Here is how it will go: someone suggests some alternate course of action that one of the participating countries could take, and others tell them how they think it would affect the course of the war, and how likely it was. I'll start off with a few.
1: France launches an attack on germany while the German army is busy attacking Poleand.
2: Germany plays down on the anti-semitisim, and plays up on the anti communisim. They ally themselves with Poleand and launch a surprise attack on the USSR in June 1940. (BTW I believe that the Poles had attempted to maintain ties with Germany to counter the soviets, and Pre-war soviet plans counted that an attack on them would most likely be a joint attack from Germany/Poland)
3: Despite their defeats by USSR, Japan favours North Strike Group plan, and decides to launch its attack on Siberia, thinking that the Soviets have been defeated after their initial disasterous defeats early in Barbarossa.
Point 1 They did invade Germany, unsuccesfully.
Point 2 They tried but no go when einsatsttruppen did itīs work.
Point 3 They probed and "ocupied" an island on river AMUR, didnt work,
2 weeks later they decide to attac Pearl Harbour.
My senario "Lindholmsnaziparty" comes to power during the late 20ys,
they start to build roads, railways,harbours,airports,and the decicion of
1923 is now a rearming instead, allianses whit neibours and a early "NATO"
of Skandinavian origin beginns,Poland decides to join in 1936 and get a treaty of a "Lend Lease" and backup in case of invasion, (nearest country)
whit coal, so strategic inportans to the alliance,a trade union whit BeNeLux, and now the alliance is a superior naval force in the Balticsea,and this alliance have territorial claims on Russia/Sovjet and Germany (Slesvig-Holstein) was a disputed area to 1868 when Germany-Austria-Hungaria took it from Danes.
Well WW 2 do not starts, because of small states will to live as indipendent nations together.
The alliances countrys Denmark,Estonia,Finland,Lattvia,Lietuva,Norway,Sweden,
Polen. assosiated BeNeLux, and other coutrys who whant to trade whit alliance.
And whit Hilerīs, Stalinīs plans of expansion fails, they got executed 1938.
This message has been edited by ingenting on Oct 22, 2006 6:07 PM
I don't understand....How is it possible for there to be a scenario where France attacks Germany during their invasion of Poland while Germany signs an alliance with Poland to attack Russia? It makes no sense.
Any kind of French invasion of Germany would have been thwarted, indefinitely. While the French were busy with their Maginot Line, Germany had a near-equivalent just opposite the French wall. Knowing the French government of the time, there wouldn't have been a carefully planned assault through Belgium and Holland, as Germany had done, but a straight attack on the German defensive wall.
As for a treaty with Poland, that definitely would never happen (or have happened). One of Hitler's primary ambitions was to destroy Slavs forever. There was no doubt that he held a deep hatred for Poland. At the drawn of the invasion, I'm willing to bet that Poland was more afraid of the impending assault from Nazi Germany then a renewed strike by Russia (in fact, weren't they stunned that Russia even aided the Germans?).
In order to take down Russia, Japan should have helped from the very beginning of the attack, instead of wasting time on incurring America's wrath at Pearl Harbor. Had Japan focused on bringing the Chinese factions against one another, she could have then properly helped against Russia, which would then have fallen under serious pressure.
My scenario: Germany wins the Battle of Britain and lands soldiers on the islands. How would the British have fought back? Would they have folded as quickly as the French, or would they have resisted? Could they have matched the German army and eventually save their island from the invasion?
La Repubblica Ragusana - La quinta repubblica marittrima! Italia triumphs again! "When valour takes the field, short will the conflict be; Barbarian rage shall yield the palm to Italy. The vital spark remains, and Roman blood still warms Italians' veins."
- Petrarch
NO 1 Saarland was a German county whit France i Charge, Swedish Troops there
in 20ies for Bound of Nations so itīs was a free state whit allowance of France.
Quote:Operation Sealion - summary of an exercise held at the
Staff College, Sandhurst in 1974.
The scenario is based on the known plans of each side, plus previously unpublished Admiralty weather records for September 1940. Each side (played by British and German officers respectively) was based in a command room, and the actual moves plotted on a scale model of SE England constructed at the School of Infantry. The panel of umpires included Adolf Galland, Admiral Friedrich Ruge, Air Chief Marshal Sir Christopher Foxley-Norris, Rear Admiral Edward Gueritz, General Heinz Trettner and Major General Glyn Gilbert.
The main problem the Germans face is that are a) the Luftwaffe has not yet
won air supremacy; b) the possible invasion dates are constrained by the
weather and tides (for a high water attack) and c) it has taken until late
September to assemble the necessary shipping.
22nd September
Morning The first wave of a planned 330,000 men hit the beaches at dawn.
Elements of 9 divisions landed between Folkestone and Rottingdean (near
Brighton). In addition 7th FJ Div landed at Lympne to take the airfield.
The invasion fleet suffered minor losses from MTBs during the night
crossing, but the RN had already lost one CA and three DDs sunk, with one CA
and two DDs damaged, whilst sinking three German DDs. Within hours of the
landings which overwhelmed the beach defenders, reserve formations were
despatched to Kent. Although there were 25 divisions in the UK, only 17
were fully equipped, and only three were based in Kent, however the defence
plan relied on the use of mobile reserves and armoured and mechanised
brigades were committed as soon as the main landings were identified.
Meanwhile the air battle raged, the Luftwaffe flew 1200 fighter and 800
bomber sorties before 1200 hrs. The RAF even threw in training planes
hastily armed with bombs, but the Luftwaffe were already having problems
with their short ranged Me 109s despite cramming as many as possible into
the Pas de Calais.
22nd - 23rd September
The Germans had still not captured a major port, although they started
driving for Folkestone. Shipping unloading on the beaches suffered heavy
losses from RAF bombing raids and then further losses at their ports in
France.
The U-Boats, Luftwaffe and few surface ships had lost contact with the RN,
but then a cruiser squadron with supporting DDs entered the Channel narrows
and had to run the gauntlet of long range coastal guns, E-Boats and 50
Stukas. Two CAs were sunk and one damaged. However a diversionary German
naval sortie from Norway was completely destroyed and other sorties by MTBS
and DDs inflicted losses on the shipping milling about in the Channel.
German shipping losses on the first day amounted to over 25% of their
invasion fleet, especially the barges, which proved desperately unseaworthy.
23rd Sept dawn - 1400 hrs.
The RAF had lost 237 planes out 1048 (167 fighters and 70 bombers), and the
navy had suffered enough losses such that it was keeping its BBs and CVs
back, but large forces of DDs and CAs were massing. Air recon showed a
German buildup in Cherbourg and forces were diverted to the South West.
The German Navy were despondant about their losses, especially as the loss
of barges was seriously dislocating domestic industry. The Army and Airforce
commanders were jubilant however, and preperations for the transfer of the
next echelon continued along with the air transport of 22nd Div, despite
Luftwaffe losses of 165 fighters and 168 bombers. Out of only 732 fighters
and 724 bombers these were heavy losses. Both sides overestimated losses
inflicted by 50%.
The 22nd Div airlanded successfully at Lympne, although long range artillery
fire directed by a stay-behind commando group interdicted the runways. The
first British counterattacks by 42nd Div supported by an armoured brigade
halted the German 34th Div in its drive on Hastings. 7th Panzer Div was
having difficulty with extensive anti-tank obstacles and assault teams armed
with sticky bombs etc. Meanwhile an Australian Div had retaken Newhaven (the
only German port), however the New Zealand Div arrived at Folkestone only to
be attacked in the rear by 22nd Airlanding Div. The division fell back on
Dover having lost 35% casualties.
Sep 23rd 1400 - 1900 hrs
Throughout the day the Luftwaffe put up a maximum effort, with 1500 fighter
and 460 bomber sorties, but the RAF persisted in attacks on shipping and
airfields. Much of this effort was directed for ground support and air
resupply, despite Adm Raeders request for more aircover over the Channel.
The Home Fleet had pulled out of air range however, leaving the fight in the
hands of 57 DDs and 17 CAs plus MTBs. The Germans could put very little
surface strength against this. Waves of DDs and CAs entered the Channel, and
although two were sunk by U-Boats, they sank one U-Boat in return and did
not stop. The German flotilla at Le Havre put to sea (3 DD, 14 E-Boats) and
at dusk intercepted the British, but were wiped out, losing all their DDs
and 7 E-Boats.
The Germans now had 10 divisions ashore, but in many cases these were
incomplete and waiting for their second echelon to arrive that night. The
weather was unsuitable for the barges however, and the decision to sail was
referred up the chain of command.
23rd Sep 1900 - Sep 24th dawn
The Fuhrer Conference held at 1800 broke out into bitter inter-service
rivalry - the Army wanted their second echelon sent, and the navy protesting
that the weather was unsuitable, and the latest naval defeat rendered the
Channel indefensible without air support. Goring countered this by saying it
could only be done by stopped the terror bombing of London, which in turn
Hitler vetoed. The fleet was ordered to stand by.
The RAF meanwhile had lost 97 more fighters leaving only 440. The airfields
of 11 Group were cratered ruins, and once more the threat of collapse, which
had receded in early September, was looming. The Luftwaffe had lost another
71 fighters and 142 bombers. Again both sides overestimated losses
inflicted, even after allowing for inflated figures.
On the ground the Germans made good progress towards Dover and towards
Canterbury, however they suffered reverses around Newhaven when the 45th Div
and Australians attacked. At 2150 Hitler decided to launch the second wave,
but only the short crossing from Calais and Dunkirk. By the time the order
reached the ports, the second wave could not possibly arrive before dawn.
The 6th and 8th divisions at Newhaven, supplied from Le Havre, would not be
reinforced at all.
Sep 24th dawn - Sep 28th
The German fleet set sail, the weather calmed, and U-Boats, E-Boats and
fighters covered them. However at daylight 5th destroyer flotilla found the
barges still 10 miles off the coast and tore them to shreds. The Luftwaffe
in turn committed all its remaining bombers, and the RAF responded with 19
squadrons of fighters. The Germans disabled two CAs and four DDs, but 65% of
the barges were sunk. The faster steamers broke away and headed for
Folkestone, but the port had been so badly damaged that they could only
unload two at a time.
The failure on the crossing meant that the German situation became
desperate. The divisions had sufficient ammunition for 2 to 7 days more
fighting, but without extra men and equipment could not extend the
bridgehead. Hitler ordered the deployment on reserve units to Poland and the
Germans began preparations for an evacuation as further British arracks
hemmed them in tighter. Fast steamers and car ferries were assembled for
evacuation via Rye and Folkestone. Of 90,000 troops who landed on 22nd
september, only 15,400 returned to France, the rest
were killed or captured.
In less than a week, the German invasion of Britain ends in desaster
I meant for those scenarios to be considered seperately. I know that some of them are unlikely, but they are only hypothetical. As for the Polish treaty being impossible, He signed a treaty with slavic russia, to invade Poleand, so I'm thinking what if the opposite had occured?
I don;t think that the westwall was equivalent to the maginot line, It was more of a Propaganda thing at that time, and remember that the bulk of the german army was in Poland.
My scenario: Germany wins the Battle of Britain and lands soldiers on the islands. How would the British have fought back? Would they have folded as quickly as the French, or would they have resisted? Could they have matched the German army and eventually save their island from the invasion?
The British plan, I beleive was to attack the Germans with Poison Gas on the Beaches, which would probably do a lot of damage. The british Government though, planned to depose Churchill, and make peace the instant that the invasion started, so that is an unknown about how that would play out. At any rate, A gas attack on German troops would trigger a response with their new Tabun, and Sarin gasses, which were unknown to the allies (I believe), causeng probably death on the scale of the Allied firebombing raids. If the British had fought, I believe that they would have won, as the Germans had a very limited supply of Barges at their disposal, nothing compared to the D-Day offensives. If these are lost, then the attack cannot be continued. However, you said that the Battle of Britian has been won. If this is the case, then the luftwaffe can use long-range aircraft to support U-boats, and would almost certianly force Peace, by starving the British.
As well, records show that Japan would have declared war upon news of a german invasion of England, complicating things in the far east. While Britian was defending itself, It would have no troops to send to Egypt, and the Suez canal would almost certianly be captured by the Itialian invasion of Egypt in 1940.
1: France launches an attack on germany while the German army is busy attacking Poleand.
This scenario is irrelevant to start with.
France had a conscription army and she needed 5 weeks to mobilize. The plan expected Poland to stand 3 month in the worst scenario. She stand 2 weeks! (Thanks to the Russians BTW)
If you want to make a scenario, just say that Gamelin had protected the Ardenne and had managed to put one division per 5-7 km of front for the whole area which wasn't protected by the Maginot line instead of dispach the force stupidly.
Quote:The british Government though, planned to depose Churchill, and make peace the instant that the invasion started
where did you get this from? Do you have a single link to back it up?
by this time Halifax and Beaverbrook had been discredited utterly and appeasement was finished as a policy, the invasion plans were all set including the stay behind and spec op units and the equipment already cashed.
Anyway as the scenario proves Sea Lion was an impossibility
''Anyway as the scenario proves Sea Lion was an impossibility''
Anyone could make up an scenario...
The German generals werent dumn,and so were the british.
They knew very well what they were doing.
The Uk new that it would have to win the BoB.
SO they put everything into the RAF.
Now the szenario is that Germany won BoB.(btw the szenario you posted is about a german landing during BoB,not during German air superiority)
With air superiority the Wehrmacht could send as many troops as it wanted onto your island,which would have resulted in just another Blitzkrieg.
(also as 7keys already mentioned,is the fact that the Italain Invasion of egypt would have suceeded)
But these scenarios examine the aftermath of a successful Wermacht landing. Although I don't think a successful landing was possible, IF it happened things wouldn't have gone so bad for ze Germans.
All they needed to do is capture/create on airstrip and one harbor.
The RN DD flotilla would not have faired so well afterwards in the channel. It would be crammed in there at the mercy of Luftwaffe raids.
RAF fighters would have been asked to protect the RN in the channel and that would have changed the fortunes of the airwar completely. It's very different to wait and jump at your enemy while near your fuel and ammo and radars.
The terrain in most of England lacks any serious high ground / mountains. Which is necessary for defence / attrition of the campaigning enemy. Panzer divisions would have had a field day on this sort of soil.
All that IF there was a successful first landing / beach head. But I don't think that was possible. With no naval and aerial superiority those barges would have been chopped to pieces before they made it to 10 meters from the shore (tide or no tide).
She still hadn't surrendered at that point. The last military resistance to Germany ended on the 6th of October. Warsaw wasn't even taken till the 27th of September (German troops entered on the 1st of October).
This message has been edited by Pax_Britannica on Oct 29, 2006 4:16 PM
Not to mention the seven months where the French waited behind their fortresses and did nothing. Besides, even if you accept that Poland had ceased to exist as a military force after only 2-3 weeks, it still takes longer than that for the German army to redeploy to face France. The German high command has stated that their main worry at that time was a french attack, or an all-out bombing of the Rhur. I believe that the British tried to attack these places and Itialian oil refineries at this time, but the French stopped them.
That's it, after the 17th of September Poland hadn't any usefull military anymore.
And as said before, France had a conscription army and she needed 5 weeks at least to mobilize all those rookies (while the German had their forces already operational and experienced in Poland where they could adjust their tactics and give them a first fire experience)
That left 39 million people France in a very weak strategical position on front of 87 million people Germany.
So the Maginot line made sens, not as a absolutally defensive line itself but it allowed to mobilize less troops to defend this line and thus to concentrate them elsewhere.
The main point with Blitzkrieg is that time is a absolutally critical parameter.
If it's slowered, the defender can move troops to reenforce the impact point and thus prevend the "arrow" to go through and then destroy the rear of the army.
Experience showed that when there were 1 division per 5-7 km of front, the Blitzkrieg is slowered enough and becomes ineficient.
It happend the first time at Gemloux and Hannut in Belgium (12-15th of may) where 4 German divisions including 3nd and 4th PzD where stopped by 1+2 French divisions (1DLM tank division first to slow the flow - the biggest tank battle of the west front to the end of the war - and then 1DM and 15DIM).
Near Sedan the 9th Army had one division per 20-30 km of front and the lines were brocken with absolutally disastrous effects.
All at their victory, the German didn't learnt the teatching of Gemloux / Hannut**.
Unfortunately the same rule applied later on the east front...
So IMO the only relevant scenario whould be to put one division per 5-7 km of front which isn't protected by the Maginot line instead of pack them in Belgium ready to get trapped there.
Then I don't say that the allies would have won but it would have looked more like the east front after 1943 where only the weight of iron counted.
-** After Hannut and Gembloux the losses are heavy on both sides. The I/2e RTM is reduced to 74 men out of 700 men initially. On the German side the 12th rifle regiment (4.PzD) has lost 30% of its officers. The 1st battalion of this regiment is left with 4 officers and 31 men operational from an initial complement that should have exceeded 700 men. The 3rd rifle regiment (3.PzD) has lost 15 officers and 184 men. In Hannut some 164 German tanks were knocked out and in Gembloux the French artillery alone destroyed about 50 German tanks, including 32 in the Pz.Rgt.35. On 15th May, the 4.PzD had only 137 operational available tanks left (including only 4 Panzer IV) from its 331 tanks. So there were 194 tanks damaged, under recovery/repair or destroyed after the battles of Hannut and Gembloux. Only 41 % operational tanks!
This message has been edited by c-seven on Oct 29, 2006 10:45 PM This message has been edited by c-seven on Oct 29, 2006 10:42 PM
That's it, after the 17th of September Poland hadn't any usefull military anymore.
You can't say that when there were still major military engagements against the Polish up until the 6th October. Warsaw did not stop fighting until the 27th. The Hel Peninsula garrison tied down a hefty amount of German forces until the 1st October. And a totally new, large battle, the Battle of Kock, began on the 2nd October and didn't end until the 6th of October.
And like the previous poster said, it was not like the Germans defeated Poland in two weeks and immediately turned its forces against France. Ergo, Germany was not lined up against French forces on the the 17th of September. France got its 5 weeks.
The French got more than "five weeks" to prepare for the inevitable German invasion. After Poland, there was a brief pause in the war, and afterward, the Germans attacked Norway and Denmark. France wasn't invaded until at least mid June.
La Repubblica Ragusana - La quinta repubblica marittrima! Italia triumphs again! "When valour takes the field, short will the conflict be; Barbarian rage shall yield the palm to Italy. The vital spark remains, and Roman blood still warms Italians' veins."
- Petrarch
nah! If you include Austria, tcheck (sp?) and other "freed" Germans (who were all more nazi than the average German btw) that makes 87 million!
Erix gave a link about it once.
The French got more than "five weeks" to prepare for the inevitable German invasion.
Sure. But France did not have their 5 weeks to mobilize and organize a attack on Germany while 80% of the German army was in Poland.
After the 17th of September, the Germans could move back 80% of their force to the west front if necessary. We must thanks Stalin for this.
When we know how events turned out later, one can say that the french should have attacked anyway because it couln't be worst than actual events but it's a bit easy to say 60 years later in our armchair IMO.
Again, all in all, in a alternative scenario I would have:
- put one division per 5-7 km of front not protected by the Maginot line (and specially on front of Luxemburg and the Ardena of course)
- organized all Samoa and B1 tanks in dedicated tank divisions (like the french began to do (too late) at the end of May
A competent human could have made this choice while the choice to attack Germany in October could have been made only by a omnicient kamikaze in the context of the time (though a better choice than what happend finally).
After the 17th of September, the Germans could move back 80% of their force to the west front if necessary. We must thanks Stalin for this.
Two things.
a) It didn't happen. Because Poland was NOT defeated at that point. 17th of September is not some significant date which meant 'Game Over' when quite clearly the Poles were still fighting tooth and nail.
b) It was a land grab. The Germans actually got more of Poland than was agreed with Russia initially, so leaving was out of the question, just to make sure that the Russians didn't take more than was agreed.
I support Israel
