Stalemate in the west.

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
valadezaj
Member
Posts: 166
Joined: 23 Apr 2002, 15:16
Location: Omaha, Nebraska

Stalemate in the west.

#1

Post by valadezaj » 30 Jul 2002, 15:49

When Hitler conquered France in 1940 many were suprised. What if for some reason or the other the war went as in 1914 with a stalemate as the result? How do you think things would have developed in regards to Germany's relationships to other countries, parcticularly the United States and Russia.

valadezaj
Member
Posts: 166
Joined: 23 Apr 2002, 15:16
Location: Omaha, Nebraska

Why no Answer?

#2

Post by valadezaj » 31 Jul 2002, 20:53

Why isn't isn't anybody answering?


User avatar
Phil D.
Member
Posts: 247
Joined: 09 Jul 2002, 02:04
Location: Bronx, NY

#3

Post by Phil D. » 08 Aug 2002, 04:21

I think that Germany would have defeated France and Britain sooner or later, at a much higher cost in lives and equipment, while allowing more soldiers more time to escape and Germany would have been even more badly prepared to go to war with Russia.

Phil

User avatar
Leibstandarte
Member
Posts: 37
Joined: 15 Jul 2002, 08:45
Location: California

#4

Post by Leibstandarte » 08 Aug 2002, 08:10

Stalemate in the West...hmmm....

I am not sure if Germany would have won because I am one of those characters that thinks that both sides to the Non Agression Pact were coniving at a pact of convenience. I.e. postponing a conflict. Having said that.... if Germany became bogged down I am not sure France and Britain would have had to do much coaxing to get the USSR into the war on their side and bye bye Hitler and Germany. The spoils the USSR would have taken would have been no less considerable than those she gained in 1945 and who knows if she would have not have pushed on into a much weakened France etc.

Leibstandarte

User avatar
Linlu
Member
Posts: 225
Joined: 04 Aug 2002, 17:33

#5

Post by Linlu » 08 Aug 2002, 22:23

Hi all,

If there was a stalemate on the Western front at the outbreak of WWII, Germany would not be able to last long because of their oil problem.

The synthetic oil plants produce oil at a high cost whereas the British and the French could supply their armies with oil from USA.

Without taking over France, the French coast will not be accessible to the German U-boats and the disruption of Allied shipping will be much harder.

Germany's relations with Russia would become better, particularly because Germany would need a lot of resources to fight a prolonged war (in fact, the blitzkrieg was developed to avoid that). After the signing of the Nazi-Soviet pact, Stalin sent a lot of resources to Germany. I would expect Hitler to suck up to Stalin a bit and get more resources, maybe even several dozen volunteer divisions to fight against the Allied powers! :mrgreen:

Just a thought...

- Linlu

Caldric
Member
Posts: 8077
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:50
Location: Anchorage, Alaska

#6

Post by Caldric » 08 Aug 2002, 22:50

If there was a stalemate I would think if it lasted say 6 months, Germany would have had Stalin knocking on the Eastern door. I actually think this was Stalin's plan, Germany exhaust itself in the West, and then invade, becoming the savior of the Western Allies, and sucking up Central Europe at the same time.

User avatar
The Desert Fox
Member
Posts: 475
Joined: 05 Aug 2002, 10:35
Location: Australia
Contact:

Down fall of Hitler as consequence of failure in France!

#7

Post by The Desert Fox » 20 Aug 2002, 11:33

The political consequences for Hitler if he had become bogged down in France, pose this question. Would the faith of the people of germany been severly undermined to the extent that Hitler may have been overthrown.

From what I have read, Hitler had not yet fully won over the military until the fall of France. The quick elimination of France created a belief in Hitler being a miltary genius. Doubt in Hitler would certainly have eased after the fall of france.

Support for his later invasion of Russian came I think from the Public of germany because of a created belief of the superiorty of german arms, and faith in Hitler as a leader. This faith would not have existed to same degree if invasion of France had been a disaster.

Futurist
Member
Posts: 3642
Joined: 24 Dec 2015, 01:02
Location: SoCal

Re: Stalemate in the west.

#8

Post by Futurist » 16 Jun 2016, 06:36

valadezaj wrote:When Hitler conquered France in 1940 many were suprised. What if for some reason or the other the war went as in 1914 with a stalemate as the result? How do you think things would have developed in regards to Germany's relationships to other countries, parcticularly the United States and Russia.
Wouldn't no Fall of France mean that the Anglo-French win the 1940 Norwegian Campaign?

maltesefalcon
Member
Posts: 2047
Joined: 03 Sep 2003, 19:15
Location: Canada

Re: Stalemate in the west.

#9

Post by maltesefalcon » 16 Jun 2016, 12:51

Futurist wrote:
valadezaj wrote:When Hitler conquered France in 1940 many were suprised. What if for some reason or the other the war went as in 1914 with a stalemate as the result? How do you think things would have developed in regards to Germany's relationships to other countries, parcticularly the United States and Russia.
Wouldn't no Fall of France mean that the Anglo-French win the 1940 Norwegian Campaign?
Congratulations for re-opening a 14 year old thread to post this.

The Norway campaign was already more or less decided by the time of the invasion of France. The Allies focussed their resources and attention on the French campaign, which meant Norway was doomed.

How would a Western front stalemate save Norway? The Allied troops would by definitin still be in France while Norway collapsed a few weeks later.

Skarpskytten
Member
Posts: 138
Joined: 10 Jul 2011, 19:15
Location: Växjö

Re: Stalemate in the west.

#10

Post by Skarpskytten » 16 Jun 2016, 13:57

maltesefalcon wrote:Congratulations for re-opening a 14 year old thread to post this.

The Norway campaign was already more or less decided by the time of the invasion of France. The Allies focussed their resources and attention on the French campaign, which meant Norway was doomed.

How would a Western front stalemate save Norway? The Allied troops would by definitin still be in France while Norway collapsed a few weeks later.
I think things were a bit more complex.

In southern Norway a Western stalmate would not have meant anything. The allies were ousted from soutern Norway by May 10th; the Germans had five infantry divisions in place, the coastal fortresses in their hands and Lufwaffe was strong. To take back Norway would require the Allies to win air superiorty, take control of Skagerack, and land 10+ divisions. I don not see that happen.

Now, in northern Norway, the campaign for Narvik lasted until early June. It ended because 1) the French ground units were needed in France, 2) the british aa-guns were needed in the upcoming Battle for Britain and 3) the destroyers were needed to cover Opertion Dynamo and to safeguard aginst the upcoming Operations Seelöwe. A Western stalmate means that there was no reason for the Allies to pull out of nothern Norway in haste, or perhaps att all. This would mean that the war in nothern Norway would drag on, for weeks, perhaps months and it is unclear how the whole affair would have ended. One possibility is the survival of a rump-Norway, possibly according on the lines of the Mowinckel Plan. But given how keen the germans were on taking Narvik and given their skill, daring and resources, my guess is that they would have taken Narvik in the end, though at a far great cost and a lot later than what occured.

maltesefalcon
Member
Posts: 2047
Joined: 03 Sep 2003, 19:15
Location: Canada

Re: Stalemate in the west.

#11

Post by maltesefalcon » 17 Jun 2016, 02:30

The original post was sparse on details but mentioned the Battle of France ended up in a stalemate.

Now we enter the world of conjecture and personal opinion. That being said, the northern Norway campaign was carried out and concluded while the Battle of France was still being fought IRL.

Bear in mind if there was a stalemate, most of the troops and equipment still extant in France would need to remain there. Neither side dare weaken their presence in France to bolster the Norwegian front.

So I cannot see how a stalemate in France on or about the end of June could allow the allies to prevail in Norway some weeks earlier.

User avatar
Kingfish
Member
Posts: 3348
Joined: 05 Jun 2003, 17:22
Location: USA

Re: Stalemate in the west.

#12

Post by Kingfish » 17 Jun 2016, 14:19

Skarpskytten wrote:A Western stalmate means that there was no reason for the Allies to pull out of nothern Norway in haste, or perhaps att all.
I don't see the Allies hanging on to Norway much beyond June, even with a stalemated Western front.

Early on in the campaign the Luftwaffe forced the Royal Navy to give up on operating in Southern and Central Norwegian waters, and with the loss of Trondheim and Bodo, and subsequent northern redeployment of Luftwaffe assets, it would only be a matter of time before ops off Narvik would have been prohibitive.
The gods do not deduct from a man's allotted span the hours spent in fishing.
~Babylonian Proverb

Skarpskytten
Member
Posts: 138
Joined: 10 Jul 2011, 19:15
Location: Växjö

Re: Stalemate in the west.

#13

Post by Skarpskytten » 17 Jun 2016, 14:29

Kingfish wrote:I don't see the Allies hanging on to Norway much beyond June, even with a stalemated Western front.

Early on in the campaign the Luftwaffe forced the Royal Navy to give up on operating in Southern and Central Norwegian waters, and with the loss of Trondheim and Bodo, and subsequent northern redeployment of Luftwaffe assets, it would only be a matter of time before ops off Narvik would have been prohibitive.
Well, as maltesefalcon we quickly enter the realm of sheer speculation.

It would certianly have take the germans some time to develop say Bodö into a viable air base and bring forth the supplies needed to base bombers there (given that the germans were struggling to get supplies for the bombers based at Trondheim, that would be quite an undertaking). So, I have no problem seeing the allies hang on in Narvik for a few weeks longer than they did; at that time the geman rescuoperations (Büffel, Naumberg) would of course be close to come into friution. After that; I'll leave the speculations those so inclined.

It is worth noticing in this context, that as early June the British Cabinett discusssed staying put in Narvik for a few more weeks, but in the end of course stuck to the evacuation plan.

User avatar
Kingfish
Member
Posts: 3348
Joined: 05 Jun 2003, 17:22
Location: USA

Re: Stalemate in the west.

#14

Post by Kingfish » 17 Jun 2016, 15:52

Staying for a few more weeks is quite different than not pulling out at all

As for developing Bodo into a forward airbase, that would have helped but wasn't at all necessary. The Luftwaffe was able to support Deitl from bases further south, and with better weather that effort would only intensify.
The gods do not deduct from a man's allotted span the hours spent in fishing.
~Babylonian Proverb

maltesefalcon
Member
Posts: 2047
Joined: 03 Sep 2003, 19:15
Location: Canada

Re: Stalemate in the west.

#15

Post by maltesefalcon » 18 Jun 2016, 19:36

The original post (14 years ago LOL) was pretty sparse on detail. Pretty tough to have a real thorough analysis based on what was offered. Without knowing what was changed to prevent the German victory in 1940, we cannot really extrapolate to other theatres or subsequent events.

On that basis I think I'm done with this one unless the OP comments again with more detail.

Post Reply

Return to “What if”