American domestic implications if D-Day fails

[Chiron]

Not sure if you remember the arguments we had here about the food issue driving Germany's strategy and Nazi war crimes, but I've come around to the view that the food situation necessitated invading the USSR when coupled with the view Hitler had that Stalin was untrustworthy and getting ready to attack at some point, even if the Soviets only potentially decided specifically to do so in May 1941.

Soviet mobilization earlier would only convince Hitler he was right to attack.

The Mediterranean strategy was viewed as non-viable due to the non-cooperation of Franco, which further closed off other options for a reasonably swift resolution of the war.

That and Middle East Oil was dwarfed by Soviet Oil at this time, and Texas Oil Barons were the biggest and fattest Barons of all.

If Turkey had decided to join the Axis, then things really get interesting. Britain effectively lose the Middle East, the Turks had a professional army, pound per pound better than what the Italians had, and Germany can get more men into Turkey than the British can shovel through Iraq and Persia combined and the shipping alone precludes a large Army.

 

[sillygoose]

Makes sense. Anyway, what effects would a Soviet victory at Brody have on the war?

It would be rather immense if it effectively prevented an Axis advance in the Ukraine.

 

[sillygoose]

That and Middle East Oil was dwarfed by Soviet Oil at this time, and Texas Oil Barons were the biggest and fattest Barons of all.

If Turkey had decided to join the Axis, then things really get interesting. Britain effectively lose the Middle East, the Turks had a professional army, pound per pound better than what the Italians had, and Germany can get more men into Turkey than the British can shovel through Iraq and Persia combined and the shipping alone precludes a large Army.

Same reason the war faction in Britain decided on war to solve the 'German problem' when they got too close to the Ottomans for comfort; the consequences of a major European power dominating the Middle East that wasn't Britain would mean Britain is reduced to a 2nd rate power.

 

[WolfBear]

It would be rather immense if it effectively prevented an Axis advance in the Ukraine.

But what about the front further north?

 

[Chiron]

Same reason the war faction in Britain decided on war to solve the 'German problem' when they got too close to the Ottomans for comfort; the consequences of a major European power dominating the Middle East that wasn't Britain would mean Britain is reduced to a 2nd rate power.

Hence why WW1 Germany should have defended in the West and went a partitioning the Russian Empire in 1915 and getting the Ottomans firmly in control of the Caucasus all the way to Astrakhan and booted the British out of Persia, Iraq, Arabia, and Egypt. If Italy had still been stupid enough to jump in on the Allied Band Wagon, its gains in 1911-12 get reversed.

Then it can go and fuck Italy first to teach it the ways of war. Then punch France out.

 

[sillygoose]

Hence why WW1 Germany should have defended in the West and went a partitioning the Russian Empire in 1915 and getting the Ottomans firmly in control of the Caucasus all the way to Astrakhan and booted the British out of Persia, Iraq, Arabia, and Egypt. If Italy had still been stupid enough to jump in on the Allied Band Wagon, its gains in 1911-12 get reversed.

Then it can go and fuck Italy first to teach it the ways of war. Then punch France out.

So long as you get Wilhelm to build the 'west wall' in 1903 as originally planned, but then the French might also invest in heavy artillery early. The problem with defending in the west is the chance the French might march through Belgium and Britain of course does nothing and even if not they could still fight their way into the Saar and overrun vital iron and coal fields in the process or interdict them via the air or heavy artillery. Those were the concerns of the high command IOTL, that coupled with the fear of a two front war and Russia being too big to actually defeat.

 

[sillygoose]

But what about the front further north?

That would remain unchanged provided forces aren't drawn off to help the south or the Soviets start siphoning off forces in Ukraine to fight in the north. When things get deep enough in Belarus though I don't see how AG-Center doesn't start facing more series flank attacks from the south.

 

[Chiron]

So long as you get Wilhelm to build the 'west wall' in 1903 as originally planned, but then the French might also invest in heavy artillery early. The problem with defending in the west is the chance the French might march through Belgium and Britain of course does nothing and even if not they could still fight their way into the Saar and overrun vital iron and coal fields in the process or interdict them via the air or heavy artillery. Those were the concerns of the high command IOTL, that coupled with the fear of a two front war and Russia being too big to actually defeat.

Which is why you do it in 1915 after the French are pushed back well away from the borders of the Reich. Then dig in and have defense in depth.

 

[WolfBear]

So long as you get Wilhelm to build the 'west wall' in 1903 as originally planned, but then the French might also invest in heavy artillery early. The problem with defending in the west is the chance the French might march through Belgium and Britain of course does nothing and even if not they could still fight their way into the Saar and overrun vital iron and coal fields in the process or interdict them via the air or heavy artillery. Those were the concerns of the high command IOTL, that coupled with the fear of a two front war and Russia being too big to actually defeat.

Couldn't Britain enter the war on the CP side if France invades Belgium, though?

 

[Chiron]

Couldn't Britain enter the war on the CP side if France invades Belgium, though?

Belgium's neutrality was a total joke, and a pretext.

 

[sillygoose]

Which is why you do it in 1915 after the French are pushed back well away from the borders of the Reich. Then dig in and have defense in depth.

Germany did defend in the west and attack in the east in 1915 IOTL.

 

[Chiron]

Germany did defend in the west and attack in the east in 1915 IOTL.

Not really, it split the baby and the German Navy sat in Wlhelmshaven waiting uselessly for Der Tag when it should have either drew the British Navy into a shitkicking contest or sailed east and help the Army outflank the Russians in the Baltics and put Saint Petersburg under threat and/or captured it.

Also someone needed to go and slap the Austrian-Hungarian Navy onto their ships and sail for death or glory in the Mediterranean.

 

[ATP]

Question: What is the last/latest PoD that can realistically occur on the Soviet side that would result in the Soviet Union actually winning the Battle of Brody or at least fighting this battle to a draw?

Soviets in OTL had 7:1 advantage in tanks,including KV1 which Wermacht could not destroy,so they must win.

Why they lost? probably to mix of two factions - Higher commanders,just like in Boldin group which failed in 1941,too,simply hide and stopped radio communications. then ,their junior commanders simply fled with their soldiers.

Becouse soviet armored dyvisions 22.6.41 had operational tanks,2 motorized regiments,two artillery regiments - yet,instead of 4500 tanks in Brody battle followed by infrantry and artillery,german reported facing maybe 1500 tanks with little infrantry and artillery support.

Gave them more soldiers and tanks? they would run,too.
And soviet generals acted rationally - if they use radio and lost,they would be killed as traitors who betrayed their plans to germans.When they send runners on motocycles/who almost never found their designated units/,they were covered.