Matrix Games Forums

Slitherine is recruiting: Programmers requiredPandora: Eclipse of Nashira gets release dateCommunity impressions of To End All WarsAgeod's To End All Wars is now availableTo End All Wars is now available!Deal of the Week: Field of GloryTo End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!Ageod's To End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!To End All Wars: Artillery Battle Academy 2: Eastern Front - End of Early Access
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Question for the military historians here

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: Question for the military historians here Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Question for the military historians here - 2/27/2011 1:53:08 AM   
IronDuke

 

Posts: 1572
Joined: 6/30/2002
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline

Without the drain on German manpower caused by the War in the East, then the western Allies would never get ashore in mainland europe, it is that simple. The Germans were too numerous, too well trained, and far too dangerous.

Britain and the US would eventually have won an air war and flattened large parts of the Reich, and would have been favourites to end the war via the bomb, but anything else was a non starter.

Regards,
ID


(in reply to sulla05)
Post #: 31
RE: Question for the military historians here - 2/27/2011 1:34:23 PM   
nelmsm


Posts: 914
Joined: 1/21/2002
From: Texas
Status: online
I don't think Germany would have had to declare war on the Soviet Union as eventually Stalin would have done it to Germany.

_____________________________

Texas, where we have the death penalty and aren't afraid to use it.

(in reply to IronDuke)
Post #: 32
RE: Question for the military historians here - 2/27/2011 3:15:11 PM   
cantona2


Posts: 3463
Joined: 5/21/2007
From: Gibraltar
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

If Germany had not invaded the Soviet Union, in other words if the Soviet Union had therefore never entered the war against Germany, could the other Allies have defeated Germany? Also what if the Japanese had never attacked the US and left the US and Britain to focus on defeating Germany instead of forcing the US and Britain to fight a two front war (assuming the US would have found a way to ally with Britain without the attack on PH)?



The most likely outcome of the above scenario is that Stalin would have attacked Germany at some point. There is some deliberation to suggest that this was already in the pipeline as the level of, and intensity of opposition that AGS faced vis-a-vis the other two Heeresgruppen suggests. Some believe that this was the start of the build up of an attack on Germany from the southern USSR.

_____________________________

1966 was a great year for English Football...Eric was born



Banner by rogueusmc

(in reply to Gary Childress)
Post #: 33
RE: Question for the military historians here - 2/27/2011 9:10:52 PM   
sprior


Posts: 8162
Joined: 6/18/2002
From: Nottingham, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cantona2


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

If Germany had not invaded the Soviet Union, in other words if the Soviet Union had therefore never entered the war against Germany, could the other Allies have defeated Germany? Also what if the Japanese had never attacked the US and left the US and Britain to focus on defeating Germany instead of forcing the US and Britain to fight a two front war (assuming the US would have found a way to ally with Britain without the attack on PH)?



The most likely outcome of the above scenario is that Stalin would have attacked Germany at some point. There is some deliberation to suggest that this was already in the pipeline as the level of, and intensity of opposition that AGS faced vis-a-vis the other two Heeresgruppen suggests. Some believe that this was the start of the build up of an attack on Germany from the southern USSR.


I believe the was a book called Icebreaker that hypothesised that Stalin was already planning an attack.

_____________________________

"Grown ups are what's left when skool is finished."
"History started badly and hav been geting steadily worse."
- Nigel Molesworth.



(in reply to cantona2)
Post #: 34
RE: Question for the military historians here - 2/27/2011 9:53:44 PM   
sulla05

 

Posts: 1096
Joined: 1/11/2005
Status: offline
But what didn't make any sense to me was that the Southern armies were prepared and seen as almost ready to attack. Where if the attack was aimed at Germany the North and central armies should have been.

So maybe uncle Joe was aiming at grabbing Romania?

_____________________________

Windows 7 home premium 64
Intel quad core I7
6 Gb DD3
ATI 5800

Di! Ecce hora! Uxor mea me necabit!

(in reply to sprior)
Post #: 35
RE: Question for the military historians here - 2/27/2011 10:12:56 PM   
IronDuke

 

Posts: 1572
Joined: 6/30/2002
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline

Joe wasn't going to attack. The south faced weaker German forces (when compared to the ground to be fought over, had more ground to run into and was in parts much better led.

The Soviets certainly had plans for a pre-emptive strike on German forces massing in the east, but then the Pentagon will have plans for a pre-emptive strike on Syria. However, having them is not evidence of a political will to use them. You could argue the Ukraine did well from reinforcements and troops given its importance resource wise to the Soviet Union, but there is only mild circumstantial evidence Stalin was preparing an attack.

I don't doubt he felt he would have to fight Germany sooner or later, but I think the collapse of France threw his plans into chaos and led him down the appeasement path he seems to have adopted. I think he anticipated the Germans and Western Allies cutting each other's throats for a couple of years before he swept over the border and shared the spoils of a defeated Germany circa 1942. By that point his reorganisation of the Army following the finnish debacle and late 30s purge would have been complete and he would have been ready.

As it was, when France fell, he knew he wasn't ready, so he did his utmost to avoid a fight, ignoring all evidence the Germans were preparing to invade, refusing to fire on heavy recon, feeding them trains packed with resources upon request etc.....

Regards,
ID

(in reply to sulla05)
Post #: 36
RE: Question for the military historians here - 3/1/2011 4:07:39 AM   
ogre

 

Posts: 10
Joined: 11/29/2007
Status: offline
There is a presumption that the only way Germany finds itself at war with Russia is if Germany attacks. The question should be posed in terms of Germany/Russia not going to war, not in terms of Germany not invading Russia. It can make a big difference in the speculation.

As for Japan and U.S. not going to war, one must identify the status absent the war. Does Japan still expand their empire in the Pacific, to include securing the Dutch East Indies, Singapore, and Philippines? If not, does the U.S. continue to supply Japan's Oil needs? If so, does the U.S. withdraw our demand that Japan leave China alone. Japan's road to Pearl Harbor (and U.S. entry into the war) is paved along event paths that have far ranging consequences if altered.

It's very difficult to determine speculative events based solely on the timing of when war begins between nations. There are lots of circumstances that lead up to those wars. Circumstances that, if altered, can alter the speculative time lines.




(in reply to Gary Childress)
Post #: 37
RE: Question for the military historians here - 3/1/2011 7:20:32 PM   
Jeffrey H.


Posts: 2876
Joined: 4/13/2007
From: San Diego, Ca.
Status: offline
I guess no WiR means no Africa Campaign ?

_____________________________

"Games lubricate the body and the mind" Ben Franklin.

(in reply to ogre)
Post #: 38
RE: Question for the military historians here - 3/1/2011 8:22:48 PM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 4212
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
quote:

Does Japan still expand their empire in the Pacific, to include securing the Dutch East Indies, Singapore, and Philippines?


It is highly likely that the U.S. would have declared war if Japan had invaded the Dutch East Indies, however, there would have been much less political support for the war. Things like the Detroit auto manufacturers slowing their auto output to a crawl and producing tanks and aircraft might not have happened.

On the other hand, an invasion of the Philippines would inevitably have involved American forces, which were present. War would have been declared, with great popular support. But it is hard to see how Japan could have tolerated the PI menacing their shipping lanes from the "Southern Resource Area".

_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to ogre)
Post #: 39
RE: Question for the military historians here - 3/2/2011 12:37:26 AM   
06 Maestro


Posts: 3982
Joined: 10/12/2005
From: Nevada, USA
Status: offline
The Dutch were allies of the UK. AN attack on them would have been the same, legally if not emotionally, the same as an attack on the UK. The Japanese should have known that such an attack would precipitate US involvement in the war, which is why they attacked the U.S. in the initial onslaught. Had they thought they could get the oil from the East Indies, they certainly would have gone that route w/o war with the U.S. After all, there was not much in the Philippines to bolster the Japanese war machine-and they had no intention of annexing Texas.

There are rational reasons why the whole thing unfolded the way it did. Japan attacked the U.S. as it did not any other good alternatives in its quest of being a world power. Likewise, a German invasion of Russia was going to happen; '41, '42-whatever. To change that is to change the whole nature of what that war was about.

_____________________________

Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies.

Thomas Jefferson


(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 40
RE: Question for the military historians here - 3/2/2011 7:06:42 PM   
MikeBrough


Posts: 234
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Scotland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: E


quote:

ORIGINAL: MikeBrough
quote:

ORIGINAL: diablo1
God can you imagine if Adolph had of gotten the A-Bomb first? Any question the first city he would have used it on?

I'm not sure whether it would have been London or Moscow.

I'm sure I know whether it would have been London or Moscow (that's a no-brainer).


Depends on when Germany gets the bomb. If it's in 1940, a strike on London knocks Britain out of the war and the USA might never join. If Germany were able to concentrate their full might against the USSR in 1941, who knows. If it's 1942 onwards, I agree.

However, would Hitler have believed that an atomic strike on either capital would have knocked that country out of the war?


_____________________________

Mike Brough
Proud to be an Arab

Be sceptical of the things you believe are false; be very sceptical of the things you believe are true.

(in reply to E)
Post #: 41
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: Question for the military historians here Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.090