mriddle wrote:I am not so sure.. remember Russia would way extended.. attacking an unbroken German army.. the result might be closer to WWI where the Russian attacked, got destroyed several times..
Germanay has interior lines, to rail troops east and west..
this is how it plays out in my head if Germany is in a two front war being on the receiving end and with Russian western factories still in operation and producing tanks and aircraft for SCW.
Germany would only have it's early light tanks to halt Russian advance and wouldn't have captures resources in Europe needed for war production. After that once Russia fully mobilize it'll heavily out Germany, learn from German tactics, attrition and resource would run dry for Germany and a matter of time before Germany fall. Britain and other countries might not have to do much except keep pressure on Germany.
I think early German success in WWII was mainly due to the element of surprise and initiative.
How about if it goes into this direction, Germany in a 2 front war, can't provide assistant to Italy, Italy eventually surrender to British force (having been reinforced by Indian and ANZAC troops) the whole thing last maybe until 1943 and isolated to Europe.
US involvement limited to some arms supplies being in a separate war with Japan.
Japan's course probably run about the same with Singapore (maybe Pearl Harbor but definitely Philippines bringing it into war with the US) but war in the pacific would end faster too since the US would put all it's effort into that war.
Everything over by 1943-4 and then an early cold war with three world powers Britain, Russia and US. with the US being the weakest, while Britain gained a few more colonies from Italy.
No US space program in the 60s, no real research into nuclear weapons (being halted at end of war but maybe resume during the cold war), computer, missile and jet technology develops slower.