Whats your favorite what-if wartime scenario?

97,790 Views | 369 Replies | Last: 18 hrs ago by Ghost of Andrew Eaton
huisachel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Invading Japan would have cost so many troops the American public would not have supported a second war.

And FDR for one would not have hesitated to nuke Germany. Quite aside from detesting them he would have found it a useful brake on Uncle Joe


EDIT: FDR had he been alive would have loved nuking Germany. Can't guess about Truman but he certainly never seemed to have any regrets about nuking our other enemy.
BQ_90
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
huisachel said:

Invading Japan would have cost so many troops the American public would not have supported a second war.

And FDR for one would not have hesitated to nuke Germany. Quite aside from detesting them he would have found it a useful brake on Uncle Joe
FDR would have been dead by then
JABQ04
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
We had the Germany first approach during the war. I think 100% we would have dropped the bomb on Germany if we needed too. But for us to do that, being repulsed at normandy would have had to have happened. Once we were close to the bomb Germany was already on the verge of surrender. It would have taken a serious setback for our military or solid intel the Germans had a bomb or were close to one, which is something we were legitimately worried about
Rabid Cougar
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
JABQ04 said:

We had the Germany first approach during the war. I think 100% we would have dropped the bomb on Germany if we needed too. But for us to do that, being repulsed at normandy would have had to have happened. Once we were close to the bomb Germany was already on the verge of surrender. It would have taken a serious setback for our military or solid intel the Germans had a bomb or were close to one, which is something we were legitimately worried about
Towards the end of the war, the Germans would not have given a second thought about nuking the Russians or the Brits if they had it. And they would have done it to America if they could have figured out how to get it here.
cbr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BQ_90 said:

Was thinking more about this thread. Why Hitler doesn't cross the Maginot Line? France and England didn't have any notion in attacking. So what if Hitler parked some troops there to counter then focus all,his attention eastward. Then he wouldn't have wasted all the energy and man power with Atlantic wall.

I think there wouldn't be a Europe first attitude in the US if Hitler didn't occupy Western Europe.

Then would Hitler had enough to beat the Soviets?
there is no way hitler could abandon the west with France intact and attack Stalin. France would absolutely have gotten off their asses if the border was open. Also, Russia was, despite america and british propaganda even to this day, moving more into an offensive position against Germany as Barbarrossa approached. they were basically as vulnerable as they could be due to this, and that is part of why the germans were able to encircle and eliminate entire corps when Barbarossa opened. Along with all fuel and ammo dumps being set up for a russian offensive in poland, and most of their air force within striking range of the border.
ChipFTAC01
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
MOCO9 said:

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2016/03/25/you-and-almost-everyone-you-know-owe-your-life-to-this-man/

One of my favorite what if stories.


Quote. I can't get the story to load. Who is it about?
Guitarsoup
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ChipFTAC01 said:

MOCO9 said:

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2016/03/25/you-and-almost-everyone-you-know-owe-your-life-to-this-man/

One of my favorite what if stories.


Quote. I can't get the story to load. Who is it about?
Try this link:

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/03/you-and-almost-everyone-you-know-owe-your-life-to-this-man/

Skimming, about the Soviet submarine commander that didn't fire the Nukes
Bodie Broadus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wow. That is a great article and story!
huisachel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
thanks for that story
Eliminatus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BQ_90 said:

Was thinking more about this thread. Why Hitler doesn't cross the Maginot Line? France and England didn't have any notion in attacking. So what if Hitler parked some troops there to counter then focus all,his attention eastward. Then he wouldn't have wasted all the energy and man power with Atlantic wall.

I think there wouldn't be a Europe first attitude in the US if Hitler didn't occupy Western Europe.

Then would Hitler had enough to beat the Soviets?
Because it was Hitler.

Not being a smartass but the man HATED the Allied powers and by my understanding almost unilaterally decided to start a war that no one really wanted. After reading The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (and a couple other sources as well to check), I became aware of how much your typical German Franz Everyman, did not relish getting into another war. Hitler wanted that war. Germany did not aside from Hitler and some of his closest babyeaters. They of all people remembered well the harsh lessons of global conflict.

One of the things that you sometimes have to throw out when contemplating the man, is rationality. Anger and bitterness against the Western Powers is what defined him, and subsequently, his nation.

As far as the tactical point of your post, I would think that Hitler would have had to garrison just as many troops on the Maginot Line as used conquering the damn thing and France itself. If true, no appreciable extra forces would be available to subdue Russia and that first winter would have been the same IMO. An argument could be made for the supply situation being better, but that first crucial winter, I still think the Wehrmacht would have been doomed. The supplies I don't believe were the problem, but getting them to the frontline so far away past the endless mud and rampaging partisans would have been just as bad. Double the stockpile of supplies far away is just as useless as no supplies if that grunt in Stalingrad can't get to it.

Over the course of the conflict, who knows really. There would be a chain of tactical decisions that would spawn more and more branches that literally anything would be possible probably on a tactical level.

On a political level? Would the Brits and French gone preemptively aggressive to save Russia? THAT is a doozy of a question for sure. I have no real idea. I can just as easily argue both sides of that answer just to myself. That one will probably keep me up tonight. My kneejerk answer though would probably be no initially. Maybe.
Post removed:
by user
titan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S

For WW II at sea? If favorite scenario means simply: one where you have the most likelihood to really change things,it might be these:

For the Atlantic: What if Captain Topp's pleading to let Tirptiz go ahead and sail with sister-battleship Bismarck even though had not completed shake-down had been granted. (His instincts were correct--the USN, Royal Navy, and IJN all would rush a new ship into action if needed and it usually worked out okay) If you have both Bismarck-class battleships and two cruisers (Hipper would likely have joined Tirpitz in turn) you have a really different sequence of events in May 1941 most likely. It took almost the whole available British fleet in the area to run down Bismarck -- with Tirpitz with her her, all bets are off.

For the Pacific:
What if Yamamoto listens to the Army and Hara and Takagi and cancels Midway in favor of making Coral Sea II the next grand carrier battle. It is somewhat doubtful it would fail a second time with the logistics more available there. Close second --- Yamamoto commits the super-battleships and real punch of the surface fleet to the naval battles of Guadalcanal --- that campaign really decided the rest of the war at sea in the Pacific and it was possible to lose there --it was a narrow thing.
Eliminatus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
titan said:


For WW II at sea? If favorite scenario means simply: one where you have the most likelihood to really change things,it might be these:

For the Atlantic: What if Captain Topp's pleading to let Tirptiz go ahead and sail with sister-battleship Bismarck even though had not completed shake-down had been granted. (His instincts were correct--the USN, Royal Navy, and IJN all would rush a new ship into action if needed and it usually worked out okay) If you have both Bismarck-class battleships and two cruisers (Hipper would likely have joined Tirpitz in turn) you have a really different sequence of events in May 1941 most likely. It took almost the whole available British fleet in the area to run down Bismarck -- with Tirpitz with her her, all bets are off.

For the Pacific:
What if Yamamoto listens to the Army and Hara and Takagi and cancels Midway in favor of making Coral Sea II the next grand carrier battle. It is somewhat doubtful it would fail a second time with the logistics more available there. Close second --- Yamamoto commits the super-battleships and real punch of the surface fleet to the naval battles of Guadalcanal --- that campaign really decided the rest of the war at sea in the Pacific and it was possible to lose there --it was a narrow thing.


Always wondered what would happen if Bismarck had been part of a real battleforce or task group. A Bismarck and Tirpitz combo could have actually made a sway on the war in those critical early months. I'll have to look up what the RN assets were at the time in the Channel and surrounding area. We all know the RN was huge but it was also spread across the world, literally. Could a play have actually been made to control the Channel by the Kriegsmarine? Or even make a concerted and convincing bid to contest it on the surface?

Hmmmm.....
30wedge
How long do you want to ignore this user?
What if the heroes of the Alamo had AR-15's or the equivalent and a whole bunch of ammo.
CanyonAg77
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
30wedge said:

What if the heroes of the Alamo had AR-15's or the equivalent and a whole bunch of ammo.
Heck, even M-1s would be a game changer. Even better, mortars or a nice howitzer or two.

And your scenario has already had a book written...except the South and AK-47s.

JABQ04
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Neat book. I got that last year for the TexAgs secret Santa gift exchange.
Old RV Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Eliminatus said:

titan said:


For WW II at sea? If favorite scenario means simply: one where you have the most likelihood to really change things,it might be these:

For the Atlantic: What if Captain Topp's pleading to let Tirptiz go ahead and sail with sister-battleship Bismarck even though had not completed shake-down had been granted. (His instincts were correct--the USN, Royal Navy, and IJN all would rush a new ship into action if needed and it usually worked out okay) If you have both Bismarck-class battleships and two cruisers (Hipper would likely have joined Tirpitz in turn) you have a really different sequence of events in May 1941 most likely. It took almost the whole available British fleet in the area to run down Bismarck -- with Tirpitz with her her, all bets are off.

For the Pacific:
What if Yamamoto listens to the Army and Hara and Takagi and cancels Midway in favor of making Coral Sea II the next grand carrier battle. It is somewhat doubtful it would fail a second time with the logistics more available there. Close second --- Yamamoto commits the super-battleships and real punch of the surface fleet to the naval battles of Guadalcanal --- that campaign really decided the rest of the war at sea in the Pacific and it was possible to lose there --it was a narrow thing.


Always wondered what would happen if Bismarck had been part of a real battleforce or task group. A Bismarck and Tirpitz combo could have actually made a sway on the war in those critical early months. I'll have to look up what the RN assets were at the time in the Channel and surrounding area. We all know the RN was huge but it was also spread across the world, literally. Could a play have actually been made to control the Channel by the Kriegsmarine? Or even make a concerted and convincing bid to contest it on the surface?

Hmmmm.....
The channel wasn't the target. They would have been used to attack the convoy sea lanes. Combined with the U boats it would have been a major stranglehold on cutting off Britain. Airpower (landbased) made the channel a very dangerous place.
cbr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
JJMt said:

cbr said:

BQ_90 said:

thinking more about this thread. Why Hitler doesn't cross the Maginot Line? France and England didn't have any notion in attacking. So what if Hitler parked some troops there to counter then focus all,his attention eastward. Then he wouldn't have wasted all the energy and man power with Atlantic wall.

I think there wouldn't be a Europe first attitude in the US if Hitler didn't occupy Western Europe.

Then would Hitler had enough to beat the Soviets?
there is no way hitler could abandon the west with France intact and attack Stalin. France would absolutely have gotten off their asses if the border was open. Also, Russia was, despite america and british propaganda even to this day, moving more into an offensive position against Germany as Barbarrossa approached. they were basically as vulnerable as they could be due to this, and that is part of why the germans were able to encircle and eliminate entire corps when Barbarossa opened. Along with all fuel and ammo dumps being set up for a russian offensive in poland, and most of their air force within striking range of the border.

Do you have any recommended books or other sources for the assertion that Russia was about to attack Germany? I have read that German revisionist historians are making that claim, and I'm interested in finding out more about it.
Ill think back. Barbarossa covered it. Its not really debatable, just from force disposition alone. Stalin was not bold, but he runs over poland the minute hitler got bogged down in france and his logistics was ready. Just happemed too fast. Or he does it the next summer as his growth and advantages became much more pronounced.

Even hitler could not encircle and capture millions of troops and wipe out the entire air force and all their fuel stores on a 2000 mile front unless the disposition was offensive, rather than defensive.
who?mikejones
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
What if Davy Crockett would have survived the war?

I find this interesting beacuse i think it would have changed post war texas.

1. If Crockett had survived, i think he would have been branded a hero
2. Because of his established folk hero status and political experience, he would have been politically relevant immediately.
3. Would that have led to sam Houston's role being greatly diminished (ie, would crockett bren able to usurp Houston's political role and will)?
4. If so, what would the Indian struggles have looked like. What would have statehood looked like?
expresswrittenconsent
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Hmm. Interesting. In your scenario is he the lone survivor of the alamo or did he miss that altogether? I sort of feel like he isn't popular enough to usurp old sam, but I bet he would be popular enough to beat out lamar when houston couldn't run after his first term. Capital probably doesnt move to austin, which in and of itself could have changed Indian policies.
who?mikejones
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Lets say he didnt make it to the alamo and instead headed towards sam Jacinto taking part in defeating the mexican army thereby achieving texian hero status.

Houston didnt have the best reputation and a man of Crockett's lore maybe couldve exploited that.
JABQ04
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Unless Crockett led the Texians at San Jacinto I don't think he's more popular than Sam. Now if he had done something heroic or captured Santa Anna himself then maybe, but just as a participant, albeit a famous one, then no.
Aggie12B
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I wouldn't say it's my favorite war "what-if" scenario, but it's the one I spend the most time thinking about. It relates to Iraq in 2003.
What if my best friend (SFC Paul R. Smith) isn't killed on 4April?
What if I'm not blown up by a mortar round and don't suffer a TBI on 6April?
What if the only Soldier of mine (PFC Jason Meyer) that I failed to bring home alive from any of my 5 deployments isn't killed by friendly fire on 7April?
Would I still be as F***ed in the head as I am now?
BQ78
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Aggie 12B

Sorry to hear that but don't beat yourself up over things that you had no control over or made a tough decision that was good at the time but may have not turned out for the best.

I hope this doesn't sound cold (it's not really) but you have to live now for the living, your family and yourself. The dead no longer suffer. Mourn the loss but don't let it destroy your life.
cbr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Aggie12B said:

I wouldn't say it's my favorite war "what-if" scenario, but it's the one I spend the most time thinking about. It relates to Iraq in 2003.
What if my best friend (SFC Paul R. Smith) isn't killed on 4April?
What if I'm not blown up by a mortar round and don't suffer a TBI on 6April?
What if the only Soldier of mine (PFC Jason Meyer) that I failed to bring home alive from any of my 5 deployments isn't killed by friendly fire on 7April?
Would I still be as F***ed in the head as I am now?

Thats a gloomy reality. But you must take to heart that every person ever involved in violent tragedy faces those 'what ifs'. What if i had just left 1 minute sooner? What if i had seen them 2 seconds sooner? It is an endless excercise.

You have to let it go. The lord, the universe, the gods of chaos, whoever controls our ebbs and flows of life, dictated that fate. All you can do is try to improve the world going forward and not let the past destroy your future.
Smeghead4761
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Late arrival, and I didn't do a thorough search of the whole thread, so forgive me if this one has been mentioned before:

What if Germany reversed their WWI strategy, so that instead of playing defense against Russia while they attacked France, they adopted the strategic defensive against France while they went on the offensive against Russia?

In the actual events, the French army launched attacks into Alsace-Lorraine while the German main effort on the right wing was marching through Belgium. Those attacks were soundly defeated by the economy of force German army troops that were tasked with holding the line there. So we know that the Germans could have successfully defended against French attacks.

At almost the same time (late August and early September 1914) the lesser forces the Germans had left to face the Russians destroyed to Russian field armies at Tannenberg and First Masurian Lakes. If the Germans commit the bulk of their forces to fighting the Russians, can they inflict enough losses on the Russians to force them to sue for peace, while the French are still beating themselves bloody against the German defenses in the west?

Russia had a lot more available manpower, yes, but their poor transportation system would make massing forces difficult, especially if the Germans were continually attacking along the front to keep the Russians off balance. How many defeats could the Russians handle before the either cried Uncle or they collapsed?

Without the Germans attacking neutral Belgium, does England still enter the war? (Probably, but probably not as quickly, and only after a lot of domestic political argument.) If England doesn't enter the war, that means no blockade of Germany, and thus no U-boats, and thus most likely no U.S. entry into the war. What does that mean for world history?

This would also probably put Germany in a better position at the world political level, since they could claim that they were only aiding an ally (Austria-Hungary) who was being attacked by another country (Russia) that was not party to the initial Austrian-Serbian conflict. This would especially be true if they didn't launch any major offensive against the French.

If the Russian state did collapse, or even dissolve in a vaguely orderly manner, do the Bolsheviks still come out on top? Especially if the Germans have no need to inject the Lenin virus into Russia? And if the Bolsheviks don't come to power in Russia, there's no USSR, and what does that mean for the world as we know it?

And of course, if Germany were to adopt this strategy, and the war ends with any kind of successful outcome for Germany, where does that leave Corporal Hitler? Hopefully selling crappy watercolors on a street corner in Vienna, while regailing people with tales of his wartime exploits in some Gasthof in the evenings.
option short side
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
cbr said:

JJMt said:

cbr said:

BQ_90 said:

thinking more about this thread. Why Hitler doesn't cross the Maginot Line? France and England didn't have any notion in attacking. So what if Hitler parked some troops there to counter then focus all,his attention eastward. Then he wouldn't have wasted all the energy and man power with Atlantic wall.

I think there wouldn't be a Europe first attitude in the US if Hitler didn't occupy Western Europe.

Then would Hitler had enough to beat the Soviets?
there is no way hitler could abandon the west with France intact and attack Stalin. France would absolutely have gotten off their asses if the border was open. Also, Russia was, despite america and british propaganda even to this day, moving more into an offensive position against Germany as Barbarrossa approached. they were basically as vulnerable as they could be due to this, and that is part of why the germans were able to encircle and eliminate entire corps when Barbarossa opened. Along with all fuel and ammo dumps being set up for a russian offensive in poland, and most of their air force within striking range of the border.

Do you have any recommended books or other sources for the assertion that Russia was about to attack Germany? I have read that German revisionist historians are making that claim, and I'm interested in finding out more about it.
Ill think back. Barbarossa covered it. Its not really debatable, just from force disposition alone. Stalin was not bold, but he runs over poland the minute hitler got bogged down in france and his logistics was ready. Just happemed too fast. Or he does it the next summer as his growth and advantages became much more pronounced.

Even hitler could not encircle and capture millions of troops and wipe out the entire air force and all their fuel stores on a 2000 mile front unless the disposition was offensive, rather than defensive.

With the exception of a few crack divisions, the Atlantic wall was manned by weak,novice, under strength divisions. I think the Soviets would Have eventually attacked Germany but I don't think the literature suggests it was imminent.
I always wondered what would have happened had Hitler listened to Admiral Donitzs and pursued a mediterranean strategy over invading the Soviets. With just a few more divisions Germany could have pushed the British out of Africa and captured the oil fields of the Middle East and Turkey. England would have to ship supplies all around South Africa and eventually be starved out. Meanwhile Germany would border the soviet oil fields in the caucuses.
cbr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
option short side said:

cbr said:

JJMt said:

cbr said:

BQ_90 said:

thinking more about this thread. Why Hitler doesn't cross the Maginot Line? France and England didn't have any notion in attacking. So what if Hitler parked some troops there to counter then focus all,his attention eastward. Then he wouldn't have wasted all the energy and man power with Atlantic wall.

I think there wouldn't be a Europe first attitude in the US if Hitler didn't occupy Western Europe.

Then would Hitler had enough to beat the Soviets?
there is no way hitler could abandon the west with France intact and attack Stalin. France would absolutely have gotten off their asses if the border was open. Also, Russia was, despite america and british propaganda even to this day, moving more into an offensive position against Germany as Barbarrossa approached. they were basically as vulnerable as they could be due to this, and that is part of why the germans were able to encircle and eliminate entire corps when Barbarossa opened. Along with all fuel and ammo dumps being set up for a russian offensive in poland, and most of their air force within striking range of the border.

Do you have any recommended books or other sources for the assertion that Russia was about to attack Germany? I have read that German revisionist historians are making that claim, and I'm interested in finding out more about it.
Ill think back. Barbarossa covered it. Its not really debatable, just from force disposition alone. Stalin was not bold, but he runs over poland the minute hitler got bogged down in france and his logistics was ready. Just happemed too fast. Or he does it the next summer as his growth and advantages became much more pronounced.

Even hitler could not encircle and capture millions of troops and wipe out the entire air force and all their fuel stores on a 2000 mile front unless the disposition was offensive, rather than defensive.

With the exception of a few crack divisions, the Atlantic wall was manned by weak,novice, under strength divisions. I think the Soviets would Have eventually attacked Germany but I don't think the literature suggests it was imminent.
I always wondered what would have happened had Hitler listened to Admiral Donitzs and pursued a mediterranean strategy over invading the Soviets. With just a few more divisions Germany could have pushed the British out of Africa and captured the oil fields of the Middle East and Turkey. England would have to ship supplies all around South Africa and eventually be starved out. Meanwhile Germany would border the soviet oil fields in the caucuses.
France was irrelevant to the Soviet front in 41, it was basically r&r for troops between tours in Russia.
The reason literature doesn't cover Russia preparing an offensive against Germany is because it would go against propaganda from both Russia and America.

Stalin was indecisive about the attack apparently, but his formations were absolutely offensive. That's why hitler did it. He had no chance of winning a long defensive war in Poland. He thought if he had a chance if he surprise them first. He was right.


Honestly Italy and Japan's incompetence probably saved the world from hitler but doomed the world with the soviets. No one will ever know which was worse in the long run.

If Italy hadn't bungled the baltics and even North Africa, and japan had maintained the threat on Russias eastern borders, and hit the British empire in the Indian Ocean and suez, linking up with the Germans, turkey would have probably joined them and the soviets might have fallen.
Aggie1205
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
What if the British had given Washington an officer's commission when he wanted one during the French and Indian War? Does he end up fighting against the colonies?
Aggie12B
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
My current favorite "what-if scenario" is:
What if the world didn't go bat ****e crazy over the coronavirus hysteria?.
Smeghead4761
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cbr said:

option short side said:

cbr said:

JJMt said:

cbr said:

BQ_90 said:

thinking more about this thread. Why Hitler doesn't cross the Maginot Line? France and England didn't have any notion in attacking. So what if Hitler parked some troops there to counter then focus all,his attention eastward. Then he wouldn't have wasted all the energy and man power with Atlantic wall.

I think there wouldn't be a Europe first attitude in the US if Hitler didn't occupy Western Europe.

Then would Hitler had enough to beat the Soviets?
there is no way hitler could abandon the west with France intact and attack Stalin. France would absolutely have gotten off their asses if the border was open. Also, Russia was, despite america and british propaganda even to this day, moving more into an offensive position against Germany as Barbarrossa approached. they were basically as vulnerable as they could be due to this, and that is part of why the germans were able to encircle and eliminate entire corps when Barbarossa opened. Along with all fuel and ammo dumps being set up for a russian offensive in poland, and most of their air force within striking range of the border.

Do you have any recommended books or other sources for the assertion that Russia was about to attack Germany? I have read that German revisionist historians are making that claim, and I'm interested in finding out more about it.
Ill think back. Barbarossa covered it. Its not really debatable, just from force disposition alone. Stalin was not bold, but he runs over poland the minute hitler got bogged down in france and his logistics was ready. Just happemed too fast. Or he does it the next summer as his growth and advantages became much more pronounced.

Even hitler could not encircle and capture millions of troops and wipe out the entire air force and all their fuel stores on a 2000 mile front unless the disposition was offensive, rather than defensive.

With the exception of a few crack divisions, the Atlantic wall was manned by weak,novice, under strength divisions. I think the Soviets would Have eventually attacked Germany but I don't think the literature suggests it was imminent.
I always wondered what would have happened had Hitler listened to Admiral Donitzs and pursued a mediterranean strategy over invading the Soviets. With just a few more divisions Germany could have pushed the British out of Africa and captured the oil fields of the Middle East and Turkey. England would have to ship supplies all around South Africa and eventually be starved out. Meanwhile Germany would border the soviet oil fields in the caucuses.
France was irrelevant to the Soviet front in 41, it was basically r&r for troops between tours in Russia.
The reason literature doesn't cover Russia preparing an offensive against Germany is because it would go against propaganda from both Russia and America.

Stalin was indecisive about the attack apparently, but his formations were absolutely offensive. That's why hitler did it. He had no chance of winning a long defensive war in Poland. He thought if he had a chance if he surprise them first. He was right.


Honestly Italy and Japan's incompetence probably saved the world from hitler but doomed the world with the soviets. No one will ever know which was worse in the long run.

If Italy hadn't bungled the baltics and even North Africa, and japan had maintained the threat on Russias eastern borders, and hit the British empire in the Indian Ocean and suez, linking up with the Germans, turkey would have probably joined them and the soviets might have fallen.

Hitler was always going to go east. Lebensraum was not in Norway, the Low Countries, or France. Lebensraum was in the east - in European Russia.

When Hitler invade Poland, he expected England and France to make pro forma declarations of war, then call it off once the conquest of Poland was a fait accompli. They didn't, so he invaded France. When France fell, Hitler expected the English to decide they no longer had an interest on the continent, and end their part of the war.

The Red Army's dispositions in the spring of 1941 owed everything to the fact that, at that stage, Stalin was a military incompetent (and had killed most of the Red Army's best officers), and had ordered the Red Army to defend on the border, instead of backing off to defensible terrain.

Stalin may have been planning for an offensive war against Germany, but not in the spring of 1941. In the spring of 1941, Stalin was doing everything he could to appease Hitler. The Red Army wouldn't have been ready for offensive operations for another year or two. (Note that until Hitler invaded Russia, Russia was not receiving Lend-Lease aid, either.)
Eliminatus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Aggie1205 said:

What if the British had given Washington an officer's commission when he wanted one during the French and Indian War? Does he end up fighting against the colonies?
OOOOOOO......good one. Never entered my mind.

On one hand you have Washington as the gallant rebel who led a defiant people and changed history forever. On the other, you have Washington the incredibly respected and principled man. Would that man have diligently carried out his orders from the British Empire? Looking at that hand, yes. I fully believe both viewpoints are extremely valid.

Damn. This is why I love these conversation. Truly makes ya think deep into the whys and hows and whos of history while appreciating how sometimes the tiniest little quirks of fate trickle down in crazy ways that affect....well everything I guess.
Hubert J. Farnsworth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This isn't really a wartime what if, but I will ask it anyways.

What if the Roman Empire never fell and the Dark Age never happened. Would we be more technologically advanced then we are now?
Madman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Sorry didn't read every post but.

What if Frans Duke Ferdinand had a driver that didn't get lost?
ja86
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Franz Josef would have found some other way to have him wacked...
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.