DBWI Germany Loses The Battle of Britain?
- Thread starter Black
- Start date
ASUKIRIK
Banned
They will be caught with their pants down when Stalin invades Germany through Scandinavia during the Summer of 1942, barely 3 months after the Peace being declared.
Sure, Soviet Union failed, but the Nazis are weakened enough by the fighting to defend "The Pure Aryan Kingdom of Sweden" that they collapsed out of sheer economic woes. Thankfully, the Heer's choice to reinstall the Kaiserreich to stabilize the situations worked and The Third Kaiserreich is now a democratic constitutional monarchy.
Sure, Soviet Union failed, but the Nazis are weakened enough by the fighting to defend "The Pure Aryan Kingdom of Sweden" that they collapsed out of sheer economic woes. Thankfully, the Heer's choice to reinstall the Kaiserreich to stabilize the situations worked and The Third Kaiserreich is now a democratic constitutional monarchy.
If the Germans are still fighting Britain when the Soviets attack, could the Soviets actually succeed?
Dolan
Banned
It was a certainty, considering Germany, with the help of Finland, Sweden, Hungary, Italy, and Japan (who helped by invading Siberia) could only defeat the Soviets after brutal battles that sees 12 million Axis Pact soldiers died, and many more civilians caught dead in the crossfire (mostly Polish and Ukrainians).
But yeah, if Germany was still fighting Britain at thw time, they would be stomped out by Stalin, and no help from the East is gonna helping them in the end.
Will Japan just not attack the Soviets and left Europeans at the mercy of the Communists though, if they deem Germany have no hope of winning against Soviet Union?
unlikely, if only because supplying the invasion through sweden was always their downfall. If they'd gone through poland, most historians agree they would've won, but Trotsky was never the sharpest tool in the shed
ASUKIRIK
Banned
That's because the bulk of the Heer concentrated in breaking through Polish SSR, and ended up tied up until the Japanese invasion of Siberia forced the Soviets to divide their attention. Trotsky knew that Germany would prepare for the bigger attack through Poland and thus, telling the Soviet-Polish SSR Armies to basically go on the total defensive, tying up German Army while the bulk of the Red Army outflank Germany through the guise of "Liberating" the Scandinavians (which in all fairness, make sense because Germany did invade and occupied Norway and Denmark first).
Sure, the invasion through Sweden could be said as not the most effective plan, but Trotsky's plan did make some sense when we look through his memoirs, as he expected the oppressed Scandinavian workers to actually side with the communists, and of course, some does out of their mutual loathing to Germany during the earlier part of the Northern War, and Soviet Army already found themselves entering WESTERN side of Germany and everything almost looked hopeless for the Axis.
And then Trotsky blundered by publicly executing King Gustav V of Sweden when he was captured after the Fall of Stockholm, sure, Trotsky hoped to end the "Old Feudalistic Institution", but that move ended up creating a Martyr where every Scandinavians could rally on (and deem Nazi Germany as the lesser evil, which is an achievement in itself).
Then the War was going from bad to worse from the Soviet from that point on.
Would Britain staying in the war led to US intervention in Europe? I know that President MacArthur said in 1949 that the US biggest mistake was not stopping Hitler.
Dolan
Banned
Said the very man who previously supported ditching China and bankrolling Japan to be the Asian Superpower we knew as today, while the Nazis ended up dethroned and Democracy restored in Germany (Through the NSDAP continue being the 2nd or 3rd largest party in the Reichstag, all with their horrible racist views only slightly reformed by post-Goring leadership).
Japan may be the most powerful country in Asia but China isn't far behind since Japan finally withdrew in the 60s. China is also the only country to use nukes in warfare since the 80s during the Sino-Commonwealth war.
ASUKIRIK
Banned
Which is the new level of stupidity all around.
Sure, wanted Hong Kong and Macau back right then and against British Commonwealth's attempt to reassert themselves in India (something that was caused due to extremely prolonged Hindu vs Muslim civil war after Britain was forced by US to get out), is rather understandable. But seriously? Nuking the very city they want to be reintegrated into their "Motherland"? Nuking Hong Kong because of Commonwealth forces able to take them back after China started to overstretch themselves by invading India?
MacArthur knows that China is as liable to insane adventurism as Japanese does, and Bose's India is way worse than both, but at least Japan is way more predictable and did not trample upon US' direct interests at that time.
But yeah, now on, there's a reason why Asia has been deemed as The Continent full of Crazies in the West.
Mao did infamously say 'Unity At All Costs'. People laughed at the time, but very few were laughing when 200 million people ended up dead from war and famine. On the other hand China is united now, but I'm pretty sure they could have done that without invading India and also without the Mongolian genocide while we are on the subject.
Still I don't think the 5 year blockade of China was necessary. Sure the United Kingdom couldn't invade China and weren't willing to accept their terms, but I believe it was unnessary and may have caused the famine.
Yeah it was rather odd they chose that path. Perhaps Trotsky got confused and was thinking it was the 1700s. On the other hand it did help reignite Scandinavian nationalism. Which allowed the Scandinavian federation to form once the Germans withdrew from Norway.
The original timeline decision was entirely rational and the only one they could have made based on what the British knew. The British spy & intelligence network was a complete mess and thoroughly infiltrated by several different powers, we now know, and what the British spy & intelligence network were telling the British government at the time was that Trotsky and the Berlin lunatics were best buddies and never going to turn on each other, and that if the British continued to fight, there was a good chance that Trotsky could persuade the Germans to team-up to invade and conquer India.
The British weren't achieving anything except losing a lot of shipping and getting a few bomber crews shot down, and they faced the prospect of seeing their Empire overwhelmed and conquered by someone else if they continued to fight. (They were already in trouble against the combined industrial potential of Germany/Italy/the collaborating half of Vichy France, alongside all the sabotage Communist International was doing in the UK country and across the British Empire to their own stuff; they would have been simply overwhelmed if you'd added Trotsky Russia to that mix.)
[ooc] I'm going with the 'Trotsky was in charge in Russia' scenario, here, which more posters seem to have rolled with than 'Stalin was in charge in Russia.' [/ooc]
Last edited: