Which is easier to knock out

Which is easier to knock out?


  • Total voters
    102
The USSR is by far the easiest to knock out. Just have the Germans keep Lenin in Switzerland and have Trotsky decided not to go into politics and the USSR will most likely die in the Russian civil war.
 
The UK. Completely destroy the forces in the North France-Belgium pocket and the government falls to be replaced by those wanting peace. The UK makes peace with Germany, meaning no Lend-Lease and meaning that as the UK is no longer an enemy, there is no need to attack ships travelling between the US and UK, meaning the US doesn't get dragged into the war. With no Lend-Lease Germany quite possibly mauls the USSR badly enough to force a negotiated peace and territorial concessions on the part of the USSR. The US goes to war only against Japan. So does what's left of the USSR, to save its pride. As it's no longer preoccupied with the war in Europe, and still has its massive technological advantage, they can devote more supply to the Manchurian offensive, meaning they take Manchuria faster and go all the way to Pusan by the time Japan surrenders. As a result, China still goes Communist, and the USSR devotes more resources to Communists in Asia, there being none left in Europe, causing Indochina, Thailand, and Burma at least to go Communist, and quite possibly Iran and/or at least one of the Indias. Iraq maybe too. Turkey will probably stay independent as a buffer state by playing off the Germans and Soviets against each other, and the Middle East may well become its own power bloc, using oil to pull the strings of the rest of the world, and the Arabs win in Palestine. Also no Sino-Soviet split, since the Soviets will need China to stay allied and devote more time and diplomacy towards that end.

Oh lookie, I knocked out both. (Still think the UK is easier, though.)
 

mowque

Banned
Why are we only talking about WW2? Go back to the early history of the UK, do something to block the UK from forming and butterflies will take care of the USSR. Two for the price of one.
 
Hm, except both Britain and Russian had modern industries producing modern equipment, whereas Japan...

Also happen to have nil natural resources in the home islands. A blockade rapidly reduces their industrial capacity to zero, after stockpiles finish.

Nevertheless, Should I assume that it's necessary to actually have them exist to "knock out" the countries? Otherwise, a pre-historical POD would be really easy. Prevent Russia from forming, or severely slow it down. Apply the same for the UK, have new powers that eventually try to subjugate either one.
 
Oh come on folks, the vast majority of the UK population supports the idea of UK. Once the people of the USSR got democracy, the USSR came to an end.
 
The best the Germans could hope to do is push the Russians over the Urals and try to put down the insurgents left behind and being snuck over the mountains to sabotage the German colonization. In the long term they won't win because of the size of the area and the terrain. The communists won't ever surrender and will be too heavily concealed to be defeated.

If the Germans can get passed the Royal Navy they have no army and few insurgents to oppose them in an occupied Britain. The Russians will fight on for decades of resources allow them too, the British can't do much.
 
After advancing to the Urals the Germans might have been able to extend their influence through the Turkic peoples in Soviet central Asia. Alfred Rosenberg had proposed a Reichskommissariat_Turkestan for this purpose, and had also envisioned suzerainty over Siberia. Some Wehrmacht planners had also envisioned extending control to the Yenesei River basin.

Japan was envisioned as conquering the Russian Far East, but the border clashes showed they were not up to that. There would more likely have been a US presence there if Rosenberg's scheme had been carried out.

Assuming Sea Lion fails, probably nothing short of nerve gas attacks on London would force a British surrender.
 
The UK. Completely destroy the forces in the North France-Belgium pocket and the government falls to be replaced by those wanting peace. The UK makes peace with Germany, meaning no Lend-Lease and meaning that as the UK is no longer an enemy, there is no need to attack ships travelling between the US and UK, meaning the US doesn't get dragged into the war. With no Lend-Lease Germany quite possibly mauls the USSR badly enough to force a negotiated peace and territorial concessions on the part of the USSR. The US goes to war only against Japan. So does what's left of the USSR, to save its pride. As it's no longer preoccupied with the war in Europe, and still has its massive technological advantage, they can devote more supply to the Manchurian offensive, meaning they take Manchuria faster and go all the way to Pusan by the time Japan surrenders. As a result, China still goes Communist, and the USSR devotes more resources to Communists in Asia, there being none left in Europe, causing Indochina, Thailand, and Burma at least to go Communist, and quite possibly Iran and/or at least one of the Indias. Iraq maybe too. Turkey will probably stay independent as a buffer state by playing off the Germans and Soviets against each other, and the Middle East may well become its own power bloc, using oil to pull the strings of the rest of the world, and the Arabs win in Palestine. Also no Sino-Soviet split, since the Soviets will need China to stay allied and devote more time and diplomacy towards that end.

Oh lookie, I knocked out both. (Still think the UK is easier, though.)

Alternate History Geek

Ah, have you actually knocked out the UK? If you get Halifax replacing Churchill and making peace Britain's influence in Europe is greatly reduced but you're extremely unlikely to have any occupation of Britain, or substantial parts of the empire. Which means while Germany sinks into the quagmire of subduing the Soviet empire, with huge loss of life and destruction on both sides, Britain licks its wounds and rebuilds, prompted by the defeat and the continued threat from the Nazis if they ever conquer the Russians. This might also mean that a bloody by pretty certain victory, possibly allied to the US, against Japan if it makes the mistake of trying to expand southwards thinking Britain weakened.

Steve
 
JacktheCat said:
It all relates to something called Strategic Depth
It relates to something called defense of trade.:rolleyes: If the supplies don't get through, people starve & industries stop producing war material.

If losses to merchant shipping are steep enough, Britain loses.

If losses to merchant shipping are steep enough to persuade her leaders to abandon convoy,:eek: Britain loses. (They were on the brink of doing it OTL in summer '43.:eek:)

Britain's capacity to replace her losses wasn't unlimited. Take away the 2710 Liberty ships (& IDK how many Victory ships), or about 20 million tons of shipping...& you have Japan.
 
The poll asks which is easier to knock out with the right PODs
Great Britain
The USSR

When?

The USSR could have easily been knocked out at the early stages of the Russian Civil War, especially if the Central Powers win, or if the Allied Powers took more action in protecting the new states like Ukraine and Armenia, and intervened more forcefully in the Russian Civil War.

Also, in a WWIII that occurs in the late 1940s or the early 1950s, especially one that occurs before the Soviet atomic bomb gets developed, the USA can curbstomp the Soviets.


On the other hand, for Great Britain, you can have Great Britain fall to the Fascists instead of Germany, and then have the Weimar Republic survive. (there are many timelines on here that have a surviving Weimar Republic) Do not terminate the Anglo-Japanese Alliance. A Fascist Great Britain probably has the monarch and parliament rejected, so they probably flee to Canada or somewhere else.

When Great Britain invades France for lands they did not have since the 1400s, they succeed, with Italy, Spain, and Portugal also taking part of France. The French government flees to Germany. When the Japanese militarists attack some important US base in the Pacific, the USA gets involved too. Around the end of the alternate WWII, after liberating France, a united French-German-American force successfully execute Sealion and bring down the British Fascist government, reinstalling the Parliament in place. (An American invasion of Ireland and Scotland might also be plausible)
 
If we're talking about the Stalinist era or earlier, then I'd say the USSR is considerably easier to knock out.

The UK's underdog reputation belies its temendous industrial strength, strong military tradition and competence, incredible monetary wealth and fighting spirit the equal of any country in the world. Britain's strength is like 75% of Germany but on an island protected by a gigantic navy. Also it has a great empire which means that as long as it retains sea power, it has an ample supply of food, manpower, petroleum, rubber and other valuable goods. Britain can be beaten in the same way that Japan: defeat at sea, blockade by submarine, and relentless strategic bombing - no invasion necessary. Unlike Japan however, Britain was, overall, a considerably stronger power than Japan ever was and posessed superior weaponry/technology in most areas, B) In addition to the resources of the empire, Britain itself had vast supplies of coal, iron, and certain minerals and it could produce a fair amount of food on its own if necessary. IMO Only the USA, a Germany that won WWI, or some kind of alliance between various great powers (against a Britain unsopported by the US) in a long, drawn out war would stand a good chance of really cracking them.

The Soviet Union was rich in almost all the necessary resources, fanatical in ideology, posessed a great deal of land, had great manpower, (eventually) had impressive industrial capacity and good technology (despite wrongfully imprisoning or driving away some talented engineers). It did however have the weakenesses of incompetent military leadership at times owning to the totalitarian politics of Stalin. It also had the weakness of people willing to cooperate with invaders thanks to years of repression and of famine.
 
Last edited:
The Germans at one point during the Battle of Britain came close to destroying the radar stations, and knocking out the RAF. Their submarine blockade was also crippling effective to the point where the Brits only had a few months worth of reserve supplies during 1942 so based on that the United Kingdom is easier to 'knock out' by far then the Soviet Union.

What can Germany do to win?

More investment into U-boats with longer production runs (20 to 30 boats per month) starting in 1937 instead of ramping up production after the war breaks out. Save money and resources by scrapping V-2 and other wonder weapon programs. Buy more iron ore from Sweden if you must to maintain production.

More aircraft and a continuation of funding into fighter and bomber aircraft designs that can deliver a sustained air war with a actual focus against RAF airfields and radar stations instead of carpet bombing city's, and maybe a strategic bomber or a long-range maritime reconnaissance aircraft that could help the Germans better coordinate Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe strikes on convoys.

Give a additional six to ten months of the combined effort of this sustained pressure by the Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe and by mid 1941 England is eventually is worn out / has no choice but to sue for peace due to the fact that the British Merchant marine can no longer sustain the English economy.
 
Vonar Roberts said:
What can Germany do to win?
Best thing would be introduce the Type XXI streamlining & battery capacity to a *Type VII/40 or *Type IX/40.

Nothing in the Type XXI OTL was really new...& with that kind of advantage in '40, they'd have been damn near unstoppable.

Trouble is, you need for Dönitz to realize the need, & to accept the change. Either alone is pretty hard; both is practically ASB. Unless he takes a convenient fall down a flight of stairs...:rolleyes:
 
It also had the weakness of people willing to cooperate with invaders thanks to years of repression and of famine.

Even with Vlasov's army and Stalin's incredible stupidity about sending war prisoners to be investigated/imprisoned upon liberation (which allowed Vlasov to form the army in the first place), the percentages are somewhat small, definitely not on the same scale as in Yugoslavia or France. This point is often overemphasized, usually coupled with underplaying just how brutal German occupation was even in areas that were the most collaborationist (former Eastern Poland, for example), and how important this brutal approach was to extracting food and labour to be able to carry on the war.
 
Even with Vlasov's army and Stalin's incredible stupidity about sending war prisoners to be investigated/imprisoned upon liberation (which allowed Vlasov to form the army in the first place), the percentages are somewhat small, definitely not on the same scale as in Yugoslavia or France. This point is often overemphasized, usually coupled with underplaying just how brutal German occupation was even in areas that were the most collaborationist (former Eastern Poland, for example), and how important this brutal approach was to extracting food and labour to be able to carry on the war.
German brutality is famous for making Stalin's reign of terror look tolerable by comparison. Hitler wanted to take the land to fufill that grand plan for a German "lebenstraum" which involved displacement, subjugation and extermination of the people living there. How the people would have reacted to a power instead intent on simply defeating and overthrowing Stalin is hard to say but it would have been a liability for the country.
 
German brutality was famously worse even than Stalin's, which is quite a feat. Hitler wanted to take the land to fufill that grand plan for a German "lebenstraum" which involved displacement, subjugation and extermination of the people living there. How the people would have reacted to a power instead intent on simply defeating and overthrowing Stalin is hard to say but it would have been a liability for the country.

Well. It was sort of part of his ideology, though the Nazis could be flexible enough sometimes. It was also part of how the army and the industry of the Reich was supposed to carry the apocalyptic final battle going. So it's not very easy to avoid.

If it was someone else invading the USSR simply to overthrow Stalin, it wouldn't be WW2 as we know it. And I suspect it still wouldn't be easy.

If it's a non-WW2 POD though, USSR isn't even a given. The Civil War could have resolved in several ways. So could the end of WW1. There could have been no USSR to knock out as such.
 
German brutality is famous for making Stalin's reign of terror look tolerable by comparison. Hitler wanted to take the land to fufill that grand plan for a German "lebenstraum" which involved displacement, subjugation and extermination of the people living there. How the people would have reacted to a power instead intent on simply defeating and overthrowing Stalin is hard to say but it would have been a liability for the country.

Agreed, replace Hitler with some sane German leader and the Soviet government would be in a lot more trouble.
 
In principle since the USSR doesn't exist anymore and was much shorter lived than Great Britain has been....well the answer is obvious that the USSR was easier to 'knock out'.
But the British Empire was "knocked out" several decades before the USSR ended, so this seems rather even.
 
Top