Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

How would WW2 have turned out if started later?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> How would WW2 have turned out if started later? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
How would WW2 have turned out if started later? - 7/27/2009 2:36:05 PM   
SS Hauptsturmfuhrer


Posts: 358
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline

It's been said that Hitler started the ball rolling too early. Everything was just right for Germany with the Rhineland, Czech and Austria deals etc coupled with a revamped German economy and public stability... then the invasion of Poland screwed everything up.

So what if Germany had put off invading Poland or France for a few more years, maybe even 5 years? Donitz and Guderian could have had more medium tanks and submarines to make their plans work better. Everything about the German army would have been improved before going to war while the allies remained content that appeasement was working. Churchill would not have been elected leaving England leaderless and passive.

The only catch is Russia took a whooping from Finland and despite their losses, the lessons learned were invaluable. So the Soviet Union was getting stronger each year after the invasion of Finland. So there's a flipside for Germany to put it off.

Note that this question is not intended to be rhetorical, derogatory, condescending, racist, genocidal, a personal insult to you, nor a secret code to trigger the opening of a new branch of The Klan in your country. If after reading this you experience immense hatred or a heart attack coming on, please seek professional help immediately.

_____________________________

Post #: 1
RE: How would WW2 have turned out if started later? - 7/27/2009 2:47:19 PM   
105mm Howitzer


Posts: 447
Joined: 8/9/2007
From: Montreal, Quebec
Status: offline
And that flipside, SS, is just the problem. Russia would have been stronger ( some say ready by 1942) enough to turn it's eyes West. Would they have attacked? You kidding? Stalin was, at the core, a dictator just as Hitler was. The outcome would have been the same, ie: Germany conquered by the Red Army.

_____________________________

"Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum" - Publius Renatus, 390 A.D.

(in reply to SS Hauptsturmfuhrer)
Post #: 2
RE: How would WW2 have turned out if started later? - 7/27/2009 2:52:05 PM   
SS Hauptsturmfuhrer


Posts: 358
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 105mm Howitzer

And that flipside, SS, is just the problem. Russia would have been stronger ( some say ready by 1942) enough to turn it's eyes West. Would they have attacked? You kidding? Stalin was, at the core, a dictator just as Hitler was. The outcome would have been the same, ie: Germany conquered by the Red Army.


Maybe true but if Russia attacked a passive Germany in 1942, it may have sparked support for Germany from the western allies and possibly even Scandinavia or the Commonwealth, especially if Churchill had any influence.

_____________________________


(in reply to 105mm Howitzer)
Post #: 3
RE: How would WW2 have turned out if started later? - 7/27/2009 2:59:23 PM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SS Hauptsturmfuhrer
So what if Germany had put off invading Poland or France for a few more years, maybe even 5 years? Donitz and Guderian could have had more medium tanks and submarines to make their plans work better.


The naval war might have gone better for Germany, with a lot more submarines. ASW techniques took time to refine, having a small number of U-boats gave the Allied navies time to hone their techniques. A "Happy Time" when the U-boat fleet was large might have been decisive.

However, on land and in the air, I think a later start would be all bad for Germany. There is a case to be made for starting even earlier than they did I think. In 1938-9 the Luftwaffe would have absolutely destroyed the RAF over Britain. The 109 was in use in the Spanish Civil War, while in 38 the Allies were still flying complete junk - by 1940 the Allies had comparable machines.

Also I think if France was given more time to prepare they might have done a better job. They had begun creating armoured corps in 1940 for example. The French army in 1941 might have been a considerably more capable machine than it was in 1940.

_____________________________


(in reply to SS Hauptsturmfuhrer)
Post #: 4
RE: How would WW2 have turned out if started later? - 7/27/2009 3:03:08 PM   
105mm Howitzer


Posts: 447
Joined: 8/9/2007
From: Montreal, Quebec
Status: offline
I wouldn't put much hope in them. If, as you say, Germany would be passive in 1942, it still remained the most active military force in the West. The British and French were too complacent, and these make poor allies. How much would they have contributed ion the defense of the Reich? Piss-poor little.

_____________________________

"Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum" - Publius Renatus, 390 A.D.

(in reply to SS Hauptsturmfuhrer)
Post #: 5
RE: How would WW2 have turned out if started later? - 7/27/2009 3:04:58 PM   
105mm Howitzer


Posts: 447
Joined: 8/9/2007
From: Montreal, Quebec
Status: offline
Besides, many in the military and government wanted to see the 2 dictators at each other's throats, since both were largely un-appreciated.

_____________________________

"Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum" - Publius Renatus, 390 A.D.

(in reply to 105mm Howitzer)
Post #: 6
RE: How would WW2 have turned out if started later? - 7/27/2009 3:07:57 PM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 105mm Howitzer

Besides, many in the military and government wanted to see the 2 dictators at each other's throats, since both were largely un-appreciated.


That was Chamberlain's plan all along... the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is what really put the frighteners on Britain/France.

_____________________________


(in reply to 105mm Howitzer)
Post #: 7
RE: How would WW2 have turned out if started later? - 7/27/2009 5:21:59 PM   
RedArgo


Posts: 524
Joined: 8/2/2004
From: Illinois
Status: offline
I saw a show on The Military Channel the other night that said if Hitler had delayed his attack on Poland or maybe France, I don't remember for sure, that Britain and France may have declared war of the USSR because of Finland. That would certainly have changed the way events worked out.

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 8
RE: How would WW2 have turned out if started later? - 7/27/2009 6:23:41 PM   
doomtrader


Posts: 5321
Joined: 7/22/2008
From: Poland
Status: offline
The German economy was not able to wait any longer for the war, if they will wait for some more time, then there will be no WW2 started by Third Reich.

_____________________________


(in reply to RedArgo)
Post #: 9
RE: How would WW2 have turned out if started later? - 7/27/2009 6:53:52 PM   
jackx

 

Posts: 353
Joined: 7/8/2009
From: Germany
Status: offline
The prediction on economic readiness being at is peak that I remember from my school textbook was for the early 1940's, but I think we picked holes in that back then in class already, because it completely failed to acknowledge the changes in readiness of other countries.

Then again why would you even wait on something as trivial as the economy when you're starting a war for ideological reasons...


_____________________________

no truth - no justice
all false belief
blinded by morality
there shall be ... no peace

(in reply to doomtrader)
Post #: 10
RE: How would WW2 have turned out if started later? - 7/27/2009 7:05:47 PM   
doomtrader


Posts: 5321
Joined: 7/22/2008
From: Poland
Status: offline
I think that the war was not for ideology. It was another war of conquest, for German Lebensraum.
Nazis just use 'common enemy' to focus the society attention.

_____________________________


(in reply to jackx)
Post #: 11
RE: How would WW2 have turned out if started later? - 7/27/2009 7:18:50 PM   
jackx

 

Posts: 353
Joined: 7/8/2009
From: Germany
Status: offline
I'd rate the whole concept of "Lebensraum" as an ideological motivation - for material, not immaterial gains, but it's not about conquering land because you can, but because you think you have a (moral) right to it.
Of course, my reference-point is power-politics prior to the rise of (modern) nationalism, and after the decline of religious motivations, so I have a bit of a puristic view on this.
As far as modern power politics go, the 1938/39 period, from the German point of view, probably qualifies as ruthless and "pure" - but compared to the invasion and occupation of Saxony in 1756 it's still heavily ideologically charged.

_____________________________

no truth - no justice
all false belief
blinded by morality
there shall be ... no peace

(in reply to doomtrader)
Post #: 12
RE: How would WW2 have turned out if started later? - 7/27/2009 9:28:15 PM   
paullus99


Posts: 1985
Joined: 1/23/2002
Status: offline
There has been several arguments that Germany was actually in a better position to fight the Western Allies in 1938 than in 1939 - both Britain & France were still just beginning to gear up in response to Germany's build-up, the Chain Home Radar stations weren't in place yet, and the RAF was under-equipped & without Spitfires.

Waiting wouldn't have put Germany in a better position - since a lot of their wartime development of tanks and other equipment was done because of facing superior Allied/Soviet equipment in battle (and there would have been a lot more of it - on the Western Allied & Soviet side).

_____________________________

Never Underestimate the Power of a Small Tactical Nuclear Weapon...

(in reply to jackx)
Post #: 13
RE: How would WW2 have turned out if started later? - 7/27/2009 10:29:41 PM   
SLAAKMAN


Posts: 2725
Joined: 7/24/2002
Status: offline
It wouldve depended upon Jet tech and whether or not the Germans really did win the Atomic race or not;

Hitlers Atomic Bomb
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3KmIgAkx8E

Hitlers Atomic Bomb FULL Part #2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TmIlFH105I

_____________________________

Germany's unforgivable crime before the Second World War was her attempt to extricate her economy from the world's trading system and to create her own exchange mechanism which would deny world finance its opportunity to profit.
— Winston Churchill

(in reply to paullus99)
Post #: 14
RE: How would WW2 have turned out if started later? - 7/28/2009 1:32:56 AM   
morvwilson


Posts: 510
Joined: 11/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 105mm Howitzer

Besides, many in the military and government wanted to see the 2 dictators at each other's throats, since both were largely un-appreciated.

This was very true. There was a US senator who said in the chambers when Germany invaded Russia, that we should aide whomever is losing, and switch our aide if the tide turns thus killing as many of both as possible. That senator was Harry Truman.

_____________________________

http://www.outskirtspress.com/Feud_MichaelWilson

Courage is not measured by the presence of fear, but by what a person does when they are scared!

(in reply to 105mm Howitzer)
Post #: 15
RE: How would WW2 have turned out if started later? - 7/28/2009 2:17:10 AM   
SS Hauptsturmfuhrer


Posts: 358
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvwilson


quote:

ORIGINAL: 105mm Howitzer

Besides, many in the military and government wanted to see the 2 dictators at each other's throats, since both were largely un-appreciated.

This was very true. There was a US senator who said in the chambers when Germany invaded Russia, that we should aide whomever is losing, and switch our aide if the tide turns thus killing as many of both as possible. That senator was Harry Truman.


That must be why Jim Carrey was chosen to represent Harry Truman.

_____________________________


(in reply to morvwilson)
Post #: 16
RE: How would WW2 have turned out if started later? - 7/28/2009 4:11:32 AM   
Carl Myers

 

Posts: 136
Joined: 9/16/2003
Status: offline
Now, let's see. Germany does not invade Poland in 1939. The conflict between the U.S. and Japan continues to heat up to President Rooseveldt's embargo in mid-41. Japan has six months to accede or go to war. If Japan goes to war, the US. GB, France and Netherlands ramp up their economies and their militaries and defeat the Japanese about timeGermany had planned to go to war.

(in reply to SS Hauptsturmfuhrer)
Post #: 17
RE: How would WW2 have turned out if started later? - 7/28/2009 9:05:47 AM   
SS Hauptsturmfuhrer


Posts: 358
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Carl Myers

Now, let's see. Germany does not invade Poland in 1939. The conflict between the U.S. and Japan continues to heat up to President Rooseveldt's embargo in mid-41. Japan has six months to accede or go to war. If Japan goes to war, the US. GB, France and Netherlands ramp up their economies and their militaries and defeat the Japanese about timeGermany had planned to go to war.


Good point. You also have to consider the likely changes to the agendas of both America and Japan if the European war was not happening. There are a lot of possibilities to the Pacific situation. I wonder if Roosevelt would have put as much pressure on Japan without the world's attention being fixed on Germany's war.

_____________________________


(in reply to Carl Myers)
Post #: 18
RE: How would WW2 have turned out if started later? - 7/28/2009 3:27:50 PM   
Mobius


Posts: 10339
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline
If the war was delayed for maybe 5 years Germany might have invented a computerized ultra that was uncrackable. Then the Allies would be in for a treat.

(in reply to SS Hauptsturmfuhrer)
Post #: 19
RE: How would WW2 have turned out if started later? - 7/28/2009 3:53:36 PM   
sprior


Posts: 8596
Joined: 6/18/2002
From: Portsmouth, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana


quote:

ORIGINAL: SS Hauptsturmfuhrer
So what if Germany had put off invading Poland or France for a few more years, maybe even 5 years? Donitz and Guderian could have had more medium tanks and submarines to make their plans work better.


The naval war might have gone better for Germany, with a lot more submarines. ASW techniques took time to refine, having a small number of U-boats gave the Allied navies time to hone their techniques. A "Happy Time" when the U-boat fleet was large might have been decisive.



If you look at Plan Z you will see that it called for a huge increase in surface combatants, not so much submarines. germany fought the battle of the Atlantic with what it had, not what it wanted.

_____________________________

"Grown ups are what's left when skool is finished."
"History started badly and hav been geting steadily worse."
- Nigel Molesworth.



(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 20
RE: How would WW2 have turned out if started later? - 7/28/2009 7:10:22 PM   
Shawkhan

 

Posts: 125
Joined: 3/1/2006
Status: offline
Hitler missed the boat by not starting war in 1938. It was then that the ratio of forces most favored Axis success. The Germans had 5 panzer and 6 motorized divisions at this time compared to only 3 Allied Lt tank divisions and 3 motorized divisions. More importantly perhaps, is that the British Spitfire and the French DeWoitine fighters were missing in action. The air war and possible Sealion invasion of England would have been much more feasible then.
Contrary to 'popular' opinion, Chamberlain knew that Hitler was lying and 'Peace for our time' was simply not possible. Chamberlain was well aware of the total unpreparedness of Britain and knew he was not ready for war. The extra year of preparation he was able to get from the Munich agreement helped the Aliies to even the odds, not enough to save France of course, but enough to stave off total German victory.
If Hitler had waited until 1940 the odds would have perhaps been even, and war even later would have resulted in stalemate or worse for the Third Reich. If he had waited until 1942 he probably would have faced a Russian invasion as Zhukov already had the plan of attack on Germany filed and ready for use by 1941.

(in reply to sprior)
Post #: 21
RE: How would WW2 have turned out if started later? - 7/28/2009 10:35:32 PM   
morvwilson


Posts: 510
Joined: 11/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shawkhan

More importantly perhaps, is that the British Spitfire and the French DeWoitine fighters were missing in action. The air war and possible Sealion invasion of England would have been much more feasible then.


While the Spitfire and more numerous Hurricane fighters did contribute greatly to GB's air power, I don't think they were the decisive reason operation sealion was indefinitely postponed.
It was simple logistics.
Germany just did not have the shipping to cross the chanel with a large enough force to take the British isles and keep that force supplied. If they tried, they would have been in a position where the loss of a single ship could be catastrophic. This was why the Germans tried so hard to knock the RAF out of action.

The biggest thing that delayed the Normandy invasion was having enough LST's to carry troops and supplies over the chanel.

_____________________________

http://www.outskirtspress.com/Feud_MichaelWilson

Courage is not measured by the presence of fear, but by what a person does when they are scared!

(in reply to Shawkhan)
Post #: 22
RE: How would WW2 have turned out if started later? - 8/10/2009 11:00:46 PM   
Cmdrcain


Posts: 1161
Joined: 8/21/2000
From: Rebuilding FLA, Busy Repairing!
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shawkhan

Hitler missed the boat by not starting war in 1938. It was then that the ratio of forces most favored Axis success. The Germans had 5 panzer and 6 motorized divisions at this time compared to only 3 Allied Lt tank divisions and 3 motorized divisions. More importantly perhaps, is that the British Spitfire and the French DeWoitine fighters were missing in action. The air war and possible Sealion invasion of England would have been much more feasible then.
Contrary to 'popular' opinion, Chamberlain knew that Hitler was lying and 'Peace for our time' was simply not possible. Chamberlain was well aware of the total unpreparedness of Britain and knew he was not ready for war. The extra year of preparation he was able to get from the Munich agreement helped the Aliies to even the odds, not enough to save France of course, but enough to stave off total German victory.
If Hitler had waited until 1940 the odds would have perhaps been even, and war even later would have resulted in stalemate or worse for the Third Reich. If he had waited until 1942 he probably would have faced a Russian invasion as Zhukov already had the plan of attack on Germany filed and ready for use by 1941.






Interestingly.... Turtledove the top Alternate Fiction writers started what looks be a new series... "Hitlers war" which takes up on what if chamberlain had NOT...and the war started EARLY...

:) some twists in it like poland on Germanys side ;)



_____________________________

Noise? What Noise? It's sooooo quiet and Peaceful!

Battlestar Pegasus

(in reply to Shawkhan)
Post #: 23
RE: How would WW2 have turned out if started later? - 8/16/2009 5:40:42 AM   
Shawkhan

 

Posts: 125
Joined: 3/1/2006
Status: offline
One of Hitler's three major regrets, as related to Martin Bormann in 1945, was that he wished he had pushed the allies to war in 1938 over the Munich incident.

(in reply to Cmdrcain)
Post #: 24
RE: How would WW2 have turned out if started later? - 8/16/2009 8:35:45 PM   
Southernland


Posts: 2283
Joined: 11/19/2007
Status: offline
If the war had of commenced later it would certainly have lead to problems in one area, that of tanks.  1941 the Sovs had only just began committing T34s to battle, and encounters with them lead the Germans to producing the Panther over the Tiger, ie angled armour over brute force.   Had Op barbarossa commenced later the Soviets would have more of these deadly tanks in the feild whilst the Germans would have had PzIIIs & IVs plus Tigers and still would have faced the two year design/tooling/production delay before they could start producing Panthers. 

Similarly the Sovs would have had more time to reflect on and act on the lessons learnt during the Finnish Winter war and more time to recover from the officer purges

In the Pacific we can assume the Japanese would still have attacked Hawaii in a similar timeframe and would have faced the might of the US plus the European nations unaffected by a European war

In many ways the period 1939-1941 was the ideal time for the Axis offensive

(in reply to Shawkhan)
Post #: 25
RE: How would WW2 have turned out if started later? - 8/17/2009 8:48:34 PM   
teamgene

 

Posts: 15
Joined: 8/2/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shawkhan

Hitler missed the boat by not starting war in 1938. It was then that the ratio of forces most favored Axis success. The Germans had 5 panzer and 6 motorized divisions at this time compared to only 3 Allied Lt tank divisions and 3 motorized divisions. More importantly perhaps, is that the British Spitfire and the French DeWoitine fighters were missing in action. The air war and possible Sealion invasion of England would have been much more feasible then.
Contrary to 'popular' opinion, Chamberlain knew that Hitler was lying and 'Peace for our time' was simply not possible. Chamberlain was well aware of the total unpreparedness of Britain and knew he was not ready for war. The extra year of preparation he was able to get from the Munich agreement helped the Aliies to even the odds, not enough to save France of course, but enough to stave off total German victory.
If Hitler had waited until 1940 the odds would have perhaps been even, and war even later would have resulted in stalemate or worse for the Third Reich. If he had waited until 1942 he probably would have faced a Russian invasion as Zhukov already had the plan of attack on Germany filed and ready for use by 1941.


The panzer divisions in 1938 were made up of Panzer I and II's and would not have had the impact that they got by being able to augment them with Pz38's and heavy support Pz IV's they had later. The Pz III were too few to matter in either case. Also, there would have been a lack of 88's that were used so well by Guderian in France as a support weapon as well as AA.

Likewise if it started later, Russia may or may not have been stronger. I am not convinced that the T34 would have fully replaced the BT series as it was too heavy for the average bridge in Russia at the time. Russia had broken up its armored units after lessons learned in Finland, so possible it would have just meant a lot of captured T34's at the start? However, there would have been more PzIII's and if later, may have had the long barrel 50mm which could handle the early T34 at close range. Germany would have lost its edge in the air though.

However, Italy could possibly had been more of a factor in the war with a later start.

Great speech of 1940, almost totally forgotten:

At the end of five months of war one thing has become more and more clear. It is that Germany seeks to establish a domination over the world completely different from any known in history.

The domination at which the Nazis aim is not limited to the displacement of the balance of power and the imposition of supremacy of one nation. It seeks the systematic and total destruction of those conquered by Hitler, and it does not treaty with the nations which he has subdued. He destroys them. He takes from them their whole political and economic existence and seeks even to deprive them of their history and their culture. He wishes to consider them only as vital space and a vacant territory over which he has every right.

The human beings who constitute these nations are for him only cattle. He orders their massacre or their migration. He compels them to make room for their conquerors. He does not even take the trouble to impose any war tribute on them. He just takes all their wealth, and, to prevent any revolt, he wipes out their leaders and scientifically seeks the physical and moral degradation of those whose independence he has taken away.

Under this domination, in thousands of towns and villages in Europe there are millions of human beings now living in misery which, some months ago, they could never have imagined. Austria, Bohemia, Slovakia and Poland are only lands of despair. Their whole peoples have been deprived of the means of moral and material happiness. Subdued by treachery or brutal violence, they have no other recourse than to work for their executioners who grant them scarcely enough to assure the most miserable existence.

There is being created a world of masters and slaves in the image of Germany herself. For, while Germany is crushing beneath her tyranny the men of every race and language, she is herself being crushed beneath her own servitude and her domination mania. The German worker and peasant are the slaves of their Nazi masters while the worker and peasant of Bohemia and Poland have become in turn slaves of these slaves. Before this first realization of a mad dream, the whole world might shudder.

Nazi propaganda is entirely founded on the exploitation of the weakness of the human heart. It does not address itself to the strong or the heroic. It tells the rich they are going to lose their money. It tells the worker this is a rich man's war. It tells the intellectual and the artist that all he cherished is being destroyed by war. It tells the lover of good things that soon he would have none of them. It says to the Christian believer: "How can you accept this massacre?" It tells the adventurer - "a man like you should profit by the misfortunes of your country."

It is those who speak this way who have destroyed or confiscated all the wealth they could lay their hands on, who have reduced their workers to slavery, who have ruined all intellectual liberty, who have imposed terrible privations on millions of men and women and who have made murder their law. What do contradictions matter to them if they can lower the resistance of those who wish to bar the path of their ambitions to be masters of the world?

For us there is more to do than merely win the war. We shall win it, but we must also win a victory far greater than that of arms. In this world of masters and slaves, which those madmen who rule at Berlin are seeking to forge, we must also save liberty and human dignity.

Edouard Daladier - January 29, 1940





< Message edited by teamgene -- 8/17/2009 8:53:11 PM >

(in reply to Shawkhan)
Post #: 26
RE: How would WW2 have turned out if started later? - 8/17/2009 8:56:05 PM   
teamgene

 

Posts: 15
Joined: 8/2/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: teamgene

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shawkhan

Hitler missed the boat by not starting war in 1938. It was then that the ratio of forces most favored Axis success. The Germans had 5 panzer and 6 motorized divisions at this time compared to only 3 Allied Lt tank divisions and 3 motorized divisions. More importantly perhaps, is that the British Spitfire and the French DeWoitine fighters were missing in action. The air war and possible Sealion invasion of England would have been much more feasible then.
Contrary to 'popular' opinion, Chamberlain knew that Hitler was lying and 'Peace for our time' was simply not possible. Chamberlain was well aware of the total unpreparedness of Britain and knew he was not ready for war. The extra year of preparation he was able to get from the Munich agreement helped the Aliies to even the odds, not enough to save France of course, but enough to stave off total German victory.
If Hitler had waited until 1940 the odds would have perhaps been even, and war even later would have resulted in stalemate or worse for the Third Reich. If he had waited until 1942 he probably would have faced a Russian invasion as Zhukov already had the plan of attack on Germany filed and ready for use by 1941.


The panzer divisions in 1938 were made up of Panzer I and II's and would not have had the impact that they got by being able to augment them with Pz38's and heavy support Pz IV's they had later. The Pz III were too few to matter in either case. Also, there would have been a lack of 88's that were used so well by Guderian in France as a support weapon.

Likewise if it started later, Russia may or may not have been stronger. I am not convinced that the T34 would have fully replaced the BT series as it was too heavy for the average bridge in Russia at the time. Russia had broken up its armored units after lessons learned in Finland, so possible it would have just meant a lot of captured T34's at the start? However, there would have been more PzIII's and if later, may have had the long barrel 50mm which could handle the early T34 at close range. Germany would have lost its edge in the air though.

However, Italy could possibly had been more of a factor in the war with a later start.

Great speech of 1940, almost totally forgotten:

At the end of five months of war one thing has become more and more clear. It is that Germany seeks to establish a domination over the world completely different from any known in history.

The domination at which the Nazis aim is not limited to the displacement of the balance of power and the imposition of supremacy of one nation. It seeks the systematic and total destruction of those conquered by Hitler, and it does not treaty with the nations which he has subdued. He destroys them. He takes from them their whole political and economic existence and seeks even to deprive them of their history and their culture. He wishes to consider them only as vital space and a vacant territory over which he has every right.

The human beings who constitute these nations are for him only cattle. He orders their massacre or their migration. He compels them to make room for their conquerors. He does not even take the trouble to impose any war tribute on them. He just takes all their wealth, and, to prevent any revolt, he wipes out their leaders and scientifically seeks the physical and moral degradation of those whose independence he has taken away.

Under this domination, in thousands of towns and villages in Europe there are millions of human beings now living in misery which, some months ago, they could never have imagined. Austria, Bohemia, Slovakia and Poland are only lands of despair. Their whole peoples have been deprived of the means of moral and material happiness. Subdued by treachery or brutal violence, they have no other recourse than to work for their executioners who grant them scarcely enough to assure the most miserable existence.

There is being created a world of masters and slaves in the image of Germany herself. For, while Germany is crushing beneath her tyranny the men of every race and language, she is herself being crushed beneath her own servitude and her domination mania. The German worker and peasant are the slaves of their Nazi masters while the worker and peasant of Bohemia and Poland have become in turn slaves of these slaves. Before this first realization of a mad dream, the whole world might shudder.

Nazi propaganda is entirely founded on the exploitation of the weakness of the human heart. It does not address itself to the strong or the heroic. It tells the rich they are going to lose their money. It tells the worker this is a rich man's war. It tells the intellectual and the artist that all he cherished is being destroyed by war. It tells the lover of good things that soon he would have none of them. It says to the Christian believer: "How can you accept this massacre?" It tells the adventurer - "a man like you should profit by the misfortunes of your country."

It is those who speak this way who have destroyed or confiscated all the wealth they could lay their hands on, who have reduced their workers to slavery, who have ruined all intellectual liberty, who have imposed terrible privations on millions of men and women and who have made murder their law. What do contradictions matter to them if they can lower the resistance of those who wish to bar the path of their ambitions to be masters of the world?

For us there is more to do than merely win the war. We shall win it, but we must also win a victory far greater than that of arms. In this world of masters and slaves, which those madmen who rule at Berlin are seeking to forge, we must also save liberty and human dignity.

Edouard Daladier - January 29, 1940






(in reply to teamgene)
Post #: 27
RE: How would WW2 have turned out if started later? - 8/18/2009 5:21:46 AM   
SLAAKMAN


Posts: 2725
Joined: 7/24/2002
Status: offline
quote:

For us there is more to do than merely win the war. We shall win it, but we must also win a victory far greater than that of arms. In this world of masters and slaves, which those madmen who rule at Berlin are seeking to forge, we must also save liberty and human dignity.

Edouard Daladier - January 29, 1940

Pretty speech. Unfortunately the same shouldve been said of the Soviet Union and the Commintern 10 years earlier. The Nazi's were almost an exact duplicate of Stalinism and did as many previous militarists, borrowed from earlier conquerers spanning thousands of years including methods of the British Empire and the American subjugation of this continent. Had the Entente made a real effort to destroy the bolsheviks in the 1920's there might not have been a Second World War.

_____________________________

Germany's unforgivable crime before the Second World War was her attempt to extricate her economy from the world's trading system and to create her own exchange mechanism which would deny world finance its opportunity to profit.
— Winston Churchill

(in reply to teamgene)
Post #: 28
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> How would WW2 have turned out if started later? Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.730