So I'm sure dakka has many folks with pretty extensive knowledge about WW2 and I would like to hear their opinion on some of the questions I have below.
1. Operation Sea Lion. I understand it would have never worked (there was a simulation conducted in the 1970s that arrived at the conclusion that an initial German wave would have been able to land, but the 2nd wave bringing in the heavy stuff would have been destroyed by the Royal Navy).
If the Germans had kept the Luftwaffe trained at eliminating the RAF bases instead of bombing London civilians, do you think the RAF would have been defeated? The Brits had the radar on their side plus the home turf, but was there a chance for the Luftwaffe to win the air superiority? Also, was there a realistic chance for the Germans to quickly seize most of the French navy before it was scuttled/ attacked by the RN? If so, would it have made Operation Sea Lion possible? During this time period the Germans had both their main battleships Bismarck and Tirpitz operational.
2. Was an assault on St. Petersburg possible? Why did the Germans besiege that city for years instead of storming it?
3. Why did France surrender? I understand there was anti-war sentiment in the country. I understand they had put a lot of emphasis on defending the Maginot Line that was circumvented by the Germans when Guderian's divisions raced toward the sea, catching Belgium off guard and eventually leading to the retreat of all British troops at Dunkirk. Still, barely 20% of France was under German control at this point. Why did 80% of the country surrender? Surely there was enough of the French army left to engage the Germans? Did the Russians surrender when St. Petersburg was under siege and the Germans were less than 100 km from Moscow? Did Britain surrender when the capital of the world's largest empire, London, was being bombed day in day out? Why were the French so cowardly?
4. Is there any single full length documentary dakka can recommend that solely focuses on the military aspect of WW2, starting from the German invasion of Poland, over the entire Blitzkrieg covering each country that fell, over the Fall of France, the London Blitz and Barbarossa till D-Day and eventual defeat of Berlin?
2. Was an assault on St. Petersburg possible? Why did the Germans besiege that city for years instead of storming it?
This is the easiest to answer for me, might get back to the others later.
Put simply, the German army was stretched thin. Blitzkrieg tactics worked wonders against the smaller nations of Europe, where the sudden assault could roll in, through and out the other side of the country in a matter of weeks or even days, but the huge expanse of Russian territory basically provided an airbag; the Red Army fell back, and the force of Barbarossa was absorbed and dissipated across the whole front, as Hitler (incompetently) felt that he needed to crush Russia at every point along it and refused to be swayed from that goal of total annihilation.
By the time the German forces arrived at the gates of Leningrad/St Petersburg, they were fractured, undersupplied and overextended, and facing a Russian resistance that had, at long last, started to recover from the reeling blow the initial thrust of Barbarossa had dealt. A front formed that would not really move until the end of the siege of Stalingrad two years later, and along this front the Germans were spread thin, with every advantage of the swift blitzkrieg now spent. They couldn't have taken the fortified and desperate city without abandoning other positions, which again Hitler refused to allow despite persistent requests from his generals.
Eventually, the decision was made to split the bulk of the German force into two Groups, one to take Stalingrad, and the other to go further south and gain the Caucus Oil Fields (which, given the length of the German supply train, were pretty much essential for a continued campaign). This basically meant giving up any attempt to take Leningrad, in favour of Stalingrad (there are many arguable reasons for that, it's a whole other conversation). However, to actually withdraw from there would free up a large Soviet force to move south and counter the thrust there.
So the siege was the best option; they didn't have the troops to take both Leningrad and Stalingrad, but also could not just let the Russian force there pack up and reinforce their comrades in Stalingrad. To actually answer your question, an assault on Leningrad was possible, at the expense of/in place of Stalingrad, and arguably could have been successful given that of the two cities, Stalingrad was far better equipped to fight back... However, the overall result would still be the same, I think; it the full force couldn't take Stalingrad, whatever garrison was left behind there for the hypothetical assault on Leningrad would have been blown away as soon as the Russian force marshalled, and could then have taken on a splintered and divided German force.
Additional point 1: it's been while since I revisited this area, so apologies if I've made any mistakes
2: if you're interested in the Eastern Front, I can give you a good book list. It's a very fascinating period/area in every respect.
4. Is there any single full length documentary dakka can recommend that solely focuses on the military aspect of WW2, starting from the German invasion of Poland, over the entire Blitzkrieg covering each country that fell, over the Fall of France, the London Blitz and Barbarossa till D-Day and eventual defeat of Berlin?
Do Unsere Mütter, unsere Väter or Band of Brothers count at all? Ok, ok, they're not documentaries, but dry factual programs tend to leave out the humanity of the situation. And for all that history focuses on the Allied victories and German atrocities, it certainly glazes over that both sides were humans and the Allies committed tons and tons of war crimes (look up their policy for taking prisoners... or the ridiculous amount of looting). The UK television channel Quest runs WWII documentaries like 24/7 though.
...This is me of course forgetting the names of the ten a penny WWII documentaries that are out there. Hmph, but damn I do remember one that's repeated here often that covered the whole war actually (Ok well most of it, each episode covered a different period in the war and jumped between theaters, the Asian front not being as well represented).
And if you're into Alt-History then sit and have fun sifting through the listings on Tv Tropes or the one on Wikipedia. What comes to mind is Harry Turtledove's stuff, or stuff like Fatherland (before you start going off the scale into stuff that isn't as well researched). The issue is that a lot of fiction doesn't focus on the military aspects, i.e. they aren't books from the perspective of soldiers fighting the war. Rather they deal with the world X number of years on from the eyes of civilians (and notably dealing with the "Jewish Question").
Harry Turtledove's "The War that Came Early" may be up your street however, dealing with a situation where WWII happened sooner than in the real world, and countries were less prepared than they were already. That guy's work isn't your typical fiction however. It deals with a single even that was changed, then goes to a silly level of detail with the repercussions (the wikipedia page for that six book long series deals with multiple fronts, not all of which actually occurred in the real world, like say an ongoing Spanish Civil War or a Japanese invasion of Siberia).
Sir Arun wrote: So I'm sure dakka has many folks with pretty extensive knowledge about WW2 and I would like to hear their opinion on some of the questions I have below.
1. Operation Sea Lion. I understand it would have never worked (there was a simulation conducted in the 1970s that arrived at the conclusion that an initial German wave would have been able to land, but the 2nd wave bringing in the heavy stuff would have been destroyed by the Royal Navy).
If the Germans had kept the Luftwaffe trained at eliminating the RAF bases instead of bombing London civilians, do you think the RAF would have been defeated? The Brits had the radar on their side plus the home turf, but was there a chance for the Luftwaffe to win the air superiority? Also, was there a realistic chance for the Germans to quickly seize most of the French navy before it was scuttled/ attacked by the RN? If so, would it have made Operation Sea Lion possible?
2. Was an assault on St. Petersburg possible? Why did the Germans besiege that city for years instead of storming it?
3. Why did France surrender? I understand there was anti-war sentiment in the country. I understand they had put a lot of emphasis on defending the Maginot Line that was circumvented by the Germans when Guderian's divisions raced toward the sea, catching Belgium off guard and eventually leading to the retreat of all British troops at Dunkirk. Still, barely 20% of France was under German control at this point. Why did 80% of the country surrender? Surely there was enough of the French army left to engage the Germans? Did the Russians surrender when St. Petersburg was under siege and the Germans were less than 100 km from Moscow? Did Britain surrender when the capital of the world's largest empire, London, was being bombed day in day out? Why were the French so cowardly?
4. Is there any single full length documentary dakka can recommend that solely focuses on the military aspect of WW2, starting from the German invasion of Poland, over the entire Blitzkrieg covering each country that fell, over the Fall of France, the London Blitz and Barbarossa till D-Day and eventual defeat of Berlin?
This thread could be epic!!
Since I'm part French..I'll take a stab at #3..
I've been reading a book called "The General", about Degaul..and one of the most interesting things in the book so far, is that the Germans, actually borrowed many of the "blitzkrieg" tactics from Degaul's book that he wrote on tank tactics before the war. Ironically, the French High staff rejected Degauls plan, in favor of the Maginot, defense, and playing defensive war. But aside from that, the book points out that, it was Petain that basically pushed the surrender, and in large part it appears that many people in France at the time, sympathized with the Nazi theology of fascism and antisemetism. Therefore it was easier for a Petain led Vichy government to get a foot hold.
Note I said "many" French people, certainly not all, and probably not the majority. This is why the French resistance (whom my Great Grand Father was a part of), and the Free French forces were able to take part in helping to take back France.
ON a side note, even though the "Blitzkrieg" was famous for the fall of France, France certainly had opportunity to stop the Germans, but poor Decisions at the high staff, and not so good tank design contributed to the fall.
So from an alternate point of view, if Petain had not gained power, France possibly could have held Germany at a stalemate, and repeated what happened in WW1. Holding them at bay until the Americans entered the war. Also theoretically the French fleet wouldn't have had to be scuttled and could have fled to Scapa Flow with the British.
What if Nazis had mind controlled gorillas and zombies? What if the Russians had mechs?! What if America had some star-spangled donkey-cave running around with a garbage can lid?
The Luftwaffe didn't have much chance of winning air superiority.
It's all about fuel load.
German fighters didn't have the range to loiter over the UK.
Bombers without fighter cover have a short lifespan.
KaptinBadrukk wrote: What If this thread is breaking the rules and is more Personal Blog or something else?
Not everything in OT is grounds for personal blogs. If you don't like a topic, don't just automatically respond that it should be a PB. Or else you'll be alerted to mods as a troll. Like I just did.
KaptinBadrukk wrote: What If this thread is breaking the rules and is more Personal Blog or something else?
Not everything in OT is grounds for personal blogs. If you don't like a topic, don't just automatically respond that it should be a PB. Or else you'll be alerted to mods as a troll. Like I just did.
Since I'm part French..I'll take a stab at #3..
I've been reading a book called "The General", about Degaul..and one of the most interesting things in the book so far, is that the Germans, actually borrowed many of the "blitzkrieg" tactics from Degaul's book that he wrote on tank tactics before the war. Ironically, the French High staff rejected Degauls plan, in favor of the Maginot, defense, and playing defensive war. But aside from that, the book points out that, it was Petain that basically pushed the surrender, and in large part it appears that many people in France at the time, sympathized with the Nazi theology of fascism and antisemetism. Therefore it was easier for a Petain led Vichy government to get a foot hold.
Note I said "many" French people, certainly not all, and probably not the majority. This is why the French resistance (whom my Great Grand Father was a part of), and the Free French forces were able to take part in helping to take back France.
ON a side note, even though the "Blitzkrieg" was famous for the fall of France, France certainly had opportunity to stop the Germans, but poor Decisions at the high staff, and not so good tank design contributed to the fall.
So from an alternate point of view, if Petain had not gained power, France possibly could have held Germany at a stalemate, and repeated what happened in WW1. Holding them at bay until the Americans entered the war. Also theoretically the French fleet wouldn't have had to be scuttled and could have fled to Scapa Flow with the British.
GG
This is very interesting; I've not really looked at France much yet.
Do you really think France could have blunted the blitzkrieg? I imagine they had the manpower, but would they have been able to marshal it in time, considering how fast the Germans reached Paris and forced the surrender?
The largest contributing factor to the defeat of the Germans was Hitler's meddling in the actual military affairs focusing on symbolic targets instead of beneficial ones.
Hitler was a moron when it came to actually knowing how to win battles, he thought his limited experience in WW1 gave him the capacity to make good decisions. Combine this with the drugs he began taking midway through the war and his increasing paranoia and it was a recipe for disaster.
Germany grabbed too much, too fast, and was fighting on too many fronts.
The invasion of Russia was overall a mistake, but not one that was crippling in and of itself. If the Germans had moved more quickly, they could have eliminated the Russian manufacturing capacity located behind Moscow before it got relocated over the Ural mountains. This would have utterly destroyed the Russian's ability to produce any substantial war material, like tanks and aircraft. After doing this, they needed to pull back before winter set in and fortify a defensive line, while also securing the oil fields in the Baltic. They should have also ignored the cities, which were just going to be death traps and bypassed them. Using a similar strategy to the Island Hopping the US used in the Pacific. They could cut off the russians in the cities and waited till they ran out of supplies.
With the oil fields secure, the Germans would have had more fuel availability. Which would have helped a lot.
Of course the best action would have been not to attack Russia at all. Instead fortifying the eastern front to repel any eventual Russian invasion. Instead of invading Russia, head down into Turkey and the Middle East to acquire more natural resources. This influx of material would have allowed for a build up for the eventual invasion of Britain.
Britain would have to be besieged on all sides to fall. The Germans should have consolidated their gains on the continent first. Begin building up infrastructure, recruiting/indoctrinating the locals to their cause, etc...
Once that was achieved, they could focus on taking Britain on. First, they needed to take out the Royal Navy. Use their new resources to slowly build up a fleet that could take the fleet on. Use V2 rockets to take out British seaports and ships that are at harbor. Once the navy is taken down, you blockade Britain. You blockade it for years. Let them run out of resources. And only once they are weak do you consider invading.
But once Britain is neutralized as an offensive threat, there is little reason to invade. Its not like they have many valuable resources on that island that are desperately needed. You can leave them be, no longer a major threat.
Meanwhile, you do empire building in areas where you won't meet too much resistance. Africa and the Middle East. Acquiring natural resources along the way.
Do you really think France could have blunted the blitzkrieg?
If they had been paying attention to Germany's militarisation and hadn't been so fixated on the Maginot line they would have stood an excellent chance. The battle of France was lost because France lacked the mobility and strategic flexibility to react to German Blitzkreig tactics. Tactically French troops did well but they were constantly outflanked and they simply couldn't counter the highly mobile German lead elements. France did their best and they did it bravely despite unfair modern jibes to the contrary but they were trying to refight WWI against an opponent who was equipped for a modern war.
I think that an interesting what if scenario is if Germany invaded the Soviet Union in the spring 1943 or even the spring of 1944. Britain would probably have lost the battle of the Atlantic by this point and would be suing for peace, Germany would have access to the Middle eastern oilfields, the expansion of the German armed forces would be complete and German equipment would have been of much higher quality. On the Soviet side the RKKD would be a bit more professional after Stalin's purges but I still think that they would have fared just as badly as they did in 1942.
Given that the Germans reached the Moscow suburbs with utterly worn out and largely obsolete kit, reliant on a horse drawn supply line and unprepared for the Russian winter in 1942 I think that its highly likely that an other year or 2 of preparation would have seen the fall of Moscow and with it the USSR.
Grey Templar wrote: The largest contributing factor to the defeat of the Germans was Hitler's meddling in the actual military affairs focusing on symbolic targets instead of beneficial ones.
Hitler was a moron when it came to actually knowing how to win battles, he thought his limited experience in WW1 gave him the capacity to make good decisions. Combine this with the drugs he began taking midway through the war and his increasing paranoia and it was a recipe for disaster.
Agreed. I think it's a distinct possibility that it Hitler had let his Commanders command and stuck to giving shouty speeches, he would have triumphed (at least in Europe, not so much against America simply for geographical reasons).
Soladrin wrote: Yeah, Degaul was actually a pretty forward thinking general. He was surrounded by staff stuck in WWI tactics sadly.
There were several forward thinkers, even advanced tactics.
Air: strategic bombing, combined arms tactical support, FOBs imbedded in troop units (once again America Hurr)
Air: Paratroops
Naval: Carriers. Long range submarines. radar
land: Blitzkrieg. Russian forced blitzkrieg (whatever they called it).
Production: Industrial logistics.
Given that the Germans reached the Moscow suburbs with utterly worn out and largely obsolete kit, reliant on a horse drawn supply line and unprepared for the Russian winter in 1942 I think that its highly likely that an other year or 2 of preparation would have seen the fall of Moscow and with it the USSR.
1. The Soviets were arming at the same time and reorganizing after the Purges/Finland.
2. You assume the German economy would have lasted that long. There are strong arguments that the German economy was running on borrowed time. Where the Japanese economy was running out of oil, the German economy was running out of money.
Grey Templar wrote: The largest contributing factor to the defeat of the Germans was Hitler's meddling in the actual military affairs focusing on symbolic targets instead of beneficial ones.
Hitler was a moron when it came to actually knowing how to win battles, he thought his limited experience in WW1 gave him the capacity to make good decisions. Combine this with the drugs he began taking midway through the war and his increasing paranoia and it was a recipe for disaster.
Agreed. I think it's a distinct possibility that it Hitler had let his Commanders command and stuck to giving shouty speeches, he would have triumphed (at least in Europe, not so much against America simply for geographical reasons).
Thank goodness he was incompetent, eh!
Indeed. Worst case scenario is Nazi Europe/North Africa/Middle East currently exists, and the Cold War was between the US and Germany.
Soladrin wrote: Yeah, Degaul was actually a pretty forward thinking general. He was surrounded by staff stuck in WWI tactics sadly.
There were several forward thinkers, even advanced tactics.
Air: strategic bombing, combined arms tactical support, FOBs imbedded in troop units (once again America Hurr)
Air: Paratroops
Naval: Carriers. Long range submarines. radar
land: Blitzkrieg. Russian forced blitzkrieg (whatever they called it).
Production: Industrial logistics.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Do you mean other French forward thinkers? Or just in general? May help if you use names.
Sir Arun wrote: So I'm sure dakka has many folks with pretty extensive knowledge about WW2 and I would like to hear their opinion on some of the questions I have below.
1. Operation Sea Lion. I understand it would have never worked (there was a simulation conducted in the 1970s that arrived at the conclusion that an initial German wave would have been able to land, but the 2nd wave bringing in the heavy stuff would have been destroyed by the Royal Navy).
If the Germans had kept the Luftwaffe trained at eliminating the RAF bases instead of bombing London civilians, do you think the RAF would have been defeated?
It was possible. But I don't know if there's any way to be sure. The British were very much feeling a lot of the pressure, but I'd still say it wasn't terribly likely. In most ways, Germany wasn't really super interested in invading the UK, and were looking much more at a negotiated peace.
2. Was an assault on St. Petersburg possible? Why did the Germans besiege that city for years instead of storming it?
It was theoretically possible with the initial outset Barbarossa plans, but would have been unnecessary had the rest of their plans worked out. Initially a siege was done because they'd moved a bunch of units to other sectors and different offensive drives, and had those succeeded, then the city could have been taken at their leisure.
3. Why did France surrender? I understand there was anti-war sentiment in the country. I understand they had put a lot of emphasis on defending the Maginot Line that was circumvented by the Germans when Guderian's divisions raced toward the sea, catching Belgium off guard and eventually leading to the retreat of all British troops at Dunkirk. Still, barely 20% of France was under German control at this point. Why did 80% of the country surrender? Surely there was enough of the French army left to engage the Germans? Did the Russians surrender when St. Petersburg was under siege and the Germans were less than 100 km from Moscow? Did Britain surrender when the capital of the world's largest empire, London, was being bombed day in day out? Why were the French so cowardly?
In simple terms, call it PTSD from WW1. The French as a society were both physically mauled and mentally scarred by WW1 to perhaps a greater degree than anyone else, and that makes sense as the Western front took place pretty much entirely on their soil. There was a feeling of "oh please not again", and to some degree a feeling of "let it be over quickly, even if we lose". Whereas in 1914 the French went to war convinced of quick victory and elated to serve, in WW2 there was a ton of "lets not do this again".
There were other factors as well. The French military decayed very deeply between the wars, and despite being great innovators during WW1, they regressed on many of them. Likewise, French society was very badly split. Internal politics were very sharp and in some cases non-functional, and different groups were more interested in fighting each other than fighting the Germans. Additionally, much of the French military leadership was simply incompetent and out of touch, and while men like De Gaulle tried to get things done right, men like Gamelin who ran everything were fighting 1940 with the mindset of 1916.
I wouldn't call anything the French did "cowardly", a lot of Frenchman died fighting for the period of active hostilities, but they just didn't have the strength to do any more.
TL;DR nation-wide PTSD following WW1, internal divisive politics, decay of military doctrine, and incompetent upper command echelons.
4. Is there any single full length documentary dakka can recommend that solely focuses on the military aspect of WW2, starting from the German invasion of Poland, over the entire Blitzkrieg covering each country that fell, over the Fall of France, the London Blitz and Barbarossa till D-Day and eventual defeat of Berlin?
The World at War from 1973 is quite possibly the best overarching documentary of the conflict from multiple angles, but is like 26 episodes long.
Not getting the hostility. You said DeGaul was a forward thinker. I'm not disagreeing. I'm saying there were many if you stop and think about it on all sides.
People fault the French but forget:
1. France is not the USSR. They could not trade distance for time. There was no French winter coming to stop the Germans.
2. France's manpower had already been drained in WWI, and their economy was reeling from the Depression. They couldn't afford a more mobile force, and their manpower was lower.
3. they relied on a strong flank in Belgium. That flank went neutral and they didn't have time to extend the line as planned.
4. There was poor political leadership-agreed.
5. There was poor military leadership-agreed.
Do Unsere Mütter, unsere Väter or Band of Brothers count at all?
I've been trying to find and watch Unsere Mutter/Vater forever. Maybe I'll look on amazon.
I did however come across an entire book dedicated to a hypothetical Sea Lion in the library the other day. Only got through a few pages until I had to get back to studying but it seemed like really awesome wargame material. Wish I could remember the title.
Grey Templar wrote: Indeed. Worst case scenario is Nazi Europe/North Africa/Middle East currently exists, and the Cold War was between the US and Germany.
No, the worst case scenario is the nuclear annihilation of Germany in 1947 by the US. You can't really have a cold war when only one side has nukes.
Do Unsere Mütter, unsere Väter or Band of Brothers count at all?
I've been trying to find and watch Unsere Mutter/Vater forever. Maybe I'll look on amazon.
I did however come across an entire book dedicated to a hypothetical Sea Lion in the library the other day. Only got through a few pages until I had to get back to studying but it seemed like really awesome wargame material. Wish I could remember the title.
Grey Templar wrote: Indeed. Worst case scenario is Nazi Europe/North Africa/Middle East currently exists, and the Cold War was between the US and Germany.
No, the worst case scenario is the nuclear annihilation of Germany in 1947 by the US. You can't really have a cold war when only one side has nukes.
Grey Templar wrote: Indeed. Worst case scenario is Nazi Europe/North Africa/Middle East currently exists, and the Cold War was between the US and Germany.
No, the worst case scenario is the nuclear annihilation of Germany in 1947 by the US. You can't really have a cold war when only one side has nukes.
If Germany is smart and consolidates their power, without provoking the US unduely, they will also develop nuclear weaponry too.
Grey Templar wrote: Indeed. Worst case scenario is Nazi Europe/North Africa/Middle East currently exists, and the Cold War was between the US and Germany.
No, the worst case scenario is the nuclear annihilation of Germany in 1947 by the US. You can't really have a cold war when only one side has nukes.
On the other hand, would America be pushed to using nukes given that:
- Germany would have very little capability to threaten them given the distances involved
- In essence, they would be launching on an occupied nation unless they actually hit Germany (and thus get through hundreds of miles of territory without being shot down), and at the least fallout would be all over Europe
If anything, would you not just get America and Eurasia existing as two separate states, each ignoring the other?
How strong was the French army in 1940? Didnt they have at least more than a million men? I still can't wrap my head around the fact that a nation with a population 80% that of Germany can be conquered within a month just because the upper echelons agree to a surrender. You'd think the army would split into countless guerillas spread all over France, harassing the occupying German soldiers and doing everything possible to make casualties mount.
Peregrine wrote: No, the worst case scenario is the nuclear annihilation of Germany in 1947 by the US. You can't really have a cold war when only one side has nukes.
If Germany is smart and consolidates their power, without provoking the US unduely, they will also develop nuclear weaponry too.
I dont know if there are unanimous sources to back this up, but Hitler had no alternative but to officially declare war on the US in December 1941. Not because of Pearl Harbor mind you, but because the war had already started between these two countries. Hitler mentioned in his declaration-of-war speech that by spring 1941 Roosevelt had already given the US fleet a "shoot on sight" orders regarding any Axis ship they spotted, so even without an official declaration of war, the US was de-facto at war with the Axis powers by 1941, and Germany declaring war on the US after Japan attacked them at Pearl Harbor was merely a necessary formality.
Grey Templar wrote: If Germany is smart and consolidates their power, without provoking the US unduely, they will also develop nuclear weaponry too.
But how long will that take? Germany wasn't even close to having nukes, and didn't have any way to deliver them to the US. The US had working designs, mass production, and bombers capable of flying from the US and dropping them anywhere in Germany. Another year or two while the US finishes development on the B-36 and starts mass production of nuclear weapons won't make up that gap, and even if Japan somehow doesn't start the war US "neutrality" in Europe probably isn't going to prevent a preemptive strike.
Grey Templar wrote: Indeed. Worst case scenario is Nazi Europe/North Africa/Middle East currently exists, and the Cold War was between the US and Germany.
No, the worst case scenario is the nuclear annihilation of Germany in 1947 by the US. You can't really have a cold war when only one side has nukes.
Soviets didn't get one until 1949, and they didn't get nuked.
Well all WW2 alternate history discussions have to assume intelligent decisions on the part of Germany.
They were stupid, thats why they lost. But what if they were smart?
There would have been no war in the first place? WWII European theater was a calliope of bad strategic moves.
Don't invade France and leave Britain sitting there if you intend to continue picking on other countries.
Don't invade Yugoslavia
Don't send your armies to North Africa
Don't invade Mother Russia.
Don't declare war on the US in between dinner and dessert.
WWII did not have to happen. Germany and Japan made it happen.
Sir Arun wrote: How strong was the French army in 1940? Didnt they have at least more than a million men? I still can't wrap my head around the fact that a nation with a population 80% that of Germany can be conquered within a month just because the upper echelons agree to a surrender. You'd think the army would split into countless guerillas spread all over France, harassing the occupying German soldiers and doing everything possible to make casualties mount.
I think a big part of it had to do with how quickly the Germans bypassed the defenses that the French, and everyone else, had pretty much decided were impenetrable. There was also massive underestimation of the strength of the german army at the time.
The French also, IIRC, were still stuck in a WW1/19th century organizational structure. One where if the command structure falls the remaining parts are incapable of remaining cohesive.
This combined to make the morale shock of the sudden German capture of the capitol into one that the army couldn't recover from. So the vast majority surrendered.
This particular weakness of this organizational structure is why modern armies have such a focus on more self-sufficient combat units at every level. Everyone is trained in what to do if there is nobody above you giving you orders.
Grey Templar wrote: Indeed. Worst case scenario is Nazi Europe/North Africa/Middle East currently exists, and the Cold War was between the US and Germany.
No, the worst case scenario is the nuclear annihilation of Germany in 1947 by the US. You can't really have a cold war when only one side has nukes.
Soviets didn't get one until 1949, and they didn't get nuked.
The USSR never declared war on the US either. Japan did...
Paradigm wrote: - Germany would have very little capability to threaten them given the distances involved
Except that the US knows that nuclear war is inevitable, knows that Germany is working on their own nuclear weapons, and was "neutral" in name only. Once the nuclear-armed B-36 squadrons are ready Germany disappears under mushroom clouds before they can do the same to the US.
- In essence, they would be launching on an occupied nation unless they actually hit Germany (and thus get through hundreds of miles of territory without being shot down), and at the least fallout would be all over Europe
That's exactly what the B-36 was designed to do. It had the range to attack Germany from bases in the US, the altitude to ignore pretty much any attempts to shoot it down, and once it is armed with nuclear weapons even the worst loss rates of real-world bombing missions won't prevent the complete destruction of Germany. And fallout is a problem, but not one that was really understood at the time.
They were also recent allies of the US, and the US was exhausted from years of fighting in WWII. By the time anyone seriously considered a war against the Soviets they had nukes of their own. Germany, on the other hand, was an enemy the US was already preparing to fight and in this hypothetical scenario they aren't tired of war yet.
Paradigm wrote: - Germany would have very little capability to threaten them given the distances involved
Except that the US knows that nuclear war is inevitable, knows that Germany is working on their own nuclear weapons, and was "neutral" in name only. Once the nuclear-armed B-36 squadrons are ready Germany disappears under mushroom clouds before they can do the same to the US.
Sure, and those B-36s are operating from where exactly? And they're also getting shot down by a competent Luftwaffe.
And Germany has a better delivery system for nuclear weapons than airplanes. They have ICBMs decades before anyone else. And the US and Russia only developed ICBMs as fast as we did because we were picking the remains of German ballistic developments. In this situation we don't have that advantage.
So in the end, Germany has nuclear tipped ICMBs before we do. But not quite long enough to hit the US. Maybe they even figure out to put them in Submarines.
1. The Soviets were arming at the same time and reorganizing after the Purges/Finland.
2. You assume the German economy would have lasted that long. There are strong arguments that the German economy was running on borrowed time. Where the Japanese economy was running out of oil, the German economy was running out of money.
On 1 yes they were reorganising, just very slowly. Given the poor quality of training of all ranks were still receiving before Barbarossa I'm not sure that another year or even 2 would have strengthened the RKKD sufficiently to allow them to successfully defend against a much strengthened Wehrmacht.
On 2 the German economy lasted at least until 1945.
Bases in the US. That was the whole point of the B-36, to bomb Germany directly from the US in the worst-case scenario that all of Europe is conquered.
And they're also getting shot down by a competent Luftwaffe.
Not really. Even against B-17s German fighters weren't inflicting anywhere near the 100% losses required to stop a nuclear attack, and the B-36 flies considerably faster and higher.
And Germany has a better delivery system for nuclear weapons than airplanes. They have ICBMs decades before anyone else.
No they don't. They have short-range ballistic missiles with nowhere near enough range to hit the US. The V2 was not an ICBM.
1. The RAF was essentially at the breaking point when Hitler ordered the focus to change to terror-bombing. Most military theorists and historians are in agreement that the RAF would have collapsed within 2 weeks if the Luftwaffe had maintained its ops tempo and targets, as the RAF was short on planes and pilots and would not have been able to rebuild itself otherwise.
There was a realistic chance of capturing the fleet at both Mers-el-Kébir and Toulon, but in both cases that would have required a bit more forward thinking and political maneuvering on the part of Germany. A better outcome would have been Germany taking military control of the Regia Marina and using it for something other than target practice for the Royal Navy, as the Italian fleet was large and the newer ships were some of the finest in the world, but the officers were ineffective and inexperienced, and the crews poorly trained. Capturing either fleet would have made Sea Lion more feasible, but that would have required Germany to shift its approach at naval warfare from commerce raiding/berth warming to direct confrontation, something I dont believe it would have been willing to do, at least not until it might have been able to defeat the Royal Navy presence in the Med.
2. An assault on Leningrad was possible, but not desired (Hitler felt it would make Germany responsible for maintaining food supply into the city which would be too much of a drain on the war efforts resources) but not likely to succeed as manpower and materiel were stretched far too thin and inappropriately allocated. A plan was in place (Operation Nordlicht) but was pre-empted by a Soviet counteroffensive a couple weeks before it was scheduled to go into effect. Issues were further compounded by the fact that the encirclement of Leningrad was never fully realized, as the Germans refused to expose their lines by extending themselves too far north, and the Finns refused to extend their lines past the pre-winter war Finnish borders and did little to contribute to the siege directly. This resulted in a gap between the lines several miles wide that connected the city to Lake Ladoga, which allowed the Soviets to keep the city supplied and (to an extent) allow for some troop rotation via watercraft/ice road, meaning that the intended breaking of the city via starvation could not adequately be achieved.
3. France surrendered because a significant portion of its army was encircled and captured by the Germans, and the Germans were able to march into an undefended government and capture a significant portion of its civilian and military leadership, thus putting an end to organized military resistance. Surrender was the only option that would have avoided a mass loss of life on the part of the French. Despite the fact that 80% of the country was unoccupied, the majority of the French forces existed within the 20% that had been seized or were in the direct path of the German offensive.
4. No. There is however several series of documentaries that will cover that if you have 30+ hours to dedicate to it.
And Germany has a better delivery system for nuclear weapons than airplanes. They have ICBMs decades before anyone else.
IIRC the V-2 missiles could only be loaded with up to a single ton of explosive. All of the early nuclear devices I know off had a mass of 4,000kg or more.
Grey Templar wrote: Fair enough, but the V2 was just a precursor to true ICBMs.
A precursor, but only by years of development. It wasn't until the late 1950s that ICBMs were developed at all, and it was even longer before they were effective weapons. Germany isn't going to have 10+ years to work on building an ICBM because Germany will cease to exist in 1947 or so.
And really the only difference is how long it can fly.
Which is a huge engineering problem.
You're assuming that Germany makes no advances, yet the US has the same advances it only got because it was accelerated by looting German technology.
No, I'm assuming that both sides have the same technology that they had in 1945, before any looting of German technology happened. The US actually had the B-36 (and would have had it a bit earlier except for wartime changes of manufacturing priorities) and had mass production of nukes to arm it. Germany didn't have nukes, didn't have ICBMs, and didn't have anything capable of stopping the B-36.
First, the thread is a perfectly good topic and in no way a blog subject.
Secondly, I take it that the idea is to look at what might have happened if the actual historical scenario played out slightly differently than actually it did.
In this spirit, Paradigm's answer about the siege of Leningrad was a very good one, showing what went wrong and why, and how it might have been different.
To address point 1, it is unlikely that Operation Sealion could have succeeded. Hitler never expected to have to invade the UK. The German armed forces simply did not have the equipment and training necessary to mount a seaborne invasion.
It is remotely possible their first wave could by good luck have landed, consisting of infantry with light weapons and small stocks of supplies. Their job would have been to capture a nearby port to allow heavy equipment and supplies to be landed.
However once the invasion target was clear the RN would have been on the German naval forces like a pack of crazed wolves. Even if the RAF had been defeated, the Luftwaffe was not trained and equipped for anti-ship combat at that time. The follow-up wave would have been devastated at sea, leaving the infantry spearhead isolated and out of supply.
Anyway it is unlikely the Luftwaffe could have defeated the RAF. While the south-eastern fighter groups were under pressure by late August 1940, the Luftwaffe was also getting tited out. Reinforcements would have been brought down from the north British sectors if the situation became critical.
It was Paddy Griffith who ran the wargame of the Operation Sealion in 1974. He covers the whole topic in his excellent book "Sprawling Wargames".
1. The Soviets were arming at the same time and reorganizing after the Purges/Finland.
2. You assume the German economy would have lasted that long. There are strong arguments that the German economy was running on borrowed time. Where the Japanese economy was running out of oil, the German economy was running out of money.
On 1 yes they were reorganising, just very slowly. Given the poor quality of training of all ranks were still receiving before Barbarossa I'm not sure that another year or even 2 would have strengthened the RKKD sufficiently to allow them to successfully defend against a much strengthened Wehrmacht.
Well they were able to turn it around in one year, while getting the holy crap kicked out of them at the same time.
On 2 the German economy lasted at least until 1945.
Once war started yes. There are strong arguments that the economy would not have lasted another year absent substantial conquests or scaling back their budget. In essence if they didn't go to war they were going to go Weimar again unless they pulled back heavily on their budgets and resulting economy. Is Hitler gong to be around if the economy goes into a tailspin?
Grey Templar wrote: Fair enough, but the V2 was just a precursor to true ICBMs.
A precursor, but only by years of development. It wasn't until the late 1950s that ICBMs were developed at all, and it was even longer before they were effective weapons. Germany isn't going to have 10+ years to work on building an ICBM because Germany will cease to exist in 1947 or so.
And really the only difference is how long it can fly.
Which is a huge engineering problem.
You're assuming that Germany makes no advances, yet the US has the same advances it only got because it was accelerated by looting German technology.
No, I'm assuming that both sides have the same technology that they had in 1945, before any looting of German technology happened. The US actually had the B-36 (and would have had it a bit earlier except for wartime changes of manufacturing priorities) and had mass production of nukes to arm it. Germany didn't have nukes, didn't have ICBMs, and didn't have anything capable of stopping the B-36.
And the fact that Germany was being squished from both sides in 45 doesn't affect their technological evolution? You're comparing a bombed-out crushed Germany to end-of-war US. I'm feeling rather confident that mass-produced ME262s would've been rather formidable enemies.
Produced in limited numbers, and suffer from serious limits. The rocket planes have awful endurance and limited ability to intercept anything that doesn't fly right to them, and the ME-262 can't fly high enough to catch a B-36. Even post-WWII jets had a hard time intercepting the B-36, and would actually lose a turning dogfight against one at high altitude. Interceptors capable of reliably stopping a B-36 weren't developed until years after WWII, and Germany doesn't have that much time.
Peregrine wrote: Germany didn't have anything capable of stopping the B-36.
The new jet and rocket powered planes they were developing?
And the US was developing jets as well. If we keep extending eventually the US has stealth tech, drones, and MREs.
Never gonna happen.
1. Germany was bent on war. If they didn't go to war. if they take Western Europe they are still facing Britain in active war and a strengthening USSR, then the USA is the least of their worries. 2. That assumes they stop. They Nazi Party is not going to stop an invasion of the USSR. they might delay it a year or so, but absent someone wacking Hitler that doesn't happen. 3. If Germany doesn't invade the USSR (lets assume Hitler chokes on a Berliner), and Japan still attacks Pearl, and Germany doesn't declare war on the US then I'd envision A. Japan gets the full faith and credit of the US military coming at it. They get curbstomped on like a cat at a pit bull convention. B. Britain eventually negotiates a peace treaty with Germany or joins the USSR if the USSR ever attacks Germany (less likely if Hitler is gone-assuming someone sane is in charge).
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I'm feeling rather confident that mass-produced ME262s would've been rather formidable enemies.
For B-17s, yes, or for lower-altitude aircraft sent to clean up whatever is left after the nuclear attack. Not for the B-36, which can ignore the ME-262 as it flies past at 5-10,000' higher than the ME-262 can reach.
Once war started yes. There are strong arguments that the economy would not have lasted another year absent substantial conquests or scaling back their budget. In essence if they didn't go to war they were going to go Weimar again unless they pulled back heavily on their budgets and resulting economy. Is Hitler gong to be around if the economy goes into a tailspin?
Well they would have gotten Middle Eastern oil for one thing. In fairness I don't know much about the German economy during this period but I don't suppose that it would have been an insurmountable issue in a despotism that had just conquered half of Europe.
Don't forget that the ME262 was much heavier than it was supposed to be. It was originally designed as an interceptor, but Hitler had the great idea of converting it into a fighter bomber, a pure me262 might have been better.
Also, German production was increasing up until the end of 1945, Speer did an excellent job on getting the economy in order. Even with all the bombing.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I'm feeling rather confident that mass-produced ME262s would've been rather formidable enemies.
For B-17s, yes, or for lower-altitude aircraft sent to clean up whatever is left after the nuclear attack. Not for the B-36, which can ignore the ME-262 as it flies past at 5-10,000' higher than the ME-262 can reach.
Again, though, this is the ME262 that Nazi Germany produced while being smashed to death by the allies. If there's a gap of a few years where Nazi Germany controls Europe while the US gets its B36's up, why would Nazi Germany not be evolving too?
Query, does anyone know of any fiction discussing what would have happened had the Chinese stayed as Germany's ally (where in the real world the Axis realized Japan were stronger, and ditched the Chinese). The whole matter, in my understanding, was down to Hitler's distrust of Communism, rather than one held by everyone in either country's governments. German led peace efforts were attempted early in the Sino-Japanese war, but never came to anything after the Chinese lost Nanking (afterwards the Germans just started backing warlords before stopping aid altogether IIRC).
Similarly the involvement of pro-independence fighters from India is an interesting area too. I'm talking about all the Sikh units that were part of the German army in WWII as they saw siding with them as a way to get rid of the British (who I can't say I've ever see turn up in any sort of fiction I know of, and hardly documentaries either). Not that they had a fools hope of ever gaining independence this way, but I'd assume that the experience shaped the movement to an extent (if the survivors weren't rounded up and shot by the British afterwards that is).
Definately subjects for alt-history wargames such as Dust I suppose ...if they took things perhaps a bit more seriously that is. If its not Europe or Japan then those theaters tend to be a bit overlooked I feel.
welshhoppo wrote: Don't forget that the ME262 was much heavier than it was supposed to be. It was originally designed as an interceptor, but Hitler had the great idea of converting it into a fighter bomber, a pure me262 might have been better.
But why would Germany have made that change? This is the problem with hypothetical scenarios like this, you have to assume that Germany does a bunch of things differently and somehow always makes the right decisions to give them even a chance of winning, while the US doesn't do anything to improve their situation. If we have pure-interceptor ME-262s then why don't we have B-36s with better performance to match them?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: If there's a gap of a few years where Nazi Germany controls Europe while the US gets its B36's up, why would Nazi Germany not be evolving too?
The point is there isn't going to be a gap of a few years. By the time Germany finishes securing Europe it's too late. Even in the actual timeline the B-36 was ready for mass production before the end of the war, and that's after it was dropped in priority as its primary role (bombing Germany directly from the US after the UK is conquered) was obviously unnecessary. If Germany seriously threatens to take the UK and eliminate the B-17 bases then the B-36 is almost certainly put into production earlier as a replacement. The limiting factor is the nukes to arm those B-36s, and that's not going to be a very significant gap.
Damn I knew I hadn't imagined this thread. There's a guy who makes some alternative history tanks (...tangentially related to this thread in that they fill in gaps, such as a Stug style Sherman or Crusader, each of which has a background to explain how they came to be)
Sir Arun wrote: How strong was the French army in 1940? Didnt they have at least more than a million men? I still can't wrap my head around the fact that a nation with a population 80% that of Germany can be conquered within a month just because the upper echelons agree to a surrender. You'd think the army would split into countless guerillas spread all over France, harassing the occupying German soldiers and doing everything possible to make casualties mount.
It wasn't really a war that your average Frenchman wanted to get into. The war was started to help Poland, and nobody did anything to actually help Poland.
Ultimately, it's not just a matter of"the upper echelons wanted to surrender", it was that by the point at which they did surrender, they really didn't have a choice, the war was over and continued resistance was simply going to result in more dead and not a different outcome. The French upper echelons were incompetent, disconnected, and fighting amongst themselves (at least in the political sphere).
By all rights, in a straight up fight, the French Army should have won out. They had more troops, more tanks, better tanks, more aircraft, etc. The problem was that these were employed in a manner that was more suitable to 1916, and even that not particularly well.
The French basically went into the war expecting a repeat of WW1. They wanted to sit behind their defenses, build up forces and materiel, and launch a massive all out attack in 1941 (yes, two years after the war started) and blow the Germans away with overwhelming force. What they should have done was simply attack right from the outset and by all accounts, even according to the Germans, the French likely would have been in Berlin within a month. Instead they largely sat there for 9 months doing *nothing* with all of their advantages. This allowed the Germans to basically sit back, look at what was going on, move all their forces back from Poland and into position, work out ways around all the French defenses, and attacked when, where, and how they wanted to.
If you pit a 240lb heavyweight boxer against a 160lb boxer, the 240lb looks like he's got all the advantages, but when the 240lb guy is just standing there doing nothing, and has forgotten his most important training from his previous fights, and is distracted with problems in his head to boot, the 160lb guy who is totally focused on his goal, and who just learned a bunch of new stuff and remembers his old lessons, is going to take advantage of that and do something decisive. And that's pretty much exactly what happened.
So when the Germans did attack, they already generally knew the French battle plan, and had worked up a counterplan. The French high command was insanely incompetent (e.g. delivering orders by runner every few hours instead of by wireless as needed). So when they reacted to the initial German invasion, they played right into the German plan, and when lower echelon French officers tried to point out that something else was going on, the high command simply didn't believe it until it was too late. They'd try to organize defensive positions after the Germans had already passed them.
Meanwhile, because of the unpopularity of the war, and the 9 months of doing *nothing*, morale and discipline amongst the French army collapsed in many places. Many were lulled into thinking that a full blown shooting war would never take place.
As for any sort of guerilla war, France is not a huge place where you can disappear into massive forests for months nor hide in gigantic urban centers. Some guerilla warfare did go on, the French Resistance is famous as a result, but they simply could not operate the way partisans did on the Eastern Front. Too little space, friends and family were too close, and quite frankly the Germans were not terrible at finding ways to make such actions very painful.
That said, for six weeks of conflict, nearly 90,000 French soldiers died, a rate comparable to that of the worst of WW1, they didn't all just immediately surrender.
EDIT: Here's "The World at War" episode on the fall of France, probably the most illustrative documentary on the subject.
Sir Arun wrote: 1. Operation Sea Lion. I understand it would have never worked (there was a simulation conducted in the 1970s that arrived at the conclusion that an initial German wave would have been able to land, but the 2nd wave bringing in the heavy stuff would have been destroyed by the Royal Navy).
Operation Sea Lion was basically doomed. The resources available for Overlord were immense, and even then it was fairly touch and go as there's only so many divisions you can put on the beaches in the first few days, it was only with overwhelming naval and air power that the foothold was maintained. In its most optimistic plans Germany's air and naval resources wouldn't have been a fraction of what the allies had for Overlord.
If the Germans had kept the Luftwaffe trained at eliminating the RAF bases instead of bombing London civilians, do you think the RAF would have been defeated? The Brits had the radar on their side plus the home turf, but was there a chance for the Luftwaffe to win the air superiority? Also, was there a realistic chance for the Germans to quickly seize most of the French navy before it was scuttled/ attacked by the RN? If so, would it have made Operation Sea Lion possible? During this time period the Germans had both their main battleships Bismarck and Tirpitz operational.
The German switch to bombing London has to be seen in the strategic context - it was clear Sea Lion wasn't going to happen, and focus was shifting to Russia. As such, continuing to grind the RAF at a loss of 3 planes for every 2 destroyed at best (and 2 lost for every plane destroyed overall) wasn't achieving nothing. So Germany switched to trying to bomb Britain in to submission.
All things considered it wasn't a terrible idea - it's a pretty instinctive thing to assume that the tremendous destruction bombers cause on cities will cause the citizens to demand an end to the war. It just doesn't actually work like that - human instinct is actually to bear the suffering and not give in.
And given the British then attempted pretty much the same strategy with its own air power, even knowing it didn't work on them, well I just can't the switch to London as a blunder Germany should have avoided.
2. Was an assault on St. Petersburg possible? Why did the Germans besiege that city for years instead of storming it?
The German army was exceptionally skilled in manoeuvre but their superiority diminished greatly when it came to more static fighting. And with the resources needed to capture Leningrad reallocated to the assault on Moscow, siege was the best option. And it wasn't a terrible position for the Germans - conditions inside Leningrad were appalling, and the Soviets burned a lot of resources attempting to lift the siege.
Would Germany have been better taking Leningrad instead of attempting Moscow or their other offensives? Yes, but only because we know how those offensives turned out - you can't judge with hindsight, but only with what was known at the time.
3. Why did France surrender?
Two reasons. The first is that there wasn't an army between the Germans and Paris, basically. The French position was utterly hopeless.
The second reason is that the French didn't really understand what they were submitting to when they accepted ceasefire and negotiations. There was a belief that it would be much like other European wars - some territory and treasure would be handed over, and then France would return to governing France. For all his faults, Churchill understood that ceasefire was the thin end of a wedge that would mean the total submission of France to Germany, and so it turned out.
The other political factors in France mattered, but I think those two are the major factors.
Did Britain surrender when the capital of the world's largest empire, London, was being bombed day in day out? Why were the French so cowardly?
There is a massive difference between being bombed, and enemy troops actually in control of your capital city - the first sucks and limits your fighting ability, the second makes any kind of organised fighting almost impossible. And go read about Verdun and what the French did to defend their country, before accepting that old stereotype.
4. Is there any single full length documentary dakka can recommend that solely focuses on the military aspect of WW2, starting from the German invasion of Poland, over the entire Blitzkrieg covering each country that fell, over the Fall of France, the London Blitz and Barbarossa till D-Day and eventual defeat of Berlin?
There are some books I can recommend, if you're interested.
Do Unsere Mütter, unsere Väter or Band of Brothers count at all?
I've been trying to find and watch Unsere Mutter/Vater forever. Maybe I'll look on amazon.
I did however come across an entire book dedicated to a hypothetical Sea Lion in the library the other day. Only got through a few pages until I had to get back to studying but it seemed like really awesome wargame material. Wish I could remember the title.
It's on netflix here.
Aha! I just found it on my Netflix under a different title!! (Generation War).
Binge watched the whole thing. Really awesome movie.
Grey Templar wrote: The largest contributing factor to the defeat of the Germans was Hitler's meddling in the actual military affairs focusing on symbolic targets instead of beneficial ones.
Hitler was a moron when it came to actually knowing how to win battles, he thought his limited experience in WW1 gave him the capacity to make good decisions. Combine this with the drugs he began taking midway through the war and his increasing paranoia and it was a recipe for disaster.
Absolute nonsense. And damn we've been over this a whole lot of times.
Hitler made a whole lot of blunders, but almost all of them were made once the German position was basically screwed anyway. Before then most of his interference was actually positive. Hitler over-rode senior staff to instead opt for von Manstein's plan to drive through the Ardennes. The OKH were utterly pessimistic about war with France, and were committed to a strategically conservative drive through Belgium, even after plans for such an attack were accidentally revealed to the allies. And it was Hitler who insisted on holding ground against the Russians in the first winter, a decision that basically kept the German army intact and in possession of its heavy weapons.
The invasion of Russia was overall a mistake, but not one that was crippling in and of itself. If the Germans had moved more quickly, they could have eliminated the Russian manufacturing capacity located behind Moscow before it got relocated over the Ural mountains. This would have utterly destroyed the Russian's ability to produce any substantial war material, like tanks and aircraft. After doing this, they needed to pull back before winter set in and fortify a defensive line, while also securing the oil fields in the Baltic. They should have also ignored the cities, which were just going to be death traps and bypassed them. Using a similar strategy to the Island Hopping the US used in the Pacific. They could cut off the russians in the cities and waited till they ran out of supplies.
First up, the German army moved with extraordinary speed in its invasion of Russia, arguing they should have moved even faster is just weird.
Second up, German did bypass cities, that was their basic mode of operation. The problem is that in order to sustain the offensive past the city, you need to maintain supplies, and given rail heads and road junctures are all in the city you just bypassed, this means you can't siege the city while maintaining a well supplied offensive past it. So Germany looked to surround and isolate the city, then force capitulation and collapse of the defenders. It worked pretty well most of the time, it only failed when the defenders accepted horrific conditions like Leningrad, or when encirclement of the city was impossible due to effective Russian defence and/or natural barriers.
With the oil fields secure, the Germans would have had more fuel availability. Which would have helped a lot.
Maybe. Ironically the focus on the Caucasus was actually one of Hitler's grand ideas - his senior staff wanted to maintain the offensive on Moscow. Whether Hitler was right is debatable, the war was certainly an economic war in which access to resources was essential, but Germany managed to continue for years after the failure to capture the oil fields, and oil shortages only proved truly critical in the last 12 months.
Of course the best action would have been not to attack Russia at all. Instead fortifying the eastern front to repel any eventual Russian invasion. Instead of invading Russia, head down into Turkey and the Middle East to acquire more natural resources. This influx of material would have allowed for a build up for the eventual invasion of Britain.
That's treating the war as a game of Risk, and not an actual war. Leaders aren't mentats working at all times to maximise their land and power, they are people with goals based on how they see the world. Russia wasn't a diversion, it was the end game, the whole purpose of the exercise.
And, as I've already explained, Germany faced acute shortages in multiple key resources (it had no local production of cotton, rubber, tin or bauxite, and its local production of iron ore, copper & nickel were extremely low). Arguing for Germany to play the long game in the face of that is madness.
And then there's the issue that continuing an expensive attritional exercise against Britain was madness, while Russia continued it's own modernisation and reform program. Germany did as well as it did because it struck Britain and France at their weakest points, and then did the same against Russia. Changing that timeline makes this vastly worse for Germany.
Once that was achieved, they could focus on taking Britain on. First, they needed to take out the Royal Navy. Use their new resources to slowly build up a fleet that could take the fleet on. Use V2 rockets to take out British seaports and ships that are at harbor. Once the navy is taken down, you blockade Britain. You blockade it for years. Let them run out of resources. And only once they are weak do you consider invading.
Same problem - slowly build a fleet to take on the Royal Navy assumes a timeframe that Germany simply doesn't have. The best hope is actually to sink merchant vessels with subs, something Germany came reasonably close to possibly being able to achieve, excepting that British and American developments in convoy defense minimised the threat by June/July of 1943, while at the same time service on a u-boat was close to a death sentence.
I think Germany was always doomed to lose. Small navy, no long term ability to keep fighting and against very superior (if slow to awaken) enemies spells doom. They managed to punch above their weight early on but it would never last.
I think a cooler what if, is what would happen if Germany joined the west in fighting the communists. I think thats what many people thought would happen as the next war.
Paradigm wrote: This is very interesting; I've not really looked at France much yet.
Do you really think France could have blunted the blitzkrieg? I imagine they had the manpower, but would they have been able to marshal it in time, considering how fast the Germans reached Paris and forced the surrender?
They didn't just have the manpower, they had a superior number of divisions and a greater weight of heavy weapons. German victory basically comes down to a new concept of warfare - a concentration of mobile forces to achieve a decisive breakthrough.
The tragedy of history is that military theorists, such as De Gaulle in France and Liddel-Hart in Britain, realised the potency of such tactics, but plans were dropped by conservative superiors. In Germany the idea was similarly rejected, but it was only when facing military inferiority against Britain and France that Hitler over-rode his senior commanders, and decided to roll the dice on this idea that von Manstein was promoting through his young General Guderian.
The other tragedy is that it took very little time to develop effective counters to blitzkrieg - the British who's tactical performance in Africa could be described as very underwhelming, none the less had defence against Blitzkrieg pretty much mastered. With a focus on defence in depth, mobile reserves, and a focus on strengthening the shoulders of the breakthrough (to avoid broader collapse and threaten a counter-stroke) you can nullify much of the potency of the blitz. Even if the allies had not committed to a blitz on their own, if they'd adopted just some of the above strategies much of the disaster of WWII could have been avoided.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Silent Puffin? wrote: I think that an interesting what if scenario is if Germany invaded the Soviet Union in the spring 1943 or even the spring of 1944. Britain would probably have lost the battle of the Atlantic by this point and would be suing for peace, Germany would have access to the Middle eastern oilfields, the expansion of the German armed forces would be complete and German equipment would have been of much higher quality. On the Soviet side the RKKD would be a bit more professional after Stalin's purges but I still think that they would have fared just as badly as they did in 1942.
In this scenario are we excluding US involvement in the war? Because without openly hunting US ships I can't see how Germany can completely cut off Britain, and with US involvement you pretty quickly get exactly what did happen - the rapid collapse in the effectiveness of u-boats.
Given that the Germans reached the Moscow suburbs with utterly worn out and largely obsolete kit, reliant on a horse drawn supply line and unprepared for the Russian winter in 1942 I think that its highly likely that an other year or 2 of preparation would have seen the fall of Moscow and with it the USSR.
Russia wasn't a static target. Their own reforms were underway and another year or two they would likely have improved even more than the Germans. They wouldn't have been 'a bit more professional', while there would still have been deficiencies in senior command, there would have been a whole new generation of properly trained junior officers, and truly modern equipment (upgrade to a semi-auto rifle, complete supply of T-34s, KVs upgraded to JS etc).
Oh, and another year or two of modernisation wouldn't have seen the Germans improve their logistics. There was little value placed on logistics - rail supported by horse was considered more than enough. Unlike the US and UK German logisticians were excluded from the most senior ranks, and so it just wasn't how Germany thought about winning wars. For the all strengths of German missiontactics, it produced a group think that meant important ideas were often entirely excluded.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: People fault the French but forget: 1. France is not the USSR. They could not trade distance for time. There was no French winter coming to stop the Germans.
Definitely. Soviet performance in the early stages of the war was worse, if anything. They just had land and a vast supply of reserves to call up. In the months it took to reach Moscow the Soviets managed to scratch together an effective defence, something the French had no chance of achieving in defence of Paris.
2. France's manpower had already been drained in WWI, and their economy was reeling from the Depression. They couldn't afford a more mobile force, and their manpower was lower.
Not really. Germany started with 135 divisions, and including Belgium the allies had about 120. So Germany had a slight advantage, but once you factor in reserves of supplies, Germany had a serious problem (there were German artillery units with less than ten rounds per tube, with no plan for additional supply). The issue, ultimately, is that ten German divisions effectively decided the war, as they were the effective concentration that broke through the Ardennes and collapsed the French and British position.
3. they relied on a strong flank in Belgium. That flank went neutral and they didn't have time to extend the line as planned.
Sort of, the French plan was actually for a decisive advance through Belgium, defeat of the best German units they expected to face their, and nice quick end to the war in French and British favour. Contrary to the myth that the French plan was entirely defensive, it was actually a very stupid kind of offensive - one that planned to hit the enemy where they expected them to be strongest, while exposing the flank of that advance to a German counter stroke.
The German counter stroke was far more effectively conceived and executed, and involved a far more sensible strategic goal in the first place.
The whole thing is a bit like planning to win a fight against a mugger by punching him in the knife, only to find out his knife is in his other hand, and heading towards your neck. You're fethed, but even if his knife was where you expected it to be, you were pretty screwed anyway.
4. There was poor political leadership-agreed. 5. There was poor military leadership-agreed.
Definitely.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: If Germany is smart and consolidates their power, without provoking the US unduely, they will also develop nuclear weaponry too.
You can't just choose to develop nukes. You need immense resources and a whole lot of very smart people. It also helps if you have an ally, such as the UK, who'd already done work on the bomb for about a decade, to give you a massive headstart.
Simply put - the Manhattan Project was something that only the US could have managed at that time, and even then it's kind of amazing they poured in the resources necessary to achieve it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Paradigm wrote: On the other hand, would America be pushed to using nukes given that: - Germany would have very little capability to threaten them given the distances involved - In essence, they would be launching on an occupied nation unless they actually hit Germany (and thus get through hundreds of miles of territory without being shot down), and at the least fallout would be all over Europe
If anything, would you not just get America and Eurasia existing as two separate states, each ignoring the other?
The bomb was built with use on Germany in mind from the start. Nobody gives a gak about fallout when you're in total war.
Well all WW2 alternate history discussions have to assume intelligent decisions on the part of Germany.
They were stupid, thats why they lost. But what if they were smart?
No. Germany made lots of stupid mistakes, but none of them ever cost them victory. The other powers screwed up way more, France and Russia especially, but Britain had their share. If you want to start playing with history to fix mistakes, and it isn't a Wehrmacht fan fiction where only their blunders are fixed, then things start looking worse for Germany, not better.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sir Arun wrote: How strong was the French army in 1940? Didnt they have at least more than a million men?
With British support the whole army was fairly close to parity with German forces.
I still can't wrap my head around the fact that a nation with a population 80% that of Germany can be conquered within a month just because the upper echelons agree to a surrender.
Stick your best troops and most mobile troops in a foolish advance through Belgium. Look flabbergasted as the Germans drive their best and most mobile units through the Ardennes, cutting off your best troops and threatening Paris. Begin to retreat your best divisions, abandoning most heavy gear along the way, and getting hammered by the Luftwaffe which is steadily gaining air superiority.
Help the British retreat at Dunkirk, taking many of your own best troops as well. Look flabbergasted again as the British state they won't be redeploying those troops elsewhere in France. Accept a ceasefire, believing the terms of peace will be harsh but limited. Look flabbergasted again as Germany basically enforces a complete surrender, and resuming hostilities has become politically and militarily impossible.
You'd think the army would split into countless guerillas spread all over France, harassing the occupying German soldiers and doing everything possible to make casualties mount.
It generally doesn't work like that. People will be loyal to the government and their decisions, even when that government decision is surrender (the politics of Vichy French forces in Africa is an amazing read - many thought their duty was to Vichy France - effectively working to aid their German occupiers, look it up if you're interested).
And the automatic hate we have for Nazis wasn't in place at the time - the evil of the Nazi regime was poorly understood at that time, and elements like anti-semitism weren't actually that unpopular in France.
More than anything though, most people just want to go home. Given a rifle and told by the powers that be that they have to fight they will, but given the choice to voluntarily fight a guerrilla war or just go home to their families, well most people don't join resistance groups.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I dont know if there are unanimous sources to back this up, but Hitler had no alternative but to officially declare war on the US in December 1941. Not because of Pearl Harbor mind you, but because the war had already started between these two countries. Hitler mentioned in his declaration-of-war speech that by spring 1941 Roosevelt had already given the US fleet a "shoot on sight" orders regarding any Axis ship they spotted, so even without an official declaration of war, the US was de-facto at war with the Axis powers by 1941, and Germany declaring war on the US after Japan attacked them at Pearl Harbor was merely a necessary formality.
Yeah, it's poorly understood even today, but Germany was actually encouraging Japan to enter the war. They understood that blockade against Britain was impossible without hitting US ships, and if they were to declare open season on the seas then the US would declare war on Germany pretty quickly after that.
Japan eventually came in to the war fearing that if they delayed much longer then Germany would win the war without them, and they'd have little place to argue for territory expansion of their own. Had they delayed another couple of months, until after Germany's defeat on the outskirts of Moscow, they might never have entered the war. That would have been a very different world.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: And Germany has a better delivery system for nuclear weapons than airplanes. They have ICBMs decades before anyone else.
fething what? The V2 had a range of little more than 300kms. THere's nothing intercontinental about that. Stop making things up.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Silent Puffin? wrote: On 1 yes they were reorganising, just very slowly. Given the poor quality of training of all ranks were still receiving before Barbarossa I'm not sure that another year or even 2 would have strengthened the RKKD sufficiently to allow them to successfully defend against a much strengthened Wehrmacht.
There was nothing slow about Russian re-organisation. It was the scope of the re-organisation, basically a complete replacement of the officer class coupled with a complete redesign of the Soviet method of war that took so long. Add another couple of years to that and you would have likely a vast improvement.
I mean, just look at how much the Soviet army improved in a couple of years after the invasion, and they managed that while replacing millions of casualties. What they would have done in reform without the strain of the war effort would have been even greater still.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
chaos0xomega wrote: 1. The RAF was essentially at the breaking point when Hitler ordered the focus to change to terror-bombing. Most military theorists and historians are in agreement that the RAF would have collapsed within 2 weeks if the Luftwaffe had maintained its ops tempo and targets, as the RAF was short on planes and pilots and would not have been able to rebuild itself otherwise.
No, outside of the history channel there's no such consensus. The question isn't even really asked, because breaking point is a bit of a nonsense, basically. I mean, how exactly does an airforce break in one single action? It isn't like a ground force, where resistance can collapse with retreat and/or mass surrenders.
There was a realistic chance of capturing the fleet at both Mers-el-Kébir and Toulon, but in both cases that would have required a bit more forward thinking and political maneuvering on the part of Germany.
The political situation with France was too fragile, and too important to risk by capturing the French fleet. Germany was more than happy to let it remain Vichy if it meant they could be assured of French capitulation.
And the importance of the fleet is another thing only clear in hindsight, at the time Germany was fairly reasonably expecting the UK would acknowledge that they were beaten and seek terms.
meaning that the intended breaking of the city via starvation could not adequately be achieved.
Sort of, I mean supplies still trickled in to Leningrad, but conditions were brutal and it's amazing the city lasted anyway. People were killed to be eaten, afterall.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: And the fact that Germany was being squished from both sides in 45 doesn't affect their technological evolution? You're comparing a bombed-out crushed Germany to end-of-war US. I'm feeling rather confident that mass-produced ME262s would've been rather formidable enemies.
Once the US deployed long range Mustang fighters and directly engaged the Me262s, the latter was basically shot out of the sky. This was the effective death knell of the Luftwaffe at the hands of a more numerous and superior plane.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
welshhoppo wrote: Also, German production was increasing up until the end of 1945, Speer did an excellent job on getting the economy in order. Even with all the bombing.
Peak German production was July 1944 (it certainly wasn't the end of 1945, six or seven months after the war ended). And Speer's achievements were over-rated, as all he was really doing was bringing Germany to a state of total war, something they incredibly hadn't been in through the first few years of the war.
It's amazing to realise that the USA was in total war production before Germany.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wyrmalla wrote: Query, does anyone know of any fiction discussing what would have happened had the Chinese stayed as Germany's ally (where in the real world the Axis realized Japan were stronger, and ditched the Chinese). The whole matter, in my understanding, was down to Hitler's distrust of Communism, rather than one held by everyone in either country's governments. German led peace efforts were attempted early in the Sino-Japanese war, but never came to anything after the Chinese lost Nanking (afterwards the Germans just started backing warlords before stopping aid altogether IIRC).
I don't know what German dislike of communism had to do with anything, the KMT government of China were staunchly anti-communist. Germany had little to gain from Chinese relations. They wanted Japan, though, because Japan had the potential to open a second front against the US, and maybe even engage Soviet forces in her far eastern borders.
The former was probably more realistic, as no-one really had any concept of how quickly and effectively the US could expand their capability. The much discussed Germany first strategy of Roosevelt and Churchill didn't actually really mean very much in the end, as US capability expanded so incredibly that they just ended up sorting out both Japan and Germany pretty much simultaneously. If a couple of naval battles in the Pacific had worked out differently the US might have had to return to a holding pattern against Japan, but they didn't.
And the latter was just never going to happen. Japan, for all it's tactical skill, was never ever going to match a major industrial nation in open war. All they could really achieve was requiring Russian forces to remain on the border.
Similarly the involvement of pro-independence fighters from India is an interesting area too. I'm talking about all the Sikh units that were part of the German army in WWII as they saw siding with them as a way to get rid of the British
They were scarce and really ineffective. I think it was Imphal were the Japanese relied on Indian independance troops, and it was a disaster.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Swastakowey wrote: I think a cooler what if, is what would happen if Germany joined the west in fighting the communists. I think thats what many people thought would happen as the next war.
The what if I've often wondered about is if the attack on France worked out like most people expected, a long bloody stalemate. If the Germans went with their original plan, and repeated their right hook through Belgium, and the Allies advanced to meet them, I can see everything becoming stagnant. The Germans would find it impossible to maintain their attack in the face of dwindling supplies, while the Allies would find be unable to launch effective given Germany's stronger air power. It's not certain, or even the most likely event, but it's probable enough.
Let that drag on for two or three years, before Stalin launches his own plan to drive straight across Europe, taking the whole of the continent.
The other alternative scenario that I think is fascinating but I've never seen explored is if the German and Russian peace talks in 1943 had actually gone somewhere. They were held in the wake of the German disaster at Stalingrad. The Russian terms were remarkably generous - they simply wanted a return to pre-Barbarossa boundaries. The Germans wanted peace with more or less the existing boundaries. The nature of demands of each side probably reflects that neither country really understood how tenuous Germany's position was at that time (Hitler's secrecy in Germany was so strong by this point his own commanders often had no clear idea how many men they actually in a given theatre). If Germany had more properly known, they might have accepted the Soviet offer, and then what?
Would the UK and US have continued to fight Germany? Could they have effectively fought Germany - given the difficulties in Italy and Normandy, could breakthrough have ever been achieved against a full strength Wehrmacht? Would it have even been attempted? Would the Soviets have just sat back and watched, or would everyone have just taken a breather for a year or two before piling in again?
After the Moscow state archives were opened after the fall of the Soviet Union in the 90s, did anyone find evidence that Stalin had really begun planning an invasion of continental Europe to commence by the mid to late 1940s or is this really just paranoid conjecture from the Nazi party, and historic revisionists' attempt to justify Operation Barbarossa?
sebster wrote: There are some books I can recommend, if you're interested.
Just bought "The Second World War" by Antony Beevor. I hear it gives a good summary of the entire war from start till finish within 1000 pages. That should suffice
I had a big response to this thread planned then I lost it, so here's the short version. The B-36 bomber mentioned in the hypothetical US-Germany confrontation could fly higher than most but not all german aircraft, and the germans specifically build the Ta-152 to fly high and intercept bombers like that. It can fly a good 2000 meters higher than the B-36 and outrun it at that height.
The other point I made is that allied success against the luftwaffe was mostly due to fighter sweeps by typhoons and thunderbolts, and later mustangs, hitting german fighter groups as they formed up to intercept allied bomber formations. Against close escort mustangs the germans had ample time to organize and prepare an attack against allied bomber formations. Galland himself acknowledges this, admitting that once the allies started performing fighter sweeps, the air war was lost for germany.
Sir Arun wrote: After the Moscow state archives were opened after the fall of the Soviet Union in the 90s, did anyone find evidence that Stalin had really begun planning an invasion of continental Europe to commence by the mid to late 1940s or is this really just paranoid conjecture from the Nazi party, and historic revisionists' attempt to justify Operation Barbarossa?
Well, we know for a fact that he conspired with Hitler to attack Poland simultaneously (a fact often overlooked by the general public), and once there, did commit war crimes that frankly made the Nazis look tame. In the half of Poland that they occupied, the Red Army and NKVD (secret police) basically wiped out the Polish middle and officer classes to keep a proper resistance from forming. It's certain from that* that Stalin had a long-term eye towards expansion in Eastern Europe, though whether or not he planned to launch an offensive into Nazi-held Europe is unknown. Given that the whole aim of these deals with Hitler was to delay the German attack on Russia (as Russia in 38/39/40 would be crushed with ease), I'd say an actual assault on Europe would be unlikely any time before 43+.
*And his later actions, such as parking outside Warsaw and letting the partisan uprising to be crushed before 'liberating' the city, and his post-war 'takeover by proxy' of most of Eastern Europe/the formation of Cominform. Stalin certainly had a long game planned to dominate Eastern Europe, and it worked for the most part. By the 50s, the Eastern Bloc had come together with Stalin at the top.
sebster wrote: There are some books I can recommend, if you're interested.
Just bought "The Second World War" by Antony Beevor. I hear it gives a good summary of the entire war from start till finish within 1000 pages. That should suffice
Anything by Beevor is good, especially his book on Stalingrad, which is pretty definitive. Max Hastings is another great historian, and has covered both WWs extensively.
If you want a documentary of the War, the BBC's World at War is still the Gold Standard. Additionally it has a lot of officers and soldiers from the time (including Genda!) that survived and weren't dottering idiots at the time of filming.
Plus Lord Olivier (the only person who could out Christopher Lee Christopher Lee)!
Grey Templar wrote: And Germany has a better delivery system for nuclear weapons than airplanes. They have ICBMs decades before anyone else.
fething what? The V2 had a range of little more than 300kms. THere's nothing intercontinental about that. Stop making things up.
He's not making anything up. The Germans did have plans for improved versions of the V2 that would have had the range to reach targets in mainland america and the Pacific, but it most likely wouldn't have been able to carry a single standard Luftwaffe bomb let alone a full nuclear device.
sing your life wrote: He's not making anything up. The Germans did have plans for improved versions of the V2 that would have had the range to reach targets in mainland america and the Pacific, but it most likely wouldn't have been able to carry a single standard Luftwaffe bomb let alone a full nuclear device.
But drawing a picture of something and saying "let's build this" is not even close to having it. Germany might have had some vague speculation about an ICBM (which would have had to be an entirely new design, not an improved version of the V2), but they didn't have ICBMs. So yeah, saying "Germany had ICBMs" is making stuff up.
I think you are confusing statements about the hypothetical with statements about what really happened.
In a hypothetical world where WW2 drags on, the Germans will have ICBMs before anyone else. They will also acquire nuclear weapons, and they will also have fighters capable of attacking B-36s because Hitler won't interfere in the Messerschmidt program.
Grey Templar wrote: In a hypothetical world where WW2 drags on, the Germans will have ICBMs before anyone else. They will also acquire nuclear weapons, and they will also have fighters capable of attacking B-36s because Hitler won't interfere in the Messerschmidt program.
But the point is that WWII won't drag on beyond 1946 or so. You simply can't have it still going into the 1950s because in about 1946 the US ends the war by nuking Germany, if the Soviets haven't ended the war already. So what you're actually looking at is the real weapons that were produced by 1945, +/- slight adjustments like not lowering the priority of B-36 production in favor of more B-17s. And in that scenario Germany certainly does not get ICBMs, certainly doesn't get nukes, and probably doesn't change its fighter production by very much. All of the vague "let's build this someday" speculation that Germany had remains just that: speculation.
Grey Templar wrote: In a hypothetical world where WW2 drags on, the Germans will have ICBMs before anyone else. They will also acquire nuclear weapons, and they will also have fighters capable of attacking B-36s because Hitler won't interfere in the Messerschmidt program.
But the point is that WWII won't drag on beyond 1946 or so. You simply can't have it still going into the 1950s because in about 1946 the US ends the war by nuking Germany, if the Soviets haven't ended the war already. So what you're actually looking at is the real weapons that were produced by 1945, +/- slight adjustments like not lowering the priority of B-36 production in favor of more B-17s. And in that scenario Germany certainly does not get ICBMs, certainly doesn't get nukes, and probably doesn't change its fighter production by very much. All of the vague "let's build this someday" speculation that Germany had remains just that: speculation.
Except Germany doesn't declare War on the US in this situation, remember they are acting much more cautiously. Not using Hitler's crazy suicide aggression. Which leads to the tensions being much lessened. The US doesn't engage much beyond what it was doing at the beginning of the war, supplying materials but not much active participation in the fighting. This is heightened even more if Japan still declares war and engages the US in the Pacific, drawing the full attention of the US while Germany is a potential threat that doesn't escalate into fullblown conflict.
This is really an obvious development I shouldn't have to spell out.
The US also still doesn't have the ability to nuke Germany into the dust, not instantaneously. We would be banking on them surrendering to a partial bluff like the Japanese did, and while the Japanese were fanatical on the other hand Hitler was actually crazy. We made the Japanese think we had more bombs than we actually could produce in a timely manner, at best we could have dropped a new bomb every couple weeks, and this is a much stronger Germany with more resources to pump into getting the ME-262 able to engage the B-36s. Europe also isn't open season for using nukes, unless we wanted to alienate our allies by bombing their occupied cities.
Its a much more delicate situation. Neither Japan nor Germany had the resources to counter the Allies in the late stages of the war, but in this situation they do. And the Germans definitely had ideas and plans, just no resources. Sure, lots of the German plans they came up with were duds, but for each dud there was a gem. They pioneered many modern designs, tactics, and ways of thinking.
In that situation, the amount of resources the US threw at nuclear development wouldn't have been there as well, so saying the US would have nukes is a big what if.
I'm gonna say it would be just because Germany is still there as a looming danger. Urgency might have been even bigger due to the Germans also working on developing it.
Grey Templar wrote: I'm gonna say it would be just because Germany is still there as a looming danger. Urgency might have been even bigger due to the Germans also working on developing it.
The Manhattan Project wasn't started until 1942, after we had joined the war. The ground work was laid for it before we joined the war, but nothing started until after Pearl Harbor, and you can bet that lit a fire under asses that wouldn't have been lit otherwise.
Grey Templar wrote: Except Germany doesn't declare War on the US in this situation, remember they are acting much more cautiously.
Germany doesn't need to declare war because war is inevitable. The US is already neutral in name only and expecting a war. The only question is whether Germany starts the war before 1945-47 or the US starts and ends the war in a single day.
The US also still doesn't have the ability to nuke Germany into the dust, not instantaneously. We would be banking on them surrendering to a partial bluff like the Japanese did, and while the Japanese were fanatical on the other hand Hitler was actually crazy.
The difference is that we bluffed with Japan because there was no reason not to. They couldn't stop our bombers and take advantage of calling our bluff, so the worst-case scenario is that the war continues on a bit longer and then Japan is nuked again. And since there's an active shooting war with Japan the US has more of an incentive to bring it to an end as quickly as possible, and that means dropping the bomb as soon as the first one is ready. But with Germany there's less of an urgent need to stop the shooting asap, and a much stronger incentive not to reveal the bomb and any weaknesses in the bombing plan until the US can deliver a knockout blow in a single mission.
Also, there's a cultural difference between Germany and Japan. Hitler was crazy and had his followers, but he also had his enemies. If Berlin is wiped off the map by a single B-36 and the US says "surrender now or we'll destroy all of your other cities too" do you really think that Germany is going to continue to fight? That none of the people who felt that he was sabotaging the country and needed to be replaced would remove him from power if he refused to surrender?
and this is a much stronger Germany with more resources to pump into getting the ME-262 able to engage the B-36s
Not possible. The ME-262 was never going to have the ability to engage the B-36. Even post-WWII jets couldn't do it effectively until the 1950s.
Europe also isn't open season for using nukes, unless we wanted to alienate our allies by bombing their occupied cities.
That's why the US wouldn't. But every major German city and industrial area would cease to exist. The occupying army would either surrender without a fight, or be massacred with nowhere to retreat to and no hope of resupply.
They pioneered many modern designs, tactics, and ways of thinking.
Somewhat, but they weren't really that far ahead in terms of what they actually built (compared to what they made some rough sketches of). Germany certainly had a major lead in rockets, but things like jet fighters? Not really. They got the ME-262 into service first, but everyone else had their own jet fighters not far behind.
and this is a much stronger Germany with more resources to pump into getting the ME-262 able to engage the B-36s
Not possible. The ME-262 was never going to have the ability to engage the B-36. Even post-WWII jets couldn't do it effectively until the 1950s.
Only because there wasn't an active conflict mandating that such a fighter get built. There wasn't the sense of urgency to drive the innovation. The Germans sure as hell would have if this occurred.
Grey Templar wrote: Only because there wasn't an active conflict mandating that such a fighter get built. There wasn't the sense of urgency to drive the innovation. The Germans sure as hell would have if this occurred.
Why? Why would they believe that they need the new fighters? The ME-262 had plenty of altitude to intercept the bombers that were actually used against Germany by 1945, and their first experience with the B-36 and its vastly superior performance would be a single-day war in which Germany is annihilated. It's very hard to re-design your aircraft to respond to a new threat when all of your major cities and industrial areas are gone.
And I also disagree with your claim that there was no urgency to develop interceptors in the real world. I'd say that nuking Japan pretty clearly demonstrated the importance of interceptors, and post-WWII aircraft development continued at a rapid pace.
Grey Templar wrote: Only because there wasn't an active conflict mandating that such a fighter get built. There wasn't the sense of urgency to drive the innovation. The Germans sure as hell would have if this occurred.
Why? Why would they believe that they need the new fighters? The ME-262 had plenty of altitude to intercept the bombers that were actually used against Germany by 1945, and their first experience with the B-36 and its vastly superior performance would be a single-day war in which Germany is annihilated. It's very hard to re-design your aircraft to respond to a new threat when all of your major cities and industrial areas are gone.
And I also disagree with your claim that there was no urgency to develop interceptors in the real world. I'd say that nuking Japan pretty clearly demonstrated the importance of interceptors, and post-WWII aircraft development continued at a rapid pace.
No, it would not be a single day war. We didn't have any capacity to make anywhere near enough bombs to wipe out Germany, or Japan, with Nukes in one go. Or even just several. It would have taken years to get enough, and by that time the Germans rush through a fighter capable of reaching higher altitudes.
As for why, well the Germans were always pushing for bigger and better.
Sure, development post WW2 continued at a rapid pace. but nowhere near what it would have been had we been at war with Russia. Which would not have been one sided either even though they had no nukes. We couldn't make nukes fast enough to make conventional warfare obsolete in 1945, or for years afterwards.
And if the ME-262 was lighter as it was originally designed to be it could have reached higher altitudes.
Grey Templar wrote: No, it would not be a single day war. We didn't have any capacity to make anywhere near enough bombs to wipe out Germany, or Japan, with Nukes in one go. Or even just several. It would have taken years to get enough, and by that time the Germans rush through a fighter capable of reaching higher altitudes.
But why do they rush it through, when they don't know what the B-36 was capable of and their existing aircraft were capable of intercepting any of the bombers that had been used against them so far. In fact, it might be the case that German fighter development is slower than in reality because there's no urgent need to somehow win the war with a miracle weapon and Germany can concentrate on production of the existing (and, so far, adequate) designs they already have.
Also, US nuclear production was at the "win the war in a day" level fairly quickly, as long as you assume that mass destruction of multiple cities and industrial areas with a weapon of unprecedented power and the promise of more on the way will win the war. The US had 32 bombs by 1947, and 110 by 1948, on top of all of the conventional weapons that would be delivered simultaneously.
As for why, well the Germans were always pushing for bigger and better.
It doesn't work that way. Germany has a limited ability to produce fighters, so they have a choice: do they put the ME-262, a very good aircraft that currently beats anything their enemies have, into production, or do they keep developing better planes instead?
And if the ME-262 was lighter as it was originally designed to be it could have reached higher altitudes.
Maybe, but then you have to consider the stripped-down version of the B-36 that had a much higher altitude limit as well, US jets that will be in production by that point, etc. And you have to answer the question of why they would have stripped down the ME-262, trading lower-altitude capability for the ability to intercept a plane that they didn't know about, when its actual performance was good enough for the situations where it was used in reality.
This is the fundamental problem with these hypothetical scenarios: to even give Germany a tiny hope of winning you have to assume that all of their speculative stuff works and all of their bad design decisions are made correctly with the benefit of information that is only available in hindsight, while simultaneously everyone else does no better than they did in reality.
Well thats how large scale wars pan out. Its whoever makes the fewest mistakes and gets lucky in development.
The Germans made a bunch of mistakes and had a bit of bad luck, and a hefty dose of crazy. of course these all rely on those things not happening. Thats why its speculation.
As for why the Germans build a higher altitude fighter, its because they're going to hear about this super high altitude Bomber the Americans are developing that can hit Germany from US bases. Its not like people on both sides weren't conducting espionage. And the Bomber wouldn't have been easy to keep secret, unlike the Manhattan Project.
But it's useless speculation. You can't just assume that Germany magically does everything right and turns every random sketch of an idea they had into a practical weapon, while everyone else is limited to what they actually produced. That's not a realistic "what if" scenario, it's assuming "Germany wins" as a conclusion and trying to handwave enough of the reasons why that it's at least semi-plausible.
As for why the Germans build a higher altitude fighter, its because they're going to hear about this super high altitude Bomber the Americans are developing that can hit Germany from US bases. Its not like people on both sides weren't conducting espionage. And the Bomber wouldn't have been easy to keep secret, unlike the Manhattan Project.
But there's a huge difference between knowing "the US is building a large bomber for the worst-case scenario if they lose their bases in the UK" and knowing "their large bomber has a cruising altitude of 40,000' and they're considering a stripped-down version that can go even higher". Without that specific piece of information Germany doesn't know that their 30-35,000' interceptors, which are easily capable of dealing with the bombers that Germany has actually faced, are suddenly going to become obsolete.
Also, note that in reality Germany didn't start building a bunch of B-36 killers and was perfectly happy to stick with the ME-262 and other aircraft designed to intercept the B-17. So why are we granting them more information than they actually had?
Of course its "Germany wins". Any speculation about an alternate outcome to WW2 is going in with that assumption. Or at the very least its "How does Germany not lose".
And yes, Germany is going to have the intelligence that the B-36s fly at very high altitude and can go a long ways away. Thats relatively easy intelligence to gather. And they will have the resources and time to manage that, unlike in reality where they didn't have the resources or time.
Grey Templar wrote: Of course its "Germany wins". Any speculation about an alternate outcome to WW2 is going in with that assumption. Or at the very least its "How does Germany not lose".
But there's a difference between asking "can Germany win, or at least do better than they did in reality" and assuming that Germany will succeed and granting them every possible advantage while assuming that everyone else does no better than reality (or even worse than in reality). A reasonable question is "if WWII starts a few years later and both sides have their first-generation jet fighters in widespread use is the ME-262 capable of winning the air war". An unreasonable question starts with "assume all German aircraft are magically replaced by ME-262s that are magically better than the real ones, but nobody else gets their jets beyond the prototype stage".
Thats relatively easy intelligence to gather.
No, it really isn't, at least if you want it early enough to matter. To design an interceptor capable of reliably stopping the B-36 (and remember that the definition of "reliable" is "if one B-36 with a nuclear weapon gets through you lose a city") you need to get specific performance data on the B-36 before it goes into mass production. And at that point the specific performance data you need is only going to be known by a few engineers and test pilots, so you can't just magically assume that "intelligence" will get it for you. By the time specific performance data is available to a larger group of people and more likely to leak the B-36 is already in mass production and entering service. And at that point it's too late. Any interceptor based on that late information won't be finished and in widespread service in time to stop an attack that will be coming as soon as the nuclear-armed B-36 squadrons are ready.
sing your life wrote: He's not making anything up. The Germans did have plans for improved versions of the V2 that would have had the range to reach targets in mainland america and the Pacific, but it most likely wouldn't have been able to carry a single standard Luftwaffe bomb let alone a full nuclear device.
He said they had ICBMs, not that that they had plans for it. And as for how seriously we should take the plans... well the Soviets had plans for a flying submarine.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: In a hypothetical world where WW2 drags on, the Germans will have ICBMs before anyone else. They will also acquire nuclear weapons, and they will also have fighters capable of attacking B-36s because Hitler won't interfere in the Messerschmidt program.
No, that's total and utter fantasy. Germany started the war a long way behind in the science of the bomb, and it's program was a piddling nonsense compared to the vast program undertaken by the US.
ICBMs are nice, but not necessary when bombers exist. And what advantage they have disappears when you look at the inadequate standards of manufacturing of the much less ambitious V2, and the hopelessly inadequate guidance systems that would have been driving these things.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Paradigm wrote: Well, we know for a fact that he conspired with Hitler to attack Poland simultaneously (a fact often overlooked by the general public), and once there, did commit war crimes that frankly made the Nazis look tame. In the half of Poland that they occupied, the Red Army and NKVD (secret police) basically wiped out the Polish middle and officer classes to keep a proper resistance from forming. It's certain from that* that Stalin had a long-term eye towards expansion in Eastern Europe, though whether or not he planned to launch an offensive into Nazi-held Europe is unknown. Given that the whole aim of these deals with Hitler was to delay the German attack on Russia (as Russia in 38/39/40 would be crushed with ease), I'd say an actual assault on Europe would be unlikely any time before 43+.
I don't think Stalin had a clear date, but '43 is the year that shows up most of the time. Consider the Germany fighting France and Britain for 2.5 to 3 years, then a more modernised Soviet army sweeping through from their territories in Eastern Poland,. Whether it would have worked is up for debate (it's a long way from their much of their industrial base, they'd have to rely on a rail system running on a different rail gauge, and they'd few trucks as there'd be no US lend lease)... so a lot depends on how exhausted each of the allies is by then.
Anything by Beevor is good, especially his book on Stalingrad, which is pretty definitive. Max Hastings is another great historian, and has covered both WWs extensively.
Heh, the two I was thinking of were Beevor and Hastings. I'd add Liddell-Hart in there as well - he's dated in its research because he's been dead for 40 years, but as a history written by a guy who was actually there it's excellent (albeit with a clear bias to his areas of focus - British campaigns and tanks).
Not a problem. It clearly hasn't made a dent on Gray Templar, so I'm glad someone got some value out of it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Except Germany doesn't declare War on the US in this situation, remember they are acting much more cautiously. Not using Hitler's crazy suicide aggression.
If you dismiss Hitler's crazy aggression, then you have to abandon the attack on Poland. Which was folly that antagonised the whole world and should most likely have seen a quick collapse of Nazi control.
You can't just claim the stupid gambles that paid off, while dismissing the ones that didn't. That isn't alt-history, it's fan fiction.
Which leads to the tensions being much lessened. The US doesn't engage much beyond what it was doing at the beginning of the war, supplying materials but not much active participation in the fighting. This is heightened even more if Japan still declares war and engages the US in the Pacific, drawing the full attention of the US while Germany is a potential threat that doesn't escalate into fullblown conflict.
As long as the UK remained at war and inflicting blockade, Germany's resource and economic position was doomed. As I've said to you in this and so many other threads - countries with temporary military advantages and acute resource shortages don't solve anything by switching to the long game - it makes no fething sense.
The US also still doesn't have the ability to nuke Germany into the dust, not instantaneously. We would be banking on them surrendering to a partial bluff like the Japanese did
That isn't what happened at all. The bomb on Japan didn't actually force the surrender. The council was locked at 3 votes for surrender and 3 votes against, and after the bomb it was... 3 votes for and 3 votes against. Meanwhile the civilian population didn't even know the bomb had been dropped until weeks after the war's end. It was Russia's attack through China that actually tipped Japan over in to surrender.
We made the Japanese think we had more bombs than we actually could produce in a timely manner, at best we could have dropped a new bomb every couple weeks, and this is a much stronger Germany with more resources to pump into getting the ME-262 able to engage the B-36s. Europe also isn't open season for using nukes, unless we wanted to alienate our allies by bombing their occupied cities.
Wha? There's a whole bunch of German cities that could have been, and were planned to be nuked.
Nor is the bomb purely about forcing a surrender. A nuke will annihilate manufacturing and resource centres - it removes the ability of the enemy to wage war. Whether they surrender or not is irrelevant when they can't make tanks, planes or rifles any more.
Grey Templar wrote: Of course its "Germany wins". Any speculation about an alternate outcome to WW2 is going in with that assumption. Or at the very least its "How does Germany not lose".
And yes, Germany is going to have the intelligence that the B-36s fly at very high altitude and can go a long ways away. Thats relatively easy intelligence to gather. And they will have the resources and time to manage that, unlike in reality where they didn't have the resources or time.
For Germany to have intelligence assets able to acquire classified military secrets AND the ability and will to use that information wisel yAND supposing that the chain of commad is willing to change priorities( that have an ideological rationale). An effective Nazi Intelligence operation against the US just cannot happen, in any universe.
Grey Templar wrote: Of course its "Germany wins". Any speculation about an alternate outcome to WW2 is going in with that assumption. Or at the very least its "How does Germany not lose".
No, that assumption is all too common in WWII alt-history, and it's pretty much why most WWII alt-history sucks.
1) Start with a decision to flip the most obvious part of the war, Germany loses becomes Germany wins.
2) Make up a bunch of justify that.
3) Pretend that nonsense is actually plausible.
You're actually engaging in two different types of the above in this thread, the first is in pretending Germany was anywhere near getting a nuke. And the second is in letting Germany keep all their successful strategic gambles, while getting a do-over on all the gambles that went wrong. And with both types you've actually convinced yourself that it's plausible, but none of it is.
Maybe instead of trying to think of alternatives, you just go and read about the war. Get a real understanding for the complexity and challenges faced by each of the major powers at each stage of the war, and then start playing with a couple of what-ifs - you'll quickly realise that it's extremely hard to produce a German win unless you are actually changing things for the purpose of a German victory.
Just because historically the Allies won, it doesn't mean all Alternate History has to make them lose. They could have won a different way, quicker or slower. It is an equally valid speculation.
Nazi idealism and dogma allowed for jews to apply their talents, skills, and their manpower to the war effort?
What effect would the increase on manpower and in skilled positions have? Especially at the start and mid stages of the war?
How effective could forced labour have been in a setting where pointless death wasn't the aim?
I'm not 100% sure on this, but I think that confiscating the wealth of the German Jews during the years before the war is what financed a large part of the Nazi re-armament.
In any case, the war would have had a very different outcome if the NSDAP wasn't so violently Anti-Semitic and Albert Einstein had not remained in the US in 1933, but instead returned home and became involved in Germany''s war effort.
Forced labour, generally, is always less effective than paid labour, until you start getting second and third generations of slaves who are born into that existence and don't know any different.
The point at which US involvement was unavoidable, and the question changed from "can German and Japan win, or at least accomplish some of their goals" to "how long will it take for Germany and Japan to lose, and what will the terms of their surrender be".
Nazi idealism and dogma allowed for jews to apply their talents, skills, and their manpower to the war effort?
The Nazi party no longer has a convenient enemy to blame, the political situation is entirely different, and you have to start asking if WWII could have happened at all.
There was still a general air of German racial superiority that was infusing their politics at the time, and the Italians and Japanese had similar ideals becoming popular as well. The Jews were just a convenient scapegoat for the Nazis to blame, if they didn't pick them it would have been another target. They were still quite bitter about WW1 and the sanctions.
The Japanese would also still have had their massive expansionism going on.
Sir Arun wrote: What do you guys think is the real turning point of the Second World War?
A) Stalingrad
B) Kursk
C) Midway
D) Pearl Harbor
E) London Blitz
F) Operation Barbarossa. Once the Germans woke the Soviet Bear, it was really just a matter of time. The only thing the Western Allies did after that point was material support (those kick-ass trucks), and keep half of Europe free from Communist "liberation"
Kilkrazy wrote: Just because historically the Allies won, it doesn't mean all Alternate History has to make them lose. They could have won a different way, quicker or slower. It is an equally valid speculation.
No, I'm not saying any speculation about a different outcome is automatically wrong - there is afterall a hell of a lot more possible outcomes than total defeat for one side or the other. I'm saying that almost all WWII alt-history is about Germany winning, so it has become a dull cliche. And most of the ways people try to arrive at that cliche is based around a very dubious understanding of history - such as ideas suggested in this thread that if only Germany had never made a mistake everything could have been different (while taking all of Germany's successful gambles for granted).
Looking at the build up and outbreak of the war, what you see until the end of 1941 is an incredible lucky streak for Hitler. Dropping one or a couple of those bits of good fortune is far more plausible, and opens up way more interesting outcomes than just shoehorning through whatever it takes to make Germany win.
Nazi idealism and dogma allowed for jews to apply their talents, skills, and their manpower to the war effort?
I'm not sure it's possible to pull anti-semitism out of the Nazis without fundamentally changing what they were. I mean, if they're not rabidly aryan, why is Hitler chasing lebensraum?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sir Arun wrote: What do you guys think is the real turning point of the Second World War?
A) Stalingrad
B) Kursk
C) Midway
D) Pearl Harbor
E) London Blitz
Battle of Moscow was the turning point. After that there's really no possible German victory that will relieve their resource problems. The German army would never be as strong again, and the Russian army would only go from strength to strength. It wouldn't have been known by either side that Germany was basically done, but in hindsight it's clear. Thus was Germany's high tide, and their one chance to somehow steal vic
Then Stalingrad and Operation Uranus gave Russia the initiative. Even with the campaigns overreach and effective German counter, this battle solidified the Russian position and the German losses meant their next offensive would have to be limited to a single point.
After that Kursk is the battle that made it clear to everyone that wasn't a deranged tyrant that Russia was now clearly the stronger power.
After that you have Bagration, in which Germany effectively lost any chance of bleeding Russia enough that they might force a ceasefire - total and complete defeat was the only possible outcome.
1) Battle of Moscow wasnt the turning point. You really think SU would have surrendered if Moscow had fallen? Napoleon conquered Moscow and still lost. Most of the Soviet industry had been moved beyond the Urals already. There was no way Stalin would wave the white flag even if the Wehrmacht had taken Moscow.
Also, taking a city is one thing. Holding it is another. The Red Army could have easily encircled Moscow after all the Siberian divisions arrived.
2) I have heard that in 1943 there were talks in Sweden about a potential ceasefire between SU and Nazi Germany, but Hitler refused as Stalin demanded the Germans withdraw to the pre July 1941 border. I would say that was technically the Reich's last chance of somehow averting complete annihilation. Though I'm pretty sure this was before Kursk, so I can understand why Hitler refused. He had too much faith that the new Panthers and Tigers would win the war for him.
Aside from Operation Barbarossa and Pearl Harbor being two very, very, very stupid moves, I also think Fall Blau was a tactical blunder. Pushing that far into the Causasus only to have your army ground down in a war of attrition in Stalingrad while not reaching the oilfields of Baku is an epic failure. Whats even funnier, is thinking you have 80% of Stalingrad and have almost won the battle while huge amounts of Soviet troops amass beyond the Volga only waiting to launch Operation Uranus. But even if the Wehrmacht had ignored Stalingrad (or just bombed it to rubble) and then proceeded to reach Baku with the 6th army, holding it would have been a different story altogether.
Personally I think the whole economic reason behind the Barbarossa operation was stupid as hell. You want to defeat Bolshevism and destroy the SU? Okay. You want to attack Russia so you can gain access to the Caucasus oil fields? Facepalm. It would have made much more sense after the lost Battle of Britain to use the Italian Navy and every barge in the Mediterranean to ship the majority of the Wehrmacht over to North Africa, then push into the Middle East and secure the oil fields there. This would have dealt a blow to the British Empire with the loss of not only Suez but also the other ME countries, and secured Germany all the oil necessary to hold out against the US in the long run (or at least until the Reich got nuked to smithereens). With no war between the Reich and the SU, millions of soldiers still alive would have made a US/UK only Normandy landing suicidal.
Sir Arun wrote: What do you guys think is the real turning point of the Second World War?
A) Stalingrad
B) Kursk
C) Midway
D) Pearl Harbor
E) London Blitz
I would have to answer this question with: Operation Barbarossa, largely on account of the excellent analysis given by historian David Stahel in his book Operation Barbarossa and Germany's Defeat in the East. Most armchair historians put the turning point much later in the war than that, but Stahel makes a very strong case that Germany was screwed as early as August 1941. I'll sum up some of his points because I really love talking about this stuff.
Much of Stahel's argument centers on Germany's logistics problem. For example, the sheer magnitude of various marks and designs of vehicles in the Heer was absolutely staggering. There was no possible way to have effective and efficient maintenance when you needed to keep so many spare parts for such a wide variety of vehicles, so the fallout rates were predictably severe. This was helped in no way by the fact that Russian roads were abysmal in comparison to the countries that the Heer had already campaigned in, and all the ensuing dust from long marches into the Soviet Union not only clogged up engines but doubled or even trebled oil consumption, which was not in good supply to begin with.
Then you have the actual logistics chain. While the speed of the Panzer divisions was impressive, in reality their headlong drive into the Soviet Union caused some serious issues with the entire operation. The Germans simply did not have the means to keep the panzer divisions well stocked because the deeper in they drove, the farther their already tenuous lines of supply stretched. What made re-supply even worse was the manner in which the panzer divisions fought. They would encircle large groups of the Red Army, cut them off from reinforcement and simply move on to the next goal, leaving the encircled Red Army formations at the mercy of Germany's infantry divisions following behind (often FAR behind). While this was certainly the fastest way to go about doing their business, in reality it meant that the German rear areas had crippling security issues from partisans that had absorbed Red Army soldiers that were left in the dust by the panzer groups. This made resupply even more dangerous.
Probably the biggest wrench in Germany's logistics problem though was the damn trains. The Heer, from the outset of hostilities with the Soviet Union, PLANNED to capture rolling stock in order to facilitate their advance. As in, they knew they couldn't do it with what they had, and so were relying on capturing enough Russian trains just to keep themselves going. Unfortunately for the Germans, the Russians were really good at either destroying their trains or getting them out of reach. The difference in rail gauge certainly didn't help matters. Although it was relatively easy to simply move rail lines to make them accommodate the smaller German gauge, the bigger problem was that, since Russian trains were so much larger, their maintenance facilities and train stops were spaced much further apart. This was not an easy problem to solve and created yet another drain on Germany's supply chain.
The final logistical problem was manpower. Yes, Barbarossa was a massive operation involving millions of Axis troops, but the Eastern Front was huge. There was very little depth in the line, and the further in the Germans fought the longer the frontline became which seriously diluted the strength of the Heer. The German front was paper thin, which is one of the reasons why the Russian counter-offensive in the winter of 1941 was such a serious problem. There was no depth to the defense and usually nothing in reserve to plug the gaps. The Luftwaffe was in a pickle for the same reason. There was simply too much front to cover, so the best that German pilots could do was achieve local air superiority only. Huge sections of the front were vulnerable to the Red Air Force because there simply weren't enough German pilots or planes available to fly across the entirety of that theatre.
So in conclusion, yeah, I personally believe that Barbarossa was the turning point. Germany's only chance was a short, decisive campaign in Russia to secure the resources they needed and eliminate the last remaining threat in the East. It was evident as early as August or September of 1941 that this was not going to happen,and it could only go downhill from there.
Sir Arun wrote: Aside from Operation Barbarossa and Pearl Harbor being two very, very, very stupid moves
I kind of disagree with Pearl Harbor being a stupid move. War with Japan was probably inevitable given Japan's plans and previous actions in the region, and the only hope of winning that war is to knock the US navy out of the fight and force a peace treaty that gives Japan what they wanted. It's only in hindsight that we know how little effect sinking all of those battleships was going to have (though, ironically, it's hindsight provided in part by the success of aircraft carriers at Pearl Harbor), and even then the outcome could have been quite different if the US aircraft carriers had been in port at the time.
Now, it's certainly a good argument that Japan made a serious strategic mistake by putting themselves on a path that made war with the US almost inevitable, but if you're going to do that then Pearl Harbor is about the best possible way to start the war.
Sir Arun wrote: Aside from Operation Barbarossa and Pearl Harbor being two very, very, very stupid moves
I kind of disagree with Pearl Harbor being a stupid move. War with Japan was probably inevitable given Japan's plans and previous actions in the region, and the only hope of winning that war is to knock the US navy out of the fight and force a peace treaty that gives Japan what they wanted. It's only in hindsight that we know how little effect sinking all of those battleships was going to have (though, ironically, it's hindsight provided in part by the success of aircraft carriers at Pearl Harbor), and even then the outcome could have been quite different if the US aircraft carriers had been in port at the time.
Now, it's certainly a good argument that Japan made a serious strategic mistake by putting themselves on a path that made war with the US almost inevitable, but if you're going to do that then Pearl Harbor is about the best possible way to start the war.
I disagree. Anybody who thinks a country the size of the US with a population of 132 million doesnt have the industrial capability of outproducing a relatively small island nation whose recent conquests have overstretched their forces' supply lines to its limits, is seriously crazy in the head. Even crazier is the thought that the majority of the entire US pacific fleet would all be stationed at a single harbor on any given day and knocking it out would mean immediate ceasefire of so large a country.
While pearl harbor was a strike of genius in its planning and execution (though they did forget about bombing the oil farms that would have dealt a much more severe blow), from a strategic point of view it is madness to have your entire war strategy rely on one alpha strike starting and ending a war and bringing a huge opponent to the negotiating table.
Sir Arun wrote: Anybody who thinks a country the size of the US with a population of 132 million doesnt have the industrial capability of outproducing a relatively small island nation whose recent conquests have overstretched their forces' supply lines to its limits, is seriously crazy in the head.
Well yes, that's why I pointed out the argument that Japan made significant strategic mistakes by bringing themselves into conflict with the US. Japan was already a threat to US interests and territory in the Pacific, so unless they make significant strategic changes in addition to not attacking Pearl Harbor war is pretty much inevitable. Once Japan was committed to that conflict the only hope of winning was to create a short war where the US industrial advantages aren't relevant.
Even crazier is the thought that the majority of the entire US pacific fleet would all be stationed at a single harbor on any given day and knocking it out would mean immediate ceasefire of so large a country.
It's not exactly crazy when the majority of the US Pacific fleet was in Pearl Harbor. In hindsight we know that the aircraft carriers were more important than the battleships, but by conventional wisdom at the time it was a pretty decisive blow.
As for meaning an immediate ceasefire, it would because the US would no longer have a navy capable of fighting back in the Pacific. It's very hard to attack a bunch of islands on the other side of an ocean when most of your fleet has been destroyed. So that gives some time before a counter-attack can be launched, and Japan's only hope is that the delay is long enough to allow them to negotiate a peace treaty that accomplishes their strategic goals.
IN my Opinion Germany and Japan should have ignored america (not attacking pearl harbor and not attacking american shipping) and should have focused on Russia, if the german and Japan had coordinated their attack on russia together, they could have taken russia, if germany had succeeded in taking Russia the war outcome would have been very different.
Jehan-reznor wrote: IN my Opinion Germany and Japan should have ignored america (not attacking pearl harbor and not attacking american shipping) and should have focused on Russia, if the german and Japan had coordinated their attack on russia together, they could have taken russia, if germany had succeeded in taking Russia the war outcome would have been very different.
Well, "Germany is annihilated by a one-day nuclear war" is certainly a very different outcome. Also, they can't really ignore the US because that would require Japan to give up its ambitions in the Pacific and Germany to ignore the fact that the US is neutral in name only and busy supplying their enemies.
Sir Arun wrote: What do you guys think is the real turning point of the Second World War?
A) Stalingrad
B) Kursk
C) Midway
D) Pearl Harbor
E) London Blitz
I would have to answer this question with: Operation Barbarossa, largely on account of the excellent analysis given by historian David Stahel in his book Operation Barbarossa and Germany's Defeat in the East. Most armchair historians put the turning point much later in the war than that, but Stahel makes a very strong case that Germany was screwed as early as August 1941. I'll sum up some of his points because I really love talking about this stuff.
Much of Stahel's argument centers on Germany's logistics problem. For example, the sheer magnitude of various marks and designs of vehicles in the Heer was absolutely staggering. There was no possible way to have effective and efficient maintenance when you needed to keep so many spare parts for such a wide variety of vehicles, so the fallout rates were predictably severe. This was helped in no way by the fact that Russian roads were abysmal in comparison to the countries that the Heer had already campaigned in, and all the ensuing dust from long marches into the Soviet Union not only clogged up engines but doubled or even trebled oil consumption, which was not in good supply to begin with.
Then you have the actual logistics chain. While the speed of the Panzer divisions was impressive, in reality their headlong drive into the Soviet Union caused some serious issues with the entire operation. The Germans simply did not have the means to keep the panzer divisions well stocked because the deeper in they drove, the farther their already tenuous lines of supply stretched. What made re-supply even worse was the manner in which the panzer divisions fought. They would encircle large groups of the Red Army, cut them off from reinforcement and simply move on to the next goal, leaving the encircled Red Army formations at the mercy of Germany's infantry divisions following behind (often FAR behind). While this was certainly the fastest way to go about doing their business, in reality it meant that the German rear areas had crippling security issues from partisans that had absorbed Red Army soldiers that were left in the dust by the panzer groups. This made resupply even more dangerous.
Probably the biggest wrench in Germany's logistics problem though was the damn trains. The Heer, from the outset of hostilities with the Soviet Union, PLANNED to capture rolling stock in order to facilitate their advance. As in, they knew they couldn't do it with what they had, and so were relying on capturing enough Russian trains just to keep themselves going. Unfortunately for the Germans, the Russians were really good at either destroying their trains or getting them out of reach. The difference in rail gauge certainly didn't help matters. Although it was relatively easy to simply move rail lines to make them accommodate the smaller German gauge, the bigger problem was that, since Russian trains were so much larger, their maintenance facilities and train stops were spaced much further apart. This was not an easy problem to solve and created yet another drain on Germany's supply chain.
The final logistical problem was manpower. Yes, Barbarossa was a massive operation involving millions of Axis troops, but the Eastern Front was huge. There was very little depth in the line, and the further in the Germans fought the longer the frontline became which seriously diluted the strength of the Heer. The German front was paper thin, which is one of the reasons why the Russian counter-offensive in the winter of 1941 was such a serious problem. There was no depth to the defense and usually nothing in reserve to plug the gaps. The Luftwaffe was in a pickle for the same reason. There was simply too much front to cover, so the best that German pilots could do was achieve local air superiority only. Huge sections of the front were vulnerable to the Red Air Force because there simply weren't enough German pilots or planes available to fly across the entirety of that theatre.
So in conclusion, yeah, I personally believe that Barbarossa was the turning point. Germany's only chance was a short, decisive campaign in Russia to secure the resources they needed and eliminate the last remaining threat in the East. It was evident as early as August or September of 1941 that this was not going to happen,and it could only go downhill from there.
I agree entirely. Barbarossa was a mess, it was very arguably doomed to failure from the start, and in the grand scheme of things, really an unwise move in the grander scale of the war, motivated as much by Hitler's hatred of Stalin and what he stood for as it was by military gain. The fatal flaw, I think, was relying on the same tactics that worked against Western Europe; blitzkrieg tactics could never work on a nation as large or a front as wide as Russia. With thousands of miles to absorb the strike, and a huge area across which to dissipate it, the tactics and the geography were utterly incompatible.
Had the Russian armed forces not been in complete disarray after the Purges, and hideously under equipped thanks to 'modernising' a good five years before the rest of Europe, I'm pretty sure the Wehrmacht would have never reached Stalingrad, Moscow or Leningrad; they would have been turned around and sent packing with their tail between their legs within a year of commencing the invasion. Add to that the fact that the USSR was far more instrumental in Victory in Europe than America ever where, and I think it's fair to say that poking the Bear in 1941 was the moment that signed Germany's death warrant
Jehan-reznor wrote: IN my Opinion Germany and Japan should have ignored america (not attacking pearl harbor and not attacking american shipping) and should have focused on Russia, if the german and Japan had coordinated their attack on russia together, they could have taken russia, if germany had succeeded in taking Russia the war outcome would have been very different.
Well, "Germany is annihilated by a one-day nuclear war" is certainly a very different outcome. Also, they can't really ignore the US because that would require Japan to give up its ambitions in the Pacific and Germany to ignore the fact that the US is neutral in name only and busy supplying their enemies.
That is quite a big assumption to make.
It assumes that after dropping the USSR out of the fight, Japan would have gone ahead with declaring war on the US.
That the US would focus on defeating Germany rather than Japan.
That the US would be interested in bombing Germany.
That Germany, now with all of Europe, the Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia under its occupation would somehow not develop any means to counter US bombers.
That the US would be able to produce enough long range bombers and nuclear weapons cheap enough to make using them against Germany a viable way of winning the war.
Personally, I don't think the US would have been quite as willing to go to war all on its own against a Germany/Japan that dominates all of Eurasia. Would it not be more likely that the US would have continued its isolationism at that point? Personally, I think the more viable scenario for the US in such a case would have been to engage in an arms race like in the Cold War and wait until the German/Japanese Empires inevitably fall apart because of internal tensions.
Paradigm wrote: I agree entirely. Barbarossa was a mess, it was very arguably doomed to failure from the start, and in the grand scheme of things, really an unwise move in the grander scale of the war, motivated as much by Hitler's hatred of Stalin and what he stood for as it was by military gain. The fatal flaw, I think, was relying on the same tactics that worked against Western Europe; blitzkrieg tactics could never work on a nation as large or a front as wide as Russia. With thousands of miles to absorb the strike, and a huge area across which to dissipate it, the tactics and the geography were utterly incompatible.
Had the Russian armed forces not been in complete disarray after the Purges, and hideously under equipped thanks to 'modernising' a good five years before the rest of Europe, I'm pretty sure the Wehrmacht would have never reached Stalingrad, Moscow or Leningrad; they would have been turned around and sent packing with their tail between their legs within a year of commencing the invasion. Add to that the fact that the USSR was far more instrumental in Victory in Europe than America ever where, and I think it's fair to say that poking the Bear in 1941 was the moment that signed Germany's death warrant.
You're totally spot on. Blitzkrieg worked astoundingly on every other adversary the Germans had come up against up to that point in the war, but there were so many things different about Russia that challenged the viability of blitzkrieg and ultimately defeated it. Bad roads, the ability to trade space for time, and the sheer tenacity of Red Army troops were unlike anything the Wehrmacht had to deal with before. The only way Germany was going to beat the Soviet Union was to convert to a total war economy, something Hitler didn't do until 1943 and by then it was far too late.
Your second point also hits the nail on the head. There were many things wrong with Barbarossa, but the timing was actually perfect. A few years sooner and the Red Army could've fought without the crippling loss of its officers in the purge. A few years later and the reorganization of the Red Army would have been complete. It's very likely that the war in the east would have been much shorter had the Germans attacked earlier or later.
Frazzled wrote: Germany was under no requirement to declare war on the US. While it wasn't the first career ending move for Hitler Inc. It was a massive one.
This is also true, there was NOTHING compelling Hitler to declare war on the United States. The biggest reason he did it was his mistaken belief that a declaration of war by the US was already coming, and so he wanted to beat them to the punch as a point of national pride. In reality, Roosevelt was actually extremely grateful for Hitler's declaration as it meant he now had tremendous public support for going to war in Europe, something he was lacking even after the events at Pearl Harbor. The second biggest reason was that Hitler actually believed that with Japan on his side that the war could not be lost, and so had little to lose by taking on the arsenal of democracy anyway.
Jehan-reznor wrote: IN my Opinion Germany and Japan should have ignored america (not attacking pearl harbor and not attacking american shipping) and should have focused on Russia, if the german and Japan had coordinated their attack on russia together, they could have taken russia, if germany had succeeded in taking Russia the war outcome would have been very different.
An interesting hypothetical, but one that had no chance of ever happening. Japan's primary motivation in World War II was to become THE dominant power of the Pacific. The invasion of the Soviet Union would have done absolutely nothing to facilitate that. Going to war with the UK and the US was the only option to realize that goal. There was also the problem of Hitler to consider. He actually did not want assistance from Japan, as he believed the Heer was up to the task on its own and he did not want to share in the spoils of war with the Japanese. In short, your hypothetical, while interesting, has to take a lot more into consideration than where the Axis powers chose to attack. It was a great deal more complicated than that.
Kilkrazy wrote: Just because historically the Allies won, it doesn't mean all Alternate History has to make them lose. They could have won a different way, quicker or slower. It is an equally valid speculation.
Agreed. I don't know if it has been already covered, but for me, 1939 was the crucial point. Most people will know that when the Germans were busy fighting in Poland, the French army invaded the Saar, advanced 5 miles, and then turned back for an unknown reason.
What if the French had kept going, what if Gamelin, had thrown caution to the wind? Think of the lives saved...
After the war, German generals expressed astonishment at the French decision to withdraw. The French could have been over the Rhine and onto Berlin in a matter of 3-4 weeks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: If you want a documentary of the War, the BBC's World at War is still the Gold Standard. Additionally it has a lot of officers and soldiers from the time (including Genda!) that survived and weren't dottering idiots at the time of filming.
Plus Lord Olivier (the only person who could out Christopher Lee Christopher Lee)!
You missed out James Stewart as well, Frazz. The guy was a legend.
Somebody who knows better about the subject can correct me, but I recall that the Germans had extensive plans to intercept any coming nukes, which meant that US could not have taken such a risk that they would have lost their precious weapons.
Sienisoturi wrote: Somebody who knows better about the subject can correct me, but I recall that the Germans had extensive plans to intercept any coming nukes, which meant that US could not have taken such a risk that they would have lost their precious weapons.
They had plans, just like they had plans to stop conventional bombing, but they wouldn't be effective. They couldn't stop B-17 attacks, and the B-36 would have flown higher than virtually everything Germany had and be almost impossible to intercept. There were no special tricks being held back just in case the US decided to use nukes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Iron_Captain wrote: It assumes that after dropping the USSR out of the fight, Japan would have gone ahead with declaring war on the US.
They would have. Japan's territorial ambitions in the Pacific were inevitably bringing them into conflict with the US. Avoiding war with the US would require a lot more than simply not attacking Pearl Harbor, they would have had to completely abandon a lot of their strategic goals in the region. The only question is whether the war starts on the original schedule, or a few years later when the US has finished more of its preparations for war.
That the US would focus on defeating Germany rather than Japan.
Why not do both?
That Germany, now with all of Europe, the Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia under its occupation would somehow not develop any means to counter US bombers.
They failed to do so in the real world, so what is different about this hypothetical scenario? Russia isn't going to go down quickly even if Germany somehow finds a way to win (probably by act of plot, since the attack on Russia was doomed from the beginning) so Germany's immediate situation isn't improved very much. And remember that the US actually built the bombers and nuclear weapons required, so you're matching a hypothetical counter against a demonstrated capability.
That the US would be able to produce enough long range bombers and nuclear weapons cheap enough to make using them against Germany a viable way of winning the war.
The US already demonstrated the ability to do that. Convert B-17 production (which is no longer very useful if the UK is lost due to range limits) to B-36s and the US has the bombers.
Personally, I don't think the US would have been quite as willing to go to war all on its own against a Germany/Japan that dominates all of Eurasia.
Why not? Nuclear war is a limited investment that would have no real impact on the US population as a whole, and it's not like the US was actually neutral before they officially entered the war. All it takes is one bombing mission and then letting France and the UK mop up the survivors and accept Germany's surrender.
Sienisoturi wrote: Somebody who knows better about the subject can correct me, but I recall that the Germans had extensive plans to intercept any coming nukes, which meant that US could not have taken such a risk that they would have lost their precious weapons.
They had plans, just like they had plans to stop conventional bombing, but they wouldn't be effective. They couldn't stop B-17 attacks, and the B-36 would have flown higher than virtually everything Germany had and be almost impossible to intercept. There were no special tricks being held back just in case the US decided to use nukes.
However the problem with B-17s was more to do with the numbers and not the quality. If the German aviation program would have continued with no delays caused by war it would not surprise me that they would have developed a high altitude interceptor, or who knows even anti-aircraft missiles.
Sienisoturi wrote: Somebody who knows better about the subject can correct me, but I recall that the Germans had extensive plans to intercept any coming nukes, which meant that US could not have taken such a risk that they would have lost their precious weapons.
They had plans, just like they had plans to stop conventional bombing, but they wouldn't be effective. They couldn't stop B-17 attacks, and the B-36 would have flown higher than virtually everything Germany had and be almost impossible to intercept. There were no special tricks being held back just in case the US decided to use nukes.
However the problem with B-17s was more to do with the numbers and not the quality. If the German aviation program would have continued with no delays caused by war it would not surprise me that they would have developed a high altitude interceptor, or who knows even anti-aircraft missiles.
Sienisoturi wrote: However the problem with B-17s was more to do with the numbers and not the quality.
But the same applies to the B-36, except now there are fewer planes capable of reaching its altitude. The US wouldn't send a single plane with a nuke like they did against Japan, where there was no meaningful AA at all. They would have sent the whole B-36 swarm at Germany, with some of them carrying nukes. And there's no way to tell which plane in a squadron has the nuke until they drop their bombs and a city disappears.
If the German aviation program would have continued with no delays caused by war it would not surprise me that they would have developed a high altitude interceptor, or who knows even anti-aircraft missiles.
But it would have been delayed by war, because even if Germany magically wins in Russia it's going to be a slow and costly war. And we're right back to the fundamental problem with these scenarios: to give Germany even the slightest hope of winning you have to assume that every random "we should build this someday" sketch a German engineer made is turned into a viable weapon while everyone else is limited to what they actually developed in the real world.
Sienisoturi wrote: However the problem with B-17s was more to do with the numbers and not the quality.
But the same applies to the B-36, except now there are fewer planes capable of reaching its altitude. The US wouldn't send a single plane with a nuke like they did against Japan, where there was no meaningful AA at all. They would have sent the whole B-36 swarm at Germany, with some of them carrying nukes. And there's no way to tell which plane in a squadron has the nuke until they drop their bombs and a city disappears.
If the German aviation program would have continued with no delays caused by war it would not surprise me that they would have developed a high altitude interceptor, or who knows even anti-aircraft missiles.
But it would have been delayed by war, because even if Germany magically wins in Russia it's going to be a slow and costly war. And we're right back to the fundamental problem with these scenarios: to give Germany even the slightest hope of winning you have to assume that every random "we should build this someday" sketch a German engineer made is turned into a viable weapon while everyone else is limited to what they actually developed in the real world.
"you have to assume that every random "we should build this someday" sketch a German engineer made is turned into a viable weapon while everyone else is limited to what they actually developed in the real world."
But this is an assumption that has to be made as the German technological developement was severly limited by the war, while the US's wasn't. Also theoretically Germany could have defeated USSR already in 1941 if they would have managed to capture Moscow.
Sienisoturi wrote: But this is an assumption that has to be made as the German technological developement was severly limited by the war, while the US's wasn't.
And why wouldn't German development be limited by the war in the alternate timeline? They're still going to fight Russia and invade France, the UK is still going to bomb them every night, etc. Meanwhile why are you assuming that the US is going to have the same wartime limits that they had in reality? For example, if there's no need to produce a horde of "good enough for the job" P-51s for immediate use maybe the US gets its first jet fighters into production a bit earlier and negates the advantage Germany had with the ME-262. Similarly, if Germany isn't suffering daily B-17 attacks maybe they don't ignore the ME-262's engine problems and rush it into production immediately, and the US enters the war with the only jets.
Also, development takes time even without having your factories bombed. Germany would have to advance their development by several years (doubling the rate at least!) to even have a chance, while the US just has to do what they already did. Who knows what obstacles they might have encountered in trying to turn a quick 30-second sketch into a viable weapon, and how many years it might have taken to overcome them.
Also theoretically Germany could have defeated USSR already in 1941 if they would have managed to capture Moscow.
Sienisoturi wrote: But this is an assumption that has to be made as the German technological developement was severly limited by the war, while the US's wasn't.
And why wouldn't German development be limited by the war in the alternate timeline? They're still going to fight Russia and invade France, the UK is still going to bomb them every night, etc. Meanwhile why are you assuming that the US is going to have the same wartime limits that they had in reality? For example, if there's no need to produce a horde of "good enough for the job" P-51s for immediate use maybe the US gets its first jet fighters into production a bit earlier and negates the advantage Germany had with the ME-262. Similarly, if Germany isn't suffering daily B-17 attacks maybe they don't ignore the ME-262's engine problems and rush it into production immediately, and the US enters the war with the only jets.
Also, development takes time even without having your factories bombed. Germany would have to advance their development by several years (doubling the rate at least!) to even have a chance, while the US just has to do what they already did. Who knows what obstacles they might have encountered in trying to turn a quick 30-second sketch into a viable weapon, and how many years it might have taken to overcome them.
You are however forgetting that the US might have been reluctant to bomb Germany, as there could have been fears that the German navy would have managed to bombard coastal cities by nukes developed in Germany, as there are some arguments that Germany was very close into developping one.
Also theoretically Germany could have defeated USSR already in 1941 if they would have managed to capture Moscow.
Lol, no.
Nice counter-argument. However can you answer me how the Soviets could have kept fighting without their leadership?
Sienisoturi wrote: Also theoretically Germany could have defeated USSR already in 1941 if they would have managed to capture Moscow.
No. Just no. Napoleon managed to and he still got his butt kicked.
It depends on how fast they capture Moscow. Or specifically the manufacturing centers behind it. Germany was too slow and they didn't get there till the machinery had been relocated. If they had captured that the Russians would have lost all their industrial capabilities. No more tanks, no more aircraft, very limited ammunition and new weapons, etc...
Sienisoturi wrote: You are however forgetting that the US might have been reluctant to bomb Germany, as there could have been fears that the German navy would have managed to bombard coastal cities by nukes developed in Germany, as there are some arguments that Germany was very close into developping one.
Germany was nowhere near getting a nuke, and the supposed fear of German nuclear attacks certainly didn't stop the US from bombing them into rubble in reality.
Nice counter-argument. However can you answer me how the Soviets could have kept fighting without their leadership?
Because leadership can move or be replaced? This isn't a video game where you capture the capital city and you win the war.
Sienisoturi wrote: You are however forgetting that the US might have been reluctant to bomb Germany, as there could have been fears that the German navy would have managed to bombard coastal cities by nukes developed in Germany, as there are some arguments that Germany was very close into developping one.
Germany was nowhere near getting a nuke, and the supposed fear of German nuclear attacks certainly didn't stop the US from bombing them into rubble in reality.
Nice counter-argument. However can you answer me how the Soviets could have kept fighting without their leadership?
Because leadership can move or be replaced? This isn't a video game where you capture the capital city and you win the war.
However the main leader of the USSR, Joseph Stalin decided to stay in Moscow, even if it meant that in the case that the battle would have been lost he would have been captured.
But this is an assumption that has to be made as the German technological developement was severly limited by the war, while the US's wasn't. Also theoretically Germany could have defeated USSR already in 1941 if they would have managed to capture Moscow.
As much of the government had bailed, capturing Moskovy would have just been a killzone. The government was East, the industry was East.
indeed, if the timing is poor Moscow could have been the original Stalingrad, with the Siberian divisions playing the role of Operation Uranus. What happens in this scenario if Germany loses an Army in 1941 instead of 1942?
Nice counter-argument. However can you answer me how the Soviets could have kept fighting without their leadership?
Because leadership can move or be replaced? This isn't a video game where you capture the capital city and you win the war.
In most cases, yes, leadership can be replaced. However, Stalin had such a cult of personality about him, and filled the Party and Military with those who supported him so absolutely that the capture of Moscow with Stalin in it would have broken the very resolve the Red Army in WW2 were famed for. Stalin was Russia and Russia was Stalin at that point, and I honestly doubt the nation would have fought in with any kind of meaningful way without Stalin at it's head. They certainly wouldn't have been able to select a new leader with any credibility; Stalin head no heir apparent, and the idea that anyone but him was fit to lead the country had been deliberately (if shortsightedly) stamped out.
Throw in the fact that it would be a huge propaganda piece for the Nazis to have captured/killed the World's Biggest Communist, and the industrial force the Russians would lose with an early capture of Moscow and I really don't see them bouncing back from that.
All that said, I still doubt the German army could have taken Moscow, but if they somehow managed it, it's Game Over for the Eastern Front.
If Moscow and the Soviet leadership fall I don't see what is left of the Soviet Union staying in the war (or remaining a union). The soviet system is very centralised and may have no arms industry to speak of (depending on the timing). It does require the Germans to be focused on Moscow and reasonably able at negotiation/recruitment with the various ethnic groups in the Soviet Union. Two things that the Nazis were terrible at historically.
You're then left with running the region without it becoming a net drain as it was in the previous war.
Nice counter-argument. However can you answer me how the Soviets could have kept fighting without their leadership?
Because leadership can move or be replaced? This isn't a video game where you capture the capital city and you win the war.
In most cases, yes, leadership can be replaced. However, Stalin had such a cult of personality about him, and filled the Party and Military with those who supported him so absolutely that the capture of Moscow with Stalin in it would have broken the very resolve the Red Army in WW2 were famed for. Stalin was Russia and Russia was Stalin at that point, and I honestly doubt the nation would have fought in with any kind of meaningful way without Stalin at it's head. They certainly wouldn't have been able to select a new leader with any credibility; Stalin head no heir apparent, and the idea that anyone but him was fit to lead the country had been deliberately (if shortsightedly) stamped out.
Throw in the fact that it would be a huge propaganda piece for the Nazis to have captured/killed the World's Biggest Communist, and the industrial force the Russians would lose with an early capture of Moscow and I really don't see them bouncing back from that.
All that said, I still doubt the German army could have taken Moscow, but if they somehow managed it, it's Game Over for the Eastern Front.
Why are you thinking that Stalin is going to get captured?
Let me see if I am understanding this correctly.
So to pull this off Germany has to
1. Merely get to Moscow in 1941 (which they couldn't do because of Father Winter)
2. Kill Stalin.
3. Out R&D the Allies while fighting the last of the Soviets and holding onto that territory.
4. Not get nuked in 1946.
Nice counter-argument. However can you answer me how the Soviets could have kept fighting without their leadership?
Because leadership can move or be replaced? This isn't a video game where you capture the capital city and you win the war.
In most cases, yes, leadership can be replaced. However, Stalin had such a cult of personality about him, and filled the Party and Military with those who supported him so absolutely that the capture of Moscow with Stalin in it would have broken the very resolve the Red Army in WW2 were famed for. Stalin was Russia and Russia was Stalin at that point, and I honestly doubt the nation would have fought in with any kind of meaningful way without Stalin at it's head. They certainly wouldn't have been able to select a new leader with any credibility; Stalin head no heir apparent, and the idea that anyone but him was fit to lead the country had been deliberately (if shortsightedly) stamped out.
Throw in the fact that it would be a huge propaganda piece for the Nazis to have captured/killed the World's Biggest Communist, and the industrial force the Russians would lose with an early capture of Moscow and I really don't see them bouncing back from that.
All that said, I still doubt the German army could have taken Moscow, but if they somehow managed it, it's Game Over for the Eastern Front.
Why are you thinking that Stalin is going to get captured?
Let me see if I am understanding this correctly.
So to pull this off Germany has to
1. Merely get to Moscow in 1941 (which they couldn't do because of Father Winter)
2. Kill Stalin.
3. Out R&D the Allies while fighting the last of the Soviets and holding onto that territory.
4. Not get nuked in 1946.
I was only replying to the suggestion that The USSR as we knew it could survive a capture/killing of Stalin (by replacing him), which I don't think they could. I agree entirely that such an event would require a significant amount of luck for the Germans, incompetence from the Russians and a completely different approach to the war by both.
George Spiggott wrote: It does require the Germans to be focused on Moscow and reasonably able at negotiation/recruitment with the various ethnic groups in the Soviet Union. Two things that the Nazis were terrible at historically.
If and if. We Finns had our share of "Great Finland" fanatics who dreamed of uniting all fenno-ugric tribes under the light of the one true Finnish nation. If, if if... maybe we could have pacified large parts of the northern USSR through treaties with related peoples that were being repressed by the Soviets. But that would have required a huge victory over the soviets first, driving them back over the Ural mountains.
People just don't understand the distances involved, or the amount of soldiers and tanks deployed. D-Day? Sure, it was huge. But compared to Kursk it was a minor show in a cheap theater. Or maybe just a mime show outside that theater. The Cold War made the US (and most of the west) ignore how much the USSR actually did to grind down the Nazi war machine. D-Day - 156,000 brave Western men against some 50,000 Germans. It was no mean feat to take the beaches and start landing equipment, granted. But witness Kursk - 1,2 million Soviet troops + 5000 tanks against half a million Germans with 2500 tanks. And more coming in on both sides while the battle spiraled out of control...
George Spiggott wrote: It does require the Germans to be focused on Moscow and reasonably able at negotiation/recruitment with the various ethnic groups in the Soviet Union. Two things that the Nazis were terrible at historically.
If and if. We Finns had our share of "Great Finland" fanatics who dreamed of uniting all fenno-ugric tribes under the light of the one true Finnish nation. If, if if... maybe we could have pacified large parts of the northern USSR through treaties with related peoples that were being repressed by the Soviets. But that would have required a huge victory over the soviets first, driving them back over the Ural mountains.
People just don't understand the distances involved, or the amount of soldiers and tanks deployed. D-Day? Sure, it was huge. But compared to Kursk it was a minor show in a cheap theater. Or maybe just a mime show outside that theater. The Cold War made the US (and most of the west) ignore how much the USSR actually did to grind down the Nazi war machine. D-Day - 156,000 brave Western men against some 50,000 Germans. It was no mean feat to take the beaches and start landing equipment, granted. But witness Kursk - 1,2 million Soviet troops + 5000 tanks against half a million Germans with 2500 tanks. And more coming in on both sides while the battle spiraled out of control...
This is a good point. The only way I see this working for Germany is if either: 1) Germany never starts WWII; 2) Germany somehow makes it so France and Britain are neutral when it drives through Poland and into the USSR. Even then it is seriously touch and go. I would what the effect of an all out Japanese attack would have been at the same time, if it would have been enough to put the USSR over the edge.
Kilkrazy wrote: The fact that the Soviet Union survived the death of Stalin suggests that it might have been capable of surviving the death or capture of Stalin.
Did it, though? Yes, the name stayed the same, but it was only after several years of political manoeuvrings, being left largely alone and more than a few assassinations and such that they actually found a new leader in Khrushchev, and his defining policy was Destalinisation.
If it takes years of struggle and a U-turn on policy to get a replacement in peacetime, do you really think they could do all that while still maintaining the ability and the will to fight off one of history's largest invasions?
Kilkrazy wrote: The fact that the Soviet Union survived the death of Stalin suggests that it might have been capable of surviving the death or capture of Stalin.
Did it, though? Yes, the name stayed the same, but it was only after several years of political manoeuvrings, being left largely alone and more than a few assassinations and such that they actually found a new leader in Khrushchev, and his defining policy was Destalinisation.
If it takes years of struggle and a U-turn on policy to get a replacement in peacetime, do you really think they could do all that while still maintaining the ability and the will to fight off one of history's largest invasions?
Very much so. It would wonderfully have concentrated the leadership's minds, because none of them would be likely to survive the fall of the SU.
As for Destalinisation, Stalin did a lot of back-pedalling on his previous policies in order to cope with the war situation.
It's a fallacy to suggest that losing Moscow would have meant the end of Russian resistance, historians have been tackling that question for quite some time. With so much industry moved east into the Urals, it's actually very possible the Russians could have continued fighting. Now, Moscow itself was a significant center of production, but losing it would not put an end to Soviet war materiel. Far more debilitating would have been the damage to the Soviet rail system, as Moscow was the central hub for many railroads in the country. It certainly would have affected their logistical capability, but even then I don't think anyone could definitively say it would be the end of their war effort.
creeping-deth87 wrote: It's a fallacy to suggest that losing Moscow would have meant the end of Russian resistance, historians have been tackling that question for quite some time. With so much industry moved east into the Urals, it's actually very possible the Russians could have continued fighting. Now, Moscow itself was a significant center of production, but losing it would not put an end to Soviet war materiel. Far more debilitating would have been the damage to the Soviet rail system, as Moscow was the central hub for many railroads in the country. It certainly would have affected their logistical capability, but even then I don't think anyone could definitively say it would be the end of their war effort.
Yeah, it's more the (hypothetical) loss of Moscow (before industry moved East) and the loss of Stalin there that I think would a death blow to Russia. Say, for example, the full force of the Barbarossa Blitzkrieg was pointed at Moscow, and captured the city before the political or industrial infrastructure could be moved out; it's unlikely even with the Germans getting everything right, but I can't see Russia recovering from that. I personally don't think they could have replaced Stalin with a credible leader in time to marshal a counteroffensive, and while I doubt you'd get a full surrender, what resistance there was would be disparate and uncoordinated, led by whatever commanders could be found but, at the highest level leaderless.
And then, even it they somehow fight off the Germans, you get a rerun of the 18-21 Civil War as everyone vies for the top spot.
Sienisoturi wrote: You are however forgetting that the US might have been reluctant to bomb Germany, as there could have been fears that the German navy would have managed to bombard coastal cities by nukes developed in Germany, as there are some arguments that Germany was very close into developping one.
Germany was nowhere near getting a nuke, and the supposed fear of German nuclear attacks certainly didn't stop the US from bombing them into rubble in reality.
Nice counter-argument. However can you answer me how the Soviets could have kept fighting without their leadership?
Because leadership can move or be replaced? This isn't a video game where you capture the capital city and you win the war.
Yes, you can you forgot that Stalin had already cleared the military and the government of "enemies" a few times, so if Stalin and his support was taken down, i wouldn't think there would be new leadership, at least not quick.
And the Russians were on the run during the attack on Russia, if he had kept it up they would have taken Russia, bailing out Italy out gave the Russians time to regroup.
creeping-deth87 wrote: It's a fallacy to suggest that losing Moscow would have meant the end of Russian resistance, historians have been tackling that question for quite some time. With so much industry moved east into the Urals, it's actually very possible the Russians could have continued fighting. Now, Moscow itself was a significant center of production, but losing it would not put an end to Soviet war materiel. Far more debilitating would have been the damage to the Soviet rail system, as Moscow was the central hub for many railroads in the country. It certainly would have affected their logistical capability, but even then I don't think anyone could definitively say it would be the end of their war effort.
Yeah, it's more the (hypothetical) loss of Moscow (before industry moved East) and the loss of Stalin there that I think would a death blow to Russia. Say, for example, the full force of the Barbarossa Blitzkrieg was pointed at Moscow, and captured the city before the political or industrial infrastructure could be moved out; it's unlikely even with the Germans getting everything right, but I can't see Russia recovering from that. I personally don't think they could have replaced Stalin with a credible leader in time to marshal a counteroffensive, and while I doubt you'd get a full surrender, what resistance there was would be disparate and uncoordinated, led by whatever commanders could be found but, at the highest level leaderless.
And then, even it they somehow fight off the Germans, you get a rerun of the 18-21 Civil War as everyone vies for the top spot.
My only issue with that hypothetical is that it's so incredibly generous to the Germans when they already had so many things going for them. When you account for the fact that Barbarossa was the worst kept secret of the war and still caught the Russians by surprise, that most of the Red Army at that time was within striking distance of the border with Germany, that Stalin's interference with his generals wasted away millions of Red Army troops needlessly in futile counter-attacks, that the advance into Russia couldn't possibly have been made any faster, why give the Germans yet another advantage in the hypothetical? I guess it can still be entertaining to contemplate, I think I would just enjoy a less overtly generous set of circumstances if we're playing "what if?"
Iron_Captain wrote: It assumes that after dropping the USSR out of the fight, Japan would have gone ahead with declaring war on the US.
They would have. Japan's territorial ambitions in the Pacific were inevitably bringing them into conflict with the US. Avoiding war with the US would require a lot more than simply not attacking Pearl Harbor, they would have had to completely abandon a lot of their strategic goals in the region. The only question is whether the war starts on the original schedule, or a few years later when the US has finished more of its preparations for war.
That might be true. Honestly I don't know much about Japan's motivations for the war of the Pacific front in general.
That the US would focus on defeating Germany rather than Japan.
Why not do both?
Because history has shown time and time again that fighting a war on two fronts at the same time is a bad idea? Especially if you don't have any significant allies left.
That Germany, now with all of Europe, the Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia under its occupation would somehow not develop any means to counter US bombers.
They failed to do so in the real world, so what is different about this hypothetical scenario? Russia isn't going to go down quickly even if Germany somehow finds a way to win (probably by act of plot, since the attack on Russia was doomed from the beginning) so Germany's immediate situation isn't improved very much. And remember that the US actually built the bombers and nuclear weapons required, so you're matching a hypothetical counter against a demonstrated capability.
Well, this is an "what if" thread...
The fact that Germany was unable to defeat Russia doesn't mean it is impossible if a number of circumstances had been different. Germany had taken out the almost complete Red Army in its first strike, if the German leadership would have been actually competent they could have taken out Russia quickly. Faced also with a Japanese invasion in the Far East, Russia would have had a lot more trouble rebuilding at the same speed it did. It is also possible that the Soviet Union would have collapsed because of internal political and ethnic tensions.
If so, Germany would have been in a much stronger and more secure position, with a huge industrial base. They would have been much more able to research new stuff and make better equipment than they were in real history.
Whatever the possibility, in this scenario, the Soviet Union collapses quickly with most of its territory occupied by Germany and Russia turned into a vassal state. Let us say this happens by 1943. Having uncontested dominion over all of Europe, Central Asia, the Middle East and North Africa, Germany's position would be much stronger than it was in the real history.
That the US would be able to produce enough long range bombers and nuclear weapons cheap enough to make using them against Germany a viable way of winning the war.
The US already demonstrated the ability to do that. Convert B-17 production (which is no longer very useful if the UK is lost due to range limits) to B-36s and the US has the bombers.
Actually, the US did not even produce a single B-36 during the war. It's first flight was only in 1946. Even if they would spend more resources on it, it is unlikely they would have finished the project before 1945. Any significant bombing operation of Germany would have taken into the late 1940's to build the required amount of bombers and bombs. By that time Germany could easily have designed fighters with a high enough range to take on intercontinental bombers, and worse, they could have gone ahead with the Amerikabomber project and have built their own bombers capable of bombing the US.
Personally, I don't think the US would have been quite as willing to go to war all on its own against a Germany/Japan that dominates all of Eurasia.
Why not? Nuclear war is a limited investment that would have no real impact on the US population as a whole, and it's not like the US was actually neutral before they officially entered the war. All it takes is one bombing mission and then letting France and the UK mop up the survivors and accept Germany's surrender.
Even with Germany as weak as in real history that would be unrealistic. France and Britain were in no shape to take on even a weakened Germany. At least not before the Russians would be in Paris. Every German city was reduced to rubble in real history. Germany would never have surrendered because of a single bomb.
In this alternate scenario it is even more unrealistic. the German and Japanese positions would be much stronger than they were in real life. Britain would be as good as out of the war, either having sued for peace or still under siege. Germany might well possess means by now to destroy US bombers and bomb the US in return. The US faces a war on two fronts against two powers that together dominate almost all of Eurasia and are likely already preparing ways of invading the US. The war is not going to be over anytime soon.
What does the US gain from such conflict, and at what costs? The US clearly supported Britain, but also had a long history of isolationism up to this point. Faced with this much more bleak scenario, I think it is likely non-interventionist politics would have prevailed in the US, especially after the death of Roosevelt.
In any case, I think it is oversimplistic to say that the US could have simply ended the war with nukes, in real history, and in alternate scenarios with a stronger Germany even more so.
Sienisoturi wrote: You are however forgetting that the US might have been reluctant to bomb Germany, as there could have been fears that the German navy would have managed to bombard coastal cities by nukes developed in Germany, as there are some arguments that Germany was very close into developping one.
Germany was nowhere near getting a nuke, and the supposed fear of German nuclear attacks certainly didn't stop the US from bombing them into rubble in reality.
Nice counter-argument. However can you answer me how the Soviets could have kept fighting without their leadership?
Because leadership can move or be replaced? This isn't a video game where you capture the capital city and you win the war.
Yes, you can you forgot that Stalin had already cleared the military and the government of "enemies" a few times, so if Stalin and his support was taken down, i wouldn't think there would be new leadership, at least not quick.
And the Russians were on the run during the attack on Russia, if he had kept it up they would have taken Russia, bailing out Italy out gave the Russians time to regroup.
You underestimate the Russian people if you think Stalin was able to root out all dissident. Quite the contrary, in fact (his opponents seized power the moment he died) Russia has always been a very fractious society, and the Soviet Union more so. Stalin kept everything together with terror and charisma, but if he had suddenly died, the whole thing would come crashing down as Politburo members would fight for influence and power, the republics of the USSR and RSFSR would get troublesome as always, ethnic groups would sense an opportunity for independence and side with the Germans, rival communist groups would spring up again, and worst of all, the Whites would come back, kickstarting Civil War 2.0 with German support (how ironic).
Russia needs a strong leadership to function. Russian history has shown multiple times already that when leadership suddenly falls away, the whole country collapses into chaos (1598, 1917 and 1991 being some of the most notable examples)
Well, this is an "what if" thread...
The fact that Germany was unable to defeat Russia doesn't mean it is impossible if a number of circumstances had been different. Germany had taken out the almost complete Red Army in its first strike, if the German leadership would have been actually competent they could have taken out Russia quickly. Faced also with a Japanese invasion in the Far East, Russia would have had a lot more trouble rebuilding at the same speed it did. It is also possible that the Soviet Union would have collapsed because of internal political and ethnic tensions.
If so, Germany would have been in a much stronger and more secure position, with a huge industrial base. They would have been much more able to research new stuff and make better equipment than they were in real history.
The line in bold is absolutely untrue. Yes,the Germans encircled and subsequently destroyed very large formations of the Red Army, and these encirclements were much larger and captured many more men than what the Germans had done in previous campaigns, but here again the sheer scale of the Eastern Front must be taken into consideration. Despite losing literally millions of troops, the Red Army actually grew in size between the start of Operation Barbarossa and the conclusion of Operation Typhoon in the autumn of that year. There was never a point where the Red Army was in danger of ceasing to exist or having the ability to fight. What's more is that the Soviet Union could bear its casualties much better than the Germans could, despite the fact that in raw numbers their losses were many times greater. This is why 1941 is the first and only time the Germans could engage the Soviet Union across the entire breadth of the front. By 1942 they already have enough of a manpower problem that their major offensive in the campaign season is so much smaller in scope than Barbarossa, and even smaller still in 1943 when their strategic goal was simply to close the Kursk salient.
To address the second point about being able to knock Russia out of the war quickly if German command was competent, this is also blatantly untrue. The problems of fighting the Soviet Union were far too severe to be addressed by greater competence in the field. These were serious logistical problems that would have required a lot of time and a lot more resources to rectify, and the Germans had neither of those. What they did have was luck, and this took them really, really far. Much farther than they should have gotten. Barbarossa was doomed to failure from the start, it just isn't remembered that way because of an incredible combination of highly favourable circumstances that seriously affected the initial invasion. Almost everything that could have gone right did go right, and very little that could go wrong did go wrong.
Sir Arun wrote: 1) Battle of Moscow wasnt the turning point. You really think SU would have surrendered if Moscow had fallen? Napoleon conquered Moscow and still lost. Most of the Soviet industry had been moved beyond the Urals already. There was no way Stalin would wave the white flag even if the Wehrmacht had taken Moscow.
I never said the Nazis were going to win if they took Moscow. No, Moscow is the turning point because with its failure Germany had no plausible way of winning the war.
2) I have heard that in 1943 there were talks in Sweden about a potential ceasefire between SU and Nazi Germany, but Hitler refused as Stalin demanded the Germans withdraw to the pre July 1941 border. I would say that was technically the Reich's last chance of somehow averting complete annihilation. Though I'm pretty sure this was before Kursk, so I can understand why Hitler refused. He had too much faith that the new Panthers and Tigers would win the war for him.
I already mentioned that in this thread.
Aside from Operation Barbarossa and Pearl Harbor being two very, very, very stupid moves,
Meh, pushing hard to take Czechslovakia was stupid, attacking Poland was stupid, going on the offensive against France and Britain was stupid...
And while Pearl Harbour was stupid for the Japan, the German plan to encourage it was unlikely to succeed, but necessary. With British blockade Germany was never going to beat Russia, and the blockade couldn't be beaten while the u-boats were banned from hitting US boats. Open war on the sea was necessary, and that meant the US were going to enter the war. As long as that was going to happen, might as well have them (hopefully) pre-occupied with Japan.
Pushing that far into the Causasus only to have your army ground down in a war of attrition in Stalingrad while not reaching the oilfields of Baku is an epic failure. Whats even funnier, is thinking you have 80% of Stalingrad and have almost won the battle while huge amounts of Soviet troops amass beyond the Volga only waiting to launch Operation Uranus. But even if the Wehrmacht had ignored Stalingrad (or just bombed it to rubble) and then proceeded to reach Baku with the 6th army, holding it would have been a different story altogether.
Meh, what choice did the Nazis have but a push through to the oilfields, hinged by Stalingrad? If someone has a better plan for the second summer offensive, I'd love to hear it.
Personally I think the whole economic reason behind the Barbarossa operation was stupid as hell. You want to defeat Bolshevism and destroy the SU? Okay. You want to attack Russia so you can gain access to the Caucasus oil fields? Facepalm. It would have made much more sense after the lost Battle of Britain to use the Italian Navy and every barge in the Mediterranean to ship the majority of the Wehrmacht over to North Africa, then push into the Middle East and secure the oil fields there.
As I've pointed out already in this thread, this isn't Risk. It isn't a game played by people looking for whatever territorial expansion and resource acquisition is most practical. It's the real world, in which territorial ambition is almost entirely defined by political and cultural values. The Nazi reason for being basically boils down to occupation of the East. Everything else, from the occupation of Czechoslovakia through to war with France and Britain, was all in service of that final goal.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sir Arun wrote: I disagree. Anybody who thinks a country the size of the US with a population of 132 million doesnt have the industrial capability of outproducing a relatively small island nation whose recent conquests have overstretched their forces' supply lines to its limits, is seriously crazy in the head.
What Japan wanted was a repeat of 1905 - a sudden attack that knocks the enemy off balance followed by a rapid capture of all desirable territory, and then a peace treaty.
Obviously it didn't work, but they were hardly idiots for thinking that what had worked in the past could work again.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jehan-reznor wrote: IN my Opinion Germany and Japan should have ignored america (not attacking pearl harbor and not attacking american shipping) and should have focused on Russia, if the german and Japan had coordinated their attack on russia together, they could have taken russia, if germany had succeeded in taking Russia the war outcome would have been very different.
Absolutely not. Ignoring the US meant allowing US convoys to enter Britain, which meant Britain could maintain a blockade on Germany indefinitely, which meant Germany's resource inferiority to Russia was pretty much critical.
Meanwhile, Japan tried their luck against Russia in the battle of Khalkhin Gol in 1939. The Japanese attacked with numerical superiority, and long story short got absolutely hammered, losing more than 40,000 mean to the Soviets about 7,000. The Japanese army was skilled and well disciplined, but their tanks and artillery were just not up to the standard of modern armies, and their logistics chain was woeful. A second attempt would probably have been even worse - go read about the late war Soviet offensive through Asia if you've got any doubts - it's one of the most amazing ass-kickings in modern war.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Germany was under no requirement to declare war on the US. While it wasn't the first career ending move for Hitler Inc. It was a massive one.
Most people don't realise, but Hitler didn't declare war in some reactionary move to support Japan's attack. Germany had actually encouraged Japan to attack, because Germany knew it needed to start sinking US convoys, and that meant the US was going to enter the war (WWI all over again). So you might as well have an ally try and score a significant win upfront, and then hopefully keep the US occupied.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Paradigm wrote: I agree entirely. Barbarossa was a mess, it was very arguably doomed to failure from the start, and in the grand scheme of things, really an unwise move in the grander scale of the war, motivated as much by Hitler's hatred of Stalin and what he stood for as it was by military gain.
But, once again, nations don't work like that - nations don't just pick and choose what wars to fight based on what fights they think they can and can't win. Political and cultural beliefs play a huge factor. The invasion of Russia wasn't a military calculation gone bad - it was the purpose of Hitler's entire foreign policy.
The fatal flaw, I think, was relying on the same tactics that worked against Western Europe; blitzkrieg tactics could never work on a nation as large or a front as wide as Russia. With thousands of miles to absorb the strike, and a huge area across which to dissipate it, the tactics and the geography were utterly incompatible.
Except it almost did work. The Germans went 450 miles in a month, and destroyed more than 100 divisions. And they got to Moscow - their lines of supply were stretched but their casualties weren't severe. It was the Soviet ability to call up more than a hundred more reserve divisions, basically forming a whole new army after losing the last one, that changed everything.
Had the Russian armed forces not been in complete disarray after the Purges, and hideously under equipped thanks to 'modernising' a good five years before the rest of Europe, I'm pretty sure the Wehrmacht would have never reached Stalingrad, Moscow or Leningrad; they would have been turned around and sent packing with their tail between their legs within a year of commencing the invasion.
That's the point. That's why it was now or never for Germany.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
creeping-deth87 wrote: The only way Germany was going to beat the Soviet Union was to convert to a total war economy, something Hitler didn't do until 1943 and by then it was far too late.
This is actually a much neglected point. Total German industry was around 50% greater than Russia, before you add in the other European countries and captured territories aiding the invasion of Russia. Despite this, Russia was able to lose 100 divisions in the outset of the war, rebuild them and then continue to offset their on-going tactical inferiority by vastly outproducing Germany.
If Germany had moved to total war sooner, things might have been vastly different (they actually had large numbers of men that would rotate between service and factory work, while women remained at home or in crafts... incredible really).
For that matter, if Germany built a more efficient industry, that focused on rate of production over excellence, well it might also have been so different.
Good thing the Nazis are idiots
This is also true, there was NOTHING compelling Hitler to declare war on the United States. The biggest reason he did it was his mistaken belief that a declaration of war by the US was already coming, and so he wanted to beat them to the punch as a point of national pride. In reality, Roosevelt was actually extremely grateful for Hitler's declaration as it meant he now had tremendous public support for going to war in Europe, something he was lacking even after the events at Pearl Harbor. The second biggest reason was that Hitler actually believed that with Japan on his side that the war could not be lost, and so had little to lose by taking on the arsenal of democracy anyway.
Again, Germany was actually encouraging Japan to enter the war with an attack on the US. To encourage that and then stay silent and not declare war... well that's not how anyone operates. Besides, Germany wanted open season on the high seas, and knew that meant sooner or later the US would enter the war, with the full support of the public.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: They would have. Japan's territorial ambitions in the Pacific were inevitably bringing them into conflict with the US. Avoiding war with the US would require a lot more than simply not attacking Pearl Harbor, they would have had to completely abandon a lot of their strategic goals in the region. The only question is whether the war starts on the original schedule, or a few years later when the US has finished more of its preparations for war.
An interesting hypothetical is if Roosevelt's plan for Japan - to just keep them talking as long as possible had lasted another month. Japan entered the war at Germany's high tide - as it had almost reached Moscow, believing that if they waited any longer they'd miss out on the spoils of war.
Roosevelt had kept Japan talking for a couple of years at that point, if he'd kept them talking just another month Japan would have seen Germany repelled from the gates of Moscow, and then what? Maybe that wouldn't have been enough to shake the assumption of inevitable German victory, but maybe it was?
With no Japanese attack, does Germany still go to open war in the Atlantic? Do we then end up with an even shorter war in Europe? And meanwhile Japan steadily completes its occupation of China... or does the US still end up going to war with Japan?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sienisoturi wrote: However the main leader of the USSR, Joseph Stalin decided to stay in Moscow, even if it meant that in the case that the battle would have been lost he would have been captured.
That probably would have helped the Soviet cause, really.
Capturing Moscow isn't a win condition. It's a position from which Germany can leverage further advantage. Either way the war is going to last through 1942 and almost certainly in to 1943 as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: As much of the government had bailed, capturing Moskovy would have just been a killzone. The government was East, the industry was East.
indeed, if the timing is poor Moscow could have been the original Stalingrad, with the Siberian divisions playing the role of Operation Uranus. What happens in this scenario if Germany loses an Army in 1941 instead of 1942?
Russia has nowhere near the capability for Uranus at the Battle of Moscow - it doesn't have the tanks, nor the logistics support, nor the planning capability. The most likely scenario is pretty much what happened after Moscow throughout the Rzhev salient - vast numbers of poorly trained reserves with minimal equipment basically get fed in to a meatgrinder.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Paradigm wrote: In most cases, yes, leadership can be replaced. However, Stalin had such a cult of personality about him, and filled the Party and Military with those who supported him so absolutely that the capture of Moscow with Stalin in it would have broken the very resolve the Red Army in WW2 were famed for. Stalin was Russia and Russia was Stalin at that point, and I honestly doubt the nation would have fought in with any kind of meaningful way without Stalin at it's head. They certainly wouldn't have been able to select a new leader with any credibility; Stalin head no heir apparent, and the idea that anyone but him was fit to lead the country had been deliberately (if shortsightedly) stamped out.
There is so much speculation there. There's nothing guaranteeing political stasis, certainly no more stasis than what actually happened. And if the opposite had happened and the military high command had taken effective control, well then basically you've got 1943 come early, and an improvement in Soviet operations - at the very least you wouldn't see the wasteful over-reach of the Winter Offensive.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spetulhu wrote: People just don't understand the distances involved, or the amount of soldiers and tanks deployed. D-Day? Sure, it was huge. But compared to Kursk it was a minor show in a cheap theater. Or maybe just a mime show outside that theater. The Cold War made the US (and most of the west) ignore how much the USSR actually did to grind down the Nazi war machine. D-Day - 156,000 brave Western men against some 50,000 Germans. It was no mean feat to take the beaches and start landing equipment, granted. But witness Kursk - 1,2 million Soviet troops + 5000 tanks against half a million Germans with 2500 tanks. And more coming in on both sides while the battle spiraled out of control...
The Soviet contribution to the war was by far larger, but comparing to D-Day is really misleading. The scale of D-Day is highly limited by how many troops you can offload in a single day on a beach - it's an extraordinary technical achievement, but in terms of troop numbers its fairly obviously going to be quite small.
Later operations would involve much larger numbers of troops, though obviously nothing that ever matched the scale of the Eastern Front.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: This is a good point. The only way I see this working for Germany is if either: 1) Germany never starts WWII; 2) Germany somehow makes it so France and Britain are neutral when it drives through Poland and into the USSR. Even then it is seriously touch and go. I would what the effect of an all out Japanese attack would have been at the same time, if it would have been enough to put the USSR over the edge.
I'm not sure British withdrawal from the war is that implausible. They were basically beaten, and in a position that would have seen almost every other nation in history would have been seeking terms.
From there, well... you get an end to the blockade of Germany. And probably access to Middle East oil. That'd make a huge difference, but whether it would be enough of a difference... probably not?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Paradigm wrote: If it takes years of struggle and a U-turn on policy to get a replacement in peacetime, do you really think they could do all that while still maintaining the ability and the will to fight off one of history's largest invasions?
Except that you're basically as urgent as you have to be. In peace time that can mean everyone spends years plotting and planning to get their best personal outcome, but another nation hell bent on the destruction of your country and the subjugation of its peoples has just captured your capital city…
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sienisoturi wrote: You are however forgetting that the US might have been reluctant to bomb Germany, as there could have been fears that the German navy would have managed to bombard coastal cities by nukes developed in Germany, as there are some arguments that Germany was very close into developping one.
No, there is no sensible historic argument that Germany was even close to getting the bomb. There is just such a vast difference between ‘we have a nuclear program’ and having a nuclear program that’s going to produce a working bomb in a few years. The US had a massive headstart on Germany, and even with that the Manhattan Project was vast – at it’s peak there was more than 120,000 people working on the project. That’s the kind of scale of labour you need to go from theoretical concepts to an actual working piece of ultra-cutting edge technology.
In Germany you had a handful of small scale experiments by a bunch of different teams, led by competing physicists. If one of those teams had managed to convince the German leadership that they had a practical concept for a bomb… then the Germans would have reached the point at which the US started the war.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Iron_Captain wrote: The fact that Germany was unable to defeat Russia doesn't mean it is impossible if a number of circumstances had been different. Germany had taken out the almost complete Red Army in its first strike, if the German leadership would have been actually competent they could have taken out Russia quickly.
What? So we just look past the German command wiping 100 odd divisions of Russian troops for minimal losses, and then call them incompetent for not wiping out the next 100 divisions?
What the hell kind of thinking is that?
Faced also with a Japanese invasion in the Far East, Russia would have had a lot more trouble rebuilding at the same speed it did.
Kholkhin Gol 2 - Electric Kholkhinigoo.
Seriously, despite excellent discipline and tactical strength, Japan's army was the product of a barely industrial power. The idea that they could have achieved anything useful against the Soviet army is just a non-starter. What they did in forcing the Soviets to leave border troops there was about the most they could achieve, and attempting another attack that would likely have been as disastrous as Kholkhin Gol would only have freed the Soviets to then send more of their border troops to fight Germany.
If so, Germany would have been in a much stronger and more secure position, with a huge industrial base. They would have been much more able to research new stuff and make better equipment than they were in real history.
At the start of Barbarossa they had the entire industrial might of continental Europe under their control. If you can't do it with that industrial base, then you can't do it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
creeping-deth87 wrote: The line in bold is absolutely untrue. Yes,the Germans encircled and subsequently destroyed very large formations of the Red Army, and these encirclements were much larger and captured many more men than what the Germans had done in previous campaigns, but here again the sheer scale of the Eastern Front must be taken into consideration. Despite losing literally millions of troops, the Red Army actually grew in size between the start of Operation Barbarossa and the conclusion of Operation Typhoon in the autumn of that year.
Russia wasn't just drawing in untrained conscripts. It was calling up its large reserves, and while vast these were finite. I think its fanciful to assume that Soviet Russia could have just absorbed another total theatre disaster on the scale of Barbarossa.
The point being, I think, that a second Barbarossa was probably never going to happen.
Kilkrazy wrote: What if Hitler had not agreed to halt the panzer division attack on the BEF?
Presumably Operation Dynamo would have been prevented but at the same time the French would have gained a valuable breathing space.
People keep banging on about Moscow in 1941, but as I said, the defining moment was in 1939. The French could have won it there and then, whilst the Germans were bogged down in Poland.
People forget that the Germans were pretty raw in 1939 in terms of experience. Yes, they had veterans of the Great War, but they made a lot of mistakes in Poland and their combined arms approach wasn't as honed as it was in May 1940.
The fall of France had repercussions that went beyond Europe. The demise of France led to Japan taking over France's far east colonies, and thus encouraging Japan to aggressivly expand against the USA and Britain's far east colonies. It also pushed Britain towards the USA, and turned a European conflict into a global one.
Think about how history may have turned out, if France had held out, backed up by the expanding British army, Germany defeated, Soviet Union perhaps the new enemy, and the USA remaining isolationist.
Forget Moscow 1941, it's all about France 1939, baby
Kilkrazy wrote: What if Hitler had not agreed to halt the panzer division attack on the BEF?
Presumably Operation Dynamo would have been prevented but at the same time the French would have gained a valuable breathing space.
People keep banging on about Moscow in 1941, but as I said, the defining moment was in 1939. The French could have won it there and then, whilst the Germans were bogged down in Poland.
People forget that the Germans were pretty raw in 1939 in terms of experience. Yes, they had veterans of the Great War, but they made a lot of mistakes in Poland and their combined arms approach wasn't as honed as it was in May 1940.
The fall of France had repercussions that went beyond Europe. The demise of France led to Japan taking over France's far east colonies, and thus encouraging Japan to aggressivly expand against the USA and Britain's far east colonies. It also pushed Britain towards the USA, and turned a European conflict into a global one.
Think about how history may have turned out, if France had held out, backed up by the expanding British army, Germany defeated, Soviet Union perhaps the new enemy, and the USA remaining isolationist.
Forget Moscow 1941, it's all about France 1939, baby
Japanese aggression in the Pacific had very little to do with the fall of France. Japan wanted to be the imperial power in the Pacific, and this wasn't possible to achieve without directly challenging the UK and the US. The assertion that the war in the Pacific wouldn't have happened if France held out does not fall in line with what we know about Japan's intentions and motivations. Also Britain was always going to try to fall into the arms of the US, that may have been hastened by the fall of France but it was certainly not the only or even the primary factor.
What if France and the UK hadn't declared war on Germany 2 days after Germany invaded Poland? Would Hitler be content with carving up Poland with the Soviet Union and then calling it quits, given he had gotten Danzig and pretty much all territories lost by Imperial Germany after WW1, or would he have attacked France due to historic grievances anyway?
Or would he have left the Western front alone and gone forward with his plans of attacking Russia?
What if France and the UK hadn't declared war on Germany 2 days after Germany invaded Poland? Would Hitler be content with carving up Poland with the Soviet Union and then calling it quits, given he had gotten Danzig and pretty much all territories lost by Imperial Germany after WW1, or would he have attacked France due to historic grievances anyway?
Or would he have left the Western front alone and gone forward with his plans of attacking Russia?
British policy for 200 years had always been to thwart anybody with designs on controlling Europe. Britain was always going to war, plus, they had pledged to guarantee Poland's security.
As I've said, the fall of France is important for 3 reasons:
1) If Germany is still fighting France and Britain in the west, then it's not invading the Soviet Union. Germans won't make the mistakes of 1914. Moscow 1941 goes straight out of the window
2) France's defeat encourages Italy to declare war. Italy eyes up Britain's empire in the Middle East and Africa. Britain is forced to split its forces. Soon after the fall of France, Britain tells Australia and New Zealand that Mediterranean commitments against the Italians = less defence for the Far east. Stalin correctly predicts Russia is next. Almost the day after France signs armistice, Hitler orders planning for the Invasion of the Soviet Union.
3) Japan takes over Indo-China from France. Japan knows that Britain is stretched against Italy and Germany, and thus, Far East defences are weak. Japan eyes British possessions and the Dutch east indies as well, of course, due to Holland's defeat.
So yeah, the Fall of France is the catalyst for invasion of the Soviet Union, and Japanese expansionism, in my view. It's importance should never be overlooked.
Grey Templar wrote: Hitler most certainly wasn't going to be satisfied with Poland.
Its a good question though. Hitler could have moved up Barbarossa.
Again why is it France and Britain didn't declare war on the USSR when they took half of Poland?
I believe the British PM of the day, Neville Chamberlain, is quoted as replying to that exact question with "I will not enter a war we cannot win." or words to that effect. Of the two, it was decided that Germany was not just the most immediate threat to Europe (Stalin had little interest in West Europe at the time) but also the easiest target to take on.
If it were simply a case of attacking the morally worst nation, Russia would have been at war with the rest of the world. For all the horror of Hitler's genocides, they were nothing compared to Stalin's Terror in Russia. I believe the estimated death toll in Russia from the Purges and associated acts is 80 million, with more recent findings suggesting that's actually lowballing a bit.
Since the ultimatum to Germany had already failed to have any effect it clearly would be pointless to issue an ultimatum to the Soviets too, who would be even more difficult to get at if we had wanted to.
The fact is that neither France nor Britain were hugely keen, or strategically well positioned to help Poland, but the ultimatums to Germany were issued on the general basis that something had to be done to stop Hitler and maybe this would be enough. Only it wasn't.
If the French had followed up with a full-blooded invasion of the Rhineland, while the Germans were busy in Poland, it might have done some good.
British policy for 200 years had always been to thwart anybody with designs on controlling Europe. Britain was always going to war, plus, they had pledged to guarantee Poland's security.
As I've said, the fall of France is important for 3 reasons:
1) If Germany is still fighting France and Britain in the west, then it's not invading the Soviet Union. Germans won't make the mistakes of 1914. Moscow 1941 goes straight out of the window
2) France's defeat encourages Italy to declare war. Italy eyes up Britain's empire in the Middle East and Africa. Britain is forced to split its forces. Soon after the fall of France, Britain tells Australia and New Zealand that Mediterranean commitments against the Italians = less defence for the Far east. Stalin correctly predicts Russia is next. Almost the day after France signs armistice, Hitler orders planning for the Invasion of the Soviet Union.
3) Japan takes over Indo-China from France. Japan knows that Britain is stretched against Italy and Germany, and thus, Far East defences are weak. Japan eyes British possessions and the Dutch east indies as well, of course, due to Holland's defeat.
So yeah, the Fall of France is the catalyst for invasion of the Soviet Union, and Japanese expansionism, in my view. It's importance should never be overlooked.
I don't know where you're getting your information from, but the above in bold is absolutely not true. Hitler didn't start thinking about the Invasion of the Soviet Union until after the Battle of Britain, a good few months later. Additionally, Stalin most certainly did not predict Russia was next. Barbarossa was a complete surprise for him in the face of overwhelming intelligence to the contrary. Hitler actually told him troop concentration in the east were there to practice amphibious landings in the UK, and Stalin believed him.
Also, again, the fall of France had little to no bearing on Japanese expansionism. The country needed oil it was no longer getting from the US, there was no other choice but to engage in some good old fashioned imperialism. Not that that was a problem as Japan wished to be an imperial power anyway and already had every intention to contest Western dominance in the Pacific from the get go.
Stalin and many other Communists believed the Soviet Union would be attacked by the capitalist countries. Lenin* predicted that the country would have twenty years after the Civil war before they were invaded. Stalin had believed that the non-aggression pact would buy him more time, at least until Britain had been defeated. Stalin did not believe that Germany would start (another) war on two fronts.
George Spiggott wrote: Stalin and many other Communists believed the Soviet Union would be attacked by the capitalist countries. Lenin* predicted that the country would have twenty years after the Civil war before they were invaded. Stalin had believed that the non-aggression pact would buy him more time, at least until Britain had been defeated. Stalin did not believe that Germany would start (another) war on two fronts.
* This may have been Stalin, need to check.
Lenin (and Trotsky) certainly knew the resentment the rest of the world held for the new Communist Russia, so even if they didn't say it explicitly, it would have been inherent in their politics and general outlook. It was definitely Stalin, though, that said in the late 1920s that Russia needed to 'make good' the industrial/technological gap with the West in within 10 years, hence the introduction of the Five Year Plans, a period of isolationism and playing for time with Hitler.
Incidentally, this actually worked against him in the end on some ways; the 'modernisation' of the military and industrial infrastructure came so fast in the early 30s that by the time was did break out, it was five years out of date. As I mentioned before, if the Red Army had had the technology, equipment and industry on par with the Wehrmacht, the war would have been much, much shorter...
George Spiggott wrote: Stalin and many other Communists believed the Soviet Union would be attacked by the capitalist countries. Lenin* predicted that the country would have twenty years after the Civil war before they were invaded. Stalin had believed that the non-aggression pact would buy him more time, at least until Britain had been defeated. Stalin did not believe that Germany would start (another) war on two fronts.
* This may have been Stalin, need to check.
Lenin (and Trotsky) certainly knew the resentment the rest of the world held for the new Communist Russia, so even if they didn't say it explicitly, it would have been inherent in their politics and general outlook. It was definitely Stalin, though, that said in the late 1920s that Russia needed to 'make good' the industrial/technological gap with the West in within 10 years, hence the introduction of the Five Year Plans, a period of isolationism and playing for time with Hitler.
Incidentally, this actually worked against him in the end on some ways; the 'modernisation' of the military and industrial infrastructure came so fast in the early 30s that by the time was did break out, it was five years out of date. As I mentioned before, if the Red Army had had the technology, equipment and industry on par with the Wehrmacht, the war would have been much, much shorter...
I would actually argue that the Red Army already had a technological, industrial, and equipment advantage when war broke out. The T--34 was light years ahead of the competition and actually managed to have good speed, armour, and armament - something which was thought to be impossible at the time. The sloped armour gave it way more protection than the thickness of the plating would normally allow, the wide treads and light weight of the vehicle gave it incredible cross country speed and maneuverability, and the 76mm cannon was far more powerful than anything the German tanks were using in 1941. Newer Soviet aircraft were also very impressive machines, but most of the Red Air Force was still using older and more obsolete aircraft in 1941.
It's pretty much the same story for equipment as well as industry. German troops actually favored Soviet gear because it was much sturdier and robust than what they were using, particularly their SMGS. Industry is where they really throttle the Germans. Even as early as 1941, when the relocation efforts began, the Soviets still managed to produce more tanks, guns, and aircraft than the Germans did.
Technology and equipment really wasn't the problem, the abysmal performance of the Red Army comes squarely down on ineffective leadership, weak command and control, and Stalin's incessant meddling.
@ Paradigm:I disagree. Many pieces of Soviet equipment was the equal or sometimes better than German equipment. The Soviet Union's problem in 1941 is that it is all in the western part of the Soviet Union, especially the arms industry and the majority of the population remains rural and ill educated. Ten years wasn't enough time to do what the capitalist countries had done in a century or more. The Soviet union had made great efforts to come to an agreement with Britain and France before the Non-aggression pact, they were rebuffed. With good reason in fairness.
The leadership was certainly a mess; you can't just wipe out a generation of officers just because they might disagree with you then expect your army to be run competently. Especially once you also start insisting that there's no way your openly hostile, heavily armed and ideologicallly diametrically opposed neighbour would ever launch an invasion!
On the equipment, the Russian kit of 1941 might have been decent, but large parts of the army were still using the kit of 1935, at least according to some sources I recall reading. So while I agree with you in principle, I do think there's a world of difference between the Red Army at peak effectiveness and the one acting in 41.
And I just wanted to add that this is a great thread! Lots of very interesting stuff being posted from knowledgeable sources, I'm learning a lot!
There wasn't that much ideological difference with the officers who were purged. Many of them were Troskyites (Who had been commander of the Red Army) Karamanevites, Zinovievites and so on rather than 'whites'. Most of them were sent to the Gulags, from where they were quickly returned when the war began.
Yes a lot of their older equipment was still in use, the BT-7 was the standard tank of the Red Army (in the process of being replaced by the T-34). The USSR has more tanks than the rest of the world combined.
What if France and the UK hadn't declared war on Germany 2 days after Germany invaded Poland? Would Hitler be content with carving up Poland with the Soviet Union and then calling it quits, given he had gotten Danzig and pretty much all territories lost by Imperial Germany after WW1, or would he have attacked France due to historic grievances anyway?
Or would he have left the Western front alone and gone forward with his plans of attacking Russia?
A history where Great Britain doesn't pledge support to Poland is interesting, and quite plausible. I mean, as far as great historical blunders go that one is right up there, as Britain had no capability to aid Poland, and they didn't bother to ensure the support of the one ally who could support Poland - the Soviet Union. It was intended to be the long overdue line in the sand that Germany could not cross, but it was such a weak gesture it basically goaded Hitler in to attacking.
Funnily enough Hitler, who thought pretty much entirely in national stereotypes, held too strong an opinion of Britain at this time - he thought them far too rational to actually uphold their meaningless pledge to support Poland.
Anyhow, what if Britain had never made that pledge, or made it more meaningfully by securing Soviet support (no sure thing given Polish fear of Nazi Germany), or instead made that pledge in defence of Czechoslovakia, perhaps with Polish support?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: British policy for 200 years had always been to thwart anybody with designs on controlling Europe. Britain was always going to war, plus, they had pledged to guarantee Poland's security.
Sure, but the way Britain did it was haphazard and full of errors. They made a judgement call that Czechoslovakia was incapable of defending itself, while believing Poland was capable of such - based pretty much just on a count of total divisions. But they completely missed the difference in quality - the Czechs had a modern weapons industry with well equipped troops, the Poles did not. If you want to pick a fight in Europe to keep Germany in check, Czechoslovakia was the fight to pick.
The British have also historically worked well at building alliances when thwarting continental powers from expanding, but in this case they absolutely screwed the pooch in securing Soviet support - the one meaningful ally in preventing Hitler's expansion East.
2) France's defeat encourages Italy to declare war. Italy eyes up Britain's empire in the Middle East and Africa. Britain is forced to split its forces. Soon after the fall of France, Britain tells Australia and New Zealand that Mediterranean commitments against the Italians = less defence for the Far east.
This one really does lay squarely with Churchill. Senior British command was committed to the pre-war doctrine of Britain, then Singapore, then the rest, but Churchill was fixated with Africa - modern planes and new divisions were diverted to North Africa, while Singapore had to make do. Mind you, neglect of Fortress Singapore started in the early 30s.
So yeah, the Fall of France is the catalyst for invasion of the Soviet Union, and Japanese expansionism, in my view. It's importance should never be overlooked.
The Fall of France is one of the great debacles of military history, and it directly opened the door for the five years of carnage that followed. No doubt about that. My own hypotheticals here have been looking at what might have happened if that disaster never occurred.
However, it isn't a turning point, because it was a boon for the side that eventually lost anyway.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Paradigm wrote: If it were simply a case of attacking the morally worst nation, Russia would have been at war with the rest of the world. For all the horror of Hitler's genocides, they were nothing compared to Stalin's Terror in Russia. I believe the estimated death toll in Russia from the Purges and associated acts is 80 million, with more recent findings suggesting that's actually lowballing a bit.
You can't just add up the death toll and declare a most evil regime though. Much of the Soviet death toll is a direct result of bad land reforms and the ensuing famine. That's horrible in all sorts of ways, but isn't on the same level as the industrialised execution undertaken by the Nazis.
There's also the fact that between Lenin and Stalin you have 30 years of tyranny - Hitler had to make do with just 10.
I mean, if you just ranking by death toll then the British Empire overtakes just about everyone other than the Soviets, Nazis and the CCP just through bad agricultural policy in India. Do you really want to use a metric that makes the British Empire 'more evil' than the Khmer Rouge?
Germany was seen as the dominant threat, and that's the major reason, for sure. The other reason is that, well, what's the point in declaring war if you have no means to fight it? Britain and France were so unsure of their ability to project power outside of France that they barely even probed the German defences during their attack on Poland, going to the other side of Europe to fight the Soviets was a much greater enterprise.
Interestingly enough, though, the British and French actually offered 50,000 troops to Finland when it was under attack by the Soviets in 1940. Had British and French troops been lost there (as their presence would have done nothing to change the inevitability of that fight), I wonder how the future alliance might have been altered?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
creeping-deth87 wrote: Also, again, the fall of France had little to no bearing on Japanese expansionism. The country needed oil it was no longer getting from the US, there was no other choice but to engage in some good old fashioned imperialism. Not that that was a problem as Japan wished to be an imperial power anyway and already had every intention to contest Western dominance in the Pacific from the get go.
The Fall of France left Indo-China without French protection, and stripped British resources away from defence of their territories in the Far East.
Whether Japan would have attempted some kind of attack anyway is a good question, but it was with British and French troubles in Europe that it become a much easier task.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
creeping-deth87 wrote: It's pretty much the same story for equipment as well as industry. German troops actually favored Soviet gear because it was much sturdier and robust than what they were using, particularly their SMGS. Industry is where they really throttle the Germans. Even as early as 1941, when the relocation efforts began, the Soviets still managed to produce more tanks, guns, and aircraft than the Germans did.
Soviet production was greater, but it wasn't because they had more industry. If you look at measures like electricity production you see Germany actually has about a 50% advantage, and that's before you account for captured and supporting territories.
The difference is in the efficiency of design. A classic example is in tank production - the Soviets continued to reform their production, but every step was about getting the tanks made faster - efforts like underwater welding were used just to shave minutes of the time a tank was under production. They came up with the remarkable idea of figuring out how long an average tank actually ran before it was destroyed for good, and then only maintained quality standards that were good enough to last that long.
Compare that to German tank design - there were 250 changes made to the Tiger over its life, out of about 1,300 actually built - so on average every sixth Tiger built is different than the one before. That means a tank built on Monday is a different machine than the one that rolls off the floor on Wednesday. And none of these design changes were about simplifying the design, but were almost all minor technical changes with little impact on performance.
That was the great Soviet advantage. Well, that and the unwillingness of Germany to shift to total war.
Technology and equipment really wasn't the problem, the abysmal performance of the Red Army comes squarely down on ineffective leadership, weak command and control, and Stalin's incessant meddling.
Yeah, they basically started the war with a gross shortage of quality officers at every level, and then lost most of the ones they did have in the first couple of months. The next year is basically Russia building a whole new army while fighting a war on an extraordinary scale.
It is only by 1943 that you begin to see technical and professional qualities really emerge in the Soviet army. From there on you get something of a parity in the two armies, albeit with the kill count still favouring the Germans through the natural advantages of defence.
What if France and the UK hadn't declared war on Germany 2 days after Germany invaded Poland? Would Hitler be content with carving up Poland with the Soviet Union and then calling it quits, given he had gotten Danzig and pretty much all territories lost by Imperial Germany after WW1, or would he have attacked France due to historic grievances anyway?
Or would he have left the Western front alone and gone forward with his plans of attacking Russia?
A history where Great Britain doesn't pledge support to Poland is interesting, and quite plausible. I mean, as far as great historical blunders go that one is right up there, as Britain had no capability to aid Poland, and they didn't bother to ensure the support of the one ally who could support Poland - the Soviet Union. It was intended to be the long overdue line in the sand that Germany could not cross, but it was such a weak gesture it basically goaded Hitler in to attacking.
Funnily enough Hitler, who thought pretty much entirely in national stereotypes, held too strong an opinion of Britain at this time - he thought them far too rational to actually uphold their meaningless pledge to support Poland.
Anyhow, what if Britain had never made that pledge, or made it more meaningfully by securing Soviet support (no sure thing given Polish fear of Nazi Germany), or instead made that pledge in defence of Czechoslovakia, perhaps with Polish support?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: British policy for 200 years had always been to thwart anybody with designs on controlling Europe. Britain was always going to war, plus, they had pledged to guarantee Poland's security.
Sure, but the way Britain did it was haphazard and full of errors. They made a judgement call that Czechoslovakia was incapable of defending itself, while believing Poland was capable of such - based pretty much just on a count of total divisions. But they completely missed the difference in quality - the Czechs had a modern weapons industry with well equipped troops, the Poles did not. If you want to pick a fight in Europe to keep Germany in check, Czechoslovakia was the fight to pick.
The British have also historically worked well at building alliances when thwarting continental powers from expanding, but in this case they absolutely screwed the pooch in securing Soviet support - the one meaningful ally in preventing Hitler's expansion East.
2) France's defeat encourages Italy to declare war. Italy eyes up Britain's empire in the Middle East and Africa. Britain is forced to split its forces. Soon after the fall of France, Britain tells Australia and New Zealand that Mediterranean commitments against the Italians = less defence for the Far east.
This one really does lay squarely with Churchill. Senior British command was committed to the pre-war doctrine of Britain, then Singapore, then the rest, but Churchill was fixated with Africa - modern planes and new divisions were diverted to North Africa, while Singapore had to make do. Mind you, neglect of Fortress Singapore started in the early 30s.
So yeah, the Fall of France is the catalyst for invasion of the Soviet Union, and Japanese expansionism, in my view. It's importance should never be overlooked.
The Fall of France is one of the great debacles of military history, and it directly opened the door for the five years of carnage that followed. No doubt about that. My own hypotheticals here have been looking at what might have happened if that disaster never occurred.
However, it isn't a turning point, because it was a boon for the side that eventually lost anyway.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Paradigm wrote: If it were simply a case of attacking the morally worst nation, Russia would have been at war with the rest of the world. For all the horror of Hitler's genocides, they were nothing compared to Stalin's Terror in Russia. I believe the estimated death toll in Russia from the Purges and associated acts is 80 million, with more recent findings suggesting that's actually lowballing a bit.
You can't just add up the death toll and declare a most evil regime though. Much of the Soviet death toll is a direct result of bad land reforms and the ensuing famine. That's horrible in all sorts of ways, but isn't on the same level as the industrialised execution undertaken by the Nazis.
There's also the fact that between Lenin and Stalin you have 30 years of tyranny - Hitler had to make do with just 10.
I mean, if you just ranking by death toll then the British Empire overtakes just about everyone other than the Soviets, Nazis and the CCP just through bad agricultural policy in India. Do you really want to use a metric that makes the British Empire 'more evil' than the Khmer Rouge?
Germany was seen as the dominant threat, and that's the major reason, for sure. The other reason is that, well, what's the point in declaring war if you have no means to fight it? Britain and France were so unsure of their ability to project power outside of France that they barely even probed the German defences during their attack on Poland, going to the other side of Europe to fight the Soviets was a much greater enterprise.
Interestingly enough, though, the British and French actually offered 50,000 troops to Finland when it was under attack by the Soviets in 1940. Had British and French troops been lost there (as their presence would have done nothing to change the inevitability of that fight), I wonder how the future alliance might have been altered?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
creeping-deth87 wrote: Also, again, the fall of France had little to no bearing on Japanese expansionism. The country needed oil it was no longer getting from the US, there was no other choice but to engage in some good old fashioned imperialism. Not that that was a problem as Japan wished to be an imperial power anyway and already had every intention to contest Western dominance in the Pacific from the get go.
The Fall of France left Indo-China without French protection, and stripped British resources away from defence of their territories in the Far East.
Whether Japan would have attempted some kind of attack anyway is a good question, but it was with British and French troubles in Europe that it become a much easier task.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
creeping-deth87 wrote: It's pretty much the same story for equipment as well as industry. German troops actually favored Soviet gear because it was much sturdier and robust than what they were using, particularly their SMGS. Industry is where they really throttle the Germans. Even as early as 1941, when the relocation efforts began, the Soviets still managed to produce more tanks, guns, and aircraft than the Germans did.
Soviet production was greater, but it wasn't because they had more industry. If you look at measures like electricity production you see Germany actually has about a 50% advantage, and that's before you account for captured and supporting territories.
The difference is in the efficiency of design. A classic example is in tank production - the Soviets continued to reform their production, but every step was about getting the tanks made faster - efforts like underwater welding were used just to shave minutes of the time a tank was under production. They came up with the remarkable idea of figuring out how long an average tank actually ran before it was destroyed for good, and then only maintained quality standards that were good enough to last that long.
Compare that to German tank design - there were 250 changes made to the Tiger over its life, out of about 1,300 actually built - so on average every sixth Tiger built is different than the one before. That means a tank built on Monday is a different machine than the one that rolls off the floor on Wednesday. And none of these design changes were about simplifying the design, but were almost all minor technical changes with little impact on performance.
That was the great Soviet advantage. Well, that and the unwillingness of Germany to shift to total war.
Technology and equipment really wasn't the problem, the abysmal performance of the Red Army comes squarely down on ineffective leadership, weak command and control, and Stalin's incessant meddling.
Yeah, they basically started the war with a gross shortage of quality officers at every level, and then lost most of the ones they did have in the first couple of months. The next year is basically Russia building a whole new army while fighting a war on an extraordinary scale.
It is only by 1943 that you begin to see technical and professional qualities really emerge in the Soviet army. From there on you get something of a parity in the two armies, albeit with the kill count still favouring the Germans through the natural advantages of defence.
To address some of your points.
A deal with the Soviets was never going to happen. Historical mistrust, plus the Soviets wanted chunks of Poland back which Russia had lost during the Polish war of independence. This was unacceptable to Britain, and of course, you can imagine Poland's reaction to Soviet Demands.
As for Singapore, there was no neglect of its defences. Billions were spent upgrading Singapore's defences against seaborne attack. Of course, the Japanese attacked from another direction, which is a separate matter!
Churchill's fixation with Africa and the ME is pretty logical. The route to India, the Middle East oilfields, an alliance in the Mediterranean with Greece and Yugoslavia etc. etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
George Spiggott wrote: There wasn't that much ideological difference with the officers who were purged. Many of them were Troskyites (Who had been commander of the Red Army) Karamanevites, Zinovievites and so on rather than 'whites'. Most of them were sent to the Gulags, from where they were quickly returned when the war began.
Yes a lot of their older equipment was still in use, the BT-7 was the standard tank of the Red Army (in the process of being replaced by the T-34). The USSR has more tanks than the rest of the world combined.
Nothing wrong with the BT-7 it was a half decent tank for its time, and a match for Panzer I,II,III, and those Czech tanks the Germans used. 38t??
British policy for 200 years had always been to thwart anybody with designs on controlling Europe. Britain was always going to war, plus, they had pledged to guarantee Poland's security.
As I've said, the fall of France is important for 3 reasons:
1) If Germany is still fighting France and Britain in the west, then it's not invading the Soviet Union. Germans won't make the mistakes of 1914. Moscow 1941 goes straight out of the window
2) France's defeat encourages Italy to declare war. Italy eyes up Britain's empire in the Middle East and Africa. Britain is forced to split its forces. Soon after the fall of France, Britain tells Australia and New Zealand that Mediterranean commitments against the Italians = less defence for the Far east. Stalin correctly predicts Russia is next. Almost the day after France signs armistice, Hitler orders planning for the Invasion of the Soviet Union.
3) Japan takes over Indo-China from France. Japan knows that Britain is stretched against Italy and Germany, and thus, Far East defences are weak. Japan eyes British possessions and the Dutch east indies as well, of course, due to Holland's defeat.
So yeah, the Fall of France is the catalyst for invasion of the Soviet Union, and Japanese expansionism, in my view. It's importance should never be overlooked.
I don't know where you're getting your information from, but the above in bold is absolutely not true. Hitler didn't start thinking about the Invasion of the Soviet Union until after the Battle of Britain, a good few months later. Additionally, Stalin most certainly did not predict Russia was next. Barbarossa was a complete surprise for him in the face of overwhelming intelligence to the contrary. Hitler actually told him troop concentration in the east were there to practice amphibious landings in the UK, and Stalin believed him.
Also, again, the fall of France had little to no bearing on Japanese expansionism. The country needed oil it was no longer getting from the US, there was no other choice but to engage in some good old fashioned imperialism. Not that that was a problem as Japan wished to be an imperial power anyway and already had every intention to contest Western dominance in the Pacific from the get go.
The Dutch East Indies was the number one source in the world for rubber and other war materials. Holland has fallen. Who's going to stop Japan from taking over?
Stalin seized the Baltic states a few weeks later to act as a buffer zone against Germany. Stalin also sped up re-armament and mobilization of the Red Army. Again, as a consequence of France's fall.
My informatiov comes from 'The Fall of France' by Julian Jackson. It's a good book and one I'd recommended to everybody.
Paradigm wrote: If it were simply a case of attacking the morally worst nation, Russia would have been at war with the rest of the world. For all the horror of Hitler's genocides, they were nothing compared to Stalin's Terror in Russia. I believe the estimated death toll in Russia from the Purges and associated acts is 80 million, with more recent findings suggesting that's actually lowballing a bit.
You can't just add up the death toll and declare a most evil regime though. Much of the Soviet death toll is a direct result of bad land reforms and the ensuing famine. That's horrible in all sorts of ways, but isn't on the same level as the industrialised execution undertaken by the Nazis.
There's also the fact that between Lenin and Stalin you have 30 years of tyranny - Hitler had to make do with just 10.
I mean, if you just ranking by death toll then the British Empire overtakes just about everyone other than the Soviets, Nazis and the CCP just through bad agricultural policy in India. Do you really want to use a metric that makes the British Empire 'more evil' than the Khmer Rouge?
.
True. It just rankles me a bit when people try and make out that the Holocaust is the worst thing to ever happen in the 20th Century while Russia's very similar actions get somewhat swept under the carpet (at least on the level of the general public, if not those actually studying history) just because they basically won us the war. It's the same with the Russian invasion of Poland that I'd guess most non-academics aren't familiar with, and what went on there which was really just as bad as what the Nazis did with their half.
I'd add, though, that none of this is trying to in any way belittle the horiffic war crimes the Nazis committed, just to point out that at the same time, our 'allies' were doing equally terrible things. Even if you leave aside the 'accidental' deaths by famine, the Purges and associated Gulag deaths are still just as inexcusable as the Holocaust, and I do think more people need to be aware of it.
sebster wrote: But they completely missed the difference in quality - the Czechs had a modern weapons industry with well equipped troops, the Poles did not. If you want to pick a fight in Europe to keep Germany in check, Czechoslovakia was the fight to pick.
Poland may have worked if only the Germans attacked. Czechoslovakia on the other hand is unworkable without Soviet aid (which the Poles and French effectively blocked). There was a sizeable German demographic in Czechoslovakia, almost a quarter of the population, which wanted union with Germany and ran through all strata of society. That includes the army.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Nothing wrong with the BT-7 it was a half decent tank for its time, and a match for Panzer I,II,III, and those Czech tanks the Germans used. 38t??
I was going to add something similar but it doesn’t represent Soviet advances in technology.
sebster wrote: But they completely missed the difference in quality - the Czechs had a modern weapons industry with well equipped troops, the Poles did not. If you want to pick a fight in Europe to keep Germany in check, Czechoslovakia was the fight to pick.
Poland may have worked if only the Germans attacked. Czechoslovakia on the other hand is unworkable without Soviet aid (which the Poles and French effectively blocked). There was a sizeable German demographic in Czechoslovakia, almost a quarter of the population, which wanted union with Germany and ran through all strata of society. That includes the army.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Nothing wrong with the BT-7 it was a half decent tank for its time, and a match for Panzer I,II,III, and those Czech tanks the Germans used. 38t??
I was going to add something similar but it doesn’t represent Soviet advances in technology.
You'll probably know better than me, but the Soviet tank force on June 1941 was a pretty formidable force on Paper. BT-7, like I said, could match most German tanks, and I'm pretty sure the T-26 or T-28? (not the multi-turret tank, but the light tank ) was a match for the light German tanks. Their armoured cars had the same armament (or similar) to a Panzer III and of course, the KV-1 and the T-34s were the ace in the hole.
As others have said, lack of radios and training was the Red Army weakness, but their Far East unites that had fought against Japan, were a good force.
If Germany had invaded Russia without declaring war on the allies, would they have still supported the soviet as they did IRL? Obviously Britain and France didn't want Germany to get back to its WW1 power level but they would have liked to see Communism gone as well.
sing your life wrote: If Germany had invaded Russia without declaring war on the allies, would they have still supported the soviet as they did IRL? Obviously Britain and France didn't want Germany to get back to its WW1 power level but they would have liked to see Communism gone as well.
Probably would have been content to let both sides slug it out and wait and see what happened next.
sing your life wrote: If Germany had invaded Russia without declaring war on the allies, would they have still supported the soviet as they did IRL? Obviously Britain and France didn't want Germany to get back to its WW1 power level but they would have liked to see Communism gone as well.
Good question. Given that a large factor in the 30s appeasement of Hitler was the 'better the devil you know' attitude (a European tyranny was at least familiar, as opposed to this scary newfangled Communism that no one really understood) I think it's possible that, to take it to extremes, Hitler had only invaded Russia, somehow ignoring the nations in the way, Britain and France may have stayed out, at least initially to buy some more time. I've no idea how that could ever happen, though, without Poland getting occupied and other nations getting involved.
sing your life wrote: If Germany had invaded Russia without declaring war on the allies, would they have still supported the soviet as they did IRL? Obviously Britain and France didn't want Germany to get back to its WW1 power level but they would have liked to see Communism gone as well.
Good question. Given that a large factor in the 30s appeasement of Hitler was the 'better the devil you know' attitude (a European tyranny was at least familiar, as opposed to this scary newfangled Communism that no one really understood) I think it's possible that, to take it to extremes, Hitler had only invaded Russia, somehow ignoring the nations in the way, Britain and France may have stayed out, at least initially to buy some more time. I've no idea how that could ever happen, though, without Poland getting occupied and other nations getting involved.
Eastern Europe was always Hitler's aim. As you know, he wrote and talked many a time about 'acquiring' 'living space' for Germany to grow.
One of his aims... Right under Total Domination of Europe
I can't see a reality where Britain and France don't get involved at some point, even as aggressors. Say Hitler did take out the USSR without starting a World War, I wouldn't put it past the Allies to actually launch an attack of their own on a weakened Germany, especially if word of the genocides got out as well. They may have had a policy of appeasing Hitler, but they were equally aware of the threat he posed.
German speaking French and Swiss people's were never part of the Nazi plan before the War. Even if Germany did not go to war with France and Britain peace with Greater Germany would not be desirable in the long term either. I don't see how Germany can invade the Soviet Union directly without going through Poland in some fashion. East Prussia is too geographically remote (as an exclave) to launch an attack from and doesn't border the Ukraine where most of the German advances were. Territorially speaking German desires in WWII don't differ much from those in WWI
Bear in mind it was Britain and France that declared war on Germany for the invasion of Poland because it was thought Hitler's antics had got out of hand, rather than specifically to save Poland.
It is difficult to see how Germany could have got at the USSR properly without having invaded Poland first, which presumably would have triggered war anyway.
If it had not, it seems likely France and Britain might have declared war after a German invasion of SU, on the principle that Hitler really has gone too far this time.
A deal with the Soviets was never going to happen. Historical mistrust, plus the Soviets wanted chunks of Poland back which Russia had lost during the Polish war of independence. This was unacceptable to Britain, and of course, you can imagine Poland's reaction to Soviet Demands.
It’s 1942, what is or isn’t acceptable to Britain and Poland is irrelevant. If a new Soviet/Nazi deal was made, then Britain and the Polish government in exile might complain about it all they like, but they were powerless to threaten it.
The deal failed, simply, because Germany failed to understand how weak its own position was. Had they properly understood it, they would have likely
As for Singapore, there was no neglect of its defences. Billions were spent upgrading Singapore's defences against seaborne attack. Of course, the Japanese attacked from another direction, which is a separate matter!
Billions were spent, but they were a fraction of the amount intended.
The overland attack coming as a surprise is an old story, and is often misunderstood (I don’t mean to imply you misunderstand it, but am just expanding it anyway). The British put defences over the inland route, there was a full corps posted to Malaya. The upset is how woefully this larger force (and the additional troops in Singapore) proved in fighting the Japanese.
The problem was the Japanese skill in flanking through the jungle, and the quality of support their aircraft gave. In contrast the UK spread their forces thin, to protect airfields with a handful of outdated planes on them. Had modern planes diverted to Africa been available, it might have been a much different story.
Churchill's fixation with Africa and the ME is pretty logical. The route to India, the Middle East oilfields, an alliance in the Mediterranean with Greece and Yugoslavia etc. etc.
The Middle East mattered, but pouring all new production not needed for defence of Britain in to Africa was a massive gamble. It meant there were few aircraft in Singapore, and almost no frontline planes. It was, at best, a gamble that went terribly wrong, and by a less generous assessment it was a massive blunder – the key resources of Africa (Cairo and everything east of it) could have been held with far fewer troops, just by maintaining a defensive posture.
Nothing wrong with the BT-7 it was a half decent tank for its time, and a match for Panzer I,II,III, and those Czech tanks the Germans used. 38t??
I understand a lot of the negative reputation came from the number of tanks that were unavailable at the outbreak of the war, or that broke down rapidly after fighting began. Which wasn’t due to any inherent mechanical unreliability in the tank, but the shoddy state of maintenance in the Soviet army at that time.
Paradigm wrote: True. It just rankles me a bit when people try and make out that the Holocaust is the worst thing to ever happen in the 20th Century while Russia's very similar actions get somewhat swept under the carpet (at least on the level of the general public, if not those actually studying history) just because they basically won us the war. It's the same with the Russian invasion of Poland that I'd guess most non-academics aren't familiar with, and what went on there which was really just as bad as what the Nazis did with their half.
That’s a good point well made. That said, I’m not sure it’s just a case of the Soviets being our allies, after all they were great enemy of the Cold War, so there was every motivation to make as much of a deal as possible about their atrocities. We did, sort of, but not in a way that every really stuck in the public conscious as much as the atrocities of the Nazis.
I don’t really know why that is. Maybe, when you look at other atrocities from other regimes, the CCP, the Khmer Rouge, the Armenian Genocide, perhaps public indifference and ignorance is the norm? Perhaps the knowledge of the holocaust is unusual, possibly a product of some excellent historical work, some excellent films on the subject, and the Nazis being such a nice villain – pure evil that we decisively beat.
I don’t know, you raise a good point and I’m just trying to think through it.
George Spiggott wrote: Poland may have worked if only the Germans attacked. Czechoslovakia on the other hand is unworkable without Soviet aid (which the Poles and French effectively blocked). There was a sizeable German demographic in Czechoslovakia, almost a quarter of the population, which wanted union with Germany and ran through all strata of society. That includes the army.
Poland was utterly defeated before the Russians crossed the border. Seriously, the bulk of the forces had been cut off from communications and supply by an armoured pincer. There was no saving them. Even if they hadn’t put up such an outmoded defence, their divisions were almost all lightly armed infantry, with negligible air power.
The point about the German population in Czechoslovakia is a good one, but I’d take that risk over the Polish army anyday. If nothing else, most of Czechoslovakia fighting for you is better than all of the Czech munitions in service of Germany.
sing your life wrote: If Germany had invaded Russia without declaring war on the allies, would they have still supported the soviet as they did IRL? Obviously Britain and France didn't want Germany to get back to its WW1 power level but they would have liked to see Communism gone as well.
Britain declared war on Germany, and France reluctantly followed. Hitler never wanted that war, he always wanted expansion in the East.
Even if Britain has just watched Poland get swallowed up, it still would have ceased trade and done as much as possible to block supply to Germany. Just sitting back and watching a dominant European power military expand across the continent would have flown in the face of centuries of British foreign policy. Effectively you’d get blockade, just as it happened (and was Britain’s major contribution to the war).
Similarly, the primary focus of French foreign policy for about a century had been preventing the potential for German dominance – they aren’t going to watch Germany expand ever eastwards, absorbing large swathes of land and resources.
They may not have just launched in to attack though. Likely they would have attempted to use the threat of attack on Germany to force a peace.
Paradigm wrote: True. It just rankles me a bit when people try and make out that the Holocaust is the worst thing to ever happen in the 20th Century while Russia's very similar actions get somewhat swept under the carpet (at least on the level of the general public, if not those actually studying history) just because they basically won us the war. It's the same with the Russian invasion of Poland that I'd guess most non-academics aren't familiar with, and what went on there which was really just as bad as what the Nazis did with their half.
That’s a good point well made. That said, I’m not sure it’s just a case of the Soviets being our allies, after all they were great enemy of the Cold War, so there was every motivation to make as much of a deal as possible about their atrocities. We did, sort of, but not in a way that every really stuck in the public conscious as much as the atrocities of the Nazis.
I don’t really know why that is. Maybe, when you look at other atrocities from other regimes, the CCP, the Khmer Rouge, the Armenian Genocide, perhaps public indifference and ignorance is the norm? Perhaps the knowledge of the holocaust is unusual, possibly a product of some excellent historical work, some excellent films on the subject, and the Nazis being such a nice villain – pure evil that we decisively beat.
My pet theory is that Germany was the only "proper" (white) civilisation to commit such atrocities. All the others were "lesser" (non-white) civilisations. It's more shocking to us because the Germans were us.
Paradigm wrote: True. It just rankles me a bit when people try and make out that the Holocaust is the worst thing to ever happen in the 20th Century while Russia's very similar actions get somewhat swept under the carpet (at least on the level of the general public, if not those actually studying history) just because they basically won us the war. It's the same with the Russian invasion of Poland that I'd guess most non-academics aren't familiar with, and what went on there which was really just as bad as what the Nazis did with their half.
That’s a good point well made. That said, I’m not sure it’s just a case of the Soviets being our allies, after all they were great enemy of the Cold War, so there was every motivation to make as much of a deal as possible about their atrocities. We did, sort of, but not in a way that every really stuck in the public conscious as much as the atrocities of the Nazis.
I don’t really know why that is. Maybe, when you look at other atrocities from other regimes, the CCP, the Khmer Rouge, the Armenian Genocide, perhaps public indifference and ignorance is the norm? Perhaps the knowledge of the holocaust is unusual, possibly a product of some excellent historical work, some excellent films on the subject, and the Nazis being such a nice villain – pure evil that we decisively beat.
My pet theory is that Germany was the only "proper" (white) civilisation to commit such atrocities. All the others were "lesser" (non-white) civilisations. It's more shocking to us because the Germans were us.
Well I will throw a bit more of a reasonable theory out there...
People did not know (even Germans) just how bad persecution of the Jews, disabled, Jehovah's witnesses, gypsies and so on was. I have seen letters to Churchill about requesting bombing raids over railroads to death camps but largely it was unknown what was really happening to the persecuted. When the camps got discovered it blasted over the news. Imagine hearing that a nation had death camps and it was largely unknown. Added to this we allies actually liberated these people (unknowingly ish) from the nightmare.
Correct me if I am wrong, but famine in Russia, gulags etc seemed like news that was like us hearing about starvation in Africa etc. In Japan reporters were present to witness many Japanese actions in China and so on. As far as I can tell, nothing horrible these nations did outside of a few incidents was discovered in a shocking and horrible way.
I highly doubt it's because we are all internally racist or something.
feeder wrote: My pet theory is that Germany was the only "proper" (white) civilisation to commit such atrocities. All the others were "lesser" (non-white) civilisations. It's more shocking to us because the Germans were us.
Russians are pretty universally see as white these days. Historically they’ve been seen as non-European, but that goes back to a time when Germans were seen as racially different to Britons etc, so I don’t think that’s it.
Swastakowey wrote: Well I will throw a bit more of a reasonable theory out there...
People did not know (even Germans) just how bad persecution of the Jews, disabled, Jehovah's witnesses, gypsies and so on was. I have seen letters to Churchill about requesting bombing raids over railroads to death camps but largely it was unknown what was really happening to the persecuted. When the camps got discovered it blasted over the news. Imagine hearing that a nation had death camps and it was largely unknown. Added to this we allies actually liberated these people (unknowingly ish) from the nightmare.
Correct me if I am wrong, but famine in Russia, gulags etc seemed like news that was like us hearing about starvation in Africa etc. In Japan reporters were present to witness many Japanese actions in China and so on. As far as I can tell, nothing horrible these nations did outside of a few incidents was discovered in a shocking and horrible way.
I highly doubt it's because we are all internally racist or something.
Yeah, I think the comparison to us hearing about starving people in Africa is a good comparison. There is certainly an emotional distance for most of these other atrocities that isn't there with the holocaust. I think the question is why, and I wonder if a line you posted, ‘we allies actually liberated these people’ probably touches on what is starting to make sense as the answer.
The Nazis weren’t just an absolutely evil regime, they were a regime that we fought and eliminated entirely. The story of the Nazis is an inherently great narrative - Nazi Germany spread across Europe, enslaved and killed millions, then an alliance of countries fought back, liberated the people and wiped the Nazi menace from the Earth. That’s a good, clean story, that we fit in to neatly as the heroes.
Then compare that to Soviet Russia - where a brutal regime dominated the lives of a hundred million people, killed millions of them, and we… allied with them for one war, then fought a bunch of proxy wars against them, but mostly just did nothing, and after a while the regime collapsed internally.
In both cases focusing on the atrocities requires you to deal with have deal with some pretty nasty stuff, but the former is far more palatable as a story than the latter. A story about the holocaust might be utterly harrowing, but it will be framed with the knowledge that this regime was defeated, and it's leaders were killed in battle, killed themselves, or faced trial for what they did. Most films and books that deal with this will actually end with the liberation of the camps, at the very least.
Dealing with Stalinism ends with a state funeral attended by millions - there is no relief, it goes from bleak to just plain awful.
Sebster, I think you're misunderstanding the original point I made.
My original point dealt with the consequences of the fall of France, not British policy in the Far East.
I'm arguing that without France's defeat, Japan would not have occupied Indo-China (which allowed them easy access to Malaya, to attack Singapore in the first place)
Also, France's fall encouraged Italy to enter the war with a view to grabbing Britain's African possessions, as the French Navy's role was to guard the Med, whilst the Royal Navy guarded the Atlantic.
And of course, if France hadn't fallen, Germany would not have attacked the Soviet Union.
After reading the military history of Germany's invasion of France in 1940, I'm amazed at how many chances the Allies had to stop the Germans. It's all Ifs, but, maybe, but it was a lot closer than people realise.
feeder wrote: My pet theory is that Germany was the only "proper" (white) civilisation to commit such atrocities. All the others were "lesser" (non-white) civilisations. It's more shocking to us because the Germans were us.
Russians are pretty universally see as white these days. Historically they’ve been seen as non-European, but that goes back to a time when Germans were seen as racially different to Britons etc, so I don’t think that’s it.
Swastakowey wrote: Well I will throw a bit more of a reasonable theory out there...
People did not know (even Germans) just how bad persecution of the Jews, disabled, Jehovah's witnesses, gypsies and so on was. I have seen letters to Churchill about requesting bombing raids over railroads to death camps but largely it was unknown what was really happening to the persecuted. When the camps got discovered it blasted over the news. Imagine hearing that a nation had death camps and it was largely unknown. Added to this we allies actually liberated these people (unknowingly ish) from the nightmare.
Correct me if I am wrong, but famine in Russia, gulags etc seemed like news that was like us hearing about starvation in Africa etc. In Japan reporters were present to witness many Japanese actions in China and so on. As far as I can tell, nothing horrible these nations did outside of a few incidents was discovered in a shocking and horrible way.
I highly doubt it's because we are all internally racist or something.
Yeah, I think the comparison to us hearing about starving people in Africa is a good comparison. There is certainly an emotional distance for most of these other atrocities that isn't there with the holocaust. I think the question is why, and I wonder if a line you posted, ‘we allies actually liberated these people’ probably touches on what is starting to make sense as the answer.
The Nazis weren’t just an absolutely evil regime, they were a regime that we fought and eliminated entirely. The story of the Nazis is an inherently great narrative - Nazi Germany spread across Europe, enslaved and killed millions, then an alliance of countries fought back, liberated the people and wiped the Nazi menace from the Earth. That’s a good, clean story, that we fit in to neatly as the heroes.
Then compare that to Soviet Russia - where a brutal regime dominated the lives of a hundred million people, killed millions of them, and we… allied with them for one war, then fought a bunch of proxy wars against them, but mostly just did nothing, and after a while the regime collapsed internally.
In both cases focusing on the atrocities requires you to deal with have deal with some pretty nasty stuff, but the former is far more palatable as a story than the latter. A story about the holocaust might be utterly harrowing, but it will be framed with the knowledge that this regime was defeated, and it's leaders were killed in battle, killed themselves, or faced trial for what they did. Most films and books that deal with this will actually end with the liberation of the camps, at the very least.
Dealing with Stalinism ends with a state funeral attended by millions - there is no relief, it goes from bleak to just plain awful.
That's a good set of points, to which I'd add that the Holocaust sticks out in the Western conscience not just because it adds another level of triumph to their victory, but because unlike most genocides on that scale, people did survive and return to society to tell their stories. Meanwhile, the overwhelming majority of Stalin's victims were either killed instantly or sent to Gulags to work until death; none really got out until much, much later, and even after Stalin's death, the Soviet propaganda machine would be careful about what information was out there.
Ultimately, The Holocaust was a tragedy that lived on in memories and in culture, while The Terror was a set of statistics that was already history by the time anyone other than the perpetrators knew about its true extent. It's really a perception that ought to be changed, but I don't think it will be any time soon.
The main reason why the Holocaust is a worse atrocity and crime against humanity compared to Stalin's purges and gulags, is because the Holocaust specifically sent people to die for merely existing in the first place.
Stalin got rid of anyone opposed to the party, but if they were loyal to the party (which is a choice that they could make), they'd most likely survive. Or at least, let me put it this way - the overwhelming majority of the people who died in Stalin's camps weren't loyal to the party. And then you have of course, all those who died of starvation. But again, these people weren't deliberately killed by Stalin's regime - they were the result of a very crude policy of redistribution.
The overwhelming majority of people who died in Hitler's camps however, had merely made the mistake of existing within the confines of the Reich and its territories. They were a racial scapegoat whose elimination was the goal and foundation of the entire Nazi movement.
So yes, from an ideological standpoint the Holocaust is always worse than anything Stalin committed.
Sir Arun wrote: The main reason why the Holocaust is a worse atrocity and crime against humanity compared to Stalin's purges and gulags, is because the Holocaust specifically sent people to die for merely existing in the first place.
Stalin got rid of anyone opposed to the party, but if they were loyal to the party (which is a choice that they could make), they'd most likely survive. Or at least, let me put it this way - the overwhelming majority of the people who died in Stalin's camps weren't loyal to the party. And then you have of course, all those who died of starvation. But again, these people weren't deliberately killed by Stalin's regime - they were the result of a very crude policy of redistribution.
The overwhelming majority of people who died in Hitler's camps however, had merely made the mistake of existing within the confines of the Reich and its territories. They were a racial scapegoat whose elimination was the goal and foundation of the entire Nazi movement.
So yes, from an ideological standpoint the Holocaust is always worse than anything Stalin committed.
Not true exactly. Stalin had his own pogroms against Jews and other groups purely for existing.
Frazzled wrote: Not true exactly. Stalin had his own pogroms against Jews and other groups purely for existing.
You're gonna have to come up with some sources for that.
There's plenty out there. It started back under the Tsarist rule with Alexander III and Nicholas II's policy of 'Russification' (trying to eliminate subcultural identities in favour of being 'Russian'), eased off a bit under Lenin at least initially, but picked back up under Stalin. The Jews, the ethnic/racial/national minorities, anyone who didn't fit in with Stalin's ideal of 'white, atheist, Stalinist Russians' were very heavily persecuted for the entirity of his rule.
Besides, even if it weren't the Jews being persecuted, are you then saying it's not as bad to persecute someone for their political views as for their religious ones?* Stalin enacted terror against anyone not a Stalinist 'just for existing' in the same way Hitler did against the Jews.
*please note I'm not actually accusing you of this, just playing Devil's Advocate.
Well, the Nazis persecuted people for an accident of birth, whereas you can at least change your political views if necessary, so it's not as bad. But both Stalin and Hitler are outliers on the "He was horrible" spectrum, I think we can agree on that.
But Churchill said something on the lines of, if Hitler decided to invade Hell, he would at least make a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.
Kilkrazy wrote: Well, the Nazis persecuted people for an accident of birth, whereas you can at least change your political views if necessary, so it's not as bad. But both Stalin and Hitler are outliers on the "He was horrible" spectrum, I think we can agree on that.
But Churchill said something on the lines of, if Hitler decided to invade Hell, he would at least make a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.
However this is getting a bit off topic.
Stalin persecuted farmers because of an accident at birth. Also Jews and gypsies.
There was a conspiracy argument that Stalin was actually poisoned to avoid another Jewish pogrom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Russia
Paradigm wrote: There's plenty out there. It started back under the Tsarist rule with Alexander III and Nicholas II's policy of 'Russification' (trying to eliminate subcultural identities in favour of being 'Russian'), eased off a bit under Lenin at least initially, but picked back up under Stalin. The Jews, the ethnic/racial/national minorities, anyone who didn't fit in with Stalin's ideal of 'white, atheist, Stalinist Russians' were very heavily persecuted for the entirity of his rule.
You're gonna have to be more specific. I know Jewish pogroms were also a thing in Russia throughout history, but can't find sources of this practice continuing under Stalin.
Paradigm wrote: Besides, even if it weren't the Jews being persecuted, are you then saying it's not as bad to persecute someone for their political views as for their religious ones?* Stalin enacted terror against anyone not a Stalinist 'just for existing' in the same way Hitler did against the Jews.
What I am saying is that it is not as bad to persecute someone for their political views (which are, at the end of the day, changeable) than for the ethnicity they belong to, which they obviously cannot change. For Anti-Jews, being Jewish is more of an ethnicity thing than a religious thing.
Just finished watching an excellent documentary series called:
Apocalypse - World War II
It's a 6 part French production, with each episode about 45 minutes long, so over 4 hours of footage.
The best thing about it is, it's all recolored WW2 footage, making everything that much more realistic.
Covers pretty much the entire war, doesnt waste time interviewing survivors (which would slow down the pace dramatically), and is instead narrated from start till finish.
George Spiggott wrote: Poland may have worked if only the Germans attacked. Czechoslovakia on the other hand is unworkable without Soviet aid (which the Poles and French effectively blocked). There was a sizeable German demographic in Czechoslovakia, almost a quarter of the population, which wanted union with Germany and ran through all strata of society. That includes the army.
Poland was utterly defeated before the Russians crossed the border. Seriously, the bulk of the forces had been cut off from communications and supply by an armoured pincer. There was no saving them. Even if they hadn’t put up such an outmoded defence, their divisions were almost all lightly armed infantry, with negligible air power.
The point about the German population in Czechoslovakia is a good one, but I’d take that risk over the Polish army anyday. If nothing else, most of Czechoslovakia fighting for you is better than all of the Czech munitions in service of Germany.
Poland was in no position to win, that was a given from day one and part of Polish policy. The Polish plan is to hang on until the Western allies, specifically France come to it's aid. The French gave up on that idea when they encountered Westwall. However that's not the information the planners have before the war who are unawarre of the secret Nazi-Soviet pact. The Czechs also have a belligerent neighbours, Hungary and Poland, as well as the Slovak separatist movement. There's also the problem of preventing a non-German win turning into a Soviet land grab because the French (as we know from Poland) aren't coming and Britain (lets be super generous and say Britain is really up for military intervention) has no means of deciding the outcome of a war in a landlocked country in central Europe.
My original point dealt with the consequences of the fall of France, not British policy in the Far East.
And on your overall point I agree entirely – I’m just nitpicking the details because, you know, this is the internet
I'm arguing that without France's defeat, Japan would not have occupied Indo-China (which allowed them easy access to Malaya, to attack Singapore in the first place)
Amphibious landings and an overland campaign were still likely, and that was recognised by the British. The issue really comes back to a lack of decent air protection.
Also, France's fall encouraged Italy to enter the war with a view to grabbing Britain's African possessions, as the French Navy's role was to guard the Med, whilst the Royal Navy guarded the Atlantic.
The French defeat definitely encouraged Italy to start grabbing what it could (starting with an ineffective attack on France itself in the last days before ceasefire), that’s true.
But then that caused about as many problems for the Germans as it did for the British. Had British troops not been diverted to Greece, Italy could have been routed from Africa before German troops were even called for. But even that blunder was recoverable, if Churchill had appreciated the British strategic position, and strengthened Singapore by reducing the flow of supply to Africa.
But instead Churchill was chasing that decisive win in Africa, pouring in resources that were squandered on a British army that wasn’t really capable of effective offensives against roughly equal German forces at that time. Singapore was left bare and the rest is history.
And of course, if France hadn't fallen, Germany would not have attacked the Soviet Union.
France certainly had to be pacified. I actually doubt many German planners thought that would be achieved through total conquest, but once that happened, well it was more than a nice bonus.
After reading the military history of Germany's invasion of France in 1940, I'm amazed at how many chances the Allies had to stop the Germans. It's all Ifs, but, maybe, but it was a lot closer than people realise.
My own reading is similar. For a long time I saw a lot of it as misfortune, and a lot of it certainly was. But more and more it’s the terrible planning and generally dysfunctional senior command – before the war too many challenges to orthodoxy were ignored. One of the great tragedies of history, really.
Why didn't the troops land on the North German coast?
I understand the liberation of France was on high priority, but seriously - consider it. Most of the German Wehrmacht is battling on the Eastern Front. The Germans are anticipating an allied landing at Calais and have some divisions in France and the Benelux.
Allies have complete air superiority and naval superiority all over western and northern Europe. Why not land north of Berlin and take the city in 3 weeks instead of landing in France and grind through a broad front of attrition for a year?
Landing on the coast north of Bremen would make the supply lines from the English coast only about 3x as long as that to Normandy. The invasion fleet was MASSIVE (the largest fleet in human history, according to many), over 1000 ships.
There would be no naval or aerial German power that could challenge that...
Paradigm wrote: That's a good set of points, to which I'd add that the Holocaust sticks out in the Western conscience not just because it adds another level of triumph to their victory, but because unlike most genocides on that scale, people did survive and return to society to tell their stories. Meanwhile, the overwhelming majority of Stalin's victims were either killed instantly or sent to Gulags to work until death; none really got out until much, much later, and even after Stalin's death, the Soviet propaganda machine would be careful about what information was out there.
That's a really good point. Just to add to it, I'd say a lot did survive and even were returned to Soviet society, but that's very different to Holocaust surivors, because the Russians survivors were still part of a closed society. They couldn't write a book of their experiences, and they certainly couldn't go to Hollywood and get a movie made about it.
Ultimately, The Holocaust was a tragedy that lived on in memories and in culture, while The Terror was a set of statistics that was already history by the time anyone other than the perpetrators knew about its true extent. It's really a perception that ought to be changed, but I don't think it will be any time soon.
Yeah. To say nothing of the deaths in China or Cambodia or anywhere else.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sir Arun wrote: You're gonna have to come up with some sources for that.
While the Orthodox church was never formally banned, in the 1920s the party took control of it, basically with the aim of steadily making it disappear. Church officials who argued against this were executed, about 7,000 in total, and about 95,000 other Christians were killed over the next decade. Then in the 30s Stalin declared his five year plan for atheism, which long story short ended up with another 100,000 executed.
A lot of Jews were murdered during the civil war, but it doesn't make much sense to focus on Soviet murders, because the Whites killed vastly more. That's basically the Jewish lot - war breaks out and sooner or later one faction or the other will turn up in your village and murder some people. After the war as Jewish expression and culture began to flourish, the Stalin saw potential for resistance and over the next 5 years executed a number of Jewish leaders and encouraged a revival of anti-semitism. Nothing like the death toll of Christians, or Jews elsewhere, but it is still direct repression through targeted execution.
I read about the polish being abandoned by the west, and betrayed several times, up to the point when they tried to resist the Russian rule at the end of WW2.
History is written by the victors, even now atrocities and genocide are committed by "allies" in the name of tactical advantages, or just financial profit, are tolerated or just ignored.
George Spiggott wrote: Poland was in no position to win, that was a given from day one and part of Polish policy. The Polish plan is to hang on until the Western allies, specifically France come to it's aid. The French gave up on that idea when they encountered Westwall. However that's not the information the planners have before the war who are unawarre of the secret Nazi-Soviet pact. The Czechs also have a belligerent neighbours, Hungary and Poland, as well as the Slovak separatist movement. There's also the problem of preventing a non-German win turning into a Soviet land grab because the French (as we know from Poland) aren't coming and Britain (lets be super generous and say Britain is really up for military intervention) has no means of deciding the outcome of a war in a landlocked country in central Europe.
If Poland had prioritised holding out as long as possible, they wouldn't have pushed a very large portion of their forces in to the Polish corridor, where they were ripe for encirclement. Nor would they have been so thinly spread across the whole of the border. The Polish plan can only really be seen as incoherent, it worried as much about political issues as actual military defence, and the result was a dispersal of forces that was neither capable of holding Gremany at the border, nor fighting for a sustained period.
The other points you raise are valid, but of fairly minor concern compared to actual fighting capability of Czechoslovakia compared to Poland. And if securing the support or neutrality of neighbours was a key issue, shouldn’t Britain have talked to Russia before announcing military support for Poland in the event of German attack?
Why didn't the troops land on the North German coast?
The Allies weren’t going to make a landing at the edge of the range of their fighters, basically. Having a vast armada is great, but without air cover you’re going to lose a lot of ships and sailors.
And not only would the losses to the fleet have been greater, but with the fleet needing to protect itself it’s going to be less free to support the ground troops. Add on that the much reduced presence of fighters and the narrow lines of approach of bombers to support the invasion, and the handful of division put on land in the first few days are going to be largely on their own. Given how important air and naval support was in breaking up German counter attacks in the first few days, and you’ve got real scope for disaster.
Why didn't the troops land on the North German coast?
I understand the liberation of France was on high priority, but seriously - consider it. Most of the German Wehrmacht is battling on the Eastern Front. The Germans are anticipating an allied landing at Calais and have some divisions in France and the Benelux.
Allies have complete air superiority and naval superiority all over western and northern Europe. Why not land north of Berlin and take the city in 3 weeks instead of landing in France and grind through a broad front of attrition for a year?
Landing on the coast north of Bremen would make the supply lines from the English coast only about 3x as long as that to Normandy. The invasion fleet was MASSIVE (the largest fleet in human history, according to many), over 1000 ships.
There would be no naval or aerial German power that could challenge that...
In addition to what Sebster said, there's also the fact that Stalin was very eager for Second Front to draw a portion of German manpower away from the advancing Red Army. An attack by Britain/America/Canada in Germany would do that to some extent, but ultimately would culminate in one long front around the German border in the North and East. Meanwhile, landing in France pulls forces to the other side of Europe, trapping and dividing the Germans, frees France, and is also easier, thanks to the shorter route/availability of air support..
The cynic in me says Stalin would have blocked any proposal for the invasion to come further East; he had designs of his own for everything between Russia and Berlin and wouldn't want the Western Allies interfering. The Russian actions of the last years of the war were as much an invasion as a liberation.
The Allies weren’t going to make a landing at the edge of the range of their fighters, basically. Having a vast armada is great, but without air cover you’re going to lose a lot of ships and sailors.
And not only would the losses to the fleet have been greater, but with the fleet needing to protect itself it’s going to be less free to support the ground troops. Add on that the much reduced presence of fighters and the narrow lines of approach of bombers to support the invasion, and the handful of division put on land in the first few days are going to be largely on their own. Given how important air and naval support was in breaking up German counter attacks in the first few days, and you’ve got real scope for disaster.
-The terrain itself is very poor for an invasion with flooding tidal flats. You basically have to invade shield islands and then invade the mainland.
-Its the inverse of the France situation. Germans are close to their areas of support, whereas its the opposite for the allies.
Well, there are a lot of scenarios. Some of them have the Axis winning and some of them the Allies.
What if France had actually fought back rather than surrendering? Then the war would never have dragged on as long as it did. The Germans use of the Blitzkrieg tactic was very good and countered the semi static French defence but there was a massive issue to it, namely that Blitzkrieg, as with any lighting assault, requires the upkeep of the momentum of advance. If your opponent can bog you down and remove your momentum then your assault often breaks up and your forces end up broken.
From here it is not difficult for the defenders to follow up your retreat with a rapid advance that can swiftly see them gain ground.
If France had followed this style of bogging the advancing Germans down, breaking the assault and then following up on the retreating foe they would have been able to break the back of the German assault in no time and push right on through the territories captured by the Germans. With the Maginot line on their flank to prevent the German army from flanking them and slipping in behind them and with reinforcements from the British the allied armies would have pushed their way into Berlin within a couple of months.
Alternatively one has to look at what would have happened if the US had not been trading with Germany (indirectly via neutral countries) for the first few years of the way. Deprived of the goods from America it would not have been as easy for the Germans to sustain the war effort as long as they did.
Then there is the Russian front to look at. The German invasion of Russia is, with hindsight, the worst move they ever made. Even without the allied invasion of Normandy Germany would have lost as the Red Army was pushing them back to Berlin without any help needed.
But what if Russia had not reacted fast enough and halted the German invasion? What if they had lost their factories? Then they would not have been able to sustain their war effort. Trapped between the German forces and the Japanese border Russia would have fallen and the only hope the Red Army would have had of surviving as a fighting force would to either split up and become a guerilla army or to break out through the Japanese border and retreat through the far east until they met up with British or French forces.
sebster wrote: If Poland had prioritised holding out as long as possible, they wouldn't have pushed a very large portion of their forces in to the Polish corridor, where they were ripe for encirclement. Nor would they have been so thinly spread across the whole of the border. The Polish plan can only really be seen as incoherent, it worried as much about political issues as actual military defence, and the result was a dispersal of forces that was neither capable of holding Gremany at the border, nor fighting for a sustained period.
The other points you raise are valid, but of fairly minor concern compared to actual fighting capability of Czechoslovakia compared to Poland. And if securing the support or neutrality of neighbours was a key issue, shouldn’t Britain have talked to Russia before announcing military support for Poland in the event of German attack?
The dispute with Germany is over the Polish corridor. Nobody knows a two (technically three if you include Slovakia) way invasion of all of Poland is coming. There is no 'actual' fighting capability of Czechoslovakia. You're downplaying serious ethnic divisions in Czechoslovakia that undermine any on paper capabilities of the Czechoslovak armies. Historically the Hungarians and the Poles both helped themselves to Czechoslovak lands. Britain and France have nothing to offer them and they and the Soviets are all geographically isolated.
As for taking to the Soviets it would have taken (and did) a bigger crisis than Czechoslovakia for that to happen.
Were it not for Germany's ideological endgame, chances are the war could have turned out very, very different. For the worse, obviously, since we'd then have a Western Hemisphere of Freedom and the rest of the world would be a totalitarian hellhole.
Of course there's still the American atomic bomb, but with Russia and Germany pooling their scientists together it could have been anyone, really. Scary
Hence the political decision to prioritise defence there by Poland, which left the army stretched and exposed to encirclement. Again, a political and not military decision, and one that reduced the time Poland could last against Germany alone to a month.
Nobody knows a two (technically three if you include Slovakia) way invasion of all of Poland is coming.
It wasn't known, but it was expected . Britain didn't throw a dart at a globe and figure they'd offer protection to whatever country it landed on.
There is no 'actual' fighting capability of Czechoslovakia. You're downplaying serious ethnic divisions in Czechoslovakia that undermine any on paper capabilities of the Czechoslovak armies. Historically the Hungarians and the Poles both helped themselves to Czechoslovak lands. Britain and France have nothing to offer them and they and the Soviets are all geographically isolated.
And I think you're vastly overplaying the issue of internal friction, or downplaying the importance of modern equipment, or overstating the readiness of the Wehrmacht at the point of the Munich talks, or overstating the political stability of Hitler at that time, or some combination of all those things.
As for taking to the Soviets it would have taken (and did) a bigger crisis than Czechoslovakia for that to happen.
Huh? Negotiations stopped and started throughout the 20s and 30s.
sebster wrote: It wasn't known, but it was expected . Britain didn't throw a dart at a globe and figure they'd offer protection to whatever country it landed on.
Not it wasn't expected. The Soviet Nazi agreement is a result of the failure at Munich and a secret. Hitler’s demands on Poland
sebster wrote: And I think you're vastly overplaying the issue of internal friction, or downplaying the importance of modern equipment, or overstating the readiness of the Wehrmacht at the point of the Munich talks, or overstating the political stability of Hitler at that time, or some combination of all those things.
Then you simply do not understand the ethnic situation in Czechoslovakia in the late 1930s. It's not 'what if', it is what actually occurred. As for the 'what if', the Czechoslovaks involved on a war, potentially on two fronts, with nothing in the way of modern armaments that the Poles do not also possess in a much smaller country with a much smaller population with no external support isn't going to go well.
Huh? Negotiations stopped and started throughout the 20s and 30s.
Britain regarded the USSR as a pariah state for most of the 1920s and Poland had an ongoing programme to destabilise the Soviet government and separate the Socialist Republics. I doubt there’s much real intent to use the Soviet Union to support Poland they both believe that the other is occupying their land.
