Military Review

Five scenarios of how the history of World War II could not change

127
There are two different approaches to how история resistant to random factors. The first one says that by crushing the butterfly in the past, we can cause a chain reaction, which will result in changes in tectonic scales. Second, the story is resilient and resilient to almost any accidental change.


... Although both of them, to put it mildly, sin with stretch marks, it is sometimes interesting to attach them to specific events: the results can be quite unusual.

Germany chooses invasion of the UK, not an attack on the USSR

Despite the overwhelming superiority of the British fleet over German, the idea of ​​an amphibious operation in Britain was quite real. The clumsy-looking German dive-bombers in the summer of 1940 forced the British to delay warships at a considerable distance from the English Channel, so there was nothing to stop the first wave of German landing. In the first few days, according to post-war British estimates, any significant forces of the English fleet simply would not have time to approach the landing areas. Certainly, Germany did not have enough airborne assets, which would make the buildup of German forces difficult, but these problems faded against the backdrop of the state of the armed forces of Great Britain.

Five scenarios of how the history of World War II could not change

"Sea Lion" did not jump: Britain was viewed as an opponent more complex than the USSR; to lose people in the war with her, allowing the Bolsheviks to arm themselves, was considered unwise. (Here and below are illustrations of io9.)


Yes, during the evacuation of Dunkirk hundreds of thousands of soldiers were rescued, except that weapon they were left on the French coast. Someone Churchill, speaking in parliament on June 4, 1940, covering his microphone with his hand, quietly informed the silent members of the House of Commons: "We will beat beer upstairs on the heads, because, perhaps, we only have this." In fact, that summer in the country there were barely 500 field guns of all types, a couple of hundred cannon tanks and less than a thousand fighters and bombers. Briefly: one or two German tank divisions and three infantry divisions were more powerful than all the "armed" forces in Britain by the middle of the fortieth summer, and the German shock aviation She was three times more superior than English in the very fact of the presence of Ju 87. That is, the chances of success were, and certainly, as we now understand, not lower than when choosing the option of attacking the USSR.

At first glance, if the German “Sea Lion” succeeded, the history of the Second World War had to change seriously. The German grouping on the Soviet borders in 1941 would have been stronger (aviation), and lend-lease supplies to the USSR would have been more modest at first. Nevertheless, the consequences should not be exaggerated: the German naval blockade would not go away, just like the British troops in the colonies. Even in our version of history, by occupying Iran in the summer of 1941, the Allies had the opportunity to supply the USSR with what it lacked. Yes, it would not have been possible to keep the North African front, but this could hardly have influenced the course of military operations in the East: where a couple of hundreds of divisions did not succeed, it is unlikely that another three or four will change anything.

Ultimately, the USSR (in theory) would have won the land war, although it would undoubtedly end it far to the west of the borders of the GDR and Czechoslovakia. Nevertheless, “from the point of view of eternity,” this would have changed little: the collapse of the Soviet bloc at the end of 1980 didn’t happen because of its small size, so apart from a few increased Soviet losses, this scenario would be little different from the one realized practice.

Now forget all the above: in this way the history of events could not change at all. "It was impossible to decide on the landing in England, prepared to the smallest details," said Yodl at the Nuremberg trials. “No one could take responsibility and allow the German armed forces to bleed to fight for England in the face of the upcoming struggle with the Soviet Union.” “Sea lion,” admits the US Navy Adm. W. Enzel agrees with him on 1970, “he did not jump, not because he was not capable of it. The point was to prepare the war with the USSR. Like a mighty magnet, Russia eventually pulled Hitler down. ”

And it is not only that the Germans “would have bled to death,” that is, they would have suffered great losses during the landing. It is hard to imagine that Stalin, folding his arms over his chest, would have watched Hitler occupy Britain, without organizing his version of Operation Unthinkable. If allies in the 1945 year decided to draw up a plan for an attack on the Soviet units in Eastern Europe, then why couldn’t Comrade 1940 be able to do this? Stalin, especially since he could not have had a better chance than during the invasion of the Germans in England.

Japan does not attack Pearl Harbor

Such a scenario certainly could not affect the course and outcome of the war, right? In fact, Hitler would have no formal reason to declare war on America, the United States could not (isolationism!) Fight shoulder to shoulder with Britain in the West. Consequently, the British, at best, until the end of the war, would have driven Rommel along the sandbox of North Africa, without thinking of landing in France. For Western countries, the war could have ended with the Soviet troops on the Rhine (Seine?), And for the USSR, the losses would have been clearly higher due to the smaller binding of the German armies in France in 1944 year.


Japan did not escape the war with the United States, and could, if it had not entered into a confrontation with ten times stronger defense industry.


And no. This whole scenario comes from a single assumption: the United States could not be the first to attack Japan, and if it had not attacked the American bases first, it would have remained out of war. The problem with this tacit assumption is that even a democratic country does not always need enemy aggression to enter the war.

Even before the Second World War, the United States prepared plans for an offensive war with Canada, Great Britain and other Australian countries that had joined (War Plan Red). Perhaps these plans were born from nothing to do? We would not have put money on it: the British didn’t have the same “plans”, and before joining the Second World War the American armies in the XX century more than once, not two and not ten, turned out to be outside their own country, and in most cases even without congressional approval.

Of course, plans for a war with Britain, Germany, and even Portugal (!), Drawn up by the American military, were not considered the most likely scenarios of military actions. As such, the armed struggle against Japan, including the offensive, was considered. And if for this it was necessary to get the support of the population, it did not present much difficulty: there could be quite a lot of methods of drawing into military conflicts.

Recall the facts: in July 1941, the United States occupied Iceland under the pretext of protecting the island. Of course, it is difficult to say from whom it was necessary to protect it (the Germans, of course, lacked other opportunities to foolish their few ships), but nothing prevented in the same way — without any congressional sanction — to protect the oil-producing Dutch East-Indies (Indonesia) ), for the sake of which the Japanese in the 1941 year, in fact, started the war in order to receive for their ships the very oil which the American embargo did not allow to buy with money.

By defending the East Indies, the United States would have made its involvement in the war with Japan inevitable, regardless of the congressional position. Guided by similar considerations, the Japanese command launched a simultaneous attack by American and British forces in the Pacific: the US’s formal neutrality did not deceive anyone, since it was obvious that it could be circumvented by simple military-diplomatic techniques. Without attacking Pearl Harbor in December 1941 of the year, the Japanese would simply have had to attack him a bit later — and this would hardly have had a serious impact on the course of history as a whole.

Germans take Moscow and all

In Western historiography, as well as in the post-Soviet Russian, you can often hear about some fatal mistakes committed by Hitler in the 1941 year. In particular, having postponed the attack on the USSR in June instead of May because of the attack on the Balkans in the spring, he lost his chance to seize Moscow in 1941, which could lead to the implementation of the Barbarossa plan. And further on, in the same vein: for some reason he wanted to close the southern flank from the blow, turning troops there from the Moscow direction, and other memoir variations on the theme “Hitler as a Trojan donkey of Bolshevism”.


The choice of Moscow as the ultimate goal - a sign of a real military genius, would have comforted the author of "Barbarossa" N. Bonaparte.


The trouble with this approach is that it ignores the very essence of this “Barbarossa”. Germany was planning a war with the USSR at about the same conceptual level, as if preparing for war with the marching Wells Martians. To know how to fight, you need to imagine the "device" of your opponent, his strengths and weaknesses. Meanwhile, until 22 June 1941, the Germans did not know the strengths of Soviet Russia, but the weak imagined themselves to be a little ... fantastic. According to the apt remark of the historian M.Yu. Meltyuhova, in the West there was an opinion that the population of Bolshevik Russia is “barbarians, and it is quite obvious that they can hardly oppose the Germans”. And if so, then the Soviet armed forces are something like a horse-mechanized detachment of the Papuans, and the USSR itself is a very backward country.

The head of one of the German intelligence agencies described the Nazi elite’s views on the level of development of its eastern neighbor: “Kanaris also claimed that he has impeccable documents that Moscow, which is a major industrial center, is connected to the Urals, which is rich in raw materials, only one single-track iron expensive".

At this level of operational planning, it is not surprising that the whole Barbarossa is made up of phrases like this: “Capturing this city [Moscow] means not only decisive political and economic success, but also the loss of the most important railway junction”. That is, after the occupation of this “attack”, the “Barbarossa” plan did not even suggest any other offensive operations. In fact, if the Papuans have only one single-track road connecting the capital with the industrial center, how can they continue the war when they lose this one-track?

Accordingly, German planning for a war with Russia was to some extent built on sand. Even in the case of the capture of Moscow, a decisive victory would not have brought it. De facto, behind the capital of the Papuans, there was not a single-track railway, but a fully developed transport network, and the fall of Moscow in this sense would not have led Germany to victory. Neither we, nor anyone else knows why German intelligence gave “these fantastic predictions” (Meltyukhov), but the fact remains that, based on this unscientific fantasy, you cannot build a plan for a successful fight, and the Germans would manage to capture 1941 Moscow or not - in principle, the moment is not very significant.

You cannot succeed in a war with the strongest land army of the world, if you assume that you are going on an expedition against the barbarian Mongolian-Bolshevik scum, whose picture of life your intelligence draws in the strokes of single-track Transsibs.

The Red Army drowns the Allies in the English Channel

And now about fun. According to the remarkable British military historian Anthony Beevor, at the end of the war, Stalin seriously considered the possibility of capturing the whole of Europe by pushing 85 allied divisions from 4 million personnel into “French waters”. Technically it was possible: the Allies struggled to overcome the resistance of small second-rate German units in the West, and they would hardly ever succeed if the German forces were equal to the Anglo-American one. In theory, the much larger Soviet army, hardened by longstanding battles with the best German units, could certainly inflict a series of lightning strikes of great strength.


Hitler, by the way, seriously expected that the allies would fight during his life. In 1944 – 1945, this was the Führer’s only hope for his victory parade.


“Well, here you will not get out,” the reader will say. “It would change the course of history!” True, if it were not for one “but”: Stalin knew in detail about the development of a nuclear bomb. In the Manhattan project there was a strong mole, and not just one, and in this context the decision to attack the West, which was completing work on the atomic bomb, was very unwise. Up until the middle of 1945, it was not clear how many bombs the United States would be able to make per year, and not a single leader inclined to think in the style of Stalin would take such a step. That is exactly what happened, which makes the Beevor script - not based, of course, on any documents of the Soviet military planning, since no one has seen such documents - is relatively unrealistic.

Churchill starts the Third World in July 1945

Well, of this you, of course, heard. Due to Mr. Churchill’s understandable prejudices against the USSR in particular, and of the Western world as a whole, the British prime minister instructed his military to work out a remarkable idea: take July 1, take the Soviet forces on Germany’s territory suddenly and 1945. On the main, Dresden, 47 from 100 of potentially accessible American, Canadian and British divisions were to be used.


In May, 1945, Comrade. Churchill was slightly optimistic, but the British military who processed his request quickly returned the national leader to reality, pointing to the need to plan not an offensive, but defense against the Soviet troops.


Of course, the Allies proposed to use significant forces of the Wehrmacht (“up to 100 000 people”), although, of course, it was not completely explained on what ideological basis. The purpose of the attack, according to the plan of the operation “Unthinkable”, was “to impose on the USSR the will of the USA and the British Empire” on the post-war reconstruction of Eastern Europe.

In theory, the implementation of this cute plan would really dramatically change the post-war reality. Our country would be involved in a war that could not win, since there was not a worthy mention of the fleet or a nuclear bomb in the Soviet arsenal and could not appear for several more years.

However, we are not impressed with the reality of this alternative. Plan "Unthinkable" is conceptually a twin brother of "Barbarossa". How is it in Comrade. Meltyuhova: "Barbarians, and it is clear that they can hardly oppose the Germans [allies] with them." In the sense that the success of the strike, scheduled for July 1 1945, was real in only one case: if one American / British managed to chase four Soviet soldiers, and one Sherman two or three T-34-85. In other words, we have another war plan with walking Wells Martians tanks.

By the way, the military, who were instructed to draw up a plan, showed more sobriety than their German predecessors in 1940 year. The headquarters noted that even a temporary success of an event can only have a complete surprise, and even then nothing is guaranteed. Therefore, by 22 May 1945, they classified Operation Unthinkable as “risky.”

In our opinion, this is a brilliant analytical success of the British military, which clearly puts the British strategic thought of the 20th century to a height unattainable for its German rival. Stop talking, talk? In fact, we are extremely serious: before the Second World War, no country in the world could even come close to properly assessing the prospects for the German war in the East. The fact that the British planners of the Third World did not repeat this failure is worthy of the highest praise. It was their pessimistic assessments that ultimately formed the foundation of the first relatively real post-war plans of Western countries for the opposition to the USSR - plans that were based on the recognition of the impossibility of military success without using nuclear weapons. And it may well be that only an awareness of the real capabilities of the Soviet armed forces gave Europe the years following the 46 war.
Author:
Originator:
http://io9.com/10-shocking-ways-the-second-world-war-could-have-ended-1558135375
127 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. andrei332809
    andrei332809 April 13 2014 07: 54
    +33
    history has no subjunctive
    1. ASSARU
      ASSARU April 13 2014 08: 03
      -8
      Glory to Russia
      Has For the historian everything has.
      1. Corsair
        Corsair April 13 2014 08: 46
        +5
        Quote: ASSARU
        Has For the historian everything has.

        For an "alternative" ... Academic history does not accept any, if only, these fortune-telling is more likely for analysts.
        1. SkiF_RnD
          SkiF_RnD April 13 2014 10: 19
          +14
          For an "alternative" ... Academic history does not accept any, if only, these fortune-telling is more likely for analysts.


          I hate to sound impolite, but this is complete nonsense. "Civilizational alternative" is a completely academic concept for historical science. Studied at universities (at least in the Southern Federal, at the Faculty of History). For example, the choice of a center for collecting Russian lands (the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Tver, Moscow), the choice of the political course of Lithuania (union with Moscow or union with Warsaw). This is just the most academic approach. The words "history does not know the subjunctive mood" were uttered by a woman who did not understand very well something in history, and this, excuse me, garbage is still being repeated. what
          hi
          1. Corsair
            Corsair April 13 2014 10: 32
            +5
            Quote: SkiF_RnD
            I hate to sound impolite, but this is complete nonsense. "Civilizational alternative" is a completely academic concept for historical science.

            Not polite towards whom (or WHAT)? If your "impoliteness" is about my comment, then no problem ... But the story requires a careful attitude and careful interpretation (see my comment below), otherwise it is able to hit hard -head, literally and figuratively.

            Your statement "The civilizational alternative" can be considered seriously only in relation to the perspective of historical processes, but not in any way to the events that have happened ...

            IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO ENTER THE ONE AND SAME RIVER TWICE.

            It’s easier to explain, the story (true) can’t be redone.
            1. SkiF_RnD
              SkiF_RnD April 13 2014 20: 40
              0
              Your statement "The civilizational alternative" can be considered seriously only in relation to the perspective of historical processes, but not in any way to the events that have happened ...


              Nevertheless, it is precisely the fait accompli that distinguishes. Some of them are fateful, and were not a foregone conclusion. One of the examples I have already cited, ON could very well become a Russian state in general, a center of Slavism. And potentially very strong, perhaps much stronger than Moscow. Our historians see the union with Poland precisely as the perfect choice, which entailed enormous consequences (in particular, sad ones for Orthodoxy). Not as a definite point on the straight line of the past time graph, but as a turn on the next fork.
          2. shaman-25rus
            shaman-25rus April 13 2014 10: 33
            +4
            You know, after a step has been taken, it can no longer be undone or replayed. There is a lot of philosophizing on this subject. But ... if he did it, then he did it, no matter what statements and actions were made or taken. And that which was born back cannot be crammed in, just as one would not like to give birth from another hole. IMHO.
      2. Reddragon
        Reddragon April 13 2014 21: 05
        0
        Quote: ASSARU
        Has For the historian everything has

        So you can predict any scenario, even the most incredible: aliens spotting the Earth on television and decide to intervene and then it started ... laughing
    2. Strashila
      Strashila April 13 2014 08: 05
      +6
      but ... has interpretations.
      1. Corsair
        Corsair April 13 2014 08: 55
        +9
        Quote: Strashila
        but ... has interpretations.

        In Ukraine, they have already "worked it out", haven't they?
    3. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov April 13 2014 08: 33
      +2
      It is necessary to get smoked so as to sit and invent something that will never happen. A person has nothing to do, so he riveted something that cannot be. Delusions of an inflamed brain.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. siberalt
        siberalt April 13 2014 09: 04
        +2
        Here I can not help but support. It is impossible to compare the quality of the German army at the beginning of the war and after the experience of the war with the USSR. These are two completely different armies.
        In addition, Germany had no experience of war with the "ostrovites" at all. Moreover, the sea empire.
        1. Vitaly Anisimov
          Vitaly Anisimov April 13 2014 09: 49
          +5
          The purpose of the attack, according to the plan of Operation "The Unthinkable", was "to impose on the USSR the will of the United States and the British Empire" for the post-war settlement of Eastern Europe.

          As everything is familiar and stereotyped .. Ukraine is an example of this! But we have been taught bitter experience and reacted ahead of the curve .. (according to the idea, after the capture of Berlin the USSR it was necessary to go to Lisbon) Maybe everything would be different ..
        2. The comment was deleted.
    4. Andrey Ulyanovsky
      Andrey Ulyanovsky April 13 2014 09: 43
      +5
      One "historian" pissed off - Rezun VB, better not again.
      1. starhina01
        starhina01 April 13 2014 10: 15
        +4
        And now forget all of the above:
        read everything but liked only this phrase hi
    5. shaman-25rus
      shaman-25rus April 13 2014 10: 27
      +6
      I agree. If my grandmother would have ... well, then we know. It’s in Europe that a grandmother can be a grandfather and a middle kind, and at the same time, damn it ... what an abomination.
    6. WKS
      WKS April 13 2014 10: 29
      +1
      It should not be forgotten that Joseph Vissarionovich was not a bast either. If Hitler hadn’t hit in June, but occupied the British Isles, then by the fall of the day, our troops would have trodden in eastern Germany. And Romania, the fascist oil granary, would already be a Romanian socialist republic.
      Hitler spun like a louse in a frying pan, if only with the first blows to break the maximum of the Sun concentrated against him.
      His biggest mistake is that at the end of 1941, in the wake of the offensive, he did not conclude a peace treaty with the USSR, but got involved and got stuck in the winter expanses of the Russian Plain. And in 1942, Stalin did not want a peace treaty. It was at the end of 1941 that the further course of history depended only on the decision of one person - Hitler.
      1. alicante11
        alicante11 April 13 2014 13: 54
        0
        The fact of the matter is that Stalin was "not a bastard." Therefore, I would not make any sudden movements. To hell with it with Romanian oil, the Germans quite coped with synthetics from coal. Of course, it wasn't kosher for battleships. But for tanks and submarines - quite. And how many Battleships did Hitler need to take Moscow? But just by the middle to the end of 42, the USSR would have had 30 fully equipped mechanized corps. After which Hitler would have sat quieter than a mouse in Berlin, fearing to fart so that Stalin would not think that this was a shot at the border. What kind of war could we talk about then? And what would the world be with this ... Kind and fair. The entire West would be marching to the sounds of "Sieg Heil", and would be happy with a sausage with half a liter of beer a day, and whoever was not happy with that would be burned in the crematoria of Auschwitz. While we would live under communism.
      2. Rider
        Rider April 13 2014 14: 31
        0
        Quote: wks
        His biggest mistake is that at the end of 1941, in the wake of the offensive, he did not conclude a peace treaty with the USSR, but got involved and got stuck in the winter expanses of the Russian Plain.

        you make the biggest mistake in thinking like that.

        it is enough to read "mein kampf" to find out what the Fuehrer needed in the east.
        living space for the German nation, and resources.

        Yes, stopping at 41, Hitler received the territory of Ukraine, Belarus and their resources.
        but the Germans needed oil, and it was only in the Caucasus.
        so, only hardcore, only line two A.

        Well, a little article
        The head of one of the German intelligence agencies described the Nazi elite’s ideas about the level of development of the eastern neighbor: “Canaris also claimed that he had impeccable documents, according to which Moscow, which is a large industrial center, is connected with the Urals, rich in raw materials, with only one single-track iron expensive"...

        Neither we nor anyone else knows why German intelligence gave “such fantastic predictions” (Meltiukhov)

        I think everyone already knows that Canaris was connected with the British.
        and who was vitally interested in turning the Wehrmacht east?
        guessed right?
        take a pie from the shelf.
        Now, I hope, it is clear WHERE the German intelligence took such information?
        was it really difficult for German intelligence to take a ticket from Moscow to the Urals.
        laughing
      3. koshh
        koshh April 13 2014 21: 07
        0
        Hitler's biggest mistake was an attack on the USSR.
    7. predator.3
      predator.3 April 13 2014 12: 57
      +2
      Quote: andrei332809
      history has no subjunctive

      I agree with you, but Adolf Aloizovich had a lot of trouble in 41 - it would have been better to cross the English Channel than to attack the USSR, apparently hoping for another "Brest-Litovsk peace"! but in vain ...
    8. assa.sever
      assa.sever April 13 2014 14: 19
      +1
      I absolutely agree: history has no subjunctive mood. Nevertheless, it is nice to imagine how the Soviet Army bent all of Europe in the 40s.
      1. Alexander Romanov
        Alexander Romanov April 13 2014 14: 21
        0
        Quote: assa.sever
        . Nevertheless, it is nice to imagine how the Soviet Army bent all of Europe in the 40s.

        Well, live your dreams
    9. platitsyn70
      platitsyn70 April 13 2014 15: 16
      +2
      the golanyak at the Americans.
  2. Bayonet
    Bayonet April 13 2014 07: 57
    +1
    If yes, if only. But the job is done!
  3. ASSARU
    ASSARU April 13 2014 07: 58
    0
    Glory to Russia
    100 percent. History.
  4. delfinN
    delfinN April 13 2014 07: 58
    +26
    "Britain was seen as a more difficult enemy than the USSR;"
    Life h (m) of blows does not teach anything
    1. major071
      major071 April 13 2014 09: 09
      +21
      So be it!
      1. I do not care
        I do not care April 13 2014 10: 22
        +10
        Quote: major071
        So be it!

        or as
        1. Pula
          Pula April 13 2014 11: 54
          +1
          Judging by the picture, you are far from being ... Cool, Fantastic and funny to tears ... Thank you.
      2. does it
        does it April 13 2014 11: 12
        -5
        Quote: major071
        So be it!

        On one condition, if you get there. crying what
        1. Pula
          Pula April 13 2014 11: 56
          0
          Why go there ... They themselves will "eat" ... Fear poisons quickly and efficiently.
        2. I do not care
          I do not care April 13 2014 12: 20
          +5
          Quote: kvirit
          On one condition, if you get there.


          somebody will definitely come
    2. Lyokha79
      Lyokha79 April 13 2014 09: 33
      +11
      All attacked Russia ended badly.
      Obama's Possible Future:
    3. Pula
      Pula April 13 2014 11: 48
      +1
      Thanks. Handsomely.
  5. mamont5
    mamont5 April 13 2014 08: 02
    +5
    "Well, you really can't get out," the reader will say. "That would change the course of history!" True, if not for one "but": Stalin knew in detail about the development of a nuclear bomb. There was a hardened mole in the Manhattan project, and more than one, and in this context, the decision to attack the West, which was completing work on the atomic bomb, was very unwise . "
    Not quite right. After all, the bomb still had to be conveyed to us, and this was possible only by a bomber. There were only a few bombs, and therefore they could (and would have done it) intercept and destroy the bombing vehicle.
    Rather, the reason was a banal lack of strength. All the same, during the war years the mobilization reserve was completely exhausted. We had a lot of first-class weapons, but the reserve of fighters was gone.
    1. 11111mail.ru
      11111mail.ru April 13 2014 08: 58
      +5
      Quote: mamont5
      Rather, the reason was a banal lack of strength. All the same, during the war years the mobilization reserve was completely exhausted. We had a lot of first-class weapons, but the reserve of fighters was gone.

      Almost communist Italy and France in the West? The English Channel is not needed. It was necessary to return Sakhalin, Port Arthur, to help the "brotherly Chinese" people in the struggle against the Japanese invaders. The East is more priority for J.V. Stalin.
    2. Predator
      Predator April 13 2014 09: 15
      +7
      And what reserves were needed ?! The army was mobilized, trained, the interaction between the arms of the forces was streamlined, planning was at its best. The Germans drove Europe with 3.5 million soldiers, 2.5 thousand tanks, etc. The USSR at that time had 9.5 million soldiers, more than 20 thousand tanks. In the allies of Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Poland ..... 3-5 vigorous bombs they wouldn’t play a role! They would drown the Anglo-Saxons in the Atlantic!
      1. Penzyac
        Penzyac April 13 2014 12: 26
        +2
        Quote: Predator
        And what reserves were needed ?! The army was mobilized, trained, the interaction between the arms of the forces was streamlined, planning was at its best. The Germans drove Europe with 3.5 million soldiers, 2.5 thousand tanks, etc. The USSR at that time had 9.5 million soldiers, more than 20 thousand tanks. In the allies of Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Poland ..... 3-5 vigorous bombs they wouldn’t play a role! They would drown the Anglo-Saxons in the Atlantic!


        They would not even run away through Dunkirk a second time. hi
      2. Snoop
        Snoop April 13 2014 16: 33
        0
        Does the USSR have 9,5 million soldiers? Again, alternativeism))) Actually, 5,5 million and that is by June 41 years. Earlier it was even less.
        1. Predator
          Predator April 13 2014 16: 57
          0
          May-July 1945
      3. Walk
        Walk April 13 2014 17: 09
        0
        You would learn a story. Poland was half an ally. Part of her army fought with the Germans, and the second with our army. And Bulgaria was generally an ally of fascist Germany.
    3. Orc-xnumx
      Orc-xnumx April 13 2014 09: 59
      -1
      Quote: mamont5
      "Well, you really can't get out," the reader will say. "That would change the course of history!" True, if not for one "but": Stalin knew in detail about the development of a nuclear bomb. There was a hardened mole in the Manhattan project, and more than one, and in this context, the decision to attack the West, which was completing work on the atomic bomb, was very unwise . "
      Not quite right. After all, the bomb still had to be conveyed to us, and this was possible only by a bomber. There were only a few bombs, and therefore they could (and would have done it) intercept and destroy the bombing vehicle.
      Rather, the reason was a banal lack of strength. All the same, during the war years the mobilization reserve was completely exhausted. We had a lot of first-class weapons, but the reserve of fighters was gone.

      And with aviation, the West would have an overwhelming advantage.
      1. Penzyac
        Penzyac April 13 2014 12: 04
        0
        Quote: Orc-78
        Quote: mamont5
        "Well, you really can't get out," the reader will say. "That would change the course of history!" True, if not for one "but": Stalin knew in detail about the development of a nuclear bomb. There was a hardened mole in the Manhattan project, and more than one, and in this context, the decision to attack the West, which was completing work on the atomic bomb, was very unwise . "
        Not quite right. After all, the bomb still had to be conveyed to us, and this was possible only by a bomber. There were only a few bombs, and therefore they could (and would have done it) intercept and destroy the bombing vehicle.
        Rather, the reason was a banal lack of strength. All the same, during the war years the mobilization reserve was completely exhausted. We had a lot of first-class weapons, but the reserve of fighters was gone.

        And with aviation, the West would have an overwhelming advantage.


        No, I wouldn’t have, first of all the Anglo-Saxons, but only they would have remained on the west side, there would have been no airfields on the mainland, Anglo-Saxon aviation was predominantly bomber, with superiority to our fighter and assault (the capabilities of long-range escort fighters cannot be compared with our front-line fighters) . Transportation of large masses of troops across the English Channel would be impossible due to the destruction of our transport ships by us (this was quite real), etc.
        1. Predator
          Predator April 13 2014 13: 34
          0
          Yes, they didn’t have advantages in aviation, just not because of airfields, they did have a lot (France, Germany, Italy), it was the aviation itself, it was one thing to bomb such targets as cities (you won’t miss it), and another business at the front, with the contact of the troops, the front-line bomber and assault are needed here, and they have the same strategists and heavy escort fighters, you can’t use them on the front line. From 10 km. You’ll be going to bullet and in your own way, fighters will not fly lower to gain air supremacy, because our airfields are the same at hand! And the white fluffy fox would come to the ground troops of the Angles, from above the attack aircraft and from the front of the IS 2,3 + our assault infantry, and 10 km of a pair of tank and mechanized corps (tank army) for a run to Madrid and Paris .....
      2. Sergey Vl.
        Sergey Vl. April 13 2014 16: 00
        +1
        And without a war with the states, IN Kozhedub managed to overwhelm two "Mustangs". However, not 41 ...
        1. pvv113
          pvv113 April 13 2014 16: 42
          +6
          I read about six US planes shot down by Kozhedub
    4. shaman-25rus
      shaman-25rus April 13 2014 10: 37
      +2
      I do not think that is true. The reserve was. And not frail.
  6. Ivan Tarasov
    Ivan Tarasov April 13 2014 08: 02
    0
    Without attacking Pearl Harbor in December 1941, the Japanese would simply be forced to attack him a little later - and the course of history as a whole would hardly have a serious impact.

    Just the opposite.
    The British would capitulate to North Africa in 42, Italy would not capitulate in 43, the freed forces sent Germany and Italy to the eastern front, and the Germans did not have to pull out forces for the Italian front.
    1. Penzyac
      Penzyac April 13 2014 12: 34
      0
      Quote: Ivan Tarasov
      Without attacking Pearl Harbor in December 1941, the Japanese would simply be forced to attack him a little later - and the course of history as a whole would hardly have a serious impact.

      Just the opposite.
      The British would capitulate to North Africa in 42, Italy would not capitulate in 43, the freed forces sent Germany and Italy to the eastern front, and the Germans did not have to pull out forces for the Italian front.


      And what would it radically change? Stalingrad would not cancel it. And after Stalingrad the result would be the same, the difference in terms would not cancel the final outcome of the war. Do you really think the United States would not have entered the war against Japan? And the United States would also hardly allow the British to capitulate to Africa.
    2. Predator
      Predator April 13 2014 13: 44
      0
      Is that what they would send? 2.5 tank and 4 infantry ?! At 210-230 available on the Eastern Front?
  7. Rohon
    Rohon April 13 2014 08: 04
    +4
    that would be if ....
    The main thing is that there is ...
  8. Combat279
    Combat279 April 13 2014 08: 04
    +9
    and all the same "Western partners" are utter bastards ...
  9. Strashila
    Strashila April 13 2014 08: 07
    0
    With the same success, you can add ... the annexation of Norway and Sweden in 1940 by Great Britain.
    1. Orc-xnumx
      Orc-xnumx April 13 2014 10: 04
      +1
      Quote: Strashila
      With the same success, you can add ... the annexation of Norway and Sweden in 1940 by Great Britain.
      About Norway - I agree, but the occupation
      Sweden - this is British nonsense!
      1. Strashila
        Strashila April 13 2014 14: 35
        0
        It was such a plan ... during the Soviet-Finnish War, Britain planned to send troops into Norway and Sweden to put pressure on the USSR.
        Also in the plans they had an airstrike on oil fields in the Caucasus from air bases located in the Middle East.
  10. Revolver
    Revolver April 13 2014 08: 11
    +5
    Curious reasoning. But, alas, there is no way to test them in practice. Or maybe it’s for the better, because if the course of history had changed then, we would not exist today, and there would have been no one to discuss all these "what if ..."
  11. AleksPol
    AleksPol April 13 2014 08: 14
    +3
    What the author writes about is described in detail on "Flibusta" in the genre of Alternative History wink
  12. Al_lexx
    Al_lexx April 13 2014 08: 19
    +6
    Interesting thoughts.
    I remembered the fantastic story "The Seventh Aircraft Carrier" (Peter Albano. The Seventh Carrier 1983).

    Put a plus sign for half an hour of entertainment.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. FREGATENKAPITAN
      FREGATENKAPITAN April 13 2014 09: 35
      +2
      Based on it, the film was shot - "The Last Countdown", in the role of the commander of the ship - "Spartak" Kirk Douglas, interesting to see .......
      1. Bayonet
        Bayonet April 13 2014 09: 42
        0
        Looked. Not a bad movie.
      2. Al_lexx
        Al_lexx April 13 2014 17: 39
        +1
        Quote: FREGATENKAPITAN
        Based on it, the film was shot - "The Last Countdown", in the role of the commander of the ship - "Spartak" Kirk Douglas, interesting to see .......

        Sorry. It's not quite like that. In the film, an American aircraft carrier is transferred to 40 years ago, in Pearl Harbor, to protect him. And in the book, the Japanese aircraft carrier stood 40 years in ice captivity without communication and in the 80's went on a mission - to attack Pearl Harbor.
        As for me, the second plot is more attractive. It’s funny to read how the 70 summer samurai, on old zeros and kitashim, smash up the modern navy US base. laughing

        Although, of course, the book is not for an adult. I read it at the end of the 80's.
    3. Bayonet
      Bayonet April 13 2014 09: 41
      0
      Thank. I downloaded all 5 books of this series, we will read.
      1. Rider
        Rider April 13 2014 14: 42
        0
        Quote: Bayonet
        Thank. I downloaded all 5 books of this series, we will read

        waste your time.

        IMHy
      2. Al_lexx
        Al_lexx April 13 2014 17: 39
        0
        Quote: Bayonet
        Thank. I downloaded all 5 books of this series, we will read.

        In fact, it is the first who really takes it, and the rest, which is called "on the loop".
  13. Vladimir73
    Vladimir73 April 13 2014 08: 21
    +5
    Article minus. Sorry, but the topic has not been worked out.
    In childhood, I also fantasized about "but if ...", but the older I get, the more I am convinced that any event has certain reasons and that is why these events did not happen otherwise. hi
    1. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich April 13 2014 09: 31
      +5
      I agree. Dreaming, of course, is not harmful. But if they didn’t change the real course of things. We all walk under God (or under something called God), for many things that influenced the course of history were what was supposed to happen.
      And a shell in the mast of the "Tsarevich", which thwarted a quite successful confluence of the battle for the Russians, and the last torpedo in the rudders of the "Bismarck", which put an end to his future career. And I am already silent about the victory of Lenin and the company. Because it was exactly what happened that was supposed to lead (albeit through numerous sacrifices) the country to a new level of technical development, which, in turn, led to the victory over fascism.
      Therefore, history does not know the subjunctive mood. We walk under God ...
    2. Mainbeam
      Mainbeam April 13 2014 09: 41
      +7
      I agree, the topic is not worked out. The causes of the war are not named, and, therefore, the consequences are not correctly considered for different scenarios. As an example - England. As far as I remember, one of the conditions for America to enter the war was the rejection of British colonial policy, that is, the actual redivision of the world and world order.

      If Germany occupied England, then we would have lost not only supplies under Lend-Lease. This is just one detail in the general scheme. And the scheme itself would change. I still cannot enter the relationship between England and America, but I think it would be a serious blow to the Anglo-Saxons. And America alone would not have dared to attack Germany. And then there would be no "second front". In this case, the war could drag on for another half a year, and would end with Soviet troops in England and Portugal.

      1. Predator
        Predator April 13 2014 09: 54
        +1
        They still could not take it! The topic has long been investigated and proven. Well, they transported 5-7 divisions, and then? The Angles will drag a linear fleet, put along the shore (in case of flooding) and help the Arctic fox. After a week, the squire will approach the armor, knock on the armor with the antediluvian lymetfeld butt and offer the embarrassed Hans to go to the prison camp!
        1. Dart2027
          Dart2027 April 13 2014 12: 08
          +4
          Quote: Predator
          put near the shore (in case of flooding)

          And German aviation will turn it into a pile of scrap metal in a couple of days. And this is not to mention the fact that the Germans, with a minimum of effort, could raise uprisings of the Irish and Scots.
          1. Predator
            Predator April 13 2014 12: 27
            +1
            You are inattentive! I wrote, in case of flooding, that is. I mean the impact of aviation. But he would have sunk down, but would have been combat-ready! An example is the battleship Marat, well, the Germans flooded him, but they couldn’t destroy them in 3 years and beat the entire blockade on them! And no one canceled the British fighter aircraft! And besides that, the Angles had 1940 times more boats in 2! They would have thrown so many mines that you couldn’t get on a water bike!
            1. Mainbeam
              Mainbeam April 13 2014 12: 46
              0
              Quote: Predator
              and arctic fox help, supply.

              I do not agree. In reality, the Germans could cross, initially gain a foothold and supply by air.
              And clean out England in a week. And the supply has already been established at the expense of the resources of England itself. And here comes the opposite moment - this is the supply of the English fleet itself. Flooded all the more.

              In general, Hitler had strange behavior. England almost ran out of air, but retreated.
              Apparently there was absolutely trouble with intelligence.

            2. Dart2027
              Dart2027 April 13 2014 14: 22
              +2
              Attentive. The case with the "Marat" is rather luck in most cases, after a massive bombing, the ship became unusable. Of course, the then armored ships could withstand much more than the current "armored vehicles", but the result would be the same.
      2. Bezarius
        Bezarius April 13 2014 14: 11
        +1
        The role of the 2 front and Lend-Lease in the 2 World War as part of the margin of error.
        The contribution of Lend-Lease was already somehow considered on this resource, and it was insignificant ~ 5%. The 2-th front was opened when it was not needed.
  14. V1451145
    V1451145 April 13 2014 08: 22
    +8
    I do not understand. Well, the Germans would have taken Moscow, and what is the end of the war ?? In the event of the capture of Moscow, the capital was automatically transferred to Samara!
    1. Penzyac
      Penzyac April 13 2014 12: 40
      +2
      Quote: V1451145
      I do not understand. Well, the Germans would have taken Moscow, and what is the end of the war ?? In the event of the capture of Moscow, the capital was automatically transferred to Samara!


      Similarly, Napoleon checked, it did not help. wassat
    2. kocclissi
      kocclissi April 13 2014 18: 25
      +1
      This is the Western mentality: He took the capital of the enemy, he won! And with Russia, the slip came out ...
  15. Renat
    Renat April 13 2014 08: 23
    +6
    Masons set Hitler on the Union, deciding their selfish interests. Imagine that the Führer and Stalin sat well at a glass of tea, agreed (not the Molotov-Ribentrop Pact) and decided to equip this world in their own way. And where would the distributor of democracy be now?
  16. borisjdin1957
    borisjdin1957 April 13 2014 08: 23
    +5
    from the Don.
    If the grandmother had ..you would be a grandfather!
    1. Lvovich
      Lvovich April 13 2014 15: 40
      0
      Yeah, she would have made a grandmother from her grandfather ...
  17. mabuta
    mabuta April 13 2014 08: 25
    +14
    It is useful to deal with alternative history only in a theoretical way. In life it is more useful to deal with reality. History is an exact science.
  18. Krsk
    Krsk April 13 2014 08: 34
    +7
    The choice of Moscow as the ultimate goal is a sign of a true military genius, would comfort the author of Barbarossa

    The phrase does not diminish not add.
  19. shasherin_pavel
    shasherin_pavel April 13 2014 08: 38
    +5
    A gross mistake was made at the very beginning: in 39, the Soviet Union convened a meeting and proposed France and England an alliance against Germany, and in any case, proposed the use of more divisions in the war against Germany than the Allies. Note: even in the event of an attack on France, we deploy troops more than France to defend our territory. Do you think Hitler did not know about this? Even what two know - a pig knows. And then the governments of the three countries ... From the attack of England, Germany is protected by the strait and disarmament of troops near Dunkirk, I’m already talking about 41 years. From the attack of the Soviet Union by the waters of the Bug. Do you know that when it was signed pact Ribbentrop - Molotov, find the difference from the "Union" of the "Coalition" of the "Agreement between governments". Ribbentrop and Molotov were the interior ministers of their countries, and signed a pact ... Churchill proposed to Germany agreement about not an attack between Germany and England, in exchange for breaking the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact. Proving that there will be no attack on Germany across the English Channel in the event of an attack on the USSR. That is why Hitler exclaimed upon hearing about the landing of the British in France: "What treachery!" Apparently he was referring to the proposal not to attack in 39. So you are playing checkers when your opponent has chess pieces.
    1. Turkir
      Turkir April 13 2014 09: 52
      +4
      Usually in the West the proposal to France and England is not "remembered".
      But the Poles, Latvians and Lithuanians, waving the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and shouting about betrayal, do not accuse England and France of betrayal.
      Moreover, Czechoslovakia rejected our offer of military assistance.
  20. polkovnik manuch
    polkovnik manuch April 13 2014 08: 45
    -2
    If-only options are only options, hundreds of them are worked through in serious situations. We have what we have. Even a surprise attack on the USSR (which probably only those who did not want to know) would have been repelled within several months, had it not been for the notorious "purges carried out in the 30s! Real top commanders with strategic thinking, well-developed there was very little about the rehearsed plans of warfare in certain cases. Stalin and the Politburo, intoxicated by the successes of industrialization, simply forgot the existence of the term "cadres decide everything!" and paid for it.
    1. Predator
      Predator April 13 2014 10: 09
      +6
      Wai! Wai! Which of the repressed top commanders was a strategist? Tukhachevsky, Yakir, Uborevich, Blucher?! All of them are traitors, they only fought with unarmed people. And what about the plan for the defeat of the Red Army in the event of Tukhachevsky’s war ?! On the Western Front happened! Just stick to it, so they cleaned a little ?!
      1. svp67
        svp67 April 13 2014 10: 29
        +2
        Quote: Predator
        Wai! Wai! Which of the repressed high commanders was a strategist?
        Well, Rokossovsky for example ...
        1. Predator
          Predator April 13 2014 11: 52
          +2
          Sorry! And who was Rokossovsky before the war?! MK commander and what could he decide in planning?! Chernyakhovsky was only a division commander and so on and did not depend on anything on a scale of the same corps. The army is not a wife, you won’t build it at once (and I doubt that your spouse, when asked to urgently get together, will not spend 2 hours on it!) The others mentioned above and not named decided, but this buddy is very voluminous, what would I write here !
          1. svp67
            svp67 April 13 2014 13: 34
            0
            Quote: Predator
            Sorry

            And why excuse the way the question was formulated, so they answered it ...
            Wai! Wai! Which of the repressed high commanders was a strategist?
            Rokosovsky was repressed, as he was the top commander, and he possessed the gift of a strategist ... Now if you formulated the question as
            Wai! Wai! Who is this from the repressed POWERS top commanders was a strategist?

            Specify questions more precisely.
            Nevertheless, the names of V. Ya. Smushkevich and Meretskov are they telling you anything? They are both STRATEGIES, and from the TOP MANAGEMENT and REPRESSED ... Particularly controversial is the question and pity of V. Ya. Smushkevich.
            Quote: Predator
            Yes, and I doubt that your spouse, when asked to urgently get together on a visit, will not spend 2 hours on this
            I sympathize, you were unlucky with your wife, or rather - she has never been in situations when you had to leave the house within 5 minutes ... So, your example is some kind of "leftist"
            1. Predator
              Predator April 13 2014 17: 28
              0
              When the denunciation came to Rokossovsky he was an adviser in Mongolia (August 1937), and in the Red Army he was a BP instructor in cavalry division and was not even a cavbrig ...., therefore, there is no relation to planning.
              Smushkevich is an excellent ace, but not a strategist, and could not clearly articulate the basics for the use of the Air Force (what is needed, what is needed and how much is needed) and the stake on numbers instead of quality ?!
              Meretskov-was arrested at the end of June 1941, what did the chief of staff know?! Useful?! Completely clicked on the construction of fortifications on the old border and the disruption of construction on the new one (according to the NKVD, up to 20% of the built fortifications on the old one were ready for various reasons, from those who watched to the nearest slope of the embrasure, before the installation of incomplete weapons), the deployment of strategic reserves at the border (weapons and ammunition), and fuel for 1000 km from the troops (ZapVo reserves were stored in Maykop) and much more.
        2. Pula
          Pula April 13 2014 12: 01
          0
          Shaposhnikov.
          1. Predator
            Predator April 13 2014 12: 36
            +1
            And this is when he was repressed ?! As a chief of staff, he developed a strategic active defense plan (not linear, which was in 1941) and provided for the timely departure of troops from line to line with the loss of territory up to 300 km., But with the preservation of troops. countries to the war. And that's why the plan was taken away .... that's another question. What are the top commanders who had a mighty blow in their minds and on foreign territory ?!
        3. Vladimir73
          Vladimir73 April 13 2014 12: 01
          +2
          So he was returned to the army. And not only him ... smile
    2. Dart2027
      Dart2027 April 13 2014 14: 26
      +1
      And who says that all the repressed were not traitors? Even if we assume that their abilities were not excessively inflated by anti-Stalinists, the question of their loyalty still remains.
  21. nikkon09
    nikkon09 April 13 2014 08: 48
    +2
    Somewhere they wrote that it was precisely with the threat of unleashing, by the Allies, the war at the Berlin parade that our victories showed the latest IS-3 tanks, so there still were some concerns about this.
    1. Predator
      Predator April 13 2014 11: 58
      +1
      They were there, but they were (not untied) by the Saxons, after Zhukov threw them 80-100 km in a day, so that they wouldn’t provoke. And now banderlogs conduct a tactical raid on Lviv and apologize - that’s the illiterate navigator of the regiment laid the course, then there is no practice! request
  22. stayer
    stayer April 13 2014 08: 54
    +1
    What would happen if, yes, as it were ...

    Forever trying to rewrite history.
  23. 11111mail.ru
    11111mail.ru April 13 2014 09: 03
    +2
    No matter how interesting the alternative story is, the real story takes place along the path of least resistance to the historical process. And good politicians understood this very well, as they were the creators of history together with the peoples led.
  24. Bakht
    Bakht April 13 2014 09: 08
    +5
    An alternative story is an interesting thing. And it makes sense only for analysis. As in the present, mistakes can be avoided using unrealized opportunities.

    1. Germany could land in England. It was real. And England would capitulate. Even if the task was not to seize the territory of England, landing was necessary to win the war. This is a purely military aspect. The British did not have large ships in the English Channel. But the mosquito fleet was there. And Germany had no fleet at all. So even 5-6 destroyers could block the English Channel. But another thing is more important here. The bridgehead would attract all the forces of the British Air Force. And at a short distance from their bases, the Messerschmitts would deal with the Royal Air Force much faster and more efficiently. And things would be trained on the Royal Navy ships.

    The problem is that Hitler never set himself the goal of capturing England, rightly believing that the United States would benefit from this. The goal has always been the USSR. And everyone knew that very well. In the fall of 1940, Churchill collected all of his cannon matilda (200 pieces) and on the eve of the landing sent them all with a speed convoy to Africa. He knew very well that there would be no landing.

    This is just one example. It takes a lot of time to disassemble the rest.

    The capture of Moscow decided the outcome of the war. The attack of Japan was provoked from beginning to end by the actions of America. So Japan could not help but enter the war. He could not fight the allies of the USSR in the 45th. The cessation of food supply after the war led to the famine of the 46th year.

    Alternatives should be considered considering all factors.
    1. Penzyac
      Penzyac April 13 2014 12: 59
      +1
      Quote: Bakht
      An alternative story is an interesting thing. And it makes sense only for analysis. As in the present, mistakes can be avoided using unrealized opportunities.
      ...
      He could not fight the allies of the USSR in the 45th. The cessation of food supply after the war led to the famine of the 46th year.

      Alternatives should be considered considering all factors.


      I will say it again, the main thing is not that the USSR could not fight against the allies, but that they could not fight against the USSR. They could only unleash what they unleashed in reality - the Cold War.
      1. Bakht
        Bakht April 13 2014 15: 18
        0
        Quote: PENZYAC

        You could say that. The authority of the USSR in the 45th was huge. Among the allied generals, it was believed that they would start a war against the USSR in the 45th and a month later the Red Army would stand on the banks of the English Channel and the Pacific Ocean.

        But the military did not take into account economic realities. The country lay in ruins, the population was starving, and raw materials were largely supplied by Lend-Lease supplies. By the way, the military did not count on the atomic bomb. The argument was completely simple. The USSR lost hundreds of cities. What could change the destruction of another 2-3 cities? The fact that one could fly to Moscow still had to be proved.
  25. siberalt
    siberalt April 13 2014 09: 11
    +3
    The most interesting topic for children, and what would happen if differently laughing Develops logic.
  26. jktu66
    jktu66 April 13 2014 09: 16
    +3
    the population of Bolshevik Russia - "barbarians
    We change the Bolshevik to Putin and get a modern view of the West about Russia ...
  27. jktu66
    jktu66 April 13 2014 09: 30
    +2
    Awareness of the real capabilities of the Soviet armed forces gave Europe the following 46 years of peace following that war.
    Which one said that the Russian army is not needed? What are we friends with mattresses sucking?
  28. kartalovkolya
    kartalovkolya April 13 2014 09: 44
    +1
    Dreams, dreams where is yours ... But history speaks and "the fact on the face" is confirmation of this! In any case, as the great AV Suvorov used to say: "The Russians always beat the Prussians!" Apparently the lessons were wasted, it's time to conduct "additional classes" and "clarify" - who is the boss!
  29. Renat
    Renat April 13 2014 09: 44
    +4
    - Yes, our one Siberia is five France! - The whole world is alarming that we are measuring our territory by other countries.
    1. Turkir
      Turkir April 13 2014 09: 53
      +1
      Only five?
    2. tolmachiev51
      tolmachiev51 April 13 2014 10: 11
      +2
      Primorsky Krai - three European states !!!!!!!
  30. alex47russ
    alex47russ April 13 2014 09: 58
    +1
    For history it is not necessary if, yes if only !!! Look, some are already twisting the story in their own way !!! It's disgusting!!! It soon turns out that the USSR was the initiator of the Second World War and destroyed villages, villages, cities, peoples and countries !!!! And this is not so! The USSR freed itself and Europe from fascism !!! History one and the other can no longer be if they do not invent a time machine !!!
  31. tolmachiev51
    tolmachiev51 April 13 2014 10: 09
    +1
    Everyone imagines himself a strategist, watching the battle from the side. History has no subjunctive mood, what happened, what happened and what the hell to dig and make assumptions.
    1. novobranets
      novobranets April 13 2014 10: 41
      +4
      Quote: tolmachiev51
      what the hell to dig and make assumptions.

      This digging is called analysis. And since history is developing in a spiral, in the future this analysis may come in handy, and in any case it will not hurt. All planning of political and military strategies is based on the experience of past campaigns and their mistakes. hi
  32. K-36
    K-36 April 13 2014 11: 09
    +1
    Can we leave alone children's fantasies on the lawn "if only, if only"?
    Correspondent of "Komsomolskaya Pravda" Beroev reports from Slavyansk that there is a shootout in the city. There is already a wounded man. (http://www.kp.ru/daily/26219.7/3102560/).
  33. andj61
    andj61 April 13 2014 11: 38
    +1
    Quote: Renat
    - Yes, our one Siberia is five France! - The whole world is alarming that we are measuring our territory by other countries.

    Not Siberia 5 France, but one Krasnoyarsk Territory equals four France. Even the play was like that, it was in the Vakhtangov Theater
  34. andj61
    andj61 April 13 2014 11: 41
    0
    Actually, this entire article is an extremely unworked scenario in the "Alternative History" genre. Our science fiction writers have analyzed and substantiated them much better (for example, the forum "In the Vortex of Times".
  35. individual
    individual April 13 2014 12: 03
    0
    For the West, Russia has always been a bone that cannot be chewed and swallowed - you will choke.
    Here and around grinning.
  36. Pula
    Pula April 13 2014 12: 05
    +1
    It is difficult to be a LEADER of a country and make a fateful decision that will affect the consciousness of the NATION.
    And options Ooooooooo ...
  37. Penzyac
    Penzyac April 13 2014 12: 25
    0
    "Our country would be involved in a war that it could not win ..."

    Our country could not (and cannot) lose the war - this is the main thing, therefore, the main thing is that America could not win the war against the USSR. and not that the USSR could not win the war against the United States (geography hinders), but America could not withstand a protracted war without a constant significant inflow of resources and a similar demand for American products from abroad (such as the "Marshall Plan"), all the more, inevitably there would be an internal crisis (capitalism, however), while on our side there would be the potential of almost all of Europe and, most likely, China.
  38. Leshka
    Leshka April 13 2014 13: 02
    0
    and if a if
  39. EvilLion
    EvilLion April 13 2014 13: 02
    +1
    1) Ju-87 Over Britain suffered very heavy losses, one should not think that a tiny airplane would make battleships shake with fear. The fact that Rudel, or Ju-88 is at an altitude, it doesn't matter if it got critical damage on the Marat, does not cancel the general rule, it is difficult to destroy or permanently disable a large armored ship, 99% of the bombs dropped on the Marat do not go anywhere hit. Britain had more warships than Germany's dive bombers.

    2) The capture of Moscow, at least, would seriously complicate the country's defense due to the loss of a mass of human resources and not the fact that many of the unique industries that you would not create in each Muhosk could be evacuated.

    3) If the USSR had a lot of moles in the Manhattan project, then on the contrary, it should have roughly represented the uranium reserves and the possible number of bombs in the United States, as well as the approximate power of the bombs. 10-20 kt is, in comparison with the good artillery barrage of the times of that war, - seeds. It will break through a gap of 1-2 km and hook its own people, then there were sometimes 100 meters between the trenches.That is, the capabilities of nuclear weapons of that time in terms of physical impact on the troops were close to zero (if the carrier would fly at all). A greater effect could be achieved with good old howitzers. On the moral level, too, zero, because then no one knew about nuclear winter and other delights. Another thing is that after the loss of 7-8 million men only killed, it is simply stupid to start another major war. Although, for its part, the USSR would have been able to repel the allies' attempt to push beyond the negotiated borders.
  40. Mentor
    Mentor April 13 2014 13: 08
    +1
    I read the article carefully. The author is clearly an adherent of the "Circles on the water" hypothesis, that is, any interference in history is extinguished by the inertia of the historical process, and in the time we observe, everything returns to normal. A. Kontorovich writes about it in artistic form. And Anisimov in "Option Bis" also agrees with this.
    As for the attack on Germany by the Soviet armed forces in XNUMX, subject to the invasion of Britain, this is nonsense. The Red Army was rearming itself, and it was not up to aggression. And again, in the literature this is highlighted by Mzaruelov in the book "Tanks Decide Everything."
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion April 13 2014 19: 34
      0
      The army never rearm all at once, so do not write nonsense.
  41. gav6757
    gav6757 April 13 2014 13: 10
    0
    I will propose another option, quite possible, at that time ...
    The USSR, having good relations with Germany, jointly opposed the imperialists, represented by Great Britain and the United States! The version has the right to exist based on the political situation at the end of the 30s and beginning of the 40s.
    And, here, how it would end - it really depends on your imagination !!!
  42. siberalt
    siberalt April 13 2014 13: 30
    0
    Five scenarios for the author to not be born. Who will offer more laughing Please do not take it as a reproach or offensive. But this is the topic.
  43. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa April 13 2014 13: 42
    +1
    It is unlikely that the presence of an atomic bomb in America stopped Stalin. Well, the bomb, so what. Yes, unusual, but its effect was not very different from ordinary ones. Yes, against small towns with wooden houses effectively, against the army, a hundred or so ordinary bombers with ordinary bombs are better. Rather, Stalin was stopped by the absence of an air defense system capable of repelling a raid of thousands in the troops and in the rear. Without dominance over the battlefield of their aircraft, conduct offensive operations - send troops to the slaughter. But this is still half the trouble. The real trouble, without effective counteraction to strategic bombers, the industry can easily be brought to zero. The Caucasus was the only oil supplier for the USSR at that time, and plans to destroy oil production have existed since pre-war times. A couple of thousands of bombers raids on Baku, or a couple of atomic bombs, and have to sit at the negotiating table already on the terms of the Anglo-Saxons. And it seems that in Yalta we agreed on everything quite normally.
    1. chehywed
      chehywed April 13 2014 14: 05
      +1
      They already wrote that the amount of TNT equivalent dropped in Tokyo for one air raid, which is much more powerful than the first two atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, except that the delivery costs are less.
  44. chehywed
    chehywed April 13 2014 14: 00
    +3
    Quote: Posted by George Dvorsky
    Consequently, the British at best until the end of the war would have chased Rommel through the sandbox of North Africa, without thinking of landing in France.

    Excuse me, who would drive someone? If Germany hadn’t attacked the USSR, Monti would not have the slightest chance against the Desert Fox. Well, this is so, what would happen if ...
  45. fly fishing
    fly fishing April 13 2014 14: 06
    +1
    Five scenarios, but one result! Victory is ours!
  46. Anton Gavrilov
    Anton Gavrilov April 13 2014 14: 06
    +1
    History does not have a subjunctive direction - how it happened, it happened. Regarding the invasion of Great Britain, the Sea Lion had a great chance of success. The first was repeatedly said about the state of the British army after evacuation from Dunkirk - it was depressing. Secondly, the British fleet, yes it was very large, but during its construction the British had a very great passion for saving, which played a very cruel joke with them. In particular, all British ships had an inadequate air defense system at that time — they would not have been able to withstand the blows of German aircraft Add here submarines that would definitely attract support, add here also that according to the plan (the author does not say this), it was planned to set up many minefields in order to impede the operations of the Naval Fleet. In such circumstances, it would be extremely difficult for the British Navy to make its own the final word.
    I would like to say separately about Moscow, the beginning of the war in May, as originally planned, the absence of leapfrog from the transfer of troops from the Army Group Center to the Army Group South, the absence of pressure on some German generals, would play a role - the Germans would definitely advance deeper into our territory. There is one more nuance: during the assault on Moscow, Hitler tried to take it from the flanks, and the generals insisted on a powerful frontal strike. If all this had been accomplished, the Germans would most likely have entered Moscow. But it was not enough to enter it, it also needed to be captured ! And in That’s where the Germans would most likely lose. The fact is that the experience of fighting for Stalingrad shows that huge forces are needed for operations in large cities. Our fighters fought with incredible tenacity for Stalingrad, imagine how fierce they would be fighting for Moscow! The Germans would definitely suffer gigantic losses - they would need to transfer troops from other army groups, which would negatively affect the results of their actions. They would enter it somewhere in the fall area, if they entered at all, and before the onset of cold weather they would definitely not manage, what would be further with the onset of cold weather, I think everyone knows. We wouldn’t get off with light blood either, we would also have to transfer additional forces from other fronts, but time played in our favor. Even the capture of Moscow was VERY unlikely to ensure victory, remember 1812 a year, the capture of the city would cost the Germans just monstrous losses — they could hardly have kept the capital. Summing up all the above, the capture of Moscow was initially doomed to failure — such is my point of view.

    And so, in general, the author tried to grasp the immense, such questions need to be revealed deeply and seriously, in this article they are revealed very dryly and fluently.
    1. chehywed
      chehywed April 13 2014 14: 43
      0
      Quote: Anton Gavrilov
      Even the capture of Moscow, which is VERY unlikely, did not ensure victory — remember 1812 year

      He did not ensure victory, but would create gigantic problems. The consequences are unpredictable. Compared to 1812, in 1941 Moscow was already the country's largest transport hub.
      1. Anton Gavrilov
        Anton Gavrilov April 13 2014 15: 18
        0
        But then again, as I said, it was extremely difficult to hold back later.
  47. Logos
    Logos April 13 2014 14: 22
    0
    By the way, about the "stupid eastern barbarians": the German tank ace Otto Karius writes in his memoirs that it was much easier and easier for the Germans to fight on the Western Front, and the veterans of the campaign in the USSR treated American opponents with undisguised contempt, according to O. Karius, five Russians were much more dangerous than 30 Americans. American and British soldiers are characterized by him as extremely careless and arrogant, they often did not take elementary precautions: they did not conduct reconnaissance, did not set up military outposts, and the banal lack of resources prevented the Germans from punishing them for this: equipment, fuel, soldiers, which were primarily provided Eastern front

    So the prospects of the Allied war against the USSR were very unenviable: they would have simply been thrown into the La Manche and the war would have gone into a stalemate, since the Allies would have no land army, and the USSR would be seriously inferior to them in the Air Force and Navy
  48. Kibl
    Kibl April 13 2014 14: 31
    0
    During that time, there were only two armies in the world that could fight and conduct full-scale military operations. Of course, the Red Army and the Wehrmacht, the rest acted as extras. So the review is interesting only as a review.
  49. oxotnuk86
    oxotnuk86 April 13 2014 14: 32
    +1
    A truce in 41g was impossible. Stalin and Hitler never did. Truce for them meant death.
    1. Rider
      Rider April 13 2014 14: 49
      0
      Quote: oxotnuk86
      Truce for them meant death.

      truce meant death only for alozych.
      IVS would use it for concentration.
  50. chenia
    chenia April 13 2014 15: 23
    +1
    Quote: assa.sever
    I absolutely agree: history has no subjunctive mood.


    Any study involves determining the cause-effect relationship, the presence of an alternative approach and the calculation of possible options. And talking about mood is the same as just learning history by dates and that's it, without any analysis of the causes of the event.