You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
1

[–] DukeofAnarchy 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

The USSR invaded Finland in 1940 and only won a limited victory after a bitter struggle and heavy losses. In 1941 the Soviets were in no condition to attack Germany. The Germans had the opportunity to destroy the British army in 1940 in the French campaign, and foolishly let them get away. Even so, they could have won the war in the west in 1941, either by direct cross-channel invasion or by crushing the British in the Mediterranean.

Occupying Spain (with or without Franco's consent) and Gibraltar, Malta, and taking the Middle East through Turkey and Egypt, would have cut off the British from the remains of their overseas empire. It would also have neutralized the Mediterranean, allowing the German and Italian navies to co-operate in the Atlantic. Iraq and Iran were in revolt against the British and could easily have been taken, providing an alternative source of oil. Even IRL, the British were totally beaten and exhausted by mid-1941. A full offensive would have forced them to sue for peace. Then, secure in the west, Germany would have been in a much better position to fight the USSR in 1942.

0
0

[–] daskapitalist ago 

Germany absolutely could not conduct Sea Lion, as you suggested. They could not gain air superiority even for a brief, tactical period. They also could not provide adequate naval coverage for a cross-channel invasion. In addition, Germany possessed only an inadequate number of river barges that werent truly suitable for an amphibious landing due to the high risk of swamping (even the wake from a British destroyer would sink them, nevermind actual weapons).

0
0

[–] DukeofAnarchy ago 

All of those standard objections to Sea Lion are overstated IMO (especially the first: the Luftwaffe, despite bad tactics, was well on the way to crushing the RAF before Hitler called off the invasion in favor of strategic bombing and submarine warfare.) I think that Sea Lion could have succeeded in 1940. But that was not the scenario that I actually discussed in my post. I envisaged an invasion in 1941, after a year of preparations which would naturally include the building of more landing ships and transport planes.

0
0

[–] HarlandKornfeld14 ago 

You are underestimating the Soviets. If they struck before Hitler had all his stuff on the borders they could've taken out the Romanian oilfields and thrown the whole thing into disarray.

0
0

[–] DukeofAnarchy ago 

No, you're overestimating them. The resources needed for my proposed strategy would not have precluded adequate defensive preparations in the east. Also, you're forgetting that, in the case of a Soviet war of aggression, Japan would have been obliged by the Tripartite Pact to declare war. So Stalin would certainly have been faced with the prospect of a war on two fronts. And what would the British do? From Stalin's point of view, it was quite possible that the British would at least take the opportunity to negotiate a favorable peace with Germany, if not join the war on the German side. Then the USSR would be fighting alone against the combined forces of world capitalism.