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.

Another aspect to consider, would Germany have been able to succeed in it's goal of linking up with its allies in the Middle East? If they could have done that, not only would they have a large and steady source of oil, but also minerals needed for more advanced alloys. This could make Germany a much larger threat.

I agree with Peregrine, the Germans are lucky the war ended when it did. Peeps like to debate how close the Japanese were to surrendering and whether the atomic bombs were worth it, but Hitler's decision is not in doubt. If he had been able to hold off the Russians for another year Berlin would have been nuked.

I can't understand how no one is commenting on the youtube video I posted. I will post the link again. It is absolutely fascinating and explains the whole war in 30min.




The problem about reading up on WWII is that most authors interview generals but the generals only know so much. They rarely understand the economics of it, and are credited with the win or loss when there is so much out of their control.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Another aspect to consider, would Germany have been able to succeed in it's goal of linking up with its allies in the Middle East? If they could have done that, not only would they have a large and steady source of oil, but also minerals needed for more advanced alloys. This could make Germany a much larger threat.

Actually the middle east wasn't producing a lot of oil at the time. The English controlled it and got very little from it. Watch the video! It talks about this. The only option for Germany was southern Russia.

 KTG17 wrote:
I agree with Peregrine, the Germans are lucky the war ended when it did. Peeps like to debate how close the Japanese were to surrendering and whether the atomic bombs were worth it, but Hitler's decision is not in doubt. If he had been able to hold off the Russians for another year Berlin would have been nuked.

I can't understand how no one is commenting on the youtube video I posted. I will post the link again. It is absolutely fascinating and explains the whole war in 30min.




The problem about reading up on WWII is that most authors interview generals but the generals only know so much. They rarely understand the economics of it, and are credited with the win or loss when there is so much out of their control.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Another aspect to consider, would Germany have been able to succeed in it's goal of linking up with its allies in the Middle East? If they could have done that, not only would they have a large and steady source of oil, but also minerals needed for more advanced alloys. This could make Germany a much larger threat.

Actually the middle east wasn't producing a lot of oil at the time. The English controlled it and got very little from it. Watch the video! It talks about this. The only option for Germany was southern Russia.

No one is doubting that Germany had no realistic chance of winning a long war- it is pretty common knowledge that Germany was crippled by material shortages, especially oil.

The debate has moved to talking about possible outcomes following Germany achieving a quick negotiated truce (forcing Britain out of the war)*, and what the outcomes of that are. I think Germany being immediately nuked into submission become much less likely in that scenario, depending on how they use the few years this buys them. Eventually nuked into submission is probably still the likely end result, but I think there is a likelihood that WW2 would be fought a few years later, with a whole lot more nukes, rather than the US simply steamrolling Germany in one attack wave.

*Not saying this was likely, but it was a possibility.

What people forget about Germany being nuked out is, that the US only had enough resources to build 2 bombs in 1945

And some of those resources came from captured German facilities

There was no chance to nuke Germany out of the war by 1945 and doing the same with Japan

And no one knows what would have been possible until 1950 if Germany had survived that long (while the US developed bombers to attack Europe from the states, Germany planned intercontinental rockets)

 kodos wrote:
What people forget about Germany being nuked out is, that the US only had enough resources to build 2 bombs in 1945

You know we blew up two test bombs in 1945 and almost a dozen in 1946, right? We still have Irradiated US soil from those tests.

Something the size and scope of the war in the East during WW2 is far too large to provide a simple answer.

I just don't see how Germany is supposed to achieve a truce with the UK. I mean, we are talking about a nation whose response to being bombed was to fight harder.

Even if the British Expeditionary Force had been destroyed in Dunkirk, it wouldn't have changed the strategic situation of the war.

 Haighus wrote:
Yes, the 1948 B-36 flew at ~40,000ft. The 1945 Me262 had a ceiling of 37,500ft. That is a full three years later, and it barely flew any higher. It wasn't until 1954 that the B-36 was able to operate at 48,000ft. Assuming the B-36 would be uninterceptable is dangerous, and liable to cause a disaster. Strategic bombing theorists thought the same thing in the 30's- strategic bombers would be immune to interception.

But we're also talking about an alternate future where the US doesn't put B-36 development on hold when it becomes clear that the UK is not going to fall. Development priorities change if the strategic situation changes, and the US is no longer going to be going with the approach of building thousands of "good enough" bombers and overwhelming Germany with sheer numbers.

The British would be unlikely to share all their tech, including Tube Alloys, if they were no longer in imminent risk of invasion. They would be preparing for future Nazi aggression, sure, but things wouldn't be so desperate as to share key technology with a strategic rival.

And what's the best way to prepare for future Nazi aggression when you've been so badly beaten that you have to surrender? Appeal to your ally (who is already "neutral" in name only and blatantly aiding your side) with an invulnerable strategic position and obscene industrial capacity, give them the tools to win, and hold out for a few years before the Nazi threat is removed from the map.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kodos wrote:
What people forget about Germany being nuked out is, that the US only had enough resources to build 2 bombs in 1945

That's why the timeline is 1946-47, when the US had a lot more bombs. Germany has to lose the war by then or they cease to exist.

(while the US developed bombers to attack Europe from the states, Germany planned intercontinental rockets)

They did not, however, have the nuclear weapons for those rockets. Throwing ICBMs with conventional explosives at the US is going to make them mad. Throwing nuclear-armed B-36s at Germany is going to erase Germany from the map.

Tyran wrote:
I just don't see how Germany is supposed to achieve a truce with the UK. I mean, we are talking about a nation whose response to being bombed was to fight harder.

Even if the British Expeditionary Force had been destroyed in Dunkirk, it wouldn't have changed the strategic situation of the war.

I thought the same way - that's how it's presented in high school history books certainly, but reading memoirs of the time period really does show Neville Chamberlain in favor of peace rather than continued armed conflict. I don't think anyone would have blamed the British - America was not yet a heavy military presence in the war and France was clearly lost. Setting up a truce to buy a decade of rearming and recovery probably seemed like a good idea - after all there was a good chance that the Nazis would be destroyed by within if left to thier own devices. Remeber that the Cold War hadn't occurred yet and nobody alive truly understood what a 10 year military standoff could be like.

Losing the British Expendintary force at Dunkirk would have been an unmitigated disaster. It's unlikely that Germany could have ever invaded the British Home Isles in their current state, but the British/polish/french surivovrs of Dunkirk were the veteran core around which the Africian and Equropean fronts were established. Moreover, Britian was already at the brink when it came to finding soliders. Wipe 330,000 soldiers off the pages of history and that really changes things.

When it comes to using the bombing of Britian as an example of british resolve, that mostly shows Hitler's misunderstanding of how terror tactics work. The threat of constant attack worked only as long as there was somewhere to retreat to - an critical component that lead to Dunkirk in the first place. Once the British civlians, on their lone island, were faced with no ability to avoid danger they became as resolved as their military counterparts. The same thing happened in the late days of Berlin, where the eastern Berlin citizens would commit themselves in deadly street to street fighting, often attacking tanks and other vehicles in hand to hand combat attacks. The Russians made it clear that surrender wasn't going to happen and for that part of the city the resistance was bitter and resolute. On the other hand, the Russians complained that the American/European push had faced very little resistance, with their policy of accepting surrender having been well known. Despite the fact that the US Marines often failed to honor any surrender terms (a stated policy at the time), the Germans still flocked to American lines to turn over their weapons and request food.

Hitler should have looked at 'bottling' Britian instead of invading it, but that wasn't in line with his philosophy.

ChargerIIC wrote:

Tyran wrote:
I just don't see how Germany is supposed to achieve a truce with the UK. I mean, we are talking about a nation whose response to being bombed was to fight harder.

Even if the British Expeditionary Force had been destroyed in Dunkirk, it wouldn't have changed the strategic situation of the war.

I thought the same way - that's how it's presented in high school history books certainly, but reading memoirs of the time period really does show Neville Chamberlain in favor of peace rather than continued armed conflict. I don't think anyone would have blamed the British - America was not yet a heavy military presence in the war and France was clearly lost. Setting up a truce to buy a decade of rearming and recovery probably seemed like a good idea - after all there was a good chance that the Nazis would be destroyed by within if left to thier own devices. Remeber that the Cold War hadn't occurred yet and nobody alive truly understood what a 10 year military standoff could be like.

Losing the British Expendintary force at Dunkirk would have been an unmitigated disaster. It's unlikely that Germany could have ever invaded the British Home Isles in their current state, but the British/polish/french surivovrs of Dunkirk were the veteran core around which the Africian and Equropean fronts were established. Moreover, Britian was already at the brink when it came to finding soliders. Wipe 330,000 soldiers off the pages of history and that really changes things.

When it comes to using the bombing of Britian as an example of british resolve, that mostly shows Hitler's misunderstanding of how terror tactics work. The threat of constant attack worked only as long as there was somewhere to retreat to - an critical component that lead to Dunkirk in the first place. Once the British civlians, on their lone island, were faced with no ability to avoid danger they became as resolved as their military counterparts. The same thing happened in the late days of Berlin, where the eastern Berlin citizens would commit themselves in deadly street to street fighting, often attacking tanks and other vehicles in hand to hand combat attacks. The Russians made it clear that surrender wasn't going to happen and for that part of the city the resistance was bitter and resolute. On the other hand, the Russians complained that the American/European push had faced very little resistance, with their policy of accepting surrender having been well known. Despite the fact that the US Marines often failed to honor any surrender terms (a stated policy at the time), the Germans still flocked to American lines to turn over their weapons and request food.

Hitler should have looked at 'bottling' Britian instead of invading it, but that wasn't in line with his philosophy.

This. It is easy to look back with hindsight, and say the British would never agree to a ceasefire, but it was a close run thing after the Battle of France. This would be due to a political loss, not a military conquest, in many ways similar to the French treaty (France was not militarily done when it surrendered- it was the political will that ran out). It is easy to see why- WWI had been fought 20 years ago, and the UK was still feeling the effects nearly as much as France. A peace treaty would probably see the Empire preserved, because terms were likely to be fairly generous (peace benefited Hitler at this stage). Therefore, it was a fairly attractive option for the UK. If Churchill had not become Prime Minister, it could well have happened.

In this position, the US is still a rival just as much as an ally- the UK was only forced to ceed as much power as it did to the US because of the desperate position it was put in by choosing to continue prosecuting WWII. The incentive to share key technologies with the US is far less when invasion is not imminent and the Empire now has the time and resources to develop them again. The UK would probably be the first nuclear power if peace was brokered in 1940.

Peregrine wrote:

 Haighus wrote:
Yes, the 1948 B-36 flew at ~40,000ft. The 1945 Me262 had a ceiling of 37,500ft. That is a full three years later, and it barely flew any higher. It wasn't until 1954 that the B-36 was able to operate at 48,000ft. Assuming the B-36 would be uninterceptable is dangerous, and liable to cause a disaster. Strategic bombing theorists thought the same thing in the 30's- strategic bombers would be immune to interception.

But we're also talking about an alternate future where the US doesn't put B-36 development on hold when it becomes clear that the UK is not going to fall. Development priorities change if the strategic situation changes, and the US is no longer going to be going with the approach of building thousands of "good enough" bombers and overwhelming Germany with sheer numbers.

Except the US is also under no direct threat from Germany, and is not in the same position to make a bid as the world hegemon. They also previously had a fairly isolationist policy, which is why it took so much to drag them properly into WWII. I don't think developing intercontinental strategic bombers is going to be as much of a priority for a peacetime US as it is for a wartime one- it would probably just take the peace dividend. It also would not have the same wealth of research in operating strategic bombers that it gained form operating in Western Europe.

The British would be unlikely to share all their tech, including Tube Alloys, if they were no longer in imminent risk of invasion. They would be preparing for future Nazi aggression, sure, but things wouldn't be so desperate as to share key technology with a strategic rival.

And what's the best way to prepare for future Nazi aggression when you've been so badly beaten that you have to surrender? Appeal to your ally (who is already "neutral" in name only and blatantly aiding your side) with an invulnerable strategic position and obscene industrial capacity, give them the tools to win, and hold out for a few years before the Nazi threat is removed from the map.

Britain would probably still be in a strong position after a negotiated peace with Hitler- see above. They'd be unlikely to even lose any territory to Germany. They'd also still be a rival, as well as an ally, and it took Nazi aggression to fully push the US into being a full ally. Prior to that they were more than neutral, but not actively in alliance. Giving the US the tools to win also gave them the tools to become global hegemon, a position previously held by the UK, and still up-for-grabs following WWI. Peace would allow the UK the time and resources to focus on their own nuclear program in a period of rearming prior to WWII starting a few years after the Anglo-Franco-German war of 1940.

Negotiated peaces were pretty common in European politics between the great powers right up until the 20th century- WWI and WWII are unusual in that they resulted in the near total subjugation of the losing side. Therefore "so badly beaten" more likely means "bloodied nose and left to lick wounds".

 cuda1179 wrote:
With the Soviets more focused on Japan, and the need for more support in Europe, Americans would likely have diverted troops from the Pacific to Europe.

Ah... 90% of American warfighting effort went to Europe in our history. And given that the war in the Pacific required LOTS of (relatively) expensive ships and planes, but not all that much manpower compared to the number of men sent to Europe, well, there wasn't all that many troops TO divert from the Pacific.

Instead of Korea and Vietnam, I think conflicts in the Balkans would have been likely.

Unless someone quite firmly has a boot on their neck (be it the Romans, the Byzanties, the Austro-Hungarians, or the Russians) there is ALWAYS conflicts in the Balkans. Go a thousand years in the past, there's a Balkan crisis. Go a thousand years in the future, there will be a Balkan crisis. Go to any point in between, there's another Balkan crisis. Those people just cannot get along.

 Vulcan wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
With the Soviets more focused on Japan, and the need for more support in Europe, Americans would likely have diverted troops from the Pacific to Europe.

Ah... 90% of American warfighting effort went to Europe in our history. And given that the war in the Pacific required LOTS of (relatively) expensive ships and planes, but not all that much manpower compared to the number of men sent to Europe, well, there wasn't all that many troops TO divert from the Pacific.

Instead of Korea and Vietnam, I think conflicts in the Balkans would have been likely.

Unless someone quite firmly has a boot on their neck (be it the Romans, the Byzanties, the Austro-Hungarians, or the Russians) there is ALWAYS conflicts in the Balkans. Go a thousand years in the past, there's a Balkan crisis. Go a thousand years in the future, there will be a Balkan crisis. Go to any point in between, there's another Balkan crisis. Those people just cannot get along.

To be fair austria -hungary massively fethed up in their balkans policy. They never should've just annexed bosnia, because A)that annexation isolated them diplomaticaly and B) made the recently new and independent states in the Balkan fear them.
They easily could've gone down and split bosnia with serbia or release bosnia as a puppet state and the whole situation would've been easier to handle.
Secondly: the hungarian part should 've never been allowed the magyarization politicy since they massively destabilized the empire.
Thirdly and perhaps most importantly, multinational countries require a government of legitimacy and a chain of loyality from the local region to the state to the country, if you can achieve this chain via federalization and autonomy then such a state is golden, albeit politically a bit slower.

Elbows wrote:Something the size and scope of the war in the East during WW2 is far too large to provide a simple answer.

Aye. If there's one thing the years of plugging away in military archives to uncover the tiniest shred of certainty has taught me; it's that history is very much a coin with several interdimensional angles. I'd require at least twenty five years of constant dedicated study before I'd venture to make some of the statements being made with sweeping conviction in this thread.

Haighus wrote:
Negotiated peaces were pretty common in European politics between the great powers right up until the 20th century- WWI and WWII are unusual in that they resulted in the near total subjugation of the losing side. Therefore "so badly beaten" more likely means "bloodied nose and left to lick wounds".

The idea that the 1918 Treaty of Versailles was the 'near-total subjugation of the losing side' has been one of the greatest propaganda coups of the Nazis and anti-war campaigners to still survive. It was nowhere near as bad as the terms of the 1918 Treaty of Brest-Litovsk which the Germans imposed on Russia for peace. Frankly, it was basically a re-run of the 1871 Treaty of Versailles; in which part of France was temporarily occupied by the German forces, Alsace-Lorraine got swapped around like Pokemon Cards, and the French had to foot a massive reparations bill. The difference is that the French knuckled under, paid up, and picked themselves back up again without feeling the need to fight their neighbour a second time.

Whereas the Germans used it being visited back on them as an excuse for WW2. Then in trying to assess why the world wars happened and ensure that large-scale conflict didn't happen again, various peace campaigners seized upon the Nazi rhetoric and promulgated it throughout the West from before WW2 and long past it.

The Treaty of Versailles was really nothing particularly exceptional for terms of surrender in historical context. It wasn't overly cruel or taxing; despite what your average History GCSE might tell you. Certainly not a 'near-subjugation of the losing side'.

 ChargerIIC wrote:

Tyran wrote:
I just don't see how Germany is supposed to achieve a truce with the UK. I mean, we are talking about a nation whose response to being bombed was to fight harder.

Even if the British Expeditionary Force had been destroyed in Dunkirk, it wouldn't have changed the strategic situation of the war.

I thought the same way - that's how it's presented in high school history books certainly, but reading memoirs of the time period really does show Neville Chamberlain in favor of peace rather than continued armed conflict. I don't think anyone would have blamed the British - America was not yet a heavy military presence in the war and France was clearly lost. Setting up a truce to buy a decade of rearming and recovery probably seemed like a good idea - after all there was a good chance that the Nazis would be destroyed by within if left to thier own devices. Remeber that the Cold War hadn't occurred yet and nobody alive truly understood what a 10 year military standoff could be like.

Losing the British Expendintary force at Dunkirk would have been an unmitigated disaster. It's unlikely that Germany could have ever invaded the British Home Isles in their current state, but the British/polish/french surivovrs of Dunkirk were the veteran core around which the Africian and Equropean fronts were established. Moreover, Britian was already at the brink when it came to finding soliders. Wipe 330,000 soldiers off the pages of history and that really changes things.

When it comes to using the bombing of Britian as an example of british resolve, that mostly shows Hitler's misunderstanding of how terror tactics work. The threat of constant attack worked only as long as there was somewhere to retreat to - an critical component that lead to Dunkirk in the first place. Once the British civlians, on their lone island, were faced with no ability to avoid danger they became as resolved as their military counterparts. The same thing happened in the late days of Berlin, where the eastern Berlin citizens would commit themselves in deadly street to street fighting, often attacking tanks and other vehicles in hand to hand combat attacks. The Russians made it clear that surrender wasn't going to happen and for that part of the city the resistance was bitter and resolute. On the other hand, the Russians complained that the American/European push had faced very little resistance, with their policy of accepting surrender having been well known. Despite the fact that the US Marines often failed to honor any surrender terms (a stated policy at the time), the Germans still flocked to American lines to turn over their weapons and request food.

Hitler should have looked at 'bottling' Britian instead of invading it, but that wasn't in line with his philosophy.

The loss of the BEF would be a disaster, but it would be strategically irrelevant. The British still controls the sea and Germany is still incapable of invading. The UK has no reason to accept a truce, because they know that they still have the economic and strategic advantage.

As for manpower, the British still have plenty of untapped reserves like their colonial forces. Even their own population is still capable of supplying much more manpower. A year after Dunkirk the British had increased their army by more than a million men, by the end of the War the UK had mobilized more than 3 million soldiers. The 250k men of the BEF, while significant, are only but a small part of the UK's armed forces.

The lack of a core of veterans would hurt, but the British were still learning the art of modern warfare, so it is debatable how much it will hurt. But the lost of the BEF, as painful as it could be, is not enough to put the UK out of the war.

I've been thinking about the '1948 America nukes Germany off the map no matter what' argument... and I don't think it holds water.

Why? If it were true, that America nukes Germany off the map in peacetime, then why didn't America nuke the Soviets off the map in 1948? After all, the Soviets had no real way to return the threat against mainland America until the ICBM was developed in the sixties.

And the simple answer is this: it was peacetime. The beginning of the Cold War, certainly, but still officially peacetime. Along with a nation that believed in the propaganda line 'we don't start wars; we finish them'...

 Vulcan wrote:
I've been thinking about the '1948 America nukes Germany off the map no matter what' argument... and I don't think it holds water.

Why? If it were true, that America nukes Germany off the map in peacetime, then why didn't America nuke the Soviets off the map in 1948? After all, the Soviets had no real way to return the threat against mainland America until the ICBM was developed in the sixties.

And the simple answer is this: it was peacetime. The beginning of the Cold War, certainly, but still officially peacetime. Along with a nation that believed in the propaganda line 'we don't start wars; we finish them'...

It also presupposes that Germany just doesn't develop during all those years of peace and never develops a way to counter high-attitude bombers, invents the atomic bomb itself or finds another way to retaliate against the US. Which is kinda silly imho.
I think if Nazi Germany had made peace with the UK and never invaded the Soviet Union, it would have been an early start to the Cold War, except of course now it would have been a threeway of US vs Germany vs SU.

 Ketara wrote:

Haighus wrote:
Negotiated peaces were pretty common in European politics between the great powers right up until the 20th century- WWI and WWII are unusual in that they resulted in the near total subjugation of the losing side. Therefore "so badly beaten" more likely means "bloodied nose and left to lick wounds".

The idea that the 1918 Treaty of Versailles was the 'near-total subjugation of the losing side' has been one of the greatest propaganda coups of the Nazis and anti-war campaigners to still survive. It was nowhere near as bad as the terms of the 1918 Treaty of Brest-Litovsk which the Germans imposed on Russia for peace. Frankly, it was basically a re-run of the 1871 Treaty of Versailles; in which part of France was temporarily occupied by the German forces, Alsace-Lorraine got swapped around like Pokemon Cards, and the French had to foot a massive reparations bill. The difference is that the French knuckled under, paid up, and picked themselves back up again without feeling the need to fight their neighbour a second time.

Whereas the Germans used it being visited back on them as an excuse for WW2. Then in trying to assess why the world wars happened and ensure that large-scale conflict didn't happen again, various peace campaigners seized upon the Nazi rhetoric and promulgated it throughout the West from before WW2 and long past it.

The Treaty of Versailles was really nothing particularly exceptional for terms of surrender in historical context. It wasn't overly cruel or taxing; despite what your average History GCSE might tell you. Certainly not a 'near-subjugation of the losing side'.

Fair points, although Germany also lost the entiriety of it's overseas colonies, and much of it's European continental holdings were stripped away, with Poland and Czechoslovakia becoming independent. Germany ceased being an empire following WWI. France did not cease being an empire following the Franco-Prussian war. The country was also considerably more affected in the proportion of manpower and resoruces lost, in comparison to France after 1871- the scale of the warfare was simply much larger.

Further, if the Entente had wished, they could've forced the break-up of the entire German state into its constituent regions, and Germany would've been totally unable to resist this. I don't think Prussia wielded sufficient power over France to be able to do the same after the Franco-Prussian war. Germany almost collapsed into revolution, and was utterly unable to continue waging war against the Entente- so I think it is true that the Entente had subjugated Germany, and only chose not to impose extremely harsh terms (probably largely due to the US).

Therefore I think the position was quite different to 1871, in that the conditions imposed on Germany were notably harsher, and the potential of Germany to resist was basically non-existent.

 Ketara wrote:

Elbows wrote:Something the size and scope of the war in the East during WW2 is far too large to provide a simple answer.

Aye. If there's one thing the years of plugging away in military archives to uncover the tiniest shred of certainty has taught me; it's that history is very much a coin with several interdimensional angles. I'd require at least twenty five years of constant dedicated study before I'd venture to make some of the statements being made with sweeping conviction in this thread.

Haighus wrote:
Negotiated peaces were pretty common in European politics between the great powers right up until the 20th century- WWI and WWII are unusual in that they resulted in the near total subjugation of the losing side. Therefore "so badly beaten" more likely means "bloodied nose and left to lick wounds".

The idea that the 1918 Treaty of Versailles was the 'near-total subjugation of the losing side' has been one of the greatest propaganda coups of the Nazis and anti-war campaigners to still survive. It was nowhere near as bad as the terms of the 1918 Treaty of Brest-Litovsk which the Germans imposed on Russia for peace. Frankly, it was basically a re-run of the 1871 Treaty of Versailles; in which part of France was temporarily occupied by the German forces, Alsace-Lorraine got swapped around like Pokemon Cards, and the French had to foot a massive reparations bill. The difference is that the French knuckled under, paid up, and picked themselves back up again without feeling the need to fight their neighbour a second time.

Whereas the Germans used it being visited back on them as an excuse for WW2. Then in trying to assess why the world wars happened and ensure that large-scale conflict didn't happen again, various peace campaigners seized upon the Nazi rhetoric and promulgated it throughout the West from before WW2 and long past it.

The Treaty of Versailles was really nothing particularly exceptional for terms of surrender in historical context. It wasn't overly cruel or taxing; despite what your average History GCSE might tell you. Certainly not a 'near-subjugation of the losing side'.

Agreed. Compared for example to the treaty of Trianon that was forced upon Hungary, Versailles let Germany get away with a light bop on the nose.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
I've been thinking about the '1948 America nukes Germany off the map no matter what' argument... and I don't think it holds water.

Why? If it were true, that America nukes Germany off the map in peacetime, then why didn't America nuke the Soviets off the map in 1948? After all, the Soviets had no real way to return the threat against mainland America until the ICBM was developed in the sixties.

And the simple answer is this: it was peacetime. The beginning of the Cold War, certainly, but still officially peacetime. Along with a nation that believed in the propaganda line 'we don't start wars; we finish them'...

It also presupposes that Germany just doesn't develop during all those years of peace and never develops a way to counter high-attitude bombers, invents the atomic bomb itself or finds another way to retaliate against the US. Which is kinda silly imho.
I think if Nazi Germany had made peace with the UK and never invaded the Soviet Union, it would have been an early start to the Cold War, except of course now it would have been a threeway of US vs Germany vs SU.

Especially so as most of the jet and rocket fighters produced by Germany at the end of WWII could reach around 40,000ft, which was where high-altitude bombers operated at till the mid 50's. They already had the capability to intercept bombers at that height, albeit at their combat ceilings.

The US nuking Germany is silly. But the US would have no problem grinding Germany into bloody dust because the difference in population, economy and industry is insane.

Germany never was a peer opponent to the US.

 Haighus wrote:

Fair points, although Germany also lost the entiriety of it's overseas colonies,

Germany's overseas colonies were all but non-existent. That was half of the Kaiser's reason for going to war. 'Place in the sun', etc. It looks like a lot on a map if you look; but in reality it mostly consisted of a little gunboat sailing past and waving a flag at black people twice a year and the odd international merchant setting up shop to do business. Nothing of any real substantial economic worth or colonisation. That was one of the German complaints pre-war; that all the good bits were already taken!

Furthermore, much of what little was lost went to the Japanese, as opposed to the British or the French and had little to do with Versailles. Losing a handful of expensive ghost towns/market stalls in the middle of nowhere was not a particularly harsh burden. Even Hitler didn't bother pressing to regain the colonies, they figured so little in the German mind post-war. The Nazi Office related to the concept actually got closed down in '43 it was deemed so irrelevant as an issue! The colonies thing was one of the Kaiser's bugbears more than anything, and it left the building as something of significance when he did.

Additionally, the Prussian Army in 1871 did actually want to strip France's colonial possessions; it was only Bismarck that held them back. So that one almost did make it to the table in 1871.

and much of it's European continental holdings were stripped away, with Poland and Czechoslovakia becoming independent. Germany ceased being an empire following WWI. France did not cease being an empire following the Franco-Prussian war.

These events had little to do with Versailles, and were more to do with a paper acquiescence by Germany of what was effectively already the case in territories unrelated to the Entente.

Poland's partition wasn't 'imposed' on a 'subjugated' Germany by the Allies, or her land stripped from her as retribution; it was the mere acknowledgement of the result of a bloody domestic insurrection initiated six months prior before Versailles was signed. The German Army had been mostly thrown out of Poland.Versailles is not the reason that chunks of Polish territory were lost to Germany, and it's demeaning to the men and women who fought for their independence to ascribe the success of their struggle to the Allies at the peace table. Furthermore, the entire southern section of Poland was actually torn from the dead (legally as of 1918) corpse of Austria-Hungary. The only bit actually ceded by Germany at Versailles was the Polish corridor which; let's be honest, would likely have been seized within a month or two regardless of what was said in a train carriage in France. In some regards, Versailles was a favour to Germany. It stopped Poland taking even more land off of them.



Czechoslovakia meanwhile, like Southern Poland, was primarily extracted from Austro-Hungarian lands (even the Sudetenland didn't actually belong to Germany). Being compelled to the terrible tragedy of acknowledging somebody else's empire is being broken up is hardly a mortal blow to pride and honour.

In both cases, being forced to acknowledge reality relating to third parties on a bit of paper is hardly an onerous treaty condition; anymore than accepting the current situation with Russia was. Neither was anything particularly to do with the 'subjugation of Germany' by the Allies. Alsace-Lorraine in both instances (1871 & 1919) was far more relevant and painful.

The country was also considerably more affected in the proportion of manpower and resoruces lost, in comparison to France after 1871- the scale of the warfare was simply much larger.

Just because more men were killed on both sides does not mean that the agreement is suddenly so much harsher. They were quite happy to impose very similar conditions on France in 1870; and France didn't feel the need to go on Napoleon II: Electric Boogaloo twenty years later.

Further, if the Entente had wished, they could've forced the break-up of the entire German state into its constituent regions, and Germany would've been totally unable to resist this. I don't think Prussia wielded sufficient power over France to be able to do the same after the Franco-Prussian war. Germany almost collapsed into revolution, and was utterly unable to continue waging war against the Entente- so I think it is true that the Entente had subjugated Germany, and only chose not to impose extremely harsh terms (probably largely due to the US).

Therefore I think the position was quite different to 1871, in that the conditions imposed on Germany were notably harsher, and the potential of Germany to resist was basically non-existent.

Firstly, I was primarily addressing the claim that Versailles was a particularly unusual and harsh imposition on the German people; worse than what would usually be expected in this sort of circumstance. Given that it was far more lenient than what Germany made Russia sign beforehand, and about on par for what France signed in 1871? The answer remains; no, not really, not in a wider historical context. Versailles wasn't 'unusual', and it didn't 'subjugate' Germany; any more than the 1871 version subjugated France.

Secondly, as a follow up point; France in 1870 had no real capacity to resist any longer. Napoleon had been captured, Paris besieged by new long range artillery which it couldn't fight, and every one of their field armies effectively thrashed. Germany was already occupying their country. The thing about industrialised warfare even in 1870, is that your average citizen with a musket from 1810 stashed in the family attic is completely unable to fight a needle rifle. Enough citizens died sallying from Paris getting gunned down like dogs to prove that. With the government fled, captured, or ineffective, no substantial standing armies remaining (the last one got smashed at Lisaine before fleeing abroad to be disarmed by the Swiss), and 500,000 enemy troops on their soil? In some regards Germany in 1918 was actually in a better position than the French in 1870. So no dice there again.

 Vulcan wrote:
If it were true, that America nukes Germany off the map in peacetime, then why didn't America nuke the Soviets off the map in 1948?

There was actually a significant argument in the US that we should reach Berlin and keep going, nuking the Soviets as needed. It was overruled in large part because we'd be betraying our allies, a situation that doesn't exist with Germany.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Haighus wrote:
Especially so as most of the jet and rocket fighters produced by Germany at the end of WWII could reach around 40,000ft, which was where high-altitude bombers operated at till the mid 50's. They already had the capability to intercept bombers at that height, albeit at their combat ceilings.

It's not that simple. First of all, the ME-262 can't even get that high, and the rocket planes can only get there for a very brief moment before they become gliders. Then the interceptor has to actually get into position to attack, which is easier said than done. If the bombers don't fly right over the rocket interceptor's launch position it doesn't have the range to intercept. If the bombers are identified too late the interceptors can't reach them in time, a very real threat given that they would be operating at the extreme edge of their performance limits. And then even if the interceptors get there they have to face the fact that the B-36 is more maneuverable than a fighter of that era at 40,000' and is armed with far superior guns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyran wrote:
The loss of the BEF would be a disaster, but it would be strategically irrelevant. The British still controls the sea and Germany is still incapable of invading. The UK has no reason to accept a truce, because they know that they still have the economic and strategic advantage.

Exactly. Even complete annihilation at Dunkirk is strategically irrelevant. The RAF is untouched, the Royal Navy still makes any attempted invasion nothing more than a very efficient method of drowning the entire German army in an afternoon, and even losing the ground forces required for an invasion of Germany just makes it more likely that Germany is erased by nuclear weapons. The UK was not anywhere near being forced to surrender, and they had to have known that giving Germany the ability to consolidate their gains and secure uncontested control over Europe would only weaken the UK position in the future. Any "truce" is nothing more than stalling long enough to recover and resume the war.

And contrary to what you say, most Russians, including those not from major cities, cared very much who ruled them. Russians have always been a xenophobic bunch, but I don't think you quite understand the intense hatred of Germans that washed over Russia after the Nazi invasion. Most people from Western Russia (and that is a big part of the Russian population) had witnessed German brutality first hand. They wanted to see the Germans suffer as much as possible, there was no question about serving them.To this day, many Russians still believe the Germans got away easy with their crimes. In other words, the Soviet Union or the Russian people would never have surrendered or accepted any sort of peace deal with Germany. The genocidal aims and brutality of the Nazis was too well known for that. They would have fought to the death regardless of who controls the former capital of Moscow. Most people in Russia never liked the city of Moscow and its people anyways.

Im just going to put this here. https://warontherocks.com/2018/08/fragile-loyalties-soviet-russians-between-hitler-and-stalin/

Many rural Russians had little love for Stalin's Soviet Union.....living in the middle of nowhere has advantages, choosing one megelomanic over the other whos government isnt even going to be seen in your village.......didnt really matter to you as long as you could tend your fields in peace.

Tyran wrote:


Even if the British Expeditionary Force had been destroyed in Dunkirk, it wouldn't have changed the strategic situation of the war.

except wouldnt it have been likely that the British would have sacked Churchill?

 Ketara wrote:
snip

Ok, fair enough- Versaille was no worse than 1871. However, Germany was subjugated, they still had absolutely no way to resist. If the Entente had chosen to gut Germany, would Germany have had any way to stop them? I recognise this was also an option in return in the Franco-Prussian war, which was clearly a prelude to WWI.

Versaille was lenient, but it didn't have to be. The Entente just chose to be lenient, rather than tear the country apart. Germany was subjugated, but then was given a chance. Poland would not have been able to gain it's independence if Germany was not militarily and economically devastated by 4 years of war on two fronts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Haighus wrote:
Especially so as most of the jet and rocket fighters produced by Germany at the end of WWII could reach around 40,000ft, which was where high-altitude bombers operated at till the mid 50's. They already had the capability to intercept bombers at that height, albeit at their combat ceilings.

It's not that simple. First of all, the ME-262 can't even get that high, and the rocket planes can only get there for a very brief moment before they become gliders. Then the interceptor has to actually get into position to attack, which is easier said than done. If the bombers don't fly right over the rocket interceptor's launch position it doesn't have the range to intercept. If the bombers are identified too late the interceptors can't reach them in time, a very real threat given that they would be operating at the extreme edge of their performance limits. And then even if the interceptors get there they have to face the fact that the B-36 is more maneuverable than a fighter of that era at 40,000' and is armed with far superior guns.

The Me262 was shy by about 3000ft with the Jumo engines. The He162 could reach over 39,000 with the BMW engine. This was during the incredibly desperate final few months, when reaching extreme altitude (for the time) was not a priority. I don't think it would be overly difficult to eke out a few thousand more feet of altitude, and those distances put the bombers in range of the rocket-cannons anyway. Even the rocket plane actually had 4 minutes of powered flight at 40,000 feet (longer than it took to achieve that altitude).

Both the Shooting Star and the Gloucester Meteor were able to reach over 40,000 feet too, as contempories. A bomber at 40,000ft was not going to be safe for long, and indeed wasn't when the B-36 was introduced in 1948 (the MiG 9 could already reach over 42,000 ft based on German jet-engine tech, and the MiG 15, brought into service in 1949, over 50,000ft).

 Haighus wrote:

Ok, fair enough- Versaille was no worse than 1871. However, Germany was subjugated, they still had absolutely no way to resist. If the Entente had chosen to gut Germany, would Germany have had any way to stop them? I recognise this was also an option in return in the Franco-Prussian war, which was clearly a prelude to WWI.

Versaille was lenient, but it didn't have to be. The Entente just chose to be lenient, rather than tear the country apart. Germany was subjugated, but then was given a chance. Poland would not have been able to gain it's independence if Germany was not militarily and economically devastated by 4 years of war on two fronts.

I just want to to open here by apologising if I sounded a bit rough/dismissive in my last post. Re-reading, I came across as a bit of a dick with the way I phrased it; and that's completely on me.

I also think that perhaps we might be having different definitions of the word 'subjugated here'. To me ( & the Nazis), subjugation in this case meant enslavement to the will of another. That's usually considered as being a spot more long-term/hands on than being presented with a bill and a temporary occupation.

I suspect the reason the idea of Versailles as being unusually harsh was swallowed by the German public for much the same as the reason as why they went for the 'Stab in the Back' mythology; that is to say, it blamed somebody else for their troubles. Thus, the reason that hyperinflation and political strife was occurring in Germany wasn't because of their own actions. It was because of those horrible Allies and their terribly harsh and cruel subjugation of Germany and their exaction of unreasonable concessions at Versailles. Etc.

Like I said before, this tends to have been one of the longer running WW1 myths, and one that's crossed borders to boot. The funny thing is that France actually wanted Germany to pay less than they were billed; but America insisted upon a larger sum. They were also happy to leave Germany with a larger Army. France's real interest was in annexing a chunk of territory; both for the implicit wealth/future economic potential in it and as an additional buffer. Something that frankly; had much precedence in European wars (check out the result of the Prusso-Austro war which effectively formed Germany).

Yet Wilson is the one that commonly goes down in history as holding a rabid France bent on revenge back!

 Ketara wrote:

 Haighus wrote:

Ok, fair enough- Versaille was no worse than 1871. However, Germany was subjugated, they still had absolutely no way to resist. If the Entente had chosen to gut Germany, would Germany have had any way to stop them? I recognise this was also an option in return in the Franco-Prussian war, which was clearly a prelude to WWI.

Versaille was lenient, but it didn't have to be. The Entente just chose to be lenient, rather than tear the country apart. Germany was subjugated, but then was given a chance. Poland would not have been able to gain it's independence if Germany was not militarily and economically devastated by 4 years of war on two fronts.

I just want to to open here by apologising if I sounded a bit rough/dismissive in my last post. Re-reading, I came across as a bit of a dick with the way I phrased it; and that's completely on me.

I also think that perhaps we might be having different definitions of the word 'subjugated here'. To me ( & the Nazis), subjugation in this case meant enslavement to the will of another. That's usually considered as being a spot more long-term/hands on than being presented with a bill and a temporary occupation.

I suspect the reason it was swallowed by the German public was the same as the reason why they went for the 'Stab in the Back' mythology; that is to say, it blamed somebody else. Thus the reason that hyperinflation and political strife was occurring in Germany wasn't because of their own actions. It was because of those horrible Allies and their terribly harsh and cruel subjugation of Germany and their exaction of unreasonable concessions at Versailles. Etc.

Like I said before, this tends to have been one of the longer running WW1 myths, and one that's crossed borders to boot. The funny thing is that France actually wanted Germany to pay less than they were billed; but America insisted upon a larger sum. They were also happy to leave Germany with a larger Army. France's real interest was in annexing a chunk of territory; both for the implicit wealth/future economic potential in it and as an additional buffer. Something that frankly; had much precedence in European wars (check out the result of the Prusso-Austro war which effectively formed Germany).

Yet Wilson is the one that commonly goes down in history as holding a rabid France bent on revenge back!

No worries! I think the use of the word subjugate is the issue here! Short-term vs long-term. Although I have learnt something about the Treaty of Versaille too. So thanks

Blaming someone else is a common theme in modern politics, when things are not going well domestically- that bit does not surprise me one bit.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

And contrary to what you say, most Russians, including those not from major cities, cared very much who ruled them. Russians have always been a xenophobic bunch, but I don't think you quite understand the intense hatred of Germans that washed over Russia after the Nazi invasion. Most people from Western Russia (and that is a big part of the Russian population) had witnessed German brutality first hand. They wanted to see the Germans suffer as much as possible, there was no question about serving them.To this day, many Russians still believe the Germans got away easy with their crimes. In other words, the Soviet Union or the Russian people would never have surrendered or accepted any sort of peace deal with Germany. The genocidal aims and brutality of the Nazis was too well known for that. They would have fought to the death regardless of who controls the former capital of Moscow. Most people in Russia never liked the city of Moscow and its people anyways.

Im just going to put this here. https://warontherocks.com/2018/08/fragile-loyalties-soviet-russians-between-hitler-and-stalin/

Many rural Russians had little love for Stalin's Soviet Union.....living in the middle of nowhere has advantages, choosing one megelomanic over the other whos government isnt even going to be seen in your village.......didnt really matter to you as long as you could tend your fields in peace.

Just because a few leftover kulaks had Nazi sympathies at first doesn't mean that extends to the vast majority of the Russian peasant population, who had been oppressed by those exact same kulaks for generations. I will note that the article uses a lot of German sources, which makes it highly suspect. Of course the Germans are going to write that they were welcomed like liberators. And initially, that may have been true in some places. Russia at the time was a country that had only just come out of a devastating civil war. Of course there are still going to be plenty of people with White sympathies. However, it doesn't mean that this is anywhere near the majority of the population. The Reds always enjoyed a lot of support in the countryside as well, and that is quite clear from the formation of Red partisan groups everywhere the Germans passed.
Anyways, whatever initial support the Germans enjoyed from anti-communist Russians quickly evaporated when the Germans showed their true face. As I said, even the Cossacks, the most fervently anti-communist people in the entire country, gave up their resistance and joined the Red Army on a large scale. Loyalty to the Soviet Union was enough that Soviet authority could be re-established very quickly behind German lines. Which is another thing that massively contributed to the German defeat. The Germans could only hold any area as long as they were actively guarding it. As soon as they left, the Soviets came back. This means that the Germans were never able to secure their rear and they needed vast amounts of reserves to garrison all of the territory they captured.

But as I said before, if the Germans had abandoned their genocidal attitude, and had presented themselves as liberators and defenders of "Old Russia" and the tsar instead, they would have enjoyed significant support from the Russian people and would have stood a far better chance at winning the war. Luckily, the Germans were suicidally stupid and never were able to capitalise on anti-communist sentiments. In which they actually made a huge contribution to the Soviet Union, since the experience of the war and Nazi brutality united the Russian people like never before and made everyone a fervent patriotic 'communist', even those who had been anti-communists before.

 soundwave591 wrote:

Tyran wrote:


Even if the British Expeditionary Force had been destroyed in Dunkirk, it wouldn't have changed the strategic situation of the war.

except wouldnt it have been likely that the British would have sacked Churchill?

And why would they?

The Germans didn't sack Hitler when they lost forces larger than the BEF, the Russians didn't sack Stalin when they lost the entire western border, the Americans didn't sack FDR when they suffered Pearl Harbor.

To suggest that the British would give up when history is full of examples of people enduring greater loses and continue fighting is calling the British cowards, and the British were not cowards.

Tyran wrote:

 soundwave591 wrote:

Tyran wrote:


Even if the British Expeditionary Force had been destroyed in Dunkirk, it wouldn't have changed the strategic situation of the war.

except wouldnt it have been likely that the British would have sacked Churchill?

And why would they?

The Germans didn't sack Hitler when they lost forces larger than the BEF, the Russians didn't sack Stalin when they lost the entire western border, the Americans didn't sack FDR when they suffered Pearl Harbor.

To suggest that the British would give up when history is full of examples of people enduring greater loses and continue fighting is calling the British cowards, and the British were not cowards.

Don't let your feelings for British Culture get in the way. Neville Chamberlain had incredibly strong support until he didn't over the course of a week. I don't think Churchill would have been sacked - he easily made the argument that the Dunkirk was the fault of the French and there was no effective French Government to gainsay him until long after it mattered. Dunkirk surivors did form a good portion of his powerbase within the military and the media focus on the civilian boatsmen gave him a lot of leverage when it came to wartime rationing and laws - if your fellow countrymen were enduring enemy strafing runs to rescue the boys in butternut, what could you say to a mere increase in taxes and some wartime rationing?