Germany's win probability by week

[TheMarcksPlan]

IMO there's no chance of UK surrendering

Germany preventing the british evacuation at Dunkirk would be a knock-out blow for Churchill's government, and that would be enough.

I've seen this argument before. What's the good evidence for it?

[Avalancheon]

Easy: actually win against SU.
Ok not so easy... but at least doable.

I agree. The Germans could have defeated the Soviet Union if certain things went differently. The fall of Leningrad was a major missed opportunity.

IMO there's no chance of UK surrendering regardless of Turkey/Spain so Germany remains surrounded by enemies who can crush her, meaning eventually they will.

When I said that Britain would capitulate, I meant that they would merely agree to a white peace. A cessation of hostilitys.

If Germany decided to embark on a Mediterranean strategy, there would be little that Britain could do to stop them. I can see three different strategys being pursued by the Nazis:


1) They could invade Spain and lay siege to Gibraltar, which would put the western Mediterranean under Axis control. This would would enable Axis ships to enter and leave the sea at will, while Allied ships would be unable to do so. It would also enable the Germans to set up air and naval bases in Spain, aiding them in the battle of the Atlantic. Moreover, Italian merchant ships would once again have access to the free oceans, which would ease the Axis resource shortages.

2) They could bolster their forces in North Africa. One of the main problems the Germans had in that theater were logistical problems caused by port capacity, lack of trucks, and lack of fuel. If North Africa is their only active land combat theater, then the Axis could invest much more resources to achieve victory in that campaign. They would be provided with more air transport, more trucks, and more fuel. With their logistical problems solved, the Germans would be able to successfully invade Egypt and shut down the Suez canal. If Britain did not surrender by this point, then the Near East itself would be invaded.

3) They could invade Turkey. This is the most challenging of the three operations, as it requires a large commitment of forces from the German army. But then again, the army was always the strongest out of the three services, and invading Turkey would certainly be easier than invading the Soviet Union. Its unclear how long this fight would go on before the Axis would be able to secure victory, but 3 months is probably a realistic estimate. By that point, the Germans would have conquered all of Turkey and put itself in a position to invade the Near East. They could join forces with Iraq and Iran, who were both loyal to the Nazi cause.

[TheMarcksPlan]

When I said that Britain would capitulate, I meant that they would merely agree to a white peace. A cessation of hostilitys.

Not sure what that means... is there still shooting happening?
IMO so long as Great Britain remains a platform for deployment of American and Imperial resources, Germany us taking a beating.

That's true regardless of what happens in Spain or Turkey.

And having German forces strung out from Gibraltar to the Middle East, liable to be attacked everywhere, would denude German ability to deter and defend against Stalin.

[Peter89]

Guys, what do OTL and ATL stand for?

[Ulater]

IMO there's no chance of UK surrendering

Germany preventing the british evacuation at Dunkirk would be a knock-out blow for Churchill's government, and that would be enough.

I've seen this argument before. What's the good evidence for it?

If Brits, as they were at Dunkirk, were all captured, It would be a loss bigger than all losses of British army in European Theater during the entire war.

Considering that Churchill was in hot water over something as trivial in comparison as the loss of Tobruk, we can go from there with this. Im not well read on contemporary British political situation, so I welcome any corrections.

[Avalancheon]

Not sure what that means... is there still shooting happening?

The war would be over by that point, but not on unfavorable terms. By accepting a white peace, the British would avoid occupation, and get to keep what remained of their empire.

IMO so long as Great Britain remains a platform for deployment of American and Imperial resources, Germany us taking a beating.

That's true regardless of what happens in Spain or Turkey.

It depends on which scenario Germany pursues. If they invade Turkey and conquer them, then they would be in a very strong position. Think of what was happening in 1941. The Free French were having problems in Syria, just as the British were having problems in Iraq. The Nazis could easily take advantage of this situation. They could invade Syria or Iraq with popular support from the locals.

If Britain get kicked out of their enclaves in the Near East, it would be very difficult for them to continue the war. They would lose access to all their oil fields in Iraq and Iran, and would have to ship it in from the U.S. across the Atlantic. Even if the British could afford to do that, they don't have enough tankers to make it work.

Theres also the question of what the political ramifications of all this are back home. The British people did not tolerate the loss of crown colonys. Churchill faced backlash after the fall of Hong Kong and Singapore. He faced another wave of criticism after the setback represented by the battle of Gazala. With democracys at war, public opinion cannot be so easily ignored.

And having German forces strung out from Gibraltar to the Middle East, liable to be attacked everywhere, would denude German ability to deter and defend against Stalin.

Increased exposure to Soviet aggression is only a concern if they were to embark on an invasion of Turkey. This would tie up a significant number of German combat divisions, and leave them more vulnerable than they would otherwise be. But this exposure would be short lived. Once they succeed in conquering Turkey, the Nazis would be in a position of power over the Soviets. They would not only have control of the Bosphorous straits, but would also have a border in the Caucasus. This would put their Black sea traffic and oil fields at risk, forcing the USSR to change their strategy.

[HistoryGeek2019]

Do you take ressource in count? I think this factor could reduce germany probaility of winning a lot. And even if they managed to win at Dunkirk,how they were suppose to Launch Sea Lion and make it work? https://youtu.be/YnPo7V03nbY

They still couldn't invade, but the idea would be that Germany would have 300,000 British prisoners of war, and the UK would have no way of ever getting them back unless they made peace. Not a sure thing, but if Germany ever came close to winning the war, that was it.

[HistoryGeek2019]

Guys, what do OTL and ATL stand for?

OTL is the "Original Timeline" - what actually happened in WW2.

ATL is "Alternate Timeline" - what happens in a variant of history proposed by a user on this board.

[HistoryGeek2019]

500 divisions

I know you hate this question, but has any historian analyzed the possibility of the Soviet Union or any country mustering 500 combat capable divisions along one front during WW2? It seems extremely far fetched. How many divisions did the Russians have on the front in 1944 and 1945?

[Peter89]

Guys, what do OTL and ATL stand for?

OTL is the "Original Timeline" - what actually happened in WW2.

ATL is "Alternate Timeline" - what happens in a variant of history proposed by a user on this board.

Thank you!

[Yuri]

From the little I have looked into Stalin's future intentions, I don't think he had any immediate plans to attack Germany.

Stalin's intentions for 42-45 are almost never discussed by historians and nothing definitive is known about them. And I agree that Suvorov's 1941 attack idea is wacko. That said, here's what we do know:

• Stalin wanted war with Hitler in 1939, pre-Pact: he proposed sending 120 divisions to Poland if they acquiesced in a grand anti-Hitler coalition.
• During the Pact period, Stalin repeatedly hectored Hitler to allow the Red Army into Bulgaria and Turkey.
• After the war, Stalin put the Red Army into all of Eastern/Central Europe and renewed his demands for Soviet ships and troops in Turkey (forcing Turkish accession to NATO in response)

I can provide cites for these points if it's a discussion to be followed - I don't want to sidetrack your thread on this one topic.

So we know Stalin wanted anti-Hitler war before the Pact, we know he wanted conquests in Europe/Middle East until the day he died.
The only question to my mind is, would Stalin have perceived an opportunity successfully to fight Hitler during 1942-45, had Barbarossa not occurred.
To my mind, there is absolutely no question that Stalin was willing to fight Hitler, only a question of perceived opportunity.

Very interesting, who are "we"?
From what you have said here, we, for example, can state the following: Your "knowledge" of the policy of the Soviet Union in pre-War, War and post-War periods is based on the fabrications of Western propagandists, but not facts.

[Peter89]

From the little I have looked into Stalin's future intentions, I don't think he had any immediate plans to attack Germany.

Stalin's intentions for 42-45 are almost never discussed by historians and nothing definitive is known about them. And I agree that Suvorov's 1941 attack idea is wacko. That said, here's what we do know:

• Stalin wanted war with Hitler in 1939, pre-Pact: he proposed sending 120 divisions to Poland if they acquiesced in a grand anti-Hitler coalition.
• During the Pact period, Stalin repeatedly hectored Hitler to allow the Red Army into Bulgaria and Turkey.
• After the war, Stalin put the Red Army into all of Eastern/Central Europe and renewed his demands for Soviet ships and troops in Turkey (forcing Turkish accession to NATO in response)

I can provide cites for these points if it's a discussion to be followed - I don't want to sidetrack your thread on this one topic.

So we know Stalin wanted anti-Hitler war before the Pact, we know he wanted conquests in Europe/Middle East until the day he died.
The only question to my mind is, would Stalin have perceived an opportunity successfully to fight Hitler during 1942-45, had Barbarossa not occurred.
To my mind, there is absolutely no question that Stalin was willing to fight Hitler, only a question of perceived opportunity.

Very interesting, who are "we"?
From what you have said here, we, for example, can state the following: Your "knowledge" of the policy of the Soviet Union in pre-War, War and post-War periods is based on the fabrications of Western propagandists, but not facts.

The Soviet leadership was very capable regarding statecraft between the 1930's-1960's, and a lot of Western historians are prone to overlook that. There was even an immigration flux from the West (including the USA) to the SU during the Great Depression. It took a while until the West realized the totalitarian nature of the Soviet regime (note Arthur Koestler's Darkness in Noon) and started to deal with it as a real problem. It coincided with the collapse of the colonial systems and the erection of the Berliner Wall.

Everything after that (including Solzhenitsyn) is influenced by the historical events, but I would not call them propaganda; they actually believed in the things they wrote.

[BDV]

It took a while until the West realized the totalitarian nature of the Soviet regime (note Arthur Koestler's Darkness in Noon) and started to deal with it as a real problem. It coincided with the collapse of the colonial systems and the erection of the Berliner Wall.

Not "all" West.

France and England definitely knew what Bolshevik Russia, with "Father of Nations" perched atop, was up to (from Winnie's "favourable reference about Satan," to French use of Willy Munzenberg for their propaganda efforts). There was no delusion, real or feigned.

As for USofA, I do not believe their protestations of innocence. Any "ignorance," it was feigned.