This basically stipulates that the Soviet Union in 1941 was a pretty different place in this hypothetical than it was in reality.
1) No officer purge.
2) Voroshilov is sacked around 1936, with Tukhachevsky presiding over the theoretical development of Deep Operations, the mechanization of the Red Army and the development of relatively sophisticated combined arms tactics.
3) People's Defense Commissar Tukhachevsky similarly re-instance Tsarist-era traditions of discipline and the development of a relatively competent, de-politicized officer corps.
4) By 1938 the most repressive ethnic, agricultural and religious policies are rolled back, and the defense of the homeland is given a greater status in state propaganda than bullshit Communist lies and dreams. Similarly, the initial reaction of "Oh good, Germans, we hated the Soviets" is somewhat muted.
5) Molotov-Ribbentrop still happens. The border is defended in June 1941, intelligence on an eminent German attack is believed, and rather than an extremely hasty retreat and complete collapse of the prewar Red Army, munitions and supplies are given to local anti-German inhabitants and the best pasture land is burned.
How does WW2 change?
Quote from: Queequeg on June 23, 2013, 01:42:27 PM
This basically stipulates that the Soviet Union in 1941 was a pretty different place in this hypothetical than it was in reality.
1) No officer purge.
2) Voroshilov is sacked around 1936, with Tukhachevsky presiding over the theoretical development of Deep Operations, the mechanization of the Red Army and the development of relatively sophisticated combined arms tactics.
3) People's Defense Commissar Tukhachevsky similarly re-instance Tsarist-era traditions of discipline and the development of a relatively competent, de-politicized officer corps.
4) By 1938 the most repressive ethnic, agricultural and religious policies are rolled back, and the defense of the homeland is given a greater status in state propaganda than bullshit Communist lies and dreams. Similarly, the initial reaction of "Oh good, Germans, we hated the Soviets" is somewhat muted.
5) Molotov-Ribbentrop still happens. The border is defended in June 1942, intelligence on an eminent German attack is believed, and rather than an extremely hasty retreat and complete collapse of the prewar Red Army, munitions and supplies are given to local anti-German inhabitants and the best pasture land is burned.
How does WW2 change?
While the efforts are promising the failure to defend the border until a year after the invasion leads to the quick collapse of the Soviet Union in 1941.
Quote from: Queequeg on June 23, 2013, 01:42:27 PM
This basically stipulates that the Soviet Union in 1941 was a pretty different place in this hypothetical than it was in reality.
1) No officer purge.
2) Voroshilov is sacked around 1936, with Tukhachevsky presiding over the theoretical development of Deep Operations, the mechanization of the Red Army and the development of relatively sophisticated combined arms tactics.
3) People's Defense Commissar Tukhachevsky similarly re-instance Tsarist-era traditions of discipline and the development of a relatively competent, de-politicized officer corps.
4) By 1938 the most repressive ethnic, agricultural and religious policies are rolled back, and the defense of the homeland is given a greater status in state propaganda than bullshit Communist lies and dreams. Similarly, the initial reaction of "Oh good, Germans, we hated the Soviets" is somewhat muted.
5) Molotov-Ribbentrop still happens. The border is defended in June 1942, intelligence on an eminent German attack is believed, and rather than an extremely hasty retreat and complete collapse of the prewar Red Army, munitions and supplies are given to local anti-German inhabitants and the best pasture land is burned.
How does WW2 change?
You could have a good "Red Napoleon" scenario, but it's hard to imagine Stalin sacking Klim (and several other guys who were much worse like Kulik). Stalin, Voroshilov, Molotov, Beria are all part of the same clique.
If you had a better Red Army, they probably would have done better in the Winter War and Germany may not have attacked them in the first place. Hell the Soviets might attack Germany!
Also it depends which way the all important giant ants of Brest-Litovsk swing.
You getting ready for Company of Heroes 2, Psellus?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 23, 2013, 01:53:50 PM
You getting ready for Company of Heroes 2, Psellus?
My comp can run it, but not in it's full glory. Waiting for a new comp and a drop in price.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 23, 2013, 01:52:35 PM
If you had a better Red Army, they probably would have done better in the Winter War and Germany may not have attacked them in the first place. Hell the Soviets might attack Germany!
IDK about that. Attacking Russia was kind of the core of Nazi ideology. Even if they'd won the Winter War, I think they would have attacked. And TBH the Germans had such a huge advantage in quality of officers that the loss of some Soviet land was inevitable.
It's a bit interesting. In your scenario the weakening of the resolve of the Russians may lead to collapse.
Quote from: The Brain on June 23, 2013, 02:15:43 PM
It's a bit interesting. In your scenario the weakening of the resolve of the Russians may lead to collapse.
:huh:
Quote from: Queequeg on June 23, 2013, 01:42:27 PM
5) Molotov-Ribbentrop still happens. The border is defended in June 1941, intelligence on an eminent German attack is believed,
If M-R still happens, how do you address the Red Army's transition period from the pre-M-R defensive positions to the post-Poland partition posture?
Quote from: Queequeg on June 23, 2013, 03:30:10 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 23, 2013, 02:15:43 PM
It's a bit interesting. In your scenario the weakening of the resolve of the Russians may lead to collapse.
:huh:
In your scenario it might come to pass that the Russians fear Hitler more than they fear Stalin.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 23, 2013, 03:43:34 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on June 23, 2013, 01:42:27 PM
5) Molotov-Ribbentrop still happens. The border is defended in June 1941, intelligence on an eminent German attack is believed,
If M-R still happens, how do you address the Red Army's transition period from the pre-M-R defensive positions to the post-Poland partition posture?
I think a part of this was a function of the change in military leadership and strategy (ie, towards retardation) that this scenario avoids. A defensive posture against the greatest army in European history was reasonable. It's also been the strategy for almost every successful Russian war since Peter the Great.
QuoteIn your scenario it might come to pass that the Russians fear Hitler more than they fear Stalin.
Neither Alexander I nor Napoleon were bloodthirsty psychopaths but hundreds of thousands of Russians still gladly gave up their lives to stop Napoleon. I think the collapse of the Russian army in 1917 was more the result of a Bolshevik dolchstoss and greater social collapse. I think Hitler's only chance at a real victory on the Eastern Front was in being nicer to the local populations than Stalin (which would have been absurdly fucking easy), but the annihilation of the Slavic peoples was close to item #1 on the National Socialist agenda.
If there's no downside to your scenario then what's the interest? Especially if Germany attacks anyway. Germany loses a bit quicker than historically. Yay?
QuoteI think a part of this was a function of the change in military leadership and strategy (ie, towards retardation) that this scenario avoids. A defensive posture against the greatest army in European history was reasonable.
No it wasnt.
The Soviet general staff in 1940 predicted the main german effort would occur North of the Prypat marshes. When they submitted the plan to Stalin, he sent it back. He had them draw up defensive plans for the main german effort south of the Prypat Marshes. So, the Soviet general staff had predicted the German actions correctly. This is why the bulk of soviet tank/mech forces were deployed south of the marshes at the start of barbarossa. Also it attributed to AG South's slow progress. It it effect, foiled the initial german plan. The German AG South and Center were to clear the Prypat Marshes abreast. This, combined with the Germans intel failure to predict the soviet mobilzation of reserve armies, the suicidal counter-offensives during the Yelnya Offensives, set the stage for turning part of AG Center towards the south.
Two good studies on the subject
Stumbling Colossus: Covers main the soviet war/defensive planning leading up to Barbarossa
Colossus Reborn: Covers the evolution of the soviet army/air force structure from 1941-1945
But no purges?? I wouldnt even base a discussion on that. You would be better off with just saying Stalin was not in the picture and going from there.
Quote from: The Brain on June 23, 2013, 04:16:00 PM
If there's no downside to your scenario then what's the interest? Especially if Germany attacks anyway. Germany loses a bit quicker than historically. Yay?
The DDR would probably be all or most of Germany, and it's possible that Soviet troops would get to the Benelux and France.
QuoteBut no purges?? I wouldnt even base a discussion on that. You would be better off with just saying Stalin was not in the picture and going from there.
This is pretty much exactly that. Either Stalin is somehow restrained, or he's a completely different character.
Quote from: Queequeg on June 23, 2013, 06:07:21 PM
QuoteBut no purges?? I wouldnt even base a discussion on that. You would be better off with just saying Stalin was not in the picture and going from there.
This is pretty much exactly that. Either Stalin is somehow restrained, or he's a completely different character.
Ah
WI Hitler was rational/the Nazis didn't want to exterminate entire populations is a pretty common alternative history question, but the opposite-what if the USSR wasn't the horrifying monster it was in the Interwar period-seems at least as interesting to me. However, I think for the purposes of this thread it makes sense to go in a middle-way between a rational USSR and the historical reality; if not for the Moscow-derived Social Fascist policy I think it's not entirely clear how the NSDAP takes power in Germany in the first place.
Quote from: The Brain on June 23, 2013, 04:16:00 PM
If there's no downside to your scenario then what's the interest? Especially if Germany attacks anyway. Germany loses a bit quicker than historically. Yay?
Seems like the kind of goofy scenario some die-hard Russian nationalist would come up so he could imagine a future where his country wasn't shit (not that Spellus had that intent).
This seems to be a Timmay "What if everything was good for the Soviets" type of scenario. Given that Stalin was Stalin, I can't see such things happening.
Quote from: PDH on June 23, 2013, 06:21:36 PM
This seems to be a Timmay "What if everything was good for the Soviets" type of scenario. Given that Stalin was Stalin, I can't see such things happening.
Okay, then let's remove Stalin from the picture after the rise of the Nazis. Assume a slightly more competent, less murderous leadership that is still anti-NEP and attempts the collectivization of agriculture and forced economic development of Siberia.
Quote
Seems like the kind of goofy scenario some die-hard Russian nationalist would come up so he could imagine a future where his country wasn't shit (not that Spellus had that intent).
I think the USSR would have ended up with control over all of Central Europe. I think that would have pretty dramatic consequences for the Cold War.
Also, all plausible scenarios where Russia isn't total shit today in my mind begin with the mass murder of the Bolsheviks in 1917. The implication of this is that the USSR gets to metastasize deeper in to Western Europe.
So you are positing a "Stalin dies in 1935" scenario? I think the chaos in the Soviet Union might be worse. Stalin did force industrialization in the 30s as well as killing a lot of the people he believed were against him. A divided and less industrial Soviet Union would be even worse off - Stalin at least had the cult of personality to rally the nation to him.
Quote from: PDH on June 23, 2013, 06:35:18 PM
So you are positing a "Stalin dies in 1935" scenario? I think the chaos in the Soviet Union might be worse. Stalin did force industrialization in the 30s as well as killing a lot of the people he believed were against him. A divided and less industrial Soviet Union would be even worse off - Stalin at least had the cult of personality to rally the nation to him.
Shitty leadership lead to loss of most of the European USSR and the loss of a lot of industrial centers. On balance, a USSR capable of defending itself in 1941 with a slightly less developed pig iron industry seems a fair trade.
Quote from: Queequeg on June 23, 2013, 06:38:59 PM
Shitty leadership lead to loss of most of the European USSR and the loss of a lot of industrial centers. On balance, a USSR capable of defending itself in 1941 with a slightly less developed pig iron industry seems a fair trade.
Not sure. After the initial idiocy of late June and July, Stalin (aside from that little detail of Kiev) provided a backbone that allowed the Soviets to reform and reorganize. Sure, he was often a hinderance...but something in the Soviet system needed a mean old grandfather like him to get things to work.
Quote from: PDH on June 23, 2013, 06:21:36 PM
This seems to be a Timmay "What if everything was good for the Soviets" type of scenario. Given that Stalin was Stalin, I can't see such things happening.
German combined arms doctrine, experience and air power still smokes the Red Army in 1941, regardless of who is in charge.
Quote from: The Brain on June 23, 2013, 04:16:00 PM
If there's no downside to your scenario then what's the interest? Especially if Germany attacks anyway. Germany loses a bit quicker than historically. Yay?
If the Soviets are doing ok, the US wouldn't extend Lend Lease to them. That would seriously put a cramp in the Soviet ability to launch counteroffensives.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 23, 2013, 07:14:15 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 23, 2013, 04:16:00 PM
If there's no downside to your scenario then what's the interest? Especially if Germany attacks anyway. Germany loses a bit quicker than historically. Yay?
If the Soviets are doing ok, the US wouldn't extend Lend Lease to them. That would seriously put a cramp in the Soviet ability to launch counteroffensives.
And this would end up with the US owning much of northern Mexico on your map?
Quote from: PDH on June 23, 2013, 07:18:33 PM
And this would end up with the US owning much of northern Mexico on your map?
No Lend Lease to the Soviets --> Confederate States of America joins the Axis.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 23, 2013, 07:26:13 PM
Quote from: PDH on June 23, 2013, 07:18:33 PM
And this would end up with the US owning much of northern Mexico on your map?
No Lend Lease to the Soviets --> Confederate States of America joins the Axis.
Ok, that I see.
The problem in 1941 wasn't as much incompetence in the military, but the isolated position that Stalin put the Soviet Union in. And his behavior wasn't irrational in this regard. Britain and France didn't look like good allies with their tacit approval of Franco and the Czech thing. He miscalculated Hitler's behavior (which everyone did), and he miscalculated how warfare would look in the 1940's.
To really prevent a disastrous 1941 he needs to either be eliminated at much earlier date (like 1918), or betray Hitler in 1940.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 23, 2013, 09:53:12 PM
The problem in 1941 wasn't as much incompetence in the military, but the isolated position that Stalin put the Soviet Union in. And his behavior wasn't irrational in this regard. Britain and France didn't look like good allies with their tacit approval of Franco and the Czech thing. He miscalculated Hitler's behavior (which everyone did), and he miscalculated how warfare would look in the 1940's.
To really prevent a disastrous 1941 he needs to either be eliminated at much earlier date (like 1918), or betray Hitler in 1940.
I think you are wildly underestimating how catastrophic the initial phase of Barbarossa was.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 23, 2013, 06:53:41 PM
Quote from: PDH on June 23, 2013, 06:21:36 PM
This seems to be a Timmay "What if everything was good for the Soviets" type of scenario. Given that Stalin was Stalin, I can't see such things happening.
German combined arms doctrine, experience and air power still smokes the Red Army in 1941, regardless of who is in charge.
I'm not suggesting the Red Army parading in Berlin in 1942.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 23, 2013, 07:26:13 PM
Quote from: PDH on June 23, 2013, 07:18:33 PM
And this would end up with the US owning much of northern Mexico on your map?
No Lend Lease to the Soviets --> Confederate States of America joins the Axis.
No way, man. It was the British and French intervention that let the CSA be a country in the first place.
Quote from: Queequeg on June 23, 2013, 10:32:32 PM
I'm not suggesting the Red Army parading in Berlin in 1942.
I'm suggesting that the Timmay whacking material scenario in your original post wouldn't matter for shit when it came to dealing with a FULLY ARMED and OPERATIONAL DEUTSCHE STAR in 1941.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 23, 2013, 10:47:11 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on June 23, 2013, 10:32:32 PM
I'm not suggesting the Red Army parading in Berlin in 1942.
I'm suggesting that the Timmay whacking material scenario in your original post wouldn't matter for shit when it came to dealing with a FULLY ARMED and OPERATIONAL DEUTSCHE STAR in 1941.
The Nazis weren't going to win the Eastern Front. This just pushes Bagration up a year or so.
Quote from: Queequeg on June 23, 2013, 10:57:41 PM
The Nazis weren't going to win the Eastern Front.
I didn't say they would.
QuoteThis just pushes Bagration up a year or so.
So why didn't you say so in the first place, instead of starting a Timmay alt-hist whack thread?
I laid out some conditions that I think were relatively likely, and thought most people would come to the same conclusion-that Bagration happens in 43, that Berlin is taken in 44, that most of Central Europe comes under Soviet domination, and that the balance of power is similarly changed by a far earlier assault on Manchuria. I was primarily interested in how this would change the calculus of the Cold War, and how the Nazis would respond to finding out a year earlier that the USSR wasn't going to collapse as effortlessly as the Third Republic.
If Bagration starts a year early, the Western Allies don't get to the Elbe; but the Red Army gets to the Rhine. Germany remains united behind the Curtain.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 23, 2013, 09:53:12 PM
Britain and France didn't look like good allies with their tacit approval of Franco and the Czech thing.
Still fail to see why that made the Germans better ones. They did more than simply tacitly approve of Franco and were more directly responsible for the Czech thing.
QuoteHe miscalculated Hitler's behavior (which everyone did)
In 1939? Even the British and the French had caught on by then.
Quote from: Valmy on June 23, 2013, 11:30:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 23, 2013, 09:53:12 PM
Britain and France didn't look like good allies with their tacit approval of Franco and the Czech thing.
Still fail to see why that made the Germans better ones. They did more than simply tacitly approve of Franco and were more directly responsible for the Czech thing.
QuoteHe miscalculated Hitler's behavior (which everyone did)
In 1939? Even the British and the French had caught on by then.
I'm unclear who "they" is in the first sentence.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 23, 2013, 11:24:07 PM
If Bagration starts a year early, the Western Allies don't get to the Elbe; but the Red Army gets to the Rhine. Germany remains united behind the Curtain.
Would a Russian landing on Japan have been possible?
Patton's wetdream. US led gangbang of the USSR with atomic accompaniment.
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on June 24, 2013, 12:51:49 AM
Patton's wetdream. US led gangbang of the USSR with atomic accompaniment.
But what if, in this reality, Bizarro Oppenheimer is a nice guy? Will he build an atomic toaster instead of a bomb?
Good question. I'm also wondering who is leading Germany, since John Cusack hired a young Adolf Hitler on as an artist at his gallery. :hmm:
Quote from: Queequeg on June 23, 2013, 11:54:34 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 23, 2013, 11:24:07 PM
If Bagration starts a year early, the Western Allies don't get to the Elbe; but the Red Army gets to the Rhine. Germany remains united behind the Curtain.
Would a Russian landing on Japan have been possible?
Maybe with a catapult.
Quote from: Queequeg on June 23, 2013, 11:54:34 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 23, 2013, 11:24:07 PM
If Bagration starts a year early, the Western Allies don't get to the Elbe; but the Red Army gets to the Rhine. Germany remains united behind the Curtain.
Would a Russian landing on Japan have been possible?
They did.
Quote from: PDH on June 23, 2013, 07:18:33 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 23, 2013, 07:14:15 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 23, 2013, 04:16:00 PM
If there's no downside to your scenario then what's the interest? Especially if Germany attacks anyway. Germany loses a bit quicker than historically. Yay?
If the Soviets are doing ok, the US wouldn't extend Lend Lease to them. That would seriously put a cramp in the Soviet ability to launch counteroffensives.
And this would end up with the US owning much of northern Mexico on your map?
No, unfortunately it would not.
Quote from: Queequeg on June 23, 2013, 10:57:41 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 23, 2013, 10:47:11 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on June 23, 2013, 10:32:32 PM
I'm not suggesting the Red Army parading in Berlin in 1942.
I'm suggesting that the Timmay whacking material scenario in your original post wouldn't matter for shit when it came to dealing with a FULLY ARMED and OPERATIONAL DEUTSCHE STAR in 1941.
The Nazis weren't going to win the Eastern Front. This just pushes Bagration up a year or so.
How about if the Nazis concentrate solely on bombing British ports, specifically Liverpool, through which the vast amount of wartime material and supplies entered. They might be able to trash it enough to strangle the country. Then they can go at with the Soviets, one on one.
Wait. Did someone just propose a silver bullet solution that would win Germany WW2? This may be an internet first.
Quote from: The Brain on June 24, 2013, 04:21:28 AM
Wait. Did someone just propose a silver bullet solution that would win Germany WW2? This may be an internet first.
Yay me! :smarty:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 24, 2013, 03:47:14 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on June 23, 2013, 10:57:41 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 23, 2013, 10:47:11 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on June 23, 2013, 10:32:32 PM
I'm not suggesting the Red Army parading in Berlin in 1942.
I'm suggesting that the Timmay whacking material scenario in your original post wouldn't matter for shit when it came to dealing with a FULLY ARMED and OPERATIONAL DEUTSCHE STAR in 1941.
The Nazis weren't going to win the Eastern Front. This just pushes Bagration up a year or so.
How about if the Nazis concentrate solely on bombing British ports, specifically Liverpool, through which the vast amount of wartime material and supplies entered. They might be able to trash it enough to strangle the country. Then they can go at with the Soviets, one on one.
Tim, it's an island. There are lots and lots of ports.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 24, 2013, 03:47:14 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on June 23, 2013, 10:57:41 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 23, 2013, 10:47:11 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on June 23, 2013, 10:32:32 PM
I'm not suggesting the Red Army parading in Berlin in 1942.
I'm suggesting that the Timmay whacking material scenario in your original post wouldn't matter for shit when it came to dealing with a FULLY ARMED and OPERATIONAL DEUTSCHE STAR in 1941.
The Nazis weren't going to win the Eastern Front. This just pushes Bagration up a year or so.
How about if the Nazis concentrate solely on bombing British ports, specifically Liverpool, through which the vast amount of wartime material and supplies entered. They might be able to trash it enough to strangle the country. Then they can go at with the Soviets, one on one.
I don't think the Nazis had the range to be able to hit Liverpool. It is in the northwest of England after all. Or, while they theoreticall had the range, it gave them so little payload / flying time, plus being exposed to British fighters for a longer period of time, it just wasn't feasible.
Pretty sure bombers had the range for Liverpool. Fighter couldn't get much further north than London.
Quote from: PDH on June 23, 2013, 06:52:07 PM
Sure, he was often a hinderance...but something in the Soviet system needed a mean old grandfather like him to get things to work.
This.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 23, 2013, 11:40:15 PM
I'm unclear who "they" is in the first sentence.
"They" was in the second sentence and referred to the guys in the first sentence: The Germans.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 24, 2013, 01:45:48 PM
Pretty sure bombers had the range for Liverpool. Fighter couldn't get much further north than London.
Maybe, but a big problem was that most of the German bombers were designed to support the Blitzkrieg, not carry out strategic bombing campaigns.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 24, 2013, 01:45:48 PM
Pretty sure bombers had the range for Liverpool. Fighter couldn't get much further north than London.
I'm leary about discussing WWII on this forum since so many people know more than I do, but for the Germans wasn't sending out bombers without fighter escort a pretty dodgy proposition?
Quote from: Barrister on June 24, 2013, 04:26:33 PM
I'm leary about discussing WWII on this forum since so many people know more than I do, but for the Germans wasn't sending out bombers without fighter escort a pretty dodgy proposition?
Not so much at night.
Quote from: Barrister on June 24, 2013, 04:26:33 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 24, 2013, 01:45:48 PM
Pretty sure bombers had the range for Liverpool. Fighter couldn't get much further north than London.
I'm leary about discussing WWII on this forum since so many people know more than I do, but for the Germans wasn't sending out bombers without fighter escort a pretty dodgy proposition?
I suppose you could do night bombing.
edit: damn you, Yi.
Quote from: Valmy on June 24, 2013, 04:21:52 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 23, 2013, 11:40:15 PM
I'm unclear who "they" is in the first sentence.
"They" was in the second sentence and referred to the guys in the first sentence: The Germans.
Okay. The Germans could offer things like territory, and technical expertise. Stalin also suspected that the Allies wanted to see Germany destroy the Soviet Union. Allying with Germany alleviates that problem.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 24, 2013, 04:27:40 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 24, 2013, 04:26:33 PM
I'm leary about discussing WWII on this forum since so many people know more than I do, but for the Germans wasn't sending out bombers without fighter escort a pretty dodgy proposition?
Not so much at night.
Bombers had a hard enough time hitting particular faciliities during the day. Going at night won't make the problem any easier. Not to mention that if they actually managed to permanently destroy the ports at Liverpool (extremely unlikely), the Brits could just shift to Cardiff, or Hull, or Milford, or Immingham. There are lots of big ports in the UK.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 24, 2013, 01:29:19 PM
Tim, it's an island. There are lots and lots of ports.
A none aside from London had the capacity and rail connections equal to Liverpool's.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 24, 2013, 05:40:19 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 24, 2013, 01:29:19 PM
Tim, it's an island. There are lots and lots of ports.
A none aside from London had the capacity and rail connections equal to Liverpool's.
I'm not sure that's true, and if it was it wouldn't matter much. They had ports sufficient for the ships of the day. At worst it would cause delays.