Could the Axis have won? [Archive]

Brenus

12-10-2012, 13:57

The problem with the “what if” is the “if”: Hitler had to attack France when he did, as France was rearming fast, and new material was coming (especially planes) and the French tanks were better. Few months more, and Gamelin would have been in pension, and nobody could say if a new Head of Allies Forces would have done…
There are a lot of “if” in your first assessment. The entire plan was based on the “Blitz Krieg”. This war failed when the Red Army wasn’t destroyed at the borders. Then Germany had no weapons for a strategic war (no Strategic Bombing Command). Hitler gambled and lost, as shown by the lack of winter clothing in 1941… The first major German defeat is in front of Moscow in 1941. German’s campaigns after 1941 was just a try to compensate a failure.

“so a later assault would have been met by stronger soviet forces.”: The Soviet were stronger than the Nazi. The problem was the lack of competent military leaders thanks to Stalin paranoia and the purges. Perhaps the Germans would have met more T 34, but the counter-offensive would have been still un-coordinated, and Russian men sacrificed in vain.

About the Pacific War, I think the Japanese were at the limit of their operational capacities in attacking Midway, and that why they failed. How, could they have cut Australia from USA? The Germans tried it with U-boot and nearly succeeded for few months, but, then, they failed.

Franconicus

12-12-2012, 17:42

Well, what were the alternatives?

Not attacking Poland, of course. Well, then the Drittes Reich would have been bankrupt (not too bad allternative).

The invasion of Scandinavia and France went pretty well. Dunkerque could have been better, though.
I think Hitler had a little chance then to end the war. We all know that Churchill's Britain was not willing to give in, but I always wondered what would have happaned if Germany offered peace at relatively good terms to France and Poland. Taking Elsac-Lorraine and Danzig to the Reich, but leaving the rest. Making a military political and economic alliance with Poland, the BeNeLux, Norway, Sweden and France. Germany would have been the leading nation on the continent. What reason would Britain have had to go on fighting? What reasion the USA to join the war. Hitler could have waited some years and then invading Russia.

The other chance was the submarine war. With a focus on this weapon and w/o that Enigma stuff, Germany would have a chance to cut off the British Islannds and to force Britain to peace. Maybe not a lasting one, but at least a chance.

I do not believe in anything else. Why should Germany have won the war, if it was able to take seize Suez? It would have been some trouble for Britain to loose the swa route throught th Med, but Germany would not have had the resources to invade Arabia or even India.
Moscow? Even the fall of Moscow would not have ended the war against the Soviets.

Kocmoc

12-13-2012, 17:00

Well, wait.

Brenus is right in most points.

Let me add a few.

Judet was a great Problem, same as Göbbels. Both didnt thought about a long war and that was the reason for not having strategic bomber.
Stuka everywhere, they even tried to get the JU-88 to work as Sturzkampfbomber.

Back to the "IF".

After beating france, many people did look at the "map" and probably thought: "wow, now the axis have won…"

In the first place, the Masterplan was to not get france or UK involved into the war. Hitler wanted to invade poland and than go for russia.
Its also worth to mention, that the war wasnt planned to start 39, back in 1935/36 the plan was, to start war around 41/43.

IF, france and UK would have stand out of the war, Hitler would had just run east, full force. If he would have won it is still questionable,
but it would have been a much harder fight with a lot more troops and material.

Now, after beating france, there was 2 ways to continue the war:

1. "Fall Gelb" - invading england. There are documents out from the english war achieve, that the UK fleet wouldnt be able to stop the invasion.
If Hitler would had invaded england there would have been a good chance (much better than "barbarossa") to win it.

The problem was the "air war above england", one real problem was the range of the bf109. Today many people tend to explain the heavy losses of the
german airforce with the "Radar" in south england. If you consider, that in late days of the air war, most radarstations had serious problems to get the
information about planes incoming to the english airports, I say that 10 min warning got reduced to 2 min or less.
So the real problem was the short range of the 109, which had fuel for about 10-15 min airfight or to defend german bomber.

2. "barbarossa". Today we know in most cases, what happened and what the plan was. The german blitz didnt work, that for sure.
Not much to add, the early days went good, than the already mentioned t34 hit the field and just rolled over the pz4 and stug3 and all the lower tier tanks.
The real deal was the very bad leadingstructur the russians had at that time, they had a "polit-based" leadership in the early days, after stalin killed 90% of all officer (not himself ofc ;) ).

At stalingrad things changed, the "politgarde" got replaced and the real boys took over.

Rommel. In short words. Rommel had a lot of success determined by the amount of supplies reached northafrica.
The real deal was the spies germany had, many, if not all, countries in north africa did like the germans. They was almost always advanced in knowledge of the allied troops.
Till the day of the US boys arrived, rommel would have had a real good chance to crack it up.

Here comes malta into place, since italien fucked it up a few times, the german paratroops had to take kreta instead of malta.
"IF", they would have taken malta, and if you look at the battle of kreta, you know, they would had taken malta for sure, the whole supply route would have been free.
This one thing is almost sure, malta = airsupport = no habor for the english fleet = supply for rommel = almost no supply for UK = suez canal!

…. enough for today

Papewaio

12-14-2012, 03:20

Kocmoc

12-14-2012, 09:45

Crete was a strategic victory, but a hard learned lesson for the Germans. How many times did Germany use paratroops using parachutes post Crete?

Malta was arguably better prepped and ready so the casualties potentially would have been even worse.

North Africa was originally played brilliantly as a logistical campaign against the Axis/Germans. Germany probably would have won if they had Malta. But they probably would have to accept losing a lot of their paratroops to have done so.

Correct. As i mentioned in my post, Im not going to get into detail.
German paratroops got used a few times, but only one big attack, that should be malta in the first place, but in the end it was crete.
After that they losses made Hitler decide to not use these elite troops again in such a way.

I just pointed out, that they probably had won malta as well, which would have changed the war in north africa for sure.
Especially if you consider the fact, that with the airport on malta the germany would had a huge range advance.

The losses of ships by plane attacks was huge, so the strategic worth of malta was a lot higher than crete.

There were tons of problems, if you consider the amount of tanks the russian did produce, the millions of soldiers.
The USA with a hardcore amount of industry power. The japans and the german could probably do a lot things better, the result, the end would have been the same.

The question should not be in which certain region or what attack first.
The question should be, how to keep the USA out of the war?

There are tons of interesting questions out there. Let me mention one of them, how could it be, that the t34 can get on the battlefield and the germans didnt really had an answer ready? How could it happen, that the "german blitz" went from an advanced army towards an reactive army?

In germany we have to words, "Breitenrüstung" and "Tiefenrüstung", germany choose the "Breitenrüstung" this means, a lot of war-producer did produce weapons in their "own" caliber, their own ammunition. This was made for a short war, with one border. The problem is a logistic problem. the longer a war takes, the harder it is, to distribute
all the different ammunition to the different warplaces. Its a cheap and very quick way to produce a lot of war material in a short time.

The "Tiefenrüstung" is the better way, considering you going for a longer war on different places. You have very few standards, you go with one or 2 caliber. This way the logistic have a quite easy job. "there are 400 tanks in malta, give them 50 shots each"…. "alright, they need both kind of ammunition, the 76er and the 88er"… " okay, I send them 20k shot of each of it"…. DONE!

In Germany, almost each tankversion had different ammounition, you couldnt work like this. There are books out, which look only at the logistics of wars. You can read, that in the first 2 years, while the range of the front wasnt too far away, the logistic was fine. The rate of the correct sent packages was around 85%.
In the 1941 and 1942, the rate of correct sent packages dropped to 60%. You have to consider that in most cases always 10-20% of the package was not usable, since the logistics ordered standard base packages.

This was a huge problem, especially vs. the russians.

To the general idea of these questions.

Im a german, I dont want to imagine an outcome, where the axis would have won. I also dont want to think about a way, where the axis would have fight better/longer.
I exactly know where the two A-bombs would have been dropped. Now call me selfish, but yes, at this point Im selfish as hell. Better someone else, than me, my family or my country.

Brenus

12-14-2012, 12:13

@ Komoc. I never though of it. All these people arguing about more V2, more Me 262, more Tigers (ignoring the fact that Germany in 1945 had a shortage of soldiers) would have perhaps change the winds of victory. This would have left to the Allies (if potential German's Victory) to only one option: not "miracle" potential weapons but the A bombs...

Fisherking

12-14-2012, 20:08

Franconicus

12-15-2012, 11:37

ReluctantSamurai

12-17-2012, 02:27

If Hitler had sent more supplies to Rommel, could the Suez have been seized?

No. The problem wasn't getting supplies to N.Africa (despite Malta) it was getting them to the front. Without a RR, this was nearly impossible.

I've always felt that if Germany had offered Japan something concrete, in particular, the technology for high-pressure coal gasification, it might have tipped the decision in the Japanese Diet to attack the Soviet Union at the time when the German Operation Typhoon was jumping off. There were more than a few members in the Diet who still wished to wage war with the SU, so this kind of proposal might have found support. The Japanese were fully capable of invading and capturing Vladivostok (which, as it turned out, was the port of entry for more LL than all the other routes combined) and harassing other areas that kept them out of tank country (one reason for their defeat at Khalkin Gol).

Now there weren't all that many Far Eastern divisions that were sent to the Moscow Military District (9 divisions out of the 50 that participated in the Dec counter-offensive), but anything that ratcheted up the heat on Stalin's government could only help the Germans. Moscow's fall certainly doesn't guarantee Stalin's capitulation, but it would certainly have made things far more grim for the Soviets.

Sarmatian

12-17-2012, 11:03

I've always felt that if Germany had offered Japan something concrete, in particular, the technology for high-pressure coal gasification, it might have tipped the decision in the Japanese Diet to attack the Soviet Union at the time when the German Operation Typhoon was jumping off. There were more than a few members in the Diet who still wished to wage war with the SU, so this kind of proposal might have found support. The Japanese were fully capable of invading and capturing Vladivostok (which, as it turned out, was the port of entry for more LL than all the other routes combined) and harassing other areas that kept them out of tank country (one reason for their defeat at Khalkin Gol).

Now there weren't all that many Far Eastern divisions that were sent to the Moscow Military District (9 divisions out of the 50 that participated in the Dec counter-offensive), but anything that ratcheted up the heat on Stalin's government could only help the Germans. Moscow's fall certainly doesn't guarantee Stalin's capitulation, but it would certainly have made things far more grim for the Soviets.

Even with German technology, it was only a partial solution and a very long-term one. It would have taken years to set up plants to effectively produce coal gas and convert it to fuel in meaningful quantities.

Another issue is that, unlike Germany, Japan's coal reserves were small, expensive to extract and coal ore was of poor quality. Most of coal came outside home islands.

Another issue is whether Japanese could have seriously threatened Russian Far Eastern Army, which was over a million strong and well-supplied. Even at it's peak, Kwantung Army wasn't over 1.5 million strong (iirc) and lacked equipment for mechanised warfare. Symbolic capturing of Vladivostok could have maybe been possible but that wouldn't do much to hurt the Soviets. Lend-lease made up only a small fraction of Soviet war-time production and the bulk of it came too late. It allowed the Red Army to perform offensive operations more efficiently, thus saving time and lives but it had absolutely zero effect on turning the tide.

Kocmoc

12-17-2012, 12:17

What do you think about the idea of makig peace with Poland and France after the victory over France. Would GB been able to continue the war?

Regarding Rommel, I think that he had a lot of luck. I do not agree that the Krauts had more info than the allies. Contrary, enigma seemed to lay everything open, the deployment and orders of the Germans. It was always surpising how easy Rommel drove the Brits back right after his arrival with I think only one division. Now it seemed as if the Brits knew his orders, which told Rommel to stop and wait for the second division. He ignored his orders and took the British by surprise. However, this did not work later, esp. at El Al.

Well, your question clearly shows your lack of knowledge.
Read, before you ask well known things.

1. Hitler tried to leave the allies out of the war, he didnt expected that UK/France would stick to poland.
2. Hitler let the UK get almost their full europe army out of dünnkirchen, since he expected to get some kind of peace with UK
3. Hess flied over to UK on its own, 10th may 1941
4. rommel had no luck, he was an very experienced leader, already shown in WW1, read a book he wrote after WW1 "Infantry greift an"

This kind of posts and terrible knowledge of history give me a hard time to stay friendly!

Brenus

12-17-2012, 12:31

About Japan: Do remember that the Japanese had a very bad experience against USSR at Khalkhin Gol. It even could have been a second victory (just after Moscow) Russian victory against the Axe. Potentially, it could have change the political Chinese landscape much faster (linking with Mao Zedong). Japan had initial success against (mainly) USA because they were fighting the same war (naval and airplanes) with landing of Marines. Soon, it became obvious that the Japanese Land Forces were inadequate in term of equipment, material, logistic and tactic. Banzai attack against T34 would have been doom to failure.
“What do you think about the idea of making peace with Poland and France after the victory over France? Would GB been able to continue the war?” It would have depended on the terms, of course.
France signed an armistice, and as result, lost half of her territory, etc. Hitler knew that a peace treaty was just the seed of another war if Germany kept Alsace Lorraine, territories he couldn’t give back even if wouldn’t have been who he was…
Just look how the Countries who welcomed Germany as liberators in East Europe: Nazi ideology couldn’t accept a classical Peace treaty (we take part of your territory and we prepare for the next war).
Or, even worst, how Germany treated their allies…

Conradus

12-17-2012, 12:37

Seems your info on Dunkirk is a little off.

German mistakes

German land forces might have pressed their attack on the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) and the Allies, especially having secured the ports of Calais and Boulogne. For years, it was assumed that Adolf Hitler ordered the German Army to stop the attack, favouring bombardment by the Luftwaffe. However, according to the Official War Diary of Army Group A, Generalfeldmarschall Gerd von Rundstedt – the Chief of the General Staff, disconcerted by the vulnerability of his flanks and supply to his forward troops, ordered the halt.[38][39][40] Hitler merely validated the order several hours after the fact. Hitler had been urged by Göring to let the Luftwaffe finish the British off,[38] much to the consternation of OKH Chief of Staff, General Halder,[41] who noted in his diary that the airforce was dependent upon the weather.[41] This lull in the action provided the Allies a few days to evacuate by sea. Von Rundstedt had ordered the halt on 23 May, confirmed by Hitler on 24 May at 11:30 am. On 26 May, at 1:30 pm Hitler ordered the German armour to continue the advance, but the delay had allowed the construction of defences vital for the following week's evacuation.

Franconicus

12-17-2012, 12:44

Thank you for your friendly words. I red your lines, but I still cannot see the answer to my stupid question.
After the victories over France and Poland, Hitler proposed peace with GB, which was still undefeated and hard to attack. I peace offer to Poland and France would be a different thing. Both were defeated and if he would have given good terms, I guess they would have accepted. What other option did they have. With Poland and Frnace as friends of Germany or even allies, what reason would Churchill have had to go on with the war? Could he really motivate the English to fight and free the continent, when the French and Poles found an agreement with Germany? Would the USA had any reason to step in?

Well, your question clearly shows your lack of knowledge.
Read, before you ask well known things.

1. Hitler tried to leave the allies out of the war, he didnt expected that UK/France would stick to poland.
2. Hitler let the UK get almost their full europe army out of dünnkirchen, since he expected to get some kind of peace with UK
3. Hess flied over to UK on its own, 10th may 1941
4. rommel had no luck, he was an very experienced leader, already shown in WW1, read a book he wrote after WW1 "Infantry greift an"

This kind of posts and terrible knowledge of history give me a hard time to stay friendly!

Brenus

12-17-2012, 13:39

“With Poland and France as friends of Germany or even allies, what reason would Churchill have had to go on with the war? Could he really motivate the English to fight and free the continent, when the French and Poles found an agreement with Germany? Would the USA had any reason to step in?”:
The reasons for UK to go to war were still valid. The UK didn’t want a strong Continental Power, and that was UK policy for centuries.
Would a “neutralisation” of France by an acceptable Peace Treaty change this? No.
France was as friendlier to Germany as possible thanks to the betraying of Marshal Pétain lead by Laval. The deportation of Jews were done without request of the German, the Collaborationist French Government, after having destroy the Republic, provide Germany with free workers (STO), troops (L.V.F, 33 SS Division and various auxiliaries), and of course, the famous Milice. The Pétinist troops fought against the Allies each time they could (on the orders of Pétain) and, funny enough, if Germany/Hitler would have allow France to keep a Army, that could have change the path of the war (image the French Fleet fighting against the Allies in Mediterranean , reason of Mers El Khebir).

You second point is a wrong question: USA were attacked by Germany, they didn’t step in. Germany attacked the US merchants fleet following the Japanese Attack. So, the USA had no choice in this matter.

ReluctantSamurai

12-17-2012, 14:36

Even with German technology, it was only a partial solution and a very long-term one.

Agreed. But perhaps if the capture of Moscow does force the Soviets to capitulate (not likely, but possible), then oil could be sent from the Caucasus if the Trans-Siberian Railway can be improved enough to allow it. Also, the oil production facilities in the Sakhalin Islands becomes available to the Japanese to the tune of 580 million barrels/yr.

Another issue is whether Japanese could have seriously threatened Russian Far Eastern Army, which was over a million strong and well-supplied.

They could...as long as they stayed out of prime tank country like that found around Khalkin Gol, and operated in the heavily wooded areas (negating Soviet armored formations) around Kharbarovsk and Chingchangkou where their superiority in small unit tactics give them the advantage.

As of 21 June 1941, Soviet forces in the Far East (Ussuri, Amur, TransBaikal, and Outer Mongolia Districts) stood at 700,000 men, 2,700 AFV, and 2,800 aircraft. The Japanese had roughly 350,000 men and 1,100 aircraft.

As of September 1941, Soviet forces stood at 500,000 men, 1200 AFV, and 1100 aircraft. The Japanese Kwantung Army had swelled to over 700,000 men and 1100 aircraft. So by the fall of 1941, approximate parity, at least in terms of manpower had been reached. [figures are from Alvin D. Coox Nomonhan: Japan Against Russia 1939]

Symbolic capturing of Vladivostok could have maybe been possible but that wouldn't do much to hurt the Soviets. Lend-lease made up only a small fraction of Soviet war-time production and the bulk of it came too late.

I don't believe Vladivostok is simply symbolic and the discussion of LL is better kept to another topic:quiet:

Banzai attack against T34 would have been doom to failure.

The Soviet tank force in the Far East were mainly BT-5's and BT-7's. All available T34's were facing the Germans. And even during the Khalkin Gol conflict, Soviet tank losses were very high due to "banzai" tactics that took advantage of the BT's penchant to catch fire.

2. Hitler let the UK get almost their full europe army out of dünnkirchen, since he expected to get some kind of peace with UK

This is pure conjecture that is quite difficult to prove.

4. rommel had no luck, he was an very experienced leader

True, but his complete lack of understanding of logistics in North Africa led directly to the defeat of the DAK.

Conradus

12-17-2012, 15:08

You second point is a wrong question: USA were attacked by Germany, they didn’t step in. Germany attacked the US merchants fleet following the Japanese Attack. So, the USA had no choice in this matter.

Well, they were already providing the UK with massive amounts of aid before that.

Franconicus

12-17-2012, 18:31

The USA escorted allied ships to the middle of the Atlantik, they supported the English by searching and fighting German submarines. The USA was looking for a cause. In the end, it was Germany that declared war - never really understood why.

Sarmatian

12-17-2012, 21:13

Agreed. But perhaps if the capture of Moscow does force the Soviets to capitulate (not likely, but possible), then oil could be sent from the Caucasus if the Trans-Siberian Railway can be improved enough to allow it. Also, the oil production facilities in the Sakhalin Islands becomes available to the Japanese to the tune of 580 million barrels/yr.

That's hindsight 20/20. IF the Japanese could correctly assess how quickly would Wehrmacht reach Moscow, IF Wehrmacht actually takes Moscow (it's a huge city, reaching it is not the same as taking it), IF it leads to Soviet capitulation (very unlikely)... A lot of if's, and it means taking on the army that kicked their butts twice recently. Even if all goes according to plan and then some, it's the Germans who get all the spoils and it leaves Japan dependent on German goodwill, which is contrary to the whole reason Japan went to war in the first place. Sure, Germany is friendly now, but US was friendly a few decades ago. On the other side, there are very rich and poorly defended areas ripe for the taking right that moment.

They could...as long as they stayed out of prime tank country like that found around Khalkin Gol, and operated in the heavily wooded areas (negating Soviet armored formations) around Kharbarovsk and Chingchangkou where their superiority in small unit tactics give them the advantage.

Debatable. I don't rate Japanese WW2 army that highly, but even if true, they would basically be conquering empty territory. Few population centres, few industry, and unlike modern Russia, Soviet Union at the time didn't exploit much of Siberian mineral wealth. Sure, it would have been a blow, but how severe.

I don't believe Vladivostok is simply symbolic and the discussion of LL is better kept to another topic:quiet:

Yes, but if you argue capture of Vladivostok would have been severe for the Soviets due to loss of a major port for LL aid, the importance of LL overall becomes a valid point of discussion.

ReluctantSamurai

12-18-2012, 01:12

That's hindsight 20/20

I don't see how it is. The Germans did nothing but run all over the Soviets during the summer and fall of 1941, what would give the Japanese any indication that the Germans could be stopped?

A lot of if's, and it means taking on the army that kicked their butts twice recently.

Well, we are talking a bunch of what if's here, no?:laugh4:

Despite the setback at Khalkin Gol, there were a lot of supporters in the Japanese AGS that still wanted to wage war with the SU. What is also skimmed over in talking about the several border skirmishes before Khalkin Gol and Khalkin Gol itself is that the Japanese inflicted far more casualties than they took. At KG the Soviets took close to 30,000 casualties as opposed to 20,000 for the Japanese.

which is contrary to the whole reason Japan went to war in the first place.

My point, exactly. If the Germans (specifically I.G. Farben) help the Japanese with syn-fuel technology which, in the long run, will make Japan far more self sufficient with fuel production, it might have been enough to convince the Japanese general Staff to consider a northern move.

On the other side, there are very rich and poorly defended areas ripe for the taking right that moment.

Specifically, the DEI. If energy needs can be met in other ways, perhaps war with the US and the UK might be put off.

and unlike modern Russia, Soviet Union at the time didn't exploit much of Siberian mineral wealth

But they had developed the Sakhalin oil fields enough to yield substantial crude.

Debatable. I don't rate Japanese WW2 army that highly

As a whole, I would agree, but the one area that they excelled in was small unit tactics and this was one of the reasons they could inflict heavy casualties on the Soviets despite their lack of armor and mobile artillery.

Yes, but if you argue capture of Vladivostok would have been severe for the Soviets due to loss of a major port for LL aid, the importance of LL overall becomes a valid point of discussion.

Then discuss what you feel is pertinent. I just want to stay away from a detailed discussion of LL in this thread. We've all been there, seen it, done it, so-to-speak:shrug:

Brenus

12-18-2012, 12:37

“The Soviet tank forces in the Far East were mainly BT-5's and BT-7's. All available T34's were facing the Germans. And even during the Khalkin Gol conflict, Soviet tank losses were very high due to "banzai" tactics that took advantage of the BT's penchant to catch fire.” True, but the Japanese still lost the battle. The Russian improved their side, the Japanese not. The Russian did learned their lessons front 1941, Finish War and reacted in producing new tactics. The inferior (compared with Russian) American Tanks (Grant) were more than match for the Japanese Tanks.
Then, if we speak of a Japanese attack, as shown in Malaysia, their logistic was too weak. You might leave on the country in Monsoon Countries, Siberia would be more difficult. Then, what would be the profits, gains, in Japanese terms? As mentioned, Siberia wasn’t really exploited at the time (except Gulags). The Sun Empire needed immediate profit, things to loot and with immediate effect…
And it would have distract forces from where they were needed..

“The USA was looking for a cause”: Yes, the President did. But, without Germany declaring war, nothing he could have done. Roosevelt turned back the request for help for French Paul Reynaud in 1940, as he had no choice…

ReluctantSamurai

12-19-2012, 01:41

The inferior (compared with Russian) American Tanks (Grant) were more than match for the Japanese Tanks

Considering where the Japanese had been fighting since 1931 (China), and where warfare with the United States would probably take place (all the various island chains strung across the Pacific), Japan had no need for a main battle tank that was the mainstay of European-based warfare. With a limited industrial base, the Japanese decided to focus on the two areas that could make the most difference in the areas they expected to fight: aircraft and naval ships.

The Sun Empire needed immediate profit, things to loot and with immediate effect…
And it would have distract forces from where they were needed

After the US embargo in July of 1941, they needed oil.

To get back to the original OP...the Axis might have succeeded within a very narrow window of opportunity. The end of 1941 or by spring 1942 at the very latest. After that, their possibilities of success fall rapidly. The reason for this, IMO, is the industrial power of the three major Allied nations...the Soviet Union, Great Britain, and the United States. Combined, their industrial output simply dwarfs the Axis powers by a huge margin. Any protracted conflict will allow more and more of that industrial power to be brought to bear, which is just what actually occurred.

Germany and her immediate allies (Italy, Romania, Hungary, and Finland) had the better chance. Japan was doomed the instant they attacked Pearl Harbor. There are tons of specific examples of how Germany could have done this or that differently and thus effected a better outcome, but IMHO, one of the biggest mistakes was alienating the population of the Ukraine during the summer and fall of 1941. Here they had a ready-made base of people that would gladly take up arms to throw off the hated regime of Stalin, and this would have instantly solved the problem of replacements for the front lines, as well as greatly lessened the occurrence of partisan activity on their longest supply line (that of AG South). The Trans-Caucasus District were not very friendly towards the communists either, and it's not inconceivable that they might have turned on the communists, as well. This would not bode very well for Stalin, and might have tipped the balance far enough to allow a German victory.

Japan's only chance, and an extremely slim one at that, was to attack only the Philippines and the DEI and stay away from anything "mainland" USA. The virtual firestorm created by attacking Hawaii galvanized the US public in a way that they might not have been had holdings thousands of miles away been the only targets.

Plan Orange and all of its rainbow configurations were simply pipe dreams on the part of the US military. At the time PH was attacked, the USN had exactly 11 fleet oilers in the Pacific, of which only 6 were capable of at-sea refueling. Their capacity was barely adequate to keep the main battle fleet at sea for a month, let alone for an extended campaign all the way to Manila. After repeated heavy losses, the US might have settled for peace....and I repeat, might. The whole venture would be a long shot for the Japanese, but certainly better than the way it actually played out. And to head off the "hind-sighter" argument, there were many in the Japanese High Command (including Adm. Yamamoto) who felt that attacking the US at that time was a very bad idea, so this whole train of thinking had already been done by high-ranking Japanese naval officers.

Sarmatian

12-19-2012, 08:12

Considering where the Japanese had been fighting since 1931 (China), and where warfare with the United States would probably take place (all the various island chains strung across the Pacific), Japan had no need for a main battle tank that was the mainstay of European-based warfare. With a limited industrial base, the Japanese decided to focus on the two areas that could make the most difference in the areas they expected to fight: aircraft and naval ships.

That is true, but the lack armour would have been a major issue in a protracted war with the Soviet Union.

After the US embargo in July of 1941, they needed oil.

Yes, it was their most pressing concern after the embargo, but it wasn't the only one. They were dependent on other stuff, too.

To get back to the original OP...the Axis might have succeeded within a very narrow window of opportunity. The end of 1941 or by spring 1942 at the very latest. After that, their possibilities of success fall rapidly. The reason for this, IMO, is the industrial power of the three major Allied nations...the Soviet Union, Great Britain, and the United States. Combined, their industrial output simply dwarfs the Axis powers by a huge margin. Any protracted conflict will allow more and more of that industrial power to be brought to bear, which is just what actually occurred.

I agree. If an Axis victory was possible at all, it could have happened in 1942 at the latest.

Germany and her immediate allies (Italy, Romania, Hungary, and Finland) had the better chance. Japan was doomed the instant they attacked Pearl Harbor. There are tons of specific examples of how Germany could have done this or that differently and thus effected a better outcome, but IMHO, one of the biggest mistakes was alienating the population of the Ukraine during the summer and fall of 1941. Here they had a ready-made base of people that would gladly take up arms to throw off the hated regime of Stalin, and this would have instantly solved the problem of replacements for the front lines, as well as greatly lessened the occurrence of partisan activity on their longest supply line (that of AG South). The Trans-Caucasus District were not very friendly towards the communists either, and it's not inconceivable that they might have turned on the communists, as well. This would not bode very well for Stalin, and might have tipped the balance far enough to allow a German victory.

Stalin's regime wasn't that much hated. Imperial Russia wasn't really a much better place to live. If Germany made it strictly a "regime change" war, than maybe they would have been able to recruit some of the population of SU, but I expect it would have been a very small part. It didn't happen in any war in modern times (post 19th century). Besides people's unwillingness to join the enemy, the conquering nations were naturally were reserved to arm a significant portion of enemy population. It usually ends up with a small minority assisting the invaders with intelligence and stuff like that.

Japan's only chance, and an extremely slim one at that, was to attack only the Philippines and the DEI and stay away from anything "mainland" USA. The virtual firestorm created by attacking Hawaii galvanized the US public in a way that they might not have been had holdings thousands of miles away been the only targets.

Japan's conquering spree in the Pacific and SE Asia would have definitely gotten America into the war, sooner or later. Japan couldn't win against a protracted war so they tried to re-enact the 1905 war against the Russians - seriously hurt the ability of the US to project power in the next few years, hoping it would bring them a favourable peace, but, even if they got the carriers, I don't think US would accept that. I believe their strategy was the best possible one considering the circumstances. Anything else and it would have been even worse.

Plan Orange and all of its rainbow configurations were simply pipe dreams on the part of the US military. At the time PH was attacked, the USN had exactly 11 fleet oilers in the Pacific, of which only 6 were capable of at-sea refueling. Their capacity was barely adequate to keep the main battle fleet at sea for a month, let alone for an extended campaign all the way to Manila. After repeated heavy losses, the US might have settled for peace....and I repeat, might. The whole venture would be a long shot for the Japanese, but certainly better than the way it actually played out. And to head off the "hind-sighter" argument, there were many in the Japanese High Command (including Adm. Yamamoto) who felt that attacking the US at that time was a very bad idea, so this whole train of thinking had already been done by high-ranking Japanese naval officers.

What does Plan Orange have to do with it? Japanese needed to defeat US Navy totally, and given just how US could outproduce Japan 20 times over, it was an unlikely possibility, and the final dead end was the fact that even if they managed it, they didn't have the capacity to seriously threaten mainland USA.

ReluctantSamurai

12-19-2012, 17:06

Stalin's regime wasn't that much hated.

But it was, very much so. A few lines from a novel by Vassily Grossman called Forever Flowing. He lived in a small village in the Ukraine during the forced farm collectivization of the late 20's and the great famine of 1933 when Stalin demanded even more grain shipments from the Ukraine leaving the local peasants to starve (nearly 20 million died):

"Then I came to understand the main thing for the Soviet power is the Plan. Fulfill the Plan...Fathers and mothers tried to save their children, to save a little bread, and they were told: You hate our socialist country, you want to ruin the Plan, you are parasites, kulaks, fiends, reptiles...But these are words, and that was life, suffering, hunger. When they took the grain, they told kolkhoz members they would be fed out of the reserve fund. They lied. They would not give grain to the hungry."

Stalin and his cronies were very much hated by the Ukrainians, and the Germans would have found a lot of support had they not treated the populace as bad or worse.

I believe their strategy was the best possible one considering the circumstances.

Do you feel that the American public would have stood for the long casualty lists of Tarawa, the Solomons, Peleliu, etc. without the cry of "Remember Pearl Harbor" ringing in their ears?

What does Plan Orange have to do with it?

If Japan attacks the Philippines only, or as in some what if's bandied about, bypass it without attacking and go straight to the DEI, the USN is relatively powerless (except for the subs based in Manila) to do much of anything about it for a very long time. What does the US do in either of those cases? Execute Plan Orange? Not likely.....

Brenus

12-19-2012, 17:55

“Stalin and his cronies were very much hated by the Ukrainians, and the Germans would have found a lot of support had they not treated the populace as bad or worse.” Agree. The German did find enough support to be able to raise SS Divisions, and Vlasov Army. But the fundamental stupidity of Nazism discouraged even the most anti-Semitic of them (not all of them).
Careful about figures: nobody knows how many died of famine. What we do know is the Ukrainian population in 1926 is around 30 million, so 20 million victims just few years before, are a little bit too much. These figures are made up by people who want to equal Nazism and Communism, forgetting that during the great Famine in Ireland or India, like during the Famine in Ukraine, both UK and USSR exported food.

Sarmatian

12-19-2012, 20:08

But it was, very much so. A few lines from a novel by Vassily Grossman called Forever Flowing. He lived in a small village in the Ukraine during the forced farm collectivization of the late 20's and the great famine of 1933 when Stalin demanded even more grain shipments from the Ukraine leaving the local peasants to starve (nearly 20 million died):

"Then I came to understand the main thing for the Soviet power is the Plan. Fulfill the Plan...Fathers and mothers tried to save their children, to save a little bread, and they were told: You hate our socialist country, you want to ruin the Plan, you are parasites, kulaks, fiends, reptiles...But these are words, and that was life, suffering, hunger. When they took the grain, they told kolkhoz members they would be fed out of the reserve fund. They lied. They would not give grain to the hungry."

Novels don't prove general sentiment, just the sentiment of the author.

20 million is a hugely inflated figure, as Brenus, said. The real number is much, much smaller. It would mean that more than 2/3 of Ukranians died and at the time, Ukranians actually had a growth in population.

Do you feel that the American public would have stood for the long casualty lists of Tarawa, the Solomons, Peleliu, etc. without the cry of "Remember Pearl Harbor" ringing in their ears?

In WW1 Americans lost about 300,000 in one year and cca. a million in 4 years in WW2. War would not have been the same had the Japanese attacked DEI or the Phillipines. American fleet would have had ample opportunity to attack Japanese troops in transit, reinforce local garrisons and in general harass them at every turn. Having lost the element of surprise, Japanese fleet would have at the mercy of the American fleet. After an attack on a protectorate and a few ships sunk, filled with brave American sailors who were just trying to protect defenseless allies against relentless Japanese expansionism and unimaginable cruelty, American president could make a speech about never giving up until the world is once again safe for democracy, for the sake of American allies and brave, freckled-face boys who died protecting that ideal.

Also, WW2 was an opportunity for America to assert its position as the world's premier power and cement it. I'm not saying they were asking for it or even hoping for it, but once it was there, it was hard to pass up. I'm pretty certain that in the end any additional Japanese expansion would have brought America into the war and that war would have ended with Japanese either abandoning their empire in a peace treaty or total defeat of Japan. Maybe it would have lasted longer, maybe shorter, maybe American High Command would be more careful with casualties, but it would have had happened.

If Japan attacks the Philippines only, or as in some what if's bandied about, bypass it without attacking and go straight to the DEI, the USN is relatively powerless (except for the subs based in Manila) to do much of anything about it for a very long time. What does the US do in either of those cases? Execute Plan Orange? Not likely.....

Plan Orange was more of a guideline than a concrete plan to be executed the moment the war starts. Americans had the luxury of time, they didn't have to go straight for the jugular. Their ability to harass the merchant fleet and troop transport would have created unsolvable problems for Japanese. They were aware of that, and that's why they sought decisive battle to begin with.

“Stalin and his cronies were very much hated by the Ukrainians, and the Germans would have found a lot of support had they not treated the populace as bad or worse.” Agree. The German did find enough support to be able to raise SS Divisions, and Vlasov Army. But the fundamental stupidity of Nazism discouraged even the most anti-Semitic of them (not all of them).
.

Vlassov was Russian, not Ukranian, iirc. and his "army" was mainly composed of Russians, and existed only on paper. In the end, the only population of Ukraine they managed to win over somewhat was Catholic population, proving that it had much less to do with Stalin and his rule than with old issues.

ReluctantSamurai

12-20-2012, 14:16

Novels don't prove general sentiment, just the sentiment of the author.

The man was there when it happened. His feelings reflected those of the general populace, if you care to look into it more closely.

20 million is a hugely inflated figure, as Brenus, said. The real number is much, much smaller. It would mean that more than 2/3 of Ukranians died and at the time, Ukranians actually had a growth in population.

Perhaps so, but millions died. Care to provide some documentation for the part highlighted?

proving that it had much less to do with Stalin and his rule than with old issues

Proves nothing. Vlasov was a half-assed attempt to counter some of the idiotic policies of the Einsatz. If the Germans had at least given Ukrainians the opportunity to strike back at the Stalin regime (perhaps even using the revenge angle), they would have found widespread support for this, instead of providing Stalin with the means for turning things into The Great Patriotic War.

After an attack on a protectorate and a few ships sunk, filled with brave American sailors who were just trying to protect defenseless allies against relentless Japanese expansionism and unimaginable cruelty, American president could make a speech about never giving up until the world is once again safe for democracy, for the sake of American allies and brave, freckled-face boys who died protecting that ideal.

Not the same as revenge for what was viewed as a cowardly act of aggression on US soil. I don't see an attack on the DEI creating the same kind of fervor as the attack on PH. As for the highlighted part, a cursory examination of the state of affairs in the US at the time would show such a speech would fall on unsympathetic ears.

American fleet would have had ample opportunity to attack Japanese troops in transit, reinforce local garrisons and in general harass them at every turn. Having lost the element of surprise, Japanese fleet would have at the mercy of the American fleet.

If the USN battle fleet would've sortied to support either the Philippines or the DEI, they would have been sunk at sea and none of the BB's would have been recoverable like they were off the bottom of Pearl Harbor. The USN was quite far behind the IJN in fleet tactics, pilot training, and carrier aircraft. It took most of 1942 for US admirals to garner the experience on how to conduct modern carrier tactics, and for US pilots to figure out how to fight the Zero-sen.

Their ability to harass the merchant fleet and troop transport would have created unsolvable problems for Japanese.

Kinda hard to do when your fleet is resting on the bottom of the ocean:shrug:

The Japanese actually did the US a favor by sinking its battleships as it forced the dependance on carriers which eventually led to a drastic change in USN carrier doctrine. Prior to PH, USN doctrine was to disperse the carriers into separate TF's (unlike the Japanese who were the first to form a true strike force utilizing multiple carriers in the same TF). After PH, a new breed of "aviation" admirals moved to the forefront, which eventually led to the formation of the "fast carrier" fleets like the 3rd/5th Fleet.

Kralizec

12-20-2012, 16:53

The only way to keep the US out of the war would have been to kill FDR.

He was a prime conspirator in US entry into WW I and he worked hard to get them into WW II.

The Germans refused to rise to the bait but he pushed the Japanese over the brink.

The Axis was still fighting an undeclared war the US. I don’t know how big a drain it was on them

Seemingly the only way to have kept the US out of the war was to have a different man in office.

Was that bolded part a typo?

If not: Huh?

About the WWII entry; it’s obvious that the Japanese and Germans did not appreciate the oil embargo and the lend-lease deliveries. I’m only aware of one other instance of economic sanctions being used as a casus belli, and ironicly it’s the first one known: Athens boycotting Megara, an ally of Sparta, into financial ruin. The arms delivery might have been an obvious bait for the Germans to declare war, but nevertheless they only did so after Japan attacked Pearl Harbour. An incredibly stupid decision from the Germans, I might add.

The sanctions against Japan were the proximate cause of war with both Japan and Germany. I know that FDR had significant opposition in Congress from isolationist politicians, but was there broad opposition against the sanctions?

Franconicus

12-21-2012, 20:30

But the fundamental stupidity of Nazism discouraged even the most anti-Semitic of them (not all of them).
Brenus, I agree that it was stupid. However, if you look at it with the insane mind of Hitler, there was no alternative. First reason was that Hitler believed that Germany lost the war because of the uprise of the people caused by hunger. He realy thought that the unbeatable German army would have won, if the people at home would have go on supporting the war. So he believed that having enough food was one of the most important preconditions to win the war. Therefore, it was most important for him to get a lot of food from Ukraine, accepting the death of millions there.
Second reason was that he obviously did not attack the SU to free Ukraine. He wanted the land for Germany, or better said for Germans. The population there had to disappear, with only few working slaves. So he used the opportunity of the war to get as many of the Ukrainians killed as possible.
So you are right, the Germans could have done much better, but it was not a realistic option for Hitler.

The sanctions against Japan were the proximate cause of war with both Japan and Germany.
Kralizec, I agree that the sanctions should force Japan into war, as they did. But it was something else with Germany. Roosevelt did a lot of things to help GB and to provoke Germany: the lend & lease, the cash & carry, giving the Brits American destroyers, guiding convoys to the middle of the Atlantic, having long range air patrols over the Atlantic, occupying Island and Greenland and even attacking German submarines. Although the Germans were aware of all of this, they did not declare war. And Roosevelt could not. Why did the Germans declare war after Pearl Harbor. This does not make any sense to me.
The alliance between Japan and Germany had only one reason for Germany: Hitler believed, that the US would hesitate to step into the war against Germany, if they have to fear the war in the Pacific. Japan also hoped that the alliance with Germany would keep the USA out of the war. That is all. There was never a plan of a coordinated war. Japan did not attack Russia to help the Germans and Hitler did not even ask for it. Hitler was not informed about the plan to attack the US navy and there was no coordination with German subs or the Africa Corps. So the allaince was no reason for Hitler to declare war against the USA.
In my eyes, Pearl Harbor was the last chance for Hitler to avoid desaster. It was clear that the Us and Britain would declare war against Japan and that the Americans would urge their government to strike back as soon and as hard as possible. Would FDR have been able to declare war against Germany? I do not know.

ReluctantSamurai

12-22-2012, 16:33

Hitler did not even ask for it.

Actually, he did...several times.

So you are right, the Germans could have done much better, but it was not a realistic option for Hitler.

Of course, in reality, we all know utilizing human resources from the Ukraine was not an option considered by Hitler. But we are talking what if's here, and all of this discussion is just whimsical musings~D

The alliance between Japan and Germany had only one reason for Germany: Hitler believed, that the US would hesitate to step into the war against Germany, if they have to fear the war in the Pacific. Japan also hoped that the alliance with Germany would keep the USA out of the war.

This is also an accurate view. But in musing whether the Axis coalition could have done better, one area that could have made a large difference, IMO, is better co-operation between Japan and Germany...starting with better communications. The German pact with the SU in 1939 was both a surprise and a bitter pill for Japan to swallow. When Germany attacked in June of 1941, this was also a complete surprise to Japan and did nothing to further relations between the two powers. Japan's non-aggression pact with the SU was the flip-side of dampening relations with Germany.

Germany would have had to give Japan something substantial in return for a commitment for Japan to attack the Soviets in the Far East. My view on what that was has already been stated.

Would FDR have been able to declare war against Germany?

The Germans were always considered to be the larger threat, but America was not very prepared as of yet to go to war, and so was content, for the moment to supply money and materials to GB. Pearl Harbor changed all that.......

Seamus Fermanagh

12-25-2012, 23:57

Given the sum of their actions and policies, I am exceedingly glad the Axis were beaten. When Mussolini's Italy was the "progressive" choice, the list of choices more or less sucked. As it was, we allied with Soviet Russia -- FDR luke-warm at best, WC holding his nose -- to defeat them.

That said, there were any number of points that the Axis mis-played that could have generated a victory -- provided that victory was realized no later than January of 1943.

1. Germany could have opted out of any surface unit larger than a DD and turned the steel/yard space and the like over to U-boats. They began the war with 57 U-boats and never had more than 40 at sea prior to 1942, with the U-boat fleet not breaking the 100-at-sea mark (the Mark Raeder himself said would be required for six months to stangle England's economy) until July of 1942! The pocket battleship program, the excellent battlecruisers, even the battleships -- no matter how threatening -- were simply misplaced resources. Source: http://www.uboatarchive.net/U-boatPolicy.htm

2. Germany could have realized exactly what it had with its panzerkorps. Throughout the first half of the war, German high commanders slowed down the armored spear-heads for fear of them being cut off and defeated in detail -- despite the fact that it was the shock they were generating that protected them best. Runstedt slowed the advance near Dunkirk, allowing the withdrawal of thousands of troops who could have been netted. Again, in 1941, Hitler halted Guderian and the other spear head commanders of Army Group center and turned them South to secure the Ukraine, halting the advance on Moscow for over a month. Had they struck forward, Moscow would have fallen and taken a huge chunk of the Soviet infrastructure with it. Stalin may well have been forced to sue for peace on unfavorable terms. Source: Stolfi's Hitler's Panzers East: World War II Reinterpreted

3. Hitler failed to bring Franco into the war. The loss of Gibraltar would have crippled British offensive efforts in the Mediterranean, allowing Axis forces to concentrate in defense of a Frontal assault in the West as well as, potentially, pushing Turkey into the Axis camp and opening up the Caucasus from both sides.

4. Hitler could have had someone slip a blood-pressure increaser into one of FDR's martinis in 1940. President Garner would not have authored Lend Lease, would not have given destroyers to GB, and would certainly not have actively aided the RN in the North Atlantic without benefit of Congressional approval. In short, no FDR and England would largely have been stuck soloing against Germany while an isolationist USA either focused solely on Japan or even stayed home depending on Japanese actions. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Nance_Garner

5. Japan could have struck, in 1941, against Dutch possessions in the Pacific as a follow on to their efforts against French possessions. Though strategically they felt that they had to secure the Phillipines to do this (which required them to throw the "brush back" pitch against the USN at Pearl), it is possible that politically, they would have been in a position to force the USA to declare war against Japan to protect the Dutch (hated by the locals and not having received a lot of good press in the USA). The USA, particularly if #4 above occurred, would have been hard-pressed to get the votes for war from a largely isolationist public, especially Dutch "press" for the treatement of their Indonesian subjects wasn't exactly pristine. Absent the USA or a direct attack on Singapore, they might have forced the British to accept a fait accompli without war and thereby netted the oil etc. required for continued expansion in China.

Lots of other tactical things might be added, but these are some that might have made a strategic difference.

Sarmatian

12-26-2012, 03:15

Perhaps so, but millions died. Care to provide some documentation for the part highlighted?

No documentation per se, (there probably is somewhere but this is my research/conclusion based on censuses and population growth estimates), it is more of a common sense based on demographics of Imperial Russia and USSR. This is a post I made about it in a different thread some time ago.

According to 1897 census in the Russian Empire there were 22,380,551 Ukrainians in Russian Empire. Now, it would be better if we had some later census to take a look at as it would allow us to estimate more accurately the number of Ukrainians in 1932-1933, but census scheduled for 1915 never happened because of the first world war. Never fear though, as we can compare how much population increased in other European countries during the same period and make a pretty accurate estimation. So, let's see.

(in millions)
France:
1900 - 38.9
1930 - 41.6

Spain:
1900 - 18.5
1930 - 23.3

Portugal:
1900 - 5.4
1930 - 6.8

Germany:
1900 - 56.4
1930 - 65.1

Italy:
1900 - 32.4
1930 - 40.9

We see that population increase was mostly between 10% and 20% (closer to 10% for countries involved in WW1), and we know that in 1900 there were app. 22 million Ukrainians. If we apply the trend we've seen in other European countries there couldn't have been more than 25-26 millions of Ukrainians in 1930. But just for the fun of it, let's assume than in the case of Ukraine population increase was 50%. That would place the total number of Ukrainians in 1930 at slightly above 30 millions. Now, 5.5 millions of these 30 lived in Poland in the interwar period, because they were in the territories Russian Empire lost and they were out of Stalin's reach and not affected by Holodomor. That leaves 25-27 millions Ukrainians in the USSR in 1930's. So if your number is correct, it means that during that one year of Holodomor, more than 80% of all Ukrainians in USSR died, leaving only 5 millions. And then again those 5 + 5.5 from Poland became 50-60 millions today, which means that in roughly 70 years, Ukrainian population increased 500% or 600%.

That's assuming there was a 50% increase in population between 1900 and 1930. If we assume that increase in population was like in all other European countries, we can only conclude that more Ukrainians died than ever lived in the Soviet Union and to get to the number of Ukrainians today, there would have to be an increase 1000% to 1200% (from those 5.5 millions left in Poland).

Brenus

12-26-2012, 10:54

Beskar

12-26-2012, 18:01

If the French would have counter attack earlier, the German might have been defeated according to post war writings from the German General Hermann Hoth.

Now that would have been an interesting scenario. "What would the world be like if the French won?"

Would the Allies then declare war on the USSR to liberate Poland after the defeat of Germany and Italy?

ReluctantSamurai

12-26-2012, 18:20

No documentation per se, (there probably is somewhere but this is my research/conclusion based on censuses and population growth estimates), it is more of a common sense based on demographics of Imperial Russia and USSR. This is a post I made about it in a different thread some time ago

Thanks for making the effort. However, I'm not sure one can use simple extrapolation using data covering other countries. I'm not a statistician, so my opinion may be incorrect. But....the point I was trying to make concerning the Ukraine and its view towards the ruling Communist Party remains. Ukrainians harbored a deep resentment towards the Bolsheviks both for the forced collectivization of farms, the withholding of food during the Great Famine, and for religious persecution. Without knowing the true nature of Nazism, I believe they would have given a great deal of support to the Germans if it hadn't been for the Einsatzgruppen.

I think SF makes some excellent points, especially concerning the use of U-boats, and a better effort to bring Franco into the war on the side of the Axis.

I also feel that too much is being made of the halting of Guderian before Dunkirk. That it was a mistake is obvious (to me, at least), but the Axis still had chances to win the war despite this.

PanzerJaeger

12-27-2012, 05:55

The German High Command had a huge respect for the French Army, and it was deserved as shown by the Battle of Stonne (26,500 casualties for the Germans, 7,500 French and where the French tank B1 Bis shown itself as better than the Panzer),

Hello Brenus. These figures are completely inaccurate. Also, Stonne showed the weakness of the French Army more than its strength. I believe you are confusing German admiration for the individual fighting spirit of the French during that battle with a more generalized respect for the French Army, when in fact the Germans were shocked at the incompetence of the French forces beyond the small unit level.

Sarmatian

12-27-2012, 10:09

Thanks for making the effort. However, I'm not sure one can use simple extrapolation using data covering other countries. I'm not a statistician, so my opinion may be incorrect. But....the point I was trying to make concerning the Ukraine and its view towards the ruling Communist Party remains. Ukrainians harbored a deep resentment towards the Bolsheviks both for the forced collectivization of farms, the withholding of food during the Great Famine, and for religious persecution. Without knowing the true nature of Nazism, I believe they would have given a great deal of support to the Germans if it hadn't been for the Einsatzgruppen.

Of course, the lack of data about the population of Ukraine, the effect of famine etc... only gives us the option of an educated guess at best. But, in the lack of concrete information, those "educated guesses" are based on demographics in 99% of the cases. Keep in mind that Russia also suffered additional losses after the WW1 due to Civil War, war against various expeditionary armies and and war with Poland between 1918-1930. I would sincerely be surprised if the effect of famine was more than a million or two deaths in entire Soviet Union and not more than a few hundred thousands in Ukraine specifically. Of course, there is a large margin of error, but figures of 20 millions, even 10 and 5, are simply not possible.

ReluctantSamurai

12-27-2012, 15:49

I would sincerely be surprised if the effect of famine was more than a million or two deaths in entire Soviet Union and not more than a few hundred thousands in Ukraine specifically. Of course, there is a large margin of error, but figures of 20 millions, even 10 and 5, are simply not possible.

20 million is far too high, yes....a few hundred thousand far too low. Frank Lorimier in his book The Population of the Soviet Union, places the number of peasant deaths (non-specific as to geographic locations) at four million (and calls that a conservative estimate). He also lists the Kazakh population as 4 million in the 1926 census and 3 million in the 1939 census (1.5 million short of what it should have been).

Noone will probably ever know the true number of deaths. But its' the intent of the Stalin regime to extract its' grain quotas regardless of the consequences to the peasant farmers that's the issue, IMHO. If you look at a map of the former Soviet Union today, it seems to me that even after several generations, the peoples of the Ukraine, and the Trans-Caucasus District have long memories:shrug:

Brenus

12-27-2012, 17:30

“These figures are completely inaccurate” Could be, I took them on Wikypedia, and was too lazy to check them… Same for the German Historian Karl-Heinz Frieser in “Blitzkrieg-Legende: der Westfeldzug 1940”, saying that a German officer compared this battle with Casino or even Verdun. It was Xmas and didn’t make my homework on this.
But other sources give same figures.
However, the French mistakes were obvious, but it illustrates what I was saying; without the total incompetence of the French Command during the initial offensive, the outcome of the battle could have been different. So, Hitler was right to stop the offensive to Dunkirk, clearing Lille first and then finishing off The UK and French armies. Then the French defensive tactic (Artillery, Infantry and Tanks) was vindicated as the Panzer couldn’t break it. You will notice that was the same employed by the Russian in Kursk.

The funny thing is that the same reproaching Hitler his caution at Dunkirk are the same reproaching him his reckless attitude in Russia!

“the Germans were shocked at the incompetence of the French forces beyond the small unit level.” The French Generals incompetence can’t be denied. But they did, blaming the individual soldier for it. And it worked; proof is when you read the comment on the French Military Aptitude. They succeed to convince even the French that they didn’t fight. I was, until I went for more details…

ReluctantSamurai

12-29-2012, 13:58

However, the French mistakes were obvious, but it illustrates what I was saying; without the total incompetence of the French Command during the initial offensive, the outcome of the battle could have been different

French generals, with a few exceptions, were certainly timid. But...in all fairness, noone (except perhaps the Japanese) had experienced massed armored attacks on the scale with which the Germans had unleashed. The confusion and dislocation caused by fast-moving armor can certainly lead to indecision (especially when you attempt to set up a new HQ location only to find the Germans already there), and the lack of adequate recon more often than not had the French desperately trying to find out where the German armor was....

So, Hitler was right to stop the offensive to Dunkirk, clearing Lille first and then finishing off The UK and French armies.

Neither Guderian nor Manstein agreed with the decision, though Manstein more than Guderian offers suggestions on what should have been done. Neither had the "big picture" however.

Seamus Fermanagh

12-30-2012, 03:43

“ Rundstedt slowed the advance near Dunkirk, allowing the withdrawal of thousands of troops who could have been netted.” He did it for good reasons: Hitler and Von Rundstedt remembered the lesson from 1914, when the German being too advanced in France were badly defeated by a French counter-offensive. At the time of Dunkirk, the French were still holding at Lille, and had won a tactical battle of Gembloux few days before, giving the blitzkrieg myth a blow that the German final victory will delete from minds. Several French counter offensives (as in Arras) were potentially dangerous and were successfully contained thanks to the decisive action of the Luftwaffe.
However, nothing could tell Hitler and his generals than France had no reserves (and she had), and couldn’t or wouldn’t have the possibility to attack on the exposed flank of the Panzer Divisions.
Even Rommel had his nose made red when he confronted the French tanks, and was saved by the Stukas. If the French would have been able to secure the sky (and it was still a possibility on Dunkirk) and had the potential to counter attack (and they had),, the first task was to secure the flank at Lille (May 25 – May 31): According to Churchill: These Frenchmen, under the gallant leadership of general Molinié, had for four critical days contained no less than seven German divisions which otherwise could have joined in the assaults on the Dunkirk perimeter. This was a splendid contribution to the escape of their more fortunate comrades of the BEF" (Winston Churchill, The Second World War. vol. II. Their Finest Hour, Cassel & Co., 1949, p. 86.
The German General was sacked by Hitler for he gave to the French Garrison the Honours of War, which lost him one day and slow down the assault on Dunkirk. So Hitler wanted to go fast, but he wanted as well to be safe.

The German High Command had a huge respect for the French Army, and it was deserved as shown by the Battle of Stonne (26,500 casualties for the Germans, 7,500 French and where the French tank B1 Bis shown itself as better than the Panzer), reason why Guderian’s aim was not to fight the French, but to forbid them of possibilities to fight. If the French would have counter attack earlier, the German might have been defeated according to post war writings from the German General Hermann Hoth.

Certainly some truth in that, and you may well be correct in the whole. In point of fact, the French fought hard. The Germans suffered nearly as many casualties as had the French during the first 3 weeks of fighting. However, the paralysis -- "shock" effect -- induced by the blitzkrieg had thrown the French out of whack far more than the mere level of casualties would indicate. Their heavier armor was a match -- or more -- for the best the Germans had in the field but their coordination wasn't up to the task. Moreover, far too many of their numerically larger force were in haphazardly equipped divisions. The best French divisions of the time were the equal of anybody, but were never deployed concentrated and never given adequate strategic leadership. The Germans consistently underestimated the "shock" effect of the blitzkrieg and halted early, fearing a counter-attack, when their opponent was seeing stars and unable to do more than swing blindly. I don't think the grand counter-punch you envision, Brenus, could have happened. Had it, you may well be right as to the result.

Brenus

12-30-2012, 11:11

“I don't think the grand counter-punch you envision, Brenus, could have happened.” I agree. But the question is “was Hitler right to be worried about the possibility of it”. My answer is yes. The French and British Defeat was not written in the sky. As we know, the decisive blow was not due to the best weaponry or training of the German, even not by the air superiority, but by an attack on the flank, the Ardennes, through an unexpected direction. This is hardly a new tactic…
“The best French divisions of the time were the equal of anybody, but were never deployed concentrated and never given adequate strategic leadership” They were deployed to face an expected attack on Belgium. The race to the sea by Guderian was to prevent them to withdraw from there. Most of the French and British Armoured Units were lost not by direct fighting but by lack of petrol, especially the French tanks using kerosene…
“However, the paralysis -- "shock" effect -- induced by the blitzkrieg had thrown the French out of whack far more than the mere level of casualties would indicate”. Yes. The Russian succeeded in recovering from this shock effect because they had space. The French hadn’t.

Tsar Alexsandr

04-26-2013, 07:27

At the start of the war, the balance of power was about equal. But then the Axis got a good head start. So, with that I believe they could have "won" but it would require that things play out differently. Towards the end of the war Allied power was far greater. The Axis was a rather small alliance. If the Axis could have kept the conflict, or conflicts smaller, it may have had more success. Then again, the European allies and the Japanese allies in the Axis had different goals. For the plan to have worked more co-operation would have been needed. Perhaps if Japan had not attacked the US the US would have sat the war out as a neutral. (But in keeping with tradition, a bad neutral who was aiding the Brits and undermining Germany.) The European Axis would have had to cede Asia to the Japanese element of this alliance. No China for you Germany.

Even with this different policy though, it's still most of the world vs. the Axis. And I do believe they could have "won," but it wouldn't have been easy. Plus there is the problem of identifying just what a victory would have been for the Axis. Europe for Germany and Italy? Sounds likely. But Japan would likely not abide their allies gains. And Russia would be unlikely to be conquered. So what would result, I believe, is a new situation in which the Reich, the Russians, and the Japanese would have ended up at odds with each other. And of course America would have been left alone, unless when Japan split away from the Axis it targeted the US. (But it could easily attack Russia instead, or make Russia an ally.) Of course Fascism and Communism are total opposites, except in the way they treat the masses. Really they are the same thing. A collectivist control scheme branded with a different name. So although they call themselves diehard enemies, they're not incompatible.

The forces facing the Axis were quite powerful, and the problems they'd have to surmount would have been very difficult, but they certainly could have worked better. After arguing that the Axis could win, I now feel stronger than ever that they really couldn't. Yes, they "could" win, but I don't think they had much of a chance. But they definitely had a chance. I think had they achieved their goals the world would have been much worse off.

Brenus

04-27-2013, 11:07

Tsar Alexsandr

04-28-2013, 20:17

“Really they are the same thing. A collectivist control scheme branded with a different name. So although they call themselves diehard enemies, they're not incompatible.”
To tell is not enough. Please develop.
They have similarities, but no, there are not the same. By the way, where is collectivism in Nazi Germany?
Nazism is based on racism, not on political choices. They are enemies. One thinks there are races of Lords and Slaves, the other believes in equality. It is not because water and fire can destroy a lot that they are the same. Both are natural disaster, but there finishes the comparison.
To go with your way of thinking, Communism is the same than Christianism. They both slaughtered a lot of people for their own good, and to help them to understand the true and to build happiness…

Well the basics of a collectivist system is the belief in the good of the many outweighing the good of the individual. And therein lies the purported goals of Nazism and Communism. The Nazis did try to appeal to the working class. A blue-collar sort of regime. For the third Reich, the good of the many, Germans, did outweigh the good of the Germans who opposed the regime, the disabled, and all the convenient minorities who were used as a scapegoat.

The Communists always appealed to the working class. It was "The People's Revolution." Just like how China is the People's republic. Once again, majority rules. But of course, this majority is represented by a very small elite minority. Just like the Nazis, only the Nazis could have even fewer truly powerful individuals.

Nazism and Communism are variants of Collectivism. But not Collectivism perfectly.

Brenus

04-28-2013, 22:07

“Nazism and Communism are variants of Collectivism. But not Collectivism perfectly.” A very big over-simplification.
Nazism believed in the Fuhrerprincip: That is far away from the Soviet Principe.
Nazism never collectivised industries. In fact, one of the problems of the Germans was the inability of the government to centralise and planned the productions, for tanks and planes, or even small weapons. In fact, one of the characteristics of Nazism is anarchy at all levels…

The fact to appeal to the working class is a characteristic of all modern regimes since the powder very democratised death on battle fields: Uncle Sam Needs You or whatever pamphlets you wish to choose for the call to arms.

I know it is fashion now to equal Nazism and Communism in order to make Nazism more acceptable. However, the doctrine are opposite, the base of beliefs is opposite and even the implementation was opposite.

Ironside

04-28-2013, 22:51

Well the basics of a collectivist system is the belief in the good of the many outweighing the good of the individual. And therein lies the purported goals of Nazism and Communism. The Nazis did try to appeal to the working class. A blue-collar sort of regime. For the third Reich, the good of the many, Germans, did outweigh the good of the Germans who opposed the regime, the disabled, and all the convenient minorities who were used as a scapegoat.

The Communists always appealed to the working class. It was "The People's Revolution." Just like how China is the People's republic. Once again, majority rules. But of course, this majority is represented by a very small elite minority. Just like the Nazis, only the Nazis could have even fewer truly powerful individuals.

Nazism and Communism are variants of Collectivism. But not Collectivism perfectly.

And a libertarian socialist, lassez-faire capitalist and “statist individualist” (apt description of the nordic model) are really the same thing and compatible with eachother, correct? They are all focusing on induvidual liberty after all.