I'm not sure whether this has ever been done before. A search didn't turn up anything, so here's a question that has absorbed me for a while now...
On 1 Sept. 1939 Germany invades Poland, in which it is joined on 17 Sept. by the USSR. The UK & France declare war vs Germany, but they do nothing about the USSR. In fact, aside from declaring war they don't really do anything about Germany either.
On 30 Nov. 1939 the USSR invades Finland. On 13 March 1940 Finland sues for peace, yielding 11% of its pre-war territory & 30% of its economic assets to the USSR.
On 9 April, fearing for the security of its shipments of iron ore fron Sweden thru the northern Norwegian port of Narvik, Germany invades Denmark & Norway.
...but, up until Finland sued for peace the UK & France were planning to send troops to land at Narvik, cut off the supply of Swedish iron ore, occupy the Swedish iron-mining districts, & provide military help to the Finns.
So let's say that the UK & France are a little more pro-active. In OTL the League of Nations deemed the Soviet attack illegal & expelled the USSR on 14 Dec. Despite the constraints of a severe northern winter, Anglo-French forces begin immediately planning to land at Narvik, & they arrive by the end of the month. They then occupy the Swedish iron-mining districts & deploy by airlift from Narvik to Helsinki.
The USSR didn't break thru the Mannerheim Line 'til 15 Feb. (the decisive 2d Battle of Summa). Under these conditions Anglo-French forces would be in position at least a month before then-- let's say just a division apiece with a little corps-level support. The UK & France then warn the USSR that any attack on the Mannerheim Line will now be construed as an act of war, but of course the USSR doesn't listen.
...so now the UK & France are at war with the USSR.
Conceivably Norway might accept Anglo-French troops at Narvik as a guarantee against German intervention, as long as the UK & France leave the rest of Norway alone-- which they're willing to do. Sweden, though, I think would declare war & seek an alliance with Germany. Germany has to send troops anyway to regain control of the Swedish iron-mining districts, so this works to the advantage of both.
With Germany's Swedish shipments of iron ore now cut off, the Reich has to scramble to find new sources. By 1971 the world's largest producer of iron ore was the USSR, so presumably that's their source. Now Germany & the USSR are united by a pretty strong tie, & they're both at war with the UK & France.
Finland, of course, gets screwed pretty bad. I see Finland ending up either as a Soviet colony, or maybe partitioned between Germany & the USSR if Germany can get troops up there fast enough. Hitler was greedy that way.
Opposed by Swedish, Germany, & Soviet forces, I have my doubts that the UK & France can put enough forces into northern Sweden & Norway to win. The terrain favors the defense, so maybe they can hold on for a year or so, but in the long run...?
In 1940 do the UK & France invade Germany? And how does the Wehrmacht perform, fighting a defensive war on German soil? Given the Anglo-French problems experienced in 1940 in OTL I'm not optimistic about their chances.
Mussolini would arguably still have invaded Greece, & Yugoslavia still would have an anti-Nazi coup d'etat in early '41, so the Balkans operation still has to be fought. But with German losses in Scandinavia & in the defensive battles along the Rhein, even if the Wehrmacht is successful in a counter-invasion of France in late '40 or early '41, it's very doubtful that Barbarossa can proceed on schedule.
...and what are the long-term implications for German-Soviet relations? Given that Hitler hates their guts & is panting for his chance to invade, does he hold off 'til '42? By that time the Wehrmacht has seen the T-34 tank & they know their tank industry is 'way behind that of the USSR, so really he's gotta wait 'til '43 or even '44. By this time the Soviets have completely recovered from the Purge of 1937, & the Germans are much better-informed about Soviet strengths.
IMHO, Barbarossa in '43 or '44 is not only suicide-- it would be seen as suicide. Does Hitler accept this & choose a different path or does he push forward-- & if he does then can the military high command replace him?
Thegn.
On 1 Sept. 1939 Germany invades Poland, in which it is joined on 17 Sept. by the USSR. The UK & France declare war vs Germany, but they do nothing about the USSR. In fact, aside from declaring war they don't really do anything about Germany either.
On 30 Nov. 1939 the USSR invades Finland. On 13 March 1940 Finland sues for peace, yielding 11% of its pre-war territory & 30% of its economic assets to the USSR.
On 9 April, fearing for the security of its shipments of iron ore fron Sweden thru the northern Norwegian port of Narvik, Germany invades Denmark & Norway.
...but, up until Finland sued for peace the UK & France were planning to send troops to land at Narvik, cut off the supply of Swedish iron ore, occupy the Swedish iron-mining districts, & provide military help to the Finns.
So let's say that the UK & France are a little more pro-active. In OTL the League of Nations deemed the Soviet attack illegal & expelled the USSR on 14 Dec. Despite the constraints of a severe northern winter, Anglo-French forces begin immediately planning to land at Narvik, & they arrive by the end of the month. They then occupy the Swedish iron-mining districts & deploy by airlift from Narvik to Helsinki.
The USSR didn't break thru the Mannerheim Line 'til 15 Feb. (the decisive 2d Battle of Summa). Under these conditions Anglo-French forces would be in position at least a month before then-- let's say just a division apiece with a little corps-level support. The UK & France then warn the USSR that any attack on the Mannerheim Line will now be construed as an act of war, but of course the USSR doesn't listen.
...so now the UK & France are at war with the USSR.
Conceivably Norway might accept Anglo-French troops at Narvik as a guarantee against German intervention, as long as the UK & France leave the rest of Norway alone-- which they're willing to do. Sweden, though, I think would declare war & seek an alliance with Germany. Germany has to send troops anyway to regain control of the Swedish iron-mining districts, so this works to the advantage of both.
With Germany's Swedish shipments of iron ore now cut off, the Reich has to scramble to find new sources. By 1971 the world's largest producer of iron ore was the USSR, so presumably that's their source. Now Germany & the USSR are united by a pretty strong tie, & they're both at war with the UK & France.
Finland, of course, gets screwed pretty bad. I see Finland ending up either as a Soviet colony, or maybe partitioned between Germany & the USSR if Germany can get troops up there fast enough. Hitler was greedy that way.
Opposed by Swedish, Germany, & Soviet forces, I have my doubts that the UK & France can put enough forces into northern Sweden & Norway to win. The terrain favors the defense, so maybe they can hold on for a year or so, but in the long run...?
In 1940 do the UK & France invade Germany? And how does the Wehrmacht perform, fighting a defensive war on German soil? Given the Anglo-French problems experienced in 1940 in OTL I'm not optimistic about their chances.
Mussolini would arguably still have invaded Greece, & Yugoslavia still would have an anti-Nazi coup d'etat in early '41, so the Balkans operation still has to be fought. But with German losses in Scandinavia & in the defensive battles along the Rhein, even if the Wehrmacht is successful in a counter-invasion of France in late '40 or early '41, it's very doubtful that Barbarossa can proceed on schedule.
...and what are the long-term implications for German-Soviet relations? Given that Hitler hates their guts & is panting for his chance to invade, does he hold off 'til '42? By that time the Wehrmacht has seen the T-34 tank & they know their tank industry is 'way behind that of the USSR, so really he's gotta wait 'til '43 or even '44. By this time the Soviets have completely recovered from the Purge of 1937, & the Germans are much better-informed about Soviet strengths.
IMHO, Barbarossa in '43 or '44 is not only suicide-- it would be seen as suicide. Does Hitler accept this & choose a different path or does he push forward-- & if he does then can the military high command replace him?
Thegn.