The ideal Axis strategy

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
pugsville
Member
Posts: 907
Joined: 17 Aug 2011 04:40

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by pugsville » 24 Nov 2019 22:34

T. A. Gardner wrote:
24 Nov 2019 19:37
JAG13 wrote:
24 Nov 2019 18:58
T. A. Gardner wrote:
24 Nov 2019 17:14

Japan attacks Pearl Harbor and opens a Pacific War. Some version of that is likely to happen regardless of events in Europe.

Germany declares war on Japan. Hitler offers the US help in defeating Japan. Doesn't matter if he can deliver, it's the thought that counts.
Is that even necessary? Can FDR declare war on Germany just because IF Germany simply declares neutrality?

Even with L&L, Germany will take Egypt since there is no Russian distraction and has plenty of LW assets plus Vichy and Iraqi (likely Iranian as well) support, on top of that Turkey is likely to switch sides and at least allow German passage to Iraq, they wont fall on a sword for the UK...
The problem with Germany remaining neutral is it gives FDR an opening to continue supplying Lend-Lease as well as the possibility of war with Germany. Germany declares war on Japan right after Pearl Harbor and says they'll help the US defeat Japan leaves FDR in a political cross.

Imagine the opposition in Congress: "Our boys are fightin' the Japs and what is our President doin? He's sending our best tanks and planes to the British to fight the Germans who are our allies against those dirty b@$+ards! I say we impeach the SOB!"

Well, you get the idea. With Germany as an ally against Japan, wanted or not, FDR is in a political bind. He can't support sending equipment to fight the Germans and is forced into neutrality. This in turn leaves the British terribly short on material to fight the Germans.

All that's needed for a "perfect storm" is public opposition to finishing Germany rises in Britain as a result and the British agree to a negotiated peace. Italy would have little leeway but to follow suit. An Anglo-Italian war would end badly for Italy.

The object here is for Germany to end hostilities in Europe on their terms, not defeat and occupy Britain or British territory they really don't want or need. That gives the Germans the breathing room to rebuild their economy, retool their military, and have another go in 10 to 15 years rather than try to grab the whole pie in one bite. That is essentially what Stalin and Russia did. Small bites over a longer period. It worked well for the Soviet Union.
I do not think any of the political leadership would betaken in by such a transparently fictitious declaration of war. Nor do i think public opinion would be swayed much. Lean Lease was running already. It would take a republican party willing to do anything to oppose FDR. Topday maybe not in 1940s.

Is Germany evacuating France, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, The Netherlands, Yugoslavia, Greece?

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12053
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by ljadw » 25 Nov 2019 07:02

From Germany and WWII ( German edition ) Tome 4 P 17 :
On August 2 1940, Keitel explained to Thomas ( who was not present at the conference of July 31 ) Hitler's decision to increase the Feldheer to 180 divisions and gave the following reasons:
1 One can no longer expect the collaps of Britain in 1940 in certain circumstances
2 An intervention of the US in 1941 is possible
3 It is possible that the relation with the USSR will change in 1941 .

About an intervention of the US : this would depend on 3 factors ,of which only one of them could be influenced by Germany
1 The election of an interventionist or isolationist as president :it is obvious that the danger of an intervention from the US would increase if there was an interventionist elected
2 The strength of the economic potential of the US : this would be influenced by point 1 : an interventionist would increase America's economic and military strength
3 The situation in Britain : it is obvious that the fall of Britain would influence the two former points :if Britain collapsed, the interventionists would have a lot of trouble to convince the American people too intervene,and militarily,one can ask the question if US could land on the continent without the presence of an unsinkable carrier .
Germany could only intervene on point 3 : the fall of Britain would/could prevent an American intervention .But as Keitel told Thomas that one could not expect this in 1940 and as the chances for 1941 would be even smaller,only one option remained : Barbarossa , and as time was running out, Hitler initially was thinking of Barbarossa in the Autumn of 1940 .
For those who do not believe the first reason Keitel was giving, the German text is :

'' das mit dem Zusammenbruch Englands im Jahre 1940 unter Umständen nicht mehr zu rechnen sei.''

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2549
Joined: 12 Jan 2015 13:34
Location: On the continent

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by MarkN » 25 Nov 2019 13:43

ljadw wrote:
24 Nov 2019 20:20
The nomination of Willkie as presidential candidate would have as result that in November an interventionist would be president .This would be very bad for Germany, as they knew that the US economic power was much bigger than that of Germany .And an interventionist potus would use this power to help Britain .
Shortly after the election ,LL was voted .Already before the election ,Selective Service was voted .Only the election of an isolationist could prevent US joining the war .
And about Willkie : after the GOP convention,the Editorial of the Montgomery Advertiser (Ala) headlined :Willkie said : we will beat Hitler in 1940 on our own terms.(Source : Appendix to the Congressional Record P 5086 ) .
It is obvious that Hitler knew of the ideas of Willkie .
On July 21 Hitler met the WM commanders and said the following :why is Britain continuing the war ?
1 It hopes on the US
2 It hopes on the USSR .
Source : Unternehmen Barbarossa P 156 .
He repeated this on the conference of July 31 .
Germany had still a window of opportunity as US and the USSR were not ready .Hitler's only chance was to eliminate very quickly Britain,hoping that the elimination of Britain would prevent the intervention of the US . As he could not eliminate Britain with a landing, air attacks or submarine warfare,before US would intervene, he decided to eliminate the SU ( Britain's continental sword ),because he could do nothing against the US . He said explicitly that if the USSR was eliminated, Japan could act much stronger against the US ,which would prevent US from intervening in Europe (wishful thinking ) .
Germany's situation in the summer of 1940 was hopeless . The only thing Hitler could imagine was an attack on the country that was the least hostile to Germany .He could do nothing against his two main enemies .Saying that the Barbarossa decision was wrong,is to refuse that there was no alternative for Germany .
In March 1941 Hitler repeated again : Russia is Britain's continental sword.
None of this evidences that the Nazi's decided to attack the Soviet Union (whilst still being at war with the British Empire) because of the outcome of a GOP convention in August 1940.

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2549
Joined: 12 Jan 2015 13:34
Location: On the continent

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by MarkN » 25 Nov 2019 13:45

ljadw wrote:
25 Nov 2019 07:02
From Germany and WWII ( German edition ) Tome 4 P 17 :
On August 2 1940, Keitel explained to Thomas ( who was not present at the conference of July 31 ) Hitler's decision to increase the Feldheer to 180 divisions and gave the following reasons:
1 One can no longer expect the collaps of Britain in 1940 in certain circumstances
2 An intervention of the US in 1941 is possible
3 It is possible that the relation with the USSR will change in 1941 .

About an intervention of the US : this would depend on 3 factors ,of which only one of them could be influenced by Germany
1 The election of an interventionist or isolationist as president :it is obvious that the danger of an intervention from the US would increase if there was an interventionist elected
2 The strength of the economic potential of the US : this would be influenced by point 1 : an interventionist would increase America's economic and military strength
3 The situation in Britain : it is obvious that the fall of Britain would influence the two former points :if Britain collapsed, the interventionists would have a lot of trouble to convince the American people too intervene,and militarily,one can ask the question if US could land on the continent without the presence of an unsinkable carrier .
Germany could only intervene on point 3 : the fall of Britain would/could prevent an American intervention .But as Keitel told Thomas that one could not expect this in 1940 and as the chances for 1941 would be even smaller,only one option remained : Barbarossa , and as time was running out, Hitler initially was thinking of Barbarossa in the Autumn of 1940 .
For those who do not believe the first reason Keitel was giving, the German text is :

'' das mit dem Zusammenbruch Englands im Jahre 1940 unter Umständen nicht mehr zu rechnen sei.''
None of this evidences that the Nazi's decided to attack the Soviet Union (whilst still being at war with the British Empire) because of the outcome of a GOP convention in August 1940.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12053
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by ljadw » 25 Nov 2019 15:31

I did not say this : I said that with the GOP convention disappeared the last chance for Germany to avoid war with the US,because the outcome of the GOP convention meant that whatever would be the outcome of the November election,the result would be that an interventionist would be potus .
FDR or Willkie : the result was the same for Germany .The fact that initially Hitler was thinking of Barbarossa in the Autumn of 1940,means that he was taking into account an intervention of the US in 1941 . The risk of such an intervention was greatly increased by the nomination of Willkie .Without Willkie the risk was some 60 %, with the nomination of Willkie it was 100 % . And,as Barbarossa had only any sense if it started and finished before war with the USA,....

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12053
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by ljadw » 25 Nov 2019 15:53

In WWI US mobilized AFTER its DOW of April 1917, in WWII US started its mobilisation already in 1940,especially after the fall of France, this was for HItler the proof that US were taking the place of France and would attack him when they were ready .And with the nomination of Willkie disappeared the last political/psychological barrier against intervention on the side of Britain .If Taft was nominated and elected in November,there would still be a ( small ? ) chance for Germany to eliminate Britain without intervention from the US .If Willkie /FDR was elected.war would happen.

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2549
Joined: 12 Jan 2015 13:34
Location: On the continent

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by MarkN » 25 Nov 2019 16:19

ljadw wrote:
25 Nov 2019 15:31
I did not say this : I said that with the GOP convention disappeared the last chance for Germany to avoid war with the US,because the outcome of the GOP convention meant that whatever would be the outcome of the November election,the result would be that an interventionist would be potus .
:roll:

You wrote...
ljadw wrote:
22 Nov 2019 15:43
No : it failed, but this does not mean that it was the wrong strategy .
In August 1940 (GOP convention ) the Germans knew that war with the US was inevitable,and the outcome of such a war was a well-known fact . The only possibility to prevent such a war was to eliminate Britain . Very quickly .
As the Germans could do nothing against the US ( and doing something was not wise ) ,and as they could do nothing against Britain that would force Britain to give up, the only possibility was to eliminate the USSR,hoping that this would strengthen the Japanese position vis-á-vis the US and that Britain would than give up .
The chances for Barbarossa to succeed were less than 1%, but it was all that remained, unless waiting til Spaatz and Harris would destroy the German cities .
...and you also wrote...
ljadw wrote:
22 Nov 2019 17:08
Germany could not invade Britain, it could not invade the US, but it could invade the USSR,what it did .
In August 1940 Germany was in a desperate situation, something which required a desperate solution , It was a VaBanque . Hitler was forced to stake the survival of Germany on an invasion of the USSR.It was the only card that remained : already before Barbarossa, US,still at peace, were outproducing the LW .
...which refer back to this...
ljadw wrote:
22 Nov 2019 15:24
The best Axis strategy was the one they followed in the OTL.
You have presented a claim that the decision to attack the Soviet Union was derived from the outcome of the GOP convention in August 1940. Your logic being that if the Soviet Union is defeated, Britain gives up; if Britain gives up, America has no chance of attacking Germany.

If you are retracting that claim, for whatever reason, have the decency to do so rather than try and claim you never made it in the first place.

Hitler's war "strategy" did not start in August 1940.

HistoryGeek2019
Member
Posts: 399
Joined: 06 Aug 2019 03:55
Location: America

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by HistoryGeek2019 » 25 Nov 2019 19:06

ljadw wrote:
25 Nov 2019 15:31
I did not say this : I said that with the GOP convention disappeared the last chance for Germany to avoid war with the US,because the outcome of the GOP convention meant that whatever would be the outcome of the November election,the result would be that an interventionist would be potus .
FDR or Willkie : the result was the same for Germany .The fact that initially Hitler was thinking of Barbarossa in the Autumn of 1940,means that he was taking into account an intervention of the US in 1941 . The risk of such an intervention was greatly increased by the nomination of Willkie .Without Willkie the risk was some 60 %, with the nomination of Willkie it was 100 % . And,as Barbarossa had only any sense if it started and finished before war with the USA,....
This makes perfect sense. Well said.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12053
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by ljadw » 25 Nov 2019 19:42

MarkN wrote:
25 Nov 2019 16:19
ljadw wrote:
25 Nov 2019 15:31
I did not say this : I said that with the GOP convention disappeared the last chance for Germany to avoid war with the US,because the outcome of the GOP convention meant that whatever would be the outcome of the November election,the result would be that an interventionist would be potus .
:roll:

You wrote...
ljadw wrote:
22 Nov 2019 15:43
No : it failed, but this does not mean that it was the wrong strategy .
In August 1940 (GOP convention ) the Germans knew that war with the US was inevitable,and the outcome of such a war was a well-known fact . The only possibility to prevent such a war was to eliminate Britain . Very quickly .
As the Germans could do nothing against the US ( and doing something was not wise ) ,and as they could do nothing against Britain that would force Britain to give up, the only possibility was to eliminate the USSR,hoping that this would strengthen the Japanese position vis-á-vis the US and that Britain would than give up .
The chances for Barbarossa to succeed were less than 1%, but it was all that remained, unless waiting til Spaatz and Harris would destroy the German cities .
...and you also wrote...
ljadw wrote:
22 Nov 2019 17:08
Germany could not invade Britain, it could not invade the US, but it could invade the USSR,what it did .
In August 1940 Germany was in a desperate situation, something which required a desperate solution , It was a VaBanque . Hitler was forced to stake the survival of Germany on an invasion of the USSR.It was the only card that remained : already before Barbarossa, US,still at peace, were outproducing the LW .
...which refer back to this...
ljadw wrote:
22 Nov 2019 15:24
The best Axis strategy was the one they followed in the OTL.
You have presented a claim that the decision to attack the Soviet Union was derived from the outcome of the GOP convention in August 1940. Your logic being that if the Soviet Union is defeated, Britain gives up; if Britain gives up, America has no chance of attacking Germany.

If you are retracting that claim, for whatever reason, have the decency to do so rather than try and claim you never made it in the first place.

Hitler's war "strategy" did not start in August 1940.
I never said that Barbarossa was derived from the outcome of the GOP convention .That is your interpretation . Barbarossa would also happen if an isolationist Republican was chosen in August 1940 . Only one thing could prevent Barbarossa : the election of an isolationist in November 1940 .
The importance of the GOP convention for Germany was that the outcome of the election in November no longer did matter .War with the US was inevitable . Unless Britain gave up , but the nomination of Willkie was an incentive to Britain not to give up but to continue the fight : whoever would be elected potus,the Yanks would come .

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2549
Joined: 12 Jan 2015 13:34
Location: On the continent

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by MarkN » 25 Nov 2019 21:14

ljadw wrote:
25 Nov 2019 19:42
I never said that Barbarossa was derived from the outcome of the GOP convention .
Nope, you have not used those words. They are my words to identify what your words mean. The words you use can be read in your posts.

According to the logic - but not the words you use - of your latest missive, BARBAROSSA was going to occur regardless of anything that was decided in America.

So, if the GOP convention of August 1940 has nothing to do with a/the decision on BARBAROSSA, why do you keep referencing the event and that timeframe?

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2549
Joined: 12 Jan 2015 13:34
Location: On the continent

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by MarkN » 25 Nov 2019 21:29

I have already had posts deleted by site management for claiming your posts are .... [l will refrain from repeating the words but l'm sure readers know what l mean]. But part of that comment is tied to not having a clue as to what GOP convention in August 1940 you are referring to. Did one even occur? It is a bit of an elephant parked in your analysis and commentary.

thaddeus_c
Member
Posts: 689
Joined: 22 Jan 2014 03:16

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by thaddeus_c » 25 Nov 2019 23:58

mezsat2 wrote:
22 Nov 2019 09:28
The problem with knocking out GB and leaving Stalin at large is they have a permanent enormous threat to the East. Stalin had no intention of honoring the non-aggression pact. This is beyond discussion based on the historical record- he was buying time only.

Certainly, the assumption has to be that GB will not ever accept permanent German rule under these circumstances. The fleet remains intact. Much of their empire remains. The majority of Africa is wide open to a vast, uncontested landing by U.S. and imperial forces.

I've made no headway through the years with this argument, but Hitler's only chance of success in this conflict would be to simply withdraw from the British tussle once their army is kicked off the continent. The entire focus then becomes the USSR. With just a modicum of assistance of the Japanese in drawing off Stalin's reserve forces in Siberia and temporarily (perhaps permanently) foregoing aggression against the USA, Barbarossa succeeds.
my speculation is always for Germany to seize the Baltic and Black Seas, while invading up to Leningrad and Rostov, as they could be supplied (at least partly) by sea.

by skipping the Battle of Britain, they would have spared the worst of the LW losses, and have more force to pursue Soviet industry and hydroelectric plants.

while the Soviet oil is a mirage for the Germans (IMO) the coal reserves were within their grasp?

HistoryGeek2019
Member
Posts: 399
Joined: 06 Aug 2019 03:55
Location: America

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by HistoryGeek2019 » 26 Nov 2019 03:07

thaddeus_c wrote:
25 Nov 2019 23:58
mezsat2 wrote:
22 Nov 2019 09:28
The problem with knocking out GB and leaving Stalin at large is they have a permanent enormous threat to the East. Stalin had no intention of honoring the non-aggression pact. This is beyond discussion based on the historical record- he was buying time only.

Certainly, the assumption has to be that GB will not ever accept permanent German rule under these circumstances. The fleet remains intact. Much of their empire remains. The majority of Africa is wide open to a vast, uncontested landing by U.S. and imperial forces.

I've made no headway through the years with this argument, but Hitler's only chance of success in this conflict would be to simply withdraw from the British tussle once their army is kicked off the continent. The entire focus then becomes the USSR. With just a modicum of assistance of the Japanese in drawing off Stalin's reserve forces in Siberia and temporarily (perhaps permanently) foregoing aggression against the USA, Barbarossa succeeds.
my speculation is always for Germany to seize the Baltic and Black Seas, while invading up to Leningrad and Rostov, as they could be supplied (at least partly) by sea.

by skipping the Battle of Britain, they would have spared the worst of the LW losses, and have more force to pursue Soviet industry and hydroelectric plants.

while the Soviet oil is a mirage for the Germans (IMO) the coal reserves were within their grasp?
This is a good plan. Germany conquered the coal in the Donbass in 1941/42. This would have gone a long way toward solving Germany's coal shortage if they had focused on utilizing the coal mines, but that didn't happen until 1943 when it was too late. Hitler should have listened to Fromm and gone over to the defensive on all fronts in 1942. That might have allowed Germany to hold out another year or so.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12053
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by ljadw » 26 Nov 2019 08:35

HistoryGeek2019 wrote:
26 Nov 2019 03:07
thaddeus_c wrote:
25 Nov 2019 23:58
mezsat2 wrote:
22 Nov 2019 09:28
The problem with knocking out GB and leaving Stalin at large is they have a permanent enormous threat to the East. Stalin had no intention of honoring the non-aggression pact. This is beyond discussion based on the historical record- he was buying time only.

Certainly, the assumption has to be that GB will not ever accept permanent German rule under these circumstances. The fleet remains intact. Much of their empire remains. The majority of Africa is wide open to a vast, uncontested landing by U.S. and imperial forces.

I've made no headway through the years with this argument, but Hitler's only chance of success in this conflict would be to simply withdraw from the British tussle once their army is kicked off the continent. The entire focus then becomes the USSR. With just a modicum of assistance of the Japanese in drawing off Stalin's reserve forces in Siberia and temporarily (perhaps permanently) foregoing aggression against the USA, Barbarossa succeeds.
my speculation is always for Germany to seize the Baltic and Black Seas, while invading up to Leningrad and Rostov, as they could be supplied (at least partly) by sea.

by skipping the Battle of Britain, they would have spared the worst of the LW losses, and have more force to pursue Soviet industry and hydroelectric plants.

while the Soviet oil is a mirage for the Germans (IMO) the coal reserves were within their grasp?
This is a good plan. Germany conquered the coal in the Donbass in 1941/42. This would have gone a long way toward solving Germany's coal shortage if they had focused on utilizing the coal mines, but that didn't happen until 1943 when it was too late. Hitler should have listened to Fromm and gone over to the defensive on all fronts in 1942. That might have allowed Germany to hold out another year or so.
And what would have happen after that year ?
About the coal : German occupation of the Donbass could not solve German coal shortage ( if this existed ) as it was impossible to transport millions of tons of coal in wartime from the Donbass to Germany .
What happened is that the loss of the Donbass was hurting the Soviet economy, more than what the loss of the Caucasian oil could do , but even then the Soviets were able to catch this loss .
In 1940 the Soviet energy mix was
Oil : 18,7 %
Gas and coal :some 60 %
wood : 20 %
In 1945 :
Oil ;15 %
gas and coal :35 %
Wood : 50 %
In 1940 most Soviet trains were running on coal, in 1945 most Soviet trains were running on wood .
In 1940 the US and the SU were the two countries who used most oil for their economy ,because they had oil from their own ( in 1948 oil was only 10 % of the energy mix in UK ),but even in the US/SU coal was still the number one in the economy .
And although the Soviets were hurt by the loss of the Donbass they were able to replace this loss .

corbulo
Member
Posts: 57
Joined: 17 Oct 2019 16:06
Location: London

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by corbulo » 26 Nov 2019 10:48

ljadw wrote:
24 Nov 2019 20:25
corbulo wrote:
24 Nov 2019 18:34
pugsville wrote:
21 Nov 2019 10:53
corbulo wrote:
21 Nov 2019 10:30
Court Turkey first and foremostly. Easy access to the Caucusus. Plus a couple of million extra troops which in any war with the USSR wouldve been priceless. Promise Turkey lost territories in the Caucusus, Syria and Palestine.
Not so easy access to the Caucasus, really poor could only support a relatively small force.

The Axis could not equip the troops they had.
I was really talking about easier access to the caucusus for tbe germans than having to slog it overland. Plus easy access to Syria, Palestine etc
Where would the Germans get the forces to attack the Caucasus via Turkey ?And how would they supply them ?
There was in the past a thread about the Turkish railways on this Forum and the conclusion was that it was impossible to supply the forces that would attack the Caucasus via Turkey .
And : WHAT couple of millon extra troops ?
It would depend when in the war Turkey joined in. Fact is Turkey bordered the Caucusus and Syria, wider Middle East (including Egypt). They could have easily supplied and provided safe passage to any german force in the area and bolstered it. Then there's the fact that Arabs in the Middle East didnt like the British, French etc. What British force in the area could have stopped them?? How big were British forces in Iraq, for example...? I mean, the Germans conquered Yugoslavia and Greece in a matter of weeks on 1941. What problems could they have encountered with Turkish and Arab support...?

Return to “What if”