Could the Axis have won?

[Franconicus]

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.

[ReluctantSamurai]

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]

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.

[Brenus]

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…

[Kocmoc]

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!

[Conradus]

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]

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]

“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]

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

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.

[Sarmatian]

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

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]

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?

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

[Conradus]

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]

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.