Why is it questions of this nature almost never look at the "what if's" available to the Allies? Surely there were alternates available to France, the UK, the USA, and elsewhere that would have led to interesting changes. What if Mao had agreed to suspend his communist activities, and coordinate a genuine Chinese war against Japan with the KMT? What if the Belgians had recognized the obvious foolshness of counting on "neutrality: to keep them out of a war, and, and cooperated with France and Britain to create a solid defence, anchored in the Ardennes and continuing north along "river country", thereby making a quick "outflanking" of the Maginot Line unlikely? What if the USA had committed itself to the allies earlier, built up the Army in the 30's, and entered the war in 39 with prepositioned stocks of military hardware in the UK?

This is crucial! In the election before 1933 Hitler changes the partys course away from struggle between the communists and the social democrates over to the small farmers that in the agricultural crisis in the 1930'ies had no representation (the conservatives were representing the big farms in eastern preussia and there was no liberal party to speak of). He gains the financial support of Krupp because his nearest competitor shoots himself in the foot by demanding the nationalisation of big firms. When he gets to power in 1933, Hitler starts an expansive economic programme (roadbuilding and so on); but declines to mop up the excess liquidity in taxes for the fear of the workers votes. The farms are saved and the workers enjoy full employment and high wages and low taxes. And his fincial backers were kept happy by large orders (and if You are Krupp, this means weapons). This spending has to financed, that was done by notes drawn on the central bank, that ran for 3-month. These were renewed all the time. He tries to cover the tax hole by stealing from the jews (which is not nearly enough) and annexing territory so his farmers can get cheap land. In (i believe) 1939 the head of the central bank (von Schackt?? he was indicted at Nüremberg; but aquitted) resigns, as he could not take the responsability any more. The German government and society was at the brink of the most monumental melt-down. The only way out was to steal - as a first Poland. The British and the French finally said enough was enough (It was really just a question of time). WW2 breaks out. Please note that very little action goes on on the western front untill the occupation of Denmark and Norway.

Speer took over after von Schackt.

No one looks at the Allies "what ifs" because they won. Chinese cooperating against Japanese... still would not have helped them. Belgium as Allied member... this one, by itself, would have probably delayed the start of the war. It would have neutralized the advantages of the Panzers. It would be interesting to speculate on what the effect on the German armored forces would have been. I wonder though, if it would have stopped the Germans. Germany had a manpower advantage over the French, even with Low Countries support. The big IF, would have been the Ardennes. If I remember right, the Allies did not feel any armored force could get thru it, so it was lightly defended. If Germany could have gotten thru, France would have fallen. A twist on this one, is if France/UK had forced a coup or "intervened" in the Low Countries to get the use of the defensive line. What effect would it have on US? USA entry earlier ... Brings in the issue of Japan. I think this one would have been the most difficult "what if". If this had happened, US would have been in a position to D-Day Europe in 42, maybe even 41. If the US had the nuclues of a 200 division Army, and was at war with Germany in '39, would there have been no Barbarossa? And would Russia eventually have attacked Germany? Thats a major what if all by itself.

I have always wondered why the allies did not move agaisnt Germany during the Phoney War. They could have advanced with the Maginot line behind them. This at its very least would have focused the coming fight agaist the Maginot line as the Germans could not go through Holland and Belguim without their left flank being secure.

I think that the Market Garden Arnhem operation could have achieved a great deal. Its outcome did hang in the balance and so easily could have had a differant succesful outcome. If 30 Corp captured thr Arhhem bridge intact the Ruhr would have been open and the German front would have collapsedback. Who know the Allies might have capotured Berlin, or had more say in post war Germany. P.s I have often wondered why when the Devon and Dorsets were getting across to Urquart and 1st Airbourne that they were then only withdrawn. Why did we not re-inforce the bridgehead and try and extend it along the banks to railway bridge or Ferry? We would seemingly have already payed the price for the land. I am sure the Russians would have not given up such costly piece of ground.

>I have always wondered why the allies did not move agaisnt Germany during the Phoney War. They could have advanced with the Maginot line behind them. This at its very least would have focused the coming fight agaist the Maginot line as the Germans could not go through Holland and Belguim without their left flank being secure.< Lets make sure we are talking the same thing before I answer that. By Allies, you mean UK and France. Phoney War is after Polish invasion, but before Low Countries and France. Answer is the French strategic plan. Based on the WWI experiences (something the French did not want to go thru again), the strategic planning for the French was fortifications (ie Maginot line). This blocked any German invasion into France, forcing the fight to be in the Low Countries (ie someone elses land). Then the French and British could advance to defensive positions along the river and fight the Germans from there. For the French to conduct an offensive against Germany, they would have to give up all the advantages that they had spent tons of money on (Maginot) and would have put thier infantry based armies out there where the German Panzers could use mobility against them. Gotta remember that at this time, mobile warfare wasn't really understood. French, US and British still thought in terms of cavalry, tanks being metal horses. And since Germany had larger manpower than France, "attacking" Germany would have played into the German manpower advantage (ie they could afford losses the French couldn't). So the Allies sat and waited until Germany walked into the "trap". The plan did work. Maginot forced the Germans to attack thru the Low Countries. Only problem was the Ardennes. The French were correct, since they said that it wasn't possible to cross it, "if properly defended". They forgot the "properly defended" part.

What if Churchill hadn?t taken over from Chamberlain after the fiasco in Norway? There has always been the theory that part of the reason for Hitler pausing at Dunkirk, was an attempt to win the British over. Hitler was in many ways a strong Anglo-Phile, he was in love with the idea of the British Empire and believed that The British Empire and Germany could be allies, and many overtures were made to the British to arrange an end to hostilities. Hitler didn?t want to force the British army to surrender, he never asked the British to surrender in 1940. Had Sir Oswald Mosley the leader of Britain's Hitlerite fascist movement and it's infamous Blackshirt thugs played a better hand and taken power, these German overtures might well have been accepted and we would have seen the British Empire joining the Axis, and the World divided up between Germany (Western & Eastern Europe) British Empire (Common Wealth, Africa, Indian Subcontinent etc) Japan (Southeast Asia i.e. China, Indo China, parts of Russia) and Italy (a small slice of North Africa, some tit bits in the Balkans). Without the Western front Germany could have taken Russia, which wouldn?t be receiving Allied Aid. Who knows maybe the Brits would join the fight against the Communists (The British actually fought the Communist (Red Russians) in Russia in 1917 trying to aid the previous government and its forces aka White Russians). During the discussions in Versailles 1918, Lloyd George had been against French desires to punish Germany for WW1 as he saw Germany as the natural strategic lynch pin in stopping the Communists, regarded (as latter bourn out) to be the greatest threat to Western Civilisation. It was Churchill?s personality that refused to compromise that ensured that the British Empire never want down this route. http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/churchill/box.htm On June 4, 1940, less than a month into his first tenure as prime minister and in the wake of the extraordinary evacuation of hundreds of thousands of British (and French and Belgian) fighting men at Dunkirk, Churchill addressed the House of Commons. His speech, broadcast to a rallied British nation, would be his most famous, an outstanding example of Churchill's rhetorical powers: ". . . I have, myself, full confidence that if all do their duty, if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made, as they are being made, we shall prove ourselves once again able to defend our Island home, to ride out the storm of war, and to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years, if necessary alone. At any rate, that is what we are going to try to do. That is the resolve of His Majesty's Government?every man of them. That is the will of Parliament and the nation. The British Empire and the French Republic, linked together in their cause and in their need, will defend to the death their native soil, aiding each other like good comrades to the utmost of their strength. Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of the Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and the oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old." Just an interesting what if I think. Just think of the repercussion today if CHurchill hadnt been around, if we had negociated wuth the Germans, would the World have been divided between the Axis with the British Empire inside? By the way I?m not a fascist! I think that Churchill was one the Greatest War time leaders of all time, and the fight against fascism and the other evils of the Axis totally right in the noblest sense of Just War Theory! And I just love his speeches!

If the British had went Axis, it would have put the US in a very interesting position. You are correct that Hitler admired the British and believed it was beneficial for an alliance between the two. Would Russian have fallen from Barbarossa? Short answer, I don't think so. This brings up the debate on Moscow falling, would Russia fall. I don't believe so, because Russia was Stalin, not Moscow. It would have put a world of hurt on Russia, but Stalin already showed he was willing to starve the civilians to keep the military strong. Then that brings up the US. Western front really didn't help Russia much until the later years. The first few years Russia was pretty much by itself, but it did get Lend Lease. If UK was Axis, would Russian still have gotten Lend Lease? I'd say yes. I don't see the US and UK/Germany fighitng in the Atlantic over lend lease shipping, so I suspect other routes would have been found to get help to Russia. Would Russia have still been aided? Yes, if only because it was the only game in town against Germany. And now you've just opened up a whole nother bunch of "what ifs". Could America ignore its prejudices against Japan, and make an alliance to face the Axis? What would have happened to the Commonwealth? Would it now be Pax Americana instead? Would the British and US fight for control of the sea? Makes my head ache thinking about the possibilities. Btw, the problem isn't fascism, its nazism. The two are not the same. But due to the WWII propaganda and the victor writing the history, todays world doesn't really understand the difference.

This all only goes to show, again, that WW2 Alternate Scenarios provide some of the most interesting, engaging debates on recent history I've ever come across. So many issues, political and military, are almost infinitely debatable and still seem to be of interest to many a half century and more after they happened (or didn't happen). 1)Oswald Mosely's widow just died. I read her obituary this week. One of the Mitford girls, who were an odd and severely screwed up lot of remarkably pretty and smart sisters. 1a)As a practical matter, I find it very difficult to believe a fascist government was possible in Britain absent German conquest. It flies in the face of centuries of British culture and politics. They just weren't that kind of people. Certainly not in those circumstances. An non-interventionist/pacifist government was conceivable. A fascist government, I doubt. 2)Thanks, Thomas, for pointing out the currents of German politics surrounding the election of Hitler and his early years in power. We should recall, however, that the general direction of Hitler's policies as German leader were in accord with his published ideas, from Mein Kampf, as well as his speeches from the early 1930s. The policies didn't just emerge from pure improvisation of a leader trying to hold onto power. They represented the implementation of the ideas that leader had propounded since the Beer Hall putsch days and earlier. 3)Belgium on the Allied side in 1939? It's true that Belgium's attempted neutrality screwed up the French planning. Had France believed Belgium would not join France against Germany, the Maginot line would have continued to the Channel Coast of France, which would, perforce, have eliminated the open lane of the Ardennes. Nevertheless, I think the value of Belgium, under the circumstances, was less than it might appear, at first glance. Recall that Germany had no trouble, whatever, dealing with the not-insignificant Belgian defences when they moved. The conquest of the fortress of Eben Emael, through parachute assault, was one of the really impressive feats of arms of all WW2, and was considered such by the people of that era. While, in one sense, adding Belgium to the Allied camp seems to improve the Allied position with respect to the Western German armies, in another, it might have rendered the Allies even more vulnernable to the offensive as waged. Move the BEF into Belgium, and you take it even further from the southeastern French armies and Paris. With a German penetration in the center, those forces are no better placed to meet the penetration, directly, than they were in the real history. A glance at a map suggests that the Allies ought have been able to counterattack perpendicular to the line of German advance, cutting the salient. But, in fact, other factors prevented this and those same factors would have applied in the alternate history. The Anglo-French command was just too slow of communications and, especially, of thought, to respond in a timely fashion to the Ardennes Offensive. Adding Belgium to the fight wouldn't have changed this. We might have seen a more orderly British evacuation, through Antwerp rather than Dunkirk, and with the heavy equipment they were forced to leave on the beaches. But, the BEF combined with the Belgian Army would not have been able to defeat the weight of the German army once the French were knocked out of the fight. 4)The real issue with respect to the way the early war was fought by France and the UK was a question of morale and national psychology. The lingering aftereffects of WW1 on these countries can scarcely be overstated and no serious examination of the history and political dynamics of the 1930s can possibly be done without taking this factor into account. Essentially, much of the "free" world had been gelded by the WW1 experience. The level of destruction, of deaths, of general damage to whole nations was devastating. The usual way people of the era, or the next one, spoke of the people killed was "a whole generation of young men were killed". (For instance, the writer JRR Tolkien, who was wounded in France, described lying in convalescence and realizing that every single school friend he had, save one, had been killed in the war.) The degree of psychic damage WW1 caused affected virtually all Europe. It led, directly, to the change in form of government in Germany (the deposition of the Kaiser and the rise of the Weimar Republic) as well as the Russian Revolution. The destruction changed the nature of British society, and more or less ended the reflexive support for the whole idea of Empire as well as greatly harming the preexisting social order. There is an incident famous in histories of Britain in the 1930s in which the internationally renowned Oxford Debating Union passed a resolution **against** the proposition that anyone should die for Ki