Poland 1939 Was Hitler Right

This "What If" has no end...its a pointless exercise.
What If (sorry) I offer a small disagreement - where what ifs remain sensible ie avoid Alien Space Bats, The Germans inventing warp drive or Eisenhower dying of galloping dandruff type thing, they can offer access to a broader understanding of why things were done and decisions made in reality - Even if its no more than a wouldnt happen because X - surely thats far from pointless.
 
Fwiw (views welcome) I think the war is a case of the wrong ally; though timing was of course significant.
In the recent - since 1989 - trend to acknowledge the contribution to the defeat of Nazism of the USSR, the wholly negative consequences for Germany of being allied to Italy have been sidelined. It is the Italian angle which, in my view, de-rails Hitler's plans.

In short, Italy becoming involved in WW2 (against Hitler's wishes) creates for Germany an un-sought front in the Med, Balkans, Aegean and North Africa. It creates a route for the Allies into Europe (Sicily and Italy) which need not have been there. If you assume Italian neutrality, there is possibly no German involvement in Greece and Albania. There is almost certainly no German force in North Africa - and German losses in North Africa eventually total 200,000 high quality soldiers and much equipment.

With no need for Germany to support Italy in Greece and without the Balkan adventure, Barbarossa might be launched some weeks earlier. I accept the argument that, after Operation Typhoon, Germany cannot win [apparently this was Hitler's private view] but a successful Typhoon changes a lot - not least the German control of the rail hub of Moscow and of the majority of 'productive and industrial' Russia. Stalin's reaction to that happening cannot be known (though it apparently the case that he intended to stay in Moscow to fight it out).

Going back to Italy - no Italian involvement in the War also means no German garrisons in Greece; no Italian campaign; no wasting of the German paratrooper arm at Crete; no need possibly for Germany to occupy Vichy France as that was a consequence of Operation Torch (though of course there was Allied vs Vichy conflict in other areas, so that cannot be ruled out). Would that Op have happened however if there had hitherto been no fighting in North Africa, and if the Vichy forces there were passive? In that scenario, hundreds of thousands of German men are available for use elsewhere.

The above does not rule out the possibility of Britain attempting to establish a foothold in Yugoslavia or Greece, but a neutral Greece (which was possible without Italian belligerency) leaves only Yugoslavia, and it may be argued that - with all surrounding states either pro-Axis or neutral, and with Britain being alone at that time - such an effort could not have been sustained.

There are a lot of 'what abouts' to the above but I know arrsers are well-read and spelling them all out would make this post even more of a pain to read.
 
Wonderful (for us). He'll end up starting a war with a crap logistic chain (because G4 Is For Hats), get away with a couple of blinding tactical moves, and then get absolutely hammered flat by either the Soviets (who'll watch him overextend himself, cut him off, and round up another quarter-million soldiers) or the British (driving a staff car when the British have air superiority is a daft move).

Basically, he'll lose then make lots of excuses about the Italians / Romanians / Spanish.
I cant help but think that a pointed "What part of Just Keep the Italians from being booted out of Libya and Husband your resources did you not understand" was in order
 
The French rearmament program was to peak in 1941; the face of the French Army and Air Force in particular would have been very different with many foreign orders (mostly to the USA, for a wide variety of planes) and local productions reaching the front lines.

French-designed and produced tracked APCs, semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazine, assault guns and medium tanks were for example all in the final stages of development when the defeat of 1940 intervened.
 
It is the Italian angle which, in my view, de-rails Hitler's plans.
German minister
If you keep on there will be another war in Europe and this time Italy will be with us
Churchill
Thats only fair we got them last time

Probably apocryphal but a reasonable summation.

In short, Italy becoming involved in WW2 (against Hitler's wishes) creates for Germany an un-sought front in the Med, Balkans, Aegean and North Africa. It creates a route into Europe (Sicily and Italy) which need not have been there. If you assume Italian neutrality, there is possibly no German involvement in Greece and Albania. There is almost certainly no German force in North Africa - and German losses in North Africa eventually total 200,000 high quality soldiers and much equipment. With no need for Germany to support Italy in Greece and without the Balkan adventure, Barbarossa might be launched some weeks earlier.
Whilst rescuing their Italian allies diverted resources (to the desert side show in particular) - which would have been far more useful on the Eastern front in 41. Im pretty sure that despite the common perception it didn't delay Barbarossa - thats attributable to the late spring rains making roads impassible and IIRC reorganizing the Luftwaffe.


[QUOTE
 
The French rearmament program was to peak in 1941; the face of the French Army and Air Force in particular would have been very different with many foreign orders (mostly to the USA, for a wide variety of planes) and local productions reaching the front lines.

French-designed and produced tracked APCs, semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazine, assault guns and medium tanks were for example all in the final stages of development when the defeat of 1940 intervened.
Ah im glad youve popped in
You claimed elsewhere that the UK was going to Purchase the Char B - Ive been meaning to ask you if youve a source for this - or can supply further info yourself - Im interested as to the whys and wherefores
 
Yes the source is the ultra-well documented magazine "GBM".

When I read that, I was very surprised; I contacted the author of the article who confirmed that from September 1940 on, the British Army was supposed to have received one Coy a month of B1 Bis. He found corroborating documents in the archives. The information is also included page 46 of this recently re-released book (the previous edition was out of print).

the why is probably that it was the most powerful tank in the West at the time and that an improved version, the B1 Ter, was supposed to enter production from March 1941 on.

1591213271444.png


20200603_213930.jpg


Translated: "the last plans, just before the German attack, made provision to simultaneously deliver the British one company per month."

There were other "exchanges" of equipment; the French purchased some 3,7 in. batteries for air defense and the BEF received the 25 mm ATK cannon which, in spite of its diminutive size and calibre, showed that it could destroy all German Panzer including the Pz IV.
 
German minister
If you keep on there will be another war in Europe and this time Italy will be with us
Churchill
Thats only fair we got them last time

Probably apocryphal but a reasonable summation.



Whilst rescuing their Italian allies diverted resources (to the desert side show in particular) - which would have been far more useful on the Eastern front in 41. Im pretty sure that despite the common perception it didn't delay Barbarossa - thats attributable to the late spring rains making roads impassible and IIRC reorganizing the Luftwaffe.


[QUOTE
I don't disagree with any of that. The negative impact of Italy on Germany was huge: hundreds of thousands of lost men; thousands of lost vehicles, aircraft, etc. And the Afrika Korps was motorised to a greater degree than most German armies. Italy was a sink for German resources.
Interesting subject for discussion.
 
Yes the source is the ultra-well documented magazine "GBM".

When I read that, I was very surprised; I contacted the author of the article who confirmed that from September 1940 on, the British Army was supposed to have received one Coy a month of B1 Bis. He found corroborating documents in the archives. The information is also included page 46 of this recently re-released book (the previous edition was out of print).

View attachment 479187

View attachment 479188

Translated: "the last plans, just before the German attack, made provision to simultaneously deliver the British one company per month."

There were other "exchanges" of equipment; the French purchased some 3,7 in. batteries for air defense and the BEF received the 25 mm ATK cannon which, in spite of its diminutive size and calibre, showed that it could destroy all German Panzer including the Pz IV.
I dont suppose it expands on why - and what role eg Was it to fill a gap (presumably as it has the 75mm wheras 2pdr is the biggest gun fielded by the BEF ) or simply ease the logistic burden by equipping some BEF units with French armour .
 

anglo

LE
.....and if my dad had tits he would have been my mum....you can twist and re-configure it any way you like, that's what war games are for, shuffling models and pin flags on a games board, The end result would have been the same. whataboutery and IF, has millions of combinations, what if the americans had the atomic bomb in 1940, what if the Germans didn't have Von Braun, what if Roosevelt was assassinated in 1939, what if Churchill never existed, and lord Halifax handed over the UK to Hitler. What if my father hadn't been posted to Burma..................What if McGuiness and Adams hadn't been born.........And paisley was a Muslim...FFS

This "What If" has no end...its a pointless exercise.
IF debated sensibly, can be interesting
 
I dont suppose it expands on why - and what role eg Was it to fill a gap (presumably as it has the 75mm wheras 2pdr is the biggest gun fielded by the BEF ) or simply ease the logistic burden by equipping some BEF units with French armour .
No, the why was not explained, but in addition to the points you mention (and the 47 mm of the B1 Bis was a much more efficient weapon for ATK work than the 75 mm), if the Char B was to fill the same role as in the French Division Cuirassées (DCr), they would have formed the "heavy element" of the armoured division
 
No, the why was not explained, but in addition to the points you mention (and the 47 mm of the B1 Bis was a much more efficient weapon for ATK work than the 75 mm), if the Char B was to fill the same role as in the French Division Cuirassées (DCr), they would have formed the "heavy element" of the armoured division
The 2pdr was adequate in 39 and the 6pdr was in the works** what was lacking was something that would lob HE which is what I suspect was wanted



**In fact its ready but the fall of France delays its production by 12 months in the subsequent a 100 dubious 2 pdrs in the hand today are better than nothing while the factory retools and a 6 pdr in 6 months
 
Wonderful (for us). He'll end up starting a war with a crap logistic chain (because G4 Is For Hats), get away with a couple of blinding tactical moves, and then get absolutely hammered flat by either the Soviets (who'll watch him overextend himself, cut him off, and round up another quarter-million soldiers) or the British (driving a staff car when the British have air superiority is a daft move).

Basically, he'll lose then make lots of excuses about the Italians / Romanians / Spanish.
Von Mannstein would be a better choice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
No you wouldn't, the Yanks might have, but given the assimilation of Americans with Europe, I very much doubt it. No the Nips got it cos they was Subhuman- which I find a tad ironic.

Oh yes they were going to nuke ze Germans in 1945.
Alas, they'd jacked in May so didn't get the good news in August


I got to Colorado Springs the next morning perfectly on time. A man named Lansdale met me, walked me to General Ent's office and closed the door behind me. With him was a man wearing a blue suit, a US Navy captain - that was William Parsons, who flew with me to Hiroshima - and Dr Norman Ramsey, Columbia University professor in nuclear physics. And Norman said: "OK, we've got what we call the Manhattan Project. What we're doing is trying to develop an atomic bomb. We've gotten to the point now where we can't go much further till we have airplanes to work with."

He gave me an explanation which probably lasted 45, 50 minutes, and they left. General Ent looked at me and said, "The other day, General Arnold [commander general of the army air corps] offered me three names." Both of the others were full colonels; I was lieutenant-colonel. He said that when General Arnold asked which of them could do this atomic weapons deal, he replied without hesitation, "Paul Tibbets is the man to do it." I said, "Well, thank you, sir." Then he laid out what was going on and it was up to me now to put together an organisation and train them to drop atomic weapons on both Europe and the Pacific - Tokyo.


ST: Interesting that they would have dropped it on Europe as well. We didn't know that.

PT: My edict was as clear as could be. Drop simultaneously in Europe and the Pacific because of the secrecy problem - you couldn't drop it in one part of the world without dropping it in the other. And so he said, "I don't know what to tell you, but I know you happen to have B-29s to start with. I've got a squadron in training in Nebraska - they have the best record so far of anybody we've got. I want you to go visit them, look at them, talk to them, do whatever you want. If they don't suit you, we'll get you some more." He said: "There's nobody could tell you what you have to do because nobody knows. If we can do anything to help you, ask me." I said thank you very much. He said, "Paul, be careful how you treat this responsibility, because if you're successful you'll probably be called a hero. And if you're unsuccessful, you might wind up in prison."



And on film - 14.00 onwards

 
Last edited:
What If (sorry) I offer a small disagreement - where what ifs remain sensible ie avoid Alien Space Bats, The Germans inventing warp drive or Eisenhower dying of galloping dandruff type thing, they can offer access to a broader understanding of why things were done and decisions made in reality - Even if its no more than a wouldnt happen because X - surely thats far from pointless.
So mentioning the Nazis continuing the war from the far side of the moon would be ok?
 
I dont buy this line of reasoning at all

1) The bombs being developed when THE Enemy is Germany.
2) As far as they were concerned at the time - The Nuke simply allowed 1 aircraft to do what it currently took 1000. The other nasty effects weren't understood so modern sensibilities dont apply.
From a 1940 -45 perspective what is the difference between totalling Hamburg with the entire RAF vs a single bomber - Its simply a damn sight more efficient and risks fewer aircrew.

I see no reason back then why it wouldn't have landed on Dresden or Kiel.
Except that the Yanks didn’t have little boy ready until after the surrender of Germany and I still think politics would have entered the issue. Plus they didn’t want the Russians to know. Japan was considerably less complicated.
Don't agree.
Britian was well on track with Tube Alloy's the only reason the Manhattan Project got there long before anybody else was because Tube Alloys was effectively absorbed in to it and independent British research more or less ceased.

Had circumstances been different Tube Alloys would have ultimately come to conclusion with Berlin being turned in to a glass car park. Its very nearly a certainty.

Without American intervention Britain would probably nuked Moscow not long after Berlin.
I think people have forgotten the fact that we didn’t have the bomb. The concept of being able to nuke Moscow would have been very appealing to Patton.
 

sand_rat

Old-Salt

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top