Stalemate in the west.
Stalemate in the west.
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.
Why no Answer?
Why isn't isn't anybody answering?
- Leibstandarte
- Member
- Posts: 37
- Joined: 15 Jul 2002, 08:45
- Location: California
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
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
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!
Just a thought...
- Linlu
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!
Just a thought...
- Linlu
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.
- 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!
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.
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.
Re: Stalemate in the west.
Wouldn't no Fall of France mean that the Anglo-French win the 1940 Norwegian Campaign?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.
-
- Member
- Posts: 2047
- Joined: 03 Sep 2003, 19:15
- Location: Canada
Re: Stalemate in the west.
Congratulations for re-opening a 14 year old thread to post this.Futurist wrote:Wouldn't no Fall of France mean that the Anglo-French win the 1940 Norwegian Campaign?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.
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.
-
- Member
- Posts: 138
- Joined: 10 Jul 2011, 19:15
- Location: Växjö
Re: Stalemate in the west.
I think things were a bit more complex.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.
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.
-
- Member
- Posts: 2047
- Joined: 03 Sep 2003, 19:15
- Location: Canada
Re: Stalemate in the west.
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.
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.
Re: Stalemate in the west.
I don't see the Allies hanging on to Norway much beyond June, even with a stalemated Western front.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.
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
~Babylonian Proverb
-
- Member
- Posts: 138
- Joined: 10 Jul 2011, 19:15
- Location: Växjö
Re: Stalemate in the west.
Well, as maltesefalcon we quickly enter the realm of sheer speculation.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.
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.
Re: Stalemate in the west.
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.
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
~Babylonian Proverb
-
- Member
- Posts: 2047
- Joined: 03 Sep 2003, 19:15
- Location: Canada
Re: Stalemate in the west.
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.
On that basis I think I'm done with this one unless the OP comments again with more detail.