Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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?

Here you go, I grew up watching this show.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbKYbLUkIpk&list=PL6KHloQnrWy0TlpJe5hi8M_Fzv1WdcHG9

That's all episodes.

 Sir Arun wrote:


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.

 Sir Arun wrote:

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.

GG

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?

America would run the world. 'Murica represent!!

What If this thread is breaking the rules and is more Personal Blog or something else?

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.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 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.

Oh. Now I know.

 generalgrog wrote:


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?

Yeah, Degaul was actually a pretty forward thinking general. He was surrounded by staff stuck in WWI tactics sadly.

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.

 Paradigm wrote:

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).

Thank goodness he was incompetent, eh!

 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.

 Paradigm wrote:

 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.

 Frazzled wrote:

 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.

In general, not just France.

Billy Mitchell, Hap Arnold, Guderian, some Russian guys, Ford.

 Frazzled wrote:
In general, not just France.

Billy Mitchell, Hap Arnold, Guderian, some Russian guys, Ford.

Okay... so what on earth did that have to do with what we were discussing?

Your post was literally, there were forward thinking people in WWII. Really? Thanks.

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.

 Wyrmalla wrote:


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.

 Strombones wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:


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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

Excellent point.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

But Germany wasn't smart now was it.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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?

 Frazzled wrote:
But Germany wasn't smart now was it.

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?