The ideal Axis strategy

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Peter89
Member
Posts: 1248
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Spain

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by Peter89 » 22 Nov 2019 18:28

ljadw wrote:
22 Nov 2019 16:59
For the SU : it won against Germany WITHOUT the commitment of the Siberian divisions .
What do you mean here?

A great number of the divisions from the Eastern Siberian, Far Eastern, Transbaikal, Siberian Military Districts participated in the Great Patriotic War, the Battle of Moscow included (16th, 24th Armies, parts of 30th Army).
“And while I am talking to you, mothers and fathers, I give you one more assurance. I have said this before, but I shall say it again, and again and again. Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars." - FDR, October 1940

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12136
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

The ideal Axis strategy

Post by ljadw » 23 Nov 2019 15:56

I said what Hitler said on July 31. If you think Hitler was saying nonsensical garbage, you have to prove it .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12136
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by ljadw » 24 Nov 2019 09:21

That Willkie was an interventionist is a fact, not garbage .
That the Germans knew that war with the US was coming ,is a fact, not garbage .
That Lend Lease would result in war between Germany and the USA is a fact,not garbage .

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6013
Joined: 13 Jun 2008 22:54
Location: Kent

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by Terry Duncan » 24 Nov 2019 13:09

A series of posts by MarkN were removed by this moderator for repeated personal attacks. MarkN, if you are unable to reply without resorting to incivil remarks, please do not reply to posters you clearly hold in low regard. Senior staff take a very dim view when a succession of posts from a single thread start to fill up the section for removed posts, so this is likely to end badly. If you feel a poster is posting something that is incorrect, you can always offer actual evidence to refute it rather than calling it nonsensical garbage.

Terry Duncan

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

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by MarkN » 24 Nov 2019 16:25

Terry Duncan wrote:
24 Nov 2019 13:09
A series of posts by MarkN were removed by this moderator for repeated personal attacks. MarkN, if you are unable to reply without resorting to incivil remarks, please do not reply to posters you clearly hold in low regard. Senior staff take a very dim view when a succession of posts from a single thread start to fill up the section for removed posts, so this is likely to end badly. If you feel a poster is posting something that is incorrect, you can always offer actual evidence to refute it rather than calling it nonsensical garbage.

Terry Duncan
The thread proceeds (my bold & underline)....
ljadw wrote:
22 Nov 2019 15:43
HistoryGeek2019 wrote:
22 Nov 2019 15:30
ljadw wrote:
22 Nov 2019 15:24
About the SU : it was never a threat for Germany,it would never be one .Because the SU would never attack Germany on its own, and if it did, it would have no allies .
If the SU was not a threat to Germany (which I agree with), then attacking the SU was the wrong German strategy.
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 .
Poster ljadw has made the claim that the reason Nazi Germany attacked the Soviet Union was to prevent having to go to war with America. A decision he links directly and quite specifically to the events and choices made at a GOP convention in August 1940.

Every reader can make up their own mind as to the credibility of these claims.

I appreciate you have deleted my posts beceause l repeatedly stated poster ljadw's words were XYZ. I am not quibbling that.

But your post to me requests that l provide "actual evidence" when refuting poster ljadw's claims. You make no request that poster ljadw provide evidence that his claim has any substance in the first place.

Is this how AHF is to work? Claimant can post whetever they wish, onus on refuter to furnish evidence?

Poster ljadw has offered not a single shred of evidence that links the GOP convention to the German decision to invade the Soviet Union. Unless forum staff consider the statement "That Willkie was an interventionist" as evidence of such a link. Do they?

How can anyone evidence that such a link does not exist?

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 2549
Joined: 02 Feb 2006 00:23
Location: Arizona

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by T. A. Gardner » 24 Nov 2019 17:14

My favorite, however remotely possible is this:

The war goes as it did in Europe up to the Fall of France. The Germans / Hitler focuses on defeating Britain and shoring up his position in the East while making nice with Russia. The Germans also do as much as they can to keep America from entering the war. They actively try to sway American public opinion towards staying out of the war in Europe.

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.

Now, the problems for the British and Americans are:

Lend-Lease is dead. Britain isn't getting any help to fight the Germans from the US. It's now politically infeasible. Without US equipment, the British most likely lose Egypt particularly given that the Germans aren't involved in Russia. In an air war alone, Britain will suffer much heavier casualties than they did with a concurrent US air war going.

The U-boat war goes better for Germany because the US won't particularly help now.

Britain still loses in the Far East as things really won't have changed there much in this scenario.

The US is going to defeat Japan and do it in pretty short order since they have no war in Europe to fight.

All Germany needs is for Britain to be willing to negotiate a peace settlement to win. That happens, and Germany takes a breather while they get ready for round three in the 50's or 60's.

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

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by corbulo » 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

User avatar
JAG13
Member
Posts: 689
Joined: 23 Mar 2013 01:50

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by JAG13 » 24 Nov 2019 18:44

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.
No, but you can pull out a "Pyke" and turn 90% of the Soviet oil infrastructure into smoke.
Last edited by JAG13 on 24 Nov 2019 19:48, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
JAG13
Member
Posts: 689
Joined: 23 Mar 2013 01:50

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by JAG13 » 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...

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 2549
Joined: 02 Feb 2006 00:23
Location: Arizona

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by T. A. Gardner » 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.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12136
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by ljadw » 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.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12136
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by ljadw » 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 ?

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12136
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by ljadw » 24 Nov 2019 20:29

JAG13 wrote:
24 Nov 2019 18:44
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.
No, but you can pull out a "Pyke" and turn 90% of the Soviet oil infrastructure into smoke.
1 Such a Pyke is questionable
2 If it was done,it would not be decisive .

User avatar
JAG13
Member
Posts: 689
Joined: 23 Mar 2013 01:50

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by JAG13 » 24 Nov 2019 21:11

T. A. Gardner wrote:
24 Nov 2019 19:37

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.
Ending L&L would be nice, but I doubt Hitler could stomach betraying an even nominal ally in such a public way...

Specially when there was no need, with no Barbarossa Germany has plenty of assets to kick the UK out of the Med and even the ME, and with that I believe the UK would have sacked Chuchill and filed for peace since there would be no point in fighting, the US is busy and there is no hope of victory.

pugsville
Member
Posts: 911
Joined: 17 Aug 2011 04:40

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by pugsville » 24 Nov 2019 22:30

T. A. Gardner wrote:
24 Nov 2019 17:14
My favorite, however remotely possible is this:

The war goes as it did in Europe up to the Fall of France. The Germans / Hitler focuses on defeating Britain and shoring up his position in the East while making nice with Russia. The Germans also do as much as they can to keep America from entering the war. They actively try to sway American public opinion towards staying out of the war in Europe.

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.

Now, the problems for the British and Americans are:

Lend-Lease is dead. Britain isn't getting any help to fight the Germans from the US. It's now politically infeasible. Without US equipment, the British most likely lose Egypt particularly given that the Germans aren't involved in Russia. In an air war alone, Britain will suffer much heavier casualties than they did with a concurrent US air war going.

The U-boat war goes better for Germany because the US won't particularly help now.

Britain still loses in the Far East as things really won't have changed there much in this scenario.

The US is going to defeat Japan and do it in pretty short order since they have no war in Europe to fight.

All Germany needs is for Britain to be willing to negotiate a peace settlement to win. That happens, and Germany takes a breather while they get ready for round three in the 50's or 60's.
I just do not think anyone would take such a declaration of war seriously,

Return to “What if”