

Perhaps the easy thing to do is just to sit back and digest your conquests. Wait to strike a different day. But that might fatal given the myriad threats your Reich faces.

I say you have to continue the struggle or your dead. But conquering Britain is absurd and the real chancellor realized that. He had to strike East eventually. But maybe he did so too early. It seems to me his fatal error was not so much in attacking the Soviet Union, but in doing so before he was really ready. I think his real mistake was not reinforcing Rommel tremendously in early 1941. Instead of capturing Crete, he should have opted for Malta. And then he would have an easier time supplying Tripoli. Had he thrown significantly more troops and supplies he could have conquered Egypt, thus obviating the need to take Crete. He then could have taken the middle eastern oil fields. That would have supplied his army for the conquest of Russia. It seems to me that had he secured the Mediterranean he would have had far more access to the raw materials that he needed. By controlling the Sues canal he would have seriously hurt British control over the seas and their own access to raw materials. If he was getting the oil he needed from Arabia, and Iraq (which had revolted against the British in 1941), he would never have needed to try and conquer the Russian oil fields. He could have continued his strike towards Moscow even if he did get stopped after the first winter.

But he's not in command. You are now.

 

[bilby]

You are the German chancellor. Your armies have swept Europe under your feet. You have defeated France and kicked out the daggum Brits from the continent of Europe. Even if they did escape with their army, they've left the bulk of their equipment to you. You control Austria, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Norway, and are allied with Italy, Hungary and Romania.

But there are problems on the horizon. The dreaded Bolshevik menace still exists in the East. The British empire still has 500 million total subjects and control of the sea trade. They have vowed to fight on whatever the cost. They refuse to discuss peace. You're short of oil and key raw materials. You have trouble feeding your population. And your Army. You suffer serious transportation problems due to lack of standardization and inability to mass produce as the Americans do. You're even short of ammunition.

So what do you do?

Perhaps the easy thing to do is just to sit back and digest your conquests. Wait to strike a different day. But that might fatal given the myriad threats your Reich faces.

I say you have to continue the struggle or your dead. But conquering Britain is absurd and the real chancellor realized that. He had to strike East eventually. But maybe he did so too early. It seems to me his fatal error was not so much in attacking the Soviet Union, but in doing so before he was really ready. I think his real mistake was not reinforcing Rommel tremendously in early 1941. Instead of capturing Crete, he should have opted for Malta. And then he would have an easier time supplying Tripoli. Had he thrown significantly more troops and supplies he could have conquered Egypt, thus obviating the need to take Crete. He then could have taken the middle eastern oil fields. That would have supplied his army for the conquest of Russia. It seems to me that had he secured the Mediterranean he would have had far more access to the raw materials that he needed. By controlling the Sues canal he would have seriously hurt British control over the seas and their own access to raw materials. If he was getting the oil he needed from Arabia, and Iraq (which had revolted against the British in 1941), he would never have needed to try and conquer the Russian oil fields. He could have continued his strike towards Moscow even if he did get stopped after the first winter.

But he's not in command. You are now.

The Mediterranean is a sideshow, and Il Duce's crazy invasion of Greece doubly so. Let Mussolini humiliate himself.

Start Operation Barbarossa on the original schedule, 15 May 1941. With an extra 38 days to take Moscow, the Germans defeat the Soviet Union in the fall of 1941, killing or capturing Stalin; Spend 1942 mopping up and ensuring that the Soviets cannot bounce back, by eliminating any toe-holds they might have established for industry east of the Urals (and maybe persuade the Japanese to invade the Soviet far east, rather than attacking the US Pacific Fleet, at the end of 1941).

If the Japanese insist on attacking the US, declare war on Japan as soon as the attack on Pearl Harbor is confirmed. They are not a particularly useful ally, other than as a foil for some of the power of the US; And if the US remains neutral with respect to Germany (or even becomes an ally in the Pacific Theater), with the Soviets defeated, there is no way that the British Empire will be able to do anything to seriously threaten the Reich.

With the USA and the Soviet Union out of the picture, vast armies are freed up to re-take the territory lost by the Italians in the Balkan, Mediterranean and North African theaters, and to take Suez. Then you can start to dismantle the British Empire - a push through Arabia and into imperial India (if the Japanese are still allies, then you can link up with them; If not, then you can leave a buffer-zone in Burma, or attack them if doing so will get you concessions, supplies or other support from the USA, who are your allies against the Japanese Empire, or at the very least, friendly neutrals in the Pacific theater).

Conquering Britain herself is needless, but becomes fairly easy once India and Suez are out of British control, the Soviets are beaten, and the USA is committed to isolationist neutrality (or even a military alliance in the Pacific).

Persuading Japan to attack a defeated Soviet Union, to obtain from there supplies that the US are denying them in the Pacific, should be do-able; But if the Japanese attack Pearl, it should be a very easy spin for the Third Reich's propagandists to declare them the 'Yellow Peril', who were OK as allies while they constrained themselves to killing Chinamen, but who could not be allowed to attack the white man, even in the suspiciously Jewish US of A.

After all, if you can ignore the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, and invade your Soviet ally, why not turn on your Japanese ally in the name of white supremacy - particularly when that (former) ally is far enough away that you cannot be reasonably expected to actually attack him.

The USA (possibly with some German support in the Malay peninsula) defeats Japan in 1944, after a bloody and terrible invasion of the Japanese Home Islands - the troops and materiel not used to invade Europe allow them to achieve this.

By 1950, the German Third Reich dominates the world, with only the Americas and Australasia outside their direct control. Both of these are too far away and too well armed to be successful targets for invasion, or to successfully threaten to invade the expanded Reich, so peace would break out at that point. Likely both sides would have atom bombs by then too, so a Cold War might well develop.

 

[Tigers!]

The coup in Yugoslavia had an effect on the timing of Barbarossa, regardless of Mussolini's invasion of Greece. Hitler was loathe to leave a Soviet friendly country on the flank of his southern supply lines.

 

[Horatio Parker]

You are the German chancellor. Your armies have swept Europe under your feet. You have defeated France and kicked out the daggum Brits from the continent of Europe. Even if they did escape with their army, they've left the bulk of their equipment to you. You control Austria, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Norway, and are allied with Italy, Hungary and Romania.

But there are problems on the horizon. The dreaded Bolshevik menace still exists in the East. The British empire still has 500 million total subjects and control of the sea trade. They have vowed to fight on whatever the cost. They refuse to discuss peace. You're short of oil and key raw materials. You have trouble feeding your population. And your Army. You suffer serious transportation problems due to lack of standardization and inability to mass produce as the Americans do. You're even short of ammunition.

So what do you do?

Perhaps the easy thing to do is just to sit back and digest your conquests. Wait to strike a different day. But that might fatal given the myriad threats your Reich faces.

I say you have to continue the struggle or your dead. But conquering Britain is absurd and the real chancellor realized that. He had to strike East eventually. But maybe he did so too early. It seems to me his fatal error was not so much in attacking the Soviet Union, but in doing so before he was really ready. I think his real mistake was not reinforcing Rommel tremendously in early 1941. Instead of capturing Crete, he should have opted for Malta. And then he would have an easier time supplying Tripoli. Had he thrown significantly more troops and supplies he could have conquered Egypt, thus obviating the need to take Crete. He then could have taken the middle eastern oil fields. That would have supplied his army for the conquest of Russia. It seems to me that had he secured the Mediterranean he would have had far more access to the raw materials that he needed. By controlling the Sues canal he would have seriously hurt British control over the seas and their own access to raw materials. If he was getting the oil he needed from Arabia, and Iraq (which had revolted against the British in 1941), he would never have needed to try and conquer the Russian oil fields. He could have continued his strike towards Moscow even if he did get stopped after the first winter.

But he's not in command. You are now.

I agree, focusing on the Mediterranean was the way to go. Raeder explained this to Hitler, but grand strategy wasn't his strong point. He did attempt to enlist Franco in taking Gibraltar, but threw up his hands when Franco, coached by Canaris, balked.

I don't think the late start mattered so much in Barbarossa. The Germans had early successes because it was difficult for the Soviets to predict where the highly mobile German panders would attack. Once the invasion progressed to where the strategic aims, such as Moscow, were obvious, the Germans lost that advantage.

Still, if Hitler had instigated civil war, his chances would've been much better. Stalin forced collectivization, and famines and purges killed millions. The Germans opened the churches, which was a popular move, but retained collectivization for their own convenience. Since the population was slated for extermination, they didn't care.

I read an interesting book, "Bloodlands", focused on Poland, Ukraine, and Byelorussia experiences under Stalin and Hitler. IIRC, the figures were 9M killed by Stalin, 12m by Hitler. Not a healthy place to live, 1933 - 1945.

 

[Sarpedon]

By this time, things had already gone too far. Even the early start to Barbarossa might not have defeated the Soviet Union. I don't see the loss of Moscow and Stalin as necessarily fatal. Moscow would be a serious loss, Stalin less so. It is no more than a 50/50 chance. If the Soviets were to crystalize under one leader, they could have fought on. If the infighting were too serious, it could have been a victory. In 1940, in the face of such a crisis, Molotov might have been strong enough to come out as leader, and he would have been...fine I guess. Better would have been someone like Voroshilov, who would also be one of the leading suspects.

The extra time before winter would not have necessarily done the trick, because the leading tank divisions of the German army, approaching Moscow, had suffered huge losses to operational tanks due to combat and routine break downs, not so much due to winter conditions. Freezing conditions in some ways improved the supply conditions of Russia, as it changed the muddy roads to frozen roads.

The trouble with ignoring Italy is that it was too late by this time. Italy was already an Axis member, and had already participated in the war against France. If Italy had been kept out of the axis, then you could let him humiliate himself in Greece. But his involvement in the Axis, combined with the hostility against him in Greece and Yugoslavia makes a threat that could not be ignored. If you were to ignore it and proceed with Barbarossa anyway, you risk turning around and finding a British, Yugoslavian and Greek army marching into Vienna and Budapest.

I've said it before: the chance of the Axis was lost in 1938, when Japan invaded China. That kept them out of the war with the Soviet Union. This allowed Stalin to bring 50 divisions from the far east to reinforce Moscow, which would have stopped the german army, whether it happened in December or October. Without Japanese atrocities in China, they would have been able to build up their power more, and not excited the USA so much. Heck, it could have even possible to get Chiang Kai-shek to join the Axis, given how anti communist he was. Japan could have gotten all the land they wanted in Siberia, and left China alone.

 

[SLD]

I agree with Sarpedon. An early start to Barbarossa wouldn't have likely made much of a difference. One reason for the delay, other than Greece and Crete, was the need for further trucks and other vehicles for the army. For all the images of the third Reich as a mechanized force, this is largely a myth. Germany was way behind Britain in mechanization. Granted the vanguard of their forces were mechanized, and that was what made the newsreels. But behind them came vast amounts of walking infantry and horse drawn artillery. For Barbarossa they required 600,000 horses (plus their fodder). The German high command was working feverishly on trying to mechanized more and more of the Army. They had to rely on too many vehicle types resulting in logistical nightmare in terms of spare parts and trained mechanics.

It seems to me that they could however have defeated the British in the Mediterranean if they had avoided Crete, took Malta instead and taken an Army group from Barbarossa and given it to Rommel to take Egypt. That would have left them in control of the Mediterranean. If they had perhaps taken a bit softer approach in their occupation, they might have been able to recruit more troops, logistical if nothing else, from the occupied territories and with oil from the Mideast they would have been able to more effectively focus on Moscow. Even if it would have taken more than one summer to do so.

Alternatively why not just sit on what you've got after taking Greece and Yugoslavia? Hunker down for several years and just digest what you've taken. Create a new Europe superstate. Fix your logistical and production problems. Keep offering peace to Britain. Keep the US out of the fray entirely. With the right kind of propaganda you can eventually make them realize that invading Europe would be pointless and to sue for peace. Britain alone never had the manpower to return to the continent and crush them. If your scientists can create the atom bomb then you can destroy all of your enemies later.

SLD

ETA: what prompted this thread was an excellent book by James Holland https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Germany...sr=8-1&keywords=the+rise+of+germany+1939-1941. He just came out with the second book that I have just started https://www.amazon.com/Allies-Strik...rd_wg=9csuI&psc=1&refRID=S4VZVJQCPBXXSRPWDPFC. Both of these focus on the operational level of war which has long been neglected in favor of the tactical or strategic level. But these are fascinating issues of economic and military organizational problems Germans and allies faced in different ways and had such a huge impact on the conduct of the war.

 

[fromderinside]

The Mediterranean is a sideshow, and Il Duce's crazy invasion of Greece doubly so. Let Mussolini humiliate himself.

Start Operation Barbarossa on the original schedule, 15 May 1941. With an extra 38 days to take Moscow, the Germans defeat the Soviet Union in the fall of 1941, killing or capturing Stalin; Spend 1942 mopping up and ensuring that the Soviets cannot bounce back, by eliminating any toe-holds they might have established for industry east of the Urals (and maybe persuade the Japanese to invade the Soviet far east, rather than attacking the US Pacific Fleet, at the end of 1941).

If the Japanese insist on attacking the US, declare war on Japan as soon as the attack on Pearl Harbor is confirmed. They are not a particularly useful ally, other than as a foil for some of the power of the US; And if the US remains neutral with respect to Germany (or even becomes an ally in the Pacific Theater), with the Soviets defeated, there is no way that the British Empire will be able to do anything to seriously threaten the Reich.

With the USA and the Soviet Union out of the picture, vast armies are freed up to re-take the territory lost by the Italians in the Balkan, Mediterranean and North African theaters, and to take Suez. Then you can start to dismantle the British Empire - a push through Arabia and into imperial India (if the Japanese are still allies, then you can link up with them; If not, then you can leave a buffer-zone in Burma, or attack them if doing so will get you concessions, supplies or other support from the USA, who are your allies against the Japanese Empire, or at the very least, friendly neutrals in the Pacific theater).

Conquering Britain herself is needless, but becomes fairly easy once India and Suez are out of British control, the Soviets are beaten, and the USA is committed to isolationist neutrality (or even a military alliance in the Pacific).

Persuading Japan to attack a defeated Soviet Union, to obtain from there supplies that the US are denying them in the Pacific, should be do-able; But if the Japanese attack Pearl, it should be a very easy spin for the Third Reich's propagandists to declare them the 'Yellow Peril', who were OK as allies while they constrained themselves to killing Chinamen, but who could not be allowed to attack the white man, even in the suspiciously Jewish US of A.

After all, if you can ignore the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, and invade your Soviet ally, why not turn on your Japanese ally in the name of white supremacy - particularly when that (former) ally is far enough away that you cannot be reasonably expected to actually attack him.

The USA (possibly with some German support in the Malay peninsula) defeats Japan in 1944, after a bloody and terrible invasion of the Japanese Home Islands - the troops and materiel not used to invade Europe allow them to achieve this.

By 1950, the German Third Reich dominates the world, with only the Americas and Australasia outside their direct control. Both of these are too far away and too well armed to be successful targets for invasion, or to successfully threaten to invade the expanded Reich, so peace would break out at that point. Likely both sides would have atom bombs by then too, so a Cold War might well develop.

Except German manpower would be about a million short of accomplishing those tasks, the Russian industrial base had been moved east of the Urals beyond the reach of German power, the US was going to enter the war against Germany anyway, and the allies would bomb the holy living daylights out of the German industrial base your whack-a-mole ideas still seem outlandish.

Just one bit as fatal evidence. Had Germany taken middle east oil there were no existing pipelines to Europe and the territories captured were ideal for allied counterattack from sea and air and tank just as was Hussein's Iraq. Germany was never to build a navy capable of competing with the allies is a strong reason for Germany to ally with Japan rather than attacking them which they could not do because they had no credible sea power..

 

[fromderinside]

The Mediterranean is a sideshow, and Il Duce's crazy invasion of Greece doubly so. Let Mussolini humiliate himself.

Start Operation Barbarossa on the original schedule, 15 May 1941. With an extra 38 days to take Moscow, the Germans defeat the Soviet Union in the fall of 1941, killing or capturing Stalin; Spend 1942 mopping up and ensuring that the Soviets cannot bounce back, by eliminating any toe-holds they might have established for industry east of the Urals (and maybe persuade the Japanese to invade the Soviet far east, rather than attacking the US Pacific Fleet, at the end of 1941).

If the Japanese insist on attacking the US, declare war on Japan as soon as the attack on Pearl Harbor is confirmed. They are not a particularly useful ally, other than as a foil for some of the power of the US; And if the US remains neutral with respect to Germany (or even becomes an ally in the Pacific Theater), with the Soviets defeated, there is no way that the British Empire will be able to do anything to seriously threaten the Reich.

With the USA and the Soviet Union out of the picture, vast armies are freed up to re-take the territory lost by the Italians in the Balkan, Mediterranean and North African theaters, and to take Suez. Then you can start to dismantle the British Empire - a push through Arabia and into imperial India (if the Japanese are still allies, then you can link up with them; If not, then you can leave a buffer-zone in Burma, or attack them if doing so will get you concessions, supplies or other support from the USA, who are your allies against the Japanese Empire, or at the very least, friendly neutrals in the Pacific theater).

Conquering Britain herself is needless, but becomes fairly easy once India and Suez are out of British control, the Soviets are beaten, and the USA is committed to isolationist neutrality (or even a military alliance in the Pacific).

Persuading Japan to attack a defeated Soviet Union, to obtain from there supplies that the US are denying them in the Pacific, should be do-able; But if the Japanese attack Pearl, it should be a very easy spin for the Third Reich's propagandists to declare them the 'Yellow Peril', who were OK as allies while they constrained themselves to killing Chinamen, but who could not be allowed to attack the white man, even in the suspiciously Jewish US of A.

After all, if you can ignore the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, and invade your Soviet ally, why not turn on your Japanese ally in the name of white supremacy - particularly when that (former) ally is far enough away that you cannot be reasonably expected to actually attack him.

The USA (possibly with some German support in the Malay peninsula) defeats Japan in 1944, after a bloody and terrible invasion of the Japanese Home Islands - the troops and materiel not used to invade Europe allow them to achieve this.

By 1950, the German Third Reich dominates the world, with only the Americas and Australasia outside their direct control. Both of these are too far away and too well armed to be successful targets for invasion, or to successfully threaten to invade the expanded Reich, so peace would break out at that point. Likely both sides would have atom bombs by then too, so a Cold War might well develop.

Except German manpower would be about a million short of accomplishing those tasks, the Russian industrial base had been moved east of the Urals beyond the reach of German power, the US was going to enter the war against Germany anyway, and the allies would bomb the holy living daylights out of the German industrial base.

Just one bit as fatal evidence. Had Germany taken middle east oil there were no existing pipelines to Europe and the territories captured were ideal for allied counterattack from sea and air and tank just as was Hussein's Iraq.

Another tidbit. Since Germany had no sea arm they couldn't attack Japan, but, Japan could take the oil fields since they had both a strong navy and a large army within reach of the area.

 

[Horatio Parker]

It seems to me that they could however have defeated the British in the Mediterranean if they had avoided Crete, took Malta instead and taken an Army group from Barbarossa and given it to Rommel to take Egypt. That would have left them in control of the Mediterranean. If they had perhaps taken a bit softer approach in their occupation, they might have been able to recruit more troops, logistical if nothing else, from the occupied territories and with oil from the Mideast they would have been able to more effectively focus on Moscow. Even if it would have taken more than one summer to do so.

Gibraltar was the key. Without that, supplying the Med would be problematic for Britain. Or, after Crete, the Germans could've entered Syria, which was Vichy France, and cut the Suez canal.

 

[LordKiran]

You are the German chancellor. Your armies have swept Europe under your feet. You have defeated France and kicked out the daggum Brits from the continent of Europe. Even if they did escape with their army, they've left the bulk of their equipment to you. You control Austria, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Norway, and are allied with Italy, Hungary and Romania.

But there are problems on the horizon. The dreaded Bolshevik menace still exists in the East. The British empire still has 500 million total subjects and control of the sea trade. They have vowed to fight on whatever the cost. They refuse to discuss peace. You're short of oil and key raw materials. You have trouble feeding your population. And your Army. You suffer serious transportation problems due to lack of standardization and inability to mass produce as the Americans do. You're even short of ammunition.

So what do you do?

Perhaps the easy thing to do is just to sit back and digest your conquests. Wait to strike a different day. But that might fatal given the myriad threats your Reich faces.

I say you have to continue the struggle or your dead. But conquering Britain is absurd and the real chancellor realized that. He had to strike East eventually. But maybe he did so too early. It seems to me his fatal error was not so much in attacking the Soviet Union, but in doing so before he was really ready. I think his real mistake was not reinforcing Rommel tremendously in early 1941. Instead of capturing Crete, he should have opted for Malta. And then he would have an easier time supplying Tripoli. Had he thrown significantly more troops and supplies he could have conquered Egypt, thus obviating the need to take Crete. He then could have taken the middle eastern oil fields. That would have supplied his army for the conquest of Russia. It seems to me that had he secured the Mediterranean he would have had far more access to the raw materials that he needed. By controlling the Sues canal he would have seriously hurt British control over the seas and their own access to raw materials. If he was getting the oil he needed from Arabia, and Iraq (which had revolted against the British in 1941), he would never have needed to try and conquer the Russian oil fields. He could have continued his strike towards Moscow even if he did get stopped after the first winter.

But he's not in command. You are now.

The Mediterranean is a sideshow, and Il Duce's crazy invasion of Greece doubly so. Let Mussolini humiliate himself.

Start Operation Barbarossa on the original schedule, 15 May 1941. With an extra 38 days to take Moscow, the Germans defeat the Soviet Union in the fall of 1941, killing or capturing Stalin; Spend 1942 mopping up and ensuring that the Soviets cannot bounce back, by eliminating any toe-holds they might have established for industry east of the Urals (and maybe persuade the Japanese to invade the Soviet far east, rather than attacking the US Pacific Fleet, at the end of 1941).

If the Japanese insist on attacking the US, declare war on Japan as soon as the attack on Pearl Harbor is confirmed. They are not a particularly useful ally, other than as a foil for some of the power of the US; And if the US remains neutral with respect to Germany (or even becomes an ally in the Pacific Theater), with the Soviets defeated, there is no way that the British Empire will be able to do anything to seriously threaten the Reich.

With the USA and the Soviet Union out of the picture, vast armies are freed up to re-take the territory lost by the Italians in the Balkan, Mediterranean and North African theaters, and to take Suez. Then you can start to dismantle the British Empire - a push through Arabia and into imperial India (if the Japanese are still allies, then you can link up with them; If not, then you can leave a buffer-zone in Burma, or attack them if doing so will get you concessions, supplies or other support from the USA, who are your allies against the Japanese Empire, or at the very least, friendly neutrals in the Pacific theater).

Conquering Britain herself is needless, but becomes fairly easy once India and Suez are out of British control, the Soviets are beaten, and the USA is committed to isolationist neutrality (or even a military alliance in the Pacific).

Persuading Japan to attack a defeated Soviet Union, to obtain from there supplies that the US are denying them in the Pacific, should be do-able; But if the Japanese attack Pearl, it should be a very easy spin for the Third Reich's propagandists to declare them the 'Yellow Peril', who were OK as allies while they constrained themselves to killing Chinamen, but who could not be allowed to attack the white man, even in the suspiciously Jewish US of A.

After all, if you can ignore the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, and invade your Soviet ally, why not turn on your Japanese ally in the name of white supremacy - particularly when that (former) ally is far enough away that you cannot be reasonably expected to actually attack him.

The USA (possibly with some German support in the Malay peninsula) defeats Japan in 1944, after a bloody and terrible invasion of the Japanese Home Islands - the troops and materiel not used to invade Europe allow them to achieve this.

By 1950, the German Third Reich dominates the world, with only the Americas and Australasia outside their direct control. Both of these are too far away and too well armed to be successful targets for invasion, or to successfully threaten to invade the expanded Reich, so peace would break out at that point. Likely both sides would have atom bombs by then too, so a Cold War might well develop.

Forcing a soviet peace by taking their capital sounds about as foolish as the Schlieffen Plan to be totally honest. The Soviets were massively outproducing the Germans and in terms of raw manpower and industrial capacity were every bit a match for the US. So the Reich takes Moscow and then what? Land and manpower are expendable to Stalin; let the Germans take what they want, it only plays into your hands when the great white winter comes. Its really kind of amazing just how many times people tried and failed to conquer Russia and they all failed for the same reasons.

Also Rommel and his forces were wasted in North Africa. Probably the Germans' biggest waste of a valuable asset just short of the propulsion jet engine.

 

[iolo]

Yes - all the bullyboys always forget the greatest Russian General, General Winter, and the effects of the Scorched Earth.

 

[Sarpedon]

Hey I couldn't find information that might be relevant. Because Japan and the USSR held their neutrality pact until 1945, how much shipping was allowed to go through Vladivostok during that time? I would think that the war would have brought it to a halt regardless. Was there a lot?

 

[bilby]

Hey I couldn't find information that might be relevant. Because Japan and the USSR held their neutrality pact until 1945, how much shipping was allowed to go through Vladivostok during that time? I would think that the war would have brought it to a halt regardless. Was there a lot?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Route

the goods could be moved only in Soviet-flagged ships, and, as they were inspected by the Japanese, could not include war materials. The route was therefore used to transport foods, raw materials and non-military goods such as lorries and other road vehicles, railway locomotives and rolling stock. It was also the most practical route for goods and materials produced in the US western states. During the conflict the Pacific Route saw a steady stream of goods moved from the west coast of the United States and overall accounted for some 50% of all Lend-lease goods to the Soviet Union.

 

[jonatha]

You don't tell the Luftwaffe to bomb London after Berlin is bombed. Instead you let them finish off the RAF, conquer Britain, and remove the threat of invasion in the west.

With the men and materiel that frees up, you postpone Barbarossa until 1942.

 

[SLD]

You don't tell the Luftwaffe to bomb London after Berlin is bombed. Instead you let them finish off the RAF, conquer Britain, and remove the threat of invasion in the west.

With the men and materiel that frees up, you postpone Barbarossa until 1942.

Yup. You also use the time to fully mechanize your army.

SLD

 

[bilby]

I did read an interview with a former German soldier who had been defending the Normandy Beaches on D-Day, in which he describes his experiences in the build up to, and on the day of, the invasion. He was, after many harrowing experiences, captured as a POW, and taken to a holding pen with other prisoners on the beach, where he watched in astonishment as vast amounts of military materiel and manpower were unloaded. He said that he realised at that point that Germany would lose the war, because the allies were not landing any horses.

 

[Sarpedon]

That is if Stalin lets you wait around until 1942...I don't think Stalin was any more naive about the non-aggression pact than Hitler. They were both buying time. Its just that Stalin thought he had more time. How much more did he need? I don't know. But it is certain he would have been stronger in 1942 than he was in 1941.

 

[Horatio Parker]

That is if Stalin lets you wait around until 1942...I don't think Stalin was any more naive about the non-aggression pact than Hitler. They were both buying time. Its just that Stalin thought he had more time. How much more did he need? I don't know. But it is certain he would have been stronger in 1942 than he was in 1941.

Stalin was counting on Germany and the the Allies fatally weakening each other. If Hitler had knocked GB out of the game, it wouldn't have turned out that way.

Can't remember if anyone has suggested it yet, but if the Germans and concentrated on the Med immediately after France, and prevailed, then they would have had flank routes into the USSR from the Middle East.

 

[Sarpedon]

How? The weakest link was the Italian Navy. Italy in general, in fact. To operate in the Med meant relying on Italy.

 

[Tristan Scott]

I have outstanding Generals, the best in the war, they want to take Moscow before winter sets in. If I let them, the Soviets are done.