Alt-WW2 thread

With Italy's help

And then the Italians will need German help?

no.

Well they did in every other campaign except Albania and Ethiopia

You are so FUCKING STUPID.
youtube.com/watch?v=1e_AZ3j2LbY

Your video directly contradicts your own claims, are you retarded?

I was only wrong about Sudan,

but I was right about Algeria and Moracco

No, you aren't, even your video shows Algeria and Morocco being under Vichy France until Americans show up and take it, Italians never even set foot in either

With soldiers

>What if the French use the Mechelen incident to enter Belgium and fortify in depth over the winter/sprig along the Dyle?
>What if Stalin doesn't stuff his army along the border and employs actual defense in depth?
>What if the Soviet winter counteroffensive is focused on Heersgruppe Mitte instead of spread out?
>What if the British just invade the Azores and use it to base land based planes to cover the air gap out of Britain and Canada in the center f the Alantic route?
>What if Harris wasn't a fucking twit and focused on economic bombing instead of morale bombing?
>What if the U.S. based their initial war sub fleet out of Manila to chew on the Japanese convoys right off the bat?

>What if the British just invade the Azores and use it to base land based planes to cover the air gap out of Britain and Canada in the center f the Alantic route?
You know Britain and their treaties man, can't break the oldest alliance in history

>What if Stalin doesn't stuff his army along the border and employs actual defense in depth?
More like
>What if Stalin doesn't actually purge his competent generals?

>>What if the U.S. based their initial war sub fleet out of Manila to chew on the Japanese convoys right off the bat?
You mean what if the U.S. had actual working torps. That was the real problem.

To be honest, there's no real indication that the Red Army officers purged were substantially more competent than the ones brought in. Hell, when said officers were largely restored to their former positions come 1942, you still don't see much improvement in Soviet leadership, coordination, communications, etc.

The real damage that the purge did was primarily in how it subordinated the entirety of army policy and culture to Stalin. Tactical and operational decisions were made on how they looked to the boss, rather than if they worked or not, and this "defend at the border" was symptomatic of it.

what if Nazi Germany just waited and did nothing?
would France and Britain help them against a Russian invasion to avoid them getting too much space in Europe?

He probably means Tukhachevsky
That and one fuckwit saying the Japs set their depth charges too shallow at a press conference, Andrew May was a double agent

The USSR almost certainly wouldn't invade. Stalin is an evil bastard, but he's cautious as all hell. Look at the steps he took before invading tiny nothing countries like the Baltic States, Finland, Poland, Iran, etc. Isolate diplomatically, stir up trouble inside the borders, invade, preferably behind someone else to draw their fire.

There's no way he's taking on another major power, especially one that has a decent possibility of being backed up by other major powers.

That is plausible. But didn't Stalin purge off the main founders of "Deep operations", such as Tukhachevsky? Or is that irrelevant to the case?

>He probably means Tukhachevsky
You mean one of the most meme-overrated generals throughout history? He's not all that far behind Rommel and Patton when it comes to vast inferences drawn about his ability from the tiniest of samplings, and ignoring almost everything idiotic he ever did

no navy?

Spain only lost 9 ships in the war

Elaborate on how he's overrated and some idiotic stuff he did, genuinely curious

I'd think he's more on the level of Guderian, a student of history who had some novel theories that get overstated
They only had like 12 to start with

He did, but first off, the purging of Tukashevsky did little to hamper the enamoring with deep operations, the Soviets still attempted to do it throughout the war.

Secondly, Tukashevsky's theory was really poorly thought out, and deep operations wouldn't become actually effective until you had a host of other people working in on the actual details. He rejected a kind of Schwerpunkt (I'm sorry to use a german term, but I can't think of a better one to use) thinking, and posited a kind of offensive where you attack along multiple axis at the same time, forcing your opponent to stretch himself too thinly and to break through to the rear areas and do the real damage. The Soviets tried that during the war, and it never worked until they actually started massing their efforts at a weak point and doing one, at most two breakthroughs at a time. To go for 5 or more that Tukashevsky recommended requires such a ridiculous advantage in force and in second echelon support that you'd win no matter what stupid plan you did.

I mean, yes, he had his successes in the Russo-Polish war, but there's a big degree of difference between a newly formed half in chaos polish state fighting cavalry battles and fighting professional operations 20 years later with vastly improved mechanization, organization, rail transportation, etc.

>citation needed.

That's interesting, anywhere I can read up on the new and improved deep operations, its development and who was behind it? Or do we not have information on that?

>2 battleships
>2 heavy cruisers
>4 light cruisers
>15 destroyers
>12 torpedo boats
>5 sloops
>3 minelayers
>9 coast guard ships
>14 submarines
I was being facetious, but they really lacked in force projection considering how basically all their capital ships were sunk in the course of the SCW

>Newly minted lieutenant at the outset of WW1.
>Is captured by early 1915.
>Tries to escape from prison a bunch of times. (Incidentally, he met Charles De Gaulle in Ingolstadt)
>Eventually succeeds, getting back into Russia in september of 1917 just in time to sign on with the Bolsheviks
>Has no actual command experience of anything bigger than a platoon, but that still makes him one of their top military men at that point.
>Is quite effective in the RCW, bold, incisive, attack attack attack sort of guy. Tended to lose significant amounts of men due to desertion, as he tended to just abandon stragglers and live off the land wherever possible.
>Polish-Soviet war breaks out, more of the same, just drives straight from Vitebsk to Minsk and then straight to Warsaw, ignoring everything to his sides, outrunning his supply lines, and leaving close to 2/3 of his force behind because they couldn't keep up with the pace he wanted to set.
>Eventually loses at Warsaw, always blamed Stalin (with some justification), leading to them not liking each other and eventually him getting purged.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think he's a bad general, I think of him as a very Rommel-like figure. Bold, very aware of initiative, only really at home when on the offensive, impatient. He's not some infallible god of war whose purging lead to the wrecking of the Soviet war machine, and if he had been in charge of things come 1941, he almost certainly would have been smashed up just like all the other guys the Soviets had.

I'd recommend Soviet Military Operational Art: In Pursuit of Deep Battle, and The Soviet Conduct of Tactical Maneuver: Spearhead of the Offensive both by Glantz,

>just 1 cruiser was sunk
>only 2 destroyers were sunk
>6 subs were sunk

Oh, I've heard of Glantz before, love that guy. Surprised I've never heard of those books, cheers. As a sign of gratitude, have this, although I'll assume you already have it:
sti.clemson.edu/publications-mainmenu-38/commentaries-mainmenu-211/doc_download/189-the-soviet-german-war-1941-1945-myths-and-realities-a-survey-essay

>Jaime I and Espana were sunk
>Both battleships
Why are you lying?

those were dreadnoughts, not battleships

Regardless, why did you neglect to mention Spains 2 most heavily armed ships?

Dreadnoughts are a type of battleship.

P I N K M A P
Motherfucker.

That was just a bit of banter

That wasn't the only problem, many American sub skippers early war were cautious as fuck and tried to get firing solutions using only sonar and shit.

Besides, Portugal would certainly lend her army to Spain

>Angloboos going against the oldest alliance in history

>portugal
>angloboo

If that's the case why did Portugal remain neutral?

>Upon the declaration of war in September 1939, the Portuguese Government announced on 1 September that the Anglo-Portuguese Alliance remained intact, but since the British did not seek Portuguese assistance, Portugal would remain neutral. In an aide-mémoire of 5 September 1939, the British Government confirmed the understanding. British strategists regarded Portuguese non-belligerency as "essential to keep Spain from entering the war on the side of the Axis."
Geopolitics

Then why did he support Franco?

Have fun getting over the Pyrenees

If they're at the Pyrenees why would that mtn range give them any more trouble than the 30 they already went over to conquer Spain? The Iberian Peninsula is mountainous.