Search results

Because the British also had no interest in seeing the Russians and French dominate the continent. Historically there was a period of detente between Germany and Britain in 1913-1914 and Bethmann-Hollweg and Tyrell were working on an understanding of sorts.

So effectively the war. Hyperbole.

There are no other countries. Britain would care about France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Norway. Luxemburg and everything east of the Rhine would be thrown under the bus. That would now be irrelevant, Britain had effectively lost.

Do you really believe that Britian wouldn't trade Poland for Western Europe in a heartbeat? Sure they would have. Germany's eyes were on the East, they would most certainly have traded away France for British recognition of a German Poland and western Russia

They would have in exchange for a free western Europe in a hypothetical peace in 1940-41.

Yes it was.

Yeah probably, It is in any case an interesting scenario for the French High Command to figure out if German marines are landing in Le Havre, Calais, Boulogne, and Cherbourg, and the British refusing to join the war.

This would be an interesting scenario if the Brits stayed out of the war entirely.

That's still pretty slow then, huh

Me too haha

Also the weather was a problem. According to Niklas Zetterling, the onset of the Raputista was critical in slowing down/stopping the German advance:

1. That doesn’t guarantee that the US will invest the resources to be able to develop it, nor that mistakes aren’t made which may prolong development. 3. When you start ranting about “wehraboos” in your reply to me, don’t act surprised that I take that as implied towards me. Be more careful with...

My point you have missed is that Moscow does not equal defeat in 1941 due to a drop in Russian morale like Napoleon expected (although it's not outside the realm of possibility). My point is that unlike 1812, Moscow falling in 1941 would militarily endanger the survival of the Soviet Union...

There is no guarantee that the US still successfully develops nor uses the bomb on Germany. The air war from the German point of view was extremely mismanaged. There is plenty they could have done to drag it out if not win it over Germany outright. This is especially the case if the USSR is...

Those are comparisons of the broader invasion of Russia, not taking Moscow.

Something that also needs to be addressed is the how Soviet agriculture was on the brink of collapse throughout the war. How would the capture of the Moscow region impact this? Also: something that should be factored in is the additional presence of weather PODs. Not only would a drought in...

Why is this silly comparison always made? Moscow in 1941 was nothing like 1812. Moscow was not the capital in 1812, nor was it the industrial, logistical, or population hub that it was in 1941. Hitler conquered much more territory than Napoleon did, just look at these maps. This is not including...

Unlike Japan, Germany historically had a decent air defense network and comparable aircraft development despite the war in the East consuming everything. With the Oil and space to train in the East, in addition to the rare metals needed for jet engines, super/turbochargers, etc. it is...

Yes they do. Your map assumes that all of those rail lines are equal and have the same transport capacity, which they do not. Your problem is that the amount of population and positional control given to the Germans in the white void that is automatically given to the Germans if Moscow falls is...

Your maps show that without Moscow, the Red Army is disjointed and the Germans hold all the advantage, able to go after Leningrad, Gorky, and Stalingrad/Caucasus, with the Soviets hamstrung in being able to defeat it. Moscow-Gorky (IIRC between August and October) recruited 40% of the troops...