neil hilton wrote:My mistake. I forgot to put smilie at the end of my comment about stealing nukes I also think such a thing is pretty much a non-starter.
neil hilton wrote: IMO it was that first winter on the eastern front that really was the turning point of the eastern front, it gave the USSR time to mobilize fully and gear up its industry. After that it became a war of attrition.
neil hilton wrote:Regarding whether the OSS would steal the nazi nuke first or vce versa. The OSS learned their trade from SOE, if there was no SOE then the OSS may well not have even been formed. The gestapo were internal security, it was the Abwehr who would have attempted to steal the US nuke. Headed by Admiral Canares (who turned out to be an anti-nazi and deliberately sabotaged many of the Abwehrs operations during the war).
neil hilton wrote:This was the initial premise of this hypothetical scenario, to answer those who have commented on the nature of the British capitulation. It supposes that Britain was successfully invaded and defeated in the winter and spring of 1941 and then forced into surrender and sort of neutrality just like what the Germans did with France after they defeated them (Vichy France et al).
From this it supposes that the mainland of Britain would have to be occupied like France in order to keep both populations in line.
The reaction of British overseas possessions and the military forces there (RN, RAF, Army etc) to the defeat and occupation of Britain would be similar to those seen by French overseas territories (some would fight on, some would capitulate). British ex-dominion territories like Canada and Australia were independant countries and Allies of Britain, whether they would fight on or not is part of the question and thus left to those who want to reply to make their case for whatever scenario conclusion they choose to.
Essentially put I started the thread with Britain and France (not necessarily their empires included) defeated and occupied and Barbarossa started in May 41 and let everybody run with it.
neil hilton wrote:
I doubt very much that British military forces like the French would actually switch sides and start fighting for the Germans, those that capitulated would be demobbed.
neil hilton wrote:
One point that hasn't been mentioned regarding Barbarossa. .....the Germans could have sent in a million more men but would still have failed because of the weather and the inability of their vehicles to move during the spring and autumn, German weapons froze during the winter.
The only real opportunity to invade Russia successfully would be during the few summer months, so the earlier than historical intended time of May rather than June would be more significant than greater numbers.
A 1942 start to Barbarossa might benefit the Germans if they had made full use of the extra year by moving on to a total war economy and greatly increasing tank and aircraft production. Particulary if Stalin had his Siberian reserves further west by 1942.
RF wrote:A 1942 start to Barbarossa might benefit the Germans if they had made full use of the extra year by moving on to a total war economy and greatly increasing tank and aircraft production. Particulary if Stalin had his Siberian reserves further west by 1942.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests