Did the Axis have any chance at all in WWII?

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Cavalcadeus
I know the local librarian fairly well. I'll try to talk her into finding me a copy.

How far are you willing to go to get a copy from her?

[David Floyd]

And is she hot??

[Serb]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Further, if we assume 100-200,000 more Russian losses in 1941 (in Typhoon), and Moscow falling, these attacks are probably repulsed by the Germans.

I recommed you to read the memouirs of German generals who fought there, to understand the situation better. Tounderstand why they didn't won this battle.

Yes, and IMO the Germans had a much better grasp on fluid, mobile battle, hence their successful battles of Vernichtungsgedanke (encirclemant/annihilation) on the Eastern Front throughout the war.

Again, superior armies usaly won the wars not otherwise.

[David Floyd]

I recommed you to read the memouirs of German generals who fought there, to understand the situation better. Tounderstand why they didn't won this battle.

They didn't win for a variety of reasons, mainly (IMO) stemming from not taking Moscow in 1941and being ill prepared for Winter.

Again, superior armies usaly won the wars not otherwise.

The Russians won because of Lend-Lease, a second front (Africa, Italy, and France, emphasis on, believe it or not, Operation Torch), and superior numbers, in that order.

[Serb]

Originally posted by David Floyd


They didn't win for a variety of reasons, mainly (IMO) stemming from not taking Moscow in 1941and being ill prepared for Winter.

Not only, read the books to understand the situation, the morale of German troops and the reasons of their defeat.

The Russians won because of Lend-Lease, a second front (Africa, Italy, and France, emphasis on, believe it or not, Operation Torch), and superior numbers, in that order.

Lend-Lease? As I said 3-5% of war material overall.
Second front?
Just compare the numbers:

November 1941. North Africa, Tobruk. Operation “Crusader”.
Offence- British forces: 6 divisions and 5 brigades. 118 000 soldiers overall.
Defense- AXIS forces: 3 German divisions 7 Italian divisions about 100 000 soldiers overall.

June 1941. Operation “Barbarossa”
Offence- German forces: 191 divisions, 5.500.500 soldiers overall, 4500 tanks, 47 200 artillery, 5000 planes and 192 ships.
Defense- Soviet forces: 179 divisions 3 000. 000 soldiers overall, 8800 tanks, 38 000 artillery, 7500 planes, 182 ships.

December 1941. Russia. Moscow’s counter-offense.
Offence Soviet forces: 1 100 000 soldiers, 774 tanks, 7 700 artillery, 1200 planes.
Defense German forces: 1 708 000 soldiers, 1170 tanks, 13 500 artillery, 700 planes.

It was the first big defeat of Wermacht. After successful Moscow’s battle and overall major counter-offence German forces lost 832 500 soldiers.
The harm done by Red army to Nazi in this ONLY ONE BATTLE is several times more then harm done by USA army during all war.

October 1942, Russian front.
German forces: 6 200 000 soldiers, 5080 tanks, 51 700 artillery, 3500 planes and 194 ships. Overall it was 71% of ALL German forces.
Soviet forces: 6 600 000, 735 tanks, 78 000 artillery, 4544 planes and more then 300 ships.
Within 6 month of Stalingrad’s battle (June 1942- February 1943) Nazi lost 1 500 000 soldiers.

October 1942 North Africa. Al-Alamen.
German forces: 80 000 soldiers, 540 tanks, 1200 artillery and 350 planes.
British forces: 230 000 soldiers, 1400 tanks, 2300 artillery and 1500 planes.
German casualties 55 000 soldiers.

I might continue this list but it’s too long, below the overall stat.
Within four years of war on Russian front Hitler’s army lost:
607 divisions more then 10 000 000 soldiers. It’s 80% of overall casualties.
48 000 tanks, 167 000 artillery and 77 000 planes. It’s 75% of overall military units lost.

About 27 millions of Russians sacrifice their lives for this victory, more then a half were civilians.

[David Floyd]

That's nice, but it's all irrelevant if Germany was able to take Moscow in 1942.

And, FYI, "Torch" had the effect of drawing German reserves and transport aircraft away from Stalingrad, where they were needed most. Without Torch, I think Manstein's nearly successful relief operation would have succeeded.

serb, no offense, but your main problem is judging the war in terms of numbers, when, quite frankly numbers had very little to do with it, at least before 1944-1945. It was a much closer run thing than you might think, and most serious students of history would agree.

[Serb]

Originally posted by David Floyd
That's nice, but it's all irrelevant if Germany was able to take Moscow in 1942.

BUT they didn't took it. This is the most important thing. The rest is just speculations and Bullsh!t theories.

And, FYI, "Torch" had the effect of drawing German reserves and transport aircraft away from Stalingrad, where they were needed most. Without Torch, I think Manstein's nearly successful relief operation would have succeeded.

Then explain to me what is the meaning of military aliance in your difinition. As for me, allies should fight against the common enemy.
As for Africa, I read the memoirs of Rommel and his officers and I'm pretty sure that he was in hopeless situation. He cannot win there, because there was no proper support of his army, no fuel and reinforcements in needed numbers.

serb, no offense, but your main problem is judging the war in terms of numbers,

The explain to me how anyone can judge about the scale of war if he don't know the numbers?

when, quite frankly numbers had very little to do with it, at least before 1944-1945.

May be it's for you numbers was not important until you entered the war. For us numbers were important. In 1944 Germany lost majory of its manpower, lost on Russian front.

It was a much closer run thing than you might think, and most serious students of history would agree.

Agree with what?
That Hitler conqured France within 40 days and almost entire Europe within short period of time, but failed to conqure SU and was destroyed within 4 years? Which means that Red army was a crap as you beleive? To agree with that?
NEVER.

[DanS]

]"The rest is just speculations and Bullsh!t theories."

You were expecting something else on Apolyton?

serb, no offense, but your main problem is judging the war in terms of numbers, when, quite frankly numbers had very little to do with it, at least before 1944-1945."

Err... I have one word for you, DF. "Stalingrad"

[Az]

David Floyd: another interesting point is a theory by some Russian historians that Stalin was preparing to attack , himself, a fact tha could explain the construction of a number of airfields relatively very close to the 1941 border. If Hitler's attack was delayed for a couple of weeks, we could see a totally different picture now, with the Axis falling by 43'. again, This would depend on how things were on the diplomatic , amd military front in the west. and would the brits want to assist the SU. I am inclined to think so , after the fall of France , and , generally , western Europe, but Churchill's natural hatered towards communism could have offset it under certain sircumstances.

I want to ask you this : what were the numbers of soldiers and equipment that landed on D-Day , and the following week , including all allied units?

[Ramo]

As far as a German victory goes, I'd say that the surest bet would be conquering neutral Turkey, and then going after the Middle East. Avoid war with Russia as long as possible, and when you do, don't get yourself caught up in the Caucasus.

In the Britain campaign, Germany should've refrained from civilian bombing as much as possible. The highest priority is to knock out the RAF.

And don't declare war on the US!
______________

As far as Barbossa went, the Eastern war was probably lost by late '42. The the war degenarates that far, Germany's best bet was to cede much of what it annexed from Russia back to the Motherland and concentrate on the West.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Quote:

Japan had a small conflict with Russia before WWII and were defeated

When?

Dammit! Would you read some related threads so I don't have to post the same info several times? Grrrr!

From May to September 1939, somewhere around the border of Outer Mongolia and Manchuria, the Soviets clashed with the Japanese. The result is the Japanese lost almost 20,000 out of 100,000 men committed to the campaign. The IJA got scared ****less by the Soviet military from then on.

[Az]

never heard about it . but from what I've seen from japanese ground military equipment , they had a good reason to be afraid.

[Serb]

Halkin-Gol 1939 god, pervaya pobeda Zhukova, chto pravda nikogda ne slyhal?

[Akka]

Originally posted by David Floyd
That's nice, but it's all irrelevant if Germany was able to take Moscow in 1942.

And, FYI, "Torch" had the effect of drawing German reserves and transport aircraft away from Stalingrad, where they were needed most. Without Torch, I think Manstein's nearly successful relief operation would have succeeded.

serb, no offense, but your main problem is judging the war in terms of numbers, when, quite frankly numbers had very little to do with it, at least before 1944-1945. It was a much closer run thing than you might think, and most serious students of history would agree.

Your main problem is judging the war from such a caricatural american point of view.
As I already said : from the winter 1942-1943 to the end of the war, Russians rolled back Germans. Opening a new front was important, but even without it USSR would have crushed Germany. Torch and the same were marginal, and just ensured a faster collapse of Germans.

[Urban Ranger]

Yeah, the 1939 campaign marked the rise of Zhukov, who was the commander of the Soviet forces.


DF,

Quantity becomes a quality in itself in the harsh streets of urban warfare. There, determination to kill the enemy is just as important as experience on the battlefield.

[MOBIUS]

Let's see,

1) Not regularly changing the Enigma code - that Poland and the UK were ever able to break enigma has to go down as one of the most spectaculare combinations of luck and genius the World has ever seen!

2) Not crushing Dunkirk and allowing 300,000+ combat experienced allied soldiers escape to fight another day...

3) Not continuing to destroy British fighter power and switching to 'terror bombing'

4) Not taking Malta

5) Losing at El Alamein by virtue of 1) and 4) above

6) Not attacking the USSR 'on time' and going for too many targets - Moscow and the Caucusus oilfields should have been the primary goals. Leningrad could have 'contained', with perhaps Soviet forces being allowed room to come out and get trapped in another encirclement...

7) Persecuting and rounding up thousands of people in populations who were more than willing to fight the Russians. If these Slavs were such subhumans, then surely those that volunteered in their many thousands should have been used as front line troops in order to protect those of the master race from needless casualties? Instead they were persecuted and many became partisans...

8) No development of a credible long range bomber

================

IMO Hitler should have bled the UK dry and still attacked the USSR first. I am surprised no one here has mentioned that other great megalomaniac, Stalin? Hitler was perfectly warranted to suspect that if he had become embroiled in an invasion of Great Britain - Stalin himself might decide to attack whilst Germany was otherwise occupied...

The problem is that Hitler twice jumped in to save Mussolini's bacon in North Africa and the Balkans - let your allies pull their weight IMO. The Balkans were a sideshow and the men wasted attacking Crete would have been much better used attacking Malta, which was vital to the British defeat of Rommel by devastating his supply routes and in turn keeping GB's Mediterranean convoys open.

If Barbarossa had jumped off on time with the dozens of extra divisions that Hitler used on the Balkans and concentrated on the two most strategic targets of Moscow and the Caucusus instead of spreading himself thinly, the Russians would not have barely hung on in that 1st year... Also this thing about needing to take the Balkans in order to attack through Rumania? Er excuse me? Wasn't Rumania a major axis power in her own right???

Personally Enigma was one of the biggest killers for Germany and Italy - without it the U-Boats would probably have been successful in choking off the UK from outside supply amongst everything else... Also Italy's large and well equipped Navy (Surprise!) was largely taken out due to Enigma in actions such as the extremely one-sided Battle of Matapan which effectively took them out for the rest of the war...

Other stuff, apparently the Germans had something they were working on called the 'Amerika Bomber' up their sleeves for 1945-6... Any guesses what they might have used that for? Kinda reminds me of the US B-2 Stealth Bomber...

As for Japan...

For various reasons outlined before and for matters of honour and face, they pretty much had to attack the US - at Pearl Harbour. Personally, for all their amazing achievements in attacking PH, their intel sucked re the US carrier fleet which during the attacks were out on exercises... Those midget subs that they squandered in the attack could have been used to picket the harbour entrance in case any ships went on manouvres. A third attack should have been launched and the US was basically very luck it's Carriers weren't around at the time...

Again Japan should have been changing it's codes regularly - Midway was supposed to be a trap for the Americans, not vice versa! But then splintering their forces in the way they did was never conducive to Japanese success...

My, is that the time...

[faded glory]

another mistake. A half of million Ukrainians would of joined Hitler. He was there hero in 1941, lberating them from Stalin who had purposely caused 2 famines since 1925 to crush nationalist sentiment. They had posters of him and everything. The german troops where really suprised of the welcome in Ukraine.

All he had to do was promise them independence. But no, he ****in killed them. And the partisans turned against him. He got what he deserved.

[David Floyd]

blah

[David Floyd]

Ignore the previous ****ed up post - I can't edit it for some reason.

Then explain to me what is the meaning of military aliance in your difinition. As for me, allies should fight against the common enemy.
As for Africa, I read the memoirs of Rommel and his officers and I'm pretty sure that he was in hopeless situation. He cannot win there, because there was no proper support of his army, no fuel and reinforcements in needed numbers.

Of course that's what a military alliance is...my point is that the actions of the Western allies were of significant material help in the Stalingrad campaign.

Although the common allies argument doesn't explain why the SU wouldn't let US/Brit bombers land in their territory following bombing missions in Germany, and refused to allow any help at all for Western aircraft bombing in support of the Polish Home Army uprising in Warsaw in 1944.

The explain to me how anyone can judge about the scale of war if he don't know the numbers?

My point was that if Germany had another 2 weeks or so in 1941, Moscow would probably have fallen, regardless of manpower totals in 1942, etc.

May be it's for you numbers was not important until you entered the war. For us numbers were important. In 1944 Germany lost majory of its manpower, lost on Russian front.

No, all that stopped Typhoon was the weather - even exhausted German troops destroyed 7/8s of Moscow's defense force in November of 1941.

Agree with what?
That Hitler conqured France within 40 days and almost entire Europe within short period of time, but failed to conqure SU and was destroyed within 4 years? Which means that Red army was a crap as you beleive? To agree with that?
NEVER.

If the Red Army was actually on par with Western armies, why their trouble with Finland, and why did Germany conquer so much territory and destroy so many Russian armies in spite of their great disadvantages?

DanS,

Err... I have one word for you, DF. "Stalingrad"

Stalingrad was lost because of the terrible quality of Italian and Romanian troops guarding the flank, and Torch drawing away German reserves Manstein needed to break through.

dal,

I want to ask you this : what were the numbers of soldiers and equipment that landed on D-Day , and the following week , including all allied units?

On the first day, 5 divisions landed on the beaches (US 1st and 4th, British 3rd and 50th, Canadian 3rd, and various special forces), as well as three airborne divisions (US 82nd and 101st, British 6th) behind the lines. As to exact numbers after D-Day, I'd have to look it up.

Ramo,

A campaign in Turkey would have been tough, IMO, especially because it would have relied partly on Italian troops. The Allies tried throughout the war to bring Turkey in, as did Germany - IMO a German invasion would have benefitted the allies, by bringing in Turkey earlier.

Akka,

As I already said : from the winter 1942-1943 to the end of the war, Russians rolled back Germans. Opening a new front was important, but even without it USSR would have crushed Germany. Torch and the same were marginal, and just ensured a faster collapse of Germans.

Their victories were due to weather, poor quality Axis allied troops, Lend Lease, and things of that nature - the exception being Kursk, when the German 4th Panzer and 9th Armies attacked straight into layered SU defenses.

On the whole, I think that the Red Army itself had less to do with Germany's East Front defeats than any Russian will admit.

UR,

Quantity becomes a quality in itself in the harsh streets of urban warfare. There, determination to kill the enemy is just as important as experience on the battlefield.

Yes, but Stalingrad was a defeat for the Germans more because of reasons outlined above, I think.

MOBIUS,

Personally Enigma was one of the biggest killers for Germany and Italy - without it the U-Boats would probably have been successful in choking off the UK from outside supply amongst everything else... Also Italy's large and well equipped Navy (Surprise!) was largely taken out due to Enigma in actions such as the extremely one-sided Battle of Matapan which effectively took them out for the rest of the war...

That and a lack of oil. The British attack on Taranto was also a big victory.

Other stuff, apparently the Germans had something they were working on called the 'Amerika Bomber' up their sleeves for 1945-6... Any guesses what they might have used that for?

Probably an ineffective attempt to bomb US civilians - which is irrelevant anyway because the US had atomic weapons in 1946

[Akka]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Akka,

Their victories were due to weather, poor quality Axis allied troops, Lend Lease, and things of that nature - the exception being Kursk, when the German 4th Panzer and 9th Armies attacked straight into layered SU defenses.

On the whole, I think that the Red Army itself had less to do with Germany's East Front defeats than any Russian will admit.

Probably, but the fact is, Germany's defeat was ineluctable at the start of 1943. Only question was how much time it would take for Russians to win.

[Chris 62]

DF, Russia's contribution to the defeat of the axis is immense, the allies provided little in the ground war till Overlord.

Serb, your making a common error reguarding lend-lease, one that has been seen a number of times at Apolyton.

Your 3-5% is off by about 50%!
(In your defense, 4% of total of soviet military production is considered a classic textbook number, even though it is a distortion of the true value of the aid sent. The 4% was a number Communists often used to downgrade western acchievments in WWII during the cold war, doing a dis-service both the men who fought to deliever it, and the Russians who used the supplies on the road to victory).

"Lend-Lease was the most visible sign of wartime cooperation between the United States and the Soviet Union. About $11 billion in war material was sent to the Soviet Union under that program. Additional assistance came from U.S. Russian War Relief (a private, nonprofit organization) and the Red Cross. About seventy percent of the aid reached the Soviet Union via the Persian Gulf through Iran; the remainder went across the Pacific to Vladivostok and across the North Atlantic to Murmansk. Lend- Lease to the Soviet Union officially ended in September 1945. Joseph Stalin never revealed to his own people the full contributions of Lend-Lease to their country's survival, but he referred to the program at the 1945 Yalta Conference saying, "Lend-Lease is one of Franklin Roosevelt's most remarkable and vital achievements in the formation of the anti-Hitler alliance."
http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/soviet.exhibit/wartime.html

"From 1941 and onwards, the RKKA used extensive numbers of Lend-Lease tanks received from the USA, Canada and Great Britain. Approximately 22.800 AFVs were sent to the Soviet Union between June 22nd of 1941 to 30th of April 1944, and almost 2.000 of these were lost at sea.
In addition, the Russians got about 351.700 trucks and 78.000 Jeeps from the USA.
With this the Red Army became more movable as mobility increased."
http://www.skalman.nu/soviet/ww2-lendlease.htm
Granted, most of the armor was inferior to Soviet designs, but much of it was used in front line formations, the USSR did use full brigades of both Shermans and Churchills for example.
But almost ALL Soviet motor transport was US supplied.

Also, let us remember the aircraft supplied:
"During WWII, the Soviet Union received almost 15,000 U.S. built aircraft under the Lend-Lease program."
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/history/wwii/ce39.htm
Many of the types provided were equal to, and most superior to Soviet designs.

The true lend-lease totals have never been released, the only semi "offical" total we have is Major Jordon's Diary and some Russian sources:
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/lend.html

The true scope of the Allied lend lease effort is the fact that 60% of all soviet formations rode US trucks:
"American-built trucks and other vehicles made up 60 percent of the Soviet’s total vehicle fleet by 1945. In addition, America supplied 2,000 locomotives 11,000 freight cars and 540,000 tons of rail for Soviet railroads. Late in the war, Stalin did make some public statements praising the American aid received under Lend-Lease, but after the defeat of Nazi Germany, Americans began to grow wary of their Soviet ally. Plans to continue Lend-Lease as part of a post-war reconstruction program died with Roosevelt, as the new president Harry Truman ended all Lend-Lease aid on Aug. 15, 1945 – the day the Japanese surrendered."
http://rwebs.net/dispatch/output.asp?ArticleID=56

None of this takes into account the food suppiled, nor things like uniforms (I have seen documents that state that something like 3,000,000 uniforms were produced for Soviet, for example).

To sell Lend-Lease short is to distort history.

The Soviets, by Stalin's own admission, would not have survived the war without it.

[David Floyd]

DF, Russia's contribution to the defeat of the axis is immense, the allies provided little in the ground war till Overlord.

I certainly agree - but German East Front defeats were due more towards the Germans being tied up there, with the US/Brits supplying Russia, rather than the Red Army, which on its own was pretty useless. Even still, with a little more time in 1941, followed by proper winter defense and late spring-autumn exploitation, the Germans could have knocked out Russia as a major power. The SU survived because of Lend Lease, Hitler's stupidity, and luck.

Plans to continue Lend-Lease as part of a post-war reconstruction program died with Roosevelt, as the new president Harry Truman ended all Lend-Lease aid on Aug. 15, 1945 – the day the Japanese surrendered."

Also, IIRC, the SU turned down Marshall Plan assistance.

[David James]

Originally posted by David Floyd

David James,

Quote:

The biggest mistake was pointlessly invading Northern and Western Europe, especially with no plan to invade England. If he had had any brains he would have just spent 1940 building up his army and fortifying the Rhineland (the Siegfried Line). The British and French public would just have gotten bored with the war and Hitler would have been free to invade Russia in the East the following year (when he did).

Possible, but unlikely. As I said, peaceful settlement was impossible, and eventually France/Britain would have grown some balls and gone after the Ruhr and Saar.

Quote:

They had no way to invade the US, which was way ahead on A-bomb development. Their only chance was forcing a political solution with Britain by getting Churchill out of office BEFORE Dec. 7, 1941 (probably by taking Malta, Egypt, and, with possible/prerequisite Spanish help, Gibraltor), and successfully taking Moscow in 1941 followed by Leningrad, Stalingrad, and the Caucasus in 1942.

But here's the thing David, and sort of what I was talking about... Chamberlain only resigned as a result of Hitler's Northern and Western European advances; Churchill wasn't yet a factor and probably wouldn't have been had that not occured. Moreover, none of the Western democracies cared much about the Communists so they weren't exactly going to intervene to help if they themselves weren't threatened. If Germany hadn't invaded the West then the "Phoney War" of the fall of 1939 would have dragged on through 1940. Given this, I don't think they would have had the balls to attack a fortified Ruhr.
And even if they did, they'd have to attack from along the French frontier for political reasons - attacking through Belgium or Holland would have been unacceptable, which would have made Germany's job of defending all the more easier. Finally, we know how badly the French and British were beaten when they were attacked on "home" turf, so we can hardly expect them to have easily succeeded against the Germans in prepared positions. Both the British and French tanks at that time quite literally sucked nor did they have any real airborne capacity (though, admittedly, these could have been improved during the course of 1940, and that sort of was the case with the paras in England but not with the tanks, not really). I just don't see Britain and France having either the military capability nor the political will to attack a fortified Ruhr in 1941 in response to a German invasion of Russia. The two of them would certainly have beefed up their militaries, no doubt about that, but I don't think it would have been enough to go on the offensive. It may well have been enough though to prevent Germany from invading France in 1942 following a successful attack on Russia in 1941 -- and I don't doubt that it would have been successful with the extra manpower that this strategy would have freed up, especially if Hitler had not dismissed the aid of many non-Communists in Russia and especially in the Ukraine.

[Akka]

But here's the thing David, and sort of what I was talking about... Chamberlain only resigned as a result of Hitler's Northern and Western European advances; Churchill wasn't yet a factor and probably wouldn't have been had that not occured. Moreover, none of the Western democracies cared much about the Communists so they weren't exactly going to intervene to help if they themselves weren't threatened. If Germany hadn't invaded the West then the "Phoney War" of the fall of 1939 would have dragged on through 1940. Given this, I don't think they would have had the balls to attack a fortified Ruhr.
And even if they did, they'd have to attack from along the French frontier for political reasons - attacking through Belgium or Holland would have been unacceptable, which would have made Germany's job of defending all the more easier. Finally, we know how badly the French and British were beaten when they were attacked on "home" turf, so we can hardly expect them to have easily succeeded against the Germans in prepared positions. Both the British and French tanks at that time quite literally sucked nor did they have any real airborne capacity (though, admittedly, these could have been improved during the course of 1940, and that sort of was the case with the paras in England but not with the tanks, not really). I just don't see Britain and France having either the military capability nor the political will to attack a fortified Ruhr in 1941 in response to a German invasion of Russia.

Contrary to a general belief, the French and British armies where much better equiped than the German one. They had more tanks, more planes, and both were better than their german's counterpart (B1 bis for the Frenchs, Mathilda for the English). What France and UK lacked was modern warfare tactics and strategy, and the use of combined forces.

[Dr Strangelove]

Radios. That's what the allies lacked in 1940. They didn't put radios in individual planes and tanks, but instead thought that hand signals would suffice. Consequently even when they did manage to amass a reasonably sized formation of armor their attacks always went astray. The allies liked to amass large formations of fighters in the air, but once the formations broke up in response to an attack the individual fighters could do nothing more than engage whatever was in sight. Reforming the group around the leaders who had radios was generally impractical since no one knew what anyone else was doing. With the large formations broken up individual Aliied planes could be picked off by small groups of German fighters.

[David Floyd]

But here's the thing David, and sort of what I was talking about... Chamberlain only resigned as a result of Hitler's Northern and Western European advances;

Good point - I doubt Chamberlain would have made peace either, though. He was literally a changed man on the subject of appeasement following Germany's occupation of the Czech remnant, and was the one who brought up a guarantee to Poland.

Churchill wasn't yet a factor and probably wouldn't have been had that not occured.

Even before Chamberlain's fall, Churchill was very influential as First Lord of the Admiralty, and in Conservative circles.

Moreover, none of the Western democracies cared much about the Communists so they weren't exactly going to intervene to help if they themselves weren't threatened.

They wouldn't help Russia for the sake of helping Russia, but would have if they saw it in their own interest. The French Communists, also, were more loyal to Stalin than France, and would have made no help for the USSR difficult, while OTOH giving assistance to Russia would work to appease communists in France (and to a lesser extent Britain), resulting in things such as sabotage in French factories ceasing.

If Germany hadn't invaded the West then the "Phoney War" of the fall of 1939 would have dragged on through 1940. Given this, I don't think they would have had the balls to attack a fortified Ruhr. And even if they did, they'd have to attack from along the French frontier for political reasons - attacking through Belgium or Holland would have been unacceptable, which would have made Germany's job of defending all the more easier.

The correlation of forces would have been hugely in the West's favor along the West Wall, and unlike September 1939, their forces were better mobilized. Further, by summer 1940, the earliest conceivable attack on Russia, the BEF would have had at least 10-12 divisions fully trained and on the line in France, as well as increasing numbers of Spitfires (not to mention the French Dewetoine 320 [IIRC]), which would have outnumbered and outclassed the Luftwaffe in the West.
Add to that the possibility of the British implementation of Plan "Catherine", with German airpower and ground forces drawn away, with the very potential assistance of Sweden, Germany's iron ore would have been cut off and their whole coastline threatened.

Finally, we know how badly the French and British were beaten when they were attacked on "home" turf, so we can hardly expect them to have easily succeeded against the Germans in prepared positions.

Their defeats were mainly due to German mobile warfare and armored superiority at key points, as well as overall air superiority, and their attack through the Ardennes against low-quality French troops. These advantages would have been negated, and in some cases reversed, assuming an Anglo-French attack against a depleted West Wall in 1940, and even if it came down to simple attrition, Germany could not have won without crippling their Eastern Front.

Both the British and French tanks at that time quite literally sucked nor did they have any real airborne capacity (though, admittedly, these could have been improved during the course of 1940, and that sort of was the case with the paras in England but not with the tanks, not really).

The French tanks were superior qualitatively and quantitatively to Germans in real life, and airborne forces would really not have mattered - it's only really important contribution in the historical invasion of France was the seizure of the Belgian Fort Eban Emal.

I just don't see Britain and France having either the military capability nor the political will to attack a fortified Ruhr in 1941 in response to a German invasion of Russia.

Military capacity, certainly, but the political will was a question, of course. I think, ultimately, they would have attacked, especially since by this time General Weygand would have been brought in from Syria to command the French army.

[Ned]

Here is a very interesting link to Tojo's prison diary. Tojo's description of Japanese desperation at America economic pressure leads me to believe that Hitler's attack on the USSR was primarily motivated to open a supply link to Japan. Look at these sequence of events:

1) America cuts economic relations in July 1939.

2) Japan signs alliance with Germany in Sept. 1940.

3) Also in Sept. 1940, Japan occupies French Indochina to cut off Chinese supply routes.

4) America, Britain, and Holland begin military buildup in Pacific and further threaten Japan asking her to withdraw from Indochina and China.

5) June 1941, Germany invades Russia, hoping for a quick knockout.

6) July 1941, US, Britain and Holland seized Japanese assets and begin embargo.

7) December 1941, German knockout of Russian fails. Japan is facing total disaster.

8) December 7, 1941, Japan launches attack on Pearl Harbor.

9) Germany declares war on the United States.

The attack on Russia makes no sense outside the context of this larger picture given that Germany had yet to defeat GB and further given Germany’s experience in fighting a two-front war in WWI.

If the above is right, then it is clear the Germany never had a chance because the US was on the “warpath” against the Axis from at least Sept. 1940. The real cause of the Axis defeat was FDR.

Ned

[David Floyd]

Tojo's description of Japanese desperation at America economic pressure leads me to believe that Hitler's attack on the USSR was primarily motivated to open a supply link to Japan.

I doubt it - even Hitler didn't expect to conquer Siberia. His attack on Russia was originally scheduled for 6 weeks earlier, and had been a "pet project" of Hitler for months, not to mention Hitler's, and especially Mussolini's, goals of eradicating Bolshevism.

[Ned]

David, I don't know whether "conquer" Siberia had anything to do with the plan. I suggest that Hitler thought he could do to Russia what he had already done to France: turn it into a vassal state.

The "plan for months" part also is consistent with the timing of events. The alliance with Japan is signed in Sept. 1940. The plan to invade Russia probably dates from this time forward.

Also note that Japan's strike takes place when it is clear that Russia will survive the winter. The lack of German winter clothing is highly consistent with a hasty attack of necessity.

Finally, observe the quick German declaration of war on the U.S. This also indicates coordination between Japan and Germany.

Ned

[Dom Pedro II]

David :

The Germans were developing jet bombers (in their early developments by 1945) that would be capable of reaching the eastern coast cities of the United States. And also, Germany was far from getting the bomb in 1945, but I think they most certainly would have had it by 1950. Heisenburg and his team were getting closer every day, but Allied attempts to thwart them did go a long way.

Secondly, I think if the Germans were in London after a successful invasion they could have negotiated a treaty with England. You said that England wouldn't agree to peace according to Churchill. Well, Churchill wasn't exactly the most unbiased man on the subject. If HE was in power, that is very true, but on the other hand, if the Germans pulled off the invasion, he wouldn't be in power. I think England would have accepted an equitable peace, which Hitler might have offered.

Possibly a more interesting what if... What if the Sealion invasion had FAILED? What if all 30+ divisions were wiped out by combined land and sea attack? That would have been a devestating defeat for Germany, and it is quite possible that Hitler may have put off Barbarossa indefinitely. Then the possibilities are endless for what could have happened next...