What if history scenarios

[Pessimistic]

Yeah but it wasn't so clear cut

 

[Pessimistic]

Suppose Britain had stayed out of the war or come in much later

Most of Europe would have been stripped of young men. Britain could have cleaned up

The only downside is britains war technology would have been decades behind

I guess I'm saying do what the Americans did

 

[Present Not Past]

I guess I'm saying do what the Americans did

The US succeeded because they had the manufacturing and manpower necessary to produce a huge fighting force - they also didn't have to endure submarine blockades and regular bombings raids.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

What if the Irish had joined the Allies in WW2 on the condition that the British ceded the 6 counties to Irish control instead of maintaining neutrality?

 

[LeverPuller]

What if the Irish had joined the Allies in WW2 on the condition that the British ceded the 6 counties to Irish control instead of maintaining neutrality?

Different-looking Troubles. Doesn't change it much IMO.

 

[FredLeDeux]

What if the Irish had joined the Allies in WW2 on the condition that the British ceded the 6 counties to Irish control instead of maintaining neutrality?

The entire Cabinet would have been committed to an insane asylum for risking another Curragh.

 

[thejester]

What if the Irish had joined the Allies in WW2 on the condition that the British ceded the 6 counties to Irish control instead of maintaining neutrality?

Even putting aside the massive sectarian issues etc I suspect Belfast was much too important a dockyard for the British to consider giving it up, particularly given that Ireland's military value was pretty minimal.

 

[Tigger Please!]

Here's one a little closer to home and quite apt given we're using a football forum:
What if Victor Trumper and his associates had adopted Victorian Rules instead of Northern Union Rugby Rules for their fledgling professional football league in Sydney back in 1908?
Assuming that the NSWFL would go on to follow a similar trajectory to the NSWRL, how different would the AFL look today if that had happened?
Would've the NSWFL (with its higher population and leagues clubs/gambling revenue) become the hegemonic football league instead of the VFL?
Or perhaps would've we seen an A-League style reboot with a more egalitarian spread of football clubs in the inevitable "national" league?
Would've there been a larger adoption of the game in New Zealand, Papua New Guinea and the South Pacific Islands?

 

[FredLeDeux]

Here's one a little closer to home and quite apt given we're using a football forum:
What if Victor Trumper and his associates had adopted Victorian Rules instead of Northern Union Rugby Rules for their fledgling professional football league in Sydney back in 1908?
Assuming that the NSWFL would go on to follow a similar trajectory to the NSWRL, how different would the AFL look today if that had happened?
Would've the NSWFL (with its higher population and leagues clubs/gambling revenue) become the hegemonic football league instead of the VFL?
Or perhaps would've we seen an A-League style reboot with a more egalitarian spread of football clubs in the inevitable "national" league?
Would've there been a larger adoption of the game in New Zealand, Papua New Guinea and the South Pacific Islands?

Richmond would finish 19th, instead of 9th.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

With the coming release of the Dunkirk movie, it re-raises the question of what would have happened had the Germans had pushed on and stopped the evacuation. Could have been a blood bath, and left England virtually dramatically undermanned.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

With the coming release of the Dunkirk movie, it re-raises the question of what would have happened had the Germans had pushed on and stopped the evacuation. Could have been a blood bath, and left England virtually dramatically undermanned.

Would have been more of a psychological victory than anything else. The British would have been completely demoralised, the free french virtually wiped out. At the very least it may have lessened the priority of the Germans to cross the channel and they may have been more effective when it came to the Battle of Britain.

Just imagine BEF wiped out, Little Boats slaughtered, Royal Navy sunk off the coast of France.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

Would have been more of a psychological victory than anything else. The British would have been completely demoralised, the free french virtually wiped out. At the very least it may have lessened the priority of the Germans to cross the channel and they may have been more effective when it came to the Battle of Britain.

I'm not sure, the Brit's couldn't just replace 300,000+ men. Without a solid number of British fighting men the US might never have entered the European theatre.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

I'm not sure, the Brit's couldn't just replace 300,000+ men. Without a solid number of British fighting men the US might never have entered the European theatre.

I agree I just think the psychological effect on British resolve would have had an even greater effect and also would have allowed the Germans to act with more caution and better preparation when attempting the invasion of the British Isles or even completely disregarded the need to at all in the short term.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

I agree I just think the psychological effect on British resolve would have had an even greater effect and also would have allowed the Germans to act with more caution and better preparation when attempting the invasion of the British Isles or even completely disregarded the need to at all in the short term.

For all of Churchills buster, could well have seen a form of peace agreed.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

For all of Churchills buster, could well have seen a form of peace agreed.

Yes if the Germans had secured total victory at Dunkirk, Churchill would not have been able to make a propaganda victory out of the evacuation and the public would have found his bluster less appealing they may have seen him as an idiot yelling at the wind.

 

[JoondalupJ]

I agree I just think the psychological effect on British resolve would have had an even greater effect and also would have allowed the Germans to act with more caution and better preparation when attempting the invasion of the British Isles or even completely disregarded the need to at all in the short term.

I've read on here that the Germans would have really been hard pushed to the limits to invade the Britain, even with out Dunkirk working out.
I don't think they had the where with all at that moment and they planned obviously to invade Russia , which was going to be one of the worlds greatest disasters, for the German army.
I like to think that Hitler and his cronies really had no idea of the fight and only lasted the 4 or 5 years of WW2 because their Generals were capable at times of saving situations for Hitler, except of course the D Day invasion, which they tried , but idiocy from the head stuffed that up.
I think maniacal ego driven feelings of grandeur from Hitler and his misled nutty smartarses , had them stuffed before they started, and apparently even Poland may have been a bit premature, it all panned out badly in the end even though some success was major at the start.
Bluff was a lot of Hitlers game, reality struck home finally.
I think the USA would have entered the war no matter what , they could not have left Europe to Hitler, also I believe that even if Japan had stayed out, but, one thing that may shoot me down with that one , is that5 the Amercian public still vividly remembered the WW1 horrors and weren't ready for another War, when they'd seen the slaughter in Europe, even before they committed to WW1.
So Roosevelt may have had a time persuading them.
But think on the USA if the enemies of Germany were totally defeated, god help the world.

Fortunately it didn't happen.

 

[JoondalupJ]

Yes if the Germans had secured total victory at Dunkirk, Churchill would not have been able to make a propaganda victory out of the evacuation and the public would have found his bluster less appealing they may have seen him as an idiot yelling at the wind.

Fortunately someone yelled into the wind and didn't stand back and get reemed!

 

[Tigger Please!]

For all of Churchills buster, could well have seen a form of peace agreed.

With 300k odd BEF troops captured (I think the majority would've surrendered - their situation at Dunkirk was completely hopeless) it would've been one heck of a bargaining chip for the Nazis.
Hitler's grudging admiration for "Perfidious Albion" would've likely seen a pretty generous armistice offered which Churchill would've had a very hard time convincing the public not to accept.
Had Churchill not accepted, the Battle of Britain, which already in this historical trajectory hung on a knife's edge for a few key weeks in Winter 1940, probably would've swung in favour of the Luftwaffe over the RAF.
From there, who knows?
Operation Sea Lion probably would've gone ahead - it's difficult to say how successful it would've been. Stalin may have seized that opportunity to launch the Red Army into Europe perhaps taking even more of the continent.
Had Churchill accepted, it would've only been a temporary respite to regroup and prepare his counter-punch, likely with aid of the Americans.
Hitler would've been able to turn his attention almost entirely to the East with probably more, if not outright, success.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

With the coming release of the Dunkirk movie, it re-raises the question of what would have happened had the Germans had pushed on and stopped the evacuation. Could have been a blood bath, and left England virtually dramatically undermanned.

It is certainly an interesting what if question. If the entirety of the BEF was wiped out, it would have strengthened Lord Halifax's push for a negotiated peace, especially if Hitler pushed even harder for a diplomatic solution to seeking peace with Britain, whilst preparing for an invasion of the British Isles.

The problem remained that the Germans would have still struggled to gain air and naval supremacy, but once on land, they would have very little opposition outside Home Guard units and Churchill's guerilla fighters (It was actually an initiative instigated by Churchill in May 1940), who lacked modern equipment and artillery.

A major issue was however, even if the Germans landed a decent sized force, the Royal Navy controlled the supply lines to France and the Luftwaffe was not in the strongest position to completely supply their troops via air supply, due to heavy air transport losses in Holland and Poland. As the battle of Stalingrad showed, the Luftwaffe just didn't have the planes or capacity to sustain a large enough force for a long period of time, funnily enough, the Stalingrad battle was crucial in breaking the back of the Luftwaffe on the Eastern Front by 1943.


Back to your original question, I challenge the reason why Hitler stopped his tanks. I believe it was not so much letting the 'British off the hook', but more so because German tank crews were absolutely buggered by this point by days of combat and the high mileage gained, so German panzer division commanders pushed for a brief rest, which Hitler granted because he needed to finish off the reforming French forces across the Seine River. Adding to this, Goering in his infinite wisdom gave assurances that the Luftwaffe would finish the BEF off. So if the order was not given and the Germans would have pushed on with a mass armoured attack straight away with motorized infantry and luftwaffe support, it would have been a bloodbath. The delay allowed the British and French to establish a rearguard and fight for every mile back to the beach. However, the German panzer crews and the tanks/vehicles themselves would have been absoultely buggered if this happened and may not have been in a position to support a major land campaign in Britain in such a short turn around.

Great what if, BTW.

 

[JoondalupJ]

With 300k odd BEF troops captured (I think the majority would've surrendered - their situation at Dunkirk was completely hopeless) it would've been one heck of a bargaining chip for the Nazis.
Hitler's grudging admiration for "Perfidious Albion" would've likely seen a pretty generous armistice offered which Churchill would've had a very hard time convincing the public not to accept.
Had Churchill not accepted, the Battle of Britain, which already in this historical trajectory hung on a knife's edge for a few key weeks in Winter 1940, probably would've swung in favour of the Luftwaffe over the RAF.
From there, who knows?
Operation Sea Lion probably would've gone ahead - it's difficult to say how successful it would've been. Stalin may have seized that opportunity to launch the Red Army into Europe perhaps taking even more of the continent.
Had Churchill accepted, it would've only been a temporary respite to regroup and prepare his counter-punch, likely with aid of the Americans.
Hitler would've been able to turn his attention almost entirely to the East with probably more, if not outright, success.

In the face of the Dunkirk disaster , the Battle of Britain was won, and would have been that way anyway, which ever way the events turned because of Dunkirk.
In the air they were desperate I'd suggest equal and in some cases probably better machinery for weapons, and without a doubt totally equal to the German pilots of the era.
There could be lots of different reasons Hitler did not take the obvious track to invade of Britain, but he didn't and all the guess work in the world for us out here is not going to get an answer.
I tend to believe the Germans were a little bit hesitant in whether they should go ahead, because they were not really prepared to do it, maybe the invasion went much better than they thought in the initial part of the push into France, got ahead of themselves, weren't sure how far to go, or maybe Hitler thought we can in the end, ally, with the Brits because they are Anglo Saxon Germanic people too. And ridden with a class distinction social set up, maybe he thought they be good Nazis , well they didn't think like that at all hey? But something held him up, maybe stupidity.

 

[pugsville]

It
The problem remained that the Germans would have still struggled to gain air and naval supremacy, but once on land, they would have very little opposition outside Home Guard units and Churchill's guerilla fighters (It was actually an initiative instigated by Churchill in May 1940), who lacked modern equipment and artillery.

Incorrect. The British did not send all their troops into France. IIRC about 10 divisions went to France, there were over 20 available in September 1940 (mostly about half strength though a couple e at full strength which had not been to France) The British had lost a lot of heavy weapons and were very short of tanks and anti tank guns and had about half their artillery. The British had at least some vaguely simailar force to the BEF it had sent to France,

Two pretty Full quipped divisions were sent to France AFTER Dunkirk. (the Second BEF), after Dunkirk most of this force another 191,000 British personnel (many rear areas personnel) were evacuated from France.

Although the BEF was evacuated was a great boost to British Morale, the formations would take some time to be battle ready and did not really make up the front line units in late 1940. Other formations were better equipped and not knocked around in France.

German would NEVER have gotten naval supremacy in 1940. The german navy was badly mauled in the Battle of Norway. The German navy was pretty small anyway , the Royal Navy vastly outnumbered the German navy.

The Germans would struggle to land a decent fighting force. They were relying on rover barges and it take them weeks to land all the invasion force ferrying across from their ports. The Germans would also struggle to land heavy weapons, transport and tanks, which would greatly equalise the british Lack of Heavy Weapons. The Luftwaffe also suffered significant losses in France, the transport aircraft in particular suffered heavily in Holland. the Air Lift capacity was not great.

So sure the British didnt have a large fully equiped Army, and the loss of the BEF would have reduced manpower, but they still had a significant fighting force, and their shortage was equipment rather then troops. It would have reduced their fighting power but bless than you would think.

 

[pugsville]

A fundmental misunderstanding of British politics in 1940 is prevalent. The British decided to fight so they appointed Churchill rather than they appoint churchill who decided to fight. Churchill was symbolic of their determination, not the cause of it.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Incorrect. The British did not send all their troops into France. IIRC about 10 divisions went to France, there were over 20 available in September 1940 (mostly about half strength though a couple e at full strength which had not been to France) The British had lost a lot of heavy weapons and were very short of tanks and anti tank guns and had about half their artillery. The British had at least some vaguely simailar force to the BEF it had sent to France,

Two pretty Full quipped divisions were sent to France AFTER Dunkirk. (the Second BEF), after Dunkirk most of this force another 191,000 British personnel (many rear areas personnel) were evacuated from France.

Although the BEF was evacuated was a great boost to British Morale, the formations would take some time to be battle ready and did not really make up the front line units in late 1940. Other formations were better equipped and not knocked around in France.

German would NEVER have gotten naval supremacy in 1940. The german navy was badly mauled in the Battle of Norway. The German navy was pretty small anyway , the Royal Navy vastly outnumbered the German navy.

The Germans would struggle to land a decent fighting force. They were relying on rover barges and it take them weeks to land all the invasion force ferrying across from their ports. The Germans would also struggle to land heavy weapons, transport and tanks, which would greatly equalise the british Lack of Heavy Weapons. The Luftwaffe also suffered significant losses in France, the transport aircraft in particular suffered heavily in Holland. the Air Lift capacity was not great.

So sure the British didnt have a large fully equiped Army, and the loss of the BEF would have reduced manpower, but they still had a significant fighting force, and their shortage was equipment rather then troops. It would have reduced their fighting power but bless than you would think.

True, I should put in my original post about the other divisions, I just didn't value their combat strength as there were a few that were not the cream of the British army, most of those just arrived from Dunkirk or in North Africa were however. There were a few well equipped divisions as you noted, but there were a lot of weak and very under equipped formations too.

Interesting point from June 1940:

The number of men in the Army at Home today, including
Dominion troops is about 1,313,000, made up as follows:-
Field Army Troops ex B.E.F.- 275,000
" " " in U.K. 320,000
Air Defence 151,000
Coast Defence 13,000
Home Defence Battalions 42,6000
Holding Battalions (under disposal instructions to make up Field Force Units) 49,000
Training Units (half to make up Field Force Units) 365,000
Misc. Establishments 59,400
Canadians 22,000
Australians and New Zeaianders 16,000
Grand Total 1,313,000*
The average monthly intake is just under 50,000 under the
National Service Act, and about 27,000 volunteers.

In total, 165k lacked modern training.


Churchill's guerrillas and home guard units were largely poorly equipped.

I agree with the naval and air comments, the Kriegsmarine was woefully under equipped, even their u-boat numbers were very low.

 

[pugsville]

True, I should put in my original post about the other divisions, I just didn't value their combat strength as there were a few that were not the cream of the British army, most of those just arrived from Dunkirk or in North Africa were however. There were a few well equipped divisions as you noted, but there were a lot of weak and very under equipped formations too.

There were more than a few units part of the BEF that were not the cream of the British Army.
The British had plenty of manpower. They lacked heavy weapons.

in Sept 1940 they had 20 about half strength divisions and various bits and pieces. BEF captured would cut their trained manpower in half basically. Thought BEF formation would generally been better, there were a few divisions in pretty good shape an training not part of the BEF, an the BEF returned from France had been knocked around and was reequipping. The best units in late 1940 were formations not part of the 1st BEF.

So in a what if where the BEF i NOT evacuation at Dunkirk, the British have 1/2 the trained manpower, but all the weapons they had ( as in real life , as no heavy weapons came back) which was the critical shortage, as well as a lot of support troops and untrained manpower. While the lack of the BEF would have been a reduction it did not reduce them to nothing but the home guard. Compared to the likely force that the Germans could land even in fairly ideal scenarios it still represented a still substancial force, larger than the German invasion force and while short of heavy weapons the Germans would also be short of heavy weapons.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

I have got my own theories on this, but what if in the situation that Operation Sealion succeeded in 1940 and Yugoslavia joined the Axis like they were originally planning too, without a later coup (which occurred in 1941) would have Operation Barbarossa succeeded, especially considering that it would have kicked off a bit earlier in late April/early May 1941 instead of late June?