The ideal Axis strategy

[HistoryGeek2019]

a quote from another thread

" Sealing off the "roof"of the Caucasus from the remainder of the Soviet Union, along with the existing possession of the Ukraine would have lost Stalin 70% of his coal,85-90% of his oil, and 50-60% of his food supply, along with large iron and manganese deposits ! He was SUNK! And the germans would have had a river based defense line they could hold. That this was THE WAR WINNER" viewtopic.php?f=66&t=78524&start=90

this was part of my point about clearing the Soviets from the Baltic and Black Seas, it relieves their own transportation problems, but also puts them right on top of key points.

in the north they would be on top of the major Lend Lease route for the critical first year.

Germany didn't have the logistical capability to supply a large enough army far enough east in order to seal off either the Caucasus or the northern lend lease route. Their OTL logistics weren't enough to keep their OTL armies supplied at their OTL distances. Believe it or not, the German high command actually knew what they were talking about when they said the Red Army needed to be destroyed west of the Dvina-Dnieper line. Anything beyond that range was beyond the ability of the poor roads and railroads of the Soviet Union to support.

Maybe the ideal Germany strategy was to stay to the west of the D-D line and hope Stalin was foolish enough to keep hurling all of his armies as far west as possible, which is basically what he did throughout the first year of the war. Germany mistakenly thought the Red Army would try to retreat into the Russian interior, when in fact it kept attacking to the west again and again.

[MarkN]

Maybe the ideal Germany strategy was to stay to the west of the D-D line and hope Stalin was foolish enough to keep hurling all of his armies as far west as possible, which is basically what he did throughout the first year of the war. Germany mistakenly thought the Red Army would try to retreat into the Russian interior, when in fact it kept attacking to the west again and again.

"ldeal strategy"? No.

[Terry Duncan]

Maybe the ideal Germany strategy was to stay to the west of the D-D line and hope Stalin was foolish enough to keep hurling all of his armies as far west as possible, which is basically what he did throughout the first year of the war. Germany mistakenly thought the Red Army would try to retreat into the Russian interior, when in fact it kept attacking to the west again and again.

"ldeal strategy"? No.

'No' is hardly an informative rebuttal of the suggestion Mark, is there a chance you could deign to offer a somewhat more detailed response indicating why your opinion is that the suggestion is not ideal. The D-D line suggestion is one that dates at least from post-war memoirs, so a simple 'no' is very close to being an opinion only post that can otherwise be dismissed without consideration to paraphrase Hitchens. 'If' Germany must undertake an attack of Russia, why is stopping on the D-D line not ideal? You may feel you know better than other members, but unless you are prepared to actually post some reasoning then your posts risk coming across to others as high-handed or rude. The D-D line certainly offers a serious physical barrier against opportunities for the Soviets to attack, and offers the site for a defence line whilst the Germans still have the manpower to hold such a line.

[pugsville]

[
Well, the roll over wouldnt have been such, it gained Turkey allies, protection form the USSR plus some Greek islands and other perks such as weapons, it was a sweet deal, the other option was to be attacked by the two largest European armies of the time with several minorities waiting for the chance for payback due to past bloodshed...

It wasnt a hard choice, but they werent forced to make a decision because the Iraqis folded and the Germans were off to Russia anyways, otherwise it was a very simple choice...

It would do the reverse involve Turkey in the war, and guarantee the invasion by the soviet Union. The Germans were not anyone's allies and certainly could not be trusted.

Nations are touchy about their soveirignty and often fight no matter the odds. Gagsta diplomacy really works.

[JAG13]

[
Well, the roll over wouldnt have been such, it gained Turkey allies, protection form the USSR plus some Greek islands and other perks such as weapons, it was a sweet deal, the other option was to be attacked by the two largest European armies of the time with several minorities waiting for the chance for payback due to past bloodshed...

It wasnt a hard choice, but they werent forced to make a decision because the Iraqis folded and the Germans were off to Russia anyways, otherwise it was a very simple choice...

It would do the reverse involve Turkey in the war, and guarantee the invasion by the soviet Union. The Germans were not anyone's allies and certainly could not be trusted.

Nations are touchy about their soveirignty and often fight no matter the odds. Gagsta diplomacy really works.

With Turkey in the Axis the USSR wouldnt attack until ready to fight Germany, that means 1942 at the earliest, and after their sorry show in the winter war, plenty of people would doubt they would ever dare.

No one could be trusted, ask the Finnish, Romanians... and the French.

The Turks werent suicidal, they were practical, otherwise they would have joined the war when Italy declared war as per the treaty they had JUST signed, they chose to BREAK IT instead and used a BS excuse to that purpose... and when the Germans came calling they DID NOT REFUSE, they simply haggled on the price, so it was all a matter of the Germans either meeting their price or invoking other considerations to make the Turks change the price.

That is it.

And nations are far more touchy about their continued existence.

[pugsville]

[
Well, the roll over wouldnt have been such, it gained Turkey allies, protection form the USSR plus some Greek islands and other perks such as weapons, it was a sweet deal, the other option was to be attacked by the two largest European armies of the time with several minorities waiting for the chance for payback due to past bloodshed...

It wasnt a hard choice, but they werent forced to make a decision because the Iraqis folded and the Germans were off to Russia anyways, otherwise it was a very simple choice...

It would do the reverse involve Turkey in the war, and guarantee the invasion by the soviet Union. The Germans were not anyone's allies and certainly could not be trusted.

Nations are touchy about their soveirignty and often fight no matter the odds. Gagsta diplomacy really works.

With Turkey in the Axis the USSR wouldnt attack until ready to fight Germany, that means 1942 at the earliest, and after their sorry show in the winter war, plenty of people would doubt they would ever dare.

No one could be trusted, ask the Finnish, Romanians... and the French.

The Turks werent suicidal, they were practical, otherwise they would have joined the war when Italy declared war as per the treaty they had JUST signed, they chose to BREAK IT instead and used a BS excuse to that purpose... and when the Germans came calling they DID NOT REFUSE, they simply haggled on the price, so it was all a matter of the Germans either meeting their price or invoking other considerations to make the Turks change the price.

That is it.

And nations are far more touchy about their continued existence.

But they DID REFUSE the German demands.

[MarkN]

Maybe the ideal Germany strategy was to stay to the west of the D-D line and hope Stalin was foolish enough to keep hurling all of his armies as far west as possible, which is basically what he did throughout the first year of the war. Germany mistakenly thought the Red Army would try to retreat into the Russian interior, when in fact it kept attacking to the west again and again.

"ldeal strategy"? No.

'No' is hardly an informative rebuttal of the suggestion Mark, is there a chance you could deign to offer a somewhat more detailed response indicating why your opinion is that the suggestion is not ideal. The D-D line suggestion is one that dates at least from post-war memoirs, so a simple 'no' is very close to being an opinion only post that can otherwise be dismissed without consideration to paraphrase Hitchens. 'If' Germany must undertake an attack of Russia, why is stopping on the D-D line not ideal? You may feel you know better than other members, but unless you are prepared to actually post some reasoning then your posts risk coming across to others as high-handed or rude. The D-D line certainly offers a serious physical barrier against opportunities for the Soviets to attack, and offers the site for a defence line whilst the Germans still have the manpower to hold such a line.

A simple proposition was presented: "maybe the ideal German strategy was..."
A simple response was given: no.
There was nothing to rebut - informative or otherwise.

To be an ideal strategy, at the very least it needs to be credible and then successful.

If why it is credible is presented, the how it would be done and then why we should consider success as the likely outcome - then there is something to rebut.

Of course, credible is a set of moving goalposts depending on whether this proceeds as a discussion based on historical realities or imagination. Remember, this thread is all about trying to find a way for the Nazis to end up ruling Europe. Historical reality is that Panzerwaffe doctrine and influence dictated Heer thinking and action. For the Heer to wait for the Red Army to come west requires an imaginary Heer not bowing to panzerwaffe doctrine. Which then undermines all the pre-BARBAROSSA history. So do we have a historically credible strategy being presented or a handwaved reset of Heer doctrine, thinking and practice for imagined credible strategy? Two compleyely different discussions.

An informative discussion is just not possible when history and imagination collide. That's why so many threads end up as they do. Posters interested in historical reality responding from a historical perspective interacting with posters whose purpose for posting is to rewrite history falsely or discuss an imaginary scenario doesn't work unless very closely and very proactively moderated and directed.

As you know from our previous conversations, l post from a historical perspective and do not venture down unnecessary what if blind alleys. If you want to believe that is rudeness or highhandedness, so be it. What good did being informative with ljadw achieve?

[JAG13]

But they DID REFUSE the German demands.

No, they refused the PRICE offered, not the demand, they were HAGGLING over the price meaning they would be ok to reach an agreement over the matter, they were not suicidal.

There is difference between not selling something because it is not for sale and refusing to sell it because you dont like the price you have been offered...

The USSR offered an alliance that did NOT cover war with Germany, such alliance was useless to them and was therefore rejected.

The Allies offered an alliance that DID cover war with Germany, they BROKE IT and dropped it like a hot potato when France collapsed and Italy joined the war because it would mean war with Italy and Germany when the UK couldnt even fulfill the promised arms shipments, and that was before the Romanians, Bulgarians and Yugoslavians joined the Axis, and Greece got invaded...

...and you expect me to believe that THEN, with Germany at its borders, they would THEN decide to draw a line on the sand and START A WAR WITH GERMANY and fall on their sword for the sole sake of the UK? A war the USSR would be CERTAIN to join in order to achieve their own objectives? Plus the Armenian, Kurdish and Greek minorities?

Barbarossa saved the Turks and Brits, otherwise...

[pugsville]

But they DID REFUSE the German demands.

No, they refused the PRICE offered, not the demand, they were HAGGLING over the price meaning they would be ok to reach an agreement over the matter, they were not suicidal.

There is difference between not selling something because it is not for sale and refusing to sell it because you dont like the price you have been offered...

The USSR offered an alliance that did NOT cover war with Germany, such alliance was useless to them and was therefore rejected.

The Allies offered an alliance that DID cover war with Germany, they BROKE IT and dropped it like a hot potato when France collapsed and Italy joined the war because it would mean war with Italy and Germany when the UK couldnt even fulfill the promised arms shipments, and that was before the Romanians, Bulgarians and Yugoslavians joined the Axis, and Greece got invaded...

...and you expect me to believe that THEN, with Germany at its borders, they would THEN decide to draw a line on the sand and START A WAR WITH GERMANY and fall on their sword for the sole sake of the UK? A war the USSR would be CERTAIN to join in order to achieve their own objectives? Plus the Armenian, Kurdish and Greek minorities?

Barbarossa saved the Turks and Brits, otherwise...

Nothing I've seen supports these statements.

No they outright refused German requests,

No German troops entering Turkey in large numbers amounts to a loss of sovereignty. once inside further demands are hard to refuse.It; smpty fighting for Britain it's fighting for Turkey.

[JAG13]

Nothing I've seen supports these statements.

Really? I am going to quote your post #73:

"In the meantime, on 1 April 1941, Rashid Ali Al-Gaylani launched a military coup d'état that overthrew the pro-British regime in Iraq. The four generals leading the revolt were working closely with German intelligence, and accepted military aid from Germany. Hitler asked Turkey for permission to pass through Turkish territory to give Iraq military assistance. In exchange, the Turkish government demanded border concessions from Iraq. As the negotiations were taking place, British forces attacked Iraq. Between 18 April and 3 June, Britain restored the regime of Emir Abdul-Illah, regent of four-year-old King Faisal II. The issue between Turkey and Germany was resolved with this development. The German–Turkish Treaty of Friendship was signed on 18 June 1941"

The Turks didnt refuse, they asked for concessions, put a price to the German demands, they didnt reject them, they asked for something in exchange, you own quote.

No they outright refused German requests,

So, as per your own quote, no, they didnt reject the request, they simply put a price to their agreement...

No German troops entering Turkey in large numbers amounts to a loss of sovereignty. once inside further demands are hard to refuse.It; smpty fighting for Britain it's fighting for Turkey.

They were discussing price, therefore they were ok with it as long as the Germans MET THEIR PRICE.

Is that simple.

And since the Germans lost interest the matter was suspended for a while, that is it.

[pugsville]

Nothing I've seen supports these statements.

Really? I am going to quote your post #73:

"In the meantime, on 1 April 1941, Rashid Ali Al-Gaylani launched a military coup d'état that overthrew the pro-British regime in Iraq. The four generals leading the revolt were working closely with German intelligence, and accepted military aid from Germany. Hitler asked Turkey for permission to pass through Turkish territory to give Iraq military assistance. In exchange, the Turkish government demanded border concessions from Iraq. As the negotiations were taking place, British forces attacked Iraq. Between 18 April and 3 June, Britain restored the regime of Emir Abdul-Illah, regent of four-year-old King Faisal II. The issue between Turkey and Germany was resolved with this development. The German–Turkish Treaty of Friendship was signed on 18 June 1941"

The Turks didnt refuse, they asked for concessions, put a price to the German demands, they didnt reject them, they asked for something in exchange, you own quote.

No they outright refused German requests,

So, as per your own quote, no, they didnt reject the request, they simply put a price to their agreement...

No German troops entering Turkey in large numbers amounts to a loss of sovereignty. once inside further demands are hard to refuse.It; smpty fighting for Britain it's fighting for Turkey.

They were discussing price, therefore they were ok with it as long as the Germans MET THEIR PRICE.

Is that simple.

And since the Germans lost interest the matter was suspended for a while, that is it.

In Negotiations between powers when one is the lessor power, one often does not use outright rejection. But prevaricates and raises reasons why such demands can not be meant. Without some details of these negotiations it's hard to say if this meant there was any in principle agreement and just haggling about price or that the Turks were just politely putting the Germans off. certainly the Turks were very reluctnat to get involved.

Your hanging a lot on a vague Wikipedia reference without footnote.

The Agreement to allow arms go through was from Vichy Syria , and involved No German troops or use of the main Turkish railway lines.

certiabnly this book implies the Turks just outright said No.

Turkish Foreign Policy, 1774-2000
By William M. Hale

Page 87 " In Negotiations with the Germans in June [1941] Turkey refused German demands for an agreement allowing the dispatch of an unlimited quantity of German arms to Iraq and a defined number of troops across Turkish territory"

[JAG13]

In Negotiations between powers when one is the lessor power, one often does not use outright rejection. But prevaricates and raises reasons why such demands can not be meant. Without some details of these negotiations it's hard to say if this meant there was any in principle agreement and just haggling about price or that the Turks were just politely putting the Germans off. certainly the Turks were very reluctnat to get involved.

Your hanging a lot on a vague Wikipedia reference without footnote.

I am not, I REPEAT, YOU WERE THE ONE WHO MADE THAT QUOTE, I dont use wikipedia as a source, ever...

The Agreement to allow arms go through was from Vichy Syria , and involved No German troops or use of the main Turkish railway lines.

The weapons went through the Turkish railroad, weapons to be used against their nominal UK ally... so I am pretty sure they would have gone to war against Germany and the USSR to protect UK interests in Iraq, since they werent even a colony...

certiabnly this book implies the Turks just outright said No.

Turkish Foreign Policy, 1774-2000
By William M. Hale

Page 87 " In Negotiations with the Germans in June [1941] Turkey refused German demands for an agreement allowing the dispatch of an unlimited quantity of German arms to Iraq and a defined number of troops across Turkish territory"

I gave you the link to that book, the same book also mentions German documents that detail the haggling on the issue and even mention a tentative alliance agreement, something that cant be confirmed from the Turkish side since the documents of that time are not available to the public, I am pretty sure they are so because they prove the Turks rejected the German request outright, as they are fond of claiming...

[ljadw]

a quote from another thread

" Sealing off the "roof"of the Caucasus from the remainder of the Soviet Union, along with the existing possession of the Ukraine would have lost Stalin 70% of his coal,85-90% of his oil, and 50-60% of his food supply, along with large iron and manganese deposits ! He was SUNK! And the germans would have had a river based defense line they could hold. That this was THE WAR WINNER" viewtopic.php?f=66&t=78524&start=90

this was part of my point about clearing the Soviets from the Baltic and Black Seas, it relieves their own transportation problems, but also puts them right on top of key points.

in the north they would be on top of the major Lend Lease route for the critical first year.

The Caucasus oil was not a war winner :the German experts warned that it was totally uncertain and unproved that the fall of the Caucasus would result in the collaps of the SU .
Some reasons :
1 90 % of the oil production before the war is not 90% of the oil production during the war
2 Even more important : the SU needed less oil during the war than before the war ,because before the war most oil was used by the civilian sector and during the war the civilian sector used much less oil and also coal and used wood .
The figures of the Soviet energy mix are well known :
before the war they were :
oil : 18,7 %
wood : 20 %
coal + gas : 61 %
in 1945 :
oil : 15 %
wood : 50 %
coal + gas : 35 %
Thus it is not so that the loss of the main prewar oil and coal resources would result in the fall of the SU .
For food : it is the same : the loss of 50% of the prewar food supply does not mean that during the war people would have 50% less to eat .During the war, Britain imported much less food, but that did not result in a famine,it was the opposite : the average Briton was better feed during the war than before the war,because the domestic food production replaced the lost food imports .
You underestimate the ingeniosity of people if they have to survive : during the war everyone ,including thoose in the cities,were farmers .

[pugsville]

I am not, I REPEAT, YOU WERE THE ONE WHO MADE THAT QUOTE, I dont use wikipedia as a source, ever...

you quote indirectly. SO you agree we can just dismiss that,

The weapons went through the Turkish railroad, weapons to be used against their nominal UK ally... so I am pretty sure they would have gone to war against Germany and the USSR to protect UK interests in Iraq, since they werent even a colony...

Never said they would. It's about Turkish interests,

I gave you the link to that book, the same book also mentions German documents that detail the haggling on the issue and even mention a tentative alliance agreement, something that cant be confirmed from the Turkish side since the documents of that time are not available to the public, I am pretty sure they are so because they prove the Turks rejected the German request outright, as they are fond of claiming...

Please provide the quote that says this. because it does not. It presents conflicted account in German records.

Page 88
"the Second account, goes on to relate that von Papen opposed this plan , by arguing that idea of getting Turkey to grant transit rights to Germany was just a vain dream., and that territorial offers would not have any effect on Turkish Policy., It does not suggest that Saracoglu ever agreed to draft treaty. The only thing that can be said ofr certain that the Turks rapidly abandoned the alliance project or that they never adopted it anyway"

[JAG13]

I am not, I REPEAT, YOU WERE THE ONE WHO MADE THAT QUOTE, I dont use wikipedia as a source, ever...

you quote indirectly. SO you agree we can just dismiss that,

YOU made that quote and didnt post its source, I am the only one who provided sources here...

The weapons went through the Turkish railroad, weapons to be used against their nominal UK ally... so I am pretty sure they would have gone to war against Germany and the USSR to protect UK interests in Iraq, since they werent even a colony...

Never said they would. It's about Turkish interests,

Please explain how being polonized by Germany and the USSR is in Turkey's interest.

I gave you the link to that book, the same book also mentions German documents that detail the haggling on the issue and even mention a tentative alliance agreement, something that cant be confirmed from the Turkish side since the documents of that time are not available to the public, I am pretty sure they are so because they prove the Turks rejected the German request outright, as they are fond of claiming...

Please provide the quote that says this. because it does not. It presents conflicted account in German records.

Page 88
"the Second account, goes on to relate that von Papen opposed this plan , by arguing that idea of getting Turkey to grant transit rights to Germany was just a vain dream., and that territorial offers would not have any effect on Turkish Policy., It does not suggest that Saracoglu ever agreed to draft treaty. The only thing that can be said ofr certain that the Turks rapidly abandoned the alliance project or that they never adopted it anyway"

Yes, as I told you from the start, there are conflicting views...

The first source is Papen, the second one is von Ribbentrop who hated Papen and sent him away from Berlin and did all he could to discredit him thereafter, to the absurd point of claiming that von Papen was opposing his own ideas, after all von Papen put Turkey above Italy constantly as a potential ally and clashed with Ciano when he proposed Italy return at least some of the Dodecanese islands to Turkey.

Source? You can read it in the some book I gave you the link for and you keep quoting...