WW2 alternate timelines

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Wikus Van De Merwe
Member
Posts: 4
Joined: 02 Jun 2015, 19:18
Location: Croatia

WW2 alternate timelines

#1

Post by Wikus Van De Merwe » 03 Jun 2015, 00:50

Hi,

I am a history student (in Croatia) working with some WW2 game developers and I was wondering about some crucial WW2 moments that could have changed the course war, so I was wondering you could help me with your ideas on these questions:
1. What if Soviet Union didn't attack Poland? Would it change the course of Barbarossa and German advances?
2. What if France attacked Germany during the attack on Poland? (The war in the German hills would be in favour of Allied forces)
3. What would be German reasons to attack Spain? If the didn't effect Civil war, and Russians did?
4. What if Turkey was forced to join the Axis? (The question of Russian oil at Baku)
5. In Barbarossa, what if Germany didn't split forces at Stalingrad?
6. What about Norway? What if England attacked first?
7. Axis attack on Switzerland? In which conditions would that happen and what benefits would that bring?

Alixanther
Member
Posts: 411
Joined: 04 Oct 2003, 05:26
Location: Romania

Re: WW2 alternate timelines

#2

Post by Alixanther » 05 Jun 2015, 06:29

1. Poland would still fail, unless a combined British-French expeditionary force would march into Germany. The only difference would be political, which the Western Allies chose to ignore anyway in the OTL.

2. France alone did not have the force to conquer Germany, unless there's some sort of rebellion - like during Kaiser Wilhelm's Germany, which made him abdicate. Think of it in terms like France = Germany, Germany = USSR. Maybe the French were able to win a few early victories but once Poland front is pacified, reinforcements would pour in force. France did not forget the lessons of 1918, when millions of Wehrmacht troops pushed for a decisive victory once the Brest-Litovsk peace was secured. That happened after 4 years of bitter trench warfare. Compare to several weeks of fighting and you'll get the feeling. If Siegfried line is unable to buy that time, adding several German cities will, until counterblow comes.

3. Germany had no reasons to attack Spain (unless Hitler would've wanted to, which he did not). I don't understand your second question here.

4. Turkey had not military capacity to wage a war against the Soviets and they witnessed (as the whole world did) how quicky the Iraki pro-Axis rebellion was crushed by combined Soviet-British forces (accent on Soviet). They feared inviting an attack so they stayed quiet the whole war. Unless the tide would've changed completely, which case their contribution would have meant nothing.

5. The biggest blunders of Stalingrad offensive were 1) attacking on a secondary (as significance) front, 2) the tempo (reaching Stalingrand too late, giving Soviets time to prepare to defend it) and only 3) splitting forces too thin. If you ask my 2 cents, they should have put all their mobile forces up to Voronezh, crush any Soviet resistance over there and swing North then envelop all Soviet forces facing the AGC. This would have a stronger effect on Soviets than a so-called offensive which meant advancing on free territory given up by retreating Soviet forces.
If still attacking on the same targets, Stalingrad should have been taken before Rostov.

6. British DID land first (which is akin to an attack, unless semantics are at stake) however they evacuated their forces before an actual clash with Germans. They had a bunch of skirmishes (most notably von Falkenhorst - if I remember correcty - group of several hundred able to inflict significant losses and repel a British force of thousands), nothing major.

7. Such an attack was devised but never carried out. The advantages would have been minor (Switzerland bordering by the Reich on all sides already) and the political problems (attacking a true neutral state) would have truly alienated any diplomacy Germany was willing to conduct to other neutrals, amd even some of its minor allies.


Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: WW2 alternate timelines

#3

Post by Michael Kenny » 05 Jun 2015, 14:28

Alixanther wrote:

6. British DID land first (which is akin to an attack, unless semantics are at stake) however they evacuated their forces before an actual clash with Germans. They had a bunch of skirmishes (most notably von Falkenhorst - if I remember correcty - group of several hundred able to inflict significant losses and repel a British force of thousands), nothing major.
Like the gutting of the German Navy was 'nothing major!

Alixanther
Member
Posts: 411
Joined: 04 Oct 2003, 05:26
Location: Romania

Re: WW2 alternate timelines

#4

Post by Alixanther » 06 Jun 2015, 05:17

Michael Kenny wrote:
Alixanther wrote:

6. British DID land first (which is akin to an attack, unless semantics are at stake) however they evacuated their forces before an actual clash with Germans. They had a bunch of skirmishes (most notably von Falkenhorst - if I remember correcty - group of several hundred able to inflict significant losses and repel a British force of thousands), nothing major.
Like the gutting of the German Navy was 'nothing major!
Huh?

German Navy ITSELF was nothing major. Bragging for sinking a measly dozen destroyers and one cruiser won't do any justice to Royal Navy. If you really feel the urge to glorify H.M. Fleet, find other "major" points. Like sinking Bismark, for instance. Not that it's so much more glorious going full berserk naval + aerial fleets against one single ship but anyways...

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: WW2 alternate timelines

#5

Post by Michael Kenny » 06 Jun 2015, 14:04

Alixanther wrote: Not that it's so much more glorious going full berserk naval + aerial fleets against one single ship but anyways...
Typical Brits. Only win by ganging up because they know the Germans are unbeatable one-in-one.

User avatar
SpicyJuan
Member
Posts: 258
Joined: 14 Mar 2015, 03:08
Location: Luxemburg

Re: WW2 alternate timelines

#6

Post by SpicyJuan » 06 Jun 2015, 17:21

Wikus Van De Merwe wrote:Hi,

I am a history student (in Croatia) working with some WW2 game developers and I was wondering about some crucial WW2 moments that could have changed the course war, so I was wondering you could help me with your ideas on these questions:
1. What if Soviet Union didn't attack Poland? Would it change the course of Barbarossa and German advances?
2. What if France attacked Germany during the attack on Poland? (The war in the German hills would be in favour of Allied forces)
3. What would be German reasons to attack Spain? If the didn't effect Civil war, and Russians did?
4. What if Turkey was forced to join the Axis? (The question of Russian oil at Baku)
5. In Barbarossa, what if Germany didn't split forces at Stalingrad?
6. What about Norway? What if England attacked first?
7. Axis attack on Switzerland? In which conditions would that happen and what benefits would that bring?
Alixther pretty much laid it all out, but I'll give it a shot and elaborate/bring my own perspective.

1.) It depends on what Hitler does. Does he give it to the Soviets anyways, or because they didn't keep up their end of the bargain he claims all of Poland for himself? If the latter, how do the Soviets react of only getting the Baltics (would it have been worse to give them Poland as it would make you look weak)? Would the Soviets still give Hitler the trade deals that he desperately needed in 1940? On the other hand, the further starting locations could lend a great deal to the initial push of Barbarossa and greatly help German logistics.

2.) I'm not sure what you mean by saying the German hills would favor the allies since the German's are defending? But ultimately I don't really think it's possible for the allies to do so (take a look at the "offensive" the French mounted on the German Saarland, it was a complete disaster). But if the French had gotten their act together, and somehow managed to get transit rights in Belgium (like Hitler feared) and successfully pushed to the Rhine-Rhur, it would've been all over then and there.

3.) I'm assuming that in this scenario the Republicans win in Spain (as your question is confusing)? In this scenario I don't think it would've changed much, if not at all than historically. The Republicans would be smart enough to give the German's the tungsten they so desperately needed, much less join against Germany during Barbarossa due to fear of a German invasion. However, if things went historically, and the allies broke out of Normandy, I could see the Republicans joining the war on behalf of the allies to potentially gain back Roussillion from France.

4.) It depends on when. If Turkey joined the Axis during Barbarossa, or granted transit access to the German's, the German's could be able to prepare enough of a logistical line to storm into the Caucasus with the highly specialized Gebirgsjäger and Fallschirmjäger (depending if they were devastated on an attack on Crete and how willing Hitler was to use them if they were). If this push into the Caucasus was successful, it in concert with the speed of Barbarossa and the plausible German capture of either/and the Ukraine, Leningrad, and Moscow could potentially make Stalin sue for peace if not, convince the Soviet leadership that the war was over and depose Stalin and try to make peace.

If Turkey did the aforementioned in 1942, the German chances of success in the operation, and victory over the Soviet Union, are much decreased than in 1941 due to the stretch of Luftwaffe and Wehrmacht recources, especially in Fallschirmjäger (paratroopers) but this push could have been possible with proper planning and management of recources, and decisive due to the taking of the Georgian military highway in the south (that brought in much Lend-Lease supply and equipment during Case Blue and Uranus from allied occupied Persia) and obviously Baku. The southern push could also have stretched the Soviet Caucasian Fronts to the point of defeat, especially if army group A was given more recourses like planned. The primary point is that in no matter what scenario, the Turks could do every little by themselves, and a 1942 push would come for naught if the German's repeated their mistakes and the 6th army encountered its same "Disaster at Stalingrad".

5.) The German's weren't even close to Stalingrad during Barbarossa. If you meant in 1942, refer to my previous point, if you meant if in 1941 Hitler didn't attempt the ludicrous idea of taking everything up to the Arkangelsk-Astrakhan line in 1941, let me elaborate. Hitler set 3 objectives for the Wehrmacht during Barbarossa: Leningrad, Moscow, and the economical Ukraine area. The most the Wehrmacht could possibly do historically was two, possibly 3 (with the third being a strike into the Caucasus from Turkey if competent German management and luck was available). By trying to achieve all of these objectives the Werhmachts force was dissapated, and could not manage to take any, much less all of these objectives.

6.) It depends on what happens next. If the German's are able to take the ports, things would probably turn out historically, if not, then it would have been very difficult for the German's to continue the war successfully. There is one definite advantage for the German's if they are able to take the ports back in this scenario. They could use it as a great propaganda tool of how the British (specifically Churchill) are warmongers by attacking a neutral country and in the process would probably strongarm the Norwegian government into accepting the German's using and garrisoning the ports for the duration of the war (which would free up thousands of troops for Barbarossa due to not occupying the entire country as historically), and by "liberating" Norway could help redeem the Germany's international trust and credibility that Hitler threw out the window by signing the Second Treaty of Vienna annulling the Treaty of Munich.

7.) The invasion of Switzerland would most probably occur after a successful conclusion of the war in the east and the west, if at all. Knowing Hitler's indecisiveness, Hitler may think that an invasion of Switzerland would simply not be worth it, and would press for one-sided trade deals that the Swiss would be extremely willing to accept (due to being surrounded by victorious nations that would want to tear it apart and with no nation anywhere close to help thwart them).

NOTE: I recommend not to even bother with the guys at alternatehistory.com, all you'll get are deterministic, biased, and uninformed opinions.

Alixanther
Member
Posts: 411
Joined: 04 Oct 2003, 05:26
Location: Romania

Re: WW2 alternate timelines

#7

Post by Alixanther » 08 Jun 2015, 06:17

Michael Kenny wrote:
Alixanther wrote: Not that it's so much more glorious going full berserk naval + aerial fleets against one single ship but anyways...
Typical Brits. Only win by ganging up because they know the Germans are unbeatable one-in-one.
I never said they were not winning against Bismark. I only said there was not so much glory in it. Two different statements altogether.

User avatar
BDV
Member
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009, 17:11

Re: WW2 alternate timelines

#8

Post by BDV » 08 Jun 2015, 16:01

Alixanther wrote:5. The biggest blunders of Stalingrad offensive were 1) attacking on a secondary (as significance) front, 2) the tempo (reaching Stalingrand too late, giving Soviets time to prepare to defend it) and only 3) splitting forces too thin. If you ask my 2 cents, they should have put all their mobile forces up to Voronezh, crush any Soviet resistance over there and swing North then envelop all Soviet forces facing the AGC. This would have a stronger effect on Soviets than a so-called offensive which meant advancing on free territory given up by retreating Soviet forces.
If still attacking on the same targets, Stalingrad should have been taken before Rostov.

Taking and holding Stalingrad is not a bad idea, as such. It breaks the Soviet Union in two, but then it depends on the Axis ability to keep it broken. Taking Rostov is pretty much a need, unless one envisions germans coming onto Stalingrad from NorthEast down the left bank of Don, instead of driving into and across the Don bend.

This being a Whatif Forum, one wonders whether the better cutpoint could have been Samara.
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion

Alixanther
Member
Posts: 411
Joined: 04 Oct 2003, 05:26
Location: Romania

Re: WW2 alternate timelines

#9

Post by Alixanther » 08 Jun 2015, 22:15

BDV wrote:
Alixanther wrote:5. The biggest blunders of Stalingrad offensive were 1) attacking on a secondary (as significance) front, 2) the tempo (reaching Stalingrand too late, giving Soviets time to prepare to defend it) and only 3) splitting forces too thin. If you ask my 2 cents, they should have put all their mobile forces up to Voronezh, crush any Soviet resistance over there and swing North then envelop all Soviet forces facing the AGC. This would have a stronger effect on Soviets than a so-called offensive which meant advancing on free territory given up by retreating Soviet forces.
If still attacking on the same targets, Stalingrad should have been taken before Rostov.

Taking and holding Stalingrad is not a bad idea, as such. It breaks the Soviet Union in two, but then it depends on the Axis ability to keep it broken. Taking Rostov is pretty much a need, unless one envisions germans coming onto Stalingrad from NorthEast down the left bank of Don, instead of driving into and across the Don bend.

This being a Whatif Forum, one wonders whether the better cutpoint could have been Samara.
It seems you almost read my mind, except I'd come from North West, cross the river before Serafimovich and effectively trap all Soviet forces assembled in front of the river. It does not matter if they try to sneak into the city, however I'd wager they'd disperse and try to withdraw as small detachments, hoping they will pass unnoticed. After the city is taken / surrounded the armor then comes down towards Kotelnikovo and help cut the Soviet forces caught in the defence of Rostov.

However I'd prefer the decision envisaged before, going upwards from Voronezh and smashing anything is against AGC from the sides / rear. Then band together with mobile AGC forces + some strategic reserves and go for Moscow. This time it would have been pure Soviet panic.

P.S. Where's Samara on the map?

User avatar
BDV
Member
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009, 17:11

Re: WW2 alternate timelines

#10

Post by BDV » 08 Jun 2015, 23:06

Re: Samara

I meant Saratov, my bad. Straight East from Voronezh.
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion

User avatar
SpicyJuan
Member
Posts: 258
Joined: 14 Mar 2015, 03:08
Location: Luxemburg

Re: WW2 alternate timelines

#11

Post by SpicyJuan » 08 Jun 2015, 23:14

Alixanther wrote:
BDV wrote:
Alixanther wrote:5. The biggest blunders of Stalingrad offensive were 1) attacking on a secondary (as significance) front, 2) the tempo (reaching Stalingrand too late, giving Soviets time to prepare to defend it) and only 3) splitting forces too thin. If you ask my 2 cents, they should have put all their mobile forces up to Voronezh, crush any Soviet resistance over there and swing North then envelop all Soviet forces facing the AGC. This would have a stronger effect on Soviets than a so-called offensive which meant advancing on free territory given up by retreating Soviet forces.
If still attacking on the same targets, Stalingrad should have been taken before Rostov.
But it doesn't matter if they take Moscow or not, the Soviets will keep on fighting, not to mention the German's needed the ool

Taking and holding Stalingrad is not a bad idea, as such. It breaks the Soviet Union in two, but then it depends on the Axis ability to keep it broken. Taking Rostov is pretty much a need, unless one envisions germans coming onto Stalingrad from NorthEast down the left bank of Don, instead of driving into and across the Don bend.

This being a Whatif Forum, one wonders whether the better cutpoint could have been Samara.
It seems you almost read my mind, except I'd come from North West, cross the river before Serafimovich and effectively trap all Soviet forces assembled in front of the river. It does not matter if they try to sneak into the city, however I'd wager they'd disperse and try to withdraw as small detachments, hoping they will pass unnoticed. After the city is taken / surrounded the armor then comes down towards Kotelnikovo and help cut the Soviet forces caught in the defence of Rostov.

However I'd prefer the decision envisaged before, going upwards from Voronezh and smashing anything is against AGC from the sides / rear. Then band together with mobile AGC forces + some strategic reserves and go for Moscow. This time it would have been pure Soviet panic.

P.S. Where's Samara on the map?

User avatar
SpicyJuan
Member
Posts: 258
Joined: 14 Mar 2015, 03:08
Location: Luxemburg

Re: WW2 alternate timelines

#12

Post by SpicyJuan » 08 Jun 2015, 23:15

Alixanther wrote:
BDV wrote:
Alixanther wrote:5. The biggest blunders of Stalingrad offensive were 1) attacking on a secondary (as significance) front, 2) the tempo (reaching Stalingrand too late, giving Soviets time to prepare to defend it) and only 3) splitting forces too thin. If you ask my 2 cents, they should have put all their mobile forces up to Voronezh, crush any Soviet resistance over there and swing North then envelop all Soviet forces facing the AGC. This would have a stronger effect on Soviets than a so-called offensive which meant advancing on free territory given up by retreating Soviet forces.
If still attacking on the same targets, Stalingrad should have been taken before Rostov.
Taking and holding Stalingrad is not a bad idea, as such. It breaks the Soviet Union in two, but then it depends on the Axis ability to keep it broken. Taking Rostov is pretty much a need, unless one envisions germans coming onto Stalingrad from NorthEast down the left bank of Don, instead of driving into and across the Don bend.

This being a Whatif Forum, one wonders whether the better cutpoint could have been Samara.
It seems you almost read my mind, except I'd come from North West, cross the river before Serafimovich and effectively trap all Soviet forces assembled in front of the river. It does not matter if they try to sneak into the city, however I'd wager they'd disperse and try to withdraw as small detachments, hoping they will pass unnoticed. After the city is taken / surrounded the armor then comes down towards Kotelnikovo and help cut the Soviet forces caught in the defence of Rostov.

However I'd prefer the decision envisaged before, going upwards from Voronezh and smashing anything is against AGC from the sides / rear. Then band together with mobile AGC forces + some strategic reserves and go for Moscow. This time it would have been pure Soviet panic.

P.S. Where's Samara on the map?
But it doesn't matter if they take Moscow or not, the Soviets will keep on fighting, not to mention the German's needed the oil and fuel of the Caucasus.

User avatar
BDV
Member
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009, 17:11

Re: WW2 alternate timelines

#13

Post by BDV » 09 Jun 2015, 14:53

SpicyJuan wrote:not to mention the German's needed the oil and fuel of the Caucasus.
Or not, and decide to live without and plan accordingly.

In any case, moving on Maykop and onto Caucasus before solving the question of Naval Supremacy in the Black Sea is silly and useless. UBoats arriving to Black Sea in October 1942, that was some fine Nazi warplanning at work.

Soviet forces were in a number of exposed positions, on the left bank of the Volkhov River, west/northwest of Rzhev, and so on. What was done in Bustard Hunt could have been replicated elsewhere, likely not as lopsided, but still with good (for the Axis) results.
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion

User avatar
SpicyJuan
Member
Posts: 258
Joined: 14 Mar 2015, 03:08
Location: Luxemburg

Re: WW2 alternate timelines

#14

Post by SpicyJuan » 09 Jun 2015, 16:17

BDV wrote:
SpicyJuan wrote:not to mention the German's needed the oil and fuel of the Caucasus.
Or not, and decide to live without and plan accordingly.

In any case, moving on Maykop and onto Caucasus before solving the question of Naval Supremacy in the Black Sea is silly and useless. UBoats arriving to Black Sea in October 1942, that was some fine Nazi warplanning at work.

Soviet forces were in a number of exposed positions, on the left bank of the Volkhov River, west/northwest of Rzhev, and so on. What was done in Bustard Hunt could have been replicated elsewhere, likely not as lopsided, but still with good (for the Axis) results.
“Either I get the oil of Maikop and Grozny, or I must put an end to this war.” -Adolf Hitler

OpanaPointer
Financial supporter
Posts: 5644
Joined: 16 May 2010, 15:12
Location: United States of America

Re: WW2 alternate timelines

#15

Post by OpanaPointer » 09 Jun 2015, 16:55

In 1941 Churchill and Roosevelt were concerned that Hitler might convince Franco to allow German and Italian troops to move through Spain to attack Gibraltar. If Franco invited the Heer in and this got him deposed the Germans might decide that their agreement was with Spain, not just with Franco. The new government of Spain would be faced with the choice of making either the Axis or the Allies an active enemy. From that POD things could go a number of ways, I suspect.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

Post Reply

Return to “What if”