Board Thread:Timeline Discussions/@comment-7559950-20130911012534/@comment-32656-20140716130330

Japan invades the Soviet Union? Not only do the Soviets have far better ground troops and equipment, but Generals Siberia and Winter on their side. Guess how that goes. Basically no effect other than a lot of dead Japanese.

Japan can attack the border areas all it wants - got the tar beat out of it otl, and attacking in force would have the same result.

Choice between Moscow and Siberia? Sure as heck is not Moscow that gets the short end of that stick. So long as Moscow was in danger, Siberia would be left to retreat - not that it would, realistically, have to, given the vast difference in quality and the supply lines Japan would have to have.

Attacking Wake, Guam, and the Philippines? Same effect as Pearl Harbor, just with a smaller "vast majority" voting for it. So, unlike being more or less unanimous otl, you have a couple of dissenters.

Did read your "scenario," GB. Doesn't seem that you did, mind. And, fyi, the reasons why the Soviets win each time has been covered.

That has little to nothing to do with why the Soviets won Kursk. They won it be having better forces in general. There's basically no way the Germans could have gotten through.

Hitler delaying did little. In fact, there is evidence that it helped the attack overall, giving more time to prepare. Had that not been the case, it would have ended up like later "grand" offensives did - abject slaughter of German forces.

Soviets were not stupid, as you seem to think. An offensive of that scale is kind of obvious - you know it is coming, provided you both look and believe intel. Barbarossa, they did neither, and they didn't believe it for "Blue" either. Kursk was even more obvious that those two events. they aren't going to miss it. That the Brits told them something was coming just adds to it.

Fortifications were basically not used at all at Kursk. Yes, they were there, but played little to no role. There is a reason why Kursk is also known as the largest tank battle in history. Something you seem to forget entirely.

Redirect reinforcements from North Africa? Not only is that not an option outright - costs him Rommel and his army if he does that, in addition to giving the Allies the Med - but doesn't help the overall size of German forces much. In the context of the Eastern front, a couple hundred thousand men means very little.

To call it "unavoidable" even with all of those things is simply not true. And if you looked into it you'd know that.

A fifth of the Soviet Army? Yeah, no.

Sorry, but there is no truth to that manpower assertion. And even if there was, saying the eastern Ukraine - an area somewhat evacuated before the Germans got there, and not that large in size - fought it off is even more ludicrous.

They were, in fact, not hard-pressed to replace their losses.

If you're going to mention the 1943 - and 1942 - offers, you may want to, you know, actually look at the offers. The Soviet offer was peace for 1914 borders, and economic ties. So, basically a large net loss to the Germans and their Allies. They would have stupid to take it, and it would never have been anything besides a truce anyway. Stalin was giving them a chance to essentially surrender before tearing them apart.

Wrong - just makes your "scenario" worse.

Nerve Gas? Congratulations - you just made it all right to gas everyone, including cities. Three guesses how little effect it has.

Assassinations? Good luck - no one has anyone in a position to do that.

Argentina didn't like the Nazis, IRA hated them, Vichy did join them otl, Turkey hated them and joined the Allies in 1945, Swedes wanted no part of any of it and have a small population, so little to no benefit, and Portugal did more or less join the Allies in 1943.

Nazis with nukes? You're talking the late 1940s,at best.

Stalingrad? The German Allies were effectively useless except as cannon fodder - at best, they hold their own.

Sieges take a lot of men - that whole army you have there would be busy besieging Stalingrad, not going elsewhere. And, before someone says it, you can't just go around the city - the leaves a massive hole in your flank. Three guesses what happens there.

Soviets knew about Kursk in advance from more then the Brits. As stated, not stupid.

Yes, the Allies had the German codes - but could they really use them? The answer is no. If you always act on info from broken codes, the other side will figure it out, mitigating any advantages. Same goes, at least early on, with radar.

Actually, they really could not use them for U-boats - the decoding time meant that they were more or less useless for such a purpose. Allies just didn't take the exact same routes, simply put.

Code helped even less with planes - you have radar to blame there, and they didn't act on that much for the same reason. For example, Coventry.

Brits really could not get as much of a hint about operations in the east as you think. Remember, too, that they did not trust the Soviets, and didn't share all that much with them.

Soviets ignored any and all British intel before and during Barbarossa.

If the Allies think their codes are broken, they change them. Or, more likely, just expand the "Windtalkers" into more use in the European Theater.

False messages are only useful once or twice, fyi.