# Could the Allies defeat Germany only with air power?



## Jenisch (Nov 22, 2011)

In an alternative history scenario were Germany does not fight with the Soviets and the Anglo-Americans were forced to fight the Germans alone, their air power would be enough to pave the way for a sucessfull invasion of Europe? 

I think this is an interesting subject to discuss because many historians seems to not give much consideration to the air power in WWII, and therefore say that in this specific case only the full strenght of the German Army would render a landing operation unlikely to succeed.

ps: the tittle of the topic is wrong, desconsiderate. If possible, moderation can correct it.


----------



## Kryten (Nov 22, 2011)

ACM Harris believed bombing could bring Germany to it's knees and win the war and he was wrong!
It takes a concerted effort by all the different arms to bring Victory in a war.


----------



## bobbysocks (Nov 22, 2011)

just to clarify...are you asking if the soviets were not involved could the western allies with their air forces have beaten the reich? Or are you asking if the western allies just using their air power alone...no ground forces could have beaten the reich?


----------



## davebender (Nov 22, 2011)

Something like 80% of the German war effort fought on the Russian front. Without the German-Russian war the Luftwaffe would be mostly deployed in the west and they would have a lot more aircraft without the need to maintain 150+ divisions in eastern front combat. The so called "Battle of Britain" would continue for the entire duration of the war with ever increasing numbers of German aircraft. Meanwhile RAF Bomber Command would bomb Europe for the entire duration of the war just as happened historically.

So who gets bombed to rubble first?


----------



## gjs238 (Nov 22, 2011)

After you read Mein Kampf this scenario doesn't seem very plausible.
The whole purpose of this venture was eastward expansion for Lebensraum.


----------



## Readie (Nov 22, 2011)

The allies had the bombers and the armaments but, without a weapon like like the A bomb its hard to image Nazi Germany being defeated by area bombing alone.
The bomber crew losses were appalling as it was without the entire LW to contend with.
John


----------



## bobbysocks (Nov 22, 2011)

in this senario does the us still get bombed by japan? if NO, then it would remain to be seen how long the US would sit on its hands before getting involved. if yes then...yes the german industrial machine could have cranked out more ac but i doubt they still wouldnt have been able to match the output of the us aircraft factories. also IF the soviets werent an ally where does that place finland? the western allies never courted the fins because they were afraid of upsetting uncle joe...since he obviously had designs there. without that...the west could have negotiated and possibly pulled finland into their union...if so they would then have bases where long range bombers could strike just about any area of the reich....it still would have been a problem until long range escorts were made available. the fins would have been a good ally to have! there are a lot of IFs in this line of questioning. but if the intent was to see if solely airpower alone could win a war... i would have to say no. sooner or later you have to plant ground troops to really secure a win.


----------



## gjs238 (Nov 22, 2011)

What are the Soviets doing in this scenario?
Prior to Barbarossa, the Soviets invaded, warred with, or annexed Japan, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania (annexed Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina), Finland.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Nov 22, 2011)

Could the Allies defeat Germany only with air power?

No.



MM


----------



## davebender (Nov 22, 2011)

The Soviets would be exchanging petroleum for German coal in accordance with the trade agreement.


----------



## Jenisch (Nov 22, 2011)

bobbysocks said:


> just to clarify...are you asking if the soviets were not involved could the western allies with their air forces have beaten the reich? Or are you asking if the western allies just using their air power alone...no ground forces could have beaten the reich?



I wrote the tittle wrong. It would be US and Britain figthing against Germany by themselfs. The question is if would be plausible for them to invade Europe using the air power to achive this objective.



davebender said:


> Something like 80% of the German war effort fought on the Russian front. Without the German-Russian war the Luftwaffe would be mostly deployed in the west and they would have a lot more aircraft without the need to maintain 150+ divisions in eastern front combat. The so called "Battle of Britain" would continue for the entire duration of the war with ever increasing numbers of German aircraft. Meanwhile RAF Bomber Command would bomb Europe for the entire duration of the war just as happened historically.



Regarding the Battle of Britain, the RAF succesfully repeled the German air strikes, with the LW suffering. Further raids would meet resistance from the USAAF as well.

One of the reasons for my creation of this topic was this: 

"_4.06 times as many aircraft were lost in combat in the West than were lost in the East, a ratio reasonably close to Groehler's 3.41 for all "losses". The most chilling statistic for the JG 26 pilots appears in the sortie data. An airplane flying a combat mission in the West was 7.66 times more likely to be destroyed than one on a similar mission in the East. It is clear that the burden of sacrifice was borne by the Luftwaffe aircrew on the Western Front and over the Reich, not on the Eastern Front. _"

Source with additional details: http://don-caldwell.we.bs/jg26/thtrlosses.htm

In 41-42 most of the LW was in the East. But even so the margin in which the Western Allies managed to destroy the Luftwaffe was very spaced. So I considerate this valid. Specially because the Allies send 18,700 aircraft to the Soviets by the Lend Lease program, and this, as well as the other resources send to them, all would be turned against Germany. The British particulary send large amounts of equipment in 1941 to the USSR. I belive this equipment being send to Africa could have sealed the gap the Eastern Front created there historically. And also because the German and Italian navies could not ship much material and men to there. Other consideration is that the US would likely change it's priorities in the Pacific. And even more of their GDP would be employed in the war.



gjs238 said:


> After you read Mein Kampf this scenario doesn't seem very plausible.
> The whole purpose of this venture was eastward expansion for Lebensraum.



Whatever political reasons. I want to try know here if the Western Allies were really so unlikely capable of defeat Hitler alone as often heard.



> What are the Soviets doing in this scenario?



Imaginate the Soviets in a neutrality, even if not so realistic. They keep providing the Germans with a median supply quantity. Enough for their needs to maintein the war. But not for create larger reserves.



bobbysocks said:


> in this senario does the us still get bombed by japan? if NO, then it would remain to be seen how long the US would sit on its hands before getting involved.



I will put that no. Japan is usually desconsiderated by people who mentioned the USSR could have won the war alone, who only considerate Germant. Since I'm trying to know if the Western Allies also could, will desconsiderate a Japanese participation as well. Gonna set that the Americans enter in the war towards the end of 1941. Do not want to discuss much politics involved here. More industrial and military capability.


----------



## tyrodtom (Nov 22, 2011)

With Russia not at war, I doubt Japan would have attacked the US.

Germany invaded Norway fairly early in the war, I doubt we would be able to use Finland as any kind of base even if they did become a ally. 

I just don't see any way the Allies could have won without the Russians, and it would have been over before we could have developed any atomic capability.


----------



## davebender (Nov 22, 2011)

Germany reacted quickly with overwhelming force to thwart Operation Wilfred and the complementary Operation R4. They would react even more quickly to thwart a British occupation of Finland.

Operation Wilfred.
Mine Norwegian coastal waters beginning April 5, 1940.

Operation R4.
Occupy Narvik, Trondheim, Bergen and Stavenger with British and French troops on April 5, 1940. Anglo-French bickering delayed Operation R4 until April 8, 1940 providing Germany with an opportunity to land troops first.


----------



## gjs238 (Nov 22, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> Could the Allies defeat Germany only with air power?
> 
> No.
> 
> ...



Common, after some shock awe, Hitler would pee his pants and plead for peace
(yeah, right)


----------



## michaelmaltby (Nov 22, 2011)

".. I just don't see any way the Allies could have won without the Russians, and it would have been over before we could have developed any atomic capability."

I agree. Germany had a head start of 6 years - 1933 -39. Those first years of WW2 were a close thing.

MM


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 22, 2011)

davebender said:


> So who gets bombed to rubble first?


England


----------



## Jenisch (Nov 22, 2011)

tyrodtom said:


> I just don't see any way the Allies could have won without the Russians, and it would have been over before we could have developed any atomic capability.


 
Well, I think it would depend on the situation. There are a LOT if factors to considerate IMHO. And one of the major ones would be the presence of the USN with strength in Europe. The US would likely be capable of launch an invasion of Europe much quicker than historically.


----------



## Jenisch (Nov 22, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> England



The LW didn't get even closer to defeat the RAF as often told. This is a myth. Even worse with the USAAF and more resources directed from the Lend Lease the Soviets received.


----------



## bobbysocks (Nov 22, 2011)

i think the one of the first allied campaigns would have been the invasion of norway. if they were able to secure that then a treaty with the fins is more possible. 

i think the war would have been possible to win with out russia....the cost though would have been staggering in both men and materials


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 22, 2011)

bobbysocks said:


> i think the war would have been possible to win with out russia....the cost though would have been staggering in both men and materials


Imo the only way the west would have won without the Russians would have been played out the same way as the war in the pacific... with a nuclear waepon. OR perhaps more resources to fight the war in Europe would have taken from the Pacific. The US was a manufacturing megamachine back then.. but there are limits.


----------



## Jenisch (Nov 22, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> Imo the only way the west would have won without the Russians would have been played out the same way as the war in the pacific... with a nuclear waepon. OR perhaps more resources to fight the war in Europe would have taken from the Pacific. The US was a manufacturing megamachine back then.. but there are limits.



No Pacific here. People who say the Soviets could have won alone generally desconsiderate the Pacific. I'm doing the same here to see if can find if would be really so unlikely or impossible.


----------



## bobbysocks (Nov 22, 2011)

the atom bomb did not win the war. it hastened the end of what was already happening. japan was losing ground and had been for years...now the war was ready to begin on the japanese island. the lose of life to both sides would have been horrific. the A bombs were used to hopefully bring the end sooner....even after dropping them and the japanese high command was split as to surrender or keep fighting. ground troops won the pacific..taking of territory.

i agree it would probably have played out much the same way as in the pacific...with possibly a large carrier force in the atlantic....and who knows what.

and you are 100% correct...the american industrial might has limits....but so did germany's which was already commented upon had been waging war for 6 years....at a high cost....depleteing materials and $$$$. how much longer could they sustain that. and although hitler enjoyed a great degree of approval...how long can you wage war and keep public opinion with you before they say "enough is enough"!


----------



## Jenisch (Nov 22, 2011)

Just combat aircraft the Americans produced almost 8500 in 1941. While the Germans produced 11,000 planes of all types. The americans produced 18,000 of all types in '41. And most combat types were send to fight Japan. Among several relevant things about the American aircraft industry, the B-29 program would be accelerated and to be used in Europe.

I don't see the Germans in a so good situation without their conquests in Russia. Specially after entered in full war economy. Their massive slave force brought from there would not exist. And the gap of the American and British industry would be hard to seal even after they entered in war economy. They already massively outnumbered them historically.

Another pecualiarity from this scenario is that the main German industrial centers were much more closer from Western Europe than from what the Russians faced due to the German advance in Russia. The main treat from the Western Front was this. There's a famous mention (rarely not insane) of Hitler talking about this. And while Allied casualities would be surely higher, the Germans would also suffer higher casualities. And they would felt much more than the Allies. Any comparison with the Russian casualities, I don't think it is correct. They suffered 50% of their casualities during the Barbarossa, when suffered a surprise attacked and were umprepared for the war. They also lacked proper air power until 1943. The Western Allies would be much better prepared. Also, the Germans would not be capable of put so much troops in the channel with control of the air from the Allies in a so small area. The Allies destroyed much of the railway network form France before the D-Day and the same would have happened in this scenario if they went for the victory. 

Of course, I'm not saying this would likely happen or not. In the end I think it would be an evenly matched fight. Similar to the decisive Eastern Front historically.


----------



## davebender (Nov 22, 2011)

The April 1940 Anglo-French invasion of Norway was defeated by Germany. What makes you think a later Britain invasion would fare better?


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 22, 2011)

bobbysocks said:


> the atom bomb did not win the war. it hastened the end of what was already happening. japan was losing ground and had been for years...now the war was ready to begin on the japanese island. the lose of life to both sides would have been horrific. the A bombs were used to hopefully bring the end sooner....even after dropping them and the japanese high command was split as to surrender or keep fighting. ground troops won the pacific..taking of territory.
> 
> i agree it would probably have played out much the same way as in the pacific...with possibly a large carrier force in the atlantic....and who knows what.
> 
> and you are 100% correct...the american industrial might has limits....but so did germany's which was already commented upon had been waging war for 6 years....at a high cost....depleteing materials and $$$$. how much longer could they sustain that. and although hitler enjoyed a great degree of approval...how long can you wage war and keep public opinion with you before they say "enough is enough"!


All excellent points, but without the russians in this scenario for the Germans to worry about, 100% of German resources would have been against the west. Who knows if that would have been enough for the US to limit its envolvment in Europe. I mean the US people would yell the same ' enough is enough ' too. Especially with a Pacific War also.


----------



## Jenisch (Nov 22, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> I mean the US people would yell the same ' enough is enough ' too.



The general American public didn't wanted Hitler as a ruler of Europe. Most countries of the world were ready to fight Hitler accepting sacrificies, not only the Soviets. My Brazil for example, would probably send it's planned 300,000 men to fight the Nazis. We send only 25,000 historically, and did very well. Most people don't know about our participation, which also included a P-47 fighter group. =D



> Especially with a Pacific War also.



NO Pacific war, I already said! =_=


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 22, 2011)

Jenisch said:


> The general American public didn't wanted Hitler as a ruler of Europe. Most countries of the world were ready to fight Hitler accepting sacrificies, not only the Soviets.


Check the history books, most Americans didn't want to be envolved in the war in Europe period. So if you say no 'Pacific" then that means no Pearl Harbor ergo the US not entering the war in Europe and Germany not having to worry about the russians, England Europe would be crushed eventually.


----------



## Jenisch (Nov 22, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> Check the history books, most Americans didn't want to be envolved in the war in Europe period. So if you say no 'Pacific" then that means no Pearl Harbor ergo the US not entering the war in Europe and Germany not having to worry about the russians, England Europe would be crushed eventually.



FDR was very inclined to enter in the war. About the American people, well, most were already in agreed with the attacks on the U-boats. And after they entered in the war, I doubt the population would retain a feeling of get out of it. Specially after the first sacrificies. They would want to liberate Europe and finnish Hitler. The Americans accepted a similar number of casualities of WWII in Vietnam, were the public was even less interested. I belive everything would depend on the situation. Still, I'm not quiet sure about this. After Pearl Harbor the American moral and enthusiasm against Hitler started to climb like a rocket. Which make appears they were already inclined to it.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Nov 22, 2011)

I don’t believe that either side could defeat the other through air power alone. The technology and techniques available to the combatants up until the development of atomic weapons meant that neither was able to inflict a mortal wound on the other through the use of conventional bombing, or even by guided/ballistic missile technology.

If take we take the Soviet Union out of the equation (assuming either a German victory or a negotiated settlement) in a mid/late 1942 situation, its clear that neither side is capable of bombing the other into ruin and forcing capitulation.

Its been shown historically that bombing alone by the Western allies – the UK at night and the US by day – was insufficient to cause a terminal collapse of Germany’s war effort. Given the targeting priorities of the Allies in the 1941-1944 period, the best they could do was wound Germany, without ever bringing it to its knees.

While German bombing efforts against the UK were almost ceased by early 1942, I’d argue that any efforts by Germany against the British Isle would be less successful than those of 1940.

The UK has acquired a powerfully new ally in the form of the United States, which is now beginning to deploy fighter and bomber forces into bases in the UK. Compared to 1940, British day and night fighter defences and AAA assets are immensely stronger. 

At the beginning of 1942, Fighter Command had expanded to 75 single-engine fighter squadrons and 23 night fighter squadrons, up from 56-58 squadrons from the BoB period. During 1941, 4,200 new pilots joined Fighter Command, and UK training was providing upwards of 400 new pilots per month, with more joining from the Commonwealth. 

AAA strength was more than three times what it had been during 1940. Five new AAA divisions had been added during 1940 and 1700 3.7” guns and 2700 40 mm Bofors were produced in 1941 alone. Roughly double those numbers again for 1942 production. 

The Chain Home and Chain Home Low systems have been revised, expanded and improved, and the British managed to work most of the remaining kinks out.

A return to day bombing is probably prohibitively costly for Germany, given the expansion of Fighter Command’s single-engine fighter squadrons. Night bombing will be vastly more expensive than in 1940/1941. Fighter Command is deploying new Beaufighters with AI radar and the Mosquito night fighters make their first appearance in January 1942.


----------



## davebender (Nov 22, 2011)

Bear in mind 1941 German and British bombing campaigns were completely different. Britain was attempting to destroy civilian property by area bombardment. Germany was attempting to strangle Britain economically by closing major seaports such as London and Liverpool. Neither side had effective night air defenses during 1941 so loss rates per sortie will be low.


----------



## tyrodtom (Nov 22, 2011)

Jenisch said:


> FDR was very inclined to enter in the war. About the American people, well, most were already in agreed with the attacks on the U-boats. And after they entered in the war, I doubt the population would retain a feeling of get out of it. Specially after the first sacrificies. They would want to liberate Europe and finnish Hitler. The Americans accepted a similar number of casualities of WWII in Vietnam, were the public was even less interested. I belive everything would depend on the situation. Still, I'm not quiet sure about this. After Pearl Harbor the American moral and enthusiasm against Hitler started to climb like a rocket. Which make appears they were already inclined to it.


 You are seriously misinformed, The USA suffered over 400,000 deaths in WW2, but 58,000 in Vietnam. You would have to go back to America's Civil war to find a era with as much turmoil as the decade we fought in Vietnam.


----------



## Jenisch (Nov 22, 2011)

Jabberwocky, I put the tittle of the topic incorrectly. The air power would be used to try pave the way for an invasion.

Something more to add:

_In addition to the aircraft deliveries American Lend-lease deliveries to Russia included also more than 400.000 trucks, over 12.000 tanks and other combat vehicles, 32.000 motorcycles, 13.000 locomotives and railway cars, 8.000 anti-aircraft cannons and machine-guns, 135.000 submachine guns, 300.000 tons of explosives, 40.000 field radios, some 400 radar systems, 400.000 metal cutting machi*ne tools, several million tons of foodstuff, steel, other metals, oil and gasoline, chemicals etc._

I found hard to desconsiderate this used against the Germans by the US and UK. Together with the 18,000 planes they send. While everything was not develivered simultaneously, anyway it was much more than the Germans would be able to produce and employ.


----------



## Jenisch (Nov 22, 2011)

*British aircraft for Russia in '41:*

_A total of 699 Lend-Lease aircraft had been delivered to Archangel by the time the Arctic convoys switched to Murmansk in December 1941. Of these, 99 Hurricanes and 39 Tomahawks were in service with the Soviet air defense forces on January 1, 1942, out of a total of 1,470 fighters. About 15 percent of the aircraft of the 6th Fighter Air Corps defending Moscow were Tomahawks or Hurricanes._

*British tanks for Russia in '41:*

_the first 20 British tanks arrived at the Soviet tank training school in Kazan on October 28, 1941, at which point a further 120 tanks were unloaded at the port of Archangel in northern Russia. Courses on the British tanks for Soviet crews started during November as the first tanks, with British assistance, were being assembled from their in-transit states and undergoing testing by Soviet specialists.

The tanks reached the front lines with extraordinary speed. Extrapolating from available statistics, researchers estimate that British-supplied tanks made up 30 to 40 percent of the entire heavy and medium tank strength of Soviet forces before Moscow at the beginning of December 1941, and certainly made up a significant proportion of tanks available as reinforcements at this critical point in the fighting. By the end of 1941 Britain had delivered 466 tanks out of the 750 promised_

*Canadian tanks for Russia*: 

_A steady stream of British-made tanks continued to flow into the Red Army through the spring and summer of 1942. Canada would eventually produce 1,420 Valentines, almost exclusively for delivery to the Soviet Union. By July 1942 the Red Army had 13,500 tanks in service, with more than 16 percent of those imported, and more than half of those British._

Did Russia Really Go It Alone? How Lend-Lease Helped the Soviets Defeat the Germans

This subject is very complex. For every advantage one side has, the other has disadvantages. But I don't think the Germans have a favourable weight. I'm starting to think what I already hear from some people that Nazi Germany is overestimated though hardly a paper tiger.


----------



## Jenisch (Nov 22, 2011)

tyrodtom said:


> You are seriously misinformed, The USA suffered over 400,000 deaths in WW2, but 58,000 in Vietnam. You would have to go back to America's Civil war to find a era with as much turmoil as the decade we fought in Vietnam.



Really. But I was talking about total casualities, those were really 400,000 in Vietnam.


----------



## tyrodtom (Nov 22, 2011)

Over 75% of Germany's military deaths were from fighting the Russians, not the 50% you stated. Causalties rates are even more lopsided. So these men not injured and killed fighting the Russian would certainly make a invasion of Europe a great deal more difficult, if not impossible.

Even with all the material the Allies sent to Russia, they didn't lack for supplies. What there was a shortage of was people, it took a lot of people to manufactor all those supplies. 

I don't know if Americans would have been willing to sacrifice the way they did in WW2, if they were not directly attacked the way they were at Pearl Harbor.


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 22, 2011)

Jenisch said:


> Really. But I was talking about total casualities, those were really 400,000 in Vietnam.


total in Europe was what? 50 million in WWII?


----------



## Jenisch (Nov 23, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> total in Europe was what? 50 million in WWII?



I was talking about the total Americans casualities in WWII, which were about 400,000. In Vietnam the numbers are similar but the KIA-MIA were much higher than in WWII.


----------



## Jenisch (Nov 23, 2011)

Well, I have to admitt that I was a little impulsive with this topic. And while I'm not convinced of anything yet, still need to study a lot about this subject to form an opinion. I like to view the historical possibilities which were frequentely desconsiderated. If someday I find strong factors showing a possibility of the Anglo-Americans and their air power to pave the way for defeat Nazi Germany only by themselfs, it will be pleasure to share this together with the proper consistent references with such a nice aviation community. 

Now, I will abort my bombing mission and see if it can be flown in the future. Thanks for your attention guys!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 23, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> England



How is that? 

What with Do 17s, Ju 88s and He 111s, being escorted by 109s with not enough range?

The allies had the heavy bombers and the numbers.



Jenisch said:


> I was talking about the total Americans casualities in WWII, which were about 400,000. In Vietnam the numbers are similar but the KIA-MIA were much higher than in WWII.



Nope, you are still off.

*US Killed/Missing*
WW2 - 416,837
Vietnam - 59,907

*US Wounded*
WW2 - 683,846
Vietnam - 303,635

*Total US Casualties*
WW2 - 1,100,683
Vietnam - 363,542

A bit of a difference.

And back to the original question.

No. 

Why? Simple, you have to have boots on the ground to win a war. Without the Eastern Front, the Germans could concentrate their air forces over fortress Europe.


----------



## stona (Nov 23, 2011)

Answer to original question.....No.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## evangilder (Nov 23, 2011)

The MIA numbers are below. This information comes from the United States Department of Defense Prisoner of War/Missing Personnel Office (DPMO). 

*WWI*
Total POW/MIA 7,323
POWs returned 3,973
Still MIA 3,350

*WWII*
Total POW/MIA 194,879
POWs returned 116,129
Still MIA 78,750

*Korea*
Total POW/MIA 12,654
POWs returned 4,439
Still MIA 8,215

*Vietnam*
Total POW/MIA 2,596
POWs returned 591
Still MIA 2,005

*Cold War*
Total POW/MIA 124
POWs returned 0
Still MIA 124


----------



## michaelmaltby (Nov 23, 2011)

Those are very sobering numbers, evanglider. Especially for Korea where prisoners were exposed to Communist indoctrination in a very serious way. Many US POW's, I have been told, simply rolled over in their bunks, gave up, and died.

MM


----------



## Jenisch (Nov 23, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Why? Simple, you have to have boots on the ground to win a war. Without the Eastern Front, the Germans could concentrate their air forces over fortress Europe.



What lead you to belive the Luftwaffe would be invencible, specially with all the aircraft send to the Pacific and Russia (Lend Lease) being use against it?

About the ground forces, yes, already said the tittle of the thread was wrong. The question would be the use of the Anglo-American air power to pave a way for an invasion. Not necessarily from France or France alone.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 23, 2011)

Jenisch said:


> What lead you to belive the Luftwaffe would be invencible, specially with all the aircraft send to the Pacific and Russia (Lend Lease) being use against it?



Where did I say they were invincible? I just said the allies would not be able to defeat the Germans off of air power alone. It would take a combination of air, ground and sea forces (just like it did historically).


----------



## Hop (Nov 23, 2011)

> Bear in mind 1941 German and British bombing campaigns were completely different. Britain was attempting to destroy civilian property by area bombardment. Germany was attempting to strangle Britain economically by closing major seaports such as London and Liverpool.



There wasn't that much difference in 1941. The RAF had other priorities for the first half of the year, chiefly German naval targets. It was only in July (after the Germans had abandoned the Blitz) that area bombing became a priority. As a result about a third of the RAF's tonnage went on area attacks in 1941. 

There's no breakdown of the Luftwaffe's attacks by whether civilians or industry were the target, and many raids had both listed as priorities (eg Coventry). But there were certainly area attacks by the Luftwaffe. In London, for example, the boroughs that received the most bombs by area were in the centre of the city and to the north and west, well away from the docklands.


----------



## davebender (Nov 23, 2011)

That was 1940. The historical Luftwaffe was more powerful during 1941. It will become more powerful still in this scenerio without the Russian front.

Do-17 will be replaced with Do-217 during 1941. Additional resources to the Luftwaffe allow it to be mass produced as a bomber.
Ju-88 will be available in larger numbers during 1941.
Still plenty of He-111s. It's perfectly capable of dropping mines in English harbors at night.
Me-109F and Fw-190A replace the Me-109E. Both fighter types have drop tanks.
.....These don't make a lot of difference as most bombing was at night by 1941.
The small Luftwaffe night intruder effort will become significantly larger.

By the fall of 1941 major English seaports such as London and Liverpool will be bombed every week. Bomb tonnage delivered will be several times what happened during 1940 and early 1941. We can only speculate whether this would induce Britain to jettison PM Churchill and accept one of the German peace offers.


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 23, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> How is that?
> 
> What with Do 17s, Ju 88s and He 111s, being escorted by 109s with not enough range?
> 
> The allies had the heavy bombers and the numbers.


without the russians to worry about, 100% of German resources would have been used against the WEst. N.Africa for instantance, wouldn't have been loss (or at least played to a stalemate) by the Germans due to badly needed equipment being diverted to the east ( fuel/arms/TANKS, etc.)



davebender said:


> We can only speculate whether this would induce Britain to jettison PM Churchill and accept one of the German peace offers.


Roger that.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 23, 2011)

I see this as a far more difficult proposition to analyse than people are giving credit. Im not sure an accurate prediction can be made. In the end it wont get down to airpower, it will get down to manpower and conomic management, plus really what Russia does in the finish. The alternatives are endless really.

I have to try and consider how this scenario might work. Firstly, with regard to Japan, they would have to accept a humiliating back down, pull out of China and allow free trade as per US demands. that equals a complete meltdown of the japanese regime, and major retention of big money spinners for the allies......Indonesioan Oil, Malaysian Rubber, just toname a couple. The allies are richer and with far more manpower (for the Brits at least). 35% of US production is immedialtey diverted to the Atlantic, along with the entire US fleet....end of the u-Boat campaign. Brit production does not lose about 27% of its manpower, and 17% of its industrial potential, and right at the critical moment does not lose momentum in the Middle East. it does not need to divert about 9% of its industrial potential to Russia either.

These are all good results from the allied pespective. The allies would probabaly have about 100 US divisions, and 65 CW/Brit Divs comabt ready by the 1st quarter of 1943. Air forces on the allied side are much stronger, Italy almost certainly knocked out of the war, or in bad shape at least.

But against that, the Germans have not lost 750000 men on the russian front by the end of 1942. They would redeuce their attritional losses in aircraft by a whopping 40% or so, so there are no shortages of aircraft in 1941-2. Oil is still the limiting factor....it gets down to what Stalin is considering and how the Germans would avoid war with them.

Stalin viewed his alliance with hitler as long lasting,and was quite prepred to go to war against britain as an axis partner. stalin was an opportunist, and his money was on the germans at the beginning. but his price for frienship was high, too high. In 1940, in various negotiations (that eventually re-confirned for both sides that they had to go to war) the soviets wanted complete control of Eastern Europe, except Poland, but including Rumania, Hungary Yugoslavia and Bulgaria. Germany was having none of that, and suggested the russians strike south. The russians saw no future in that. Both sides went away unhappy. there is now pretty clear evidence that the russians wer planning to attack the germans in 1942 or 1943, but the germans of course beat them to it. From the deployments they were making (concentrating 2/3 of their armour in the south for example) it seems clear the Russians were getting ready to monster the Rumanians. Loss of rumanian oil is game over for the Germans, so it all gets back to what the russians would decide....go with the Axis, go for their own interests, or side with the Allies. But at the very least, one would thgink that an uneasy standoff would arise, requiring more and more attention by the germans. 

Lets speculate a bit. Say the Germans deploy 120 divs to cover the ewast from Soviet agression. By the spring of 1943, they might have another 100 divs for the west. The west might have 165 Divs to attack them with. If I were the allies, I would not attempt a cross channel attack....I think the best bet might be a reverse "felix", an attack from out of gibraltar....open up a napoleonic wars style campaign in Spain. It stretches the german supply network, it forces them into a new territory where application of air power for them is more difficult, it is not so open country, in parts. Another option along a similar vein might be to pressure the turks to join the allies and join the allies, and then attack up into Rumania using amphibious assualts from the black sea. again, knock out Rumanai, and you neuter the Germans. 

Ultimately I see the war as likley to be won by the allies, but the war would be very different and more protracted, for sure. And certainly not guranteed either way


----------



## Njaco (Nov 23, 2011)

No matter how you look at it, it was a numbers game. When the US entered the war, the production Might of the US coupled with that of GB would eventually overtake Germany and the bombing effect on industry in the Reich would play out as it did. And that would give the Allies the air supremecy it would need to effect a D-Day type operation whereever it would fall.


----------



## Hop (Nov 23, 2011)

By the historical end of the Blitz in spring 1941 the RAF night fighter force was just beginning to become really effective. 

In January 1941 RAF twin engined night fighters flew 84 sorties, detected aircraft on 44 occasions, which resulted in 2 combats.

By May those figures had risen to 643 sorties, 217 detections, 80 combats.

It wasn't until the spring of 1941 that the RAF really got their airborne radar working properly. From that point on German night bombing would have begun to suffer high casualties.



> Bomb tonnage delivered will be several times what happened during 1940 and early 1941.



How? The Luftwaffe bomber force hardly grew at all. 

On the 29 June 1940 the Luftwaffe had 1,380 level bombers on strength.

On the 21 June 1941 that had risen to just 1,511.

Even without attacking Russia, the Luftwaffe would be almost identical in strength to when they attacked Britain the previous summer. The RAF, however, had greatly increased in strength over the same period.


----------



## Readie (Nov 23, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> England Europe would be crushed eventually.



I don't think so Mr Ratsel.

You really don't understand the concept of the will to resist.

John


----------



## tyrodtom (Nov 23, 2011)

As it was WW2 had been going on for over 2 years before America got involved. When would America get involved with this new scenario, and why would they ?

In late 41 Russia appeared to be losing the war, Japan felt somewhat safe from Russia taking advantage of their shift of focus to the Pacific. With Russia not at war, Japan is less likely to start anything serious with the US. 

I don't see America getting fully engaged with the European war without someone directly attacking it. The president can have his own wishes, but without the majority of the people behind him he can only do so much.


I don't think Germany could have beaten Britain to the extent that they could have invaded the isle, but they could have fought them to a armistice.


----------



## Siegfried (Nov 23, 2011)

Not only would the allies not defeat Germany, they would in my opinion get severly bloodied.

This is quite a likely scenario. War with the Soviet Union was not inevtiable, the reasons are somewhat lost but range from German perceptions of a planed Soviet Invasion if not in 41 trhen 42, economic problems due to crop failure in Germany. Nevertheless relationship with the Soviet Union was good. The attack on Finland was not tollerable due to the importance of the nickel there and its baltic access however the invasion of the baltic states was tollerable, barely. I believe the mein kampf lebensraum scenario was not part of the reasons for this war since Germany had regained that territory it lost after WW1.

Consider
1 There would be tens of thousands of FLAK barrels pointing skyward with the amunition and professional crews to man them. The FLAK barrels and predictors would be fully maintained and not second line ones.

2 The Germans even sacrificed a promissing microwave radar program for resource reasons in 1942, dispersing many of the technicians and researchers to the army. It's likely a completely new generation of radars opperating at 27cm (Mannheim K) and another by Lorentz would be entering service: they would be much more jam resistant due to their narrower beams.

3 Germany would still be building and urgently researching tanks: but the Tiger I would not be rushed into service and nor would the Panther. They would not be loosing tanks but building and upgrading them at a lower rate. The steel saved would likely end up as u-boats, destroyers, perhaps the completed aircraft carriers graf zeppelin and hindenburg etc.

4 A whole generation of aircraft abandoned due to the stress of fighting the Soviets might be developed: The Me 309 for instance might be worked to the point it was in service to meet the Mustang threat of 1944 and the Ju 252 transport, Jumo 222 and other hyper engines don't get suspended or cancelled. There is a backup to the He 177 etc,

5 There would be no shortage of refractory alloys for the new jet engines.

6 the tendancy to gamble on a short war would not longer exist and long term programs would have been followed.

7 Tactically the Germans are at an advantage in that they can launch attacks against the UK from French bases and station fighters there
fighers previously fighting in the East. There were plans to install wing tanks on the FW 190D-13, this I suspect would have given a 750 mile
range on internal fuel, probably 1250 with twin drop tanks: enough to fly over most of the UK. Certainly this was possible on the FW 190A series though
the outer wing guns are sacrificed.

8 The Germans were just about ready with a reactor in late 1944 in Haigerloch. The B8 could be described as a succesfull subcritical reactor. Without the allied bombing campaign a full blown reactor is likely to have run sometime in 1944.

9 The decision to persue heavy water only research wass made by the HWA with the knowlege that graphite could be a good moderator. It was done puerly for economic reasons.

With the Germans planning for a long term war and more resources available its possible to see a different answer being given to speer in regards to whether a bomb could be ready to influeunce the war. I'm not saying the Germans would beat the allies to a bomb, but it would be a lot closer than the 2 year gap often claimed.

10 the V1 and V2 would be deadly weapons if used in their planed for guided form. Moreover I can see a SAM missile program being full resourced to the same degree the V2 was.

11 Remember there are now millions of German working in making aircraft, radars, FLAK and opperating them.


----------



## Jenisch (Nov 23, 2011)

This is the same way I think, Parsifal. Not necessarly in all your views, but you got the general picture this scenario could have endless possibilities.


----------



## gjs238 (Nov 23, 2011)

It seems Germany would be vulnerable to Soviet attack if it had fully committed in the West/Afrika as suggested.


----------



## Jenisch (Nov 23, 2011)

gjs238 said:


> It seems Germany would be vulnerable to Soviet attack if it had fully committed in the West/Afrika as suggested.



Yeah. Stalin was with it's industry being modernized, the economy was being shift to the war as well. The Soviet power in the border areas would be really something to worry about.

Another thing about Afrika is the Italians simply didn't had good navies to transport many troops to there. I don't know, but seems to me that the amount of aid Britain send to the USSR and the Pacific could have closed the gap of the Eastern Front if send to Africa in this scenario. Not to mention the USN.

Here's an interesting article about the British aid to the USSR in '41, which was much more relevant than most used to think: http://www.historynet.com/did-russi...ase-helped-the-soviets-defeat-the-germans.htm


----------



## Jenisch (Nov 23, 2011)

How about Portugal and Spain? Franco would likely entered in the war? This could have changed the situation in Africa?


----------



## davebender (Nov 23, 2011)

How does allowing 80% of the Wehrmacht to concentrate against Britain rather then Russia help Britain?


----------



## Jenisch (Nov 23, 2011)

Actually the British Empire and the US.

Well, it's not everything about numbers alone I guess. Against Stalin and it's massive armed forces which would attack by land, I doubt the Germans would concentrate just 20% of their troops. And Stalin was just the type of men who would put millions of troops in the border areas to make the Germans take troops from the West. More the Germans suffer with the Alllies, better. It's for the same reason he supplied Germany historically. Uncle Joe just didn't expected France and the other Europen countries would be defeated so easily though.

People in the West politics already didn't liked from the USSR from those times. The Allies would also need to considerate a strategy to defeat Germany without letting Stalin take over Europe. But a conflict with Stalin would be VERY likely totally out of question. And here I do not doubt they would try to use Japan and the IJA Anti-Soviet intentions to attack Stalin in the Far East. After Nomonhan, the IJA didn't gave up of fight the Soviet Union, it started the development of better equipment and tactics which by 1943 would probably be advanced enough for the IJA, receving resources without the Pacific War, and perhaps even Western aid, to attack. But for this the West would also need to try convince Chiangto to sign peace with Japan. Even because Stalin would be giving a lot of support to Chiang without a war with Germany.


----------



## davebender (Nov 23, 2011)

Germany would build eastern wall fortifications similiar to the west wall fortifications which stopped the September 1939 French invasion in its tracks.


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 23, 2011)

not really so easily. even 1000 bomber raids didnt slow down aircraft production. in fact, they caused it to increase by forcing germany to adopt a subsidiary based manufacturing system, which was far more efficient than the "castle" based manufacturing system previously used by all the german vehicle and airplane companies
germany was still getting plenty of oil from the east and plenty of raw materials from northern italy and sweden among other places. if the allies only used air power, the germans could concentrate their land forces into the eastern front and the italian front, and these were some of the best divisions germany had. the luftwaffe could continue operating from airfields without threat of land or airborne troops attacking. and most importantly, germany was doing fine even under bombardment in mid-1944, better actually due to fine-tuning of industry and economy. germany only had several million troops put 2 million in italy and the rest in russia, and you can halt the russians while you integrate the newer tanks and planes into the armed forces. the sad thing is, allied fighter bombers couldnt attack supply lines with enough effect far far inland like south eastern germany and the other axis territories. since germany wouldnt be concentrating her forces in the west, there would be fewer targets of opportunity.


----------



## Readie (Nov 23, 2011)

davebender said:


> How does allowing 80% of the Wehrmacht to concentrate against Britain rather then Russia help Britain?



You could put 100% of Wehrmacht in Calais. They will do no good unless they get across the English Channel
John


----------



## Jenisch (Nov 23, 2011)

To repeat: this scenario could have endless outcomes. I just started this topic because I don't agreed with the people who point out the USSR would have defeated Germany alone in WWII, and the Western Allies didn't done nothing decisive. The scenario I'm presenting here, would be similar as if Germany, Italy and perhaps Japan striked the Soviet Union with Stalin alone. Yes, the Soviets still **could** have won in the end, or sign peace, all would depend on the circunstances. But by the same stroke the Western Allies also could have defeated Germany, as we are discussing. People like too much of use terms like "decisive" in wars. The problem I see is that in a World War, it's hard to use this term. The Eastern Front is usually credited as "decisive", usually with only the crude number of the German casualities there being pointed. I think that every front, every nation, was decisive. You take one side out, it's hard or even impossible to find the ansewer of the equation. That's my point.


----------



## Jenisch (Nov 23, 2011)

.


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 23, 2011)

Readie said:


> You could put 100% of Wehrmacht in Calais. They will do no good unless they get across the English Channel
> John


Crossing is no problem. If the FAT morphine addicted MAN would have kept up aerial assults for a couple more weeks, Germany would have won the airwar over England.. History tells us that. Luckily for England he stopped when he did.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 23, 2011)

parsifal said:


> I see this as a far more difficult proposition to analyse than people are giving credit. Im not sure an accurate prediction can be made. In the end it wont get down to airpower, it will get down to manpower and conomic management, plus really what Russia does in the finish. The alternatives are endless really.
> 
> I have to try and consider how this scenario might work. Firstly, with regard to Japan, they would have to accept a humiliating back down, pull out of China and allow free trade as per US demands. that equals a complete meltdown of the japanese regime, and major retention of big money spinners for the allies......Indonesioan Oil, Malaysian Rubber, just toname a couple. The allies are richer and with far more manpower (for the Brits at least). 35% of US production is immedialtey diverted to the Atlantic, along with the entire US fleet....end of the u-Boat campaign. Brit production does not lose about 27% of its manpower, and 17% of its industrial potential, and right at the critical moment does not lose momentum in the Middle East. it does not need to divert about 9% of its industrial potential to Russia either.
> 
> ...



I agree. No one seems to take into account the combined Anglo/American economic and production power, the combined manpower of the US and Commonwealth, as well as Russia more than likely eventually buying in on the action as well.

Sure Russia is not part of this scenario because "Germany has not attacked them", but I question whether Russia would not have attacked Germany at some point anyhow.



Ratsel said:


> without the russians to worry about, 100% of German resources would have been used against the WEst. N.Africa for instantance, wouldn't have been loss (or at least played to a stalemate) by the Germans due to badly needed equipment being diverted to the east ( fuel/arms/TANKS, etc.)



And the Germans would not have to worry about 100% of the resources, manpower and production from the combined American and Commonwealth forces?

You either seriously underestimate them or are very very naive. I think I know which is more likely...


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 23, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> Crossing is no problem. If the FAT morphine addicted MAN would have kept up aerial assults for a couple more weeks, Germany would have won the airwar over England.. History tells us that. Luckily for England he stopped when he did.



A starting point for another thread?


----------



## parsifal (Nov 23, 2011)

Sagittario64 said:


> not really so easily. even 1000 bomber raids didnt slow down aircraft production. in fact, they caused it to increase by forcing germany to adopt a subsidiary based manufacturing system, which was far more efficient than the "castle" based manufacturing system previously used by all the german vehicle and airplane companies
> germany was still getting plenty of oil from the east and plenty of raw materials from northern italy and sweden among other places. if the allies only used air power, the germans could concentrate their land forces into the eastern front and the italian front, and these were some of the best divisions germany had. the luftwaffe could continue operating from airfields without threat of land or airborne troops attacking. and most importantly, germany was doing fine even under bombardment in mid-1944, better actually due to fine-tuning of industry and economy. germany only had several million troops put 2 million in italy and the rest in russia, and you can halt the russians while you integrate the newer tanks and planes into the armed forces. the sad thing is, allied fighter bombers couldnt attack supply lines with enough effect far far inland like south eastern germany and the other axis territories. since germany wouldnt be concentrating her forces in the west, there would be fewer targets of opportunity.




I see problems in this assesment. Chief among them is that the german economy after 1943 was being pushed at an unsustainable rate. Further the US economy was never pushed to its fullest extent. Ive read somewhere that the US aero industry only ever wa pushed to about 60 or 70% of its overall capacity.


Bear in mind also that with no Far Eastern Front to worry about US forces are going to be around 35% stronger than they were historically, and her entire Navy deployed to the western hemisphere. This would have flow on effects on the british economy. For the british her economy and manpower sources would grow by 17% and about 35-50% respectively.

Coal, iron and raw materials outputs for the Axis were a fracti0on of those by the allies and mostly constrained by limits in the transport system. Without ocean going trade links the german economy was pretty well stuffed for the duration. As a percentage of even European output, Northern Italy was insignificant in terms of raw materials, and a nett importer of iron and coal. It is little known that the trade route to Sweden was under pressure from the very beginning. In March 1941, the Axis lost about 50000 tons of shipping on the western seaboard alone, a lost of it in the Kattegat and parts of the baltic to Allied Mines. Thats gotta hurt eventually . 

I dont see a "no eastern front" as a good outcome for the German economy. One should not assume that raw materials would continue to flow from the East, and with that oil is the limiting factor for the Germans. 

A couple of observations about the war in the skies in 1940-41. without much help from the US and no help from the USSR, the RAF had denied the LW control of th skies over western Europe, and had challenged LW control over France and the low Countries, even before June 1941. Perhaps not all that successfully, but for the LW offensive operations over Britain had all but stopped by June 1941 ( and not solely because of redepployments, it was because , in part of losses they were sustaining). 

Germany was being denied access to trade with overseas markets, an even within Europe itself. It was systematically looting by artificail economic controls the rest of Europe, that helped her in the short term, but in the long term sucked out and destroyed the European economy , and left Germany a net liability in the later years of the war. Whilst ever britain and the US controlled world markets by their control of the oceans, the German economy was doomed to being a pygmy amongst giants.


----------



## Jenisch (Nov 23, 2011)

For every move the Germans make in this scenario that could have benefited them historically, an Allied reaction must be considerated. As well as vice versa.

As I already point out, Britain supplied the Soviets with almost 1000 planes and tanks towards the end of 1941, and by ship. They would simply turn all this to Africa in this scenario. And the transport capability of the Italians to bring troops and equipment to Africa was really not good compared to the RN. Not to mention the US participation.


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 23, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I agree. No one seems to take into account the combined Anglo/American economic and production power, the combined manpower of the US and Commonwealth, as well as Russia more than likely eventually buying in on the action as well.
> 
> Sure Russia is not part of this scenario because "Germany has not attacked them", but I question whether Russia would not have attacked Germany at some point anyhow.
> 
> ...


And I think you seriousely under-estimate the impact the russians had on Germany, or very very naive.. I don't know which.
without the russians, I do not think America would be so eager to jump into the war in Europe.. but thats only my opinion.

Kindest Regards


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 23, 2011)

parsifal said:


> A couple of observations about the war in the skies in 1940-41. without much help from the US and no help from the USSR, the RAF had denied the LW control of th skies over western Europe, and had challenged LW control over France and the low Countries, even before June 1941. Perhaps not all that successfully, but for the LW offensive operations over Britain had all but stopped by June 1941 ( and not solely because of redepployments, it was because , in part of losses they were sustaining).
> 
> .


Wow this a surprising statement , Fighter Command was not getting wiped but sure was not at all dominant


----------



## Jenisch (Nov 23, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> Wow this a surprising statement , Fighter Command was not getting wiped but sure was not at all dominant



But the USAAF would have surely make a difference. Together with the RAF, P-40's, P-39's, A-20's, B-25's and others would start to bomb the LW in France.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 23, 2011)

Actually Ratsel, I am neither naive or underestimating everything.

Unlike you, I look at every scenario in an unbiased way. If you wrote the history books, the allies would be portrayed as lucky idiots because the Germans could do not wrong. I get that you have national pride and all, but you can't rewrite history. Maybe you should take off the "fanbrillen"...


----------



## Readie (Nov 23, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> Crossing is no problem. If the FAT morphine addicted MAN would have kept up aerial assults for a couple more weeks, Germany would have won the airwar over England.. History tells us that. Luckily for England he stopped when he did.



You are just being contentious Mr Ratsel. You know very well that in 1940 the Germans did not have the ability / resources to invade England.
John


----------



## parsifal (Nov 23, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> Crossing is no problem. If the FAT morphine addicted MAN would have kept up aerial assults for a couple more weeks, Germany would have won the airwar over England.. History tells us that. Luckily for England he stopped when he did.




There is no evidence of that at all. Or at least none that i am aware of. please provide your sources for this.

In fact the LW assault on Britiain continued through until the end of May '41, with increasing losses, and little to show for it. 

You are perhaps referring to "continue the assault on the airfields" option. This may have given the germans a partial dominance over part of the se, for a short space of time. AS is conclusively shown in the BoB thread, that still doesnt get the Germans across the channel. It gives them a slight face saving way of getting out of the battle and saying they "won".....


----------



## DonL (Nov 23, 2011)

Many things in this post are speculative but one thing would be quiet sure!

If there is no war in the east the Wehrmacht and LW can concentrate there whole strenghts against GB in 1941 at the Mediterranean (Malta), North Africa, Suez Canal and Arabian Island.

The goal would be the oil at the arabian island.

And if we take the historical strenghts there would be no possibility for GB to defend the Mediterranean (Malta), North Africa, Suez Canal and Arabian Island.
At Barbarossa were 3 Air fleets imagine what will happen if 2 Air Fleets operate at 1941 at the Mediterranean.
Rommel had the 5th and 15th Panzerdividion and roudabout 2 Divisions infantry, imagine what he can do with 10 Divisions 5 tanks 5 infantry!

End of year 1941 the Mediterranean Sea would be totaly free of the Royal Navy and the Wehrmacht would stand at Saudi Arabia. 
From 1942/43 there would be massive oil supply for the germans and the italian navy. 

And after that it would be very very difficult to make an invasion at North Africa, without the the Azores as big Navy and Aircraft base perhaps unimpossible!

This scenario would happen, if there was no war in the east and after the lost of BoB with GB as the only enemy! 

The question is at which date the USA would get in the war?!

We should calculate this in such a scenario!


----------



## Jenisch (Nov 23, 2011)

Readie said:


> You are just being contentious Mr Ratsel. You know very well that in 1940 the Germans did not have the ability / resources to invade England.
> John



And with the USN/USAAF they perhaps would have when? lol


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 23, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Actually Ratsel, I am neither naive or underestimating everything.
> 
> Unlike you, I look at every scenario in an unbiased way. If you wrote the history books, the allies would be portrayed as lucky idiots because the Germans could do not wrong. I get that you have national pride and all, but you can't rewrite history. Maybe you should take off the "fanbrillen"...



I'm not. Just working with what the OP proposed In post #1 (pacific not withstanding/ no russian envolvement). Not an actual historical aspect. The Germans were finished in Mid-43 or so, how they lasted historically until May 8th 1945 was nothing short of a miracle... considering.

I just don't think in the proposed scenario that the US would be that heavily envolved. air/sea/ or land.


----------



## Jenisch (Nov 23, 2011)

DonL said:


> Many things in this post are speculative but one thing would be quiet sure!
> 
> If there is no war in the east the Wehrmacht and LW can concentrate there whole strenghts against GB in 1941 at the Mediterranean (Malta), North Africa, Suez Canal and Arabian Island.
> 
> ...



Could the Germans send so many troops to Africa? Could they easy off the defenses in Europe?

Until about May 1941, the Germans would be occupied with Britain. I think it would be fair to say that in June 1941, when the historical Barbarossa started, the US entered in the war in Britain side. Britain will be already reinforcing it's forces back them, and using the resources they send to the Soviets historically and the Americans send to the Soviets well. Also, any big German movemment in the Mediterranean would be closely followed by the Britsh Empire. They could have accepted risky of great losses for the RN, but specially now the US was entering in the war, they would not spare efforts to finnish any plans from Hitler.


----------



## Jenisch (Nov 23, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> I'm not. Just working with what the OP proposed In post #1 (pacific not withstanding/ no russian envolvement). Not an actual historical aspect. The Germans were finished in Mid-43 or so, how they lasted historically until May 8th 1945 was nothing short of a miracle... considering.
> 
> I just don't think in the proposed scenario that the US would be that heavily envolved. air/sea/ or land.



One interesting opinion for the US participation a member of another forum told me:

_Best scenario I can come up with is the same one that got the US into WWI; Germans get too arrogant and try to dictate where and with whom the US can trade, using the U-boat fleet as a threat.

By mid-1941, the US was already 'neutral in favor of the Commonwealth', with a great deal of assistance sent in the form of Lend-Lease; this was already a source of enormous irritation to Hitler, and would have become a greater one if the US provided Britain and the rest of the Commonwealth with the sustenance to continue defying him._

Again I mention that Britain would obtain even more help from the US. German air losses could have been worst. As well a possible British aerial counter attack in France. The Fuher would not like from all those American flag ships in British ports.


----------



## DonL (Nov 23, 2011)

> Could the Germans send so many troops to Africa? Could they easy the defenses in Europe?



Which defenses?
Only GB or with the Soviets?

At the end of the france campaign the Wehrmacht had 155 Divisions, at the beginning of Barbarossa 180 Divisions!
At June 1941 the Wehrmacht had 22 tank divisions and 18 *mot.* infantry divisions.

GB was beaten on the ground at france and they had a professional army, the general conscription was comming slowly.
There was no GB Army that could be dangerous to europe until 1943/44 even with a quick rearmament!
Where do you want to get good/trained soldiers?

And the 10 Divisions for Rommel are nothing without a war in the east!


----------



## gjs238 (Nov 23, 2011)

DonL said:


> Many things in this post are speculative but one thing would be quiet sure!
> 
> If there is no war in the east the Wehrmacht and LW can concentrate there whole strenghts against GB in 1941 at the Mediterranean (Malta), North Africa, Suez Canal and Arabian Island.
> 
> ...



Would ARAMCO tolerate this?


----------



## DonL (Nov 23, 2011)

What could they do?

Even if the USA declared war to germany at June 1941 in this scenario?
How do you want to defend the oil with the Mediterranean Sea and the Suez Canal in german hands?
The italian navy would be the master of the Mediterranean Sea with two LW Air Fleets operate at the Mediterranean!

The Wehrmacht would occupy Saudi Arabian and the oil!


----------



## Jenisch (Nov 23, 2011)

DonL said:


> Which defenses?
> Only GB or with the Soviets?
> 
> At the end of the france campaign the Wehrmacht had 155 Divisions, at the beginning of Barbarossa 180 Divisions!
> ...


 
And the Navy to transport all those troops to Afrika? Italy had? GB would put a lot more of strenght in Africa without need of supply the Soviets and with American suppport. Also, the British would notice any large scale movemments the Germans started to conduct in the Mediterranean region. The Force Z and other ships send to the Pacific because the Japanese were starting to bring worries historically would be in Europe as well.

I also belive that if FDR would declare war, he would do it already thinking in Franco and the Middle East. Now that the Germans seems to want the Middle East, this will not be deconsiderated. He would probably let clear to Franco that he would enter in the war. This likely would put Franco out. And Franco would have contact with the US and Britain to stationed troops there in case Hitler showed signs he wanted to invade. Portugal as well.


----------



## DonL (Nov 23, 2011)

Sorry Jenisch,



> And the Navy to transport all those troops to Afrika? Italy had? GB would put a lot more of strenght in Africa without the Soviets and with American suppport...



At 1941, you could read in every military history book from an english historican or at churchills memoirs, GB faught with all his strenghts at the Mediterranean Sea and North Africa. *It was there only frontline to germany*.

GB had historical 90% of his military power at the Mediterranean Sea/North Africa. Germany had perhaps 5% of his military power at 1941 at North Africa! That are facts!

Yes with the LW Air Fleets at the Mediterranean Sea the Italian could supply 10 Divisions at North Africa, because the royal Navy had only 3 bases in the Mediterranean Sea! Gibralta, Malta and Alexandria! At the open Sea they would be at total mercy of the LW!

Look at the numbers of Aircrafts at Barbarossa and imagine what will happen if the german could get 2/3 of the numbers in the Mediterranean Sea to fight!

Edit:

There was no landlease until november/december 1941! Please don't forget this!

Edit2:
Without a war in the east and all focus at the Mediterranean Sea to fight, it is only a question of weeks when Malta would be invaded from german troops! And Malta would be a lot easier at April to June 1941 then Crete.


----------



## DonL (Nov 23, 2011)

> I also belive that if FDR would declare war, he would do it already thinking in Franco and the Middle East. Now that the Germans seems to want the Middle East, this will not be deconsiderated. He would probably let clear to Franco that he would enter in the war. This likely would put Franco out. And Franco would have contact with the US and Britain to stationed troops there in case Hitler showed signs he wanted to invade. Portugal as well.



We are talking about 1941 even at the first half of 1941!

You realy think that spain declare war to germany after his civilian war? Germany had occupied france and stands directly at the borderline to spain. Do you realy think franko is a suicide?
With which weapons and soldiers and moral he want to fight Germany and Italy at 1941?
How do you want to suppot franco when the 1/2 of the LW and 10 Divisions of the Wehrmacht force your strenghts at the Mediterranean, the other 1/2 of the LW operate at Norway and the english channel and the submarines are more dangerous with any day!?
You should think about the fact that at this time the german submarines were a real real pain in the ass of GB and the USA!

Franco is outflanked from any landposition and he would do a **** to declare war to germany!
That's my personal opinion!


----------



## Jenisch (Nov 23, 2011)

DonL said:


> Sorry Jenisch,
> 
> "Yes with the LW Air Fleets at the Mediterranean Sea the Italian could supply 10 Divisions at North Africa, because the royal Navy had only 3 bases in the Mediterranean Sea! Gibralta, Malta and Alexandria! At the open Sea they would be at total mercy of the LW!"



Considerate that with the US at war, the English would reinforce even more their power in Africa. And don't desconsiderate what I already said, the English send almost 1000 planes and tanks to Russia in 1941. Also, the Germans would not put most of their air fleet over the Mediterranean, they would need a portion of it in France, and another portion for defense against Stalin. The British also would send even strategic reserves with the American participation certain. The English only need to hold on. As soon as the Americans arrived with carrier and air forces, Hitler would be in trouble. And for last, uncle Joe would not like from this situation, because also would represent a problem to him. He would start to pull some strings to get the Fuher worried.



> There was no landlease until november/december 1941! Please don't forget this!



Not formally. But there was a lot of help with weapons and other critical things.


----------



## Jenisch (Nov 23, 2011)

DonL, about Franco, I didn't said he would enter in the war. I said that he actually would not enter with the US participation. And the US and Britain would help him in case Hitler showed signs of invasion attempt.


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 23, 2011)

" _Look at the numbers of Aircrafts at Barbarossa and imagine what will happen if the german could get 2/3 of the numbers in the Mediterranean Sea to fight!_"

Hit the freakin nail on the head with this statement. No russia = a much much more dangerous German armed/air forces.


----------



## Jenisch (Nov 23, 2011)

Ah, and add 62,000 British soldiers used in Marita to Africa.


----------



## Jenisch (Nov 23, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> " _Look at the numbers of Aircrafts at Barbarossa and imagine what will happen if the german could get 2/3 of the numbers in the Mediterranean Sea to fight!_"
> 
> Hit the freakin nail on the head with this statement. No russia = a much much more dangerous German armed/air forces.



The problem was the RAF and the USAAF were not the VVS of 1941. The Germans would suffer much more casualities. Even because the Germans didn't have so many fighters. And fighters that were necessary for defense. Britain had much more fighters due to the nature of it's war. And from the start the British would only need to hold the German attacks until the Americans arrived.

All the factors must be considerate. It was not the historical Britain againt the Germans with strenght in the Mediterranean. There are several considerations form the alternative scenario being ignored.


----------



## DonL (Nov 23, 2011)

> Considerate that with the US at war, the English would reinforce even more their power in Africa.



Which power? From what? 
Sources?

Don't forget there is no war in the east! You said this scenario is without the UDSSR and Japan!
Please make a decission, is this scenario with or without strategic reserves for germany to the UDSSR and USA to Japan?
Or would you realy suggest that the USA would send there carriers to europa with any dangerous from Japan?
You can have this scenario with strategic reserves or without, but please be fare for both sides!



> And don't desconsiderate what I already said, the English send almost 1000 planes and tanks to Russia in 1941.


When?
To my informations not till november 1941! Please show sources!



> Also, the Germans would not put most of their air fleet over the Mediterranean, they would need a portion of it in France, and another portion for defense against Stalin.



Why on the english channel? For what? The front is at the Mediterranean! Norway perhaps but they will have 1/3 of the numbers of Barborossa to spread!

For the Stalin quote please answer my question with or without strategic reserves for *both sides*?



> The British also would send even strategic reserves with the American participation certain. The English only need to hold on. As soon as the Americans arrived with carrier and air forces, Hitler would be in trouble. And for last, uncle Joe would not like from this situation, because also would represent a problem to him. He would start to pull some strings to get the Fuher worried.



And now? We have 4 carriers at the Atlantic ocean, no pacific fleet and the 4 carriers had about 350 aircrafts and no bombers (big bombers)! 
You realy whant to tell us that 350 aircrafts at the end of 1941 are dangerous for the german LW?

Which planes could the USA send to war at 1941? THe P40? The F4F? Are they realy the trouble you think? 
Think about, we are talking about *1941*!

Edit:


> The Germans would suffer much more casualities. Even because the Germans didn't have so many fighters. And fighters that were necessary for defense. Britain had much more fighters due to the nature of it's war.



Yes that's true!
But GB has to defend their country not germany at 1941. Thre was no daylight bombing from the Royal AirForce.
From the historical viewpoint the two Jagdgeschwader at France were enough to get the Royal AirForce busy at home!


----------



## parsifal (Nov 23, 2011)

> Many things in this post are speculative but one thing would be quiet sure!
> 
> If there is no war in the east the Wehrmacht and LW can concentrate there whole strenghts against GB in 1941 at the Mediterranean (Malta), North Africa, Suez Canal and Arabian Island.
> 
> The goal would be the oil at the arabian island.



Okay, fair comment so far



> And if we take the historical strenghts there would be no possibility for GB to defend the Mediterranean (Malta), North Africa, Suez Canal and Arabian Island.
> At Barbarossa were 3 Air fleets imagine what will happen if 2 Air Fleets operate at 1941 at the Mediterranean.
> Rommel had the 5th and 15th Panzerdividion and roudabout 2 Divisions infantry, imagine what he can do with 10 Divisions 5 tanks 5 infantry!



Not a chance. Limitations on the italian merchant marine and the cargo handling capacities of the Libyan ports would prevent that. In 1940 there were limits on the numbers of trained and equipped personnel that could be deployed to the western desert by the british, but by 1941, this equipment crisis was largely passed. There were large numbers of divs deployed to the mideast and the delta that never were committed to the defence in the western desert. For example a corps sized force, known as Oalforce, which in '42 was upgraded to a full army sized formation. then ther were numbers of CW troopps that were retained in the Delta and never committed to the defnce. 

But the big restriction was the limit of Italian shipping, the limits on rear area transport, that make projections like this a mere pipedream. 

About the maximum force projection the germans could project into Egypt 1940-41 was 5 divs, certainly no more

As far as air deployment to the centrasl basin, the big limitation was airfields....the decision to deploy LW elements to Sicily was made in Octaber, but it was late December before any units could be moved and then only with two wings of the Korps left in France. To deploy two full air fleets would have taken months, if not years to complete, and required major expenditures in airfield construction and major investments in the italian supply train. wasnt going to happen, at least not immediately, and that gives the RAF plenty of time to react





> End of year 1941 the Mediterranean Sea would be totaly free of the Royal Navy and the Wehrmacht would stand at Saudi Arabia.
> From 1942/43 there would be massive oil supply for the germans and the italian navy


. 

Nice if it were possible. How were the Axis planning to get the oil from the Middle east and Arabia to their home ports, even without interference. The British empire does not end at suez. once suez was lost, the eastern bloc of the CW would have moved to a full war footing, and almost certainly have caused the early entry of the US into the war 




> And after that it would be very very difficult to make an invasion at North Africa, without the the Azores as big Navy and Aircraft base perhaps unimpossible!



Roosevelt had by april 41 (fom memory made guarantees for western hemisphere security, which included iceland and the other Atlantic Islands. This was never going to happen without triggering US belligerency




> This scenario would happen, if there was no war in the east and after the lost of BoB with GB as the only enemy


!

But ignores numerous constraints that would prevent it ever coming to fruition 



> The question is at which date the USA would get in the war?!



As soon as US interests of significance were affected...that equates to any risks to their economic interests in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and any security threat to the western hemisphere, including the Azores



> We should calculate this in such a scenario!




Yes, and then reject it as impractical;


----------



## Jenisch (Nov 23, 2011)

DonL said:


> Which power? From what?
> Sources?
> 
> Don't forget there is no war in the east! You said this scenario is without the UDSSR and Japan!
> ...



And you be fare as well. The Germans putting all or most of their air fleet in the Mediterranean? Nice, so the US also can put all their carriers as well. The US has Japan as a treat, and Germany has the USSR. And the US not only would help Britain in the Mediterranean, but they also would arrive in the UK and immediately start to attack targets from France until Holland. They would need to take air units to defend France. Because if the USMC launched an assault in France with air support, they would establishe a beachead in Europe. Hitler would have to choose between this and the Mediterranean. 

Read here about the Lend Lease from the Soviets: Did Russia Really Go It Alone? How Lend-Lease Helped the Soviets Defeat the Germans

And make no mistake, this Britain would be much more stronger, with more material aid from the US. FDR would send much more supplies to Britain now that he would go to war.

About the American planes, well, they were adequated for defensive operations. The P-40 was historically well used in Africa. But now the Americans would arrive with more more of them, as well as bombers. At least two carrier I belive FDR would bring to Europe. Japan only wanted oil and fight China. They would be with much more fear from Stalin at his doorstep than attack the US.


----------



## Jenisch (Nov 23, 2011)

> Yes, and then reject it as impractical;


 
Yes. My point is a counter argument against those who think the USSR could have won WWII alone if the Western Allies didn't taked part. I posted this one or two pages behind. Britain, France and the US would never remain neutral to Hitler try conquest the USSR and try conquest Europe later. It is unrealistic as this one.


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 23, 2011)

The allies in the Mediterranean:

Air raid on Bari - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Much different tatical situation then what was faced in the PTO.


----------



## Jenisch (Nov 23, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> The allies in the Mediterranean:
> 
> Air raid on Bari - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Much different tatical situation then what was faced in the PTO.



Battle of Taranto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 23, 2011)

Jenisch said:


> Battle of Taranto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Read the Bari one if you havn't. That would be akin to a US carrier fleet in the Med with NO russians to worry about.


----------



## Jenisch (Nov 23, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> Read the Bari one if you havn't. That would be akin to a US carrier fleet in the Med with NO russians to worry about.



We would see some heavy aerial and sea fighting in the Mediterranean. But the Allies would not let the Germans take the Middle East oil easily. They would accept even carrier losses if necessary. And I suggest you to read the other things I posted like the USAAFwould start to attack in France. The Americans would also treat Norway, and Stalin would be still a problem of it's own.


----------



## DonL (Nov 23, 2011)

> Not a chance. Limitations on the italian merchant marine and the cargo handling capacities of the Libyan ports would prevent that. In 1940 there were limits on the numbers of trained and equipped personnel that could be deployed to the western desert by the british, but by 1941, this equipment crisis was largely passed. There were large numbers of divs deployed to the mideast and the delta that never were committed to the defence in the western desert. For example a corps sized force, known as Oalforce, which in '42 was upgraded to a full army sized formation. then ther were numbers of CW troopps that were retained in the Delta and never committed to the defnce.
> 
> But the big restriction was the limit of Italian shipping, the limits on rear area transport, that make projections like this a mere pipedream.
> 
> ...



As always you do under estimate the situation if this was the primary goal!
You are talking about 1940/41 and 5 Divisions!
If the LW is at italy with all her strengths and Rommel had 5 elite divisions then Bengasi, Tobruk and Malta are down at June 1941!
Please describe any scenario with sources that can stop Rommel and the LW to reach this goal!

With Malta down there are only two bases for the Royal Navy, Gibratar and Alexandria! And *no* more supply for the GB troops through the Mediterranean sea with the LW at Italy, Malta and North Africa.
The whole time there would be a building of merchandise ships at the Mediterranean ports from Italy and germany!

With Tobruk there would be a good harbour for the Wehrmacht to force there troops to the suez canal.
Please describe with what troops and supply Archilenk will stopp Rommel with 5 elite divisions the described LW at Italy and North Africa and Malta and Toobruk at german hands to take Alexandria and the Suez Canal at autum 1941?

After that it is only a matter of time when german troops are at Saudi Arabian!
And don't forget there is no fuel at the war in the east, all fuel from Romania could get to the Mediterranean sea for the german troops, LW and the Italian Navy!



> Nice if it were possible. How were the Axis planning to get the oil from the Middle east and Arabia to their home ports, even without interference. The British empire does not end at suez. once suez was lost, the eastern bloc of the CW would have moved to a full war footing, and almost certainly have caused the early entry of the US into the war



Lol, and what they want to do against german stukas, He 111 torpedo bombers and later Fritz X'?
The way from Saudi Arabian to the suez canal is realy short and the LW will be present!



> But ignores numerous constraints that would prevent it ever coming to fruition



To be very very specific, it is *much much much more possible* then to invade the UDSSR and get to Baku and the OIL through the Kaukasus!


----------



## Jenisch (Nov 23, 2011)

It's really interesting to know what the Arabs would think about this. The Nazi megalomaniac trying to take their oil fields, the US and Britain helping them by fighting from a free world that allowed them to sell their oil. I doubt they would just gave their oil fields to the Germans.

What about the Arabs, in the worse, putting fire in their oil fields and destroying the infraestruture by an agreedment with US and Britain to receive a Marshall Plan of the Oil later? =D


----------



## Jabberwocky (Nov 23, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> Crossing is no problem. If the FAT morphine addicted MAN would have kept up aerial assults for a couple more weeks, Germany would have won the airwar over England.. History tells us that. Luckily for England he stopped when he did.



The level of self delusion and historical ignorance showed by this post is highly revealing.


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 23, 2011)

Jabberwocky said:


> The level of self delusion and historical ignorance showed by this post is highly revealing.


Yah yeah... please if your so kind as to prove that the RAF was on the verge of victory during the end of BoB.


----------



## DonL (Nov 23, 2011)

> It's really interesting to know what the Arabs would think about this. The Nazi megalomaniac trying to take their oil fields, the US and Britain helping them by fighting from a free world that allowed them to sell their oil. I doubt they would just gave their oil fields to the Germans.



Are you realy serious? At what time the US and Britain helping them by fighting from a free world that allowed them to sell their oil? 
Sorry at 1941 there was no free world that allowed them to sell their oil.

At this time the Egypt were on the german side, you can proof that from many historical *allied*books!
In general the most arabian tend to the german side at WWII!


----------



## Jenisch (Nov 23, 2011)

Perhaps we could have seen a photo like this with the P-40, P-38, P-51 over Saudit Arabia? =D 

I'm curious with the Arab question.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Nov 23, 2011)

"Verge of victory during the end of BoB"

Did I make any such claim? No.

Historically, the RAF won the BoB by surviving and denying the Luftwaffe control of the air over the Channel, preventing any change of Sealion occurring.

You are the one claiming that a crossing of the English Channel presents "no problem" for the German armed forces - despite all the Wehrmacht and Kriegsmarine objections to the scheme. Halder likened the Sealion plan to sticking one's hand in a meat grinder. von Runstead's objections were similar.

The onus of proof lies with you, not me.

Please, enlighten us as to how a naval force outnumbered 7:1 in destroyers, 8:1 in small craft, 2:1 in submarines, 11:1 in cruisers and 5:1 in battleships is going to satisfactorily protect the landing force for the initial 36 hour crossing and then for a further 10 days to get all landing forces across. This is against a Royal Navy which has already proven itself more than willing to seek out and engage the Kriegsmarine at almost all occasions. See HMS Glowworm 

How was the Wehrmacht to supply itself, given that during the two available windows for Sealion, poor weather would have stimied re-supply efforts for at least two days out of the ten needed to transport the fleet and the English had wired most ports for destruction. 

How is the Luftwaffe going to win with "aerial assults for a couple more weeks"? The front-line fighter and pilot strength of the RAF compared to the Luftwaffe increased from early September onwards. If anything, continuing the BoB would be more damaging for the Luftwaffe than the RAF, given the performance of the airforces in the September/October period.


----------



## Jenisch (Nov 23, 2011)

Even me, the creator, are not taking this topic seriously anymore. The fact is that the Germans take the oil fields, and Uncle Joe attacks Europe and makes the so precious aquired Arab oil useless. Then the Allies devided Europe, or even Stalin takes everything. End of story. ROFL


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 23, 2011)

'The onus of proof lies with you, not me.'

You called me stupid in an educated type of way (see post #102). So if I am, please show how the Luftwaffe wasn't on the verge of victory then?

I am willing to learn, but not willing to be called names. So please post.

The RAF was out of time by the end of the BoB. IF Goring would have continued the champain, The RAF would have been crushed. Thats my onus.


----------



## gjs238 (Nov 23, 2011)

Even if Germany were to accomplish the best of what has been suggested - could it be sustained?
For that matter, if we stay with the historical invasion of Russia, and fantasize that the Germans were "successful" - did they realistically expect to militarily occupy the USSR and sustain that indefinitely?


----------



## Jenisch (Nov 23, 2011)

No. They planned to exterminate the Slavs and set a colonial state.


----------



## DonL (Nov 23, 2011)

> "Verge of victory during the end of BoB"
> 
> Did I make any such claim? No.
> 
> ...



I agree!!!!

We could discuss some things but in the end it is as you described!
We have discussed the BoB till no end but with this scenario there more things in the game!

The germans aren't that stupid and they will learn from their errors!

The He 177 will be much more faster a He 277 and the FW 187 will be in service at the end of 1942 with the DB 601F or DB 605!

To my opinion at every timeline there will be no invasion possible from germany to GB with the USA in the war.
I will be a defend war at the air from the LW with some attacks to GB!
The real attackers would be the submarines (XXI), and in this scenario they will be in service earlier and much much more protected from the LW.

Many of you underestimate the german technology when it goes to the GB and the USA war.
The war to USSR was primary all other was secondary with Mr.Speer ahead and a clear focus to GB and the USA, it will be a real real tough fight, and from my understanding the Manhatten Project is the real goal, all other weapons are more equal.


----------



## gjs238 (Nov 23, 2011)

Would Arabs eventually meet the same fate?


----------



## Jenisch (Nov 23, 2011)

Stalin had defined the premise during his March 10, 1939, speech in Moscow:

_Nonintervention represents the endeavor... to allow all the warmongers to sink deeply into the mire of warfare, to quietly urge them on. The result will be that they weaken and exhaust one another. Then... (we will) appear on the scene with fresh forces and step in, naturally "in the interest of peace," to dictate terms to the weakened belligerents. _

On August 25, 1939, the Swiss periodical Revue de droit international published the text of a speech Stalin delivered on August 19 to a closed session of the Political Bureau in Moscow. He was quoted as follows:

_It must be our objective that Germany wage war long enough to exhaust England and France so much that they cannot defeat Germany alone.... Should Germany win, it will itself be so weakened that it won't be able to wage war against us for 10 years.... It's paramount for us that this war continues as long as possible, until both sides are worn out._


Stalin's Secret War Plans: Why Hitler Invaded the Soviet Union. Richard Tedor.

This guy was really as bastard as Hitler. We, here in the West, have much luck that the two totalitarian monsters destroyed each other (the Soviets, at least from a point of non Western Europe invasion). But many people in Eastern Europe didn't had the same luck.


----------



## DonL (Nov 23, 2011)

> Even me, the creator, are not taking this topic seriously anymore. The fact is that the Germans take the oil fields, and Uncle Joe attacks Europe and makes the so precious aquired Arab oil useless. Then the Allies devided Europe, or even Stalin takes everything. End of story.



ROFL

With all respect and I don't want to be arrogant, but without the USA landlease of american trucks, the USSR could do *anything* to the european countries. Against the german or english or late USA mot. war they can do *nothing* without USA trucks! That's a fact from many military historican!


----------



## parsifal (Nov 23, 2011)

> As always you do under estimate the situation if this was the primary goal!



Good to see you are your usual coureous and congenial self DonL, This is going to a civil exchange I hope. 



> You are talking about 1940/41 and 5 Divisions!
> If the LW is at italy with all her strengths and Rommel had 5 elite divisions then Bengasi, Tobruk and Malta are down at June 1941!




There were no agreements with the italians until the end of October 1940. until then, there is no possibility of any reinforcement into italy. It then took three months basically to develop the airfields and set up the supporting infrastructure to support 248 a/c of FKX. Even at that rate, German logistics were stretched. German and italian logistics in Africa were fully strched to support roughly 150 aircraft in the assaults on Tobruk. 

Looking firstly at malta, there were only two specialist anti-shipping units in the LW of Korps size, at the beginning of 1941. by the end of 1941, after strenuous efforts and training there were 21/2, the half being schwarzes meer command for the Eastern Front. There were odds and sods around the occupied territories that might give some help. The rest of the LW was untrained for anti-shipping operations, and as was found in 1940, by the germans, only appropriately trained aircrews are of any use in anti-shipping operations. So, there is very little chance of full defeat of the RN, or indeed, any additional defeat beyond what they suffered historically. It is possible for general air force units to be used on anti-shipping ops, but they are not efficient, as the italians, the british and the germans found out at various times. 

Obviously with time and training (about nine months additional training on average) additional formations of the LW could be retrained for anti ship operations, and airfields provided, but this takes you to the latter half of 1941, not the June deadline you are suggesting.

Malta, under any scenario is a difficult nut for the Axis to crack....possible but not easy. And as barnett points out in "Engage the enmy more closely", it is not the complete answer to Axis logistic difficulties. Hercules Mark I was originally planned no earlier than September 1941 from memory, the second plan would have seen airdrops in July 1942. there were many months of delay between the time of orders being issued, and the plan actually being carried out. 

During the re-supply convoys in 42, more than 600 Axis aircraft were ranged against about 70 defenders, and could not crack the defences, mostly because they found it hard to concentrate, Attacking a carrier task force is not an easy option even at the best of times. With no far eastern deployments to worry about, the brits will have an additional five carriers for the med, and more modern equipment far ealier, particulalry Martlets......its not the walkover you think it would be. If the US does come into the fray there are another 5 carriers and another 500 a/c or so to contend with. I actually see this scenario as a bloodbath against the LW, not the other way round 

Now, putting 5 divs into the theatre is absolutely no gurantee that Tobruk would be taken either. The most likley involvement of the germans would be via Greece and Yugoslavia, by ealry involvement, and no deployment against the Vichy, or alternatively cleaning the Lavant Vichy by forces in the East (after iraq). under those circumstances, the 5 divs which replace the 2 divs actually deployed, instead of being faced by one Aus Div in Tobruk, would be faced by two lus a full armoured Brigade, plus an additional Div in reserve. Since tyhe germans would need about 2 divs to face the frontier, they would have 3 divs, less well supplied than Rommel was, against 2.5 fresh and dug in troops in Tobruk. If they pour more assets into the TO, roughly 150 a/c equals the needs of a Div, so, say you wanted to pour in 450 aircraft into your NA scenario, you have reduced your frontline troop strengths to about 3 divs. Thats now 1.5 divs plus 450 a/c against 2.5 divs dig in. Still not good for the germans. 

A meditterranean solution is a furphy 



> Please describe any scenario with sources that can stop Rommel and the LW to reach this goal!



see above


_With Malta down there are only two bases for the Royal Navy, Gibratar and Alexandria! And *no* more supply for the GB troops through the Mediterranean sea with the LW at Italy, Malta and North Africa.
The whole time there would be a building of merchandise ships at the Mediterranean ports from Italy and germany!_

See above. takes time to deploy, takes time to retrain. Doesnt overcome the port limitation of North africa. Malta is not a dead certainlty, and even if lost does not overcome Axis supply difficulties. The med was seldom used by the Allies until 1943. As for building ships, exactly what shipbuilding capacity do you think the italians possessed. Historically for the whole war they built about 300000 tons of seagoing shipping with an avergae build time per ship of around 20 months. If your building programn starts in December 1940 (highly unlikley) its still late 1942 before there is any effect on the Italian merchant marine. On top of that, your grand plan to use middle eastern oil requires additional shipping over and above that again. The axis will still be fighting on a much broader front, as well as trying to bring home the oil (oil is not general cargo so different ships are needed)....the oil dream is a fantasy for the axis....it wont work, as Hitler well knew...thats why he never went for it. Additionally, what was found when the germans went for the Caucasian oil is that the wells were completely wrecked, and would have required at least two years to repair. Brits did that in Burma, why not in the Mid east and Arabia????





> With Tobruk there would be a good harbour for the Wehrmacht to force there troops to the suez canal.
> Please describe with what troops and supply Archilenk will stopp Rommel with 5 elite divisions the described LW at Italy and North Africa and Malta and Toobruk at german hands to take Alexandria and the Suez Canal at autum 1941?




When they did finally take tobruk in June 42, tobrulk was found to be totally useless as a port. It has about 1/5 5he cargo handling capacity of tripoli. The Germans never even attempted to use it, it was so poor as a port, and so comphrehensively wrecked. Taking suez and Alex are both highly unlikely and even if captured, again will be so completely wrecked it would take years to recover 



> After that it is only a matter of time when german troops are at Saudi Arabian!
> And don't forget there is no fuel at the war in the east, all fuel from Romania could get to the Mediterranean sea for the german troops, LW and the Italian Navy!


Different kind of fuel for ships,and it would remain in short supply no matter there was no war in the east





> Lol, and what they want to do against german stukas, He 111 torpedo bombers and later Fritz X'?
> The way from Saudi Arabian to the suez canal is realy short and the LW will be present!
> 
> 
> ...


!

Keep dreaming friend, keep dreaming


----------



## Jabberwocky (Nov 23, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> 'The onus of proof lies with you, not me.'
> 
> You called me stupid in an educated type of way (see post #102). So if I am, please show how the Luftwaffe wasn't on the verge of victory then?
> 
> ...


 
You're asking me to prove a negative. 

RAF fighter and pilot strength INCREASED through the BoB period, except for a two week period between 24-August and 06-September, when aircraft and pilot attrition was heavier than replacement.

RAF fighters (serviceable and on strength), squadrons and pilot strength as of the end of:
July: 675 fighters, 52 squadrons, 1259 pilots
August: 700 fighters, 56 squadrons, 1458 pilots
September: 708 fighters, 58 squadrons, 1581 pilots
October: 687 fighters, 58 squadrons, 1711 pilots

Add to this that at no point did Fighter Command's reserve aircraft numbers get below 200 single seat fighters

In comparison, Luftwaffe fighter strength decreased through the battle, as did pilot strength:
Bf 109 pilots fit for duty as of 1st August - 869
1st September - 735

Fighter Command pilot strength increases by a third, Luftwaffe fighter pilot strength decreases by 15%.

The only time that the RAF looked like losing the Battle was the aforementioned two week period in Aug/September. Even at the worst weekly rate of attrition, assuming that production and pilot training rates stayed the same (which they didn't), it would have taken more than four months of these kinds of losses to reduce Fighter Command to half strength of around 350 fighters.

When, exactly, was the Luftwaffe on the "verge of victory" during the Battle of Britain?


----------



## DonL (Nov 23, 2011)

> There were no agreements with the italians until the end of October 1940. until then, there is no possibility of any reinforcement into italy. It then took three months basically to develop the airfields and set up the supporting infrastructure to support 248 a/c of FKX. Even at that rate, German logistics were stretched. German and italian logistics in Africa were fully strched to support roughly 150 aircraft in the assaults on Tobruk.





> Looking firstly at malta, there were only two specialist anti-shipping units in the LW of Korps size, at the beginning of 1941. by the end of 1941, after strenuous efforts and training there were 21/2, the half being schwarzes meer command for the Eastern Front. There were odds and sods around the occupied territories that might give some help. The rest of the LW was untrained for anti-shipping operations, and as was found in 1940, by the germans, only appropriately trained aircrews are of any use in anti-shipping operations. So, there is very little chance of full defeat of the RN, or indeed, any additional defeat beyond what they suffered historically. It is possible for general air force units to be used on anti-shipping ops, but they are not efficient, as the italians, the british and the germans found out at various times.
> 
> Obviously with time and training (about nine months additional training on average) additional formations of the LW could be retrained for anti ship operations, and airfields provided, but this takes you to the latter half of 1941, not the June deadline you are suggesting.
> 
> Malta, under any scenario is a difficult nut for the Axis to crack....possible but not easy. And as barnett points out in "Engage the enmy more closely", it is not the complete answer to Axis logistic difficulties. Hercules Mark I was originally planned no earlier than September 1941 from memory, the second plan would have seen airdrops in July 1942. there were many months of delay between the time of orders being issued, and the plan actually being carried out.



What do you want to tell us?
Germany forced their troops to Greece, Crete was invaded and we have *no* plan to go to the UDSSR!
All your contradiction are based on a war to the UDSSR!
You should abstract the situation in this given scenario and the power of the LW, german navy and the Wehrmacht to to eliminate dangerous conditions! Malta was a dangerous condition and as you can poove crete was eliminated!
*Malta was a easy target at the first half of 1941 with the historical strenghts abstract to no war in the east!*



> Now, putting 5 divs into the theatre is absolutely no gurantee that Tobruk would be taken either. The most likley involvement of the germans would be via Greece and Yugoslavia, by ealry involvement, and no deployment against the Vichy, or alternatively cleaning the Lavant Vichy by forces in the East (after iraq). under those circumstances, the 5 divs which replace the 2 divs actually deployed, instead of being faced by one Aus Div in Tobruk, would be faced by two lus a full armoured Brigade, plus an additional Div in reserve. Since tyhe germans would need about 2 divs to face the frontier, they would have 3 divs, less well supplied than Rommel was, against 2.5 fresh and dug in troops in Tobruk. If they pour more assets into the TO, roughly 150 a/c equals the needs of a Div, so, say you wanted to pour in 450 aircraft into your NA scenario, you have reduced your frontline troop strengths to about 3 divs. Thats now 1.5 divs plus 450 a/c against 2.5 divs dig in. Still not good for the germans.



Are you smokinh pot? We are talking about 5 divisions at May/June 1941!
Please tell me from the given historical sources that Tobrk can withstand that army, you are dreaming sir, nothing else!



> Keep dreaming friend, keep dreaming



As I said, you are in no condition to abstract! If you wan't to tell me that the attack about UDSSR via Rostov to Baku, was easier then to invade, North Africa, Malta and the Suez Canal at 1941 you are totaly out of the discussion, cause you have *no* single clue to the reality!


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 23, 2011)

Jabberwocky said:


> When, exactly, was the Luftwaffe on the "verge of victory" during the Battle of Britain?


Two dates. The Day before 18.12.1940 Mid 10.1941.


----------



## davparlr (Nov 23, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> Read the Bari one if you havn't. That would be akin to a US carrier fleet in the Med with NO russians to worry about.


 
I did read it. The Allies were asleep at the wheel. Claiming this as the capability example of the Germans is like claiming that because of Pearl Harbor the US Navy better not take on the Japanese at sea.


----------



## Njaco (Nov 23, 2011)

Lets keep this civil or the thread will be locked and infractions given. Please everybody, some good info was being brought to the table.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Nov 23, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> Two dates. The Day before 18.12.1940 Mid 10.1941.


 
Bwuh?

17-December-1940, the day before Furher Directive 21. 

October 1941, the slowing of German advances outside of Moscow.

Forgive my incredulity, but neither of these two events have any effect on the "Battle of Britain" which stretched between late June and late October 1940. By December 1940, the battle has been over for a good two months.

You'd need a second offensive, either in 1941 or 1942, for the Luftwaffe to attempt again to "crush" the RAF. As I've expressed earlier, the defensive situation for the RAF, both during the day and night, was vastly better in 1941 and 1942 than it was in 1940. Both in comparative and absolute (numerical) terms.

To defeat the RAF, Germany needs to wage a battle of attrition against an opponent that is producing more aircraft and pilots than it, as well as sourcing aircraft and pilots from the Commonwealth and US. It needs to do this over its opponent's territory. Against the finest air defence network that had ever existed to that point in history. Against an opponent that beat the Luftwaffe once and is confident that it can do so again.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 24, 2011)

Hi DonL 

You are suggesting to abstract for one side, but not the other. If we abstract for one side, the usual practice when assessing possibilities is to try and assess what would be the most likley reaction by the other side. The purpose of all this balance and counterbalance is to determine at what point one side has an advantage that the other side does not or cannot counter.

Of course its possible to enter into pure supposition and not factor in what the opponenht will do, or to corral the opponents responses within unrealistic parameter. this is precisely what the japanese did before Midway, and look at the prize they took hoe with them. Its far better to think of a plan, and then think what might go wrong with that plan, rather than think of a plan, and then try and ignore or downplay what an opponent might do as a reaction. This is what you pro-german guys are doing right at this minute.....thinking about the possiblities, and trying not to think about the problems. 

Also, at what point does historical extrapolation become historical fantasy. We are bordering on that now. as an example, you seem to be saying that the invasion of Yugoslavia and Greece was not limited by concerns about Soviets. Not sure what you are getting at here, but historically Yugoslavia was an ally of the germans until the Coup in early April. Unless the germans are prepred to start stomping on their own allies, nothing is going to happen in that front until then. In the case of Greece, the only option available to the germans was to reinforce the Albanian front until Yugoslavia revolts, and that plan was rejected by the italians. The italians resisted overtures for help until they starteed to have some difficulties, so earlier entry is just not going to happen, unless the germans are prepred to invade the italians, or ignore their rights as Axis partners. Again, aint gonna happen. 

The issue here is not the power of the germans armed forces, so much as the lack of power in the German supply services. You are overestimating German supply capability by miles. its a waste of resources to pour the teeth into a battle without a supporting tail....the trouble for the germans is that in 1941 they lacked an adequate tail to deal with a situation like the med. unless you are saying they should start reorganizing their forces from before involvement. For the LW that would mean pulling a significant proportion of their forces out of the BoB. Do we now suppose that the allies are not going to respopnd to that in some way. 

I am not so naive as to suggest the problems, to a degree could not be solved eventually.....eventually for example the port of tobruk might be restored or improved to some point of usefulness. Its just that these solutions cannot be achieved quickly, they take time, and that means the allies also have time to react. Quid Pro Quo. Making assumptions that your enemy is not going to respond, or not counter your initiatives is the dangerous precednt, not the failure to abstract that you are wont to accuse me. 

As for :

_As I said, you are in no condition to abstract! If you wan't to tell me that the attack about UDSSR via Rostov to Baku, was easier then to invade, North Africa, Malta and the Suez Canal at 1941 you are totaly out of the discussion, cause you have no single clue to the reality!_ 

It would appear that you think I said it would be easier to go to Baku than to suez. I never said anything of the sort. But that is not the question. Does Germany have the toools to do the latter. They certainly have the military teet, but that too is not the question either. Ask this question....do they have the logistic tail and the speicialised unit training. answer is no. Could they acquire that capability. yes, in time, but then we have to assume a n allied response, or assume the allies are stupid and want to be beaten.

With reagrd to:

_Are you smokinh pot? We are talking about 5 divisions at May/June 1941!
Please tell me from the given historical sources that Tobrk can withstand that army, you are dreaming sir, nothing else!_ 

I am not the one making the outrageous claims for victory I said in my opening comments on this thread that it would be difficult to draw too many conclusions. So because I am counselling you to be cautious, and that there are more diffulties than perhaps you have considered, you think I am being outrageous. that has to be first. behave conservatively, and be accused of radicalism. 
In response to the specific claims, it would firstly be very difficult to have 5 German Divs in place by June. Historically 5th light began arriving at the end of january, and was in psotion at the Agheila line by late march, some of it at least....about 2 regiments. 15 Panzer began arriving mid April, and had not all iots elements in place until late may. By extrapolation (as opposed to abstract fantasy) thats about 2.5 months to get most of a division across the ditch and into position. That means the germans would need another 5 or 6 months to get theuir extra 3 divs into place. And a quick side note. German units in North africa were pared down in terms of both men and equipment.

The single division defending Tobruk historically, was assualted by no less than 5 Divisions, including most DAKs heavy artillery, all of its Stuka assets, 1 German and the very best italian Infantry Divisions, more or less simulataneoulsy. The Germans in particular were heavily defeated in these battles. Ask yourself this.....if there had been no commitment to greece or Crete (you said be creative, be abstract) there would have been an additional 2.5 aus divs to pour into this battle. The question becopmes at that point not "can they hold" rather it is "is ther any way they can be contained" I tend to think not. 

As for 

_You should abstract the situation in this given scenario and the power of the LW, german navy and the Wehrmacht to to eliminate dangerous conditions! Malta was a dangerous condition and as you can poove crete was eliminated!
Malta was a easy target at the first half of 1941 with the historical strenghts abstract to no war in the east!_

If we are going to abstract situations for one side, why not the other. What power does the german Navy have in 1941? If they had started to build ships in the prewar build up, what reaction do you think would happen in Britain......if the germans laid down another BB, the brits would lay down 5, if the germans build ten more destroyers, the brits would build a 100. Wheras the germans held the whip hand in continental weaponary, and training, it was the reverse for logistics and naval construction .

If malta was such an easy target, why did it take 7 months to prepre for its capture on two occasions and on two occasions the operation was cancelled. The resources able to be brought to bear on the island are not limited by the military front end, its the logistic and transport assets that limit the forces that could be committed. I can only say again, taking it is not a certainty, and is not easy, and is a time consuming and resource intensive operation.....you cannot be training your airborne forces for an assault of the island, AND be using your Ju52s for trasnport to North Africa at the same time. one thing or the other, not both. 

welcome to the world of limited resources


----------



## DonL (Nov 24, 2011)

> Lets keep this civil or the thread will be locked and infractions given. Please everybody, some good info was being brought to the table.



I apologize if I where to harsh at my argumentation especially against parsifal!

I appreciate his posts and I think he is well informed about the WWII.
I appreciate too his posts about the "third reich" and the political estimation and the political adjudgement!
I will sign his posts.

But we are talking here much about military and technology strenghts. And in much posts I miss some objectivity and the the ability to abstract historical information from given sources to military and technology scenarios.
You can be against germany, no wonder that, at the given events at WWII, but to talk and fathom something like this given scenario you should be a little objektive about the strenghts and the potentiality to military and economic things.
Not all germans were nazis or stupid!


----------



## parsifal (Nov 24, 2011)

Hi DonL

No need to apologize to me, but maybe to the mods. I am not seeking to insult you or belittle your POV. I just dont agree with it. We should stop marking the man, and start playing the ball. There is no wrong or right answer in this, all viewpoints are valid, and in many respects my ttechnical knowlwedge is weaker than many. but I have experience in operation analysis....how to assess a given situation, how to extrapolate, how to speculate logically. Maybe that is of use to you, maybe not.

Hope this is of help, and hope we can now get back to the discussion.

One thing I will concede. whilst i will argue till the cows come home that the germans could never win outright....what becomes highly problematic is the ability of the allies to defeat her. I think dropping Russia out of the equation makes a negotiated peace a very likely outcome. A draw if you like....


----------



## DonL (Nov 24, 2011)

> You are suggesting to abstract for one side, but not the other. If we abstract for one side, the usual practice when assessing possibilities is to try and assess what would be the most likley reaction by the other side. The purpose of all this balance and counterbalance is to determine at what point one side has an advantage that the other side does not or cannot counter.
> 
> Of course its possible to enter into pure supposition and not factor in what the opponenht will do, or to corral the opponents responses within unrealistic parameter. this is precisely what the japanese did before Midway, and look at the prize they took hoe with them. Its far better to think of a plan, and then think what might go wrong with that plan, rather than think of a plan, and then try and ignore or downplay what an opponent might do as a reaction. This is what you pro-german guys are doing right at this minute.....thinking about the possiblities, and trying not to think about the problems.



Yes but what is your intention?
GB was fighting for life at 1940/41 and germany was totaly in the war against the UDSSR after the lost of BoB!
You suggest that a german move to "total" war against GB would have major counter action!

From what forces? Royal Air Force, Royal Navy, GB troops? What can GB do at 1941 other then they have done at the Mediterranean?
From what sources came troops, aircrafts and ships? GB was totaly involved at the Mediterranean war at 1941 from the given sources!

As you can read at any book germany wasn't! All moves were under circumstances of the war to the UDSSR!
At this given scenario there will first *no plan for the war to the UDSSR* and second *all plans and ressources would under the circumstances to a total war to GB*

What is that difficult, that if germany move all his strenghts to the Mediterranean, especially logistic and LW, that GB would be in real trouble!
Germany managed with low logistic, low LW forces and low ground troops to give GB a hard time for 2 years with perhaps 5% of the given logistical, economical and military strenghts and now you want tell me, that if germany moves 50-70% of this capacity to the Mediterranean, all would be the same as historical?

Please think about it! 

O fcourse some things need a little more time then other, but an invasion of Malta is the same as the invasion of Crete, only easier, and to take Tobruk with 5 elite division, well supllied and the assistance of thousands of LW aircrafts?!

You should think about the issue that germany blow up there ground forces from 155 to 180 division between the france campaign and Barbarossa. Under the circumstances in this scenario they can imobilize 30 to 40 divisions.

Think about this!


----------



## Jabberwocky (Nov 24, 2011)

Pursuant to my last post, some more musings on UK vs Germany in the air, assuming the collapse of the Soviet Union post Barbarossa.

For Germany to defeat the RAF in 1941 or 1942 in a battle of attrition, it would need to knock down British fighters at a rate of almost 2:1. 

Production of aircraft by UK (1st column) and Germany (2nd column) and the ratio of production (3rd column)

1939: 1324, 614, 2.2:1
1940: 2735, 4238, 1.6:1
1941: 7064, 3744, 1.9:1
1942: 9849, 5358, 1.8:1
1943: 10727, 10059, 1.1:1
1944: 10739, 24981, 0.5:1


UK fighter production figures taken from HyperWar: British War Production [Appendix 4]

German fighter production figures taken from wikipedia - so usual caveats for accuracy German aircraft production during World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of course, this ignores the impact of British purchases from the US and US lend lease to the UK: Better than 4500 fighters were delivered from the US between 1941 and 1945, including almost 2000 P-51s and more than 2400 P-40s. 

Yes, the P-40 was not used in Northwest Europe, but as you’re presenting a scenario where the UK is faced with renewed German attacks, the possibility that they are used in defence of Great Britain cannot be discounted. 

In 1941, purchases from the US amounted to 9.1% of the UK’s total military supplies. Lend lease made up 2.4%. In 1942, the figures are 4.7% direct purchases and 12.4% Lend lease.


----------



## DonL (Nov 24, 2011)

> One thing I will concede. whilst i will argue till the cows come home that the germans could never win outright....what becomes highly problematic is the ability of the allies to defeat her. I think dropping Russia out of the equation makes a negotiated peace a very likely outcome. A draw if you like....



I absolutley agree, my attention was to show, that it isn't the easiest to defeat germany under the circumstances in this szenario. They would have some options like the Arabian Islands (OIL), Jets (Me 262) and the XXI submarines.
With this scenario they have to my opinion more time to get their technology in action, but a win is absolutley impossible, but to my opinion an invasion without a nuke too!


----------



## parsifal (Nov 24, 2011)

> Yes but what is your intention?



To apply conservative logic to a hypothetical situation



> GB was fighting for life at 1940/41 and germany was totaly in the war against the UDSSR after the lost of BoB!



Kinda true, but kinda not as well. Britains approach to continental wars since the spanish armada has been to support the second most powerful country in Europe, and thereby ensure that no single individual nation dominates the continent. a united Europe, hostile in its attitude to britain is a big threat. 

Britain's chief offensive weapon since Napoleon has been blokcade and the classic application of seapower. It was the blockade and seapower that defeated the germans in 1918 more than the land offensives. both were needed, but the ground offensives would not be possible without the sea blockade 


In the second war, Britain applied the same principal. This was complicated by the many leaks in the British ship of war. germany controlled all of europe, she was trading with neutral states that could not be blockaded (ie USSR) and was more self sufficient than previously. So the process of blockade was slowed by these effects, but not stopped. britains number one weapon against the germans was the blockade....a thing called the neutrality act, that said, essentially "we will sink your ships if you trade with the Germans". And they did. I have just about finished looking at german shipping losses on the Atlantic seaboard, well almost, for 1941. So far have found about 200000 tons of shipping sunk by the brits, maybe a bit more. Germany was denied the free usage of the oceans, the access to foreign markets outside Europe, and this hurt her economy. Britain lost far far more shipping, but she could afford to do this, and eventually solved the U-Boat issue. The allied offensive against german shipping just got worse and worse.

There were of course other offensives taking place that whilst pin pricks really, were the foundation stones for later operations. Of course there were the Bomber raids, but also missions like Taranto, Spitzbergen, the fighter sweeps over france (costly and only partially successful), the conquest of Abysinnia, and O'connors offensive are just examples of what was happening. so whilst survival was the main game, there were also steps toward offensive action, right from day 1 of the war 




> You suggest that a german move to "total" war against GB would have major counter action!
> 
> From what forces? Royal Air Force, Royal Navy, GB troops? What can GB do at 1941 other then they have done at the Mediterranean


?

Plenty. Starting with being able to divert an additional 9% of her outputs that were originally intended for the dominion forces, but were instead diverted to Russia. something like 2000 tanks, about 2500 a/c, and similar amounts of every imaginable piece of military hardware was either diverted directly from Britain, or diverted from Lend Lease, that had been promised to britain, but passed to russia.

There were vast amounts of naval assets, trained and untrained manpower, aircraft, merchant shipping military hardware being diverted from the european war effort, to the containment of the japanese. all of this could have been used in the Middle east. Around an additional 700 aircraft were maintained in the Far East, around 400 aircraft were also diverted from britain to china, at least two fully trained and experienced divisions. with that additional equipment not going to Russia, enough equipment to train and deploy about 10 australian divisions (which had been raised and trained, but not equipped, including a full armoured div). There were about 35 Indian Divs in the same boat, all now sitting around waiting to fight someone.

Also, though this is specualtive (abstract), there is every possibility that an increased threat on the south, aimed at Suez and beyond, would have boosted domestic production in the Dominions. I dont think it unreasonable to assume that 1942 production levels for Aus, India and NZ would not have been pushed forward as a result of the escalation in the med. Then we have the vast resources of Canada, a more significant industrial nation than italy during the war, and of course Britains home production, which in 1941 generally outstripped that of germany in just about every category.

In terms of immediate naval assets, there is approximately 1m tons of shipping the allies could use from the far east just sitting around waiting to be sunk or captured by Japan, about 20 destroyers, carrier Implacable, battleships PoW and Repulse, 5 Heavy cruisers, 8 Light Cruisers,, and from memory 3 or 4 aa cruisers. These are quite vast resources. There is a fully trained Australian Division in Malaya, another fully trained Div enroute (the 18th), the equivalent of a trained div in Burma, a full brigade in Fiji, another 5 Bdes in NZ, 12 Divs in Australia, a brigade in Hong Kong, two Brigades in ceylon, 35 Divs in India, another 5 divs in Malaya, 2 divs in South Africa. Do i need to continue. It also needs to be pointed out that approximately half the material being diverted to the pacific TO by the Americans was originally intended as Lend lease, roughly speaking this amounted to about 500 aircraft, all of them brand new. Without a japanese threat this would likely go back to the dominions, with additional aircraft added by the americans

So realistically from June to December 1941, under this sceanrio, you might see an additional 15 or 20 allied divisions in the delta, an additional 2500-3000 aircraft, pretty much a doubling of the Med Fleet. 

Germany is never going to win a resources battle



> From what sources came troops, aircrafts and ships? GB was totaly involved at the Mediterranean war at 1941 from the given sources!



You are incorrect on that score. Most of the troops in fact were Dominion, but most of the dominions were occupied either supplying the russians, or diverting resources to the pacific. With both these drains gone, it seems logical to me to expect a boost in the TO. 



> As you can read at any book germany wasn't! All moves were under circumstances of the war to the UDSSR!



Neither was Britain fully committed to the southern front. The majority of her army remained in England. The same for her air force and her navy. there were plenty of additional resources, both combat and logistical, to pour into this TO if need be 



> At this given scenario there will first *no plan for the war to the UDSSR* and second *all plans and ressources would under the circumstances to a total war to GB*



And unless the brits want to lose, or are incredibly dumb, they are going to respond on a like for like basis, call on her allies to move to a full war futting as well (which they could do, but didnt. These allies did that anyway, in 1942) 



> What is that difficult, that if germany move all his strenghts to the Mediterranean, especially logistic and LW, that GB would be in real trouble!



heaps. Just as an example, DAK in 1941 had as many trucks allocated to it as the entire army Group South Command. i dont think you are realizing just how intensive the logistical problems were on this front. Moreover they were demands not easily met by the existing german force structure



> Germany managed with low logistic, low LW forces and low ground troops to give GB a hard time for 2 years with perhaps 5% of the given logistical, economical and military strenghts and now you want tell me, that if germany moves 50-70% of this capacity to the Mediterranean, all would be the same as historical?



Not unless you exclude the italians can you say this. If you exclude the Italians, then we should exclude the dominions, if you include the italians, then we include the Dominions, but then resources poured in by the respective sides is heavily weighted in favour of the axis. they poured far more into the fight than the Allies, and lost far more incidentally. You are conveneitnetly forgetting that Libya was an italian colony, with italian control and italian troops. but even just counting germans only to british troops, the comparison is weighted in favour of the germans. they put more into the theatre historically than the british ever did, until 1943


----------



## parsifal (Nov 24, 2011)

> Please think about it!



Ive spent over twenty years thinking about it, and participated in excercises similar to the ones done at the RMC to test these theories. i am not just pulling this out of my rear end, it is based on observation of actual kriegspiel simulations 



> O fcourse some things need a little more time then other, but an invasion of Malta is the same as the invasion of Crete, only easier, and to take Tobruk with 5 elite division, well supllied and the assistance of thousands of LW aircrafts?!



If you take Crete, immediately you can forget any assault of malta. And malta is nothng like Crete. Crete wqas defended by men armed with nothing better than rifles for the most part, but it cost the germans a bucket for both their airborne and their air transports. If you take Crete, you will not take malta in the same year. malta was defended by at first two full brigades, and then three, fully armed and fortified. Not as good as the australians at Tobruk, but good enough. Germans would have been cut to pieces IMO, exscept if they could have at least two full parachute divisions, about 700 transports, a workabloe amphibious plan and complete air supremacy.

The trouble with your 5 elite divs idea at Tobruk, is that it takes the best part of a year to get them there, and in any event some of them are needed to contain the brits at the frontier. The best you can hope for is about 3 divs, and not all of them can attack at once as the germans found out historically. The lines of attack are very constricted.....the place is a natural fortress, and was guarded by troops even better than your so-called "elite" troops (dont believe me, ask Rommel, see what he said about the Australians at Tobruk...he gave up trying to beat them until they left the place). If the brits want to hold tobruk, it will be impossible for the germans to take it if properly garrisoned and competently defended, which the Australians did for nine long months. there is nothing the germans possessed, nothing they could hurl at the place that can change that. it is the battle that saved North Africa. 




> You should think about the issue that germany blow up there ground forces from 155 to 180 division between the france campaign and Barbarossa. Under the circumstances in this scenario they can imobilize 30 to 40 divisions.



Which gains them what. Raising a few security division, splitting your existing forces to make new weaker formations, raising garrison troops for the westwall does what to help you in a war that is more about logistics than rifles. The germans could not produce enough steel, enough trucks, enough tanks, enough ships, to undertake a war of this kind




> Think about this!




I have. more than you can appreciate.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Nov 24, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> So if I am, please show how the Luftwaffe wasn't on the verge of victory then?
> The RAF was out of time by the end of the BoB. IF Goring would have continued the champain, The RAF would have been crushed.


You really should market those rose-tinted glasses you're wearing; they'd make you a fortune. Your technical knowledge is formidable, but you ruin it with ludicrous statements like this.
The Germans had given up attacking the RAF's airfields, having only completely closed just one sector station, for only a few hours, and only Manston Lympne were unfit for day flying for more than a few hours (Dowding's post-BoB report.) 
They had switched to night bombing, inherently inaccurate, and moved to bombing the civilian population. 
They had given up daylight attacks on the north of Britain, having lost too many aircraft. They'd reached October with fewer aircraft and pilots than they started, while the RAF had more (Fighter Command went from 1,259, on July 2nd., to 1,796 on November 2nd. In 1940, the RAF lost 1544 trained airmen, the Germans lost 2,698; the RAF lost 1547 aircraft, while the Germans lost 1,887.
From August to December 1940, German fighter strength diminished by 30%, and its bombers by 25% (Otto Bechtle's 1944 lecture.)
Given all this, you maintain that the RAF was on the verge of being crushed; as my grandmother used to say, pull the other leg, it's got bells on.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 24, 2011)

To lighten the mood , a few snaps of Tobruk '1941......


----------



## DonL (Nov 24, 2011)

> In the second war, Britain applied the same principal. This was complicated by the many leaks in the British ship of war. germany controlled all of europe, she was trading with neutral states that could not be blockaded (ie USSR) and was more self sufficient than previously. So the process of blockade was slowed by these effects, but not stopped. britains number one weapon against the germans was the blockade....a thing called the neutrality act, that said, essentially "we will sink your ships if you trade with the Germans". And they did. I have just lookfinished looking at german shipping losses on the Atlantic seaboard, well almost, for 1941. So far have found about 200000 tons of shipping sunk by the brits, maybe a bit more. Germany was denied the free usage of the oceans, the access to foreign markets outside Europe, and this hurt her economy. Britain lost far far more shipping, but she could afford to do this, and eventually solved the U-Boat issue. The allied offensive against german shipping just got worse and worse.



Later in the war yes, but there was no single ressource problem to germany at 1941!



> There were of course other offensives taking place that whilst pin pricks really, were the foundation stones for later operations. Of course there were the Bomber raids, but also missions like Taranto, Spisbergen, the fighter sweeps over france (costly and only partially successful), the conquest of Abysinnia, and o'connors offensive are just examples of what was happening. so whilst survival was the main game, there were also steps toward offensive action, right from day 1 of the war



All against italy in the Mediterranean *before* the german were in game!



> Plenty. Starting with being able to divert an additional 9% of her outputs that were originally intended for the dominion forces, but were instead diverted to Russia. something like 2000 tanks, about 2500 a/c, and similar amounts of every imaginable piece of military hardware was either diverted directly from Britain, or diverted from Lend Lease, that had been promised to britain, but passed to russia.



When? Sources?
There was no war against the UDSSR till *21.6. 1941*
From my sources the first Lend Lease act with the UDSSR was at *November 1941*
This numbers from you are for 1942 but never for 1941!



> There were vast amounts of naval assets, trained and untrained manpower, aircraft, merchant shipping military hardware being diverted from the european war effort, to the containment of the japanese. all of this could have been used in the Midle east. Around an additional 700 aircraft were matinained in the Far East, around 400 aircraft were also diverted from britain to china, at least two fully trained and experienced division. with that additional equipment no going to Russia, enough equipment to train and deploy about 10 australian divisions (which had been raised and trained, but not equipped, including a full armoured div). There were about 35 Indian Divs in the same boat, all now sitting around waiting to fight someone.



Next, there was no war against Japanese till *7.12 1941*
Do you realy and seriously want to tell, this were all strategic reserves against Japan at 1941?



> Also, though this is specualtive (abstract), there is every possibility that an increased threat on the south, aimed at Suez and beyond, would have boosted domestic production in the Dominions. I dont think it unreasonable to assume that 1942 production levels for Aus, India and NZ would not have been pushed forward as a result of the escalation in the med. Then we have the vast resources of Canada, a more significant industrial nation than italy during the war, and of course Britains home production, which i 1941 generally outstripped that of germany in just about every category.
> 
> In terms of immediate naval assets, there is approximately 1m tons of shipping the allies could use, about 20 destroyers, carrier Implacable, battleships PoW and Repulse, 5 Heavy cruisers, 8 Light Cruisers,, and from memory 3 or 4 aa cruisers. These are quite vast resources. There is a fully trained Australian Division in Malaya, another fully trained Div enroute (the 18th), the equivalent of a trained div in Burma, a full brigade in Fiji, another 5 Bdes in NZ, 12 Divs in Australia, a brigade in Hong Kong, two Brigades in ceylon, 35 Divs in India, another 5 divs in Malaya, 2 divs in South Africa. Do i need to continue. It also needs to be pointed out that approximately half the material being diverted to the pacific TO by the Americans was originally intended as Lend lease, roughly speaking this amounted to about 500 aircraft, all of them brand new. Without a japanese threat this would likely go back to the dominions, with additional aircraft added by the americans



My question is, where have been all this troops, ships, aircrafts till May 1941?
The german were able to create heavy power and attacks to the Mediterranean till May 1941, the situation at Crete was much important for GB, but I can't see all this weapons at the Mediterranean. Even as Rommel was at the borderline of egypt at autum 1941 no weapons were there! 
I realy doubt your agumentation and it would be much more difficult to get this weapon to a Mediterranean frontline with the Mediterranean sea and the suez canal in the hands of the german and the presence and power of the LW!



> So relaistically from June to December 1941, under this sceanrio, you might see an additional 15 or 20 allied divisions in the delta, an additional 2500-3000 aircraft, pretty much a doubling of the Med Fleet.



Again, there was no Lend-Lease and no war with Japan till November and December 1941!
I realy doubt your arithmetic. Historical the war at North Africa was on it's high at December Janury 1941/42 and very very important for GB, but I can't see this weapons!
Also I realy doubt that GB or the dominion could train as much soldiers and pilots on this equipment and even ship them to the frontline half around the world and this all 1941!



> Neither was Britain fully committed to the southern front. The majority of her army remained in England. The same for her air force and her navy. there were plenty of additional resources, bith combat and logistical, to pour into this TO if need be



Fact right, conclusion wrong! You can't underestimate the power from germany from Fance, Netherlands and Norway. GB must defend there Homeland, no way there will be plenty of a/c's, ships or troops for other frontlines!
And the army was in building, because the compulsory military service was coming slowly, most of the soldiers must be trained!



> And unless the brits want to lose, or are incredibly dumb, they are going to respond on a like for like basis, call on her allies to move to a full war futting as well (which they could do, but didnt. These allies did that anyway, in 1942)



The historical facts from the Mediterranean frontline at 1941 (espicially Januar till May) are against your argumentation! The situation of GB at May 1941 at the Mediterranean was much more serious then in Summer 1942!



> but even just counting germans only to british troops, the comparison is weighted in favour of the germans. they put more into the theatre historically than the british ever did, until 1943



Sorry but I can't take this seriously! Please name facts ressources and troops!



> Ive spent over twenty years thinking about it, and participated in excercises similar to the obnes done at the RMC to test these theories. i am not just pulling this out of my rear end, it is based on observation of actual kriegspiel simulations



Me too



> If you take Crete, immediately you can forget any assault of malta. And malta is nothng like Crete. Crete wqas defended by men armed with nothing better than rifles for the most part, but it cost the germans a bucket for both their airborne and their air transports. If you take Crete, you will not take malta in the same year. malta was defended by at first two full brigades, and then three, fully armed and fortified. Not as good as the australians at Tobruk, but good enough. Germans would have been cut to pieces IMO, exscept if they could have at least two full parachute divisions, about 700 transports, a workabloe amphibious plan and complete air supremacy.



Again the historical facts are against your argumentation!

From all my research and speak to german general staff members of the Bundeswehr, that were doing historical research, Crete and Malta could be taken at the *same day* at May 1941!

The X. Fliegerkorps (General Geisler) was at sizilien from Januar to June 1941 with 200-500 a/c's
At March 7 1941 Viceairmarshall Maynard reported that he can't support any longer the Wellington's and Sunderland's against the german fighter!
At the same day General Sir William Dobbie reported the german airattacks are that heavy, that Malta as Navy and aircraft base was near meaningless.
From March 1941 the people at Malta were without food supply, severe restrictions of food were ordered.
The garnison of Malta at May 1941 was 1 infantry Regiment and 8 infantry battalions and only 4 tanks with a few 3,7; 6 zoll guns and some 18 pounder guns!.

With one more Fliegerkorps the germans would have total air supermarcy and the 22. ID Airborne division was at hand at May 1941 without a war in the east! Also there were enough Ju 52 for crete and Malta at the same day!
So please tell me how on earth GB want to defend Malta, if historical they weren't able to defend crete!
And germany had the ressources and logistic to attack at the same day, if you doubt that, please explain the Denmark and Norway attack at 1940!


----------



## DonL (Nov 24, 2011)

> The trouble with your 5 elite divs idea at Tobruk, is that it takes the best part of a year to get them there, and in any event some of them are needed to contain the brits at the frontier. The best you can hope for is about 3 divs, and not all of them can attack at once as the germans found out historically. The lines of attack are very constricted.....the place is a natural fortress, and was guarded by troops even better than your so-called "elite" troops (dont believe me, ask romel, see what he said about the Australians at Tobruk...he gave up trying to beat them until they left the place). If the brits want to hold tobruk, it will be impossible to do that if properly garrisoned and competently defended



Yes but without supply I realy doubt they could fight! You need food and ammunition to fight and with Malta and Crete at german hands the whole Royal Navy will be bottled at Gibralter and Alexandria! Please explain how do you want to supply the Aussies at Tobruk at this circumstances?



> Which gains them what. Raising a few security division, splitting your existing forces to make new weaker formations, raising garrison troops for the westwall does what to help you in a war that is more about logistics than rifles. The germans could not produce enough steel, enough trucks, enough tanks, enough ships, to undertake a war of this kind



That's an other statement that i can't take serious!
Between 120 and 180 Division are 60 x 16000 Men= 960000 more workers for the german economy, much more pilots much more steel for a/c's and submarines, but I think you don't get it!


----------



## michaelmaltby (Nov 24, 2011)

Great photos, P.



MM


----------



## parsifal (Nov 24, 2011)

Some notes on casualties

Britain and the commonwealth suffereed 220000 casualties....dead, wounded or missing. There were 14500 CW and brit deaths in the campaign. The Axis suffered between 620000 and 930000 depending on the source. The German feldgrau site says that 12000 Germans were killed and 90000 were captured or wounded to the end of 1942, only including the North African campaign. In crete and Greec they suffered additional casualties......By April '43 another 90000 had been captured. American casualties were just over 18000. The italians suffered about 25000 fatalities in the land campaign alone

The axis alsolost 70000 trucks, 2500 tanks over 8500 aircraft. At sea they lost most of the italioan navy, and about 1.5m tons of shipping. 60 Italian and 50 German U-Boats were lost

Not sure about British tank losses as yet, or the numbers of aircraft lost. Over Malta occupied the attentions of over 2000 Axis aircraft to just over 700 Allied, of which 329 were casualties to enemy fire. In exchange the Axis lost 689 aircraft, of which 225 were italian. not bad for an island "weakly defended".


----------



## DonL (Nov 24, 2011)

My sources till May 12 1943:

Germans.: dead: 18594 missed:3400
Italians: dead: 13748 missed: 8821

Commenwealth: dead: 35476
USA: dead: 16500
France ?


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 24, 2011)

parsifal said:


> The Axis suffered between 620000 and 930000 depending on the source.



???

in all the war to come in North Africa for sea route around 260k men, an other 220k were there, few teens thousand come air route?


edit

i was in wrong the air route was most important that i thought. the men sent via air route come in around 280k (around 250k alone in '42-43).
i'm more interessed in the early war and i knewn the limited use of air trasport at time and so i thinked that use was limited for all the war but was not so.


----------



## Jenisch (Nov 24, 2011)

Parsifal, do you think Germany would start to build airfields in the Mediterranean during the BoB in this scenario? 

And let's not forgot that Britain would not be fighting alone in this scenario. The full US participation and all it's consequences from mid 1941 would be present as well.


----------



## tyrodtom (Nov 24, 2011)

Why would America come in even earlier in this scenario. I would think that their support would be delayed, if they entered the war at all.


----------



## davebender (Nov 24, 2011)

Why?

Nothing short of an American military attack on Europe or the surrounding waters would cause Germany to declare war on the USA. Not even the USN protecting British convoys and attacking German submarines in the western Atlantic. FDR had a lot of power for an American President but there were limits to what he could order without a Senate Declaration of War.


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 24, 2011)

Something that Jenisch keeps forgeting is that the US stayed out of the war for 2 years, while Europe burned. Hitler had no desire to declaire war on the US.


----------



## davebender (Nov 24, 2011)

After December 7th, 1941 the American public were burning for revenge against Japan, not Germany. IMO we would have stayed out of Europe even longer if the German Government hadn't foolishly declared war.


----------



## tyrodtom (Nov 24, 2011)

But in the real world, Hitler did declare war on the USA.


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 24, 2011)

davebender said:


> After December 7th, 1941 the American public were burning for revenge against Japan, not Germany. IMO we would have stayed out of Europe even longer if the German Government hadn't foolishly declared war.


Wasn't Hiltler gambling that Russia would declare war on Japan? iirc.

tom,

as opposed to what? Hitler declared war after the PH attack. before, he had no desire to do so.

answer for below this post:

" _As I already pointed you, one possibility for this would be the same one that got the US into WWI; Germans get too arrogant and try to dictate where and with whom the US can trade, using the U-boat fleet as a threat._ "

best answer for why the US got involved in WWI:

the Lusitania enigma..

The passenger ship referred to above, the RMS Lusitania, was sunk in May 1915, and the US went to war against Germany in April 1917. In other words, about 23 months passed between the two. The sinking of the Lusitania helped to turn American opinion against Germany, but it is certainly not the only reason for US involvement. It is far too remote. Most historians agree that it was not a single influence that provoked the US to declare war; rather, it was a confluence of many factors. 

•Unrestricted submarine warfare: the Germans sunk the Lusitania which was carrying innocent civilians (along with supplies and weapons for England)

•The Zimmerman note: an encoded telegram sent from Germany to Mexico. It stated that if Mexico invaded the US they would get back some of their land. fortunetly Britain, our ally intercepted the message and cracked the code in time to warn us

•Economic issues: the US had invested over $2.6 billion in the war. If the allied powers lost US weren't ever going to get that money back.

•Russian revolution: the Russians withdrew from the war because they were having a revolution in their own country. They also signed a peace treaty with Germany. This allowed the US to make it a fight against Communism, and make it a "war for Democracy".


----------



## Jenisch (Nov 24, 2011)

As I already pointed you, one possibility for this would be the same one that got the US into WWI; Germans get too arrogant and try to dictate where and with whom the US can trade, using the U-boat fleet as a threat.

By mid-1941, the US was already 'neutral in favor of the Commonwealth', with a great deal of assistance sent in the form of Lend-Lease; this was already a source of enormous irritation to Hitler, and would have become a greater one if the US provided Britain and the rest of the Commonwealth with the sustenance to continue defying him. 

Frankly, in mid-1941, I don't think the US would enter or Hitler declare war. But until the end of the year, with the much bigger flow of supplies to Britain, I don't find this unrealistic. Specially Hitler declaring war. 

In fact, this topic is just about a hypotetic Anglo-American war with Germany. Therefore, I will respectfully ask to those who don't agree with the theme, to retire from the discussion. Because you are disrespecting me desconsiderating the proposal.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 24, 2011)

> Later in the war yes, but there was no single ressource problem to germany at 1941!



no, the blockade was from day1, the effects also were immediate. Germany suffereed shortages from the very beginning of the war, which was a big reason her production lagged. Not well known but in March 1941, the iron ore convoys from Sweden suffered the loss of over 50000 tons of shipping due to various British actions, that a big deal for a nation with only 1.5 million tons of shipping. There were shortages in fuel for the italians, the main players, from the very beginning of the war. germany suffered its first fuel crisis in early 1942. Unless you are saying that the Russians would be continuing to supply the germans after the end of 1941....a highly unlikley event, the germans are in supply of raw materials difficulties from the very start.

Of course imports are onl;y half the equation. The Germans also needed access to export markets, and couldnt get them. This made revenue a constant and increasing problem as their main sources of income....loot from the occupied territiries dried up. 

So no, the blockade made a difference from the beginning



> All against italy in the Mediterranean *before* the german were in game!



Sorry but incorrect. the first offensive directed against by the British with the Germans present was Battleaxe, started in June 1941. Not a success, but neither can it be called a failure either. best described as a stalemate 

Crusader very nearly cost rommel the entire DAK, and forced him to abandon Cyrenaica, with heavy losses. The battle was hard fought and close, but the retreat cost the Axis heavily. This battle started November 30 and continued through to late December

April 1941 to December 1941. Near constant action all of them defeated by the 9 aus Division plus supporting units. a particualr highlight was the battle of the Red Line 13April to 20 April, saw both regiments of the 5th Light defeated with over 1500 casualties and the loss af more than 20 tanks. This was an all German defeat, no possibility to blame the italians here ( they actually performed better than the germans in their simulataneous battle taking place 20km to the west) The defenders were the 20 Aus Infantry Brigade. 13th April 1941 saw a sustained attack by tanks and infantry of the 5th Light on the eastern flank of the besieged forces of Tobruk. Groups of the Australian infantry left their positions to deal with German infantry at the perimeter wire. Lieutenant Mackell led six men forward, including Corporal John Edmondson. by the time it was allover, there were about 1500 German casualties and 20 tanks, lost for less than 200 australian casualties. It was the beginning of a long list of citations and battle honours for the Australians, and it was fitting thet their opening score had been inflicted on the germans and not the less deserving Italians. From April until the December retreat, the battles in front of Tobruk were the focal point for Rommel, occupying the attentions of more than half his forces, and nearly half his German forces. He was never abale to get anywhere in that time frame. Whilst Tobrul remained under Allied control, Rommel could not move forward. It was THE battle that saved North Africa

if that is not a stunning and decisive victory I will not be able to convince you.......



> When? Sources?
> There was no war against the UDSSR till *21.6. 1941*
> From my sources the first Lend Lease act with the UDSSR was at *November 1941*
> This numbers from you are for 1942 but never for 1941!



For your buildup plan to work there there is no possibility of getting additional units to North Africa until after June 1941. The Italians were fully occupied getting 5th Light, 15th Pz and Ariete acxross the ditsch in that time there was no spare capacity, no port space, not enough supply to get the additional axis forces across the ditch before then. The earliest you are looking at to get your five division force across, supplied and into action is late 1941. 

Between July and December 1941 there were three major convoys from Britain to Russia, and about 8 minor deliveries. The biggest of these were "Dervish I" and Dervish II which arrived in September. Dervish I had 14 merchant ships and Dervish II had seven ships. PQ-1 which commenced after the Dervish convoys and arrived Novemnber 1941 (perhaps this is the convoy you are referring to.....it was nowhere near the first convoy to arrive) had 7 ships attached. I have so far counted over 35 ship deliveries to the Soviet Union from July through to December. I go9t all this information, incidentally, from a German site http://www.wlb-stuttgart.de/seekrieg/41-03.htm....which you can verify for yourself. Yopu see, in additiona to American Lend Lease there was a mountain of stuff given over by the brits to the Soviets, far more in the beginning than was being sent by the Americans 

I dont know how much 35 ships can carry, but its a lot. Just one ship of the tiger convoys that was lost, the Empire Song (9300 BRT) had embarked 57 tanks, 10 aircraft and 35 trucks embarked when she was lost. There were 790 ships needed to support 8th Army just before alamein, representing over 3million tons of shipping. Thats an average displacement per ship af about 5000 tons, if the Russian convoys were simlar then those 35 ships were carrying around 900 tanks, or equivalent. 



> Next, there was no war against Japanese till *7.12 1941*
> Do you realy and seriously want to tell, this were all strategic reserves against Japan at 1941?



Absolutely. there were 188 aircraft in malaya, 424 frontline aircraft in Australia, and other bits and pieces everywhere else. 

I am not going to do all the research for you, Ive already done that for myself, but to give you a bit of a headstart I will give you a thumbnail OB for the Australians 

In theatee. AIF XXX: 6, 7, 9 XX AIF
Northern Cmd; 11 XX 1, 7, 29, Bde, 2 Cav III
Eastern Cmd: 1Cav XX, 1 Inf XX, 2 Inf XX, 1 AA Bde, 1 -5 RAA Bdes (corps artillery), ATC (arm trainng corps...a brigade sized training unit), 53 Inf Bn (embarking for NG), 7 Garrison bns, 5 Bns in the tng establishment 3 companies of engineers, 2 x AT bns
Southern Cmd: 2 Cav XX, 3, 4 Inf XX, 6 cav Bde, 3, 12 Inf Bde, 2, 6, 10 RAA Bdes, 7x companies of engineers,13 cav Bde, 39 , 12 Inf Bns
Western Cmd: 13, 44 Indpt Inf Bdes, 3, 7 RAA, 2 AA bde, 3 x Ind Inf Bns, 1 x AT Bn, 1 x Eng company
Darwin MD: 1 Bde Gp
NG force : equivalent of 5 Bns of Infantry
Strategic Reserve: 1st armoured, 23 Ind Bde AIF
Malayan Cmd: 8th Div AIF
Not all the manpower was permanently in uniform, but all ranks had reived full training before being returned to the workforce. after the outbreak of hostilities, it was about a week to put the manpower into the formations. 



> My question is, where have been all this troops, ships, aircrafts till May 1941?



Being trained and waiting for equipment. The III Indian Corps in Malaya had been used as a cadre for Palforce in the middle east

Britain and the dominions raised a mass army in wwii....just in case, but the experiences of WWI made them reluctant to commit to a full ground based war. they wanted to fight in the air and at sea. Casualties were the main concern 



> The german were able to create heavy power and attacks to the Mediterranean till May 1941, the situation at Crete was much important for GB, but I can't see all this weapons at the Mediterranean.



You seriously need to study your history. The defenders of Crete were evacuees from greec, having lost all their heavy equipment in the Greek Campaign. The formations at home (aus) were trained, but lacked equipment, plus there was insufficient shipping tomaintain the million tons plus in the far east, AND increase the ground forces in the Middle East. Without Japan, that million tons gets released....i daresay the now unemployed Japanese merchant fleet is also up for lease to be honest so shipping shortages are no longer the problem they were for Britain


----------



## parsifal (Nov 24, 2011)

> Even as Rommel was at the borderline of egypt at autum 1941 no weapons were there!




What about the tiger Convoy, arrived late may 1941, with 238 tanks (matilda and crusaders embarked. There were masses of planes and tanks ariving all the time. For example, in terms of air reinforcements, the Desert Air force (not the theatre) received the Following in Autumn 1941

Aug:6 Beaf, 27 hurri, 70 p-40, 12 Bft, 66 Blen, 30 Maryland, 14 Well 
Sep: 16 Beaf, 160 Hurri, 23 P-40, 3 Bft, 25 Blen, 3 Maryland, 13 Well 
Oct : 8 bftr, 15 Fulmar, 81 Hurri, 16 P-40, 3 B-17D, 3 Bft, 36 blen, 7 A-20, 17 Well
According to CFNA they received anough new equipment to rebuild 3 Divs from cadre in that 3 months period. There were approximately 1500 shipp arrivals from England, which i estimate were carrying over a million tons of war material for the WDF. You have got to be kidding. 

As the situation deterioated in the Autmn of 1941, both the Indians and the Australians began to withdraw their forces from the frontline, regroup, re-equip and train them for home operations in the Delta. For both the Australian 6 and 7 Divs, after their operations in Crete Greece and Levant, both divs were pulled out of the line and refitted in this way. The Indiands were busy building their 9th and 10th armies in the Middle East and pulled several of their Divs out of the line for similar overhaul. The main reason this was done because of concerns that the germans might break through in the theatre via the caucasus. Such cooncerns would not exist, so two entire armies might well be released for more frontline operations. 4th Indian, incidentally trounced the Germans at Alamein and after, so they were a formidable lot, that included gurkhas incidentally.....just in case you try and make some stupid comments about their committment or capability. 

I


> realy doubt your agumentation and it would be much more difficult to get this weapon to a Mediterranean frontline with the Mediterranean sea and the suez canal in the hands of the german and the presence and power of the LW!




I know that you do, but the railnet is simply not ther, and the shipping capability is also short. Port capacities are low except for Aloex, and Gib and Suez. The Germans were going nowhere until they captured tobruk, and they couldnt do that, so they were stuck basically . The response to "we will capture suez" is "no, you wont, because you cant. General LW is basically useless at sea denial, and a net liability in terms of supply 



> Again, there was no Lend-Lease and no war with Japan till November and December 1941


!



Again you re wrong. err, lend lease was signed in April 1941, and before that cash carry was fom the very beginning. In addition ther was British lend lease to Russia fromm July 1941 on. The US is not the only country that gave substantial aid to the russians. without that drain, far more shipping, far more material, can be sent to the ME. as for no war with Japan until december, true, but substantial reinforcement were being rushed to the thaetre from January 1941, and substantial ground forces witheld and trained to try and deter the japanese. With that threat removed, none of that is needed. 



> I realy doubt your arithmetic. Historical the war at North Africa was on it's high at December Janury 1941/42 and very very important for GB, but I can't see this weapons!



There were three things that prevented a greater committment, not that your basic statement is even close to right (but i will get to that in a minute). Firstly, there was an acute shortage of shipping, which got worse because of the british committment to the Russians, and also due to the committments in the Far east. take away the Russian, take away the japanese and whole lot of shipping suddenly becomes avalable. More, a whole of US shipping also becomes available, because instead of shipping to China, the yanks are shipping to Egypt. Secondly, without the need for Soviet aid, suddnly a whole lot of material becomes available for use in the ME. Your starting assumption is dead wrong, thats the problem. Subnstantial aid was being shipped to the Russians fromalmost the very beginning. And that comes from a german source......(which I find hilarious...what are you going to say now....i cannot wait). Thirdly, not mentioned is all the equipment, shipping, manpower diverted to the far east by both the US and britain. It was substantial. It was lost very quickly, but it was still shipped to the far east rather than the Middle East. 



> Also I realy doubt that GB or the dominion could train as much soldiers and pilots on this equipment and even ship them to the frontline half around the world and this all 1941



I know its hard for you Eurocentrics to believe, but it did happen. There were 12+ divs in Australia, plus all that other colonial stuff I mentioned before. Do some elementary research beyond what SS totenkopf didnot do, and you might be surprised 



> Fact right, conclusion wrong! You can't underestimate the power from germany from Fance, Netherlands and Norway. GB must defend there Homeland, no way there will be plenty of a/c's, ships or troops for other frontlines!
> And the army was in building, because the compulsory military service was coming slowly, most of the soldiers must be trained!




No fact right audience stubborn and not listening. What are you talking about. As far as miltary trainng was concerned, the british Army was right up there. In 39-40 the brts raised more than 50Divs and the dominions additional units. these formations all went into training. The problem was equipping them, not training them. Once the initial call ups were done at the beginning of the war, there were only limited further callups needed. It wasnt like Germany that had to constantly eat into its mapower reserves, mostly because of hitlers insatiable appetite for more and more divisions. 

How on earth can you claim that france, the Netherlands, Norway were on germanys side. apart from a few crackpots that decided they wanted to put on some jackboots and black uniforms, and masquerade that they were soldiers and not butchers, the majority of the populations were firmly against the germans. ever heard of the resistance???? When Spitsbergen was raided, all but 14 of the norwegaians out of the 1400 there sided with the british. This happened allover Europe. Europeans were NOT on the side of germans. even Germanys allies hated them. you have got to be kidding 



> The historical facts from the Mediterranean frontline at 1941 (espicially Januar till May) are against your argumentation! The situation of GB at May 1941 at the Mediterranean was much more serious then in Summer 1942




What serious situation was threatening any of the direct national intersts of India, New Zealnd or Australi in 1941. Take a look at a map for christs sake....they are half a hemispehere away. Then have a look at Japan, and exactly where they got to. They actually invaded India and Australa. thats the difference. We are not the playthings of the british, though we were their allies, and there was interdependance. We were more concerned about local issues than German aggression in 1941. To us, and the other two Pacific Dominions, the number one threat was Japan in 1941. Take that away, and a whole lot of potential force gets released. 



> Sorry but I can't take this seriously! Please name facts ressources and troops!




I know its hard when long cherished beliefs in German invincibility are exposed as just myth, but the facts are the facts. They are the fact that i have seen. Easy first look for you, have a peek at wiki before saying anything more on this. Then you might want to graduate up to something like Feldgrau something from your own country (shock horror) , and then to someone like Dunnigan or Berg. Maybe you might even learn something.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 24, 2011)

> Again the historical facts are against your argumentation!
> 
> From all my research and speak to german general staff members of the Bundeswehr, that were doing historical research, Crete and Malta could be taken at the *same day* at May 1941!
> 
> ...




Firstly the malta garrison from the end of 1940 was as follows, according to my source material

12th Field Regt RA 
4th Coastal Regt RA 
1st Royal Malta Artillery Regt RA 
26th Defence Regt 
4th, 7th 10th Heavy AA Regt's RA 
2nd 11th Royal Malta Heavy AA Regt's RA 
4th Searchlight Regt RA 
36th, 65th 74th Light AA Regt's RA 
3rd Royal Marine Light AA Regt RA 
According to Niehorster the combat formations wre as follows

The 1st Malta Bde was formed on July 14th 1940 Known as the Southern Infantry Brigade before that, and originally called the Malta Infantry Brigade 

The 2nd Malta Bde was formed on August 7th 1940 and was known originally as the Northern Infantry Brigade. Also the 2nd Buffs served with the Bde from 22/02/41-12/05/42 

The 3rd Malta Bde was formed on July 27th 1941 and was known originally as the Central Infantry Brigade. Also the 1st DLI served with the Bde from 27/01/42-12/05/42 

The 4th Malta Bde was formed on May 13th 1942 and was known originally as the Western Infantry Brigade

The two brigades in existence as at May 1941 were heavily supported by artillery, and whilst the islands offensive capability was severely affected by the incessant and unrelevting LW attacks, its defensive capabilities were unimpaired. This too was reported by Dobbie, but you omitted to report that for some reason. 

Now according to Ian Hogg the defences at Maleme at the time of its attack was defended by a NZ Bde and some AA Bns. The AA gps were quickly overrun, and the fight really got down to an infantry firefight between gp meindl and the new Zealanders. The New Zealanders were completely without arillery. Despite this the New Zealanders almost won. It cost the germans over 3000 men and 170 transports to defeat the new Zealanders which really didnt happen until the reinforcement by elements of the 5 mountain Div. but to achieve that victory, it took the commitment of all 500 trasnsports plus the 150 or so gliders they had. Anything less and they would not have enough strength to win the battle. Now, in malta, the 22ID would be up against propery entrenched and supported Infantry, but more to the point there would be no transports to get them across to the battle. Unless there are additional transports that I or anybody else except you are aware of, its impossible for this to happen. If you have supporters in the modern german army that say its possible, they are wrong to carry out such a mission simultaneoulsy, they are mistaken. So many transports, and so many paratroopers were lost taking crete, and malta was so substantially reinforced just after Crete, that I simply am flabbergasted that you wouls seriously make this claim.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 24, 2011)

Jenisch said:


> Parsifal, do you think Germany would start to build airfields in the Mediterranean during the BoB in this scenario?
> 
> And let's not forgot that Britain would not be fighting alone in this scenario. The full US participation and all it's consequences from mid 1941 would be present as well.



Unlikley. there were only German military missions allowed in until late October. Remember German support services were limited.


----------



## davparlr (Nov 24, 2011)

Without Great Britain capitulation, and with US entry, the outcome, except maybe time period, would not have changed. Germany would never have been able to compete with the US in materiel output, even if Japan had been involved in the war. In 1941, before the US was in the war, total US aircraft output was twice Germany’s and even fighter output was slightly higher. In 1942, US aircraft output doubled, Germany’s went up 36% with US fighter output twice that of Germany. In 1943, US aircraft output again doubled, Germany went up 60%, again US fighter output was twice Germanys, and so-on.

There is no reason to believe that German technology nor productivity would have improved just because there was no war with USSR. Advanced technologies such as the Me-262 and XXI sub would not have appeared any faster or in more volume. There is no reason the Battle of the Atlantic would have differed in any way since no significant naval resources were spent against the Soviets.

Manpower levels were always on the side of the Allies.

War in Mediterranean, Africa or Middle East would only be sideshows with significant Axis movement and successes in the early war years. 

With Great Britain, engorged with the full might of USAAF resources of fighters and bombers, being unsinkable and unassailable, and invasion of Europe far more risky, the war could have easily moved more terrible phase, fire bombing of Germany. If so, by the end of 1944, almost all of major German cities would be smoking ruins with millions of dead. Germany may have controlled the land but, with only hollow shell of a homeland left, all would be lost. Perhaps the war would have ended earlier.

Even if Japan had attacked the US, I do not see a change. The Navy could easily have been given the task of isolating and starving the Japan homeland and the above Army resources could still be dedicated to Europe.

Note that I have said nothing, except implied in manpower, about the asset contributions of Britain, Canada, South Africa, Australia, Brazil, etc., all substantial.


----------



## Jenisch (Nov 24, 2011)

Thanks for mention my motherland, davparlr. We would surely have send our planned 300,000 men insteated of the historical 25,000. Or perhaps even more. And I beat our vast natural resources would be much more employed against the Axis (Hitler attacked our merchant shipping just because this), with the Americans investing much more in our industry. 

Here's an American wartime propaganda movie about us: 
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg7lohLxUqo_ 

=D


----------



## davebender (Nov 24, 2011)

Yup, in this scenerio Germany will foolishly declare war on the USA during December 1941 just as they did historically. The first American military units will arrive in the British Isles during the spring of 1942.

That leaves Britain alone vs Germany for almost an entire year.


----------



## tyrodtom (Nov 24, 2011)

Jenisch since your figures about American casaulties WW2 and Vietnam were so far from the truth , I think maybe a lot of your perceptions might be based on more of the same bad research. 

I think it is probably best if I do withdraw from this discussion.


----------



## Jenisch (Nov 24, 2011)

I can be wrong in a thing or other like everyone isn't? 

My point with Vietnam was not even in the numbers, but that the American people accepted the entering in such a war. Fight Nazi Germany was something much more "just" than fight in Vietnam . 

If you want to pull out of the discussion, go ahead.


----------



## Jenisch (Nov 24, 2011)

davebender said:


> Yup, in this scenerio Germany will foolishly declare war on the USA during December 1941 just as they did historically. The first American military units will arrive in the British Isles during the spring of 1942.
> 
> That leaves Britain alone vs Germany for almost an entire year.



Yes. But a much stronger Britain supplied by the US and the Empire, and without necessity to send much resources to the Pacific. Because even with some risk of a Japanese attack, it would be better take the risk of lost the Pacific colonies than risk let the Nazi megalomaniac take the Middle East oil. And Britain would only need to fight a defensive war. Churchill never desconsiderated the possibility of an entering of Stalin, together with Roosevelt.


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 24, 2011)

Jenisch said:


> Yes. But a much stronger Britain supplied by the US and the Empire, and without necessity to send much resources to the Pacific. Because even with some risk of a Japanese attack, it would be better take the risk of lost the Pacific colonies than risk let the Nazi megalomaniac take the Middle East oil. And Britain would only need to fight a defensive war. Churchill never desconsiderated the possibility of an entering of Stalin, together with Roosevelt.


The Germans were in N.Africa becouse of Italy's bumbling ways, a German Wehrmacht bailout is the correct wording. Arab oil fields would have been a nice asset to have for Germany. Otherwise, for oil resouces.. Operation Barbarosa comes to mind. IIRC.


----------



## Readie (Nov 24, 2011)

davebender said:


> Yup, in this scenerio Germany will foolishly declare war on the USA during December 1941 just as they did historically. The first American military units will arrive in the British Isles during the spring of 1942.
> 
> That leaves Britain alone vs Germany for almost an entire year.



Good point dave. 
However Britain was never really alone. We had our Commonwealth allies flocking to fight the Nazi's and the occupied countries resistance movements. 
I take my hat off to those people. Brave beyond brave.


Germany battered us but, after the withdrawal of the LW from the BoB the threat of invasion faded. The next threat was the U boat menace but, that is another story.

We held on and WW2 became a 'people's war' that would do whatever was necessary to defend our Island.

John


----------



## davparlr (Nov 24, 2011)

davebender said:


> After December 7th, 1941 the American public were burning for revenge against Japan, not Germany. IMO we would have stayed out of Europe even longer if the German Government hadn't foolishly declared war.


I agree with you but since Japan was an ally of Germany, Roosevelt would have more support in his help for Britain and aid would most likely increased putting more pressure on Germany to respond ala WWI.



> That leaves Britain alone vs Germany for almost an entire year.


I see Germany putting a lot of pressure on Britain in Africa and Mediterranean during this time period but not really threatening the home land, and this was key.


----------



## Jenisch (Nov 24, 2011)

Even in the case Germany captures the Middle East oil, I see the Grand Alliance being formed. Stalin would attack Germany with it's massive forces; thousands of T-34 tanks (that perhaps the Germans would not even not had an ansewer in this scenario), millions of soldiers and thousands of planes. The subsequent relief of pressure from the Western Allies would allow them an amphibius assault in Europe. But the problem would be were, and if, Stalin would stop. With his country not suffering like did historically, uncle Joe could have been much more ambituous.


----------



## davparlr (Nov 24, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> Wasn't Hiltler gambling that Russia would declare war on Japan? iirc.


Actually, I think Hitler was expecting Japan, as an ally to declare war on Russia. However, being spanked once by Zhukov, Japan was not interested in another go at the soviets


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 24, 2011)

davparlr said:


> Actually, I think Hitler was expecting Japan, as an ally to declare war on Russia. However, being spanked once by Zhukov, Japan was not interested in another go at the soviets


Yes that sounds correct. Would that be one of the reasons why Hitler was so fast as to declare war on the US? Hoping to ease the pressure of the Ost Front?
Thanks.


----------



## Jenisch (Nov 24, 2011)

Actually, I think they were - the IJA always wanted it, and the Japanese considerate the Russians a treat. But the planned modernization of the IJA after Nomonhan would only be ready by 1942-43. Of course, without a Pacific war and resources for it. I even mentioned about the possibility of the Western Allies try form an alliance with Japan to mediate an ending of the war in China, and put pressure or even attack Stalin, in order to not let him take Europe in case this scenario happened.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Nov 24, 2011)

".... Hitler was expecting Japan, as an ally to declare war on Russia. However, being spanked once by Zhukov, Japan was not interested in another go at the soviets."

And the Soviets had infiltrated the German embassy and intelligence network in Japan and so knew very clearly that Japan had no intention of moving against them .... but .... even with that intelligence, Stalin held off pulling reserves out of the far east until he needed them in front of Moscow in December, 1941.

MM


----------



## Hop (Nov 24, 2011)

Taking the Med, even if the Germans had managed it, does not give access to oil fields. The oil fields were in Iran, Iraq etc. The Germans would need to reach the Persian Gulf, which is across 1,000 miles of mostly desert, with very poor roads. 

This would be a repeat of North Africa, Germans fighting a thousand miles from their ports against the British tens of miles from theirs.

And if the Germans managed another miracle (on top of the miracle of winning in NA), what do they do with the oil? Build a pipeline across 1,000 miles of desert? (and hope it doesn't keep getting blown up). Send tankers down the Persian Gulf and around the Arabian peninsula? (Past British bases like Aden). 

Controlling the Med gains Germany almost nothing. And it does very little to hurt Britain.


----------



## DonL (Nov 24, 2011)

@ parsifal

First of all thank you for your compliment


> I know its hard for you Eurocentrics to believe, but it did happen. There were 12+ divs in Australia, plus all that other colonial stuff I mentioned before. Do some elementary research beyond what SS totenkopf didnot do, and you might be surprised


I doesn't help your argument it only shows your agenda and how biassed you are!



> no, the blockade was from day1, the effects also were immediate. Germany suffereed shortages from the very beginning of the war, which was a big reason her production lagged.


No effect in 1941 and no shortages at the beginning of the war! The lag of produktion from 1940-42 is an whole other story but have realy nothing to do with shortages, you should do some proper research.



> There were shortages in fuel for the italians, the main players, from the very beginning of the war. germany suffered its first fuel crisis in early 1942. Unless you are saying that the Russians would be continuing to supply the germans after the end of 1941....a highly unlikley event, the germans are in supply of raw materials difficulties from the very start.



Yes and that is the reason why the Wehrmacht would be in Saudi Arabia at winter 1941/42 in this given scenario!



> Sorry but incorrect. the first offensive directed against by the British with the Germans present was Battleaxe, started in June 1941. Not a success, but neither can it be called a failure either. best described as a stalemate
> 
> Crusader very nearly cost rommel the entire DAK, and forced him to abandon Cyrenaica, with heavy losses. The battle was hard fought and close, but the retreat cost the Axis heavily. This battle started November 30 and continued through to late December
> 
> ...



Sorry you don't get it! *But I'm more convinced you don't want to get it!*
*We are talking about a scenario without war in the east (June 1941)and I have shown, that this would be lead to a whole other Mediterranean campaign starting at January 1941, with the total german military, technologie and logistic strenghts at this campaign to get the arabian oil*

For all your other comments in this post (146), read my statement above and do some abstract thinking!



> I know that you do, but the railnet is simply not ther, and the shipping capability is also short. Port capacities are low except for Aloex, and Gib and Suez. The Germans were going nowhere until they captured tobruk, and they couldnt do that, so they were stuck basically . The response to "we will capture suez" is "no, you wont, because you cant. General LW is basically useless at sea denial, and a net liability in terms of supply



That's the next statement that shows how biassed you are. Sorry the thing with Tobruk and the general LW is basically useless at sea denial and a net liability in terms of supply is ridiculous! You can question the GB and Commonwealth boys at Mediterranean Sea from January till May 1941 if they agree with you, I realy doubt this. 



> How on earth can you claim that france, the Netherlands, Norway were on germanys side. apart from a few crackpots that decided they wanted to put on some jackboots and black uniforms, and masquerade that they were soldiers and not butchers, the majority of the populations were firmly against the germans. ever heard of the resistance???? When Spitsbergen was raided, all but 14 of the norwegaians out of the 1400 there sided with the british. This happened allover Europe. Europeans were NOT on the side of germans. even Germanys allies hated them. you have got to be kidding



LOL!!!!
You should look at a map and tell us were the LW and the german navy were based? Have I said that france, netherlands and norway are fighting GB? I have said that GB must defend it's homeland and is pretty outflanked!



> I know its hard when long cherished beliefs in German invincibility are exposed as just myth, but the facts are the facts. They are the fact that i have seen. Easy first look for you, have a peek at wiki before saying anything more on this. Then you might want to graduate up to something like Feldgrau something from your own country (shock horror) , and then to someone like Dunnigan or Berg. Maybe you might even learn something



Opposed to you I can do mathematics. Your statement is in


> but even just counting germans only to british troops, the comparison is weighted in favour of the germans. they put more into the theatre historically than the british ever did, until 1943


 relation to what?
The german economy, numbers absolutley, the GB economy or GB economy with Lend-Leas from the USA.....etc....?
Sorry an other biassed statement!

To Malta:


> The two brigades in existence as at May 1941 were heavily supported by artillery, and whilst the islands offensive capability was severely affected by the incessant and unrelevting LW attacks, its defensive capabilities were unimpaired. This too was reported by Dobbie, but you omitted to report that for some reason.



Wrong, there were massive problems with the malta people because of the food shortage, they were striking to do cleanup efforts, after bombing attacks since April 1941. With an other Fliegerkorps at April at Sicily there would be no single ton supply to Malta till a german attack!
Besides I doubt the heavily supported artillery for ground troops!

Next the LW had 1300 Ju 52 transportes in service at May 1941. There were more then enough transports from italian to get troops from Sicily to Malta.


> If you have supporters in the modern german army that say its possible, they are wrong to carry out such a mission simultaneoulsy, they are mistaken.


I see, they are germans to dumb to make their homework and do a proper research!
These mens are professionals and have done a lot of research to "play" this sccenario with the right numbers.

Here I'm out, believe your myths about Malta, North Africa and Saudi Arabian and feel free to claim and believe that GB and the Commewealth can defend and take victory at the Mediterranean campaign against the whole military strenghts of the Wehrmacht and LW at 1941!


----------



## DonL (Nov 24, 2011)

> There is no reason to believe that German technology nor productivity would have improved just because there was no war with USSR. Advanced technologies such as the Me-262 and XXI sub would not have appeared any faster or in more volume. There is no reason the Battle of the Atlantic would have differed in any way since no significant naval resources were spent against the Soviets.



I see, please explain why germany should have ground troops of 180 Divisions without a war in the east in this given Scenario?

100-120 Division would be enough! That would be ( for 120 Divisionen) 960000 less men to the army.
More then 2,7 millionen were kiled in action at the war in the east.

Feel free to do the mathematic on your self, what this imply to german economics, pilotes in training and abstract please the whole war would be at sea and at air, bevor an invasion would perhaps start. And then think again about your above statement!



> With Great Britain, engorged with the full might of USAAF resources of fighters and bombers, being unsinkable and unassailable, and invasion of Europe far more risky, the war could have easily moved more terrible phase, fire bombing of Germany. If so, by the end of 1944, almost all of major German cities would be smoking ruins with millions of dead. Germany may have controlled the land but, with only hollow shell of a homeland left, all would be lost. Perhaps the war would have ended earlier.



See my statement above and do some abstract thinking!


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 24, 2011)

DonL you won't convince anybody who dosn't want to believe, becouse they refuse to see how much the Ost front was draining German resources of men and material. The US England alone could not win a *unconditional* surrender ( NOTE I said *unconditional* surrender) of Germany without russias help. period. It would take the Nuclear solution for Germanys unconditional surrender which the US would dare not use in Europe. And for those who think that the lowlands / Canada / NZ / Australia could make a difference, well this isn't WWI trench warfare we're talking about. The war at the very least would have went much longer, perhaps ending in a *conditional surrender *of Germany.


----------



## Jenisch (Nov 24, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> The US England alone could not win a *unconditional* surrender ( NOTE I said *unconditional* surrender) of Germany without russias help. period.



And vice versa as well. This is what most people forgot when talking about the Soviet importance. The war was won by the Allies, not only the Soviets like many like to spread today.


----------



## DonL (Nov 24, 2011)

Which member in this forum?

You were the person with the if question!? And then at the middle of the thread you create a attacking UDSSR? See your posts above!

You should decide what you want!


----------



## Jenisch (Nov 24, 2011)

Nobody. I created this topic to see opinions if the Western Allies could bring unconditional surrender to the European Axis by themselfs. Because I'm inclined to think the Soviets alone could not. And a popular view today is that the Soviets would probably won the war alone.


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 24, 2011)

I dont think the outcome would be any different. Cause Hitler is still in charge. He was already backwards in military strategy, and only with the grace of his generals did any of germany's conquests come to fruition. Britain would still have accidentally bombed berlin and then hitler would order the ceasing of attacks on the RAF and commence the terror bombing of the civilian english population, leading britain to win the battle of britain. western ground forces only directly threatened germany in late 1944, and before they played indirect roles up until then, by which germany was already in the process of losing the war on the western front


----------



## michaelmaltby (Nov 24, 2011)

".... a popular view today is that the Soviets would probably won the war alone"

Popular view ??? .... where have I been hiding, I have never heard that claim except by Soviets downplaying Lend Lease. I have heard the view that Stalin was planning to attack Hiter sometime after October, 1941, but there is no guarantee that such an attack would have resulted in victory. Look how badly Finland turned out for the Soviets in 1939 .

As for the "optimism" about German capabilities in a war against The Alies (minus the USSR) ..... anything is imaginable, I guess.  but Parsifal raises most telling arguments about German lack of control in the Mediterranean, and quite frankly, the Nazi war machine was seriously f****ed up in 1939 and didn't solve its problems throughout the war ... even with slave labour. It was an endless process of re-prioritizing -- artillery shells, syn fuel from coal, steel, chrome, alloys, food. Germany had great problems with food supply and unproductive agriculture -- had had since the time of Bismarck and unification.

I just don't see any German oil coming from Saudi Arabia -- mostly because very little was being produced until after 1945. And Iran .... tankers or pipeline ...take your pick. Both would have been highly vulnerable.

Show me a plan for Nazi Germany having control of the sea lanes -- because Britain and then the Allies had it, and never lost it. Everything Hitler needed was in the USSR. Was he prepared to power-share with Stalin for the duration of the Third Reich ..?  Hardly. 

MM


----------



## parsifal (Nov 24, 2011)

> Sorry you don't get it! But I'm more convinced you don't want to get it!
> We are talking about a scenario without war in the east (June 1941)and I have shown, that this would be lead to a whole other Mediterranean campaign starting at January 1941, with the total german military, technologie and logistic strenghts at this campaign to get the arabian oil



You have shown nothing except that is your opinion, as my position is my opinion. You have not shown anything, except that you dont understand the inherent logistic difficulties the Germans faced, that the med campaign started january 1941 anyway (thats when the first units to the southern front began transfer and the first air battles started anyway. any movement of airpower earlier than that, any movement of the logistic elements before that reduces the pressure on England on the home front, and evokes a response that is appropriate).

If the Germans resolve to direct their total efforts to the south, that means no U-Boat war, no blitz, no threat of invasion, no attempts at tonnage war by the surface fleet, no defences over the Reich, no defences along the Coast. Even allowing for some rationalization of that statement...ie maintaining the minimum necesary for defence in the western hemisphere, will still decrease the pressure on the brits in western europe and enable a response to be formulated. Greater committment to the South by the germans will take time to develop, despite your denials, because of the poor levels of infrastructure there, no involvement in the east will cause a rethink of strategic priorities for Britain. For every action there will be an equal and opposite reaction. The grand offensive to the south will not achieve german access to oil, and is unlikely to achieve much more than was ever achieved historically, except with a massive and radical adjstment in German production. as soon as that is assumed, one has to also assume a similar radical and corresponding adjustment to british/allied production priorities. 

I get it, i get it very well. I also get that so many aspects of your plan are unexplained, or poorly explained, or simply ignore strategic realities. making plans on the assumption that youir opponent will react in a certain way beneficial to your objectives is rule 101 of any tactical or strategic assesment, as to what not to do in war. Once again, I suggest you go back, look at your plan and try and think what might go wrong with it, and what you could do to counter that. apart from assuming your enemy would react in a certain way, or not at all, or could not react at all.

I will repeat my basic position. War against Germany wiothout russia (for either side) is unlikely or uncertain as far as unconditional surrender is concerned. Conditional surrender is the most likley outcome. Assumptions about German ability to break out to the south are pipe dreams, with or without full german concentration of effort. I agree with hop, highly unlikley to work, and even less likley to produce anything of any strategic significance for germany. least of all access to a viable source of oil.

I agree, we are about done on this subject


----------



## DonL (Nov 24, 2011)

> If the Germans resolve to direct their total efforts to the south, that means no U-Boat war, no blitz, no threat of invasion, no attempts at tonnage war by the surface fleet, no defences over the Reich, no defences along the Coast. Even allowing for some rationalization of that statement...




Yes we are done!


----------



## Jenisch (Nov 24, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> ".... a popular view today is that the Soviets would probably won the war alone"
> 
> Popular view ??? .... where have I been hiding, I have never heard that claim except by Soviets downplaying Lend Lease.



Davidz Glantz is one of the most popular Eastern Front historians in the West, and he loves to downplay the Western Allied contributions in the critical level. According to him, the Soviets would likely won even without LL and bombing, just would take more time and casualities.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 24, 2011)

The very same debates that that have raged about the difficulties for the allies, less the soviets, would apply to the scenario of the soviets less the allies.

Just as an opinion, I dont believe the Soviets were capable of winning on their own 9which is diffrent to what glantz says. he says that the Soviets were capable of winning on the eastern front without lend lease. That I do agree with). Why would the Soviets win with or without lend lease. because if the lend lease for russia was not used by the Russians, it would have been used elsewhere, to good effect. The resources are not lost, they are just used at other points in a world wide conflict


----------



## Jenisch (Nov 24, 2011)

Parsifal, Glantz is know in the critics corner for his pro Soviet views. Why say the Soviets "could likely won in the East without Lend Lease and bombing". What is the point, it wasn't a World War? Why such specific claims that can as good as nothing in the overall considerations?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 24, 2011)

Alright everyone, Njaco already gave a warning about staying civil. No more warnings are to be given. People will spend some time at the beach if it gets out of hand.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 24, 2011)

Dunno. Lend Lease definately had a massive effect on the Soviets......foofstuffs, transport, aircraft, tanks, you name it, and in huge quantities. maybe the effects are critical after all. Its hard to say. but the flip side is that if those resources arent used by the Soviets, they are going to be used elsewhere. As an example, say the Lend Lease to Russia equates to 100 Soviet Division at the front, if transferred back to the west, and given to say the Indians, we could see another 40 or 50 Indian Divs in the fight, either ETO and/or PTO. What effect could that have?


----------



## Jenisch (Nov 24, 2011)

That's why I don't agreed with claims the Soviet Union was decisive. Really, no politics in my view, its just because it was a World War. Everything was conected. The 80% of the German Army casualities in the East were directly connected with the Lend Lease, with the 1000 U-boats the Germans built to fight in the Atlantic, with the LW being most in the West (and lost there), with the divertion of resources due to the bombing, the German transporte infraestructure being hit by the bombing, the 700,000 German troops in Norway in Africa, and not to mention the 1 million of Italins in Africa. Just to imaginate, the Germans could have used the Italians as a police force to deploy 700,000 men against Leningrad, seize Leningrad, patrol the occupied areas and then together with the liberated men from Army Group North, put almost 2 million men against Moscow in the critical period. And much other things. 

I will post two factors regarding aviation I judge critical, first LW losses:

_4.06 times as many aircraft were lost in combat in the West than were lost in the East, a ratio reasonably close to Groehler's 3.41 for all "losses". The most chilling statistic for the JG 26 pilots appears in the sortie data. An airplane flying a combat mission in the West was 7.66 times more likely to be destroyed than one on a similar mission in the East. It is clear that the burden of sacrifice was borne by the Luftwaffe aircrew on the Western Front and over the Reich, not on the Eastern Front. _

Second, Lease Lease fuel: Oil of Russia : www.oilru.com : No. 2, 2011 / A HIGH-OCTANE WEAPON FOR VICTORY

That's why I hate people just trowing crude numbers when talking about the Russian front.

To be fair, the situation could have been different for the Russians, who knows, like for the Germans in the situation you was defending Parsifal. But I belive the Allied joint effort was crucial. And the claims of the Russians or Anglo-Americans that their side was decisive, have pure political interests in my view.


----------



## Milosh (Nov 24, 2011)

lend/lease tonnage shipped to the Soviets

Year Totals

Persian Gulf - Pacific - Atlantic - Black Sea - Arctic > total (% of total)

1941-- 360,778 - 13,502 - 193,299 - 153,977 > 721,556 (~2.4%)
1942--2,453,097 - 705,259 - 734,020 - 949,711 - 64,107 > 4,906,194 (~16.1%)
1943--4,794,545 - 1,606,979 - 2,388,577 - 681,043 - 117,946 > 9,589,090 (~31.5%)
1944--6,217,622 - 1,788,864 - 2,848,181 - 1,452,775 - 127,802 > 12,435,245 (~40.8%)
1945--3,673,819 - 44,513 - 2,079,320 - 726,725 - 680,723 > 2,804,556 (~9.2%)

total - 30,456,641


----------



## Jenisch (Nov 24, 2011)

It is necessary to considerate the "pre Lend Lease", in which Britain played a good part in 1941. 

Also, the numbers alone while appearing little in the first years, need interpretation. Weapons were of great use, specially planes and tanks with the horrible losses. The Soviet also could focus their industry in specific things that in medium and long term would be covered by the LL. Not to mention that full German strenght in the East, the Germans would have more planes, more tanks, etc. The Soviet would need to compensate such things by producing more and more to replace losses and obtain advantage in numbers, and consequentely would have less overall productuion and less resources in the battefield.

Something more:

_"Speaking about our readiness for war from the point of view of the economy and
economics, one cannot be silent about such a factor as the subsequent help from
the Allies. First of all, certainly, from the American side, because in that
respect the English helped us minimally. In an analysis of all facets of the
war, one must not leave this out of one's reckoning. We would have been in a
serious condition without American gunpowder, and could not have turned out the
quantity of ammunition which we needed. Without American `Studebekkers' [sic],
we could have dragged our artillery nowhere. Yes, in general, to a considerable
degree they provided ourfront transport. The output of special steel, necessary
for the most diverse necessities of war, were also connected to a series of
American deliveries."

Moreover, he underscored that `we entered war while still continuing to be a
backward country in an industrial sense in comparison with Germany. "It is now said that the Allies never helped us . . . However, one cannot deny
that the Americans gave us so much material, without which we could not have
formed our reserves and could not have continued the war . . . we had no
explosives and powder. There was none to equip rifle bullets. The Americans
actually came to our assistance with powder and explosives. And how much sheet
steel did they give us. We really could not have quickly put right our
production of tanks if the Americans had not helped with steel. And today it
seems as though we had all this ourselves in abundance."_

I give 1 cent for the first one that tell who told this. Of course this is still not a conclusive evidence, but it came from someone who was really inside the Soviet war machine.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 25, 2011)

It was Marshal Zhukov speaking in 1963, during the height of the cold war.


----------



## Jenisch (Nov 25, 2011)

Yeah.  

Another thing came to my mind now: Hitler did not only had more industrial base than the USSR, specially alone, but also had an extermination industry. Even Glantz tells that the war would last 12-18 months more without LL. I think it's fair to considerate how much millions more of Soviets citizens in the occupied territories would be killed or deported as slaves to Germany. The Soviets drafted many men from the recuperated territories. This could represent really a problem for the USSR in my view. At least to keep pushing Germany to an unconditional surrender.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 25, 2011)

The scenario suffers because of its unlikley preconditions. To me, fundamental problems arise in relation to how Japan stays out of the war, and how the USA gets into the war. Whether and if and when the USSR gets into the conflagaration is another massive intangible hard to predict. All we can do is speculate really

With regard to Japan, the central issue about Japanese involvement in China, and her clash about spheres of influence versus free markett access in China. In hindsight nothing short of a complete retreat from either one or both of these "isms" would avoid Japans entry into the war as an Axis nation. I can really only deal with generalities here, but fundamental changes would need to occur in the political dynamic.

Some suggestions:


1) Full blown war breaks out in 1939 between Japan and the Soviets, resulting i the complete removal of Japan from the China. What happens after that is problematic, but i expect a communist China acting as a client of Stalin.....for a few years at least. In the scenario we have now, (no Russian involvement in the war in the west) the japanese find themselves alone, friendless and defeated. There are coups and upheavals within Japan. militaritim is rejected, and towards the end of the war, say 1945-6, the Japanese hoist their star with either the british and/or the Americans. In effect, they become a client state of the western alliance

2) The emperor makes some statement along the lines that the "china incident is wrong, and we must get out of the conflict". he lasts about 10 minutes before he is killed, but the damage is done. Japan descends into anarchy because ther are those loyal to the emperors wishes, and those loyal to the bushido code. Either way, japan is in no state to take on the allies becausde of internal conflicts.

3) The US president is assassinated by a radical isolationist in 1937. There is a radical backlash to this outrage, and the first item on the agenda is to eliminate Japanese militarism. The US emabarks on a rearmament program and issues a *** point plan to the japanese, demanding an immediate pullout from China. In exchange the japanese are offered "most favoured nation" status to US markets. Japan is forced to accede to US demands, ther is a loss of face for the military factions and a gradual regaining of power by the doves. 


What I am doing here doesnt help or achieve much, I am mostly trying to illustrate that this scenario is not really realistic or likley to have ever occurred


----------



## michaelmaltby (Nov 25, 2011)

I admire Mr. Glantz. I have read only one of his works ... August Storm (Japan-Russia August 1945). Very thorough and impressive. That said, he spent his formative life as a US Army military historian at the Kansas staff college. And in a highly pro-USA culture *** , I am sure his job was to make sure the Soviets received thorough analysis. Anyone doing so honestly would have much to remark on and respect in Soviets efforts, tactics and strategy. That doesn't make Mr. G. into the oracle of WW2, , just a fine WW2 historian among several, IMHO (as always) 

*** Oh No, Joe: 
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh378oyTQWQ_


----------



## Jenisch (Nov 25, 2011)

Yes, he makes a good job, and as everybody, he is not perfect. The problem I found with Glantz is just some of his conclusions he put as facts. According to Glantz, the Soviets could have probably won the war alone (even this meaning being attacked or attack Japan). Then I say, great, the other Allies perhaps also could! Respect the Soviet effort and get rid of it's stereotypes is one thing, but rely mainly in Soviet views (desconsiderating the Germans as "loosers"), and belive the Soviet Union who really won WWII, and we must have an almost loyal respect towards the Russians, is what I perceive as the negative side from Glantz. Even so, I will not affirm he is really wrong. This is much the way of the angle one wants to see the war. I considerate the Soviet more important directly against Germany, but in good part, perhaps decisively, I considerate this because his Allies were helping by not letting the Axis concentrate their total power against it, and were also supplying the Soviets. So, my opinion was that Germany was decisively defeated by a joint force. While Glantz considerates only the combat efforts of the Soviets as critical.


----------



## davparlr (Nov 25, 2011)

DonL said:


> I see, please explain why germany should have ground troops of 180 Divisions without a war in the east in this given Scenario?
> 
> 100-120 Division would be enough! That would be ( for 120 Divisionen) 960000 less men to the army.
> More then 2,7 millionen were kiled in action at the war in the east.



Except for total apathy on the part of the US, there is no scenario where Germany could out produce the US. They did not have the workers, access to resources, or the infrastructure to do so. So, unless those troops could swim the English Channel with full packs, their fate was sealed. 



> Feel free to do the mathematic on your self, what this imply to german economics, pilotes in training and abstract please the whole war would be at sea and at air, bevor an invasion would perhaps start. And then think again about your above statement!


I suspect I would have to live in another dimension, maybe using the world of imaginary numbers, to do that kind of mathematics. Germany had already mobilized for war, maybe not efficiency, but still did. It fought England without being at war with the USSR and failed and in fact started falling behind in aircraft resources. I don’t see this changing. They would have had to subjugate Britain in order to consolidate their conquest, something I think their military leaders fully understood. Starting a second front with an enemy stronghold on your rear was the height of arrogance and stupidity. Britain was the high ground overlooking Europe. With this occupied with a powerful force, Europe would always be at risk. Even without developing a second front, having an enemy that occupied a strong point overlooking your defenses and continually getting stronger and stronger and at a faster rate than you could respond was a doomsday scenario. 

Now, if Germany had waited a few more years, as its Navy wanted to do, the war would have been much different. That would also be an interesting discussion issue.


----------



## Jenisch (Nov 25, 2011)

davparlr said:


> Starting a second front with an enemy stronghold on your rear was the height of arrogance and stupidity. Britain was the high ground overlooking Europe. With this occupied with a powerful force, Europe would always be at risk. Even without developing a second front, having an enemy that occupied a strong point overlooking your defenses and continually getting stronger and stronger and at a faster rate than you could respond was a doomsday scenario.



Words from the old Churchill:

_"Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this Island or lose the war"_

I guess Churchill overestimated Hitler's intelligence, because he didn't know.  

The problem of let Britain was much more a safety one in my view. And in fact, it proved critical. Even if Hitler could not defeat the USSR alone, without Britain and consequentely the US, he would be capable of probably not be defeated by Stalin either. The problem is the Fuher didn't thought much about this. Even the US he underestimated.


----------



## Gixxerman (Nov 25, 2011)

Jenisch said:


> my opinion was that Germany was decisively defeated by a joint force.



Ultimately I think this is indisputable in terms of what happened.

My own view is that the joint force gave the win speed, the win itself I do not see as ever in true doubt.

A medium sized country like Germany just can't win the vast world war they embarked upon fast enough for their lack of resources - and the choices in priorities that forced upon them - not to become a growing handicap and no amount of 'political will' can disguise that, no matter how many relatively easy (but also relatively small) gains are made initially.
Thank God. 

The one caveat to this would have been what I see as the only true WW2 'game changer' possible to Germany (the bomb), but then they were crazy enough to rid themselves of almost all of the best nuclear scientists in the world.....and worse for them have them go over to the allied side.

Irony?
Miracle?
Hand of God?
However you describe it there's something so utterly sobering magical about how that one worked out, in my book at least.


----------



## Jenisch (Nov 25, 2011)

Gixxerman said:


> Ultimately I think this is indisputable in terms of what happened.
> 
> A medium sized country like Germany just can't win the vast *world war *they embarked upon.



That's the point. A world war. That's what most people forget when talking about the importance of the Eastern Front. While the EF consumed more resources from Germany, in my view it was not the only or even the major cause of it's defeat in the global conditions of the conflict. Simply because if the Axis could concentrate everything against the Soviets, perhaps there would not be an EF to be "most important" anymore, but a conquered USSR or a stalemate with the Axis powers surviving the war. The same for the other Allies without the Soviets. So, I don't see much sense in all those discussions of "who did more". Everyone was fundamental.


----------



## Readie (Nov 25, 2011)

davparlr said:


> I suspect I would have to live in another dimension, maybe using the world of imaginary numbers, to do that kind of mathematics. Germany had already mobilized for war, maybe not efficiency, but still did. It fought England without being at war with the USSR and failed and in fact started falling behind in aircraft resources. I don’t see this changing. They would have had to subjugate Britain in order to consolidate their conquest, something I think their military leaders fully understood. Starting a second front with an enemy stronghold on your rear was the height of arrogance and stupidity. Britain was the high ground overlooking Europe. With this occupied with a powerful force, Europe would always be at risk. Even without developing a second front, having an enemy that occupied a strong point overlooking your defenses and continually getting stronger and stronger and at a faster rate than you could respond was a doomsday scenario.



The Germans would have to defeat the Royal Navy, apply a stranglehold on the convoy systems with more U boats, defeat the RAF, build a 'D Day' amount of infrastructure and resources to invade Britain and study history more. Had Herr Hitler done that and seen the fate of Napoleon he may have thought again about invading Russia....
The Nazi's were at their height of adulation after the invasion of Poland, France, Norway , Holland Belgium. The failure to consolidate cost them the war.
Germany was too small to fight the world.
No amount of scenarios and what if's alter that basic fact.

John


----------



## cimmex (Nov 25, 2011)

No clue what you are discussing here, original question was: “Could the Allies defeat Germany only with air power”, answer is very simple: NO!!!


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 25, 2011)

Readie said:


> Germany was too small to fight the world.
> John


Big enough to hold most of Europe for 4 years. The Germans did not want the world.. the russians did. What about Neville Chamberlain?.. His role was slightly more then minor in Germanys invasion of Chez republic etc.. Whats funny in this thread is some peoples notion that England or Russia would do just fine w/o LL, American help.. whatever one wants to call it. How many trucks/planes shipped to russia from US? how much food/ammo/fuel shipped to England from US? British in N.Africa would win without Operation Torch? How long could russia hold out w/o US planes/supplies in the Early part of Barbarosa? These are question that I'm curious to know.



cimmex said:


> No clue what you are discussing here, original question was: “Could the Allies defeat Germany only with air power”, answer is very simple: NO!!!


My belief also. But seem this thread took on a whole new direction! Regardless some very good information anyways =)


----------



## Readie (Nov 25, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> Big enough to hold most of Europe for 4 years. The Germans did not want the world..



» What If…The Nazis won World War II? » FactPile

An almost endless 'what if'. The one thing I'm sure of is that had the Nazi's won we wouldn't be here having this discussion.

John


----------



## cimmex (Nov 25, 2011)

IMO everybody here will agree


----------



## parsifal (Nov 25, 2011)

cimmex said:


> No clue what you are discussing here, original question was: “Could the Allies defeat Germany only with air power”, answer is very simple: NO!!!




Not exactly. The question was really, using Air Power, to prepare for other forms of warfare, including invasion, could the allies do it. Russia was basically removed from the equation, meaning initially no help for either side....an obviously unrealistic approach, with some pointing out that Russia might continue to provide resources to the Axis, others recognizing that frontiers need to be garrisoned. There was also the vexed question of japan, and involvement (when and how strongly) of the US in a purely European war. We could not reach common ground on a "southern front" alternative. 

These are all valid complications, but really they are modifications to the original question.....could the allies defeat Germany without Russia?


----------



## Jenisch (Nov 25, 2011)

Thanks for let the things clear Parsifal.

We also need to considerate a basic thing here: COULD is different from WOULD. I think some people here started to become agressive because they misunderstood this. We are just posting opinions, but obviously noboby can prove something that didn't happened. Let's keep this in mind and everything will be fine.


----------



## Readie (Nov 25, 2011)

parsifal said:


> Not exactly. The question was really, using Air Power, to prepare for other forms of warfare, including invasion, could the allies do it. Russia was basically removed from the equation, meaning initially no help for either side....an obviously unrealistic approach, with some pointing out that Russia might continue to provide resources to the Axis, others recognizing that frontiers need to be garrisoned. There was also the vexed question of japan, and involvement (when and how strongly) of the US in a purely European war. We could not reach common ground on a "southern front" alternative.
> 
> These are all valid complications, but really they are modifications to the original question.....could the allies defeat Germany without Russia?



lets clarify who we mean by 'allies'. 

Do we mean Britain, Australia, NZ, South Africa, India Canada ( ie Empire / Commonwealth) ? Or, do we assume USA involvement with or without the Japanese attack?

Germany did not have the bomber power to destroy British industry so, there would always be a capacity for us to build heavy bombers and drawing on the Commonwealth /Empire there would have been no immediate shortage of crews.
I can find no evidence to suggest that the RAF alone had the power to deliver enough blows to the Nazi war machine to cripple it.
So, I can see a stalemate developing with neither Germany or Britain able to defeat each other.

The same stalemate as WW1 pre USA involvement.

What was needed was someone to tip the balance. The Americans or the Russians?

John


----------



## Jenisch (Nov 25, 2011)

The scenario was Britain and the Commonwealth against Germany and it's Europen allies, plus a US involvement in late 1941, with Japan and the USSR in neutrality. The Soviet Union would pose a problem in the defense area for Germany, and Japan perhaps would pose a problem for the Soviets as well. It was still a world war. That's it.


----------



## Readie (Nov 25, 2011)

Jenisch said:


> The scenario was Britain and the Commonwealth, plus a US involvement in late 1941, with Japan and the USSR in neutrality. The Soviet Union would pose it's problems in the defense area for Germany, and Japan perhaps would pose a problem for the Soviets as well. It was a world war after all. That's it.



Thanks, in your scenario I believe that the allies would prevail by sheer industrial might and manpower.
Whatever method of war was chosen Germany would be defeated eventually.

Imagine the massive resource of the USA without the distraction of the Japanese !

We have to remember that the Soviets had their own agenda in WW2 so, with such a scheming nation we can never really rely on them as allies.

John


----------



## Jenisch (Nov 25, 2011)

I belive that Stalin would attack Europe, as he mentioned in two times:

"_Nonintervention represents the endeavor... to allow all the warmongers to sink deeply into the mire of warfare, to quietly urge them on. The result will be that they weaken and exhaust one another. Then... (we will) appear on the scene with fresh forces and step in, naturally "in the interest of peace," to dictate terms to the weakened belligerents._"

"_It must be our objective that Germany wage war long enough to exhaust England and France so much that they cannot defeat Germany alone.... Should Germany win, it will itself be so weakened that it won't be able to wage war against us for 10 years.... It's paramount for us that this war continues as long as possible, until both sides are worn out._" 

Stalin's Secret War Plans: Why Hitler Invaded the Soviet Union. Richard Tedor.

I belive a perhaps help from Japan would be very interesting for the Allies in this scenario. Despite the beating at Nomonhan, the IJA historically started a program for it's modernization right after. And the IJA never gave up of the Russian question, which as also a national security problem for Japan. The Japanese belived it would be completed by 1943, without the Pacific war (again, also historically). Also, the Western Allies, if using Japan, could try make Chiang sign peace with the Japanese, ending the "Chinese Incident" and putting an additional pressure in Stalin in order to him not invade Europe because the risk of a Japanese invasion.


----------



## Readie (Nov 25, 2011)

Did Japan honestly think they could invade and keep Siberia? 

John


----------



## Jenisch (Nov 25, 2011)

Take a read at this: Japanese-planned Republic of the Far East

The Japanese militarists were not the type of individuals you can expect much coherence (as the Pacific War ultimately demonstrated). So yes, they not only thought could, but the the IJA High Command used to have orgasms imaginating Siberia in their hands. In fact, they did not wanted to attack the US and Britain if the diplomacy managed to lift the oil embargo. Therefore, I don't think it's unrealistic to belive that the Japanese would try invade Siberia. Specially with my scenario. And Stalin knew this. Another consideration is that despite Siberia being so big, it was dependent on the Transiberian railway. This would be a primary Japanese target. A very bloody war could be expected there if happened. This, together with the full US and British/Commonwealth presence in Europe, perhaps would disencourage Stalin to advance over Europe. Even so, I think he could have occupied much more than he did historically.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 25, 2011)

orgasms imaginating ....dude....i mean absolutely no disrespect over this one....probably language misunderstanding.....but I laughed so much when I read that I fell off my chair


----------



## Jenisch (Nov 25, 2011)

I really use this to describe something one likes fanatically. lol


----------



## Jabberwocky (Nov 26, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> Big enough to hold most of Europe for 4 years. The Germans did not want the world.. the russians did. What about Neville Chamberlain?.. His role was slightly more then minor in Germanys invasion of Chez republic etc..



Why single out Chamberlain? The French and British governments BOTH agreed to German demands. 

Chamberlain had a purely reactive role in the crisis. He was desperately and increasingly frantically trying to avoid a general European war. One of the very first examples of shuttle diplomacy was exhibited by Chamberlain as he hopped around Europe trying to save Czechokslovakia.

Hitler had a pro-active role, he demanded and eventually got, controll of what little remained of Czechokslovakia. Germany and Poland had already taken slices of Czech land. Italy and Hungary had their roles in the fall of the second Czech republic as well.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Nov 26, 2011)

Jenisch said:


> I belive that Stalin would attack Europe, as he mentioned in two times:
> 
> "_Nonintervention represents the endeavor... to allow all the warmongers to sink deeply into the mire of warfare, to quietly urge them on. The result will be that they weaken and exhaust one another. Then... (we will) appear on the scene with fresh forces and step in, naturally "in the interest of peace," to dictate terms to the weakened belligerents._"
> 
> ...



Any article that uses Surovov as one of its main sources should be questioned deeply...


----------



## michaelmaltby (Nov 27, 2011)

".... Any article that uses Surovov as one of its main sources should be questioned deeply..."

Perhaps, but the article quotes David Glantz way more extensively than Surovov. It's actually a pretty reasonable argument for Stalin's objectives -- without flying tanks or other strange mutations. . You should give it a quick read, Jsbberwocky.


MM


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 27, 2011)

Readie said:


> ...
> We have to remember that the Soviets had their own agenda in WW2 so, with such a scheming nation we can never really rely on them as allies.
> 
> John



Thankfully only the Soviets were the only ones with the agenda. Soviets nobody can count in as allies for more than 20 years.


----------



## Siegfried (Nov 27, 2011)

tyrodtom said:


> But in the real world, Hitler did declare war on the USA.



Lend Lease gave Britain vast amounts of military aid (aircraft, munitions, ships, financial aid) in return for access (lease) of a few islands.
The American Navy had been escorting British convoys almost to the West Coast of Ireland for 6 months prior to the war. They most 
certainly did attack and depth charge u-boats. Even had a propganda campaigne to ensure Americans got their nose out of joint when a 
u-boat fired back and a destroyer got sunk.

These were called "neutrality patrols" and most certainly weren't.

Certainly Hitler showed restraint and had plenty of reason to declare war. It would be interesting to speculate as to how damaging the lend lease funding of the British war effort and the neutrality patrols could be compared to outright war. Bomber commands efforts didn't require much manpower at all, it required bombers, foreign exchange to buy the aluminium needed for making the aircraft and the food for British workers who made them as well (and weren't exporting anymore) as well as fuel in large amounts: all of which US lend lease money could supply.

Would he have been better of NOT declaring war?


----------



## Readie (Nov 27, 2011)

Siegfried said:


> Certainly Hitler showed restraint and had plenty of reason to declare war. It would be interesting to speculate as to how damaging the lend lease funding of the British war effort and the neutrality patrols could be compared to outright war. Bomber commands efforts didn't require much manpower at all, it required bombers, foreign exchange to buy the aluminium needed for making the aircraft and the food for British workers who made them as well (and weren't exporting anymore) as well as fuel in large amounts: all of which US lend lease money could supply.
> 
> Would he have been better of NOT declaring war?



I don't believe that a non declaration of war was in Hitlers plan Siegfried. He must have known that the USA would not remain neutral.

I would take up one of your points about BC manpower though. The loss rate of crews was horrendous.

John


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 27, 2011)

Well we can look at what planes came from the us to britain at what time in significant numbers. like when the p-47, p-38, and p-51 appeared in british hands


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 27, 2011)

N.African P-40's.. doubt the RAF/RCAF/RAAF/SAAF wouldn't have won anything without those L/L P-40s complimenting the Hurricanes.


----------



## Readie (Nov 27, 2011)

Sagittario64 said:


> Well we can look at what planes came from the us to britain at what time in significant numbers. like when the p-47, p-38, and p-51 appeared in british hands



The P51 (with the RR Merlin) was vital as a long range bomber protector. 
We must not forget that lend lease was not a gift. It took us decades to pay for WW2 USA supplied armaments.
I know we have had a very long thread on LL which ended in tears....

John


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 27, 2011)

yeah. well how can we determine what would happen in north africa? does the original question say whether the british and commonwealth ground forces that were there could fight defensively but not offensively? on a side note if they have to pull out to satisfy the conditions of the question, the italians would have taken the whole of africa, or at least everything above Madagascar.


----------



## Sagittario64 (Nov 27, 2011)

Readie said:


> The P51 (with the RR Merlin) was vital as a long range bomber protector.
> We must not forget that lend lease was not a gift. It took us decades to pay for WW2 USA supplied armaments.
> I know we have had a very long thread on LL which ended in tears so, all I will say is we ( British) may have paid for the metal but, I believe that we are forever in debt for the US blood lives expended.
> 
> John



yes this is true, but i like to think that simply by standing and fighting alongside america as it ground down the third reich, britain has paid its dues, and the friendship our two countries share is pretty strong. the p-51 was indeed vital, but i dont know how the earliest variants would face off against the fw.190s that came out in 1942 and forced advances in spitfire designs, and then the improved bf.109s around then


----------



## Readie (Nov 27, 2011)

Sagittario64 said:


> yes this is true, but i like to think that simply by standing and fighting alongside america as it ground down the third reich, britain has paid its dues, and the friendship our two countries share is pretty strong. the p-51 was indeed vital, but i dont know how the earliest variants would face off against the fw.190s that came out in 1942 and forced advances in spitfire designs, and then the improved bf.109s around then



I do too but, in the modern world people all too readily forget where their true friends and loyalties lay....
The early P51 had potential but, it needed more power. Enter the RR Merlin which enabled the P51 to become the iconic long range fighter it did. A true Anglo' American effort.
The Spitfire was developed throughout WW2 and for a short range interceptor it performed miracles in the ever changing conflict. It could fly to Berlin as PR but, not escort bombers. Range was its only shortcoming.
The seesaw of development between the Spitfire and its LW adversarial fighters came out in the Spitfire favour by 1944...the rest is history.
Cheers
John


----------



## michaelmaltby (Nov 27, 2011)

".... Certainly Hitler showed restraint and had plenty of reason to declare war."

Yes - if he was prepared for prolonged war - which he wasn't. He wasn't in December 1941 when he _did _declare war against Mr. Roosevelt, but by then Japan had attacked the US in a manner very pleasing to Mr. Hitler's personal war philosophy. Hitler had no alternative other than 'restraint' - until then - Ruben James excepted ... .

MM


----------



## Readie (Nov 27, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> ".... Certainly Hitler showed restraint and had plenty of reason to declare war."
> 
> Yes - if he was prepared for prolonged war - which he wasn't. He wasn't in December 1941 when he _did _declare war against Mr. Roosevelt, but by then Japan had attacked the US in a manner very pleasing to Mr. Hitler's personal war philosophy. Hitler had no alternative other than 'restraint' - until then - Ruben James excepted ... .
> 
> MM



USS Reuben James (DD-245) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Brave men.

John


----------



## Jenisch (Nov 27, 2011)

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WriE2b9CXQY_ 

Perhaps some data provide is propaganda, but it surely hits the point of how mighy the institution was becoming before and after the war started. If it could focused against Hitler and Mussoline, probably things would not be good for them. Not to mention the USN.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 27, 2011)

> Lend Lease gave Britain vast amounts of military aid (aircraft, munitions, ships, financial aid) in return for access (lease) of a few islands.



Prior to lend lease was "Cash Carry" which required cash up front and that brit registered or controlled ships carry the munitions. I believe this policy was theoretically open to all belligerents, including germany, but for obvious reasons the germans never took advantage of it. Might be wrong on that score, as deliveries to Germany may have been deemed a breach of the neutrality act. Entry of Cash Carry ships into a war zone waqs not contrary to either international law, or US neutrality, since it was transpoting British goods in british ships. 

To enforce US neutrality and gurantee protection of the New World, the US, with the agreement of all the other American States implemented the pan American Neutrality Zone, that was in the beginning a failry restricted area of ocean, bu moved progressively east as the war progressed. This was purely to protect "American" interests(American in the continental sense). Eventually it included Greenland, Iceland and the other Atlanitic Islands. And included the protection of all shipping within that zone. this was entirely leagal, and well within the limits set by International maritime law of the sea. The US did not make any unlawful claims on the economic resources of that area.....if German fisherman or merchantmen were found at sea they were left alone as far as I know by the pan American states. However defence aginst acts of piracy such as was occurring with the U-Boats and raiders were encountered they were to be met with force. eventually there were so many breaches of Pan American neutrality by the germans that the US issued orders to treat all German warships as hostile, whether or not they were the first to fire. This was slightly outside the terms of International law, but has been generally accepted as a reasonable resoponse to German breaches of the PanAmerican Neutrality Treaties. The US is generally seen as acting in self defence in these instances, even if by the latter half of 1941 they were shooting first and asking questions later. 



> The American Navy had been escorting British convoys almost to the West Coast of Ireland for 6 months prior to the war. They most
> certainly did attack and depth charge u-boats. Even had a propganda campaigne to ensure Americans got their nose out of joint when a
> u-boat fired back and a destroyer got sunk.



Not quite that far East, though by mid '41 it was a line about near the mid ocean of the Atlantic. I will dig out a map tonite to demonstrate.
Wouldnt descxribe it propaganda, at least in the context of WWII (though by todays standards it probably is propoaganda)....more like an information campaign. 



> These were called "neutrality patrols" and most certainly weren't.



Wrong. They most certainly were acts of neutrality, in both spirit and in terms of legalityu. they were acting to protect their own and other American intersts by enforcing the provisions of their own neutrality declarations. The Germans were operating in flagrant definace of those neutrality declarations by applying unrestricted U-Boat warfare (ie modern day piracy) on declared neutral shipping. Their problem, and a corner they only had themselves to blame for being backed into. Roosevelt had very cleverly outman allie 



> Certainly Hitler showed restraint and had plenty of reason to declare war.



Yopu have got to be kidding. Hitler (and the german Naval High Command) never showed the slightest restraint (well, to be fair Hitler hesitated for the first month of the war) in implementing unrestricted tonnage warfare in all areas of the world, against all neutral shipping (including Russian ships prior to June 1941). they implmented a policy of sink on sight, and issued illegal orders not to lend assistance to crews in distress. Unworkable rules you may argue, bu the rules of warfare that governed warfare against shipping, and more specifically wars against neutral shipping outside of a declared combat zone. The escalation in US belligerency was 100% Hitlers doing. The fact that his stupidity saved the allies the trouble of engineering US moves to war by more direct means is not the point. The point is, who casused the increased belligerncy of the US.....Hitler and his Admirals. 




> It would be interesting to speculate as to how damaging the lend lease funding of the British war effort and the neutrality patrols could be compared to outright war. Bomber commands efforts didn't require much manpower at all, it required bombers, foreign exchange to buy the aluminium needed for making the aircraft and the food for British workers who made them as well (and weren't exporting anymore) as well as fuel in large amounts: all of which US lend lease money could supply.
> 
> Would he have been better of NOT declaring war?



By December he had no choice. By his own impulsive actions he had placed Germany and the US in a state of undeclared war. My opinion is that within three months, even without Japanese attacks, the US and th4e European Axis would have been at war anyway, or germany forced to withdraw from the Naval blockade of Britiain, which would have MASSIVE implications on the war in all TOs.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 28, 2011)

If I'm reading this right:
-It's not piracy to sink or capture a ship carrying anything to Germany, but it's piracy to sink or capture a ship carrying supplies to the UK
-Pan American neutrality (what ever that may be) is above International laws
-Protecting American interests half an ocean away is, both nominally and in spirit, act of legality. When other country protects it's interest half an ocean away, that's not an act of legality


----------



## michaelmaltby (Nov 28, 2011)

"... If I'm reading this right:
-It's not piracy to sink or capture a ship carrying anything to Germany, but it's piracy to sink or capture a ship carrying supplies to the UK
-Pan American neutrality (what ever that may be) is above International laws
-Protecting American interests half an ocean away is, both nominally and in spirit, act of legality. When other country protects it's interest half an ocean away, that's not an act of legality..."

Substitute "Germany" for "France", "Pan American" for oceanic "Rule Britannia", tomo pauk, and you have a description of Britain's naval blockade of "continental" Europe (almost without interruption) from the 1790's until 1812. The Americans sure didn't like it when the Royal Navy boarded their vessels and "repatriated" (former) RN seamen -- they started a war over the issue that we'll be celebrating here in Canada, starting January, 2012. . Canada won. 

What you have summarized certainly doesn't sound "fair". As you well know my friend, war is never "fair".

MM


----------



## DonL (Nov 28, 2011)

> To enforce US neutrality and gurantee protection of the New World, the US, with the agreement of all the other American States implemented the pan American Neutrality Zone, that was in the beginning a failry restricted area of ocean, bu moved progressively east as the war progressed. This was purely to protect "American" interests(American in the continental sense). Eventually it included Greenland, Iceland and the other Atlanitic Islands. And included the protection of all shipping within that zone. *this was entirely leagal, and well within the limits set by International maritime law of the sea*.



Nice Try!
Do you want to justify a reversal of evidence?
The pan America Neutrality Zone was based on *nothing*, it was simply a claim and declaration based on no International maritime law, no public international law, no international law or common law! In addition there was no situation from 1939 to 09.12.1942 of self-defence, after normal or international law rules, that would legitimate The pan America Neutrality Zone, compare for example the declaration of the naval blockade to Kuba at October 1962.

There is a 3 mile and a 12 mile area based on the International maritime law otherwise counts the freedom of the sea since 1609!
And in any other historical or modern war, GB and the USA accept only this rules if their interests were touched!



> However defence aginst acts of *piracy* such as was occurring with the U-Boats and raiders were encountered they were to be met with force.



What do you want to imply with this sentence? That the U-Boats and commerce raiders equipped with uniformed soldiers and after an official declarition of war, were pirates after the rules of law? Please name the acts with sources were german submarines or commerce raider did piracy! And befor you answer this question, you should perhaps read again what piracy is!
Piracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> eventually there were so many breaches of Pan American neutrality by the germans that the US issued orders to treat all German warships as hostile, whether or not they were the first to fire. This was slightly outside the terms of International law, but has been generally accepted as a reasonable resoponse to German breaches of the PanAmerican Neutrality Treaties.



Next try to justify a reversal of evidence!
You can't breach against something, what is more or less a unilateral declaration based on no international rules, based on nothing that counts in an international common sense!



> Wrong. They most certainly were acts of neutrality, in both spirit and in terms of legalityu. they were acting to protect their own and other American intersts by enforcing the provisions of their own neutrality declarations. The Germans were operating in flagrant definace of those neutrality declarations by applying unrestricted U-Boat warfare (ie modern day piracy) on declared neutral shipping.



It is new to me, that you can declare your own rules of neutrality based on international law, but perhaps you can lighten me up!

To make this clear, I don't adjudge the USA for it's single sided neutrality. It was Mr. Roosevelts politic and agenda and from his point of view ok. And everybody can have his opinion.

But at 2011, after countless of books from many serious historicans all over the world, it is near childish, to claim the USA neutrality wasn't single sided and this based on very flimsy arguments.

Edit:



> What you have summarized certainly doesn't sound "fair". As you well know my friend, war is never "fair".



I agree and very wise!

But we all know the sense and the agenda behind the pan America Neutrality Zone, so why somebody writes a propaganda excuse from 1945 at 2011?


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 28, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> "... If I'm reading this right:
> -It's not piracy to sink or capture a ship carrying anything to Germany, but it's piracy to sink or capture a ship carrying supplies to the UK
> -Pan American neutrality (what ever that may be) is above International laws
> -Protecting American interests half an ocean away is, both nominally and in spirit, act of legality. When other country protects it's interest half an ocean away, that's not an act of legality..."
> ...



Indeed.
Then it shouldn't be tried to sell to others as if it was.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 28, 2011)

tomo pauk said:


> If I'm reading this right:
> -It's not piracy to sink or capture a ship carrying anything to Germany, but it's piracy to sink or capture a ship carrying supplies to the UK
> -Pan American neutrality (what ever that may be) is above International laws
> -Protecting American interests half an ocean away is, both nominally and in spirit, act of legality. When other country protects it's interest half an ocean away, that's not an act of legality



Its not piracy to to stop, search and apprehend the enemy on the high seas. However there was a declared zone of belligerency, that the operations were supposed to be limited to. Within the Pan American Neutrality zone, the Germans were specifically prohibited from carrying out tonnage warfare. the Germans chose to ignore those declarations, which then allowed the US to retaliate.

The problem for the germans was where they undertook their operations (basically anywhere theyu liked) and their lack of observance of the rules of warfare on the high seas. They basically elected to shoot anything on sight (there were significant exceptions)....this evoked a response in kind from the British.

Further, the germans issued orders in 1941 to refuse any assistance to ships stricken by their hand. This was in breach of international law, and was something the British never engaged in, at least not as a matter of policy. 

Ther is nothing illegal about sinking ships, or indeed taking steps to protect ones own merchant marines from enemy attack. But there were internationally accepted rules of engagement that applied to both sides (admittedly biased against the u-Boats) which the Germans chose to ignore from an early point. this gave the Americans and the British reason to respond. which they did

There is nothing illegal or wrong with mounting a blockade of enemy ports, or sinking an enemy ship. Its the way that the germans went about it that renders their operations essentially acts of modern day piracy, whilst the british and American operations remained closer to a legal compliance with the law. 


It is perfectly legal for a nation, whether it be neutral, or a belligerent, to take any necessary steps to protect that shipping. The US could justify its "shoot on sight" policy against the germans because the germans were doing that to them. This has been the norm for neutral nations on the high seas since the spanish armada. The problems that caused the escalation arose because the Germans escalated the conflict to one of unrestricted warfare, and flouted the rules of the high seas by doing that. Sure the US and Britiain as major maritime nations had a significant hand in their formulation, but all maritime nations accepted these rules of enagement, whgich took several hundred years to evolve. It was Germany, not the US that decided they wanted to upend the rules, this gave the allies carte Blanche to retaliate 

Tough but these are the breaks

A couple of observations. 

The pan american neutrality zone was first discussed and had begun forming prewar. 

The zone only extended for about 300 miles off the eastern US seabprd


----------



## Hop (Nov 28, 2011)

> If I'm reading this right:
> -It's not piracy to sink or capture a ship carrying anything to Germany, but it's piracy to sink or capture a ship carrying supplies to the UK



It's wasn't piracy to board and inspect a ship, and to confiscate it if contraband was found. It could even be sunk, if contraband was found, _after_ the crew and passengers had been made safe (and putting them in lifeboats at sea wasn't considered safe).

It was piracy to simply sink a ship without warning.

Britain had a large surface fleet which allowed them to stop and inspect merchant ships. Germany couldn't challenge the RN so used U boats, which were only effective if they ignored the rules of warfare and sank ships without warning.



> -Protecting American interests half an ocean away is, both nominally and in spirit, act of legality. When other country protects it's interest half an ocean away, that's not an act of legality



I'd say it depends how they protect their interests. 

The laws of naval warfare were created to protect civilians (passengers and crew). Obviously inspecting a ship didn't really put the passengers and crew at risk. Sinking their ship, especially without warning, did. Germany adopted a policy of sinking ships without warning, killing innocent civilians, because it couldn't challenge the British navy. 

The US, by and large, sought to protect their civilians from that (illegal) German policy.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 28, 2011)

As I understand it (and could be way off) as an act of war a country could "blockade" another country. If the waters involved in the "blockade" also included routes to neutral country's or ports then the 'blockaders' had to stop and inspect the ship/cargo to try to figure out if it was bound for the country being blockaded or to a neutral, at times certain cargoes were prohibited from just being in the area. If the ship was bound for the blockaded country or carrying 'contraband' it could be seized and/or sunk and the crew incarcerated. If the ship was found to be "neutral" it was allowed to proceed to it's destination. 
Submarines have a very limited ability to board ships and an even more limited ability to hold prisoners (crew of seized ship). The British had even used "Q" ships in WW I, armed freighters with hidden guns to lure U-boats in close to "inspect" them and then shooting up the U-boat at close range. Both sides knew what the "rules" were in WW I and how they were stacked against the U-boat operating like a surface ship BUT they were the rules and had not been changed or modified in any treaty between the wars. 
It might have been OK to declare an "exclusion zone" (like a no fly zone) like the Germans did at times in WW I, that any ship with XX mils of the British coast was subject to sinking without warning, but nobody had figured out what a fair "exclusion zone" was. Just because the British mount more air patrols do the Germans get to push the "exclusion zone" hundreds of miles further out from the coast? How much of the Atlantic do the Germans get to claim as an "Exclusion zone". In 1940-41 Spain and Portugal were both Neutral as was Sweden. It would have been "legal" (but not smart) to sail a freighter through the Baltic to Leningrad, subject to searches by both the British and Germans. 

The Germans knew from the WW I experience the problems with U-boat warfare, practical, tactical and political. They went ahead with it.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 28, 2011)

So, what are the issues about what is legal and what is not legal on the and under the sea in WWII

This not a great source, but it kinda explains it to a tee, straight from wiki


_Unrestricted submarine warfare is a type of naval warfare in which submarines sink merchantmen without warning, as opposed to attacks per prize rules (commonly known as "cruiser rules"). Cruiser rules demand submarines surface and search merchantmen,and place crews in "a place of safety" (for which lifeboats did not qualify, except under particular circumstances) before sinking them, unless the ship in question showed "persistent refusal to stop...or active resistance to visit or search".

Following the use of unrestricted submarine warfare by Germany in the First World War, countries tried to limit, even abolish, submarines. The effort failed. Instead, the London Naval Treaty required submarines to abide by "cruiser rules". These regulations did not prohibit arming merchantmen, but arming them, or having them report contact with submarines (or raiders), made them de facto naval auxiliaries and removed the protection of the cruiser rules. This made restrictions on submarines effectively moot. While such tactics increase the combat effectiveness of the submarine and improve its chances of survival, they are considered by many to be a clear breach of the rules of war, especially when employed against neutral country vessels in (or outside) a war zone._

Clearly, in the context of WWII the rules of engagement for Submarines were unworkable. However, the germans never made any attempt to even comply with some of those rules, or to adapt them so as to come close to compliance. in fact Donitz issued illegal orders to the effect that no assitance was to be offered by U-Boats (such as signalling positions where sinkings occurred, or giving directions to survivors of nearest land - something that individual U-Boat skippers had been doing up until that order was given). And whats more to the point is that the nations that owned those neutral ships that were being routinely attacked by the germans had every right to protect those ships whatever they were doing. What gets risked every time an incident occurs is that war might break out as a result of these acts...... 

Clearly also neutral nations can legitimately take action to stop such attacks against their ships and personnel. They are not limited to any particulalr area, but the US chose to impose that zonein the form of the neutrality zone. They didnt have to do that, but they did, I think to make clear to the belligerents that the US considered this zone to be a zone of special interest to them on security grounds. 

People have raised objection of the term piracy, and asked me to provide examples of piracy undetaken by the germans. There were plenty of examples, though in the strictest sense it was more a case of privateering. A case in point is perhaps the capture of the Norwegian whaling fleet in the Southern Ocean. I think it was the raider Kormoran. norway had surrendered and whilst certain elements of the norwegian militasry were now fighting against the Germans (and were thus legitimate targets) the civilian merchant marines and civilian poulation were now under the direct care of the German military. That meant that the cargoes of these ships should have been escorted back to Norway or a neutral port for their own safety. Instead the raiders crew through the Norwegians off their ships, put in prize crews, and robbed the shipowners of their cargoes. A clear case of high seas piracy I am afraid. 

The development of U-Boat policy is a clear example of the third reichs moral bankrutpcy. The following extract is taken from the following source
Submarine History 1914-1941: A Timeline of Development

The U-boat war started under "prize rules." But not for long. On the first day, U-30 sank the liner "Athenia" without warning; 122 of 1,100 passengers were killed, including 28 Americans. To their credit, the German High Command was stunned, although they tried to pretend that the sinking was caused by a time bomb planted by the British to inflame public opinion against Germany. As late as January 1940, Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels was ordering his staff "to continue running the "Athenia" propaganda . . . bearing in mind the fundamental principle of all propaganda, i.e. the repetition of effective arguments." The German public did not learn the true story until after the war. 

Toward the end of September, the High Command authorized "seizure or sinking without exception" for merchant ships trying to radio for help when ordered to stop. A week later, U-boats were instructed to sink without warning any ship sailing without lights. The commanders were instructed to enter a note in the log that the sinking was "due to possible confusion with a warship or auxiliary cruiser." 

By November, all pretense had been withdrawn with Standing Order No. 154: "Rescue no one and take no one aboard . . . Care only for your own boat and strive to achieve the next success as soon as possible! We must be hard in this war."


----------



## michaelmaltby (Nov 28, 2011)

".... it shouldn't be tried to sell to others as if it was" [fair].

I introduced the term "fair", tomo pauk, because _fair_ is so clearly NOT what is being sold .... on this Forum or by most historians. (On the other hand "unfair" is being sold all the time by social activists, liberal arts graduates and kindergarten teachers, world wide , "occupy this ..." ).

What _is _being advocated is that both WW1 and WW2 were ultimate triumphs (by the Allies) of the RULE OF LAW over ARBITRARY AGRESSION. For better or for worse, the english speaking world carried the heavy lifting of that triumph (Rule of Law) -- which is not synonymous with VICTORY in WW2. That glory is shared with the Soviets -- and the english speaking world respects and admires that Soviet contribution.  But let's be perfectly clear, Soviet participation in WW2 had nothing to do with Rule of Law, as understood by the non-communist world.

War is not fair - we agree . The best we can hope for is Rule of Law that has broad international acceptance -- and strives to be fair (non arbitrary aggression). 

Chairs,

MM


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 28, 2011)

michael, don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to say that everyone was evil. Germany started the war, it's atrocities were a planned systematic events, they sow the wing and reaped the whirlwind, no matter how that statement is away from a politic correctness.
It's the sudden appearance of Pan American neutrality zone (that can be comfortably expanded as seen fit by it's country of origin, USA) that is painted in the rosiest of all the rose colors. It was supposed to be above international law?? No, it was in force since it's creator was a big powerful state.
Further, to say that 'within PA neutrality zone, Germans were specifically prohibited to conduct a tonnage warfare' -by whom?? By the one that could expand 1000 x 14 or 16in shells, not by international law.
As for RN not allowing the ship carrying contraband to resume it's journey, should we than say that 100 tons of ammonia, heading for Germany, is contraband? Nope, it's a cargo, presumably paid for in advance.



> But there were internationally accepted rules of engagement that applied to both sides (*admittedly biased against the u-Boats*) which the Germans chose to ignore from an early point.



Thank you.

For the events in 1941 influencing the events of 1939, well, that speaks volumes.


----------



## Readie (Nov 28, 2011)

tomo pauk said:


> Germany started the war, it's atrocities were a planned systematic events, they sowed the wind and reaped the whirlwind, no matter how that statement is away from a politic correctness.QUOTE]
> 
> Tomo, Its not a question of being PC its a statement of fact. No amount of historical rewriting and accusing the would be allies of foul play will ever alter that simple fact.
> Germany was the aggressor, it made a series of high command blunders and basically made a balls up of WW2.
> ...


----------



## michaelmaltby (Nov 28, 2011)

"... Thank you".

You're welcome, tomo pauk. I always take your posts seriously and greatly respect the insights that come from your part of Europe, and the associated historical experience.

Thank _you_. 

MM


----------



## parsifal (Nov 28, 2011)

> michael, don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to say that everyone was evil. Germany started the war, it's atrocities were a planned systematic events, they sow the wing and reaped the whirlwind, no matter how that statement is away from a politic correctness.



This really isnt about attrocities, it was started because of a post that basically blamed the US for Germany declaring war. Said that the Americans gave the Germans casus belli to declare war, but the germans excercised great restraint....no they didnt exercise any restraint, they went straight to unrestricted warfare, ignored the declarartions of the Americans about the protection of certain partys of ocean, attacked US property and warships without warning. Of course the Americans were coralling them, but the point I make is that the germans made no attempt to avoid this situation. 



> It's the sudden appearance of Pan American neutrality zone (that can be comfortably expanded as seen fit by it's country of origin, USA) that is painted in the rosiest of all the rose colors. It was supposed to be above international law?? No, it was in force since it's creator was a big powerful state.



The Americans as they changed or moved their neutrality zone were reacting to German aggression, not the other way round. The Germans ignored the neutrality zones from day 1, this gave the Americans carte blanche to react, which they did. 

I fail to see what the problem is of enforcing neutrality from the point of view of military strength. All the neutrals that stayed neutral were forced into that mold. Sweden, Switzerland, even Spain and turkey, were all forced to spend huge amounts on defence. The US was the biggest neutral in the world, and flexed its muscles in response to German activity, I see nothing wrong or illegal about that 



> Further, to say that 'within PA neutrality zone, Germans were specifically prohibited to conduct a tonnage warfare' -by whom?? By the one that could expand 1000 x 14 or 16in shells, not by international law.



The PA zone was a zone agreed upon by all of the American states, which is largely how brazil entered the war. It was perfectly legitimate for these states to say, in the adoption of the PA zone....this area is the area that our ships willbe defended, and we will enforce neutrality, with force if necessary. Its the sovereign right of any country to do that. Germany chose to ignore that (as did the brits at River Plate, which attracted a protest from the Americans, but then, what was the german raider doingt there in the first lace). Its not wrong for a neutral to protect its interests, its also open for a bellgerent to ignore those declarations, as the germans did, but to then try and say it was the fault of the US for that occurring....hardly.

Of course it was power, not the law that enforced the law. But in society, its not the law that enforces the law, its the police (a force). In this case the US was acting as the policeman, the Germans were acting like gangsters. The US operated more closely to the rules of international law, the germans did not. who was at fault, who was manouvered into a position of political and moral weakness. Roosevelt played the germans to a tee 



> As for RN not allowing the ship carrying contraband to resume it's journey, should we than say that 100 tons of ammonia, heading for Germany, is contraband? Nope, it's a cargo, presumably paid for in advance.



Germany and Britiain were both at war. The RN is in no way obligated to allow any German ships to pass. The Germans were also not prevented from sinking British or British controlled shipping (incidentally that is THE weak point of Roosevelts argument......who was controlling his ships and was he carrying contraband......)

What the Germans did wrong, as opposed to the British was that they (the Germans) did not observe the international rules of the sea in their prosecution of their sea war. That accusation can be applied to both their surface and their submarine operations. The British were able to conduct their war largely within legal parameter. That had benefits for the Britis that contributed to the the US entry on their side (in both wars)

The law is not the enforcement, its the standard by which we are judged, nothing more. The Germans chose (for some good reason) to ignore the standards of the law, the Allies did (well, sort of)....




> Thank you.




Your welcome




> For the events in 1941 influencing the events of 1939, well, that speaks volumes.



Of course the events of 1939 affected the events of 1941. The events of 1917 affected the events of 1941. The American states set up their PA zone in 1938, that affected the events of 1941. Everything is connected.

Whats your point. mine is that the germans chose to break the law, there was a price with that. they were the aggressor, not the American. The Germans chose to try and stomp on American intersts and positions. They paid a price for that.....they brought the US into the war more than anyone, and they lost that war, both events brought about by their command decisions.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Nov 28, 2011)

".... What the Germans did wrong, as opposed to the British was that they (the Germans) did not observe the international rules of the sea in their prosecution of their sea war. That accusation can be applied to both their surface and their submarine operations. The British were able to conduct their war largely within legal parameter. That had benefits for the Brits that contributed to the the US entry on their side (in both wars)

The law is not the enforcement, its the standard by which we are judged, nothing more. The Germans chose [ ... ] to ignore the standards of the law, the Allies did (well, sort of)...."

*That is the nub of this argument. * That speaks to a pattern of behavior that one sees in German Foreign and Military policy from unification right up to Barbarossa.
There is a strange 'quirk' in the national character  that confuses *logic* with *right* . You see it again and again.

*Germany wants to go through Belgium in 1914 to get to France*. Germany says "let us pass and we won't hurt you. Interfere and we'll make you sorry ... very sorry ". Logic says in those circumstances, don't interfere. Courage and a sense of right says "Fight". And Germany brutalizes and destroys much of Belgium for 4 years.
"We told them what was going to happen to them" say the Germans, almost apologetically.

*Germany attacks without warning the Low Countries in 1940*. Bomb the hell out of the historic wooden bourse district of Rotterdam. German response when charged with atrocities: "We're sorry, but they really should have purchased modern fire fighting equipment".

The Germans *PRONOUNCED* their naval policy at the beginning of WW1 and WW2. These PRONOUNCEMENTS weren't legal statements - they were PRONOUNCEMENTS of German agression if they were ignored. 

*Again logic vs right*. I tell you something you must obey. I tell you what will happen to you if you don't obey. If or when you don't obey me, I'm sorry that you got crushed but you knew what was going to happen. I told you."

Modern Germany I am happy to say, is much more relaxed but now finds itself with a different kind of challenge ....

BTB - all nationalities have quirks, eh

MM


----------



## Njaco (Nov 28, 2011)

> There is a strange 'quirk' in the national character that confuses logic with right . You see it again and again.



Its called "the Letter of the Law" verses "the Spirit of the Law".


----------



## michaelmaltby (Nov 28, 2011)

There's another 'quirk' that is ... absolutely preoccupied with cleanliness  and fascinated by excrement . Let's see you wiggle out of that Njaco.

"...the Letter of the Law" verses "the Spirit of the Law".

No. Both share the word LAW which .... we are saying ... the Germans tended to _intentionally ignore_ 

MM


----------



## Njaco (Nov 28, 2011)

ouch! 

[email protected], I'm just too tired to get into a mental sparring match. I wanted to explain myself further, but I'll just leave it at that.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 28, 2011)

Letter and spirit are issues worth debating . Britain and the allies were criticized (rightly) for bending the rules prewar in their efforts to accommodate the germans....ie applying the spirit of the law rather than the letter ("czechoslavakia.....a creation of Versailles....has a significant minority of deutsches volk......a few slavs dont matter.....the sacrifice of a nation for the benenfit of the world....thats okay...isnt it????"). This stuff has a name, and is reviled today, with good reason. its called "appeasement"....bend a little for the greater good.....that sort of thing. 

After Munich there was no bending, no spirit of the law applied. Germany was exposed as the rogue state that it was, and was dealt with accordingly, ie, application of the full letter of the law for her every move. Gurantees were given to her potential victims (and sadly could not be kept). The world shook itself and knew that a stand had to be made. That applied to the rules of war at sea as much as the rules of war on land. Trouble was, that by the time the Allies (including the US) got to that point, it was nearly too late to stop the Nazis. 

The US was the only nation the Germans made a formal declaration of war on before attacks were initiated. That in itself says volumes for the german attitudes towards the rights of states that surrounded them.


----------



## Njaco (Nov 28, 2011)

Thank you parsifal. Thats what I was somewhat getting to.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Nov 28, 2011)

No "ouch" intended. Sorry.

MM


----------



## Jabberwocky (Nov 28, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> ".... Any article that uses Surovov as one of its main sources should be questioned deeply..."
> 
> Perhaps, but the article quotes David Glantz way more extensively than Surovov. It's actually a pretty reasonable argument for Stalin's objectives -- without flying tanks or other strange mutations. . You should give it a quick read, Jsbberwocky.
> 
> MM



This is getting well of topic, but its not the first time that I've been pointed to that article. Citing Glantz in support of the article's main thrust is disingenuous in the extreme, as Glantz has activly argued against the thesis for more than a decade. 

If you look past the raw numbers, to the actual deployment of Soviet forces in Poland/Western USSR, their manning and officer levels, training, readiness and supply states, then the notion that a Soviet attack on Germany was imminent is patently ridiculous. 

Soviet formations weren't in a defensive or an offensive positions, they were in an occupation positions or undergoing a scheduled training, rest and refit cycle. In June 1941, nearly half of the man-power in the Western military district was employed in engineering works, constructing military and civilian infrastructure, while they were waiting for the basic equipment.

Vastly more comprehensive and cogent rejections of the thesis have been made by experienced military history and political history writers from both the West and from Russia.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Nov 29, 2011)

"... Citing Glantz in support of the article's main thrust is disingenuous in the extreme, as Glantz has activly argued against the thesis for more than a decade...."

Fair enough. No more Surovov .... 

MM


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 29, 2011)

parsifal said:


> Whats your point. mine is that the germans chose to break the law, there was a price with that. they were the aggressor, not the American. The Germans chose to try and stomp on American intersts and positions. They paid a price for that.....they brought the US into the war more than anyone, and they lost that war, both events brought about by their command decisions.



My point: it's realistic that some country's interests can get higher on the priority list than international law, I'm okay with that. 
What I'm not okay is that there is a need to explain the actions taken (needed to protect those very interests) as the ones that follow blindly both a word spirit of the international laws. Nor that one thing that plays in the hands of one belligerent should be stated as 'neutral'.
International law describes territorial waters as the area spanning 12nm from the coast, and within that area the 'owner' can exercise it's military might. When a country declares it will shoot at at a foreign military vessel in the area 300 (n?)m from it's coast, that's just because it can, not because the international laws give it a right to do so. So there is really no need to say that an orange is of blue color - we all know it's not.

As for Neutrality patrols, here is what is written by an American Navy Captain (retired) in 1990, in Naval Aviation News - should we guess who are the Allies of the USA in 1939?


----------



## parsifal (Nov 29, 2011)

> My point: it's realistic that some country's interests can get higher on the priority list than international law, I'm okay with that.
> 
> What I'm not okay is that there is a need to explain the actions taken (needed to protect those very interests) as the ones that follow blindly both a word spirit of the international laws. Nor that one thing that plays in the hands of one belligerent should be stated as 'neutral'.



I am unsure what you are trying to say here TP, could you try to claidy please. I think you are trying to say international laws are not important. If so, that your opinion, its not how most nations view the issue. OInternational laws dont change the military balance, they dont force peace on people. But they are the measure as to whether a person or country are acting illegally. They are the means that are used to determine ilegal and reprehensible behaviour, without the need to apply personal moral judgements. perdsonal moral judgements from you, or me, or anybody else are irelevant. What matters is firstly whether a breach of the body of law has been breached, and if so, how badly. 



> International law describes territorial waters as the area spanning 12nm from the coast, and within that area the 'owner' can exercise it's military might. When a country declares it will shoot at at a foreign military vessel in the area 300 (n?)m from it's coast, that's just because it can, not because the international laws give it a right to do so. So there is really no need to say that an orange is of blue color - we all know it's not.




Your confusing the notion of territorial waters and neutrality. "territorial waters" were at that time a 3 mile zone, from the coast, that foreign ships could not enter without a maritime clearance. that has nothing to do with what we are talking about here. All nations, whether they are neutral or belligerent, have the right to protect their ships and sailors at sea. However they risk being sunk by belligernt ships if they enter a declared war zone. The British declared war zones during the war the Germans did not. The American states (not just the US) is nothing illegal with that. It has nothing to do with territorial waters. The Americans could have not made any declarations about the pan American Defence zone and escorted their ships whereever they liked, and offered protection to whatever degree of lethality they liked. It would have been very awkward for the Americans if the Germans had adopted the cruiser rules of engagement in their attacks, but they didnt. They instead chose to use unrestricted warfare in their attacks, which because of its illegality gave the Americans the ability to sink the the germans without reason. 



> As for Neutrality patrols, here is what is written by an American Navy Captain (retired) in 1990, in Naval Aviation News - should we guess who are the Allies of the USA in 1939?


With regard to the piece that you attached, you do relaize that what the good captain is saying is exactly the same as what im saying, and pretty much the opposite of what you are saying. You are saying that a neutrals ability to use its seapower legally is out to the 12 mile limit (which didnt exist in 1939). The good Captain is saying it was legitimate for the USN to take steps to protect shipping out as far as it wanted to do so.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 29, 2011)

May I suggest this article as a brief overview of what was going on just before WW II.

http://www.clashofarms.com/files/Naval_Aspects_Spanish_Civil_War.pdf

Perhaps someone can find what was being accepted as the distance from the coast that a "blockade" could extend or at what distance "neutral" ships were supposed to stay from the coast?


----------



## Tante Ju (Nov 29, 2011)

US involvement in World War II. It was decided well before by FDR, but Congress and people was unwilling to war, so president had to make an excuse for war.. a casus belly. It was decided in 1940 already US will go to war against Axis powers, primarly German, to protect interest of national importance, protect England from collapse (important market for US goods), and prevent Axis from gaining control of much of Europe, which could in long term threat US on American continent. American knew Britain could not win the fight, fight defense on British isles for some time yes, but long term could not win, even less go on offense. Simply no enough military power.

It was not consequence of Uboot operations for merchant ships. That was ex post facto excuse. There was nothing illegal or "pirate" in that, if someone says, simply does not understand what word pirate means... pirate is FDR made propaganda slogan. US and UK, Italian, even few Soviet subs operated exact same way anyway during war. Sea mine droped by all beligerents from air neither gave warning.. Prize rule did not apply anyway to armed merchant ships, such was practice on "innocent civillian" ship.

Suggest read US document from november 1940: Plan Dog, 26 pages
Its all about how to make war, not about how to avoid war. Causes, reason are also clear defined.

From September 1941, when FDR issue "shoot on sight" order US and Germany was in a shooting war any case.. on FDR initiative. Rainbow 5 plan was intentionally leaked a couple of month later to provoke the Axis into war, as FDR still coulnd't get Congress to _declare_ war he was already waging on the Atlantic..


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 29, 2011)

The good Captain is using term Allies to denote UK and France, as early as 1939, and that stands in contrast with a term 'neutrality'. That's why I've posted the part of the article.

FWIW, I'll describe 1st where I come from, and then will retreat from this very political debate.

Both of my grandparents were members of Tito's partisans, in what was Yugoslavia. I was very proud of that, and still I am. One died in 1981, the other is still alive kicking.
During the pre-1990's era, we were taught in school, through TV and radio, movies etc. that Partisans Communists are akin to angels that just miss the wings, or something like that. And I believed, I was 19 back in 1990.
Come 1991.
The newly elected Croatian government was speaking for a decade 'Croatia this, Croatia that', while loading the pockets of it's yes-men. Was I to believe them?
The atrocities of Partisans become publicly known; eg. in 2000 I've found out that my brother-in-law's grandfather was taken away from his house by Tito's police, in 1946, and later was never seen by his family. Should I still believe that Partisans Communists are akin to angels?
The former Croatian prime minister got to the place by throwing mud to the Leftist government of 2000 year, by promissing that no Croatian general will never see court in Hague, yet that was not so. The same man is in the jail now (with half of it's ministers), accused for major frauds.

Bottom line - when one listens for all the ferry tales told by people high up for decades, the skepticism is the order of the day.
So I'm not trying to question here why some operations were conducted, but the very describing of something being like a deed of angels, when it's not.


----------



## tyrodtom (Nov 29, 2011)

I


----------



## Njaco (Nov 29, 2011)

and with that lets end the politics and get somewhat back on topic.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 29, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> May I suggest this article as a brief overview of what was going on just before WW II.
> 
> http://www.clashofarms.com/files/Naval_Aspects_Spanish_Civil_War.pdf
> 
> Perhaps someone can find what was being accepted as the distance from the coast that a "blockade" could extend or at what distance "neutral" ships were supposed to stay from the coast?




A greatarticle, and a good question. unfortunately w have been asked to move back on topic


----------



## michaelmaltby (Nov 29, 2011)

".... back on topic". (assuming we are allowed bombs for our Allied airpower and are not just flying planes)

Yes. 

A low yield nuclear device on the Feuherbunker in East Prussian during a staff meeting in 1944 (or after) would do the trick. And the forest would contain the radio active 'effects'. There would be no need for the Allies to even acknowledge they had used an atomic bomb - just that the leadership of Nazi Germany had beem 'erased'. Can you immagine the chaos that would ensue if the BBC wartime service started broadcasting that news ....

MM


----------



## gjs238 (Nov 29, 2011)

Judging by what I've read in the other threads, they'd probably drop the bomb on Norway by accident.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Nov 29, 2011)

... and blow up the heavy water plant in the Berlin Zoo. 

MM


----------



## finno2 (Nov 29, 2011)

You all forgetting the main thing , witch the Germans did not. Hitler did not want a war against England, he wanted a war against Russia. He needed Oil rubber and aliminium. When England decleared war against Germany the import was reduced to only 10%. From 1939 the Germans fight the clock, well aware they did not have the resourses for a long war. You may ask what had happend if he did not waiste time to Battle of Britain and gone stright to Russia in Spring.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 29, 2011)

But the topic is, what would happen if Russia was not involved in the war. There have been various interpretations of that....does Russia continue to provide assistance to the Germans, dont they, do the russians eventually enter the war.......we have neot satisfactorily drawn any conclusions either way to be honest.

What you are suggesting IS very interesting, and more realistic, but its not consistent with the thread.


----------



## Readie (Nov 29, 2011)

I think that Germany only had the war machine for a short, overwhelming campaign (Blitzkrieg) against basically unprepared foes. This tactic of using the LW army together worked very well in the early part of WW2 as we all know.
However, Hitler the high command did not the have a game plan after the initial easy victories and the adulation had died down.
Britain could not be defeated so,attention is turned to Russia. An odd decision after a certain French Commanders experiences. Nevertheless, Hitler attacked Russia so what where they supposed to do? Neutrality was not an option. I can't see Stalin Hitler as allies for any meaningfull time. Even if they had had a truce or whatever the Russians would not have had the German jackboot on Mother Russia's earth. The counterattack was only a matter of time.

In this topic, Germany would have had to attack another country instead of Russia. Question is who?
Options

1) Invasion of Britain. That would have occupied them for a few years.
2) Invasion of all the Med area. Partly done, but the North Africa campaign would have to be won. ( maybe if (1) had happened this would have been achieved).
3) Consolidate all of France, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland Norway and then gather themselves for the next round with or without (1).
4) Look at South America for a springboard to threaten the Panama Canal and maybe the USA /Canada as well.

John


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 29, 2011)

Readie said:


> Britain could not be defeated so,attention is turned to Russia.



Russia not Britain was always the main target, even before WW2 started. If Hitler could have some how avoided war with Britain, he would have.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 29, 2011)

But after Munich, Britiain was never going to allow the Germans carte blanche in Europe. Once Britain was in the war, it was an elephant in the room that the germans should not have ignored. In the beginning they gave Britain attention, alright, but when the first rush to shock and awe the brits didnt work, and Hitler reaslized he couldnt beat them easily, he turned to his ultimate goal, the Russians.

Russia was always his ideological goal, but there is a flip side. Hitler was an opportunist. even though he was philosophically wedded to an attack on the Russians, if he could somehow have been pursuaded that a further concentration on the british was worthwhile, he would have jumped at the opportunity. This is where the socalled "southern option" chimes in. If that option could have been shown as worthwhile, I have no hesitation in saying he would have gone for it. hitler was an intuitive leader.....he was not the dumbas* people often label him. He was an opportunitist that tended to follow gut instincts rather than carefully orhestrated strategy. to him, it was easier to tackle Russia (which he thought would eliminate british opposition anyway) than to return in 1941 for round 2 against the Brits


----------



## Readie (Nov 29, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Russia not Britain was always the main target, even before WW2 started. If Hitler could have some how avoided war with Britain, he would have.



Be that as it may, the actual order of events was Britain then Russia.
Germany had to attack someone, that was the whole ethos of the Nazi culture, if not Russia ( in the thread context) then who was in line?
Any ideas Chris?
John


----------



## Readie (Nov 29, 2011)

parsifal said:


> But after Munich, Britiain was never going to allow the Germans carte blanche in Europe. Once Britain was in the war, it was an elephant in the room that the germans should not have ignored. In the beginning they gave Britain attention, alright, but when the first rush to shock and awe the brits didnt work, and Hitler reaslized he couldnt beat them easily, he turned to his ultimate goal, the Russians.
> 
> Russia was always his ideological goal, but there is a flip side. Hitler was an opportunist. even though he was philosophically wedded to an attack on the Russians, if he could somehow have been pursuaded that a further concentration on the british was worthwhile, he would have jumped at the opportunity. This is where the socalled "southern option" chimes in. If that option could have been shown as worthwhile, I have no hesitation in saying he would have gone for it. hitler was an intuitive leader.....he was not the dumbas* people often label him. He was an opportunitist that tended to follow gut instincts rather than carefully orhestrated strategy. to him, it was easier to tackle Russia (which he thought would eliminate british opposition anyway) than to return in 1941 for round 2 against the Brits



I agree Michael. If Hitler had prevailed in other war theaters then it was only a matter of time before he attacked Great Britain.
I think Churchill knew this and that is why American involvement before that happened was critical.
John


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 29, 2011)

Readie said:


> Be that as it may, the actual order of events was Britain then Russia.
> Germany had to attack someone, that was the whole ethos of the Nazi culture, if not Russia ( in the thread context) then who was in line?
> Any ideas Chris?
> John



I personally see no other way other than to the east. That is what Hitler wanted from the beginning, and even made it clear before he came into power. Of course war with England was inevitable.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Nov 29, 2011)

".... Hitler was an opportunist..." !!!! ***???  Warren Buffet is an _opportunist_, Bill Clinton is an _opportunist_, Our beloved PM, R.H. Stephen Harper is an opportunist, Parsifal.

Hitler was a pure out-and-out predator (of which opportunism is one - only one - powerful component). IMHO. IIFC. 

Don't be to quick to shut out Finno2 "Hitler did not want a war against England, he wanted a war against Russia. He needed Oil rubber and aluminum. From 1939 the Germans fight the clock, well aware they did not have the resources for a long war. You mayask what had happend if he did not waste time to Battle of Britain and gone straight to Russia in Spring." [Spring, 1940]

*It's a very good question*. Please start a thread or I will - and you know what happens when I start a thread  ... the DEMOCRACY thing.....

But this statement of Finno2 is very relative to ground we are all ready into - on this thread,

"... Hitler did not want a war against England, he wanted a war against Russia. He needed Oil rubber and aluminum."

It's the logic vs rights thing - Hitler did _NOT _want to fight a protracted war with the English - he'd been there done that as a runner-corporal in Signals.

Hitler wanted the English to participate - not in a good way - but nonetheless participate because he didn't hate the English - he had *(before night offensive) *some respect and he believed that daring bluff and a well-oiled military machine, might seduce the English into some kind of a conditional surrender - no route -- as he had done to the French. [Hitler hated the French]. [Wm Manchester in "House of Krupp" states that German hated of France traces to the 100 Years religious wars when Catholic France dabbled in the destinies of various (Protest) German states. I would appreciate a German member of this esteemed body, to comment -- if appropriate ]

Once again, the terms were so good to Mr. Hitler's mind -- so logical - a win-win -- no lasting humiliation for the English .... what could go wrong ......?

Compare Hitler in July 1940 'touring France' and softening up the English -- all very relaxed, civilized, _European_ -- compare that to June 22, 1941. The wolves tore into the flanks to the great Soviet beast -- this wasn't war in Christendom -- this was war in the east -- against the Soviet Asian communist hordes.

Finno2 reminds us that there _is always another perspective_ ....

Maltby's 1 rule of historical appreciation ... first walk in the subject's moccasins. In this case briefly, as Hitler.

If Hitler was building a 1,000 Year Reicht he couldn't afford to have _everybody hate him_ could he ...? (Neither could Napoleon ).

Finno2 - start that thrread. 

MM


----------



## parsifal (Nov 29, 2011)

vry persuasive and delicately put MM.......but I am still not convinced.......oh no


----------



## michaelmaltby (Nov 29, 2011)

Look where you gotta look, my friend .... history isn't dry stats .... _alone_.

Hitler came out of prison - an author - and started running a political 'scam' of which HE was the figurehead .... and the desperate, disillusioned, hungry, proud, productive,*defeated* German nation, bought it. The rest you know ... but it is the character of the man ... how else can you explain the stupid things he did. Mussolini as an allie .... utterly useless - got Hitler into trouble everywhere - Barbarossa was delayed because of a Mussolini blunder in the Balkins.

But, beyond that, 

" ... vry persuasive and delicately put MM.......but I am still not convinced.......oh no"


Sorry, Parsifal, I don't comprende. Must be an age thing ... 

PM-me if it's important.

MM


----------



## bobbysocks (Nov 29, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> How long could russia hold out w/o US planes/supplies in the Early part of Barbarosa? These are question that I'm curious to know.



ask napolean he had a lot in common with the german's push into russia...and there was no LL available. the soviets could have held out longer than the german's could have sustained a push. its too big of a country to take like hitler and napoleon wanted.


Back to the subject....i leave for a week and this thread goes nuts! some good info. i would have to say that airpower would have helped lead to the end of the war which would have lasted longer but still ended in an unconditional surrender.

in this scenario...the ussr would at some time have to $#!T or get off the pot. they couldnt straddle the fence the entire war. the political pressure from the allies and the germans would sooner or later force them to pick sides. a good question would be what would happen if the ussr sided with the axis??



there were a couple deciding factors IMO. Hitler was who he was. he, himself, thwarted some good german campaigns by taking the issue personal and thus redirecting their thrust and focus. he bombed london because a raf bomber hit berlin....taking the focus off of the original targeted airfields and supply lines. he wanted stalingrad demolished because of its name, etc. and when he didnt take it personal he was just entered folly....not letting the 9th army retreat, etc. so i would have to say he would be prone to make the same style of decisions...and maybe even be tricked into them by the allies. PLUS his hard nose stance of fight to the last bullit....i dont see him throwing out an olive branch or wavering in his determination.

but the biggest factors i see were 
1) the use of long range bombing with ESCORTS. the LW would sooner or later have beenn ground down. the time line would have been later but as i said earlier the american industrial might....AND the CW/UK industrial potential would have simply out lasted the germans. the UK/CW was a VERY large area with vast resources. LL could have been as simple as giving machinery to canada. they have just was complex and efficent transportation systems as the us and with the influx of machinery from the US and workers from throughout the CW they could have matched or exceded the us output. BUT neither would ever have been attacked..unlike the german the industrial complex which wouild have been constantly be under attack. any clean up or repairs demand man power that could be used fighting or making weapons, etc. 

2) the ability to resupply. the allies had it the germans didnt. they lacked it by matching planes during the BoB, lost the ability to resupply Rommel in NA, but it was most prevalent in the russian campaign. the soviet weather complicated the issue and the german army was unprepared with uniforms, etc.
but they out ran their supply lines and were not able to adjust. the allies when pushing hard came close several times to making the same mistake but they had the red ball express and numerous air transports. most to the german transports ( and seasoned LW pilots ) were lost trying to supply stalingrad. so, i would have to say that this variable would still hold true in the current scenario.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 29, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> Look where you gotta look, my friend .... history isn't dry stats .... _alone_.
> 
> Hitler came out of prison - an author - and started running a political 'scam' of which HE was the figurehead .... and the desperate, disillusioned, hungry, proud, productive,*defeated* German nation, bought it. The rest you know ... but it is the character of the man ... how else can you explain the stupid things he did. Mussolini as an allie .... utterly useless - got Hitler into trouble everywhere - Barbarossa was delayed because of a Mussolini blunder in the Balkins.
> 
> ...



Nothin important....just that IMO Hitler would have stomped on Britain given even half a chance, at any time. the only reason he wanted the british to survive was that he saw others benfitting more by its demise than Germany. Rather like a favourite pet dog, he would keep Britain as his pet, until it no longer suited him, until he tired of that pet, and then he would turn it into a wall hanging. Britain would have ended up like Vichy in many ways....the plaything of the Nazis, there to do the bidding of the Nazis and nought else.

If the brits had followed the collaborationist pathway, I have no doubt the RN would have eventually been called upon to transport the Heer to the New World for the final showdown with the USA. My thoughts....first to Jamaica then cuba, the panama canal then somewhere in the gulf Of Mexico. Not hard to visualise SS LAH strutting up Pensylvania Avenue.


----------



## gjs238 (Nov 29, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> Mussolini as an allie .... utterly useless - got Hitler into trouble everywhere - Barbarossa was delayed because of a Mussolini blunder in the Balkins.



Now, if AH could have kept BM from getting in over his head.....
Hmmmmm.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Nov 29, 2011)

"... like a favorite pet dog, he would keep Britain as his pet, until it no longer suited him, until he tired of that pet, and then he would turn it into a wall hanging. Britain would have ended up like Vichy in many ways....the plaything of the Nazis, there to do the bidding of the Nazis and nought else."

We don't disagree .... I said: "... what could go wrong?" Obviously, his judgement .... of the Magna Carta people.

"If the brits had followed the collaborationist pathway.."

THAT was not going to happen, not with THAT enemy, and not with that PM and Royal Family.

I didn't say Hitler was a smart statesman ... he was a con ..... all I'm stating is how he tried to play it. Russia was the big prize. Communism was the anti-christ.

Never forget those peoples of the Baltic Republics who had been 'annexed' in '40 and mass-deported in June '41 -- just before Barbarossa, ironically 
When liberated by the Nazi, they didn't need to be reminded who their mortal enemies were ---- the Soviet Reds. !,000's of Balts and Estonians wore the German uniform with their nationality flashes - with pride and honor.

Hitler with designs on Amerika --- of course. Russia represented the vast riches of America, to the Nazi planners -- and the ultimate war was with industrial powerhouse, the USA.

The "prolonged war" that Hitler thought he wanted - was with America. With Soviet resources to back him, and Japan in the Pacific.

Finno speculates about war with Russia a year earlier ... can't be done ... Germany just doesn't have the industrial power or military strength ... and after Greece and Crete the Germans are starting to bleed -- and Barbarossa is still months off.


----------



## Readie (Nov 30, 2011)

finno2 said:


> You all forgetting the main thing , witch the Germans did not. Hitler did not want a war against England, he wanted a war against Russia. He needed Oil rubber and aliminium. When England decleared war against Germany the import was reduced to only 10%. From 1939 the Germans fight the clock, well aware they did not have the resourses for a long war. You may ask what had happend if he did not waiste time to Battle of Britain and gone stright to Russia in Spring.



We'd have to go back a bit further finno. When the Germans invaded Poland they knew that a war with Britain was inevitable. If Hitler was going to attack just Russia he would have to avoid any conflict with Britain to give him the resources to beat the Red Army.
The Nazi's wasted a lot of resources fighting battles that were inconclusive instead of just going for Russia with everything they had. 
John


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 30, 2011)

On Sept 3rd 1939, Hitler was in war with France UK. Neither Romania nor Finland are his co-beligerents; UK is not engaged in Mediterranean. The Atlantic ocean is almost sealed for both his navy merchant fleet, the u-boots need to sail all along GB to enter the hunting zones. His armies are even more horse-drawn than in 1941. Why should he get into a war with another major power?

Most of the battles Germany was waging in 1939-40 were conclusive.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Nov 30, 2011)

"... The Nazi's wasted a lot of resources fighting battles that were inconclusive instead of just going for Russia with everything they had.

I agree. In September 1939, Hitler had pulled off the annexation of Austria, reclaimed the Rhineland and the digestion of Czechoslovakia .... greatly increased his industrial base .... and just signed a treaty of non-aggression with his mortal enemy .... who was prepared to provide much needed resources by the trainload for the foreseeable future. What's the hurry .....

Stalin - on the other hand - had just decisively beaten Japan - and demonstrated that Communism in One County had _worked_.

In hindsight, Hitler was impatient, IMO. 

MM


----------



## Readie (Nov 30, 2011)

tomo pauk said:


> Most of the battles Germany was waging in 1939-40 were conclusive.



Hitler never really invaded ( conquered) all of France and the BoB was a 'defeat' for the LW.

Whatever his mad cap schemes were for the rest of Europe he threw his forces onto the 'Russian sword' with a defeat almost a given.Germany was not big enough to win.

John


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 30, 2011)

Readie said:


> We'd have to go back a bit further finno. When the Germans invaded Poland they knew that a war with Britain was inevitable. If Hitler was going to attack just Russia he would have to avoid any conflict with Britain to give him the resources to beat the Red Army.
> The Nazi's wasted a lot of resources fighting battles that were inconclusive instead of just going for Russia with everything they had.
> John



Going through Poland pretty much secured that. I am sure that if Poland was not unfortunate enough to be stuck between Germany and Russia, Britain might very well have allowed Russia and Germany to duke it out. It possibly would have been a win win situation.


----------



## gjs238 (Nov 30, 2011)

Readie said:


> When the Germans invaded Poland they knew that a war with Britain was inevitable.





michaelmaltby said:


> In September 1939, Hitler had pulled off the annexation of Austria, reclaimed the Rhineland and the digestion of Czechoslovakia



What if the Allies had not declared war when Poland was invaded?


----------



## davparlr (Nov 30, 2011)

Jenisch said:


> I wrote the tittle wrong. It would be US and Britain figthing against Germany by themselfs. The question is if would be plausible for them to invade Europe using the air power to achive this objective.


I am assuming Britain means the CW nations. The answer is yes. Allied manufacturing would continue to greatly out perform Germany and manpower is also in this arena. Eventually, all of this would overpower Germany. At the rate production and training was accelerating in the west, possibly a year or two delay in the war. Advanced weapons systems would not help because of the depletion of expertise, especially pilots.


----------



## Readie (Nov 30, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Going through Poland pretty much secured that. I am sure that if Poland was not unfortunate enough to be stuck between Germany and Russia, Britain might very well have allowed Russia and Germany to duke it out. It possibly would have been a win win situation.




If, Poland was located elsewhere and it just became a Germany v Russia battle royal. I'm not sure what the outcome of that would have been Chris.
My own view is that there would have been another 'Poland' leading to the Anglo - Germanic clash.
The British would not have allowed Hitler to hold total power in Europe. That situation would pose too much of a threat.

John


----------



## Readie (Nov 30, 2011)

davparlr said:


> I am assuming Britain means the CW nations. The answer is yes. Allied manufacturing would continue to greatly out perform Germany and manpower is also in this arena. Eventually, all of this would overpower Germany. At the rate production and training was accelerating in the west, possibly a year or two delay in the war. Advanced weapons systems would not help because of the depletion of expertise, especially pilots.



You are right.It boils down to numbers and the allies had more of everything.
John


----------



## Njaco (Nov 30, 2011)

Russia was always the aim of Hitler. He knew that when he invaded Poland, that the UK and others would declare but he had hoped that with the conquest of mainland Europe, he could come to terms with the British and avoid a two-front war. He decided to go after Russia when he became impatient with what was happening in the West.


----------



## Readie (Nov 30, 2011)

Njaco said:


> he could come to terms with the British and avoid a two-front war...



That may have been Hitlers plan but, there was one fatal flaw in his thinking.

John


----------



## gjs238 (Nov 30, 2011)

Readie said:


> My own view is that there would have been another 'Poland' leading to the Anglo - Germanic clash.


The Anglos are Germanic, and I think Hitler wrote of that in Mein Kampf, along with his intentions not to war with them.


----------



## Readie (Nov 30, 2011)

gjs238 said:


> The Anglos are Germanic, and I think Hitler wrote of that in Mein Kampf, along with his intentions not to war with them.



History of the English Language

You are right, there is a historical link. What Hitler seems to have overlooked is the cultural differences between the two countries.
He could write whatever he likes in his ghastly book but,there was no common ground between Britain Nazi Germany.

John


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 30, 2011)

Readie said:


> ...
> The Nazi's wasted a lot of resources fighting battles that were inconclusive instead of just going for Russia with everything they had.
> John


 


Readie said:


> Hitler never really invaded ( conquered) all of France and the BoB was a 'defeat' for the LW.
> 
> Whatever his mad cap schemes were for the rest of Europe he threw his forces onto the 'Russian sword' with a defeat almost a given.Germany was not big enough to win.
> 
> John



So was it better for Hitler to attack SU or not?

France was soundly defeated, Vichy regime was allowed to be there only because Germans allowed it. 
I've made allocation for BoB ('almost all battles...', not all every)


----------



## Readie (Nov 30, 2011)

tomo pauk said:


> So was it better for Hitler to attack SU or not?
> 
> France was soundly defeated, Vichy regime was allowed to be there only because Germans allowed it.
> I've made allocation for BoB ('almost all battles...', not all every)



If Hitler has just attacked Russia and not gone through Poland (to avoid the British DoW) then WW2 could have taken a different path.
Doubtlessly the Germans would have prevailed initially but, the supply lines would have been very long and Germany would have been vulnerable to attack from another direction. Whether Germany could have truly held the whole of Russia is another matter.

My own view is that Hitler would have exhausted Germany fighting Mother Russia. (which he actually did).

John


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 30, 2011)

Readie said:


> If, Poland was located elsewhere and it just became a Germany v Russia battle royal. I'm not sure what the outcome of that would have been Chris.
> My own view is that there would have been another 'Poland' leading to the Anglo - Germanic clash.
> The British would not have allowed Hitler to hold total power in Europe. That situation would pose too much of a threat.
> 
> John



I am thinking more along the lines of they allow the Germans and Russians to destroy themselves. But of course this all a "what if" anyhow.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 30, 2011)

Readie said:


> If Hitler has just attacked Russia and not gone through Poland (to avoid the British DoW) then WW2 could have taken a different path.
> Doubtlessly the Germans would have prevailed initially but, the supply lines would have been very long and Germany would have been vulnerable to attack from another direction. Whether Germany could have truly held the whole of Russia is another matter.
> 
> My own view is that Hitler would have exhausted Germany fighting Mother Russia. (which he actually did).
> ...



Russia was always hard nut to crack, no worries.

Perhaps you could describe how could Hitler attack Russia with Poland Baltic states in good order?


----------



## parsifal (Nov 30, 2011)

A few observations. Hitler was a split person over Poland. He confided in a number of people within his entourage that he wanted war in the lead up to the invasion, but his policy moves were attempting to repeat the coup he had achieved at Munich. He wanted to achieve a fait accompli to achieve yet another bloodless victory. He certainly acted surprised when the british, followed somewhat reluctantly by the French, honoured their open gurantees to the Poles. Hitlers emotions wanted war, but his objectives was to pull off another bluff. Germany fell into the war only slightly better prepared than her opponents. 

People read Mein Kampf and automatically conclude that hitler was following an orchestrated logical plan that led to the Kremlin. It didnt. Hitler was content with the non-aggression pact until presented with British intransigence. His decision to turn on Russia can be traced to a specific moment in time, (which I forget at this moment) where, faced with the british refusal to surrender, and the inability of his forces to subdue her, he retreated for a weekend in one of his retreats, to ponder the issue philosophically. That kind of receipe was boud to push his natural instincts to attack the Russians to the top of his thinking. From that point the pieces fell into place for Hitler. Britiain maintained her resistance because it pinned its hopes on securing a continental aly, as they had always done. The only viable major power on the continent was russia. Remove Russia, and not only is the natural enemy eliminated, the British will likely follow suit and sue for peace terms as well. He then convnced himself, with the help of his military advisers, that defeat of the russians would be an easy task ("all we have to do is kick in the door etc....."). Russian refusals to do German bidding exactly as the germans wanted only added fuel to German suspicions

Hitler miscalculated on this issue in so many ways. He under-estimated his dependance on the Russians, He underestimated the Russian powers of resistance. he over-estimated the military capabilities of his own forces. He over-estimated the british reliance on the russians. In regards to this last point, he was actually completely off the mark. Britiain never had any intention of surrendering, with or without the Russians. In the opening weeks and months of barbarossa both Britiain and the US expected a Soviet collapse. Churchill certainly had no faith in the Communists at the start, but following the prgmatism that always went with his warime career, set about forming a partnership with the russians as soon as hoistilities broke out ("the enemy of my enemy is my friend").

We have played a number of quite detailed simulations of Hitlers invasion of russia, on the basis of early commencment of hostilities. The systems we have use include:

Totaller krieg, War without Mercy, Drach nach osten, war In Europe, Hitler moves East, Might Power, World At War, Russian Campaign . 

I must have participated in over 100 simulations on this subject, including some that postulate early invasions from as early as summer 1939, many of them against, or with, the most experienced simulants in the world. These guys are not your snotty nosed 15 YO's besotted by Tiger tanks or Russian artillery. many of them are army officers that think about this stuff for a living. Both the 1939 and the 1940 options ended in total disaster for the Germans.....their army lacked the experience, the MT, the tanks, the industrial base, to pull off these options successfully. There was some benefit to going in early in Russia, but not much earlier than early June, as the persistent rains in early 1941 prevented an earlier kick off of the offensive (at least on a front wide basis). But a June comencment still did not deliver enough advantage to knock out the russians. We have tried every permutation of the basic historical plans that you can think of....no southern deviation, primary objective Moscow, primary objective Leningrad, primary objective the Ukraine, airborne components, amphibious components, forces reorganized, more nfantry/less armour, more arnmour/less infantry, more air (no BoB), just to name the more obvious. Some work better than others, but none were able to achieve the total defeat of the russians. 

And even though the allies were delivering aid to the russians from the beginning, this stuff didnt have a major effect on the east front until the counteroffensive in December. Until then, for all practical purposes, the russians were on their own. aqnd even though they suffered horrendous losses....about 6m of their total 13m miltray casualties in that first six months, the Russians survived. The germans simply could not infict enough pain on the russians to make them surrender.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Nov 30, 2011)

".... Hitler attack Russia with Poland Baltic states in good order?:


Very good question ...  ... he could man a "static" defensive line in the North - from the get-go - and pour his resources in an all-out thrust for oil - Romania is an allie.

Post M-R Pact, the Baltics would not be a secure environment for the USSR with Germany providing sanctuary for the Balts and Estos 'malcontents' to operate from to the west.

Poland - a flat country - would find itself in the same shoes as Belgium in WW1 - having been dismembered by both Stalin and Hitler post M-R - the lines would flex through Poland and into the Ukraine. But the money shot would be all-out drive for oil and control of the Black Sea.

MM


----------



## michaelmaltby (Nov 30, 2011)

"... Hitler was content with the non-aggression pact until presented with British intransigence." ..... getting up Hitler's nose 

MM


----------



## michaelmaltby (Nov 30, 2011)

"... What Hitler seems to have overlooked is the cultural differences between the two countries."

An island peoples vs a non-islands peoples. 



MM


----------



## Siegfried (Nov 30, 2011)

Hop said:


> It's wasn't piracy to board and inspect a ship, and to confiscate it if contraband was found. It could even be sunk, if contraband was found, _after_ the crew
> The laws of naval warfare were created to protect civilians (passengers and crew). Obviously inspecting a ship didn't really put the passengers and crew at risk. Sinking their ship, especially without warning, did. Germany adopted a policy of sinking ships without warning, killing innocent civilians, because it couldn't challenge the British navy.
> 
> The US, by and large, sought to protect their civilians from that (illegal) German policy.



Roosvelt was taking care of reconaisance more or less all over the atlantic relieiving further British resources as well. I didn't see him protecting neutral and german coastal shipping of neutral Norway.

The Germans tried the cruiser rules inspection route in WW1. This is what happened.
1 Firstly Churchill ordered the merchant ships and liners to ram the u-boats.
2 The British opperated q-ships which were disguised trawlers that were armed and sank the u-boat when it attempted the inspection.
In the case of the Baralong incident the q shipped machine gunned the u-boat survivors and then hunted further survivors who had swum
to the Baralong and murdered them by shooting them in cold blood.

Prior to this the u-boat crew had applied 'cruiser rules', found contraband, put the crew min life boats. The q ships approached pretending to be a neutral US flagged ships pretending to help those in life boats.

3 Britain armed its merchant ships.

This kind if behaviour makes a mockery of the idea of a submarine or even a surface ship inspecting a ship. It was litterly a propagandistic farce; pure posturing.

In that context the German behaviour is not illegal. An armed merchant ship can be sunk, so can one which has been ordered to ram.

4 Later the Germans declared particular zones around the UK in which they would sink ships, they did not do so globablly or off the us coast.
5 They did not sink netral ships. Anyone travelling to the UK could have chosen an American line instead of the British White Star Lousitania and they would not be targeted.


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 30, 2011)

Siegfried said:


> "British White Star Lousitania"



Come on, Siegfried! The Lusitania was a Cunarder!


----------



## parsifal (Nov 30, 2011)

> Roosvelt was taking care of reconaisance more or less all over the atlantic relieiving further British resources as well. I didn't see him protecting neutral and german coastal shipping of neutral Norway


.

Where were the Americans providing the british aerial recon. In the waters west of Britain, in 1941, it was the other way around....british aircraft providing information to American warships, who then used that information to hunt their prey. Legitimate responses consistent with the US neutrality patrols.




> The Germans tried the cruiser rules inspection route in WW1. This is what happened.




No, not at the beginning. In 1915-16 they used a limited form of unrestricted warfare and never adopted the cruiser rules completely at any stage. 



> 1 Firstly Churchill ordered the merchant ships and liners to ram the u-boats.



Yes, and most ships did not comply....they were still sunk, mostly without warning, and never with the benefit of the cruiser rules applied to them 



> 2 The British opperated q-ships which were disguised trawlers that were armed and sank the u-boat when it attempted the inspection.



Which were registered on lloyds as warships and could be fired on without warning. Doesnt give carte blanche to unrestricted warfare on all shipping 



> In the case of the Baralong incident the q shipped machine gunned the u-boat survivors and then hunted further survivors who had swum
> to the Baralong and murdered them by shooting them in cold blood.



Ah the baralong incident. Was wondering how long it would take for this to rise to the surface. firstly, the events surrounding the baralong are still disputed. According to pro-German sources (many of which were doctored by the nazis who beat this incident up as justification for their own decisions to implment unrestricted warfare) the British commander ordered their massacre. according to the reports by the baralongs skipper, and the skipper of the nicosia, the U-27s crew were attempting a boarding of sorts to take over one of the allied ships. There were 6 American witnesses that disagreed with that.

But none of this is relevant to the issue we are talking about. Its the responses of the british and the germans that are the most revelaing.....I happen to think there was a war crime committed that day, but it is significant that the admiralty recognized that for what it was and tried to hide the fact. They knew that wrong doings had been committed and acted accordingly. For the germans it was quite the reverse. Despite being offered the opportunity to undertake an enquiry in a neutral nation, they chose to reject that offer, and instead issue illegal orders that contravened international law....they did this on two occasions.....in 1917, and 1938.....act outside the law over a disputed incident. Yep, thats Germanrespect for the law alright....




> Prior to this the u-boat crew had applied 'cruiser rules', found contraband, put the crew min life boats. The q ships approached pretending to be a neutral US flagged ships pretending to help those in life boats.



Err no they did not, on a number of points. Putting crews into lifeboats does not constitute "cruiser rules, and in any case, sinking the ship can only apply to contraband. In WWI, the Germans did not apply the rules in this way they frequently just sank the ship with no warning, and when they did stop and search, they took insufficient care of the crews, and sank everything anyway. That is not applying cruiser rules, and the German methods in the relatively innocent world of WWI their behaviour at sea was found to be almost as abhorrent as it was in WWII. 





> 3 Britain armed its merchant ships.



Which gives the germans the right to sink those ships without warning....not all ships, which is what they did. Rember this is not about war crimes, or fairness, this is about legality, and who was pushing who's buttons 



> This kind if behaviour makes a mockery of the idea of a submarine or even a surface ship inspecting a ship. It was litterly a propagandistic farce; pure posturing.



No, it was not, it was the law of the sea, formulated by all the nations of the sea, and enshrioned in the London Naval Treaty. Germany was not a party to that teaty, because they had forfeited that right under the terms of Versaille. Under Versaille they were prohibited from having any submarines, under the 1935 naval agreement with britain they were permitted a percentage of British tonnage in all classes, and were expected to abide by the rules that limited British use of such warships. they chose to honour none of these treaty obligations. They (the germans) elected to act outside the law, and paid the price for that.

Germany acting outside the law....beginning to see a pattern here.... 



> In that context the German behaviour is not illegal. An armed merchant ship can be sunk, so can one which has been ordered to ram.



That I can agree with, except that the neutral ships like those of the US pre-1942 were not armed, and did not attemtp to ram the u-Boats. Uboats still sank them, despite the declarations of where they might find these ships, and who migght be escorting them 




> 4 Later the Germans declared particular zones around the UK in which they would sink ships, they did not do so globablly or off the us coast.



What packet of corn flakes did you find this piece of information. The Germans never had declared war zones, or zones where they would limit their unrestricted warfare to. Raider sank merchantmen of all nationalites, on sight, wiithout warning and contrary to the international laws of the sea across the world. There was never any restriction placed on the employment of unrestricted tonnage warfare attacks applicable after 1939. none.

if you are referring to WWI, then yes there were declared war zones, frequently ignored by the germans incidentally 



> 5 They did not sink netral ships. Anyone travelling to the UK could have chosen an American line instead of the British White Star Lousitania and they would not be targeted


.

Assume you are referring to WWI. WWII any ship not under the control of the germans was a target. In WWI U-Boats frequently sank neutral shipping sometimes by accident, sometimes deliberately. After 1917, always deliberately.


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 30, 2011)

parsifal said:


> .
> 
> Where were the Americans providing the british aerial recon. In the waters west of Britain, in 1941, it was the other way around....british aircraft providing information to American warships, who then used that information to hunt their prey. .


Pray tell what were they using Coastal Command was truly a non factor at this point in time


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 30, 2011)

That may be stretching things a bit. Sinking U-boats and spotting them are two different things and having U-boats submerge and stay submerged because of fear of being spotted is a third. It was found in WW I that even the aircraft of the day ( and the even more primitive weapons they had than Coastal Command had in 1941) severally limited the effectiveness of the U-boats. A submerged U-boat has a much smaller search radius using the periscope than a surfaced U-boat using look out-outs. A submerged U-boat has very limited mobility compared to one running on the surface. It wasn't necessary to sink U-boats with aircraft to severely limit their effectiveness.


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 30, 2011)

Good point, Shortround. It's worth remembering that the U-boats of both the First and Second World Wars were submersibles, rather than true 'submarines' in that they had higher surfaced speeds than their submerged speeds. For WW1 the U-boats cruised at approximately 10 to 15 kts, while submerged around 4 to 6 kts. They usually spent the majority of their time on the surface, which is where they carried out the most of their attacks from. From February 1917 the Germans waged unrestricted submarine warfare; they changed their minds on this a few times in WW1 and loss rates rose dramatically to the extent that by the end of 1917 more shipping had been lost than each previous year put together. 

The answer was greater countermeasures; the British increased production of maritime patrol aircraft (and merchant shipping), notably airships but also conventional aeroplanes, and by mid 1918, there were over 100 non rigids in service. The non rigid 'blimp' proved a very useful anti-submarine aircraft; the smaller SSZ Class cruised at between 50 and 60 kts and could come to a standstill, so transit times were lower than larger types and the submarine could be stalked. Airship 'kills' in number were not very high, but the airship's use was primarily to carry out patrols and record by radio the location of a sub, harrassing it until a destroyer turned up using light bombs and smoke flares. They often worked together on anti-submarine patrols.

I don't think an accurate figure of the number of U-boats destroyed by airships has been produced, because there was no way of determining whether the airship actually destroyed the sub other than by eye, which the submariners could fool the airship crews by releasing oil and debris until the airship left. Only one rigid airship has ever taken part in the sinking of a submarine, that was HMA R.29 on 28 September 1918; UB-115 was sunk by depth charges from the destroyer HMS Ouse after R.29 forced it underwater by bombing.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 30, 2011)

SRs explanation is spot on. aircraft in 1941 were basically useless at sinking U-Boats, but they remained invaluable in giving advanced warning of spotted U-Boats. gave the convoys time to change course and speed, and alert the escort. 

Moreover, u-Boats spotted by air had to dive, which transformed them from a mobile weapon of war to an immobile one. This is considered a major reduction in Shipping losses....it enabled the convoy to slip past the u-boat without being attacked. Less U-Boat attacks equals less losses.


----------



## Readie (Dec 1, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I am thinking more along the lines of they allow the Germans and Russians to destroy themselves. But of course this all a "what if" anyhow.



That's my point too. Mutal destruction.
We could spend the rest of our lives arguing about something which didn't happen...

John


----------



## Readie (Dec 1, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> "... What Hitler seems to have overlooked is the cultural differences between the two countries."
> 
> An island peoples vs a non-islands peoples.
> 
> ...



That's one aspect Michael. There are many others of course.

John


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 1, 2011)

... of course. 

MM


----------



## Readie (Dec 1, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> ... of course.
> 
> MM



There are so many 'what ifs' going on in this thread I am a bit confused.

John


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 1, 2011)

"... There are so many 'what ifs' going on"

What if the allies had an atomic bomb (in some useable form which could be delivered by_ air power_ [seque back to topic]) by March, 1944. 

MM


----------



## Hop (Dec 1, 2011)

> The Germans tried the cruiser rules inspection route in WW1. This is what happened.
> 1 Firstly Churchill ordered the merchant ships and liners to ram the u-boats.



No, you've got that back to front. 

On the 4th February 1915 the Germans declared a blockade of Britain:



> The waters round Great Britain and Ireland, including the English Channel, are hereby proclaimed a war region.
> 
> On and after February 18th every enemy merchant vessel found in this region will be destroyed, without its always being possible to warn the crews or passengers of the dangers threatening.
> 
> Neutral ships will also incur danger in the war region, where, in view of the misuse of neutral flags ordered by the British Government, and incidents inevitable in sea warfare, attacks intended for hostile ships may affect neutral ships also.



The British Admiralty ordered ships to ram U boats on 10th February 1915, as a direct response to the German declaration.



> 2 The British opperated q-ships which were disguised trawlers that were armed and sank the u-boat when it attempted the inspection.
> In the case of the Baralong incident the q shipped machine gunned the u-boat survivors and then hunted further survivors who had swum
> to the Baralong and murdered them by shooting them in cold blood.



And the Germans operated disguised raiders that approached merchant ships then opened fire on them.

In fact, the Germans started using disguised ships against Britain from the first day of the war.

On 4th August 1914, even before Britain had declared war against Germany, the Kriegsmarine sent a disguised liner, the Königin Luise, to lay mines off the British coast. The Königin Luise was painted in the colours of of a British railway/ferry company.



> This kind if behaviour makes a mockery of the idea of a submarine or even a surface ship inspecting a ship. It was litterly a propagandistic farce; pure posturing.



No. The whole idea of early submarines following the rules of war was a farce from the beginning. A submarine was typically slower than a freighter. If it did manage to capture one, there was no room on the submarine for the ship's crew, and any attempt to sail a ship back to Germany with a prize crew was inevitably going to run in to the British blockade. 

In other words, submarines simply couldn't obey the rules of war and still be effective. When the Germans decided to try to cut off British trade with submarines, they were inevitably deciding to break the rules of war.



> 5 They did not sink netral ships. Anyone travelling to the UK could have chosen an American line instead of the British White Star Lousitania and they would not be targeted



Of course they attacked neutral ships. They began doing so following their declaration of February 1915. That month a Norwegian tanker was torpedoed. In March a Dutch steamer was illegally seized (it was released by a prize court, only to be torpedoed and sunk later in the war). Another Dutch steamer was sunk, as was a Norwegian sailing ship. In April Danish, Dutch, Swedish and Norwegian ships were sunk. 

In total U boats sank 158 Dutch ships, 773 Norwegian, 247 Danish, 172 Swedish (there were of course numerous other neutral ships sunk, but I don't have a full list).


----------



## Readie (Dec 2, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> "... There are so many 'what ifs' going on"
> 
> What if the allies had an atomic bomb (in some useable form which could be delivered by_ air power_ [seque back to topic]) by March, 1944.
> 
> MM



If we had had that in 1939 to drop on Hitler's head imagine the pain that would have been avoided !


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 2, 2011)

"... If we had had that in 1939 to drop on Hitler's head imagine the pain that would have been avoided !"

Can't immagine that ... given the state of (non-German) European political leadership (and public mood) -- Chamberlain -- as Mr. preemptive strike ---- 

MM


----------



## Readie (Dec 2, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> "... If we had had that in 1939 to drop on Hitler's head imagine the pain that would have been avoided !"
> 
> Can't immagine that ... given the state of (non-German) European political leadership (and public mood) -- Chamberlain -- as Mr. preemptive strike ----
> 
> MM




Oh well...back Hitler to invading Russia...

I have wondered IF Hitler had invaded Russia without a DoW from Britain her allies and HAD he exhausted all his resources and HAD the Russians prevailed whether Britain, the USA and the CW would have ended up fighting Russia...

Was Europe in such turmoil that WW2 was going to happen anyway?

John


----------



## gjs238 (Dec 2, 2011)

What if WWI had ended with a fairer and equitable Treaty of Versailles and the world ended up with a far different Germany, sans Hitler and Nazis.
What would the USSR have done?


----------



## Readie (Dec 2, 2011)

gjs238 said:


> What if WWI had ended with a fairer and equitable Treaty of Versailles and the world ended up with a far different Germany, sans Hitler and Nazis.
> What would the USSR have done?


 

Good question and mirrors my point.

The USSR was in a poor state economically and maybe unable to sustain a long war unaided.
Maybe Stalin would have moved to improve Russia's economic prospects ny annexing Poland and other north European countries.
How would this done?
In one fell swoop and risk war?
Or softy softy catchee monkey?

John


----------



## Siegfried (Dec 2, 2011)

Hop said:


> No, you've got that back to front.
> 
> On the 4th February 1915 the Germans declared a blockade of Britain:
> .



You haven't researched this anywhere as much as you should, it is you that have it around the wrong way.

Some of your statements I find so sweeping I feel compelled to address them.

Prior to World War I, a series of conferences were held at Whitehall in 1905-1906 concerning military cooperation with France in the event of a war with Germany. The Director of Naval Intelligence—Charles Ottley—asserted that two of the Royal Navy′s functions in such a war would be the capture of German commercial shipping and the blockade of German ports. A blockade was considered useful for two reasons: it could force out the enemy′s fleet to fight and it could also act as an economic weapon to destroy German commerce. It was not until 1908, however, that a blockade of Germany formally appeared in the Navy′s war plans and even then some officials were divided over how feasible it was. The plans remained in a state of constant change and revision until 1914, the Navy undecided over how best to operate such a blockade.

The British—with their overwhelming sea power—established a naval blockade of Germany immediately on the outbreak of war in August 1914, issuing a comprehensive list of contraband that all but prohibited American trade with the Central powers, and in early November 1914 declared the North Sea to be a War Zone, with any ships entering the North Sea doing so at their own risk. The blockade was unusually restrictive in that even foodstuffs were considered "contraband of war". There were complaints about breaches of international law, however most neutral merchant vessels agreed to dock at British ports to be inspected and then escorted—less any "illegal" cargo destined for Germany—through the British minefields to their destinations.

The Northern Patrol and Dover Patrol closed off access to the North Sea and the English Channel respectively.

The Germans regarded this as a blatant attempt to starve the German people into submission and wanted to retaliate in kind.

So we have the Royal Navy
1 Initiating a Blockade against Germany in 1914.
2 Mining Neutral Waters, mines that sank ships, killed sailers and passengers. Apparently killing with mines is OK but torpedoing in declared zones is not.
3 Blockading food.

Its Moral to starve 600,000 people but immoral to torpedo a non neutral ship carrying munitions.

Personally I would see those using food as a blockade weapon tride as war criminals and strung up. 



Hop said:


> A submarine was typically slower than a freighter. If it did manage to capture one, there was no room on the submarine for the ship's crew, and any attempt to sail a ship back to Germany with a prize crew was inevitably going to run in to the British blockade.
> 
> In other words, submarines simply couldn't obey the rules of war and still be effective. When the Germans decided to try to cut off British trade with submarines, they were inevitably deciding to break the rules of war..



This is bizzare facts to my knowledge. Firstly submarines are almost always faster than freighters, easily so. Secondlly German submarines DID obey the rules of war. They ordered the crew and passengers of the ship into life boasts and frequently did so prior to sinking that ship or trawler. 

What rendered this impossible was Churchills order to ram the u-boat and the use of q-ships prentding to be american flaged rescue ships, including one which murdered in cold blood German submariners swiming from their sunken sub.

Meantime Lusitania, a british flagged ship, was carry 50 tons of machine gun ammunition and tens of thousands of artillery shell casings. The British even used hospital ships to carry troops to Galipoli. Anyone wishing to safely travel to the UK could simply choose to travel on a US flagged ocean liner.


It should be pointed out that 

Flamborough Manor Home Page 

"Two things virtually guaranteed British entry in the war: the *secret 
Anglo-French military and naval talks, which commenced in 1906, " *

"At half past two on the afternoon of Sunday, 2 August 1914, Sir 
Edward Grey, the Foreign Secretary, informed the French Ambassador of 
the decision just reached by the British Cabinet — despite not yet 
being at war with Germany, if, nevertheless, the German High Seas 
Fleet ventured out from its base, the British fleet ‘would intervene … 
in such a way that from that moment Great Britain and Germany would be 
in a state of war.’ What led to the giving of this pledge?" 

"That the Cabinet could not have prevented Britain’s entry into the 
war; all they could have done was to prevent the formation of a 
coalition Government. " 

"That the pledge to France and consideration of British interests were 
the sole determinants of Britain’s entry." 

So when the Germans asked the French government whether they would stay neutral should Germany and Russia be in a state of war the French replied NO.

The reason they did was because they knew that a secret Admiralty treaty guarenteed them British support. France was still burning with Revenchasim of its defeat in the Franco-Prussian war. 

Why would Britain seek to attack Germany? The reality was that Germany was an economic powerhouse that threatened to eclipse Britain. The German govenment had a polciy of "peacefull imperialism" towards the middle east that was working quite well. Georg Wilhelm von Siemens had promoted the Berlin to Iraq railway that threatened to bypass the British controlled suez canal. It came out at what is now Kuwait, an artificial nation created by Britain to prevent the port terminus to the railway being built there.

Britains Admiralty had decided to convert from coal to oil and Germany's trade and diplomatic success in the Middle east was a threat.

Oil WWI

At first almost unnoticed after 1850, then with significant intensity after the onset of the Great Depression of 1873 in Britain, the sun began to set on the British Empire. By the end of the 19th Century, though the City of London remained undisputed financier of the world, British industrial excellence was in terminal decline. The decline paralleled an equally dramatic rise of a new industrial Great Power on the European stage, the German Reich. Germany soon passed England in output of steel, in quality of machine tools, chemicals and electrical goods. Beginning the 1880’s a group of leading German industrialists and bankers around Deutsche Bank’s Georg von Siemens, recognized the urgent need for some form of colonial sources of raw materials as well as industrial export outlet. With Africa and Asia long since claimed by the other Great Powers, above all Great Britain, German policy set out to develop a special economic sphere in the imperial provinces of the debt-ridden Ottoman Empire. The policy was termed “penetration pacifique” 

The conversion of the British Navy under Churchill to oil from coal meant a high risk strategy as England had abundant coal but no then-known oil. It secured a major concession from the Shah of Persia in the early 1900’s. The Baghdad rail link was increasingly seen in London as a threat to precisely this oil security.

In an attempt to stay on topic I will mention that Georg von Siemens financed the development of the first anti shipping missiles to be launched either from Zepplins or the giant R bomber biplanes.


----------



## Readie (Dec 2, 2011)

Siegfried said:


> So we have the Royal Navy
> 1 Initiating a Blockade against Germany in 1914.
> 2 Mining Neutral Waters, mines that sank ships, killed sailers and passengers. Apparently killing with mines is OK but torpedoing in declared zones is not.
> 3 Blockading food.
> ...



An interesting point of view Siegfried. I'm sure that a lot of allies would like to treat their enemies the same way.

The most far reaching result of Jutland was that it convinced Scheer and the German Naval staff that the only way of gaining naval victory was via unrestricted submarine warfare, and not by defeating the British in battle. The Germans had fought Jutland as well or better than could be expected, whilst the British could be expected to perform better next time, and yet nothing had changed. However it was not the German submarine blockade of Britain but, the British blockade of Germany, maintained under the guns of the Grand Fleet, that eventually did most to bring the war to an end.

My contention is that anyway of bringing the slaughter of WW1 to the quickest end was humanitarian.

John


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Dec 2, 2011)

Siegfried said:


> Personally I would see those using food as a blockade weapon tride as war criminals and strung up. ]


Which would include every member of German Italian bomber crews, who attacked Malta, and the ships carrying food to the island.


> the use of q-ships prentding to be american flaged rescue ships,


Rather in the way that Graf Spee pretended to be an American warship, prior to sinking ships in the South Atlantic?


----------



## vinnye (Dec 2, 2011)

I dont think that without Pearl Harbour, that USA would have been involved in the European thetre.
That means Britain would not have had anywhere near enough of Air Power or anything else to consider anythin other than avoiding an invasion by the Germans.

If however, the USA had become involved, I think it would have been more likely that the Mediterranean would have been far more bloody.
The Allies would have had more difficulty in supplying the 8th Army in Egypt - because the LW would have been able to use far more resources in attacking any convoys. This said, I still think the Allies would have landed in North Africa in order to try to establish a base of operations with which to try to invade Sicily? or Greece ? and take the war to the Germans and Italians.


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 2, 2011)

vinnye said:


> I dont think that without Pearl Harbour, that USA would have been involved in the European thetre.
> That means Britain would not have had anywhere near enough of Air Power or anything else to consider anythin other than avoiding an invasion by the Germans.
> 
> .


My goodness one of the reasons the US was able to ramp up production of aircraft so quickly was the fact the Commonwealth was buying anything that could fly from the US well before Pearl Harbour.


----------



## Readie (Dec 2, 2011)

It depends on what you mean by not entering WWII. Do you mean the U.S. not engaging in any missions but still supporting and supplying England with weapons etc?

If that's what you mean, I don't think the Allies would have "won" but I think the Nazis would have lost.

I think the destruction in Europe (especially England) would have been devastating.

However, most historians agree that a major flaw in the Nazi's plan was going to war with Russia. Neither Hitler nor Stalin trusted the other enough to stick to their original (or any) treaty. Therefore, I think the war would have gone on much longer, but eventually the Nazis would have fizzled out by running out of supplies to fight the Eastern Front. As the Nazis retreated back into Germany, I believe the German people probably would have initiated a coup d'etat against the Nazis because a large portion of Germans were against their coming to power to begin with. As the war dragged on, an even larger majority of Germans grew very disappointed with the Nazis.

Churchill and Roosevelt (Stalin too) were having talks about the war before the bombing of Pearl Harbor. I believe it is accepted that Roosevelt would have engaged the U.S. in WWII even without the Pearl Harbor incident. The Germans had sunk dozens of U.S. Merchant Marines supply ships in 1941 and 1942. Also, the beginnings of The Manhattan Project preceded the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

In 1940 Japan, Germany and Italy signed the Tripartite Pact which sealed their alliance as the Axis powers.

The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor because the Japanese anticipated the United States would inevitably enter the war, and they wanted to strike a huge blow against American naval battleships and aircraft carriers, thus stunting America's ability to enter the war with a strong navy. 

The U.S. had already stopped some trade (though not all) with Japan which limited Japan's supplies and Japan saw this as a sign America was drifting away from its original stance of neutrality. Japan also resented an infiltration of Western culture and ideas since the turn of the century. The strongest reason for their attack on Pearl Harbor, however, was not so much a vendetta against the U.S., but a strategy to give them the upper hand in the war. It was somewhat obvious the U.S. would eventually enter.

John


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Dec 2, 2011)

Siegfried said:


> It came out at what is now Kuwait, an artificial nation created by Britain to prevent the port terminus to the railway being built there.


Kuwait was, in fact, founded by an Arabian tribe in 1705.


----------



## Readie (Dec 2, 2011)

By 123 BC, the Kuwait region came under the influence of the Parthian Empire and was closely associated with the southern Mesopotamian town of Charax. In 224 AD, the region fell under the control of Sassanid Empire and came to be known as Hajar. By the 14th century, the area comprising modern-day Kuwait became a part of the Islamic caliphate.

In 1899, Kuwait entered into a treaty with the United Kingdom that gave the British extensive control over the foreign policy of Kuwait in exchange for protection and annual subsidy. This treaty was primarily prompted by fears that the proposed Berlin-Baghdad Railway would lead to an expansion of German influence in the Persian Gulf.

After the signing of the Anglo-Ottoman Convention of 1913, then Emir of Kuwait, Mubarak Al-Sabah, was diplomatically recognized by both the Ottomans and British as the ruler of the autonomous caza of the city of Kuwait and the hinterlands.

However, soon after the start of World War I, the British invalidated the convention and declared Kuwait an independent principality under the protection of the British Empire.

The Kuwait people were glad of the protection afforded by the British Crown.

John


----------



## Tante Ju (Dec 2, 2011)

Readie said:


> The Kuwait people were glad of the protection afforded by the British Crown.



I think more like Kuwait Emir was happy for British "slip money" in exchange for being a puppet state for British interest. What exact they needed "protection" - its mobster term - from a railway gauge german was building for Turks? 
Its like saying Eastern Europeans were glad of the protection offered by the Soviet Communist Party, or that Czech were happy for the protection German Empire provided during WW2. Such was official name, Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia. Same propaganda bs if you ask me... the British bought the local Emir, probably desolate nobody at time, and dressed up political move into nice formalities. I doubt anybody else was "glad" for these protection the French, British, Spanish or even American, or other colonizer imperialist provided. Please stop dressing up imperialism like some humanity movement for greater good of world. The British like everybody else had never had such goal, they just wanted to fill their pockets, and keep everybody else as far away from the meat pot..


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Dec 2, 2011)

Tante Ju said:


> I think more like Kuwait Emir was happy for British "slip money" in exchange for being a puppet state for British interest. What exact they needed "protection" - its mobster term - from a railway gauge german was building for Turks? ..


Which could carry troop trains, capable of offloading thousands of soldiers to annex their country, in a matter of hours.


> The British just wanted to fill their pockets,


With what? Sand?


----------



## parsifal (Dec 2, 2011)

Just a reality check guys. this whole su-debate stems from whether the US was justified in WWII in providing escorts to its shipping against unrestricted attacks by the germans. 

The arguments thyat have been presented are

1) The US was unjustified in protecting it property and its nationals. Some have suggested that it was illegal for the USN, and possibly even its shipping to proceed beyond its 3 mile territorial limit

2) Unrestricted attacks are legal

3) The rossevelt administration used mostly propaganda and lies to turn its people against the peace loving Germans

4) Hitler was a law abiding peace loving international citizen

5) Nazi Germany was a far more moral state than the British empire

6) The allies caused the outbreak of the war, and appear to be the agressors 


This is how modern day proGerman revisionist historians work. A complete rewrite of history. try asking them how many Jews were murdered by the germans during the war. If any answer at all is given you will be shocked, at the very least they will try and argue the holocaust was true, but the numbers are inflated, and only a few Germans knew about it. A claim I know from personal experience to be a lie 

Watch the coughing, spluttering and indignant cries of bias erupt now. 


This thread is about a bees di*k away from being closed


----------



## DonL (Dec 2, 2011)

Sorry parsifal, this is your next "propaganda" post!

Nobody here in this thread had ever denied german war crimes or the total evil things that the Nazis/germans did in WWII.

This whole issue in this thread was beginning with your post 222, as you described the USA neutrality as *not singlesided* and totaly legal.
Everybody who is interested in history knows that this is wrong! The singlesided neutrality of USA was decided from the beginning (1938/39) and the unrestricted attacks were only an explanation for the singlesided neutrality of the USA and not the reason!

You were the person that was glorifieng the *spirit* of neutrality of the USA!



> This is how modern day proGerman revisionist historians work. A complete rewrite of history. try asking them how many Jews were murdered by the germans during the war. If any answer at all is given you will be shocked, at the very least they will try and argue the holocaust was true, but the numbers are inflated, and only a few Germans knew about it. A claim I know from personal experience to be a lie



I haven't read any proGerman revisionist word here in this thread. And 6 million jews were murdered from the Nazi's!
This is also a fact that every historical interested person knows.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 3, 2011)

In fact the issue of the Neutrality patrols had been broached several times, starting with Ratsels Post 27

The thread author posted this early on 

The general American public didn't wanted Hitler as a ruler of Europe. Most countries of the world were ready to fight Hitler accepting sacrificies, not only the Soviets. Check the history books, most Americans didn't want to be envolved in the war in Europe period. So if you say no 'Pacific" then that means no Pearl Harbor ergo the US not entering the war in Europe and Germany not having to worry about the russians, England Europe would be crushed eventually. 


Parsifal Post 48 (in part)

I see this as a far more difficult proposition to analyse than people are giving credit. Im not sure an accurate prediction can be made. In the end it wont get down to airpower, it will get down to manpower and economic management, plus really what Russia does in the finish. The alternatives are endless really.

Ultimately I see the war as likley to be won by the allies, but the war would be very different and more protracted, for sure. And certainly not guranteed either way

At Post 76 DonL introduces his Med first thesis. Hot debate follows for the next 50 or 60 posts. 

I stepped into that debate because you were attempting to monster a junior member (at that time) with your germany first claptrap…..and you did not like my intervention (to put it mildly). 

At Post 122, after you accused me of smoking pot, I responded as follows:

I am not the one making the outrageous claims for victory I said in my opening comments on this thread that it would be difficult to draw too many conclusions. So because I am counselling you to be cautious, and that there are more diffulties than perhaps you have considered, you think I am being outrageous. that has to be first. behave conservatively, and be accused of radicalism.

At post 124 I again repeated my basic position:

I will concede. whilst i will argue till the cows come home that the germans could never win outright....what becomes highly problematic is the ability of the allies to defeat her. I think dropping Russia out of the equation makes a negotiated peace a very likely outcome. A draw if you like.... 

At post 146,, still concentrating on the southern offensive, I stated "no, the blockade was from day1, the effects also were immediate. Germany suffereed shortages from the very beginning of the war, which was a big reason her production lagged. Not well known but in March 1941, the iron ore convoys from Sweden suffered the loss of over 50000 tons of shipping due to various British actions, that a big deal for a nation with only 1.5 million tons of shipping. There were shortages in fuel for the italians, the main players, from the very beginning of the war. germany suffered its first fuel crisis in early 1942. Unless you are saying that the Russians would be continuing to supply the germans after the end of 1941....a highly unlikley event, the germans are in supply of raw materials difficulties from the very start.

Of course imports are only half the equation. The Germans also needed access to export markets, and couldnt get them. This made revenue a constant and increasing problem as their main sources of income....loot from the occupied territiries dried up. 

So no, the blockade made a difference from the beginning” which leads into the naval war again

The debate about US neutrality patrols had been danced about by quite a few people, but the real change in the tone and debate occurred with Siegrieds Post 211, where he stated

"Lend Lease gave Britain vast amounts of military aid (aircraft, munitions, ships, financial aid) in return for access (lease) of a few islands. The American Navy had been escorting British convoys almost to the West Coast of Ireland for 6 months prior to the war. They most certainly did attack and depth charge u-boats. Even had a propganda campaigne to ensure Americans got their nose out of joint when a u-boat fired back and a destroyer got sunk.

These were called "neutrality patrols" and most certainly weren't.

Certainly Hitler showed restraint and had plenty of reason to declare war. It would be interesting to speculate as to how damaging the lend lease funding of the British war effort and the neutrality patrols could be compared to outright war. Bomber commands efforts didn't require much manpower at all, it required bombers, foreign exchange to buy the aluminium needed for making the aircraft and the food for British workers who made them as well (and weren't exporting anymore) as well as fuel in large amounts: all of which US lend lease money could supply.

Would he have been better of NOT declaring war? 

All hell broke out from those comments, including my response at post 222. Siegfrieds comments implied it was the US and not germany responsible for the war between the US and Germany. It was not just me that reacted to that

My post 222 actually stated

"Prior to lend lease was "Cash Carry" which required cash up front and that brit registered or controlled ships carry the munitions. I believe this policy was theoretically open to all belligerents, including germany, but for obvious reasons the germans never took advantage of it. Might be wrong on that score, as deliveries to Germany may have been deemed a breach of the neutrality act. Entry of Cash Carry ships into a war zone waqs not contrary to either international law, or US neutrality, since it was transpoting British goods in british ships. 

To enforce US neutrality and gurantee protection of the New World, the US, with the agreement of all the other American States implemented the pan American Neutrality Zone, that was in the beginning a failry restricted area of ocean, bu moved progressively east as the war progressed. This was purely to protect "American" interests(American in the continental sense). Eventually it included Greenland, Iceland and the other Atlanitic Islands. And included the protection of all shipping within that zone. this was entirely leagal, and well within the limits set by International maritime law of the sea. The US did not make any unlawful claims on the economic resources of that area.....if German fisherman or merchantmen were found at sea they were left alone as far as I know by the pan American states. However defence aginst acts of piracy such as was occurring with the U-Boats and raiders were encountered they were to be met with force. eventually there were so many breaches of Pan American neutrality by the germans that the US issued orders to treat all German warships as hostile, whether or not they were the first to fire. This was slightly outside the terms of International law, but has been generally accepted as a reasonable resoponse to German breaches of the PanAmerican Neutrality Treaties. The US is generally seen as acting in self defence in these instances, even if by the latter half of 1941 they were shooting first and asking questions later. 

Wrong. They most certainly were acts of neutrality, in both spirit and in terms of legalityu. they were acting to protect their own and other American intersts by enforcing the provisions of their own neutrality declarations. The Germans were operating in flagrant definace of those neutrality declarations by applying unrestricted U-Boat warfare (ie modern day piracy) on declared neutral shipping. Their problem, and a corner they only had themselves to blame for being backed into. Roosevelt had very cleverly (outmanouvred Hitler) 

You have got to be kidding. Hitler (and the german Naval High Command) never showed the slightest restraint (well, to be fair Hitler hesitated for the first month of the war) in implementing unrestricted tonnage warfare in all areas of the world, against all neutral shipping (including Russian ships prior to June 1941). they implmented a policy of sink on sight, and issued illegal orders not to lend assistance to crews in distress. Unworkable rules you may argue, bu the rules of warfare that governed warfare against shipping, and more specifically wars against neutral shipping outside of a declared combat zone. The escalation in US belligerency was 100% Hitlers doing. The fact that his stupidity saved the allies the trouble of engineering US moves to war by more direct means is not the point. The point is, who caused the increased belligerency of the US.....Hitler and his Admirals

By December he had no choice. By his own impulsive actions he had placed Germany and the US in a state of undeclared war. My opinion is that within three months, even without Japanese attacks, the US and th4e European Axis would have been at war anyway, or germany forced to withdraw from the Naval blockade of Britiain, which would have MASSIVE implications on the war in all TOs.”

I fail to see how those statement inflamed this thread to the point of claiming who was responsible for war crimes, and who caused the germans to decide to use unrestricted warfare. I made several other posts that war crimes were not the issue, the issue was whether unrestricted warfare was legal, and how that was received, and whether the US was justified in takeing action as it did. My post was about why US neutrality patrols came about and what caused it. Somehow people began arguing that it was the US neutrality patrols caused the Germans to implement unrestricted warfare. That came from your side of the fence, not mine. It just got more and more hysterical and farcical with every post. 


tell me how that is 'propaganda"


----------



## DonL (Dec 3, 2011)

Sorry what do you want?

Read the posts from 222 till 319 + 321! There are more then enough arguments inclusive my posts. I'm not repeating this all!

You are the person who raised the modern day proGerman revisionist issue in post 320 plus how many jews were murdered!
You suggest between the lines in many posts before (in this thread), that persons/members in this thread denied german warcrimes and more or less are modern day proGerman revisionist! And this all because several members are not your opinion about legality, neutrality and unrestricted attacks!



> This is how modern day proGerman revisionist historians work. A complete rewrite of history. try asking them how many Jews were murdered by the germans during the war. If any answer at all is given you will be shocked, at the very least they will try and argue the holocaust was true, but the numbers are inflated, and only a few Germans knew about it. A claim I know from personal experience to be a lie
> 
> Watch the coughing, spluttering and indignant cries of bias erupt now.



Please name examples and I have written how many jews were murdered by the nazis!
Are the numbers correct?



> This thread is about a bees di*k away from being closed



Perhaps, and you are doing all in your hand to reach this goal because there are several members that are not your opinion about legality, neutrality and unrestricted attacks!
You are making many rhetorical prevarication, to suggest that these members, who are not your opinion, are denying german warcrimes and more or less are modern day proGerman revisionist.

An other example for your rhetorical prevarication between the lines is:



> However defence aginst acts of piracy such as was occurring with the U-Boats and raiders were encountered they were to be met with force.





> The Germans were operating in flagrant definace of those neutrality declarations by applying unrestricted U-Boat warfare (ie modern day piracy) on declared neutral shipping.



First you suggest that all german officers and soldiers at U-boats and commercial raiders are pirates and second you suggest that unrestricted U-Boat warfare is the same as modern piracy at Somalia or Thailand.

Here are members that are not your opinion, but that is no reason to suggest that these members are modern day proGerman revisionist.
Also there is no reason to abuse a member as SS Totenkopf because this member has an other analysis about miltary facts and is not your opinion!

Edit:



> *I made several other posts that war crimes were not the issue*, the issue was whether unrestricted warfare was legal, and how that was received, and whether the US was justified in takeing action as it did.



Then please explain your post 320 and what was the intention of this post?


----------



## Readie (Dec 3, 2011)

Tante Ju said:


> I think more like Kuwait Emir was happy for British "slip money" in exchange for being a puppet state for British interest. What exact they needed "protection" - its mobster term - from a railway gauge german was building for Turks?



Mr Ju,
What do you mean by 'slip money'? Its not a turn of phrase I'm familiar with.
' British Crown protection' in the context I posted is far more than the 'mobster' term you use. As I think you well know....
The Emir was a pragmatic man and knew which side his bread was buttered on.
The British were (are) just as cynical with protecting their interests as anyone else. The jealously comes from the fact that we were rather good at it.
John


----------



## Readie (Dec 3, 2011)

parsifal said:


> In fact the issue of the Neutrality patrols had been broached several times, starting with Ratsels Post 27
> 
> The thread author posted this early on
> 
> ...



I await the responses to your points with interest Michael.
John


----------



## parsifal (Dec 3, 2011)

> Sorry what do you want?



Firstly dont use the word sorry when you arent. What I want is for this discussion to get back on topic



> Read the posts from 222 till 319 + 321! There are more then enough arguments inclusive my posts. I'm not repeating this all!You are the person who raised the modern day proGerman revisionist issue in post 320 plus how many jews were murdered!



let me make my position as clear as I can for you. in the context of this thread, i am not intersted in German war crimes. The position that has been put, at post 211, was that Hitler showed great restraint and that the US was goading the germans into declaring war. There were subsequent posts by others that suggested the US was acting illegally to escort its ships in the Altantic whilst neutral. 

Now there are suggestions being made within this thread that the british empire was guilty of war crimes, that Britain was a less moral state than nazi germany. Iadmit that i reacted to that, because it is outrageous, but would like to get the discussion back on track if that is okay.

My position is this. Unrestricted U-boat attacks made without warning were contrary to international law prior to WWII. Worse than that, in both 1939 and 1941, Donitz issued orders that no assistance of any kind was to be given to ships they torpedoed (the 1939 order at least was ignored on many occasions, doesnt matter, as an order both were known and commented on in US newspapers) . Both the use of unrestricted warfare tactics and the failure to lend assistance to stricken merchant vessels were in breach of international laws at the time, and attracted a response and and a backlash in public opinion in the US. This was neither driven by propaganda, or lies as has been suggested. It was driven by the free press in the US and was a genuine revulsion to what the germans were doing in the Atlantic at that time. The change in mood in the US public opinion is reflected in the gradual shift in the US congress from isolationsist to a pro-allied stance (in general). I freely admit that the rules of engagement that applied to U-Boats were weighted against the U-Boats, but thats not the point. Germans decisions on their operational management of their U-Boat assets involved their use that was contrary to the law of the sea, and was made worse by some rather nasty supplementary orders. These are all basic truths that have been attempted to be subverted by all manner of smokescreens, defelctions, personal attacks and downright porkies in this thread. 

The result, in part was the extension of the neutrality zones and the escorting of American ships further and further east as the war progressed. By degrees, the Germans found themselves in a very similar position that they had found themselves in 1917....upsetting the largest neutral nation in the world by its use of unrestricted warfare. 

This has nothing to do with war crimes or attrocities or honour, or any other extraneous stuff you or anyone else cares to throw in the mix. Germany's own decisions about how she wanted to wage the war at sea was by far the major incfluence in the drift of the US to the allied camp. 




> You suggest between the lines in many posts before (in this thread), that persons/members in this thread denied german warcrimes and more or less are modern day proGerman revisionist! And this all because several members are not your opinion about legality, neutrality and unrestricted attacks!



Please show me where i have accused other members of denying war crimes in this thread. What I have done is people ppass their own moral judgements about war crimes without the slightest clue of what a war crime is defined as in 1945. I actually avoid making such moral judgements, and simply stick to what the law was and is, and what the outcomes were. I leave it up to the courst and tribunals of WWII to make the moral judgements.

Without being specific, i ahave also stated that there is a real push to revise history, in this place. In another thread I have said that this is generally a good thing, however in the case of Germans involvement in WWII it seems to nearly always involve a distortion of facts, so as to portray Germany in the best possible light. History rewritten with the rose coloured glasses. this re-write of history is not done in the traditional sense, with a scholarly paper written, nd then a review undertaken by learned peers. oh no, people write anything, and others believe it. If that makes you uncomforrtable, then dont post on the Internet. 

And as I have pointed out several times, this has absolutley nothing to do with how the US was drawn into the war. The US was drawn into the war because the Germans employed their U-Boats illegally. German usage of Uboats and surface raiders was tantamount to a modern form of piracy, thats how most of the world viewed it at the time. It was an effective form of warfare, but it sucked in the PR department. That is is not a moral judgement. its a fact. It had consequences, one of which was that it increased german isolation, and pushed the US towards the allied camp




> Please name examples and I have written how many jews were murdered by the nazis!
> Are the numbers correct?



Yes, they are, how about tackling all the other questions as well. Am curious if you can be as hoinest with them as well 




> Perhaps, and you are doing all in your hand to reach this goal because there are several members that are not your opinion about legality, neutrality and unrestricted attacks!



My goal at this minute is to get this thread back on topic. If you are suggesting that I disagree that Unrestricted u-Boat attacks were legal in the pre-1939 body of law, then you are right, I dont think they were legal. and neither did the nurenberg trial think they were legal either. thats one of the reasons Donitz went to prison after the war, along with his illegal orders not to provide assistance to stricken ships. 




> ou are making many rhetorical prevarication, to suggest that these members, who are not your opinion, are denying german warcrimes and more or less are modern day proGerman revisionist.
> 
> An other example for your rhetorical prevarication between the lines is:




You will have to re-phrase this. i simply cannot follow the tirade 




> First you suggest that all german officers and soldiers at U-boats and commercial raiders are pirates and second you suggest that unrestricted U-Boat warfare is the same as modern piracy at Somalia or Thailand.



Err no, I actually said that Unrestricted attacks were a form of piracy, pluss therere were a number of instances where the germans actually did enagege in high seas piracy. Perhaps I should have used the term privaterring. I fail to see how this is a slur on individual officers at sea. it was an accurate description of Donitz, since he was convicted after the war and sent to prison for various orders that he isued. I in fact gave praise to the German at sea officers because they frequently did not follow illegal orders given to them 

And where did I say anything Somali or Ethiopian pirates. I said....unrestricted warfare is a form of modern day piracy. Which it is. 




> Here are members that are not your opinion, but that is no reason to suggest that these members are modern day proGerman revisionist.
> 
> 
> Also there is no reason to abuse a member as SS Totenkopf because this member has an other analysis about miltary facts and is not your opinion!



Things do get heated, this is the internet. But its more than a bit rich to say i am bullying you guys after the way you behave and treat some of the other members in this place, particulalry some of the newer guys like Jenishce



> Then please explain your post 320 and what was the intention of this post?[/



My post is more than justified in view of some of the comments made in its lead up. you guys cannot expect us on this side to behave and abide to the marquis of Queensbury rules, while you guys attempt to tun amok, rewriting your new versions of history and stomping on anyone that gets in your way. thats my explanation


----------



## Readie (Dec 3, 2011)

I admire your combative spirit Michael but, there are people who just will not accept history.

Quite why they feel the need to put a spin on history (that makes the Germans seem less aggressive (even a victim) and therefore less responsible for WW2) that fly's in the face of documented historical fact is beyond me.

John


----------



## vinnye (Dec 3, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> My goodness one of the reasons the US was able to ramp up production of aircraft so quickly was the fact the Commonwealth was buying anything that could fly from the US well before Pearl Harbour.


 
I agree that the USA was able to begin its amazing aircraft prduction due to the demand of Britain and the Commonwealth. But when would they have actually begun to commit troops and ships to the actual combat?
Would it have taken more losses of American ships and lives to U-boats? Or could Germany have boxed a little more cleverly if she had been able to sink more shipping away from the US coastline, and hence appease the US for a bit longer?

This would have been extremely difficult for Britain and the Commonwealth - I don't believe that they would ever have sufficient airpower and manpower to mount a European Invasion. The Middle East may have been an option - but not an easy one.

If Germany had been able to develop some of its weapons without the air bombardment that the US gave during the day and RAF at night - who knows?
More Me 262's used as fighters and bombers?
Would Germany have developed the Atomic bomb first?


----------



## Readie (Dec 3, 2011)

vinnye said:


> I agree that the USA was able to begin its amazing aircraft prduction due to the demand of Britain and the Commonwealth. But when would they have actually begun to commit troops and ships to the actual combat?
> Would it have taken more losses of American ships and lives to U-boats? Or could Germany have boxed a little more cleverly if she had been able to sink more shipping away from the US coastline, and hence appease the US for a bit longer?
> 
> This would have been extremely difficult for Britain and the Commonwealth - I don't believe that they would ever have sufficient airpower and manpower to mount a European Invasion. The Middle East may have been an option - but not an easy one.
> ...



Good post valid points.
D Day would have been impossible without the resources of America.
Maybe a European invasion via the Med ( Italy) would have been possible but, at what cost? Mount Casino was bad enough as it was.
Britain her allies would have to wait till the occupied countries started to pick away at the German machine. That would have taken decades or longer but, I belive that a collapse would have been inevitable. Rather like the demise of the Roman Empire.
You would have to take the lunatics out of the high command for the ME262 to be used properly.
An A bomb? That is a thought...
John


----------



## DonL (Dec 3, 2011)

At the moment I have no time so only one first reaction!



> My goal at this minute is to get this thread back on topic. If you are suggesting that I disagree that Unrestricted u-Boat attacks were legal in the pre-1939 body of law, then you are right, I dont think they were legal. and neither did the nurenberg trial think they were legal either. thats one of the reasons Donitz went to prison after the war, along with his illegal orders not to provide assistance to stricken ships.



Are your sure of this?
To my opinion Unrestricted u-Boat attacks were illegal but under the circumstances necessary.
I don't want to defend Doenitz but Unrestricted u-Boat attacks and his illegal orders not to provide assistance to stricken ships weren't the reasons that he went in prison!

Laconia incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Laconia Order - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
War Order No. 154 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Apropos Admiral Chester Nimitz stated unrestricted submarine warfare was carried on in the Pacific Ocean by the United States from the first day of the Pacific War!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 3, 2011)

Readie said:


> I admire your combative spirit Michael but, there are people who just will not accept history.
> 
> Quite why they feel the need to put a spin on history (that makes the Germans seem less aggressive (even a victim) and therefore less responsible for WW2) that fly's in the face of documented historical fact is beyond me.
> 
> John



I have a few suggestions here. 

1. Lets get back on topic. 

2. How about people stop throwing fuel on the fire. Making posts like the one above do not help the situation, and in fact throw it further off topic. It just puts on fuel on the fire, and I get the feeling that is all the poster wants to accomplish. Basically what I am saying, is it does not contribute to the thread and just aggravates the situation even more. Why do that? 

3. Based off of number 2. If you have nothing to say to the topic, don't say it. 

4. Reiterate number 1. Lets get back on topic.


----------



## Readie (Dec 3, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I have a few suggestions here.
> 
> 1. Lets get back on topic.
> 
> ...



Chris,
I was responding to the posts that where all steering off topic I might add. 
I find the rewriting of any history exasperating.
Presumably you'll be pointing out the inaccurate inflammatory comments of other posters in this thread....
Your forum...your call.
Back on topic? suits me 100%
John


----------



## Readie (Dec 3, 2011)

Back on topic.

My answer to the original thread question is 'unlikely'.
Why? I have looked at war theaters where airpower is used to try and beat the enemy without the traditional army being used as much to lessen casualties?

The Russians in Afghanistan. A superpower beaten by guerrilla bandits is the classic example.

I do not believe that an allied air assault alone would have defeated Nazi Germany.

John


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 3, 2011)

Readie said:


> Chris,
> I was responding to the posts that where all steering off topic I might add.
> I find the rewriting of any history exasperating.
> Presumably you'll be pointing out the inaccurate inflammatory comments of other posters in this thread....
> ...



I point out post inflammatory posts whenever I catch them. I am not perfect, and do not see everything. It is impossible to do so. I do not live on this forum, and have a life outside of it, and therefore can not read every post. I think my track record speaks for itself however, that I am a fair moderator. 

My point is this. DonL and Parsifal were having a somewhat heated discussion, that was off topic. It will never get back on topic, if 3rd parties keep throwing fuel the fire. Did you post help dissolve it? Did it do anything to cool it off? I doubt it. 

Now for the last time, lets get this back on topic. I think parsifal has been trying to steer it back in that direction.


----------



## Readie (Dec 3, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I point out post inflammatory posts whenever I catch them. I am not perfect, and do not see everything. It is impossible to do so. I do not live on this forum, and have a life outside of it, and therefore can not read every post. I think my track record speaks for itself however, that I am a fair moderator.
> 
> My point is this. DonL and Parsifal were having a somewhat heated discussion, that was off topic. It will never get back on topic, if 3rd parties keep throwing fuel the fire. Did you post help dissolve it? Did it do anything to cool it off? I doubt it.
> 
> Now for the last time, lets get this back on topic. I think parsifal has been trying to steer it back in that direction.




Ok. I guess I got that one wrong, or it came across wrongly...
If anyone was offended, then I apologize.
John


----------



## parsifal (Dec 3, 2011)

> At the moment I have no time so only one first reaction


!

Dont post if you dont have the time



> Are your sure of this?



Yes



> To my opinion Unrestricted u-Boat attacks were illegal but under the circumstances necessary.



Irrelevant. The issue was whether the US was acting legally, and Germany illegally, when they attacked allied convoys in the way they did. Thankyou for admitting they were ilegal. Now all you need to do is accept that the US response was legal, and that Germany's actions were a big influence on the US drift to war, (really only exceeded in importance by the Japanese attack) 



> I don't want to defend Doenitz but Unrestricted u-Boat attacks and his illegal orders not to provide assistance to stricken ships weren't the reasons that he went in prison!



Oh really, if you dont want to defend him, then why are you saying all that you are, and even getting into this issue at all????.In fact , following the war, Dönitz was held as a prisoner of war by the Allies. He was indicted as a major war criminal at the Nuremberg Trials on three counts: 
(1) conspiracy to commit crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity; 
(2) planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression; and 
(3) crimes against the laws of war (ie the laws of the sea, ie unrestricted tonnage attacks and no assistance to stricken vessels his warships had sunk). 

Dönitz was found not guilty on count (1) of the indictment, but guilty on counts (2) and (3).



> Laconia incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Laconia Order - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> War Order No. 154 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Havent looked at these links, but will do so 




> Apropos Admiral Chester Nimitz stated unrestricted submarine warfare was carried on in the Pacific Ocean by the United States from the first day of the Pacific War!



The USN tried to justify its attacks on Japanese by classifying every Japanese merchant vessel as a warship. In any event, like the Germans the USN was using the most effective application for its sub fleet. And unlike the germans this had no political fallout, since all the partys and sources of power (with the exception of the Russians) were not in the war against japan. And one final distinction that can be drawn on this issue, the USN was attacking belligerent ships....that is ships controlled by combattants. This was fundamentally different to the German policy of attacking all ships, regardless of whether they were controlled by combatants or not. including those belonging to neutrals in declared neutral zones. They (the Germans) decided to force their policies on everyone regardless of whether that nation was at war with them or not. Thats the difference and its a huge one


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 3, 2011)

*@gis238*: "... What if WWI had ended with a fairer and equitable Treaty of Versailles and the world ended up with a far different Germany, sans Hitler and Nazis."

Yawn, yawn .... blame the Versailles Gang ... yawn. 

What if Germany had gone *COMMUNIST i*n 1918 -- what would *Russia *have done ..? That's a far more likely event, so important and interesting speculation. Start a thread on it, gis238. 

MM


----------



## DonL (Dec 3, 2011)

> My point is this. DonL and Parsifal were having a somewhat heated discussion, that was off topic. It will never get back on topic, if 3rd parties keep throwing fuel the fire. Did you post help dissolve it? Did it do anything to cool it off? I doubt it.



With all respect I was out of the discussion after the Mediterranean campaign discussion!
*I was in at the the glorifieng of the spirit of neutrality of the USA!*
Then I had a break over more then 100 posts. It's not only me who was challeging Mr. Parsifal!
And with all respect I realy doubt that his intention with post 320 was to get on topic!
It was the most provocative post of this thread, so I can't understand your opinion, that he was interested to get on topic!



> Irrelevant. The issue was whether the US was acting legally, and Germany illegally, when they attacked allied convoys in the way they did. Thankyou for admitting they were ilegal. Now all you need to do is accept that the US response was legal, and that Germany's actions were a big influence on the US drift to war, (really only exceeded in importance by the Japanese attack)



Yes the germans are the bad guys and the allied are the good guys, it doesn't matter how and why are the circumstances!
Mr. Parsifal you make me sick with your argumentation! Believe your mystery myths and I believe in reality!



> Oh really, if you dont want to defend him, then why are you saying all that you are, and even getting into this issue at all????.In fact , following the war, Dönitz was held as a prisoner of war by the Allies. He was indicted as a major war criminal at the Nuremberg Trials on three counts:



You don't get it! I hate nazis but I'm an idealist and that will include all perspective's of the war in WWII and the given history!
You can argument till the next century about german "piracy" and the "spirit" of US neutrality"!
For me I did doesn't count! The facts are counting nor more no less!
There are more then 100 issues were the US Navy radio reported the station of axis ships, to be secure that GB or Commenwealth ships hit the goal. The Us neutralty was on very weak feets at the chasing of Bismarck and the Larconia incedent will tell you very much!

This was stated from many historian all over the world! And now I'm out! Believe in your mystery myths, every normal member or guest of this forum, can get his own opinion with a little research! But please you should be secure when you raise the next mystery myth, I'm in!


----------



## parsifal (Dec 3, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> *@gis238*: "... What if WWI had ended with a fairer and equitable Treaty of Versailles and the world ended up with a far different Germany, sans Hitler and Nazis."
> 
> Yawn, yawn .... blame the Versailles Gang ... yawn.
> 
> ...



In fact the versailles treaty was a failure because it did not go far enough one or the the other. It failed to follow Wilsons 14 points, and it also failed to secure unconditional surrender as Pershing had advocated.

If the allies had followed the 14 points i still think the "stabbed in the back camp would have emerged in post war Germany. Germany needed to experience the horrors of the war on their own territory such as happened in WWII to turn away from the God of war as their saviour.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 3, 2011)

So, after all that, the issue is this.....with no japan, and no russia in the war, but with Germans declaring unrestricted warfare on all neutral shipping and in fact ramping things up in the Atlantic, when or if would the US enter the war? 

I think that military preparation for land and air warfare would have continued apace, as historical, such that the first usage of US land and air forces would begin as normal....late '42. I believe the USN would have continued to ramp up its neutrality paytrols with increasing violence between the germans and the USN. I believe that around September or october 1942 the US would have entered the war anyway, much as they had in 1917, and for very similar reasons.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 3, 2011)

> Yes the germans are the bad guys and the allied are the good guys, it doesn't matter how and why are the circumstances!
> Mr. Parsifal you make me sick with your argumentation! Believe your mystery myths and I believe in reality!



I never said the Germans were the bad guys and the allies were the good guys, but now that you mention it, after the war, Germany as a nation was found guilty of waging an aggressive war, and from that war guilt was found to be the fault of the Germans. Since you are the anti-Nazi that you claim, you should have no problem accepting that 

There is no argument, no mystery. Germany undertook unrestricted U-Boat and surface raider attacks on neutral shipping both inside and outside declared neutrality zones. Ther were reasons for doing that. I am not arguing that. However the point at contention her has nothing to do with that. In the first instance the relevant issue is whether German actions caused or influenced a neutral block like the American states to drift to a pro-allied stance, not who committed war crimes, or who likes strawberry ice cream or who had honour and who didnt. And neither does whether you like me, or not. Frankly, I get a sense of achievment from the fact that i have made you sick. 

In the second instance the issue is whether the germans were acting legally or illegally in attacking neutral shipping in a declared neutrality zone. You call that hocum and "mystery". I call that the difference between the western allies and Germany. Germany never cared about any nation but itself, and was prepared to say anything, do anything, to get its way. The German state had no respect for national decency or moral standards, and that my friend really ticks you off, i can tell. It certainly mattered to a country like the US, so deeply embedded with ideas of right and wrong, good and bad, righteous and evil. By the time the germans declared war on the US, I think it fair to say that the majority of US citizens viewed Nazi germany as an amoral state, that they would have to take action against sooner or later. 



> You don't get it! I hate nazis but I'm an idealist and that will include all perspective's of the war in WWII and the given history!
> You can argument till the next century about german "piracy" and the "spirit" of US neutrality"!
> For me I did doesn't count! The facts are counting nor more no less!



Your right I dont get it. You say that you are interested in the truth, but when it hits you in the face, you dont like it. After all the filibustering and aggression, this is waht it all boild down to

1) Did the german conduct of anti-shipping operations influence US attitudes towards the germans. Speicifically were the attacks on US shipping having a good effect or a bad one

2) Were unrestricted Uboat (and surface raider) attacks on neutral shipping legal under international law in the context of the war. 

Ther is no inference on German honour or whatever the hell else you want to try to introduce into this argument. Concentrate on the issues at hand and see, if in that foggy thing you call your consciousness, whether you can figure it out or not



> There are more then 100 issues were the US Navy radio reported the station of axis ships, to be secure that GB or Commenwealth ships hit the goal. The Us neutralty was on very weak feets at the chasing of Bismarck and the Larconia incedent will tell you very much!



The minutae of the American response to unrestricted U-Boat attacks against their shipping included closer co-operation with the Allies. The harder the Germans cracked their (illegal) whip, the closer the Americans drifted to the allied camp. Allied submarines and ships were not sinking without warning US ships ouside of a declared war zone. Neutral shipping within a declared war zone were sunk....without warning i might add, by the british, but that is a completely different circumstance to the one faced by the US. 



> This was stated from many historian all over the world! And now I'm out! Believe in your mystery myths, every normal member or guest of this forum, can get his own opinion with a little research! But please you should be secure when you raise the next mystery myth, I'm in!



Enjoy your holiday. Dont lose any slep about me will you..... ciao for now


----------



## jim (Dec 4, 2011)

Mr DonL 
Dont waste your time.... It ss pointless...


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 4, 2011)

Going to the original question (post 1) the Allies, without the Russians, could have beaten the Germans, it might have taken until 1947 or so but it would have happened. US war production didn't peak until 1944.

The american steel production per year equaled the rest the world put together with a fair amount left over. 

The bombing campaign didn't really get going until 1944. over 3 1/2 times the tonnage of bombs were dropped in 1944 as in 1940,41, 42 and 43 put together. 

Airpower alone would not have defeated the Germans but such overwhelming airpower would have paved the way for invasion and defeat on the ground.


----------



## Glider (Dec 4, 2011)

Its possible that you might have had a similar situation as at the end of WW1 where Germany surrendered without being invaded. Germany wasn't self sufficient in any area including food and a heavy sustained bombing campaign would eventually resulted in a breakdown of the infrastructure. This might have led to a breakdown similar to the end of WW1 with starvation and unrest.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 4, 2011)

"... Its possible that you might have had a similar situation as at the end of WW1 where Germany surrendered without being invaded."

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me .." 

I don't think conditional surrender was in the cards ... ever. Even _without_ the Death Camps.

MM


----------



## Jenisch (Dec 4, 2011)

The resources the US would be able to turn against the European Axis if only had to fight them surely would be significant. The bombing campaign for example, probably would started sooner. Aircraft like the B-29 and the B-36 perhaps also would appeared sooner. 

Parsifal, you that are/was a naval man, any plausible chance of a US assault in Norway with the full power of the USN in your view?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 4, 2011)

Very very last time. 

1. Get back on topic.

2. Quit flaming each other.

The next time, both parties will have a short vacation to the beach. Both parties...

Ignore me once, shame on you. Ignore me twice...


----------



## parsifal (Dec 4, 2011)

Jenisch said:


> The resources the US would be able to turn against the European Axis if only had to fight them surely would be significant. The bombing campaign for example, probably would started sooner. Aircraft like the B-29 and the B-36 perhaps also would appeared sooner.
> 
> Parsifal, you that are/was a naval man, any plausible chance of a US assault in Norway with the full power of the USN in your view?




One of the reasons I keep saying its hard to predict, is because both sides of the ledger will have significantly greater forces. An allied force, reinforced with the materiel that would have otherwise gone to the pacific and the USSR ranged against the historical forces of the third reich will not have any difficulty in defeating the Germans. Against a reinforced german position it would be much more problematic. 


Its harder than it looks to predict this scenario.


----------



## Readie (Dec 4, 2011)

parsifal said:


> One of the reasons I keep saying its hard to predict, is because both sides of the ledger will have significantly greater forces. An allied force, reinforced with the materiel that would have otherwise gone to the pacific and the USSR ranged against the historical forces of the third reich will not have any difficulty in defeating the Germans. Against a reinforced german position it would be much more problematic.
> 
> 
> Its harder than it looks to predict this scenario.



Not only hard, damn nearly impossible Michael.
There are so many variables involved.
How Hitler Could Have Won World War II by Bevin Alexander
This book poses some interesting and well considered points.
But, at the end of the day its all speculation.
John


----------



## Jenisch (Dec 4, 2011)

Readie said:


> Not only hard, damn nearly impossible Michael.
> There are so many variables involved.
> How Hitler Could Have Won World War II by Bevin Alexander
> This book poses some interesting and well considered points.
> ...


 
I agree. Interesting book BTW, will add it to my list.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 4, 2011)

jim said:


> Mr DonL
> Dont waste your time.... It ss pointless...



That goes for you too. Don't put fuel on a fire. If you are not going to say anything that pertains to the topic, don't say it.


----------



## bobbysocks (Dec 4, 2011)

Jenisch said:


> Parsifal, you that are/was a naval man, any plausible chance of a US assault in Norway with the full power of the USN in your view?



i think that the allies would have to replicate the russian scenario...by that i mean open other fronts to draw troops into the fray and stretch supply lines. if not in norway then??? the allies could do that because they had the men and resources to do that. with out the war in russia, and the LW in better position to stymie a cross channel invasion, germany's only front then would have been africa. another front would have had to been instigated if only to redirect resources from that theater. norway would have opened up more bomber routes to the heart of germany that the LW would have to defend. it would have been a COLD and brutal campaign for all parties involved. other than there where do you go....spain? turkey? options are limited...


----------



## Readie (Dec 5, 2011)

bobbysocks said:


> i think that the allies would have to replicate the russian scenario...by that i mean open other fronts to draw troops into the fray and stretch supply lines. if not in norway then??? the allies could do that because they had the men and resources to do that. with out the war in russia, and the LW in better position to stymie a cross channel invasion, germany's only front then would have been africa. another front would have had to been instigated if only to redirect resources from that theater. norway would have opened up more bomber routes to the heart of germany that the LW would have to defend. it would have been a COLD and brutal campaign for all parties involved. other than there where do you go....spain? turkey? options are limited...



There are limited but, we assume that Hitler carries on with his attacks.

I wonder if Hitler and the Herman high command had consolidated the 1940 victories and used the undoubted might of the panzers for protection rather than assault whether the allies could have broken through...

In this scenario, bomber attacks may have been the less costly option for the allies.

Having said that, Germany would have to ensure the supply of raw materials, food, fuel etc.

To keep on topic, I'll suggest that the supply of these essential materials was Germany's Achilles heel.

Do you think airpower could have disrupted the supply lines enough to weaken Germany enough to make a allied land assault possible?

John


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 5, 2011)

"... In this scenario, bomber attacks may have been the less costly option for the allies.

Having said that, Germany would have to ensure the supply of raw materials, food, fuel etc.

To keep on topic, I'll suggest that the supply of these essential materials was Germany's Achilles heel.

Do you think airpower could have disrupted the supply lines enough to weaken Germany enough to make a allied land assault possible?..."

YES but with much delay ...

"Germany would have to ensure the supply of raw materials, food, fuel etc. [ ...] the supply of these essential materials was Germany's Achilles heel."

In ANY SCENARIO this is Hitler's AH  That is why going to Russia was never an option. Open country where tanks and airpower could work together fitted into the quick war that Hitler fancied he wanted.

Without Hitler going to Russia, allied airpower has to deny him his oil from Romania (rail), his high grade industrial ores from Sweden and Norway (sea) and his 'food' from France, Holland, Denmark (road, rail, canal).

We know the Allies can shut down the railroads and canals in Western Europe ... they did so just before Normandy, June 1944. But can they totally blockade all traffic from Norway and Sweden (a neutral)? I don't believe so. With no resources spent in Russia, many other projects would have been conceived -- Germans would have developed freighter U boats for some cargoes (and I don't mean aero engines to Japan ).

There is no alternative for the Allies but to put boots on the beaches -- eventually, 1947 or so, without the Soviets, IMHO.  _Airpower_ (minus the big A) _alone_, cannot do the whole job.

MM


----------



## Readie (Dec 5, 2011)

'There is no alternative for the Allies but to put boots on the beaches -- eventually, 1947 or so..'

The only example of unconditional surrender without a land assault would be the Japanese.
Now, if we spin forward to, say 1947,the A bomb would have available so, if Hitler was unchallenged and impregnable in his fortified domain what would be the allies choice?

1) Expend untold thousands of allied lives in a D Day invasion combined with 24/7 bombing?
2) Keep dropping A bombs on Germany till Hitler got the message?

John


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 5, 2011)

I am unclear - in the current premise - what the status of the German-Russian MT Pact of September, 1939. Can someone please clarify this. ???? 

MM


----------



## Jenisch (Dec 5, 2011)

I really doubt Hitler would not try develop an atomic bomb in this scenario.


----------



## Readie (Dec 5, 2011)

Jenisch said:


> I really doubt Hitler would not try develop an atomic bomb in this scenario.



The Germans would try, that was the point of the V1 rocket. Whether they would have the resources is another matter.
Had they succeeded then the Nuclear arms race would have started early.
Gulp
John


----------



## Readie (Dec 5, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> I am unclear - in the current premise - what the status of the German-Russian MT Pact of September, 1939. Can someone please clarify this. ????
> 
> MM



Try to keep up Michael 

John


----------



## Sagittario64 (Dec 5, 2011)

This sort of pertains to germanys situation. If the western allies didnt use ground forces, italy wouldnt be invaded and the split wouldnt happen. aircraft production would still continue. Germany was trying to get several italian designs for its own use. these include the Re.2006, G.56, SAI.403. The G.56 was rated to be equal to the late 109 models, and equal or superior to the fw.190A. if germany had started producing these in the quantities they wanted, not only would the allies be dealing with bf.109s and fw.190s, they would have to deal with quite likely several JGs equipped with G.56s, if not SAI.403s and Re.2006s too. These fighters would not only boost the number of fighters germany had, but would also give them powerful bomber destroyers with more than adequate performance. The germans would also have the 4 or 5 hundred Re.2002s(equipped with BMW engines, possibly making them much more formidable fighter-bombers than the Piaggio engined ones) and CR.42LWs they wanted from Italy. correct me if im wrong with any of these assumptions, but i think that for any situation with germany fighting wwii hypothetical scenarios, her allies should be taken into consideration, as they significantly affected germanys fortunes in the war


----------



## cimmex (Dec 5, 2011)

Don’t forget, you need not only the planes but also pilots in that number and enough fuel of course.
cimmex


----------



## Sagittario64 (Dec 5, 2011)

Oh the germans would have the pilots and the fuel, because they (according to the original situation posed) would never have expended vast amounts of them fighting the russians on the eastern front. I have a feeling that the germans wouldnt have 300 score aces though in this situation, but youd have a higher number of aces overall


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 5, 2011)

Sagittario64 said:


> This sort of pertains to germanys situation. If the western allies didnt use ground forces, italy wouldnt be invaded and the split wouldnt happen. aircraft production would still continue. Germany was trying to get several italian designs for its own use. these include the Re.2006, G.56, SAI.403. The G.56 was rated to be equal to the late 109 models, and equal or superior to the fw.190A. if germany had started producing these in the quantities they wanted, not only would the allies be dealing with bf.109s and fw.190s, they would have to deal with quite likely several JGs equipped with G.56s, if not SAI.403s and Re.2006s too. These fighters would not only boost the number of fighters germany had, but would also give them powerful bomber destroyers with more than adequate performance. The germans would also have the 4 or 5 hundred Re.2002s(equipped with BMW engines, possibly making them much more formidable fighter-bombers than the Piaggio engined ones) and CR.42LWs they wanted from Italy. correct me if im wrong with any of these assumptions, but i think that for any situation with germany fighting wwii hypothetical scenarios, her allies should be taken into consideration, as they significantly affected germanys fortunes in the war


Italy was number 7 in aircraft produced in WW 2 do you think that it would do anything to change the balance I do not


----------



## Sagittario64 (Dec 5, 2011)

I believe top luftwaffe officials were planning to have german factories and manufacturers produce the german worked italian designs(heinkel for the SAI.403, for example). germany had quite larger capability for mass production than italy. and theyd probably be disappointed by the poor quality of the aircraft they would have initially recieved from italy, and thus decided to make the planes themselves. but if this situation is going on, it is possible the germans would have sent workers and engineers to fix the manufacturing problems italy had


----------



## parsifal (Dec 5, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> I am unclear - in the current premise - what the status of the German-Russian MT Pact of September, 1939. Can someone please clarify this. ????
> 
> MM




This is one of the key issues, along with what happens to japan. The status of the Rusians is one of the key issues. 

With regad to Russia, there are a number of possibilities:

1) the Russians eventually join the Axis as an active partner. In that scenario, if nothing else, the vast natural resources of the USSR support the rest of the Axis economies, the vast manpower resources place the Axis in an unassailable military position. The allies will be forced to capitulate under that scenario.

2) The Rusians start out in cahoots with the Axis, but remain neutral, suggesting the Rusians continue to follw their own foreign policy agenda. Eventually the Axis inability to pay the Russians for their resources ( as you know Axis economies were technically insolvent for most of the war, and needed the constant injection of "conquest money" to stay afloat. Without continual conquest, and the graduall pillaging of the European economies generally, and no access to international markets, the Axis economies are headed south in this scenario. 

With Russia pursuing its own agenda, and gradual drift away from economic support by the Russians, there has to be a gradual buildup of tension along the eastern front. Ties down a gradually weakening Germany to a large garrison on the eastern front.....a kind of Fascist "Cold War" if you like

3) The Russians do not sign the pact with the Germans and in fact retain a collective security stance in 1939. Maybe they go to war against the germans in 1939, maybe they dont, but either way, in this scenario the German demise is going to be rapid and complete. They have no economic access, and a hostile neighbour on their eaastern border. In this scenario, I doubt if the Germans would even be abale to take out France.

We have opted in this what if to simply say that the russians dont provide assistance but dont get involved in the battle.... akind of artificial option 2 variant. Hard to visualise or extrapolate that position. Russia cannot be ignored, and wont just sit around on its hands forever.....


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 5, 2011)

Sagittario64 said:


> This sort of pertains to germanys situation. If the western allies didnt use ground forces, italy wouldnt be invaded and the split wouldnt happen. aircraft production would still continue. Germany was trying to get several italian designs for its own use. these include the Re.2006, G.56, SAI.403. The G.56 was rated to be equal to the late 109 models, and equal or superior to the fw.190A. if germany had started producing these in the quantities they wanted, not only would the allies be dealing with bf.109s and fw.190s, they would have to deal with quite likely several JGs equipped with G.56s, if not SAI.403s and Re.2006s too. These fighters would not only boost the number of fighters germany had, but would also give them powerful bomber destroyers with more than adequate performance. The germans would also have the 4 or 5 hundred Re.2002s(equipped with BMW engines, possibly making them much more formidable fighter-bombers than the Piaggio engined ones) and CR.42LWs they wanted from Italy. correct me if im wrong with any of these assumptions, but i think that for any situation with germany fighting wwii hypothetical scenarios, her allies should be taken into consideration, as they significantly affected germanys fortunes in the war



If I may express a healthy dose of doubt that planes you declared as wanted for LW would've never seen such a service. 
Bf-109 makes a far batter point-defender than SAI.403 (it can knock out heavy bombers, too - unlike the 403); another bi-plane in WW2 is another anachronism; for a BMW-engined fighter bomber Germans have Fw-190F; Re.2006 was a paper project. That leaves us with G.56, a plane that really flew (prototype) in spring of 1944, so the production examples will be flying in early 1945 - with nothing exceptional to offer?


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 5, 2011)

Thanks Parsifal. M-R Pact in September '39 - set a 'line" between Nazis Germany and Stalinist Russia. If that Pact had not been settled, Russia would have been in no hurry to wrap up Gulkin Gol with Japan that September. Since Japan was the aggressor there, the Reds might have started to push into Japanese territory. Meanwhile, Germany would have had to forego Poland -- or take it alone -- but either way Hitler has no one covering his back when in invades France-Belgium.

No M-R Pact and Stalin would have just worked on his game -- eventually attacking Nazis Germany, but sending resources right up to the last minute.

But, if Hitler is getting resources in 1942 and 1943 from the Soviets, then it's a tough slog for Allied airpower ....

MM


----------



## Readie (Dec 5, 2011)

parsifal said:


> This is one of the key issues, along with what happens to japan. The status of the Rusians is one of the key issues.
> 
> With regad to Russia, there are a number of possibilities:
> 
> ...



We also have the economic squeeze applied by the Allies while Russian prevarication means that Germany is denied her natural resources. 
I think that the Russians are wily enough for your option 2 to be feasible in the context of this thread. I would not put it past the Russians to be in league with the allies at the same time. Sort of playing one off against the other.

I agree with you about the Axis insolvency. No country could afford WW2, the British were bankrupt along with the other Europeans. No change from today's EU /EZ shambles really. The late joiner in the 'bankrupt nation club' are our friends over the pond.

I know I draw parallels to the Nazi Reich and Roman Empire a lot but, the Nazi's tried to do everything too quickly and that was their undoing.

John


----------



## Jenisch (Dec 5, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> If that Pact had not been settled, Russia would have been in no hurry to wrap up Gulkin Gol with Japan that September. Since Japan was the aggressor there, the Reds might have started to push into Japanese territory.



I wouldn't desconsiderate a Japanese answer. The Japanese lost in Khalkhin Gol mainly due to underestimation of the enemy and lack of Intelligence data.


----------



## Readie (Dec 5, 2011)

Jenisch said:


> The Japanese lost significantly due to underestimation of the enemy and lack of Intelligence data.



Good point Jenisch. That Japanese lack of foresight is displayed at Pearl Harbour too...
John


----------



## Sagittario64 (Dec 5, 2011)

tomo pauk said:


> If I may express a healthy dose of doubt that planes you declared as wanted for LW would've never seen such a service.
> Bf-109 makes a far batter point-defender than SAI.403 (it can knock out heavy bombers, too - unlike the 403); another bi-plane in WW2 is another anachronism; for a BMW-engined fighter bomber Germans have Fw-190F; Re.2006 was a paper project. That leaves us with G.56, a plane that really flew (prototype) in spring of 1944, so the production examples will be flying in early 1945 - with nothing exceptional to offer?


 
Thats actually a very good point tomo. but in 1945 in this hypothetical scenario, what do you see the tides of the war as? but then again the scenario is for up to 1944, stating whether or not great britain and the usa had pummeled germany enough for an invasion, perhaps just like the d-day invasion. but without war on the eastern front, germany could put massive resources from the start into constructing a truly impenetrable Atlantic Wall. heavy guns used in the assault on the soviet union would be used to guard the approaches to the coast. i heard an interesting scenario though. if the soviet union had joined the axis, then it would be pretty much all over for the allies. there might still be a war going on in 1960 if the axis had controlled nearly all of europe, africa, and asia


----------



## Readie (Dec 5, 2011)

Sagittario64 said:


> i heard an interesting scenario though. if the soviet union had joined the axis, then it would be pretty much all over for the allies. there might still be a war going on in 1960 if the axis had controlled nearly all of europe, africa, and asia



You are right Sagittario,if Russia was more politically culturally aligned to the Axis it would have been game over for the allies. 
I suppose the greatest irony is that Stalin was no better or worse than Hitler with his brutalities ethnic cleansing but, as he 'won'and was included in the Allies history judges the Russians as WW2 heroes.

So, back to the thread. Does Russia hold the balance in WW2? I think it may...

John


----------



## Jenisch (Dec 5, 2011)

Readie said:


> Good point Jenisch. That Japanese lack of foresight is displayed at Pearl Harbour too...
> John



Yes. But after the Soviets started an all out offensive, the Japanese logically would even pull out of China if necessary to counter it. They would focus their Intelligence capability to monitor the Soviets. Therefore, it's possible they would not do the same mistake again. The main problem I see here is the Japanese obcession with counter-offensive, similar to the Stalin's one in the opening of Barbarossa, which cost much to the Soviets.


----------



## Sagittario64 (Dec 5, 2011)

If Russia was aligned to the axis, how would their fighters have turned out? they were still riding I-16s in late 1941, and they ramped up production of military equipment because they were being invaded. would we ever see fighters like the La-5 in this scenario, and in the massive quantities that they were really produced? but im not sure how soviet-japanese relations would go. the incident in 1939 kinda drifted them apart.


----------



## Readie (Dec 5, 2011)

Jenisch said:


> Yes. But after the Soviets started an all out offensive, the Japanese logically would even pull out of China if necessary to counter it. They would focus their Intelligence capability just to monitor the Soviets. Therefore, it's possible they would not do the same mistake again. The main problem I see here is the Japanese obcession with counter-offensive, similar to the Stalin's one in the opening of Barbarossa, which cost much to the Soviets.



We mustn't forget the warrior culture in Japan ( if that is the right expression) they fought at a different level to all other WW2 combatants. Maybe it was the utter refusal to 'surrender' or admit defeat that cost them so dearly (and the allies too I might add). Stalin was also obsessed with 'mother Russia' and the Russians fought at the next level down from the Japanese, without regard to the loss of individual life.
That is it in a nutshell...individual life is unimportant.
JOhn


----------



## Jenisch (Dec 5, 2011)

Readie said:


> We mustn't forget the warrior culture in Japan ( if that is the right expression) they fought at a different level to all other WW2 combatants. Maybe it was the utter refusal to 'surrender' or admit defeat that cost them so dearly (and the allies too I might add). Stalin was also obsessed with 'mother Russia' and the Russians fought at the next level down from the Japanese, without regard to the loss of individual life.
> That is it in a nutshell...individual life is unimportant.
> JOhn



I don't think the Russians were like the Japanese in this regard. This appears to be a Cold War myth. While the Japanese actually did this kind of thing. They thought they were spiritually superior to their enemies, and this would overcome everything, including material difficults. I would say they were 50/50 in the spiritual and material questions to make their tactical decisions.


----------



## Readie (Dec 5, 2011)

Jenisch said:


> I don't think the Russians were like the Japanese in this regard. This appears to be a Cold War myth...



Without sidetracking from the original thread Jenisch, please have a look at this figures about Soviet WW2 deaths World War II casualties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 13.9% of the total population killed. I know its wiki but, it illustrates my point.

John


----------



## bobbysocks (Dec 5, 2011)

ok first as far as russia goes. i think old joe would have been smiling so wide he could have eaten a banana sudeways ... watching everyone else in the world beat each other up while he makes money. he said in one of his speaches that they ( the ussr ) would watch everyone else expend their resources and drain their supplies...THEN they would go it with fresh ( but not battle tested << my opinion ) troops and act as peace keepers..aka take over. so i dont think they would have been in any hurry to jump into the fray ( although at some point they would have no option ) and would have picked who they would side with depending on the situation at the moment and which would have got them THEIR goals. i also dont know if they could have capitalized on their success against the japanese and expanded. i think the ussr had more manpower but the japs had a better military..i think it would have turned around with japan having the upper hand.

could allied air power cut the supply lines in africa? what bases are the allies flying out of? and can the allies keep those bases supplied. germany held much of north africa...so your operating sphere is limited. with out invading NA your aircraft are not even going to be a factor against the german supply lines. so you are speaking of allied submarines. without germany going into russia a NA landing would have been harder to mount.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 5, 2011)

Readie said:


> We also have the economic squeeze applied by the Allies while Russian prevarication means that Germany is denied her natural resources.
> I think that the Russians are wily enough for your option 2 to be feasible in the context of this thread. I would not put it past the Russians to be in league with the allies at the same time. Sort of playing one off against the other.
> 
> I agree with you about the Axis insolvency. No country could afford WW2, the British were bankrupt along with the other Europeans. No change from today's EU /EZ shambles really. The late joiner in the 'bankrupt nation club' are our friends over the pond.
> ...




Hi John


Nazi Germany was an unviable state in the longer term, without access to resources, and access to quick forms of cash, in the form of conquest money. Without access to Russian resources, on one side of her frontiers, and contained by the allied blockade on the western front front, that leaves only the southern front. We have already done quite a bit of bloodletting on that issue....but I remain unmoved by the counter arguments about the possibilities in this area. Most people seem to think long term gains on the southern front are not possible. i take an even more pessimistic view, I dont think anything much beyond the historical gains for the germans was possible. The main limiting factor is logistics....the italians merchant marines and the ports they could use were simply too limited to achieve much.

So at the end of all this we have germany bottled up and constrained by both a cash flow and import restrictions. It all gets down to whether the Russians give access to their resources to the germans.

This equation generates an awful equation for the germans, WWII was a war of machines, and without access to money and resources, germany and her axis partners are on the losing horse in this department.They have vastly improved nmanpower availability, and far less attrition to their tanks, trucks and aircraft reserves, but this is balanced against a much enhanced allied military capability and increased manpower reserves as well. The whole thing looks very meat grinderish to me. 

Regards


----------



## vinnye (Dec 5, 2011)

If the Russians were not forced into the war by the ir invasion, I bleieve that Stalin would have continued to stay out of the fighting and re-equip and develop Russia and its infra-structure.
This would have allowed the LW to keep up the air attacks on Britain. If the LW had continued grinding down the RAF bases and Radar installations - then the Germans may have had an opportunity to invade Britain brfore the US could intervene.
That would have enabled Germany to pretty much do as she pleased for a number of years. No disruption to many resources by RAF or RN.
Germany develops stealth aircraft (Horton designs) and maybe the A bomb?
Now what does the US do?


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 5, 2011)

bobbysocks said:


> could allied air power cut the supply lines in africa? what bases are the allies flying out of? and can the allies keep those bases supplied. germany held much of north africa...so your operating sphere is limited. with out invading NA your aircraft are not even going to be a factor against the german supply lines. so you are speaking of allied submarines. without germany going into russia a NA landing would have been harder to mount.


Africa was controlled by by allied leaning countries save Vichy France. Aircraft were being ferried direct Africa very early on prior to Pearl Harbour ,Juan Trippe and Ferry Command worked together to routes up so that aircraft were Ferried to the Gold Coast and then to operational units . BOAC was upset at this as they Trippe was trodding on their turf


----------



## Sagittario64 (Dec 5, 2011)

parsifal said:


> Hi John
> 
> 
> Nazi Germany was an unviable state in the longer term, without access to resources, and access to quick forms of cash, in the form of conquest money. Without access to Russian resources, on one side of her frontiers, and contained by the allied blockade on the western front front, that leaves only the southern front. We have already done quite a bit of bloodletting on that issue....but I remain unmoved by the counter arguments about the possibilities in this area. Most people seem to think long term gains on the southern front are not possible. i take an even more pessimistic view, I dont think anything much beyond the historical gains for the germans was possible. The main limiting factor is logistics....the italians merchant marines and the ports they could use were simply too limited to achieve much.
> ...



Thanks for this view on the economic side of germany in wwii. i had always wondered how they paid for all the stuff they were building.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 5, 2011)

"... the Nazi's tried to do everything too quickly and that was their undoing.".

That trait is not limited to the Nazis -- the modern German state Bismarck created was stamped with that impatience and cut-to-the-chase disposition from Day One: the Franco-Prussian War. 

MM


----------



## Siegfried (Dec 6, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> "... the Nazi's tried to do everything too quickly and that was their undoing.".
> 
> That trait is not limited to the Nazis -- the modern German state Bismarck created was stamped with that impatience and cut-to-the-chase disposition from Day One: the Franco-Prussian War.
> 
> MM



If you are going to seed an off topic anti-german post I will seed a counter.

The Franco-Prussian war can in no conceivable way be blamed on the Prussians or Germans. 

It is entirely a French caused war.

The Franco Prussian war of 1870 was a direct result of French apprehension 
over the dominance of Prussia over the newly created North German 
confederation. (I.E. a united Germany) that was voluntarily forming.

Emperor Napoleon III of France attempted to humiliate the Prussians 
over the issue of a successor to the Spanish throne and when Bismarck 
refused to grovel the French declared war. 

It was a disaster for the French. The other great powers of Europe 
clearly seeing France as the aggressor stayed neutral while the 
still independent southern German states allied themselves with 
the North german confederation setting the stage for German 
unification 

The war was 100% foly of Napoleon III. The crisis arose 
as the result of the deposition of Isabella II of Spain. 

A distant relative of the King of Prussia , Leopold Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen 
was offered the throne in 1870. Napoleon III threatened war and the 
result was that Leopold refused the offer as a result of 'advice' from 
Bismarck. 

That should have satisfied the French but they decided to rub the 
noses of the Prussians in the dirt and their ambassador 
Count Vincent Benedetti intercepted the Prussian King while he 
was strolling on the on the promenade of the Kursaal and issued 
a curt demand that the king should guarantee that he would never again 
permit the candidacy of a Hohenzollern prince to the Spanish throne. 

The king declined to do so pointing out that he could not possibly 
make any declaration that would last in perpetuity. The French ambassador 
the departed in a huff and the King made it known via his adjutant he would 
have no further dealings with Benedetti. This was made known to Bismarck via 
telegram. 

Bismarck issued a statement to the press of the incicent which read. 

"After the news of the renunciation of the Prince von Hohenzollern had been 
communicated to the Imperial French government by the Royal Spanish 
government, the French Ambassador in Ems made a further demand on His 
Majesty the King that he should authorize him to telegraph to Paris that His 
Majesty the King undertook for all time never again to give his assent 
should the Hohenzollerns once more take up their candidature. His Majesty 
the King thereupon refused to receive the Ambassador again and had the 
latter informed by the Adjutant of the day that His Majesty had no further 
communication to make to the Ambassador." 

The French then misstranlated the Ems dispatch to make it sound somewhat insulting.

Had Bismarck wanted a war he could have pressured Leopold 
to accept the Spanish throne. The reality is that Napoleon III was 
set on a building a new empire. In addition to the disastrous 
Mexican adventure the French seized French IndoChina, made 
Rome and the papal states subject to French rule and fought 
a war against Austria. 

Napoleon III wanted to intervene on the Confederate side in the 
American Civil War but was forced to rethink that when the 
British made it clear that they would not support such a 
move. In short he had the ambition of Napoleon I but not 
the ability. After the Austro Prussian war of 1866 the French 
demanded "compensation" for France's neutrality this was to 
be Prussian agreement for a French annexation of Belgium and 
Luxembourg. 

Bismarck took the view that if the French were intent on war now was 
as good a time as any but he would have been equally happy had 
the French simply replaced their ambassador. 

The demand for war came about as a result of the (French) edited 
version of the text of the Ems Dispatch in which the demands 
made of the Prussians were portrayed as a request and false 
claims were made that the Prussian King had publically insulted 
the French Ambassador. In fact he had been rather polite given 
the tone of the French demands. 

There was plenty of wiggle room, the French had already won 
their points regarding the Spanish throne, it was their decision 
to further humiliate the Prussians that was the big mistake. 

France was just as expansionist and in Europe following the Napoleonic 
wars was regarded with deep suspicion. To get some idea of this 
envisage a situation in the 1980's in which Germany is ruled by 
a relative of Adolf Hitler who has declared himself Fuhrer with the 
title Adolf II. The guarantees to Belgium that drew Britain into WW1 
had originally been made in part due to the threatened annexation 
of Belgium by France. 

This is why the rest of Europe, including Britain were quite happy 
to see the French defeated in this manner.

I would alose steer you towards

Dealing in Hate: The development of anti-German propaganda 

It has been estimated that there were "about twenty-six hundred 
important battles involving European states" in the 460 years between 
1480 and 1940. Of these, France participated in forty-seven percent, 
"Germany (Prussia)" in twenty-five percent, and England and Russia in 
twenty-two percent each. The Prussian record can hardly be described 
as uniquely warlike on the basis of such evidence! It might also be 
added that geographic factors, like Britain's insular position and 
Russia's remoteness from the mainstream of European history during the 
period, doubtless helped considerably to reduce their percentage of 
involvement. 


Professor Quincy Wright offers this further statistical evidence for 
the same period, that is, 1480-1940: 

Of the 278 wars involving European states during this period, the 
percentage of participation by the principal states was: England, 28; 
France, 26; Spain, 23; Russia, 22; Austria, 19; Turkey, 15; Poland, 
11; Sweden, 9; Netherlands, 8; Germany (Prussia), 8; Italy 
(Savoy-Sardinia), 9; and Denmark, 7.7 

In the circumstances, one is compelled to assent to Dr. Wright's 
conclusion that "attribution of a persistently warlike character to 
certain states ... seems not to have been based upon a comparison of 
any objective criteria of warlikeness."8 

These are some of Bismark's sayings: 

1 The Herzegovina question is not worth the bones of a Pomeranian 
Soldier. 
[Fr., L'affaire Herzegovinienne ne vaut pas les os d'un fusilier 
pomeranien.] 
- [War] 

2 some damn fool thing in the Balkans 
[his prediction of what would ignite the next major European 
war] 

3 "Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying 
on the battlefield will think hard before starting a war." 

4 Beware of sentimental alliances where the consciousness of good 
deeds is the only compensation for noble sacrifices. 
[Otto von Bismarck, Bismarck and the German Empire by Erich Eyck] 

5 "When you want to fool the world, tell the truth." 
-Otto Von Bismarck 

6 "Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially 
denied." 
-Otto Von Bismarck 

7 When you want to fool the world, tell the truth. 

8 People never lie so much as after a hunt, during a war or before an 
election. 
-Otto von Bismarck 

9 Never believe in anything until it has been officially denied. 

10 You see things; and you say, "Why"; But I dream things that never 
were; and I say, "Why not?" 
(obviously plagiarised by King speach writer)


----------



## gjs238 (Dec 6, 2011)

vinnye said:


> If the Russians were not forced into the war by the ir invasion, I bleieve that Stalin would have continued to stay out of the fighting and re-equip and develop Russia and its infra-structure.
> This would have allowed the LW to keep up the air attacks on Britain. If the LW had continued grinding down the RAF bases and Radar installations - then the Germans may have had an opportunity to invade Britain brfore the US could intervene.
> That would have enabled Germany to pretty much do as she pleased for a number of years. No disruption to many resources by RAF or RN.
> Germany develops stealth aircraft (Horton designs) and maybe the A bomb?
> Now what does the US do?


Weren't there contingency plans to evacuate the Monarchy and Crown Jewels to North America in case this happened?


----------



## gjs238 (Dec 6, 2011)

Sagittario64 said:


> i had always wondered how they paid for all the stuff they were building.


 Whoa! There was a great History Channel documentary on this. Plunder, and bank support from Switzerland. The Swiss had to walk a delicate line. Every now and then the issue of Swiss banking during the war, plundered gold from concentration camps, etc comes up in the press.


----------



## Readie (Dec 6, 2011)

parsifal said:


> Hi John
> 
> 
> Nazi Germany was an unviable state in the longer term, without access to resources, and access to quick forms of cash, in the form of conquest money. Without access to Russian resources, on one side of her frontiers, and contained by the allied blockade on the western front front, that leaves only the southern front. We have already done quite a bit of bloodletting on that issue....but I remain unmoved by the counter arguments about the possibilities in this area. Most people seem to think long term gains on the southern front are not possible. i take an even more pessimistic view, I dont think anything much beyond the historical gains for the germans was possible. The main limiting factor is logistics....the italians merchant marines and the ports they could use were simply too limited to achieve much.
> ...




Hi Michael,
Nazi Germany could not just stand still, Hitlers adoration was built on victorious campaigns and the sense that the German people were winning.
If, as you suggest, Germany was bottled up with limited choices Hitler could only choose the route to access raw materials in order to feed the 'war machine' and continue his own agenda.
I think that we over estimate the Russians ability to maintain a war without allied assistance.
I take allies to be The British, Commonwealth and the USA. The Russians greatest weapon was the sheer scale and harshness of their land.
Whatever Hitler decided to do you have hit the nail on the head with 'meat grinder'.
Unless Nuclear weapons were deployed to save allied casualties using the same rational as the USA commanders when face with the cost of a land invasion of Japan.
Regards
John


----------



## Readie (Dec 6, 2011)

gjs238 said:


> Whoa! There was a great History Channel documentary on this. Plunder, and bank support from Switzerland. The Swiss had to walk a delicate line. Every now and then the issue of Swiss banking during the war, plundered gold from concentration camps, etc comes up in the press.



A bit off topic but,
The Gnomes of Zurich should come clean with this vault of shame.
It has gone on long enough.
John


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 6, 2011)

".... If you are going to seed an off topic anti-german post I will seed a counter."

Seed away, my friend, after all it's summer in Australia .....  and if not now, when ...?

Had I wanted to write an anti-German screed I would be using language much harsher than "impatient" and "cut-to-the-chase" to do it ..... 

I simply make the point that "Nazis'" traits were German traits in evidence longer than just 1933-45 .... and the last time I checked ... the Nazis _were_ German. 

I think your trigger-finger might be a little itchy this morning, Siggy -- can I call you Siggy .

(Your lengthy analysis is _really _off topic -- but a good read nonetheless. Why not start a thread -- England : the most war-like nation, Y/N? That will get a broad response )

MM


----------



## Readie (Dec 6, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> ".... If you are going to seed an off topic anti-german post I will seed a counter."
> 
> Seed away, my friend, after all it's summer in Australia .....  and if not now, when ...?
> 
> ...




Siggy, 

You have a pm from me on this very subject.

John


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 6, 2011)

Keep it on topic, or the thread will be closed. 

Come on guys...


----------



## iron man (Dec 6, 2011)

On topic:
In response to the initial question, posed at the head of this thread:

*Could the (W) Allies defeat Germany only with air power?*The answer is unequivocally yes.

Look at the historical bombing campaign for proof of this.

The ultimate collapse of the German war economy started in the period following the Normandy invasion, when the allied air forces were freed from pre-invasion duties and returned to the skies of Germany proper. There is a very good book on this subject, written by Alfred C. Mierzejewski. I would advise anyone with interest in the subject (ostensibly) being discussed here, to get a copy and read it: "The Collapse of the German War Economy, 1944-1945: Allied Air Power and the German National Railway". The summation of the thesis presented?

1. The German war economy ran on coal. Full Stop.
2. This coal was internally distributed by two means; The DRG (railways) and the network of interior waterways. Full Stop.
3. The Western Allied Air Forces (by a combination of both targeted attacks on infrastructure chokepoints, and fortuitous happenstance) completely destroyed this infrastructure in the period between August 1944 and early 1945. Full Stop.

The author's thesis is supported by his extensive study of the holdings (primarily BAMA) of primary operational records of the German Railways (DRG) and interior waterways during this period. 


Expounding from recorded history into the provided hypothetical, it's my conclusion that with Germany having more resources to throw at the _problem_, the outcome would be far bloodier than it was in recorded history...but the persistence of effort towards these ends would have borne fruit in the long haul. 

As one prior poster pointed out, the vast resources being directed towards the bombing effort were really only coming to fruition (in terms of meaningful tonnage) during the last calendar year of the war; i.e. the period that Mierzejewski considers in his analysis.

Secondly?

The recent poster with the "Germany's economy only continued to function on the plunder of her conquests" pov is most certainly referencing the 2006 work of J Adam Tooze: "The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi War Economy".

_Anybody_ attempting to discuss Nazi Germany's _"options"_ in war (without reading and understanding this work), is (IMO) treading on _very_ thin ice. 

My two cents, FWIW.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 6, 2011)

".... The recent poster with the "Germany's economy only continued to function on the plunder of her conquests" pov is most certainly referencing the 2006 work of J Adam Tooze: "The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi War Economy".

Anybody attempting to discuss Nazi Germany's "options" in war (without reading and understanding this work), is (IMO) treading on very thin ice...."

I agree, i.m. 

However, with the Soviets 'out' of the picture, per the premise of the thread, I don't agree with your "yes" (without resorting to the big A)

MM


----------



## Jenisch (Dec 6, 2011)

iron man said:


> On topic:
> In response to the initial question, posed at the head of this thread:
> 
> *Could the (W) Allies defeat Germany only with air power?*The answer is unequivocally yes.
> ...



And we could expect an earlier and more intense bombing campaign in this scenario. 

Even so, a major problem I see here is Hitler putting efforts in the nuclear weapons development.


----------



## iron man (Dec 6, 2011)

Jenisch said:


> And we could expect an earlier and more intense bombing campaign in this scenario.
> 
> Even so, a major problem I see here is Hitler putting efforts in the nuclear weapons development.



I have done extensive reading on this "problem"...*not on the internet either.*

Hitler's opinions on (his words, not mine) "Jewish science" are a matter of record.

As he (Hitler) is the one (ultimately) holding the purse strings of Nazi procurment policies, this will require a fundamental shift in his "Weltanschaung"; and from my examination of the German leader's psyche, the likelyhood of this _ever happening _are remote.

Next?


----------



## iron man (Dec 6, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> ".... The recent poster with the "Germany's economy only continued to function on the plunder of her conquests" pov is most certainly referencing the 2006 work of J Adam Tooze: "The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi War Economy".
> 
> Anybody attempting to discuss Nazi Germany's "options" in war (without reading and understanding this work), is (IMO) treading on very thin ice...."
> 
> ...



Once fully mobilized for war, the USA has the *industrial power *to squash Hitler...many times over. 

If completely paving England over with airfields is seen as a requirement to meet these ends, then it will be done. 

All the resources that the Third Reich can muster will do nothing to change this. 

If a concerted industrial focus is applied by the USA towards the application of "bombing Germany into the stone age" (at the expense of any other war effort: _is this not what the OP asked_?) then IMO, all the Bf 109's, Fw 190's and FlAK guns in the world will not be able to stop them doing what it is that they want to do. 

Also? Western development of nuclear weapons are _an eventuality_...not a "what if".


----------



## Juha (Dec 6, 2011)

Hello Siegfried
not wanting to derail this thread I put my comment on the claim that Germany/Prussia participitate only 8 wars during 1480-1940 here
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/1800-1914/germany-vs-its-neighbours-31110.html#post846495
After all I counted Germany/Prussia participating 8 wars just during that period, ie 1800-1914.

Juha


----------



## Readie (Dec 6, 2011)

'Once fully mobilized for war, the USA has the industrial power to squash Hitler...many times over. 

If completely paving England over with airfields is seen as a requirement to meet these ends, then it will be done. 

All the resources that the Third Reich can muster will do nothing to change this'. 

Ironman, The problem is one of logistics. The USA's industrial power and manpower that can be brought to bear is well documented.
The problem is that Europe is a long way from Detroit.

I'm not convinced that Germany could be weakened enough to unconditionally surrender with conventional bombs.
If the allied decision was to attack by air alone that the final blows would have to be nuclear.
This would have been possible after the success of the Japanese A bombs.
When? Again that is uncertain, Maybe the late 1940's as already suggested on this thread,

Its interesting to speculate but, that is all we can do with any of the suggested scenarios.

John


----------



## gjs238 (Dec 6, 2011)

Readie said:


> I'm not convinced that Germany could be weakened enough to unconditionally surrender with conventional bombs.



But I think the question of the thread was meant to be, would this be sufficient to support an invasion.


----------



## Readie (Dec 6, 2011)

gjs238 said:


> But I think the question of the thread was meant to be, would this be sufficient to support an invasion.



* Could the Allies defeat Germany only with air power? *

That was the original question gjs.
John


----------



## vinnye (Dec 6, 2011)

I do believe that there would have been plans to have the Royal Family relocated to North America (probably Canada?) along with the Crown Jewels and as much treasure as possible in the event of an invasion.
What this would achieve - I am not sure except that there would have been some figurehead for any resistance movement.

I am not certain who would have had the A bomb first? The Allies were certainly concerned onough to destroy the heavy water that had been produced by Germant, and attack Peenamunde to hanper the progress being made.

Without the distraction of the Russian campaign - Britain may not have been able to hold out long enough to become the American airforce base needed to pursue the airwar in late 1941?

If the USA was to try to use airpower - even the B29 - I doubt it had the range to make the trip/
Also Germany would have been able to develop its jet aircraft programs to make the persecution of that air war extremely costly.

So, my thoughts are - no the Allies could not use airpower alone to defeat Germany.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 6, 2011)

Agreed. But .....:

".... I am not sure except that there would have been some figurehead for any resistance movement." 

The Commonwealth was held together by a wee bit _more_ than "figureheads"  but ..... Americans never quite grasp that ....  understandably, I guess.

Canada had a variety of minor royalty with us as guests during the war -- many young uns. The Commonwealth was/is Plan B, Plan C, Plan D .... etc. for the preservation of Magna Carta Parliamentary democracy ..... geographical options ....  so to speak.

MM


----------



## parsifal (Dec 6, 2011)

The heavy water plants were producing H3O, not enriched uranium. The technology needed to produce a "H" Bomb as opposed to an "A" bomb are several orders of magnitude. 

Ive read a report somewhere, that estimates the germans were at least 10 years off producing their first "H" bomb. They were not making any significant efforts into "A" bomb development, though I will stand corrected if people have specific information.

Edit;

I found this article online, which appears to give a pretty good non-scientific history of the development of nuclear weapons before and during the war. I can see my comments above are very wide of the mark, compared to this article, except for the crucial bit of information that the germans were very, very far away from developing nuclear weapons.

Anyway here is the link, and people should make their minds up for themselves:

German Nuclear Weapons


----------



## Siegfried (Dec 6, 2011)

iron man said:


> On topic:
> In response to the initial question, posed at the head of this thread:
> 
> *Could the (W) Allies defeat Germany only with air power?*The answer is unequivocally yes.
> ...



Without a war in the east the Reich has several million more men to dedicate to air defense. More pilots, more FLAK and FLAK ammunition, more aircraft factories. Millions less causualties. More money to put into radar systems research as well as it was the Germans abandoned a promissing line of radars in 1942 for lack of adaquete resources. Advanced aircraft types could be proceded with rather than shelved for lack of resources to develope them. The allies had many failed designs but a few worked; the Germans had less options to produce duds hoping for a good design.

The Luftwaffe would be far more capable of protecting its canals and railways. They in ancase were only put put of action well after d-day when allied forces could opperate fighters from France. With no war in the east there would be a million more troops stationed along Normandy and that invasion just wouldn't succede.

Furthermore with less demands in the east its likely a secondary truck manufacturing industry could grown to bypass the velnerable railways and canals (to an degree).

Tooze is idolised, but his book is devoid of facts, figures. He just expects you to trust his interpretation of someting he has seen but not seen fit to publish. Some elements of this
book will stand but others will fall when scrutinised.

In 1941 the Luftwaffe introduced the Wurzburg Riesse radar which was a giant 7m dish version of the 3m dish Wurzburg. It had connical scan, 0.15 degree bearing accuracy and 16m range accuracy. There was nothing like it till the US SCR 584 which only saw service in 1944 (though was available in 1943). Though bulky Wurzburg Riesse could do the job if money was spent in building enough of them.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 6, 2011)

".... Tooze is idolised, but his book is devoid of facts, figures. He just expects you to trust his interpretation of ....."

110-odd pages of Tables and annotated footnotes is hardly devoid..... ...  .. in a 790 page book.

You are free to agree with him or not, according to your mind set, but Tooze is first and foremost an economist .... and the facts and figures 'framework' of Nazis economy is no secret - but what Tooze sees in the figures are the political choices that Nazis leaders and politicians had to make ... and the consequences.

I know of no other historian that has brought this political perspective (economic politics, war strategy) to the Third Reich besides Tooze. That doesn't make him an IDOL ... just clear headed.

MM


----------



## Siegfried (Dec 6, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> ".... Tooze is idolised, but his book is devoid of facts, figures. He just expects you to trust his interpretation of ....."
> 
> 110-odd pages of Tables and annotated footnotes is hardly devoid..... ...  .. in a 790 page book.
> MM



I've got the book, data is extremely sparse, often unreadable graphics and tables, sources of the tables not provided, poor indication of sources. I am very unimpressed. He may as well be just another historian wanting to be paid for opining.

Tooze is presented as some kind of econometrician who has scientifically proven something. He hasn't done a solid job at all. The book doesn't deserve half the praise it gets despite his novel approach. Not to be trusted yet.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 6, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> ".... Tooze is idolised, but his book is devoid of facts, figures. He just expects you to trust his interpretation of ....."
> 
> 110-odd pages of Tables and annotated footnotes is hardly devoid..... ...  .. in a 790 page book.
> 
> ...



Overy makes a similar, if somewhat older analysis, he is a historian and an economist.There are in fact a number of pretty good analyses of the German management 9or more correctly mismanagement) of their war economy.


----------



## Siegfried (Dec 6, 2011)

iron man said:


> I have done extensive reading on this "problem"...*not on the internet either.*
> 
> Hitler's opinions on (his words, not mine) "Jewish science" are a matter of record.
> 
> ...



I don't know what books you've read but there are a lot of bad ones out there. Mark Walkers are probably the best on this topic.

The whole jewish science thing was really a carear move by disgruntled academics playing politics to secure academic positions and support. Ultimatly Goebells let it fade away when it started to get to rediculouse and when Heisenbergs mother had a word with Goebells's mother. Hitler seems to have played no direct part in it at all. It played little part in the German nuclear effort. People like Paul Harteck and Kurt Diebener were intellectually and morally quite capable of building an atomic bomb if given the resources. Hartek almost succeded in building the worlds first reactor bar for something as trivial as lack of dry ice. Heisenberg was equivocal about a bomb on many levels and not a driver in the matter at all.

Essentially the German program became a nuclear power program with a reactor planed but not bomb, the reactor was seen as an easier target and a stepping stone to a possible bomb. They probably could have gone critical sometime in 1943 bar shortage of materials and 1944 bar for the collapse of Germany, perhaps earlier. Clara Dopels work had shown that. They had several subcritical reactors that showed neutron multiplication factors. The last one at Haigerloch called the B8 (BVIII) had a neutron multiplication factor of 7 and only needed a 50% increase in volume (about 15% in linear diminesions). The Germans new about fast and slow netrons, morderators and control rods made of cadmium. That they did not know this arises from Goudsmits hatchet job. 

Basically the Germans knew how to dimension a reactor.

The loss of Gustave Hertz isoptope seperation work, he was foreced to leave academe and work for Siemens for his jewish background, didn't help German efforts in this area but nevertheless the Germans built and succesfully ran two devices that achieved enrichment: a uranium sluice and an ultra-centrifuge. Enrichment was not neccessary to make a reactor. Heavy Water could make small compact reactors without the use of enriched uranium: one reason the Germans focused on it. The desired for heavy water supplies which was a byproduct of electrolysis in Norway never materialised. Plants using new techniques such as the Geibe exhchange method could not be built by the time they were ready in 1943 or so. Low temperature low pressure fractional distillation was seen as vulnerable to bombing due to the height of the distillation columns.

A bomb effort would have followed a succesfull reactor demonstration : either based around uranium enrichment or plutonium.

From my understanding Heisenberg was asked if it were possible to build a bomb that could effect the outcome of the war, this he correctly ansered no as he couldn't do anthng within a year. Not even the USA could resource that.

Assuming a succesfull reactor from a generous supply of heavy water in say late 43 triggers a bomb program the Germans would take another 2 years to late 1945 to make an atomic bomb.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 6, 2011)

Siegfried said:


> I've got the book, data is extremely sparse, often unreadable graphics and tables, sources of the tables not provided, poor indication of sources. I am very unimpressed. He may as well be just another historian wanting to be paid for opinining.
> 
> Tooze is presented as some kind of econometrician who has scientifically proven something. He hasn't done a solid job at all. The book doesn't deserve half the praise it gets despite his novel approach. Not to be trusted yet.



So, are you saying the german economywas well managed, and efficient? What point or conclusion are you leading to here?


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 6, 2011)

".... Tooze is presented as some kind of econometrician who has scientifically proven something. He hasn't done a solid job at all. The book doesn't deserve half the praise it gets despite his novel approach. Not to be trusted yet...."

I don't think economics is science .... and neither is history .... so with my bias exposed, Siggy, you just sound _*cynical *_about Tooze's notoriety ... or is it idolatry. But I do appreciate your vast store of detailed information on a whole range of subjects.  

I would love you to comment on two areas Tooze covers that were eye-openers to me and to German-Canadian friends: The Volkswagen Peoples Car, and The Peoples Radio (to hear the Hitler broadcasts) . To me - both were very revealing about Nazis' economics in the consumer state. 

Please respond - I know you will have insights on these - and I'm all ears for good insights, my friend. 

MM


----------



## Trilisser (Dec 6, 2011)

Perhaps a question that air power fanatics don't like: would WW2 have had a substantially different end result if there had been no air power at all, i.e. there would have no aircraft in existence at all?


----------



## Jenisch (Dec 6, 2011)

Overy at least considerates equally economic, strategic and even the moral factors in Why The Allies Won. He argues it's wrong to considerate only the economic and numerical side, and I agree with him.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 6, 2011)

".... Perhaps a question that air power fanatics don't like: would WW2 have had a substantially different end result if there had been no air power at all, i.e. there would have no aircraft in existence at all?"

So ... *WWI* didn't happen ..... ?

Puzzled in Toronto 

MM


----------



## iron man (Dec 6, 2011)

Readie said:


> 'Once fully mobilized for war, the USA has the industrial power to squash Hitler...many times over.
> 
> If completely paving England over with airfields is seen as a requirement to meet these ends, then it will be done.
> 
> ...



Ummm...please?

Bolded 1) The _logistics_ of supporting the _historical _bombing effort...(while also _concurrently supporting an unprecidented build up of a land force_, sufficient to guarantee sucess in a cross channel invasion) was easily provided for in the historical case.
Bolded 2) Read my cited source...This is what actually happened. 

"Wunderwaffen" and all that "Luft '46" stuff notwithstanding...The USAAF will just continue to "bring it" (in ever increasing volumes), and Hitler's "house of cards" _will _collapse.


Seems I've sparked a return to debating the actual topic...go figure.

I will respond to the rest of the replies tomorrow am (MST)...I also have a life, (outside of this "stuff") and that takes precidence.


----------



## Trilisser (Dec 6, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> ".... Perhaps a question that air power fanatics don't like: would WW2 have had a substantially different end result if there had been no air power at all, i.e. there would have no aircraft in existence at all?"
> 
> So ... *WWI* didn't happen ..... ?
> 
> ...



....Assume that at the end of Aug. 1, 1939 all the aircraft in the world would fail to start till the end of the war...


----------



## parsifal (Dec 6, 2011)

Trilisser said:


> Perhaps a question that air power fanatics don't like: would WW2 have had a substantially different end result if there had been no air power at all, i.e. there would have no aircraft in existence at all?



Short answer is yes. Airpower was never decisive of itself. it still isnt. It cannot take and hold ground, cannot control the worlds oceans, is not that good at killing stuff, yet without it, achieving ground victories at acceptable cost becomes virtually impossible. This is especially true for the attacker. Without air power, reconnaisance becomes virtually impossible, so attacks are delivered more or less in the dark. Whilst airpower does not kill things on the ground all that well, they do inhibit movement and interdic the flow af supplies and replacements. 

Airpower in the strategic sense is a little harder to quantify, but it still has a substantial impact on industrial outputs and manpower availability. The germans expended huge amounts of treasure and manpower on their defences against the allied airborne bombardment over germany.so too did the allies in their attacks, but the allies can still count their efforts as a victory, because they could afford the cost, the axis could not


----------



## Readie (Dec 7, 2011)

iron man said:


> Ummm...please?
> 
> Bolded 1) The _logistics_ of supporting the _historical _bombing effort...(while also _concurrently supporting an unprecidented build up of a land force_, sufficient to guarantee sucess in a cross channel invasion) was easily provided for in the historical case.
> Bolded 2) Read my cited source...This is what actually happened.
> ...




Shades of Pk40 Ratsel I think Chris.

John


----------



## Siegfried (Dec 7, 2011)

parsifal said:


> So, are you saying the german economywas well managed, and efficient? What point or conclusion are you leading to here?



One thing point Tooze does assertively dismisses is that the Germans were not in an war economy footing in 1940, 1941 or 1942 and that Hitler was just too afraid to cut into leasure time. This turns out to be myth and part of the usual looney tunes historian regurgitation of supposed Nazi/German total incompetance. They most defineity were on a war economy footing however the major investment was going into building factories, tooling, making mass production facilites etc to make the weapons since German factories were not setup for mass production. Once that was complete focus and manpower could shift to production. Speer reapt the benefits of this when he took over after Fritz Todt's death in a plane crash.

As far as the German over spending on weapons, they didn't. They spent enough to win against France and Poland simultaneously. Once the threat of these nations had been neutralised and they were occupied the resources they once used on military expenditure was no longer required by them and could be appropriated for the Reichs security needs.

In general its is likely true that it was difficult for the Germans to export enough to import the special materials they needed for manufacture of weapons: eg nickel, chromium etc etc and that this would have created a foreign exchange problem. He notes that barter arrangments with Sth America were a poor bargain for the Germans. However for the Germans security of export and import markets was more important.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 7, 2011)

Readie said:


> Shades of Pk40 Ratsel I think Chris.
> 
> John



How? 

If I understood him correctly, all he said is that with the US Industrial might, the Germans were bound to lose. If that is not a fact, then I don't what is...

By the way he joined back in 2006. Way before P-40K-5/Ratsel.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 7, 2011)

I see. I believe this conversation has been had before.....Tooze does indeed say that there was no slack in the german economy in the early years, and he does say that many socalled civilian projects were really capital investment programs for armaments production, but he says anything but that the the nazis managed their wartime economy efficiently. I would suggest that you are being selective in your use of tooze here....seeing and using what you think is useful and agreeing with your preconceptions and agenda driven points of view, and dismissing as meandering and confusing and unsupoorted arguments for those bits of the book that dont agree with what you are looking for. 

To give a more balanced appraisal, I have attached the link of a review of Tooze's book, so that people who have not read the book may decide for themselves on what his principal views aree, and the quality and depth of support that is contained in his work:

Review: The Wages of Destruction, Adam Tooze | afoe | A Fistful of Euros | European Opinion

Another review makes this observation regarding toozes assessment:

"_To sum up: Tooze shows Hitler's Germany was always too hampered by shortages of raw materials, notably crude oil and rubber but also iron ore and coal, animal feed and fertiliser, foreign currency and even labour, to attempt an independent industrial and commercial existence in peace, let alone a campaign of European conquest. He exposes the latent mismanagement of the Nazis and their wartime economy. For all the ingenuity of cynical opportunists such as Hjalmar Schacht, at the Reichsbank until 1939, and Speer, at Armaments after 1942, Germany passed through a succession of hair-raising mostly self inflicted financial and resource crises that hampered its armies and helped to bring on the final collapse_".

If this is an accurate review of Toozes book, then he is hardly singing the praises of Nazi economic management. 


What is your opinion on the management of the economies of the occupied territories? Do you consider the reich forced devaluations of currencies and artificial pegging of exports by occupied territories to be good management of the economic resources of the conquered territories. 

Also what is your take on on Dr. Hjalmar Horace Greeley Schacht ? Why did hitler sack a man many consider to be the one of the most gifted prewar bankers in Europe.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 7, 2011)

"..... One thing point Tooze does assertively dismisses is that the Germans were not in an war economy footing in 1940, 1941 or 1942 and that Hitler was just too afraid to cut into leisure time.."

I didn't take that away, S, the meaning I took away was that - starting in 1933, the German *AIRCRAFT industry* (along with public works programs like Autobauns, coal syn-fuel projects, etc.) launched the economic recovery ..... that's not a bad start but it is not flat-out war economy that you seem to be suggesting. That didn't come until 1942. 

".... They spent enough to win against France and Poland simultaneously....". They called the war in the west (not in Poland) the Phony War for a reason, S, _simultaneous_ --- hardly. And Germany took serious losses in Poland. Arguably, if the UK and France had been ready to seriously prosecute war against Germany from Day One of the Poland invasion, Hitler would have found out earlier in his life that war on two (simultaneous) fronts against determined opponents was problematic .... .

Siggy - dig out your copy of Tooze and refresh your memory on the Volkswagen dream and the Peoples' radio. They are two examples of just how completely out-of-whack the German economy was. (If they were in power today, their brand of economic self-sufficiency-at-any-price mumbo jumbo would look very much like The Greens .... woops ... _politics_ ... my bad .

MM


----------



## Tante Ju (Dec 7, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> Siggy - dig out your copy of Tooze and refresh your memory on the Volkswagen dream and the Peoples' radio. They are two examples of just how completely out-of-whack the German economy was.



I would say these are just _two_ examples. Its silly to say IMHO that because two programs out of thousends were stupid, the whole economy was poorly led and organised, bound to collapse etc. That's not serious economic analyise for anybody's standards... its more like journalism. you can find such in any country. On the greater scale of things however take a look at for example sythethic fuel programm. Expensive, yes, but it solved Germany stragetic depending on foreign fuel. Almost all air force run on this.. and most of the tanks. But I can see why Tooze needed bombastic conclusion - it makes book a seller. Great revelations sell books better than dry but professional analyze. Bottomline - when an author starts pointing fingers on isolated things and make drama of it, but real analyse is missing, I begin to doubt him.

Siggy, I think you are wasting too much time on this person.. he is already engaged in the underhand commenting of you.. leave him be, my experience, his mind is totally closed. I suggest we open new thread for this subject. I am sure many like to discuss civil.


----------



## Njaco (Dec 7, 2011)

> Siggy, I think you are wasting too much time on this person.. he is already engaged in the underhand commenting of you.. leave him be, my experience, his mind is totally closed. I suggest we open new thread for this subject. I am sure many like to discuss civil.


Tante, you've been warned before. Another personal attack on a member will be your last.



> ....underhand commenting of you..


Isn't that what you just did???????


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 7, 2011)

"... They are two examples of ...."

Tante Ju .... I read the book ... have you ....  ..?

MM aka "this person"


----------



## Tante Ju (Dec 7, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> "... They are two examples of ...."
> 
> Tante Ju .... I read the book ... have you ....  ..?
> 
> MM aka "this person"



Hi MM

Sorry if my post was misunderstandable. I was referr to the style of post 420, this was not written by you. It is litter with words like "agenda driven" and such. Moderation seems to think this agressive style against another member is OK, but it is not OK to point it out that I find it disturbing if post is directed against other member person, not his thought. Perhaps moderation also understand not point of my criticism. 

I am sorry if I mistakenly word my post that it is directed you, I did not mean to point that way. I do not agree with Tooze main line, I see you do agree, but I have no problem, both of us made their comments why. I think this is civil and okay way to express things. 

BTW I have read Tooze, but some years ago. I did not find him that convincingin main thrust line, its more of a concept with arguements, rather than analyse as I said before. I like books like that of Milward more. Its more analyse, showing what happened for what reason, rather to pass judgement. IMHO German industry was not organised poorly, but it was definite mistake, shown by Milward to cancel mobilising industry in end 1941. They have seen more stong production is needed for new EF needs, but danced back after crises elapsed in spring 1942 and industrie was going half-steam until 1943, with impressive result but too late.


----------



## Njaco (Dec 7, 2011)

I guess a lesson is in order..



> ...I would suggest that you are being selective in your use of tooze here....seeing and using what you think is useful and agreeing with your preconceptions and agenda driven points of view, and dismissing as meandering and confusing and unsupoorted arguments for those bits of the book that dont agree with what you are looking for.
> ...



from post #420 as you suggested. This - to me - is opinion and not demeaning to the other person in any way that I can see. The rest of the post gives facts and opinions in a very civilized way.

Now, your post #422 is littered with "agressive style against another member" .....



> Siggy, I think you are wasting too much time on this person..





> he is already engaged in the underhand commenting of you.





> his mind is totally closed



Do you see the difference? You have nothing but attacks on other members. You will stop.

And any further commenting on the moderation of this forum without being substantiated or in a PM, you will be banned.


----------



## Tante Ju (Dec 7, 2011)

Thank you for lesson, I take note for future when I see other poster selective use of source for their preconceptions and agenda driven points of view. I see now this right way of communication is expression of opinion, and not insultive in any way. I am sorry if I made errorneous indication of that.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 7, 2011)

"...... Do you see the difference? "

*With great respect to all* - English as a FIRST language makes a huge difference in english-language forums, especially when we are all _nuanced_ .... . I use ,  and  to telegraph to the reader that I'm friendly and from this carbon-based galaxy ...  ... I know we're not all from the SAME PLANET... but GALAXY RULES, eh.

MM


----------



## Njaco (Dec 7, 2011)

I am allowing for that - thats why no Infraction.


----------



## Readie (Dec 7, 2011)

Ho hum.
So,seriously... what is the answer to the thread question?
I must admit that I've got a bit lost....
Would the allies have succeeded?
To be clear, I have no axe to grind either way.
John


----------



## Vincenzo (Dec 7, 2011)

For me it too easy reply no, air power can not win a war alone (w/o nuclear weapons).


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 7, 2011)

In the context of the 20th Century - the world was either going to be speaking English, German or (after 1917) Russian . Take your pick and make your case. We all have 'vested' interests ...

Of course ... there's a whole new set of different 'realities' post-Gorbachev, post September 11 .... 

MM


----------



## iron man (Dec 7, 2011)

parsifal said:


> Overy makes a similar, if somewhat older analysis, he is a historian and an economist.There are in fact a number of pretty good analyses of the German management 9or more correctly mismanagement) of their war economy.


 
Overy's work was the "go to" source (in the English language), prior to Adam Tooze's publication. 

There are significant upgrades (IMO) to Overy's analysis in the work of Tooze; particularly with respect to the role of one Albert Speer and the whole "total war economy" business.

I've debated this (with many) on various fora, since the 2006 publication of "Wages".

I get it.

_You_ get it.

_Some_ never will...

For me, the most enlightening sections of "Wages" are actually in the details of the pre-war machinations that fed the (otherwise unsustainable) re-armament effort. Proper interpretation requires an understanding of economic theory as it applies to the period under discussion. This is the segment of Tooze that the flippant reader will bypass...in pursuit of the "good stuff"; _this (IMO),_ is why this book receives it's undeserved derisive commentary from the less erudite that populate cyberspace.
Point taken that English is not the primary tongue in many cases; this makes my point. I am rather well educated and function in English at a level that is likely above what one could consider as being "average".
That said?
_Understanding _what was being laid before me in the first couple of hundred pages of Tooze was a _major_ undertaking on my part.

Whether it's an _agenda_ on the part of those offering up semi-literate criticism, is a topic that falls outside of the discussion at hand; Personally? I choose to "let sleeping dogs lie" in this regard. This business of "lacking" references though? Rolling my eyes at this one...BIG TIME.

Have you read Mierzejewski's stuff? "Most Valuable Asset of the Reich; Vol 2" is also well worth the time...particularly the parts that deal with Reichsbahn Ost. It's a considerable upgrade on VanCrevald's chapter in "Supplying War"...again IMO.

All for now.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 7, 2011)

People are getting upset with my posts, but if i could offer some advice (even to myself) you are on safe ground if you remain focussed on the issue. My experience is that the mods will allow some deviation from the stated issue, provided their is intelligent debate. The mods will even allow a modicum of "spirited debate" (ne: argument), provided there is relevance to the issue, and things dont get too out of hand. If you are going to get cranky over an issue, make sure its the issue, and not the person. And rember, just because you believe ernestly in your POV or what you believe are the facts, doesnt mean that people will accept them. If you dont like disagreement, dont post, and dont enter the discussion. none of us have the right to control peoples thoughts or writings. 

Am I guilty of breaking these recommendations. you bet. Do I try and stick to them? all the time. 

What turns thread after thread south is that the discussions get heated, off topic, and usually abusive towards the person. Mods dont have much patience for that.

And if you have a death wish for your forum membership, pick a fight with a mod, or try and ignore their direction. Over the years ive gotten to know these guys pretty well. They put up with a lot, they are doing this job for niks, and have to troll through a lot of rubbish for long hours. Show them the respect they deserve guys. 

I am not going to respond to any replies to this post. its completely off topic. i offer it as friendly advice, from someone that has had a fair bit of experience in this place


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 7, 2011)

".... If you are going to get cranky over an issue, make sure its the issue, and not the person."

I am sure that there is a perception that "some" posters gang up on some "other" posters. Over time I have observed that that is not the case .... Commonwealth posters, for example, seem ready to drop the gloves in defense of the Commonwealth's role in WW1 and WW2. But on other issues we feel free to get "cranky" with each other (pbfoot and MM on the Monarchy, for example, altho no _crankiness_ there ).

Argue for what you believe in, be honest about what you don't know, and DON"T MAKE IT TOO ACADEMIC (verifiable experience is often far more telling in an argument than a "footnote".

There is a big difference between stating bald, well recognized truths that are unpleasant for some  but true nonetheless and vilifying a group, country or nationality. I was raised in a very pro British, pro Canada, pro Commonwealth environment by a great Mum who watched her Dad and 2 older brothers leave for war in 1914 -- and the brothers again in 1939. So when books from the "other side" started surfacing in the '50s (Cross of Iron, Road to Stalingrad, Stuka Pilot) they were eye-openers, and I read them with the same enthusiasm as I read Bader, Tuck, Yeo Thomas, Glostermann, Fitzroy MacLean and more ). I feel the same about material coming out of the former USSR today.

Parsifal, I never get upset with your posts ....  .. I do get cranky about the high value you place on international courts and tribunals ... .... yet suspect we that both agree on the sanctity of Rule of Law.

Great forum ... may it go on forever 

MM


----------



## Njaco (Dec 7, 2011)

To get back on track....

My feeing has always been that air power is just a singular component of a military force - you still need feet on the ground. If I can use a recent example, Desert Storm had total air power and destructive force but it still took the grunts to complete the operation.

So to the question: Could they defeat Germany? No, but air power could have created a situation where Germany would sue for peace. I guess it boils down to the definition of 'defeat' and what you would consider success.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 7, 2011)

youve hit the nail on the head NJ. Airpoower, even today is a force multiplier, but it isnt usually a war winner of itself. I can think of just one exception, the assault on Serbia in the last decade (when was that....2002???). But in the context of WWII airpower could not , in itself win wars. 

The reverse, however is not trues. without airpower, wars could definately be lost, and without airpower, wars could not be won. If you didnt have airpower, you could lose, and, if you didnt have airpower, you could not win. Applies to land and sea, incidentally


----------



## Readie (Dec 8, 2011)

parsifal said:


> youve hit the nail on the head NJ. Airpoower, even today is a force multiplier, but it isnt usually a war winner of itself. I can think of just one exception, the assault on Serbia in the last decade (when was that....2002???). But in the context of WWII airpower could not , in itself win wars.



Michael,
I agree with your 'muliplier' point. Airpower has delivered the 'knock out blow' in the Pacific war where a judgement was made either to use atomic weapons or expend 100's of thousands of US lives on the final assault on the Japanese homeland. Whether that was the right thing to do I'll leave to others to argue about.
Back to the ETO we have a similar situation, D Day, The Italian campaign and the Russian assault cost untold 1000's of lives and the question that vexes me is whether it would have been better to have used nuclear weapons on Germany to secure the unconditional surrender and then gone in with land forces to secure the peace.
I wonder if we had WW2 now what the High Command would choose to do?
John


----------



## Siegfried (Dec 11, 2011)

Tante Ju said:


> Hi MM
> 
> .



Thanks for the moral encouragement. Some folks are more rhetorical than serious.


----------



## Njaco (Dec 11, 2011)

What is that supposed to mean and how does it apply to the topic?


----------



## evangilder (Dec 11, 2011)

Njaco said:


> To get back on track....
> 
> My feeing has always been that air power is just a singular component of a military force - you still need feet on the ground. If I can use a recent example, Desert Storm had total air power and destructive force but it still took the grunts to complete the operation.
> 
> So to the question: Could they defeat Germany? No, but air power could have created a situation where Germany would sue for peace. I guess it boils down to the definition of 'defeat' and what you would consider success.



Absolutely correct. If you look at Vietnam and Korea, air power was thought to be able to bring about the end of the war as well. It is one additional tool in the toolbox. Air power can certainly be a great tool to soften things up before the boots hit the ground. But taking and holding territory is what decides the outcome.


----------



## Milosh (Dec 11, 2011)

evangilder said:


> Absolutely correct. If you look at Vietnam and Korea, air power was thought to be able to bring about the end of the war as well. It is one additional tool in the toolbox. Air power can certainly be a great tool to soften things up before the boots hit the ground. But taking and holding territory is what decides the outcome.



But air power in VN and Korea was severely restricted in what it was able to do by politicians.


----------



## Readie (Dec 11, 2011)

Milosh said:


> But air power in VN and Korea was severely restricted in what it was able to do by politicians.




Yes, and in every conflict since.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 11, 2011)

But substantially, airpower cannot take ground and hold it and generally cant root out a determined enemy enemy. In the context of WWII airpower was not sufficiently accurate or deadly enough to achieve outright victory independantly. Douhet and the other air theorists were just overoptimistic. But it could achieve the preconditions necessary for victory


----------



## evangilder (Dec 11, 2011)

Milosh said:


> But air power in VN and Korea was severely restricted in what it was able to do by politicians.



And with boots on the ground as well. Unfortunately, ROE can, and has, effectively nullified strategic advantages. But taking and holding territory cannot be done without boots on the ground. The only possible exception would be laying waste to a territory so that it was no longer usable to the enemy, but that's not a good way to go.


----------



## tyrodtom (Dec 11, 2011)

What about the Afgan-Russian conflict. The Russians definitely had air superority, but lost, or were just outlasted.


----------



## Readie (Dec 11, 2011)

tyrodtom said:


> What about the Afgan-Russian conflict. The Russians definitely had air superority, but lost, or were just outlasted.



No one has beaten the Afghans in relatively modern history.
John


----------



## evangilder (Dec 11, 2011)

tyrodtom said:


> What about the Afgan-Russian conflict. The Russians definitely had air superority, but lost, or were just outlasted.



Exactly. Air superiority was there and even with boots on the ground, they could not contain the Afghans. We are now in the same boat.


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 11, 2011)

evangilder said:


> Exactly. Air superiority was there and even with boots on the ground, they could not contain the Afghans. We are now in the same *HOLE*.



Fixed that for you


----------



## Readie (Dec 11, 2011)

fastmongrel said:


> Fixed that for you




Yep.

Would Hitler have unconditionally surrender if the B29's had delivered A bombs on the strongholds of Nazi Germany?
It took the Japanese 2 to get the message.
How many would it have taken Hitler?
If this would have worked think how many allied lives would have been saved.

John


----------



## DonL (Dec 11, 2011)

> Would Hitler have unconditionally surrender if the B29's had delivered A bombs on the strongholds of Nazi Germany?
> It took the Japanese 2 to get the message.
> How many would it have taken Hitler?
> If this would have worked think how many allied lives would have been saved.



This is very hard to speculate! But he wasn't very interested at the german people.
Many orders at 1945 showed that he wanted to destroy germany completely.
His argument was that the german people had failed against the enemy and were weak.
And weak people had not the right to live!

That was his credo!

Also it is possible that he (Hitler) would escalate the war with the A4 (V2) armed with Tabun warheads.
He has always denied the escalation with toxic gas, but after an A-bomb, I'm not sure what he was doing, because he knew no mercy even with the german people.


----------



## cimmex (Dec 11, 2011)

The question is, when were the US able to have another A bomb? They didn’t have enough uranium or plutonium after the strikes against
Japan.
cimmex


----------



## tyrodtom (Dec 11, 2011)

The only way Hilter could have got the message was if a A-bomb was droppen ON him. Or is someone close enough to him took the initiative and put a bullet in his head, he would not surrender. Hilter, was several statements he made to those around him thought the German nation didn't deserve to survive if they failed him. He didn't care about Germany or it's people, it was all about him.


----------



## tyrodtom (Dec 11, 2011)

Col. Tibbets and a crew were back in the US to pick up the third bomb when Japan surrendered. And more bombs were in production.


----------



## Readie (Dec 11, 2011)

DonL said:


> This is very hard to speculate! But he wasn't very interested at the german people.
> Many orders at 1945 showed that he wanted to destroy germany completely.
> His argument was that the german people had failed against the enemy and were weak.
> And weak people had not the right to life!
> ...




It is a complicated subject and Hitler was bonkers by 1945....
I'm sure the V2 would have used as intended. I have read that the WW1 horror of gas prevented even Hitler from using chemical weapons against his foes.
I'm aware that his 'care' of his people was nil to low and that's why I asked the question. 
The Japanese had little regard for the 'weak' and 'defeated' but, the Japanese high command surrendered when faced with complete destruction.
Whether Hitler and co would have surrendered given the same circumstances we'll never know.

John


----------



## Readie (Dec 11, 2011)

tyrodtom said:


> Col. Tibbets and a crew were back in the US to pick up the third bomb when Japan surrendered. And more bombs were in production.




Yes, so the nuclear strike capability was there.

John


----------



## DonL (Dec 11, 2011)

I'm not that convinced, that the Allies would drop an A-Bomb at germany.

Germany was at the middle of europe and many things can happen to friendly states that would be near the drop zone.
Where do you want to drop that thing, when even your own troops are on the ground at germany?

Also I think the german chemical weapons in conjunction with the V2, that could deliver this chemical weapons till england, was one major point, that japan was the goal and not germany.


----------



## Readie (Dec 11, 2011)

DonL said:


> I'm not that convinced, that the Allies would drop an A-Bomb at germany.
> 
> Germany was at the middle of europe and many things can happen to friendly states that would be near the drop zone.
> Where do you want to drop that thing, when even your own troops are on the ground at germany?
> ...



I was thinking of a pre invasion A bomb strike. Berlin the bunkers could have been obliterated and maybe, just maybe, German common sense may have prevailed to save allied German lives by calling WW2 to an end.

John


----------



## tyrodtom (Dec 11, 2011)

They didn'y know nearly as much about fallout from nukes in 1945 as we do today.

Both the V1 and V2 had a certain % of launch pad failures, one of the disadvantages of using slave labor in their manufacturing I guess. Using either as a system to disperse poison gas would probably result in some releases over Germany.


----------



## DonL (Dec 11, 2011)

> Both the V1 and V2 had a certain % of launch pad failures, one of the disadvantages of using slave labor in their manufacturing I guess. Using either as a system to disperse poison gas would probably result in some releases over Germany.



I don't deny this, I'm even sure that would happened. But the germans shot more then 3200 A4's and many of them to England.
And an A4 with a Tabun warhead is much more dangerous then a conventional A4, because you don't have to hit anything to be very dangerous.
And there was no possibility to shoot down the A4 other then the V1!

I'm convinced that this played a role to the very important persons that make the decisions.


----------



## Readie (Dec 11, 2011)

DonL said:


> I don't deny this, I'm even sure that would happened. But the germans shot more then 3200 A4's and many of them to England.
> And an A4 with a Tabun warhead is much more dangerous then a conventional A4, because you don't have to hit anything to be very dangerous.
> And there was no possibility to shoot down the A4 other then the V1!
> 
> I'm convinced that this played a role to the very important persons that make the decisions.



Aggregate (rocket family) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interesting information here (even if it is wiki)
We must remember that WW2 was 'total war' on all sides and the devil take the hindmost.

John


----------



## Jenisch (Dec 11, 2011)

Readie said:


> Yes, and in every conflict since.



During the Batte of Khalkhin Gol, the IJAAF was also restricted. I've always wondering me if this was a relevant factor in the Japanese defeat.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 11, 2011)

DonL ....DonL.....DonL .....

"... I'm not that convinced, that the Allies would drop an A-Bomb at germany.

Germany was at the middle of europe and many things can happen to friendly states that would be near the drop zone.
Where do you want to drop that thing, when even your own troops are on the ground at germany?...." 



After the war the US dropped A bombs in America ON THEIR OWN TROOPS (in the Nevada desert) (several times) ..... but THAT decision would have been easier than selling an A bomb solution on Germany to America's allies (and German-Americans in the USofA).

The A bomb deployment in Japan was possible because _the entire free world knew _the kind of casualties America was taking (all Allies took) in the Pacific - against a sneaky Asian enemy that had cold-cocked America. And as an island, Japan was isolated. And between the two nuclear events - Russia launched - pulled off - August Storm -- completely surprised Japan -- and invaded in three hooks, Tooze calls it the Soviet Military's post graduate thesis.  

Bomb two was really for the Soviets.

MM


----------



## DonL (Dec 11, 2011)

I don't think, that the the german chemical weapon arsenal act as a deterrent to the Allies, but with the conjunction of the V2 (A4), this was an whole other game!


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 11, 2011)

"... During the Batte of Khalkhin Gol, the IJAAF was also restricted. I've always wondering me if this was a relevant factor in the Japanese defeat."

Please elaborate ....  restricted in exactly what way ...?

My recollection is that at the outset ... Japanese bombers flew deep intrusion missions on targets like air fields deep in Soviet territory .... but the Soviets recovered .. _bounced back with *unexpected* efficiency_ .. and the missions were untenable from an ongoing strategic standpoint.

Japan under-estimated the USSR ... in every single area ... and Marshall Zhukov got to practice armored warfare ... 

MM


----------



## DonL (Dec 11, 2011)

> The A bomb deployment in Japan was possible because the entire free world knew the kind of casualties America was taking (all Allies took) in the Pacific - against a sneaky Asian enemy that had cold-cocked America. And as an island, Japan was isolated.



I agree and that's my thesis.



> After the war the US dropped A bombs in America ON THEIR OWN TROOPS (in the Nevada desert) (several times) ..... but THAT decision would have been easier than selling an A bomb solution on Germany to America's allies (and German-Americans in the USofA).



But that's simply a whole other question compared to civilian casualty for example at Holland, Denmark, France etc......
Plus the german chemical arsenal in conjunction with the V2(A4)!

Edit:

Anyway that's only my personal opinion and we will never knew. But in contrast to Japan, germany had "something" dangerous to strike back and this was well aware to the allied intelligences.


----------



## Readie (Dec 11, 2011)

[QUOTE

Bomb two was really for the Soviets.

MM[/QUOTE]

Michael, 
Perhaps then in our scenario the A bombs on Germany would have also been a message for the Soviets.

The French nuclear testing was er, not carried out with too much thought. As long as it was 10,000 miles from Paris they weren't bothered.

I take your point about 'cold cocking' America (even I understand that phrase) but, do you not think that Britain was similarly vengeful after being bombed and taking heavy casualties since 1939?

I wonder what Mr Churchill Bomber Harris would have made of the Nuclear strike option in the dark days of 1944-1945? The Lancaster carried the biggest normal HE bomb available and I believe that we were only a heart beat away from a nuclear strike on the Nazi stronghold / Hitler.

John


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 11, 2011)

".... But that's simply a whole other question compared to civilian casualty for example at Holland, Denmark, France etc......"  

You saying a Grunt's life isn't the same as a Dutchman, a Dane or a Frenchie, DonL ..... I hope not ...

MM


----------



## Readie (Dec 11, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> ".... But that's simply a whole other question compared to civilian casualty for example at Holland, Denmark, France etc......"
> 
> You saying a Grunt's life isn't the same as a Dutchman, a Dane or a Frenchie, DonL ..... I hope not ...
> 
> MM




My point was that a Nuclear strike , in the context of this thread, before any D Day etc could have gained the unconditional surrender of the Nazi's and therefore saved 100,000's of allied lives in the process.

I don't over look the possible fallout for the countries near Germany and that would be unfortunate, But, what is war at the end of day if not 'unfortunate'?

John


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 11, 2011)

"... do you not think that Britain was similarly vengeful after being bombed and taking heavy casualties since 1939?"

The British have always understood waves and weather ....  Even with ghastly casualties, the Night Bomber War was popular with the British public (they had experienced it themselves and knew the Germans were getting it 100 X% ....).

I can't see British scientists ever advising an A-bomb solution to the War Cabinet.

MM


----------



## DonL (Dec 11, 2011)

Err. no!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But the decission of an independent State to endanger his own soldiers/troops, is an whole other question as to make this decission for foreign civilian people. That was my intention.


----------



## Siegfried (Dec 11, 2011)

The A4 could be an effective weapon on its own. As I've pointed out, the intention was to use a very precise 'wireless canon barrel' beam riding guidence that controlled the V2 path to within 0.05 degrees, its speed and cutoff distance pecisely enough to get a 300-500m accuracy at the point of re-entry. The system was called 'vollzirkel' (full-circle) it ran into problems in 1943 (ground plane interferenace I think) and far less accurate interim systems were used to accelerate the missile into production and use. The problems finally seem to have been solved and orders were partially filled for vollzirkel.

The A4b (Winged A4) was to be even more accurare; since it had wings it could be manouverd during re-entry. The guidance was based around a Wassermann radar laid on its side, pinging a transponder in order to keep an inertial guidance system up to date (accelerometer) as long as possible. 

With accuracy up and mass production costs down A4 doesn't look to bad.


----------



## Readie (Dec 11, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> "... do you not think that Britain was similarly vengeful after being bombed and taking heavy casualties since 1939?"
> 
> The British have always understood waves and weather ....  Even with ghastly casualties, the Night Bomber War was popular with the British public (they had experienced it themselves and knew the Germans were getting it 100 X% ....).
> 
> ...



We would have had to use American A bombs. Who made them or which aircraft delivered them is not the point. Its the effect...
You are right about the British support for the 24/7 air raids. Using this desire to 'hit back' as hard as possible I think that, given the opportunity, Churchill would have gone for a nuclear strike(s).
In the time scale that we are discussing the British were at the end of their tether.
I fully appreciate that Japan was first and that the timing is slightly out with VE day coming before VJ day. Its the intent and benefits of nuclear weapons to achieve the desired aim that intrigues me.

John


----------



## Siegfried (Dec 11, 2011)

I would add that without the Soviets to fight, with the reality of a long war against the UK and USA the Germans would start thinking 'long term' and put the resources into an atomic bomb. There were several reasons the Germans focused on a fundemental research program based around a reactor.

1 Moral equivocation by server of the key scientists. von Lau completely against. Heisenberg torn between loyalty to his country and distaste for such a weapon.
2 The key factor was however a belief that such a weapon could not be completed in time to influence the war, it would take several years and cost a great deal.
The funds were best spent on providing weapons to the troops that could be of use in staving of defeat or achieving victory quickly. With the reality of a long
term war that excuse goes.
3 Lack of resources.
4 Fear of bombing of heavy water production facilities built in Germany (fractional distillation)
5 Many of the scientists laboratories were destroyed, including two functioning uranium enrichment systems.

Once can assume that the USA goes full out in developing the B-36.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 11, 2011)

"... My point was that a Nuclear strike , in the context of this thread, before any D Day etc could have gained the unconditional surrender of the Nazi's and therefore saved 100,000's of allied lives in the process..."

The only way I could imagine that scenario happening was if the target was Adolph Hitler himself.

MM


----------



## parsifal (Dec 11, 2011)

Jenisch said:


> During the Batte of Khalkhin Gol, the IJAAF was also restricted. I've always wondering me if this was a relevant factor in the Japanese defeat.




Maybe it might be useful to get some background on the issue. Theree is not a lot available on OBs and Battle plans, but this attached article gives a pretty good general account of what happened

World War II: Soviet and Japanese Forces Battle at Khalkhin Gol


----------



## bobbysocks (Dec 11, 2011)

i dont think the a bomb would have persuaded hitler to throw in the towel. just like DonL and the others said...adolph was both deluded and bitter. the only way would have been to drop it where he was at....or drop it and hope that the military leaders who were sane would lead a coup and oust him from power and petition for peace. Also i dont see that happening until after a beach front is established in europe. in japan even after the bombs...the military was split about 50/50 as to fight or surrender. and this was after they had lost all the ground gained and the allies were knocking on the mainlands door. a group of officers attempted to steal the video recording of the emperor's speach which was going to be broad cast in which he was going to tell the people of japan that the war was over. hitler would have let germany burn because he was going to burn. its a shame one of the many assassination attempts didnt succeed....it would have been interesting to 
see how that would have played out. 

curt lemay was said to author the quote " bomb them back to the stone age" in a attempt to make the enemy capitulate...and many have tried this theory but have yet to find the equation to break the enemy's will to wage war. so airpower will remain a strong tool.....but not win the war all by its lonesome. 

afghanistan was brought up...and that is interesting because the soviets had a commanding rule of the sky but never was able to subdue the earth.....however, when the rebels got stinger missiles and russia lost total air superority...that was dramatic. it caused them to shrink back and ultimately pull out. so in that case it kept a status quo or certain things in check.....the us had many of the same issues in viet nam....they were restricted...but still bombed cambodia and laos....but not until later did they bomb the north. the biggest part of that failed strategy was they never allowed the military to invade the north....they feared the chinese response way too much..


----------



## parsifal (Dec 11, 2011)

Between 1945 and 1947 the US only developed 12 additional bombs to the 5 they produced in 1945. This very limited expansion of the US nuclear capability was not due to technical limitations, it was due to a desire to contain nuclear proliferation, and a general demobilisation following the outbreak of peace in 1945. 

In 1947-8, with the cold war rapidly escalating the US quickly ramped up its nuclear arsenal. SAC stockpiled over 133 bombs in less than 18 months. 

I do not know if there were additional facitlies developed for production of the necessary fissile material, but the change in American attitudes to a nuclear buildup was very rapid, and I dont see any reason why the same could not be done in an extended war with Germany. If the war had progressed into 1946, I dont think it implausible to speculate at least 100 bombs in US arsenal by the latter part of that year.

In 1948, General le May, then head of SAC developed the plan on the use of the nuclear arsenal. Essentially over a seven day period it had been planned to swamp the Soviets with over 150 bombs dropped on 70 cities within the USSR. This plan was repeatedly changed and repeatedly updated, as the threat evolved, and capabilities increased

I dont see why the US would not apply a similar strategy against the Germans. The Americans had no qualms about using WMDs in Europe against her enemies. the fact that the post war enemy was the USSR and not germany is irrelevant. My opinion, the US had the capacity to build abombs on an industrial scale by the end of 1945. They would be likley to have 100+ bombs by the latter part of 1946. They would be likley to use such an arsenal enmasse on a recalcitrant Germany as they planned to do against the Soviets if the need arose. The long term radiation effects were not that well known (I understand) and were of secondary concern anyway

Germany under the hail of 100 or so atomic bombs is a nuclear desert. The average casualties per bomb in Japan from August 1945 through to end of the year, was about 400000 per bomb. If 70-100 bombs were dropped on Germany the expected casualties could be as high as 28-40,000,000 million. All the major centres would be wiped off the map. The moral dilemmas this might pose are enormous and unthinkable, but I doubt that would have stopped the americans if they felt they had to resort to nuclear weapons. By 1948 they were quite prepred to undertake such a program against heir enemies, if the need arose. 

Given the right incentives, such as a prolonged war, or use of WMDs by the Germans would IMO have given the US the casus belli to carry out such a policy.


----------



## Jenisch (Dec 11, 2011)

parsifal said:


> Maybe it might be useful to get some background on the issue. Theree is not a lot available on OBs and Battle plans, but this attached article gives a pretty good general account of what happened
> 
> World War II: Soviet and Japanese Forces Battle at Khalkhin Gol



Just what I was thinking: the Japanese Army High Command halted the bombing missions in the enemy's rear, which meant Zhukov was able to supply it's forces with no trouble (the Japanese probably would detect the scale of the Soviet logistics if attacked it), and allowed the VVS to obtain strenght, making the IJAAF suffer with attrition. So yes, it was relevant. But even if the Japanese wanted to bring relevant air power, the Soviets would respond in kind. The only way would be invade the USSR, and for very reason the air power was restricted, since an invasion was not desirable.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 11, 2011)

we had a fairly detailed debate about this issue in this forum. 

A key element of the debate was the propsects of the Japanese to take vladivostock. This was one of the most heavily defended regions in the Soviet Union in 1939, and was garrsoned by several hundred thousand troops. The paths of advance were constricted and very heavily defended, with the fortifications having been built up since 1905. They are still there today incidentally.

There was a lot of debate about this issue. i think the final resting point was that it would be very costly for the Japanese to get anywhere, and their lack of sufficient heavy artillery to reduce the defensive strongpoints would work against them.....


I do not believe the japanese could win a war in the far east against the Soviets in 1939-40


----------



## Readie (Dec 12, 2011)

parsifal said:


> Between 1945 and 1947 the US only developed 12 additional bombs to the 5 they produced in 1945. This very limited expansion of the US nuclear capability was not due to technical limitations, it was due to a desire to contain nuclear proliferation, and a general demobilisation following the outbreak of peace in 1945.
> 
> In 1947-8, with the cold war rapidly escalating the US quickly ramped up its nuclear arsenal. SAC stockpiled over 133 bombs in less than 18 months.
> 
> ...




I agree with you Michael,
If A bombs had been available and deployed on the scale you mention modern Europe would look very different now. 
Even the most fanatic Nazi could not withstand repeated nuclear attacks and an early realisation of the enviable would have saved allied lives.Germany would have been destroyed at a safe distance.Is that not the goal of air warfare?
As far as Afghanistan and the Soviets are concerned I'm surprised that they didn't use low yield nuclear weapons...they may well have, would we have known?
I find it ironic that the 'world peace' we have known in our lifetime has been secured by nuclear weapons and the assurance of mutual destruction. Perhaps they did have their uses after all.
John


----------



## Siegfried (Dec 12, 2011)

DonL said:


> I'm not that convinced, that the Allies would drop an A-Bomb at germany.
> 
> Germany was at the middle of europe and many things can happen to friendly states that would be near the drop zone.
> Where do you want to drop that thing, when even your own troops are on the ground at germany?
> ...



The allies were quite capable of dropping a bomb on Germany. They were, as has been shown, quite capable of destroying western civilisation as well due to a complete disregard of their own people and a total subjegation to short term economic gain. A hundred years of ant-german 'monster' propaganda ensured the mindless would be willing participants. 

Churchills motivations were simply that he wanted a big British empire and couldn't stand the tought of a Rival:
Not his finest hour: The dark side of Winston Churchill - UK Politics - UK - The Independent

Roosvelt at the end of the war was approaching the same kind of physical and moral sickness and fatique Hitler had.


----------



## Readie (Dec 12, 2011)

Siegfried said:


> The allies were quite capable of dropping a bomb on Germany. They were, as has been shown, quite capable of destroying western civilisation as well due to a complete disregard of their own people and a total subjegation to short term economic gain. A hundred years of ant-german 'monster' propaganda ensured the mindless would be willing participants.
> 
> Churchills motivations were simply that he wanted a big British empire and couldn't stand the tought of a Rival:
> Not his finest hour: The dark side of Winston Churchill - UK Politics - UK - The Independent
> ...




You are obviously spoiling for another verbal fight Siegfried.....
Its getting a bit boring to be honest mate.
John


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 12, 2011)

Gentlemen, this thread started out with some really good information and discussion and has now turned into a mish mash of name calling and opinionated political bullsh!t. Here's the deal, get it back on track or else I'll shut it down and ban a few imbeciles on the way out. I hope I've made this crystal clear!!!!


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 12, 2011)

".... The allies were quite capable of dropping a bomb on Germany. They were, as has been shown, quite capable of destroying ......

The Allies were* also *quite capable of risking life an resources, spending blood and treasure to make sure the good people of Berlin didn't starve or freeze during the Soviet Blockade. If the Allies were intent on mere destruction .... there would have been no Nuremberg Trials .... no re-armament of Germany ... and certainly no German economic miracle. 

But let's limit my speculation to the topic ...  ... *AIRPOWER*: the Berlin "airlift" .... the candy-bar bombers in their 4-engined Douglas C-54's .... relentlessly returning to Berlin, night after night .... !!

AIR POWER CUTS TWO WAYS, Siggi. There's SHOCK and then there's AHHHHH ....


MM


----------



## parsifal (Dec 12, 2011)

The moral dilemmas are massive, the human cost unthinkable. The whole armageddon scenario was predicated on that. 

Thats the awful truth about armageddon scenarios. A lot of people get killed by them. 

Western civilization has lived with the prospect of MAD since 1949. Both the Americans and the Russians openly planned the destruction of all human existence on this planet, should the need arise for it. But the awful reality of that scenario has given us 65 years free of total war. 

The difference between the scenario we are faced with in our world and this hypothetical is that whereas in our real world we started at peace (kinda) and with at least some semblance of rationality on both sides....a basic will to live if nothing else, in the era of WWII we had a country run by a madman, prepared to destroy his country and any other country that got in his way. Plus, it is at least arguable that his agenda was European domination, and quite possibly world domination. And he wanted to insitute a program of subversion, extermination and suppression of human rights. 

The prospect of a nuclear holocaust in central Europe is stark, uncomfortable and murderous. The destruction of the German state an awful prospect. The prospect of a Nazi Germany remaining in control of Europe is even more horrifying and quite likley even more costly in human suffering and human life.

Which prospect is worse......ending the war by destroying Germany, or allowing Nazi Germany to survive and witness the destruction of Europe and possibly the world. Neither choice is comfortable, but one is less destructive than the other.

Truman had a similar choice in 1945.....end the war quickly by dropping the bomb, and inflicting several hundred thousands of casualties on the Japanese, or allow the war to drag on for months or years, at a potential cost of 1 million Allied lives, and possibly 10million+ Japanese casualties. he too chose the lesser of two levels of suffering 

Ther is no good answer in this scenario, but ther are less bad ones


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 12, 2011)

"... But the awful reality of that scenario has given us 65 years free of total war."

In these gloomy days of asymmetrical warfare, civilian combattants and bankrupt, dispirited Champions, I yearn for the stability of that MAD world. 

MM


----------



## parsifal (Dec 12, 2011)

Jeez you are cheery tonite MM I see


----------



## Readie (Dec 12, 2011)

"... But the awful reality of that scenario has given us 65 years free of total war."


65 years for some countries but,not for the Americans British.

I sometimes think that there is no end to fighting....maybe we are programmed to endure war however fruitless the outcome may be.


John


----------



## Jenisch (Dec 12, 2011)

Surely the Vladivostok region was extremely defended. It was there that the critically vulnerable Transiberian was. Even so, the IJA infatry tactics would be much more suitable in that region than in Mongolia. As well as the Japanese air power. The IJN also would cooperate with the armada and the naval air service. 

Regarding Nomonhan comparisons, I think the Japanese defeat there is a little exaggerated. The casualities in both sides were similar, while the Japanese simply didn't know the scale of the Soviet attack, and therefore were not as well equiped as Zhukov's forces. The Germans were defeated in Stalingrad in a similar way, and nobody tells the German Army was a [email protected] that could not compete with the Red Army. 

I would not say the Japanese would have an acceptable chance of this in 1939-40. But in 1941 with the Germans, yes.

_The oil supply problem resulting from the embargo was so severe (a supply of 800 million liters per year vs. 5,400 required), that a quick resolution by military or diplomatic means was essential. The Army calculated that on the basis of oil supply alone, resources were insufficient to simultaneously pursue conflicts in the south and the north. *So plans for a war with the Soviet Union were shelved*._

http://www.warbirdforum.com/south.htm

As we can see, the Japanese wanted to deal with the Soviet Union. One more error for Hitler's list. Had it not betrayed the Japanese by sign the pact with Stalin, just after the defeat in Nomonhan, and warned them of the Barbarossa, things could have happaned differently.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 12, 2011)

".... The causalities in both sides were similar..."

Alvin Coox wrote the definitive account from the Japanese perspective:

Amazon.com: Nomonhan: Japan Against Russia, 1939 (9780804718356): Alvin Coox: Books

According to Coox:

The casualties were NOT similar ..... in the last days of the fighting the Soviets had surrounded the Japanese in many areas. After ceasefire, when discussing prisoner exchange, the Soviets said: "You bring your Russian prisoners and we'll bring our Japanese prisoners and we'll exchange". When the two sides got together the Soviets produced the same number of Japanese prisoners as the Japanese did Russian ..... BUT ... never declared how many more they were holding. The surplus was never disclosed and the men were sent off to die in labour camps in Siberia - some met local women and settled. In 1945, Japanese prisoners, taken in 1945, were shocked to see other Japanese prisoners in Siberia --- who didn't want to talk to them ....

Meanwhile back home in Japan, in 1939, the handling of the defeat was ing. The government simply told people that prisoners were "dead".

And officers taken prisoner by the Russians that were exchanged, were debriefed and then left alone in a room with a handgun after being told that their relatives considered them "dead".

The truth is that casualties on BOTH sides are not well known.

MM


----------



## Jenisch (Dec 12, 2011)

Coox book tells about 20,000 Japanese casualities, mostly dead. The Japanese oficially claimed 8,766 killed and a similar number of wounded. The Soviets, almost 10,000 killed and about 15,000 wounded. Not to mention prisioners for both.

Coox book is nice, I just don't agree with all his interpretations but the first hand Japanese perspectives are surely interesting.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 12, 2011)

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifnyHamPFhw_

I wish I spoke Japanese.

MM


----------



## Readie (Dec 12, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifnyHamPFhw_
> 
> I wish I spoke Japanese.
> 
> MM




You can via the google translator option. it should auto prompt you.

John


----------



## Jenisch (Dec 12, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifnyHamPFhw_
> 
> I wish I spoke Japanese.
> 
> MM




Appears to be a movie or reconstitution of the Soviet invasion of Manchuria in 1945.

About the Japanese vs Soviet Union question, I'd like to say that while this may appear, I'm not "pro Japanese". My goal is just see the perspective and possibilities of both sides in conflicts. This also applies for the original subject of this topic. That's why we had some conflicts here.

Most Russian and Western historians say the Japanese were with "fear" of the Soviets after Nomonhan, and this is mainly considerated by deduction of the events. The problem is there's evidence that this was not exactly what the Japanese themselfs used to think. 

The World At War: Banzai! Japan 2/5 ::

At 8:36 of this video, there's a Japanese first hand statement that contradicts what those historians think.

It's almost a rule, that when people start to speak with terms like "the enemy had fear", "it was hopeless to attack", "this is the truth", etc, there's something wrong. This happened a lot during the Cold War, happened before it, happens today and will happen in the future. History has several viewpoints.

That's why I don't agree with historians like David Glantz. It was wrong to considerate only the German perspective of the Eastern Front like he says? Absolutely. But it's equally wrong to desconsiderate the German perspective now we have the "victorius" Soviet one. The fair thing to do is conciliate both perspectives. This also applies to Japan vs the Soviet Union, and for any other conflict. Pretty logic, but not what we have in history sometimes.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 12, 2011)

"... Appears to be a movie or reconstitution of the Soviet invasion of Manchuria in 1945."

Nope ... dramatization of Nomonhan initial attack .... the film is from a famous Japanese novel .... and the end shows the Japanese burning their dead in huge pyres .

"... I don't agree with historians like David Glantz. It was wrong to considerate only the German perspective of the Eastern Front like he says? "

No quite sure what point you're making, Glantz certainly doesn't dismiss the Soviets, quite the opposite.

MM


----------



## Jenisch (Dec 12, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> "... Appears to be a movie or reconstitution of the Soviet invasion of Manchuria in 1945."
> 
> Nope ... dramatization of Nomonhan initial attack .... the film is from a famous Japanese novel .... and the end shows the Japanese burning their dead in huge pyres .



I thought that because of the T-34's.



> No quite sure what point you're making, Glantz certainly doesn't dismiss the Soviets, quite the opposite.



I express myself incorrectly. My point with Glantz is that he puts the Eastern Front as the main stage of the war, while the Germans and the Western Allies considerate the war as a global conflict (indeed, the latter tried to minimize the Soviet contribution considerably, as well as vice versa).

When the Germans say they not lost the war because the East, they want to mean if they could concentrate everything against the Soviets, they would be able to deal with them. 

Neither side is wrong or correct. It's just the perspective they have of the war.


----------



## Procrastintor (Jun 1, 2013)

I think that it would be possible to take on Germany on air power alone (w/o USSR) if the US didn't have to divert forces to the PTO and CBI. If our carriers had been parked in the Atlantic/Mediterranean instead of the Pacific, then all those Wildcats, Warhawks, Liberators, Corsairs, Hellcats and all the other aircraft that became famous in the Pacific would be in the ETO and MTO, bringing all their famous hurt with them. The pilots that became famous in the AVG would be raining pain on the Luftwaffe instead of the IJAAF, and the Black Sheep's Corsairs would be flying over pine trees and snow instead of Palm trees and sand. In short, if the USSR attacked Japan INSTEAD of Germany, leaving us completely free to help Britain, then yes, the Allies could win the air war.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 1, 2013)

I think you underestimate the Luftwaffe.

Remember without the USSR, the Germans free up a lot of airpower as well.


----------



## vinnye (Jun 1, 2013)

I think that the U boats would have been quite happy to see US aircraft carriers parked in the Med or Atlantic!


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 1, 2013)

Procrastintor said:


> In short, if the USSR attacked Japan INSTEAD of Germany, leaving us completely free to help Britain, then yes, the Allies could win the air war.



Erm the USSR didnt attack Japan till Aug 45 and Germany attacked the USSR first.


----------



## ccheese (Jun 1, 2013)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I think you underestimate the Luftwaffe.



Very much so......

Charles


----------



## vinnye (Jun 1, 2013)

I am sure that someone will correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the LW commit about 75% of its resources to the Eastern front at one time?
I know that fighters were withdrawn to meet the bomber threat over Berlin later on - but no Eastern Front means a lot more LW to redeploy!


----------



## Procrastintor (Jun 1, 2013)

I didn't say it'd be a cake walk, I said it could be done. Also, the Uk and Canada diverted forces to the PTO as well, so, in a one theater scenario, they'd have their guys back as well. And as for the U-boats, destroyers and Sub-huntin planes dealt with the Japanese subs just fine, so U-boats would be a problem, but nothing unhandleable.


----------



## Jenisch (Jun 1, 2013)

Christos military and intelligence corner: Eastern Front Aircraft Strength and Losses 1941-45

The LW fighter strenght in the East doesn't look very impressive. 

The Wages of Destruction, Adam Tooze, page 410:



> The territories that Germany had conquered in 1940, though they provided substantial booty and a crucial source of labour did not bear comparison with the abundance provided to Britain by America. The aerial arms race was the distinctive Anglo-American contribution to the war and it played directly to America's dominance in manufacturing. But though the disparity in aircraft deliveries was extreme it was not untypical. A similarly vast gulf was also evident in relation to energy supplies, the most basic driver of modern urban and industrial society. Whereas the Anglo-American alliance was energy rich, Germany and its Western European Grossraum were starved of food, coal and oil.The disparity with respect to oil was most serious. Between 1940 and 1943 the mobility of Germany's army, navy and air force, not to mention its domestic economy, depended on annual imports of 1.5 million tonsof oil, mainly from Romania. In addition, German synthetic fuel factories, at huge expense, produced a flow of petrol that rose from 4 million tons in 1940 to a maximum of 6.5 million tons in 1943. Seizing the fuel stocks of France as booty in no way resolved this fundamental dependency. In fact, the victories of 1940 had the reverse effect. They added a number of heavy oil consumers to Germany's own fuel deficit. From its annual fuel flow of at most 8 million tons, Germany now had to supply not only its own needs, but those of the rest of Western Europe as well. Before the war, the French economy had consumed at least 5.4 million tons per annum, at a per capita rate 60 per cent higher than Germany's. The effect of the German occupation was to throw France back into an era before motorization. From the summer of 1940 France was reduced to a mere 8 per cent of its pre-war supply of petrol. In an economy adjusted to a high level of oil consumption the effects were dramatic. To give just one example, thousands of litres of milk went to waste in the French countryside every day, because no petrol was available to ensure regular collections. Of more immediate concern to the military planners in Berlin were the Italian armed forces, which depended entirely on fuel diverted from Germany and Romania. By February 1941, the Italian navy was threatening to halt its operations in the Mediterranean altogether unless Germany supplied at least 250,000 tons of fuel. And the problems were by no means confined to the Reich's satellites. Germany itself coped only by dint of extreme economy. In late May 1941, General Adolf von Schell, the man responsible for the motor vehicle industry, seriously suggested that in light of the chronics hortage of oil it would be advisable to carry out a partial 'demotorization' of the Wehrmacht. It is commonly remarked that the Luftwaffe suffered later in the war because of the inadequate training of its pilots, due in large part to the shortage of air fuel. But in 1941 the petrol shortage was already so severe that the Wehrmacht was licensing its soldiers to drive heavy trucks with less than 15 kilometres of on-road experience, a measure which was blamed for the appalling attrition of motor vehicles during the Russian campaign. Shortages made themselves felt across the German economy. So tight were fuel rations that in November 1941 Opel was forced to shut down production at its Brandenburg plant, Germany's largest truck factory, because it lacked the petrol necessary to check the fuel pumps of vehicles coming off theassembly line. A special allocation of 104 cubic metres of fuel had to bearranged by the Wehrmacht's economic office so as to ensure that there were no further interruptions.



Page 450:



> Though the continental bloc could certainly satisfy both 'ideological' and 'pragmatic' criteria, the advocates of a long-term alliance with the Soviet Union were never in a majority in Berlin and this too was as much for pragmatic as for ideological reasons. In the long term a genuine alliance would have involved an unacceptable degree of German dependence on the Soviets. As General Haider noted in his diary in December 1940: 'Every weakness in the position of the Axis brings a push by the Russians. They cannot prescribe the rules for transactions, but they utilize every opportunity to weaken the Axis position.' In a Eurasian continental bloc, it would be the central power, the Soviet Union, not Japan or Germany, that would ultimately occupy the dominant position.The Third Reich had no intention of slipping into the kind of humbling dependence that Britain now occupied in relation to the United States, mortgaging its assets and selling its secrets, simply to sustain the war effort. That this was the direction in which Germany might be headed was evident already in the spring of 1940. Just prior to the German offensive in the West, Moscow demanded as part payment for its raw material deliveries the construction of two chemicals plants in the Soviet Union, one for coal hydrogenation (synthetic fuel), the other to embody IG Farben's revolutionary Buna process (synthetic rubber).
> The Soviet Union was to have full access to both the blueprints and the complex instrumentation necessary to monitor the high-pressure reactions. Not surprisingly, IG Farben balked and with the support of the German military the deal was blocked. But the fact that the Soviets could even make such demands indicates the seriousness of the German dilemma. The hugely increased volume of trade needed to sustain Germany's blockaded Grossraum was bound to give the Soviet Union ever-increasing leverage. By the autumn of 1940, Germany's dependence on deliveries of raw materials, fuel and food from the Soviet Union was creating a positively schizophrenic situation. In trade negotiations, German machine tools
> were one of the means of settlement prized most highly by the Soviets. Such exports, however, were in direct conflict with the preparations of Germany's own armed forces for the invasion of the Soviet Union. Astonishingly, rather than interrupting the Soviet deliveries to prioritize the Luftwaffe, Göring in early October 1940 ordered that, at least until 11 May 1941, deliveries to the Soviet Union, and thus to the Red Army, should have equal priority with the demands of the Wehrmacht. Even in the immediate prelude to operation Barbarossa, Germany could not afford to do without Soviet deliveries of oil, grain and alloy metals.The willingness to engage in such bizarre compromises reflected the increasing concern in Berlin over the precarious situation of Germany'sraw material supplies.
> As the military-economic office of the Wehr-macht concluded at the end of October 1940: 'Current favourable raw material situation (improved by stocks captured in enemy territory) will,in case of prolonged war and after consumption of existing stocks,re-emerge as bottleneck. From summer 1941 this is to be expected incase of fuel oil as well as industrial fats and oils.



There's a difference between a Germany that has defeated the USSR according to the Barbarossa planning, and hence acquired significative resources, and a Germany that doesn't attack the USSR at all (the case proposed in this thread).


----------



## Jenisch (Jun 1, 2013)

Other thing: have you people already think about the potential of the US and Britain devoting their efforts to the air war? The Western Front in '44 had 5.5 million men, mostly from ground troops. Imagine all this personal in the Air Force or working in the industry for the air effort. One can say something similar about the German Army without being in Russia, but the Germans lacked the fuel and resources to dramatically expand the LW and their industry. I think there would be some fierce air fighting, but in the end the much superior in industry and fossil fuels Anglo-American alliance would have broke the back of the LW. After this was done, the Allies would wide their material advantage and then could start to think in launch an amphibious assault in Europe. Or they coud keep Europe under siege and deal with Japan first before do that.


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 1, 2013)

I'm sorry guys. I have not read one word of this thread (yet). My dad was a GRUNT in WW2 and the answer to the original question is NO! The Army/Marines/Navy/Air Corps will all tell you the same thing. They all have a special purpose, but if you don't have someone on the ground securing the turf, it's just an elusive momentary dream of victory. And that is all I have to say about that.
God bless you all, Jeff.


----------



## Procrastintor (Jun 1, 2013)

Never thought of that Jenisch.


----------



## DonL (Jun 1, 2013)

Jenisch said:


> Christos military and intelligence corner: Eastern Front Aircraft Strength and Losses 1941-45
> 
> The LW fighter strenght in the East doesn't look very impressive.
> 
> ...



Mr. Toozie did very heavy mistakes and you can't compare any german economy in real-life to a german economy without any war in the east!

1. The german economy suffered very badly on skilled workers through the mobilization of the Wehrmacht at 1939 to 150 divisions of the Heer (ground troops)
2. At July 1940 it was decided to reduce the Wehrmacht to 120-100 division. Every german division had a required strength of 16000 men.
3. At August 1940 Hitler ordered the attack to the UDSSR and the expansion	of the Wehrmacht to 180 divisions.
4. The Wehrmacht lost till 31.12.1944 5.880.000 casualtys *only* at the east front.
5. 1.170.000 men dead; 1.062.000 missed ; 3.535.000 wounded.
6. Source Rüdiger Overmans 

7. So if we subtract 50 divisions (each with 16000 men) we have 800000 men more skilled worker or men to be trained as pilot at 1940.
8. If we took the numbers from the casualtys of the Ostfront and the numbers from 1940 we have from 1941 to 1944 6.6880.000 more skilled workers and or men to be trained as pilots from 1941 -1944.
9. We have from 1941 not a single engine which absorbed a single drop of fuel on the way to Moscow, Stalingrad or any other place at the UDSSR.
9. Since 1942 the german economy developed a system to recycle aluminium from shot downed or crashed aircrafts (mainly enemy 4 engine bomber aircrafts).
10. After this system the german aviation industry had no serious problems with the supply of aluminium.

So in summary I would be very interested of the performance of the USAAF especially with Wildcats at 1942 to such an improved LW and also later in the war, where Germany could concentrate their efforts totaly to the LW and the U-Boots without any problems with fuel supply.
I think there would be a very very rude awakening for USAAF!


----------



## Procrastintor (Jun 1, 2013)

Remember, air power only, no U-boats. Theyd have to get some planes past the Wildcats to destroy a Carrier (carriers are allowed as they are just mobile runways)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 1, 2013)

Procrastintor said:


> Remember, air power only, no U-boats. Theyd have to get some planes past the Wildcats to destroy a Carrier (carriers are allowed as they are just mobile runways)



If no U-Boots, then no Carriers. They are not just mobile runways. They fall under sea power. Aircraft are a Carrier's firepower. Instead of cannons, they use aircraft. You can't allow one thing, but not allow the others main defense for it. 

Can't have your cake and eat it too...

Thats like saying you can have a soccer net, but no goalie to defend it.

Besides, do you think that the Wildcats could stop all the aircraft thrown against them? Underestimate much?


----------



## Jenisch (Jun 1, 2013)

But DonL, I repeat, the Allies would have 5.5 million extra men avaliable. It's out of my knowledge, however, how many of them in both sides could become pilots. The Allies also would have all the Lend-Lease that did not went to the USSR. I don't know, but the impression I have is that it would be a bloody air war, but one that the Allies still could win. Of course, then you have to considerate the oil coming from the USSR, which was also a factor.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 1, 2013)

The outcome would be the same. The Allies would probably still win. Germany would never outproduce them.

At most I think the Germans would be able to do is fight them to a stalemate.


----------



## DonL (Jun 1, 2013)

Jenisch said:


> But DonL, I repeat, the Allies would have 5.5 million extra men avaliable. It's out of my knowledge, however, how many of them in both sides could become pilots. The Allies also would have all the Lend-Lease that did not went to the USSR. I don't know, but the impression I have is that it would be a bloody air war, but one that the Allies still could win. Of course, then you have to considerate the oil coming from the USSR, which was also a factor.



I don't disagree Jenisch, but till the end of 1942 the LW would have the technical superioty through the Bf 109 F-4 and the FW 190 A-3.
And yes the USA had outproduced the third reich in any way, but the casualtys to the RAF and USAAF would be extreme especially at 1942 and 1943, when the LW was technical equal to it's enemys.
My intention with this post was to show "Procrastintor" that this is not a singlesided adventure and far away from a fast-selling item.


----------



## Procrastintor (Jun 1, 2013)

Again, never said it was single sided, but Germany is much smaller industrywise, manpowerwise, not to mention the US had the UK, Canada, and LE FRENCH RESISTAAANCE on their side even without counting Russia.


----------



## Jenisch (Jun 1, 2013)

DonL said:


> but the casualtys to the RAF and USAAF would be extreme especially at 1942 and 1943, when the LW was technical equal to it's enemys.



How those extreme casualities would occur?


----------



## DonL (Jun 1, 2013)

Procrastintor said:


> Again, never said it was single sided, but Germany is much smaller industrywise, manpowerwise, not to mention the US had the UK, Canada, and LE FRENCH RESISTAAANCE on their side even without counting Russia.



do you have read my post 509?



> I think that it would be possible to take on Germany on air power alone (w/o USSR) if the US didn't have to divert forces to the PTO and CBI. If our carriers had been parked in the Atlantic/Mediterranean instead of the Pacific, then all those Wildcats, Warhawks, Liberators, Corsairs, Hellcats and all the other aircraft that became famous in the Pacific would be in the ETO and MTO, bringing all their famous hurt with them. The pilots that became famous in the AVG would be raining pain on the Luftwaffe instead of the IJAAF, and the Black Sheep's Corsairs would be flying over pine trees and snow instead of Palm trees and sand. In short, if the USSR attacked Japan INSTEAD of Germany, leaving us completely free to help Britain, then yes, the Allies could win the air war.



I realy ask you what Wildcats, Warhawks, Liberators can do against Bf 109 F-4, Fw 190A3 (both with drop tanks) and ME 110F?
To a comparison report of the US Navy showed, that a FW 190A5* fighter bomber* was superior to a Hellcat F3F and equal to a F4 U-1 Corsair, so what is with a clean Fw 190A fighter?
The Ju 88 and Do 217 (	especially with Fritz X) were to my opinion the absolute best anti ship a/c's at the whole world 1942-1945.
The anti ASW of the US Navy we have seen at 1942 at the big bang of Doenitz IXC attack of the east cost of the USA.

So I will claim that the US Navy will suffer plenty of a/c's and (war) ships, even carriers at 1942/1943 against the LW and KM and only the introduction of the F4 U-4, the P51 Mustang and the very advanced anti ASW tactics and technologies of the Royal Navy not the US Navy, would change the outcomming!


----------



## DonL (Jun 1, 2013)

Jenisch said:


> How those extreme casualities would occur?



With the loss of every single air craft carrier that would try to attack european homeland through the Atlantic, Mediterranean or Norway (1942/43) and countless of fighter a/c's which would try to fight the LW near at their bases.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 1, 2013)

But those Carrier planes are going to have a hard time landing in the water, since we are not including seapower right?

Just saying...


----------



## wuzak (Jun 1, 2013)

DonL said:


> With the loss of every single air craft carrier that would try to attack european homeland through the Atlantic, Mediterranean or Norway (1942/43) and countless of fighter a/c's which would try to fight the LW near at their bases.



Wait...the Luftwaffe will destroy all the extra deployed aircraft carriers. Did they destroy all the ones that were deployed historically?


----------



## DonL (Jun 1, 2013)

With no war at the east, the extra skilled workmen from 1940 forward, the LW and KM ( U-Boats) would be one hell of an enemy at 1941-to 1943!
To my personal estimation not a single aircraft carrier of the first hour (Wasp, Lexington, Yorktown etc.) would have any chance near european homeland at that timeline!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 2, 2013)

Procrastintor said:


> Again, never said it was single sided, but Germany is much smaller industrywise, manpowerwise, not to mention the US had the UK, Canada, and LE FRENCH RESISTAAANCE on their side even without counting Russia.



What aircraft did the Resistance fly?


----------



## VBF-13 (Jun 2, 2013)

Procrastintor said:


> Again, never said it was single sided, but Germany is much smaller industrywise, manpowerwise, not to mention the US had the UK, Canada, and LE FRENCH RESISTAAANCE on their side even without counting Russia.


Think of Germany as one big carrier. Could you imagine the air power it could bring to our carriers? The Luftwaffe would have sunk Britain if it wasn't an island.


----------



## Njaco (Jun 3, 2013)

Do we really need Hellcats, Corsairs, etc if there are no carriers? Why not just concentrate on what is working - mass production of P-51s, B-17s, and the like. Which leads me to the next answer......



> I realy ask you what Wildcats, Warhawks, Liberators can do against Bf 109 F-4, Fw 190A3 (both with drop tanks) and ME 110F?



Easy. Overwhelm them with numbers. What is that superior Fw 190, Bf 109 or anything going to do against a - _insert noun here (mass, throng, horde...)_ - of Allied fighters?


----------



## parsifal (Jun 3, 2013)

> Do we really need Hellcats, Corsairs, etc if there are no carriers? Why not just concentrate on what is working - mass production of P-51s, B-17s, and the like. Which leads me to the next answer......




No, you dont need them. but as shown in the pacific, Carriers gave airpower strategic mobility....the ability to concentrate, and hit targets at will. it forced the enemy to decentralize forces and then that made them vulnerable to defeat in detail. During the war in Europe, the British showed it quite feasible to operate carriers with relative impunity even in waters supposedly dominated by the enemy.

U-Boats were the most effective counter to Fast Carriers, though they were more of an attirional weapon, hoping for the best opportunityto get lucky and sink a carrier. as the war progressed on the allied side it became increasingloy harder for the Axis to get at their carriers with subs 



> Easy. Overwhelm them with numbers. What is that superior Fw 190, Bf 109 or anything going to do against a - _insert noun here (mass, throng, horde...)_ - of Allied fighters?



Superior quality fighters will give you a better than even loss ratio in actual battle statistics. however, it makes little difference to the overall losses to all causes, if both sides are aiming for air supeiority. To challenge for air superiority, you need to be able to undertake offensive missions at will. The Germans never seriously attempted that in the west after June 1941. This greatly reduced their losses as their defending fighters could sit back and choose which strikes they were going to react to. Wherever they could manage it, they only ever fough the battles they wanted to. But being on the defensive automatically gives the initiative to the attacker, and the attacker can always halt operations until he recovers. This is basically what happened 1941-2. the British kept coming a the Germans, and lost far more heavily. Ultimately they gained control of the skies in the west, and from there, the allies won the war.

It wasnt all about the numbers, although they were part of it. it was also about the strategy each side pursued. The allies were more consistent, and purposeful and that eventually won them the battle.


----------



## Procrastintor (Jun 3, 2013)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> What aircraft did the Resistance fly?


Stolen ones! Also, I believe I read somewhere the Allies sneaked them a few warhawks. Also, their raids destroyed air fields and aircraft regularly, so that helped quite a bit.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 3, 2013)

Procrastintor said:


> Stolen ones! Also, I believe I read somewhere the Allies sneaked them a few warhawks. Also, their raids destroyed air fields and aircraft regularly, so that helped quite a bit.



Stolen aircraft? Warhawks? 

Sources?

As for their raids, you said only airpower could be used. Gorilla fighters raiding airfields are not airpower...


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 3, 2013)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Gorilla fighters raiding airfields are not airpower



Wow armed Gorillas. I would love to see an angry Silver back Mountain Gorilla with a Tommy Gun and a grenade that would make anyone run even a Guerilla fighter.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 3, 2013)

I thought the origional poster meant alone, as in no help from the Soviets, meaning using mostly only airpower to weaken Germany so Europe could be invaded and freed.
That wouldn't mean naval aerial assets couldn't be used. Or a few battleships bombarding when it could be used. 
Or the resistance.
Going to war without , and not using whatever weapons you can use would not be very smart.


----------



## VBF-13 (Jun 3, 2013)

> Gorilla fighters raiding airfields are not airpower


Hard to argue with that.


----------



## Procrastintor (Jun 3, 2013)

Ok, so it sounds like the original poster needs to lay down some more specific ground rules. What all is allowed in this scenario?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 3, 2013)

tyrodtom said:


> I thought the origional poster meant alone, as in no help from the Soviets, meaning using mostly only airpower to weaken Germany so Europe could be invaded and freed.
> That wouldn't mean naval aerial assets couldn't be used. Or a few battleships bombarding when it could be used.
> Or the resistance.
> Going to war without , and not using whatever weapons you can use would not be very smart.



I agree. I am only saying things because our young friend procrastinator said carriers were oke, but not U-Boots. That only airpower is allowed, but it only seems that applies to the Germans. 

I just like playing devils advocate...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 3, 2013)

Procrastintor said:


> Ok, so it sounds like the original poster needs to lay down some more specific ground rules. What all is allowed in this scenario?



I am just applying the same ground rules to the allies thet you apply to the Germans...


----------



## Njaco (Jun 3, 2013)

fastmongrel said:


> Wow armed Gorillas. I would love to see an angry Silver back Mountain Gorilla with a Tommy Gun and a grenade that would make anyone run even a Guerilla fighter.



.

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhxqIITtTtU_


----------



## Njaco (Jun 3, 2013)

parsifal said:


> Superior quality fighters will give you a better than even loss ratio in actual battle statistics. however, it makes little difference to the overall losses to all causes, if both sides are aiming for air supeiority. To challenge for air superiority, you need to be able to undertake offensive missions at will. The Germans never seriously attempted that in the west after June 1941. This greatly reduced their losses as their defending fighters could sit back and choose which strikes they were going to react to. Wherever they could manage it, they only ever fough the battles they wanted to. But being on the defensive automatically gives the initiative to the attacker, and the attacker can always halt operations until he recovers. This is basically what happened 1941-2. the British kept coming a the Germans, and lost far more heavily. Ultimately they gained control of the skies in the west, and from there, the allies won the war.
> 
> It wasnt all about the numbers, although they were part of it. it was also about the strategy each side pursued. The allies were more consistent, and purposeful and that eventually won them the battle.



I'm not arguing what happened but what could happen. If US production was focused on the ETO TOTALLY then I believe numbers would make a difference regardless of strategy. The best single plane doesn't have a prayer against 100 mediocre planes let alone something as good as a P-51. IMHO.


----------



## Procrastintor (Jun 3, 2013)

Adler,
I was only letting Carriers slide because they were plane holders, never said German carriers were not allowed. But anyway, even if we allow full navies, the u-boats wouldn't be able to get past the Destroyers, Anti Sub Planes, US subs, missing the carrier (thus dooming them, and also not getting their target) etc. in a big carrier group. 1, If they surface, they die. 2, If they fire and miss, they die. 3, If they fire and hit, the carrier is likely to survive, and they still die. 4, If they stay around long enough to aim well, they'll get seen and, you guessed it, die. Basically, the carriers should be more afraid of German Carriers, not U boats.


----------



## Procrastintor (Jun 3, 2013)

NJaco, that's a good point, I was assuming that we'd just redirect PTO stuff, but didn't consider just replacing them all with the ETO equipment, maybe we would even see some new planes since Grumman and Vought wouldn't need to make their 'cats and Corsairs.


----------



## bobbysocks (Jun 3, 2013)

without russia in the war and no boots on the ground in africa or europe....the best us/uk/cw could manage imho is a ceasefire or treaty...stalemate. it would be nice to think you could like LeMay said..."bomb them back to the stoneage"...but you arent going to win that way. there was more ordnance dropped on viet nam than the us dropped in all of ww2. if airpower could win it should have there.


----------



## Procrastintor (Jun 3, 2013)

For the record, Vietnam mostly saw bombs dropped in the middle of jungles, and against an enemy that had no definite military bases, and no factories to speak of. Nazi Germany was very different, if they bombed their factories beyond repair then the Luftwaffe would be out of bullets, bombs, and eventually planes. However, that is not easy to do, and each probably would have required a few tons of bombs each, and perhaps a Tallboy or two. But it could be done. Even without fighting Russia, the US had more industry (which was, helpfully, not being bombed) and resources from allies and from it's own soil, if, for example, the Romanian oil fields were bombed, Germany would have a tough time keeping their very advanced birds in the air, as they need gas. Also the allies had the option to just starve them, if you cut off all access to places not called Germany than there will be problems. Basically, the allies had two things Germany didn't, options, and time. Germany couldn't attack the US or UK, because they'd have to reroute their diminishing resources to develop and build long-range bombers, which would most likely not make it from Germany to the UK because of Britain's radar and interceptors, they couldn't retreat because they were already home, and they had no back up to fall on, they had no allies except Italy and Japan, and Italy stopped fighting in 1943, and Japan was on the other side of the world.


----------



## bobbysocks (Jun 3, 2013)

rolling thunder was the bombing of hanoi, haiphong harbor, and SAM and other sites in NV. the bombing in the jungle was the ho-chi-minh trail, an attempt to cut the main supply and troop transport route from NV to SV... or where there were large troop formations as in the battle of khe sanh, ai drang, etc. as the allies you do not have the luxury of time. remember it took PH to get america in the war...to have an airwar only is going to take a LONG time. you then risk the chance the public will grow weary of the war and losing their support. without feet on the ground the reich will always only be as close as the other side of the channel....where they can rocket or bomb the uk as well. how long do you expect that to last?? germany almost doubled their ac output despite the bombing....they were adapting.


----------



## Procrastintor (Jun 3, 2013)

The correct way to deal with THAT is more pain, example, Tallboy to Hitler's bunker.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 3, 2013)

Procrastintor said:


> For the record, Vietnam mostly saw bombs dropped in the middle of jungles, and against an enemy that had no definite military bases, and no factories to speak of. Nazi Germany was very different, if they bombed their factories beyond repair then the Luftwaffe would be out of bullets, bombs, and eventually planes. However, that is not easy to do, and each probably would have required a few tons of bombs each, and perhaps a Tallboy or two. But it could be done. Even without fighting Russia, the US had more industry (which was, helpfully, not being bombed) and resources from allies and from it's own soil, if, for example, the Romanian oil fields were bombed, Germany would have a tough time keeping their very advanced birds in the air, as they need gas. Also the allies had the option to just starve them, if you cut off all access to places not called Germany than there will be problems. Basically, the allies had two things Germany didn't, options, and time. Germany couldn't attack the US or UK, because they'd have to reroute their diminishing resources to develop and build long-range bombers, which would most likely not make it from Germany to the UK because of Britain's radar and interceptors, they couldn't retreat because they were already home, and they had no back up to fall on, they had no allies except Italy and Japan, and Italy stopped fighting in 1943, and Japan was on the other side of the world.



They didn't just drop more, but they dropped twice as much tonnage as was dropped by all the allies in WW2 in Europe and Asia, all on 3 countries with about twice the land area of California.
You may think they just re-arranged the trees in the jungle, but you can only miss so many times when that much is concentrated on that much land. The whole country is mostly "jungle", that's where most all their arms, supplies, and troops were.
Take the time to research how many casualties, the NVA, VC, and Viet people took. All the bombs didn't miss.
A waste, sure it was, just like most wars.


----------



## VBF-13 (Jun 3, 2013)

Procrastintor said:


> For the record, Vietnam mostly saw bombs dropped in the middle of jungles, and against an enemy that had no definite military bases, and no factories to speak of. Nazi Germany was very different, if they bombed their factories beyond repair then the Luftwaffe would be out of bullets, bombs, and eventually planes. However, that is not easy to do, and each probably would have required a few tons of bombs each, and perhaps a Tallboy or two. But it could be done. Even without fighting Russia, the US had more industry (which was, helpfully, not being bombed) and resources from allies and from it's own soil, if, for example, the Romanian oil fields were bombed, Germany would have a tough time keeping their very advanced birds in the air, as they need gas. Also the allies had the option to just starve them, if you cut off all access to places not called Germany than there will be problems. Basically, the allies had two things Germany didn't, options, and time. Germany couldn't attack the US or UK, because they'd have to reroute their diminishing resources to develop and build long-range bombers, which would most likely not make it from Germany to the UK because of Britain's radar and interceptors, they couldn't retreat because they were already home, and they had no back up to fall on, they had no allies except Italy and Japan, and Italy stopped fighting in 1943, and Japan was on the other side of the world.


That's not bad. I think I agree with much of it.


----------



## bobbysocks (Jun 3, 2013)

Procrastintor said:


> The correct way to deal with THAT is more pain, example, Tallboy to Hitler's bunker.



and little adolphs answer to that is nerve gas in V2 rockets to london....and other southern towns in the uk. sure you want to risk that escalation??? that is easy to say while you are sitting in cleveland or tampa....would not be too happy with that decision if i lived in the uk.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 3, 2013)

It's one thing to blockade a island nation, like Japan, the UK, and so forth.
But it a whole other problem to totally blockade a landlocked country from the air. You might be able to destroy railroads, canals, but you not going to totally stop horse and foot travel enough to starve them. You might be able to do it today with current technology, and most modern people's sedementry habits. But not in 1940's Europe.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 3, 2013)

I think all the allies knew it'd be a big mistake to kill Hitler, his strategic vision probably shortened the war by at least a year.


----------



## VBF-13 (Jun 3, 2013)

Procrastintor said:


> The correct way to deal with THAT is more pain, example, Tallboy to Hitler's bunker.


Of course it would have to hit the bunker to have any chance. I learned that in the 6th Grade in our duck and cover drills. In the classroom they had us duck under the desk. Out in the hall we stood up against the wall and covered our head with our hands in case the bomb hit there.


----------



## Procrastintor (Jun 3, 2013)

You know, your hands will PROOOBABLY stop a bomb.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 3, 2013)

Plus how much of anything did the allies know of Hitler's bunker in 1945 ?


----------



## VBF-13 (Jun 3, 2013)

Can you imagine one of those big bombs hitting you on the head, the big lump that would cause?


----------



## Procrastintor (Jun 3, 2013)

Ouch, might get a concussion, or maybe some back problems. Also, I'm not sure if they knew of Hitler's bunker.


----------



## Procrastintor (Jun 3, 2013)

However, I'm sure it could be found if they spied on him or something.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 3, 2013)

Hitler never even moved into the bunker till mid Jan. 45, before that he could be at the Wolfs Lair, or ???
We certainly had spies in Germany, but very little actionable intellegence of where Hitler was and when.
But I think it would be a mistake to kill him, with all the bad decisions he made, especially late in the war, he might have replaced by someone competent.


----------



## Procrastintor (Jun 4, 2013)

Yeah, I agree Hitler should have been kept till the war was done, but its always good to make an example, you know like a weapon demo. They could have destroyed a factory with a grand slam or something. Basically they needed to use Shock and Awe.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 4, 2013)

After Dresden, Hamburg, and so many other German cities and factories nothing but smoking ruins. 
How much more shock and awe do you think they would have needed.


----------



## Procrastintor (Jun 4, 2013)

Apparently more, they didn't quit till the USSR invaded, so I'm thinking a lot more, like, destroy all of their military bases, factories, and perhaps 1 MAYBE 2 high value civilian targets if it drags on past late 45'-46'


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 4, 2013)

At some point, if you don't use nukes that just might shock them, you got to send in the ground forces.
Even today, it can't be done just with airpower.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 4, 2013)

Procrastintor said:


> Apparently more, they didn't quit till the USSR invaded, so I'm thinking a lot more, like, destroy all of their military bases, factories, and perhaps 1 MAYBE 2 high value civilian targets if it drags on past late 45'-46'



Pretty much all of their "high value" civilian targets were already completely leveled.

Stuttgart where I lived for about 15 years is pretty much built on several manmade very large hills that were built out of the ruins. There are walking paths turn into memorials where you can look inside the hills and see thr rubble. 

The Allies did a good job of destroying the cities with conventional weapons, and there was not a German civilian who was not shock and awed. I sat next to a woman on a bus, and she said she could still here the bombs falling. Same for my Grandmother, and my wifes.

Stuttgart
Nürnberg
Würzburg
Berlin
Hamburg
Frankfurt
Mainz
München
Kiel
Wilhelmshaven
Dresden

All flattened just to name a few...


----------



## bobbysocks (Jun 4, 2013)

i was just thinking that hitler didnt move into the bunker until after the battle of the bulge i do believe. he took to it after the russians started advancing towards his place in the eastern forest...and since in this scenario the russians or any nations troops arent on the ground there is no pressure for hitler to hide. one thing hitler did understand was personal operation security and was erratic in his movements and travels. pin pointing where he will be and when was extremely difficult...hence the dozens of foiled assassination attempts. biggest thing is.. if you knock off hitler you may put in power a general who knows how to runa a war and manage recources. the isrealis during the 60s used clandestine operations to take out terrorist cells in france and europe they deemed were threats. they attacked one in paris and get everyone but a lowly lieutenant they figured was not a threat....that man turned out to be carlos the jackal. so sometimes assassination backfires on you. it did them.


----------



## stona (Jun 4, 2013)

All the plots to remove Hitler after the mid war period, including the July plot, were effectively to have been coup d'états killing Hitler and replacing the Nazi regime with a military government. Killing Hitler was seen as essential since all members of the Wermacht, and obviously SS, had sworn a personal oath of allegiance to him The first thing this government would have attempted would have been the negotiation of a separate peace in the west.
Most historians would say that this was unrealistic and that the western allies would not have broken their agreements with Stalin and the USSR. I'm not so sure. That however is a rather different topic.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 4, 2013)

Most of the assasination plots envolved killing Hitler AND arresting as many of the high ranking Nazis as possible. 
That could have a great deal of a different effect that the allies getting Hitler with a bomb, then just have him replaced by another Nazi. 
That, if the desinated sucessor was picked, would be Goering. As bad as Goering was, he might have listened to facts better than Hitler. 
But just killing Hitler would probably have set off a power struggle within the Nazi hierarchy.


----------



## stona (Jun 4, 2013)

tyrodtom said:


> Most of the assasination plots envolved killing Hitler AND arresting as many of the high ranking Nazis as possible.
> That could have a great deal of a different effect that the allies getting Hitler with a bomb, then just have him replaced by another Nazi.



I agree, though it would have negated the personal oath of allegiance which did constrain many from acting against Hitler and by default the regime.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Procrastintor (Jun 4, 2013)

An army without it's leader for any amount of time is not going to last long. The power struggle would allow for something to be done while they're fussing over who gets to be the next Hitler. Decisions would be harder to make during the "election" (assassinations). It'd be a nice big window to make a move for the Allies. And by a move I mean destroying/capturing airfields near Berlin which would allow Fighter-Bombers to bring the pain to major cities, and more specifically, factories. A flight of 4 or 8 low flying P-47s can kill a factory very effectively and accurately with rockets and/or bombs. Strafing runs would be able to destroy convoys, delivery trucks, and trains. Eventually the Luftwaffe would be totally out of supplies, while the allies are still bringing more planes and more fuel the more momentum they get.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 4, 2013)

With or without Hitler, or whoever would have replaced him, local commanders would still be able to think.
Some of the best outcomes of battles result when local commanders are free from outside command influence.
That's especially true in the Wehrmacht battles late in WW2.


----------



## Procrastintor (Jun 4, 2013)

Good point tyrod, in fact, that would probably be a better idea, assassinate a local commander instead!


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 4, 2013)

Read up on Operation Anthropoid, the assasination of Reinhard Heydrich.
The Dirty Dozen was a movie, Operation Anthropoid was the reality of the few targeted assasinations of WW2 that suceeded, if you want to call what happened overall a sucess.


----------



## Jenisch (Jun 4, 2013)

According to Adam Tooze in Wages of Destruction, Hitler launched Barbarossa due to awareness that in the future Germany would face an air war with the US and Britain. Germany and it's satellites lacked resources to develop the LW strong enough to fight them, specially oil. With the air war lost, the Allies would be able to move into Europe. So, this is what I'm proposing here: a massive aerial effort against Germany, in order to turn the country in something like it was by May 1945. After this was achived, the Allied armed forces can start to prepare for landings in France. 

Having said this, there was the USSR, which was supplying Germany with among other things oil (historically, the Germans did not trust in the Soviets, but let's considerate they did this here). With hindsight it seems obvious that Germany would have much more return trading with the Soviets, rather than invading them and suffering what she suffered historically. I have the impression that Stalin could have supplied Germany with a great quantity of oil, perhaps sufficient to bring the West to the negociating table. When one looks the things by this perspective, it doesn't look and absurd that Stalin felt Hitler might not attack him immediately. This Nazis had an option of consolidate their Empire. However, I will say that I'm not a supporter of Suvorov and his idea that Stalin could attack Germany in '41 (actually Glantz demolishes this is Stumling Colossus), but if Hitler signs peace with the West, this would have left the USSR corned by Germany and Japan. And as they say here: "the future to God belongs". This perhaps can be an indicator that sooner or later the Soviets would have entered in the war against Germany.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 4, 2013)

Procrastintor said:


> An army without it's leader for any amount of time is not going to last long. The power struggle would allow for something to be done while they're fussing over who gets to be the next Hitler. Decisions would be harder to make during the "election" (assassinations). It'd be a nice big window to make a move for the Allies. And by a move I mean destroying/capturing airfields near Berlin which would allow Fighter-Bombers to bring the pain to major cities, and more specifically, factories. A flight of 4 or 8 low flying P-47s can kill a factory very effectively and accurately with rockets and/or bombs. Strafing runs would be able to destroy convoys, delivery trucks, and trains. Eventually the Luftwaffe would be totally out of supplies, while the allies are still bringing more planes and more fuel the more momentum they get.



In WWI ther e was effectively a change of regime when Ludendorf came to power. Not quite an assassination, or a coup, I will grant you, but a power struggle and a bitter grab for power nonetheless. In August 1916, Falkenhayn resigned as Chief of the General Staff. Hindenburg took his place; Ludendorff declined to be known as "Second Chief of the General Staff" and instead insisted on the title First Generalquartiermeister, on condition that all orders were sent out jointly from the two men. Together they formed the so-called Third Supreme Command.As for his rank, he was promoted to General of the Infantry. He effectively from that point became the supreme leader in Germany, with the Kaiser reduced to figurehead status. There was no apparent " window of oportunity" at the front for the allies.

Ludendorff was the chief manager of the German war effort, with the popular general von Hindenburg his pliant front man. 

In May 1940, there was effectively a vote of no confidence in Neville Chamberlain, with Churchill being voted in as head of a new government on the very day that Fall Gelb was unleashed. There was considerable confusion at the top as Churchill formed his new government. but no apparent effect on operations at the front.

In June 1944, following the crushing defeats at Phillipines Sea, war leader Tojo was ousted and replaced by a more peace oriented leader (I forget his name). Again, there is is no discernable evidence that the Japanese showed any signs of faltering at the front.

In 1945, Roosevelt died and was replaced by Truman. I dont know enough to make any comments about the level of dislocation this caused. Hitler however had hoped that the death of Roosevelt might break up the grand alliance ranged against the Axis powers. No such outcome, no evidence of "missed opportunities" either.

We have no evidence really that Germany would collapse in the event of hitlers death. I see it as a convenient extension of blaming Hitler for everything. He was part of the german problem, but the problem was bigger than just one man. I think that had Hitler been killed, the new regie would indeed sue for peace, but not unconditional, and not unde the terms of occupation. I have very serious doubts that the allies would deviate from the Casblanca declaration of unconditional surrender. Faced with that the new German leadership would probably seek better terms through the field of battle. 

Killing hitler, in my opinion would have no effect on the liklehood of an early peace, and given hitlers ecentricities, would probably prolong the war....


----------



## Njaco (Jun 4, 2013)

Procrastintor said:


> An army without it's leader for any amount of time is not going to last long. The power struggle would allow for something to be done while they're fussing over who gets to be the next Hitler. Decisions would be harder to make during the "election" (assassinations). It'd be a nice big window to make a move for the Allies. And by a move I mean destroying/capturing airfields near Berlin which would allow Fighter-Bombers to bring the pain to major cities, and more specifically, factories. A flight of 4 or 8 low flying P-47s can kill a factory very effectively and accurately with rockets and/or bombs. Strafing runs would be able to destroy convoys, delivery trucks, and trains. Eventually the Luftwaffe would be totally out of supplies, while the allies are still bringing more planes and more fuel the more momentum they get.



In any coup, you must gain control of the army. Its essential. It doesn't just disappear.


----------



## Jenisch (Jun 4, 2013)

Another interesting possibility: let's say that Germany doesn't attack the USSR and is supplied with Soviet oil. By 1943, the Anglo-Americans realize that it's not possible to defeat Germany, so they sign peace. However, they also sign a treaty with the Soviets, that would put an Anglo-American military in the Soviet Union in case Germany attacked it. Perhaps this could forestall Hitler to move against the Soviets. This may sound absurd, but if one looks the military strenght Germany could have built up in Western Europe in this scenario, it doesn't look an absurd to take care of the Soviet health. The USSR was not in a love case with the West, but it would be better to have a USSR and Germany rather than a German Empire ruling Eurasia.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 4, 2013)

That is absurd. It was hard enough getting the Soviets to let us station the few people we did to support the shuttle raids. There's no chance at all Stalin would allow the corrupting influences of western troops stationed in Russia during peacetime.

Stalin didn't trust his own military, do you think he'd trust our's ?


----------



## Civettone (Jun 4, 2013)

In 1939 Stalin saved Hitler from bankruptcy.


And Ludwig Beck would probably have been the new strong man if Hitler had been assassinated. The greatest mind of all German generals, the only one who would know how to run a country. But also a die-hard Prussian aristocratic General Staff officer, WW1 style all over again. 
Kris


----------



## DonL (Jun 4, 2013)

> And Ludwig Beck would probably have been the new strong man if Hitler had been assassinated. The greatest mind of all German generals, the only one who would know how to run a country. But also a *die-hard Prussian aristocratic* General Staff officer, WW1 style all over again.



Ludwig Becks comes out of an old Hessian officer family and was raised and educated at Wiesbaden.
Ludwig Beck had nothing to do with Prussian astrocratics.


----------



## VBF-13 (Jun 4, 2013)

parsifal said:


> In May 1940, there was effectively a vote of no confidence in Neville Chamberlain, with Churchill being voted in as head of a new government on the very day that Fall Gelb was unleashed. There was considerable confusion at the top as Churchill formed his new government. but no apparent effect on operations at the front.
> 
> In June 1944, following the crushing defeats at Phillipines Sea, war leader Tojo was ousted and replaced by a more peace oriented leader (I forget his name). Again, there is is no discernable evidence that the Japanese showed any signs of faltering at the front.
> 
> ...


VBF-13 likes this.


----------



## stona (Jun 5, 2013)

My only reservation about Parsifal's post is whether the Germans would "seek better terms through the field of battle". By mid 1943, certainly post Kursk, many in the Wermacht were openly expressing the opinion that the war was lost. Had we adhered to the Casablanca Declaration, demanding an unconditional surrender on all fronts we might well have forced the Germans to fight on. This was the case historically, even under the Nazi regime unofficial peace feelers were extended to the western powers before the final collapse. There was never any chance of any sort of negotiation with the Nazi regime, something its mandarins never grasped, but had there been a regime change who knows.
This is why, whilst I share doubts about the allies deviating from the agreement reached with the Soviets at Casablanca, I would not discount such a possibility completely.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Jenisch (Jun 5, 2013)

Perhaps if the West had allowed the Nazi leadership to exile, they could be willing to let a regime change occur. The problem is of course: how could the Nazis be certain that they would not be caught subsequentely?


----------



## VBF-13 (Jun 5, 2013)

Simple. They'd have a contract. If we caught them they'd sue us for breach of contract.


----------



## bobbysocks (Jun 5, 2013)

tyrodtom said:


> That is absurd. It was hard enough getting the Soviets to let us station the few people we did to support the shuttle raids. There's no chance at all Stalin would allow the corrupting influences of western troops stationed in Russia during peacetime.
> 
> Stalin didn't trust his own military, do you think he'd trust our's ?



thats what what i first thought when i read that comment about allied troops in the ussr...plus if the western allies decided they couldnt win the war and signed a peace treaty...why would we have troops stationed anywhere? would there be german troops then stationed in the uk and us as safeguards against further aggression? stalin had his own agenda that ran independant of anything germany, the uk, us, or anyone for that fact was doing. he was not about to let group of any size come in. i am actually surprised he let some free french flyers ( The Normandie-Niemen Regiment ) fight from inside mother russia. 

i dont think the allies could have just fought a 4-6 year airwar alone. the only reason for doing so is you are backed up on your heels and must fight defensively only or your resources are so minimal that is your only best play. desert storm is a great example of what air power can and cannot do. shock and awe was amazing and devastating but could not alone obtain or deliver the coup-de-grace. it ended only after door to door fighting...as it always will. a stalemate is the worse kind of war for public sentiment....there will always be a $#!T or get off the pot mentality that slowly builds. your public is going to grow weary of the nightly bombing without seeing any effort made by the govt or military to make it stop. the pulbic will sooner or later think their elected officials have no clear vision or backbone...and if they ( the public ) see a diminishing purpose or no victory in sight will give up the fight and want to sue for peace. in a free country you cannot fight a war without public support behind you. that is one of your most important resources you must manage. you can have a phoney war...and/or use and airwar to gather troops, resources, solidify plans....but boots and blood will have to follow soon.

as to my thoughts on the idea after hilter's assassination germany would "seek better terms through the field of battle". i do believe that is a more likelihood if the allies held on to the unconditional surrender. hitler squandered hundreds of thousands of troops and machines due to his pride and stubborness. were minds with more of a comprehension of the true situation in charge....troops could have been withdrawn to defensible areas and better battle grounds. the cost to the allies could make it worth their while to begin to negotiate...


----------



## Balljoint (Jun 5, 2013)

There’s a bit of a wild card in the Hitler assignation possibility. The Casablanca understanding was Roosevelt’s idea with Churchill going along with reservations. The objective was to bind Stalin to the effort in view of efforts by Japan and Italy to broker a separate peace between the Soviets and Germany.

While the unconditional surrender ultimatum did consolidate internal support for Hitler, the generals on the Russian front continued their assignation efforts. General von Tresckow widely and successfully recruited officer support, including Kluge -who didn’t participate but neither did he report the plotting. By the end of 1943 six serious attempts on Hitler’s life were made, including the wine bomb on his plane that failed when the detonator exploded but the plastic explosive failed to follow on.

Getting on to my take on this, the generals recognized that the war was lost and were concerned about protecting Germany. Hitler likewise recognized that the war was lost and wanted to take Germany down with him, which he largely did though not to the extent ordered since his order were ignored. Had the assignation been successful, the army would still have to deal with entrenched Nazis and the SS divisions, though there was an approach during 1942 that suggested even these groups were onboard. However, during 1943 a separate peace would have been attractive to Stalin as he would gain most of Eastern Europe, Casablanca be damned. Having split the allies, Germany would be in a rather strong position to treaty for Western Europe.


----------



## VBF-13 (Jun 5, 2013)

There were a lot whose asses were in as deep into these human rights atrocities as Hitler's was, Balljoint. I could be being naive but it just stands to reason to me that there were a lot more than just Hitler who knew it was too late for them to turn back. That I'd think hindered the efforts of these conspirators probably the most.


----------



## Balljoint (Jun 5, 2013)

VBF-13 said:


> There were a lot whose asses were in as deep into these human rights atrocities as Hitler's was, Balljoint. I could be being naive but it just stands to reason to me that there were a lot more than just Hitler who knew it was too late for them to turn back. That I'd think hindered the efforts of these conspirators probably the most.



Nazis and SS had a lot to answer for. But still most walked even after Germany was unconditionally defeated. Query; would they have done even better if they would have negotiated, for instance, a withdrawal to Germany’s after Hitler’s demise? After all, it had happened under Hitler’s orders. And the Crimes Against Humanity theory was a bit ex post facto and in the future. 

There’s some evidence that Himmler was losing faith in the cause. An English bishop was approached by Germans during May, 1942 in Stockholm with assurances of increasing doubts about Hitler. A plot involving the overthrow of Hitler by the SS and, in turn, the overthrow of the SS by the army was reported. The Brits didn’t bite because of concern about the Nazis keeping power and loot. However, Stalin was both bleeding and feeling abandoned during this period. If he could be turned in a separate peace, the sans-Hitler German “reform” government would be in a strong bargaining position for, say, withdrawal to old borders and inspected reforms. On balance, this would have saved lives both on the battlefield and in the death camps. And maybe round three in another twenty years.

I’m not advocating this. But the pieces were in place so that it could have played out so had Hitler been taken out.


----------



## VBF-13 (Jun 5, 2013)

Our good ally, Stalin, murdered more than Hitler. How could I forget that? I hear you, now. Good insights into this.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 5, 2013)

> There’s a bit of a wild card in the Hitler assignation possibility. The Casablanca understanding was Roosevelt’s idea with Churchill going along with reservations. The objective was to bind Stalin to the effort in view of efforts by Japan and Italy to broker a separate peace between the Soviets and Germany.



This I find very hard to believe. I agree that the initial concept was suggested by Rossevelt, but given that Casablanca was a conference in which the british almost totally dominated the discussions, and came away with virtually everything they were looking for, and Churchill had always strongly advocated the principal of "no surrendder, no negotiation" it seems very unlikely that the british were reluctant to the concept

Chapter I: Casablanca -- Beginning of an Era: January 1943



> While the unconditional surrender ultimatum did consolidate internal support for Hitler, the generals on the Russian front continued their assignation efforts. General von Tresckow widely and successfully recruited officer support, including Kluge -who didn’t participate but neither did he report the plotting. By the end of 1943 six serious attempts on Hitler’s life were made, including the wine bomb on his plane that failed when the detonator exploded but the plastic explosive failed to follow on.



Most of the Germans officers didnt believe the Casaablanca ultiatum was serious. They believed that with Hitler gone, the western allies would join them in a crusade in the East. They didnt seem to realize that it was they, not Hitler, not the Russians, it was the germans themselves that were the enemy. 



> Getting on to my take on this, the generals recognized that the war was lost and were concerned about protecting Germany. Hitler likewise recognized that the war was lost and wanted to take Germany down with him, which he largely did though not to the extent ordered since his order were ignored.



In 1943 hitler had had the stuffing knocked out him at Stalingrad and Alamein/North Africa, but he and most generals were far from defeatist. People like Guderiann believed that with proper rebuilding the German Army could bounce back and defeat the Russians, and after that, the western allies. Consistently the German intelligence services predicted the Russians were at the end of their manpower tethers. After Kursk, the Germans consoled themselves that would be able to wear down the Russians by onesided attrition. they were also caught short a little, because they mis-judged the Russian capabilities (the Russians began attacking, and kept attacking summer or winter). unlike the German offensives, that had been punctuated by ling breaks during the winter, the Russians never let up on the Germans after Kursk. This caught the Germans a littler by surpise, and wore down their reserves at an unsustainable rate. They were never able to recover after Kursk, never allowed to. 

Hitler also deluded himself, and a lot of other people that his new terror weapons would turn the corner for the Axis. The new technologies....Type XXI tanks, Me 262s, V1s, V2s, you name it were supposed to get back the initiative and halt the offensives against Germany. They did nothing of the sort, but that was not known in 1943....



> Had the assignation been successful, the army would still have to deal with entrenched Nazis and the SS divisions, though there was an approach during 1942 that suggested even these groups were onboard. However, during 1943 a separate peace would have been attractive to Stalin as he would gain most of Eastern Europe, Casablanca be damned. Having split the allies, Germany would be in a rather strong position to treaty for Western Europe.



What is the basis of assuming that Stalin was amenable to a separate peace. There had been some talk of a separate peace immiediately after Stalingrad. After Kursk, no such feelers were ever put out. Stalin could be trusted to the extent that he was a barbarian driven by base emotion. His primary emotion after june 1941 was revenge. you could rely on that. Later, as victory became more certain, you can add greed to revenge. He wanted the control of Eastern Europe and meant to have it. This was a centuries old Russian objective.....


The peace feelers that were put out after Stalingrad were very low level, and really not intended to come to anything. The Russians made it very clear that they wanted full control of the Balkans and Poland to the dfemarcation line. this would have completely imasculated the Germans, as they would have to give up Rumanian oil. It simply was never going to happen, and Stalin knew it. 

Getting rid of Hitler would have solved nothing. it simply would have made the germans more isolated, after they realized they faced total defeat with or without him.


----------



## Jenisch (Jun 6, 2013)

parsifal said:


> Most of the Germans officers didnt believe the Casaablanca ultiatum was serious. They believed that with Hitler gone, the western allies would join them in a crusade in the East.



Parfisal, I'm not so certain of this. War was declared on Hitler just as he started the expansion to the East. The West just wanted the Russians as out as possible, as well as any German nation with agressive capability.




> In 1943 hitler had had the stuffing knocked out him at Stalingrad and Alamein/North Africa, but he and most generals were far from defeatist. People like Guderiann believed that with proper rebuilding the German Army could bounce back and defeat the Russians, and after that, the western allies. Consistently the German intelligence services predicted the Russians were at the end of their manpower tethers. After Kursk, the Germans consoled themselves that would be able to wear down the Russians by onesided attrition. they were also caught short a little, because they mis-judged the Russian capabilities (the Russians began attacking, and kept attacking summer or winter). unlike the German offensives, that had been punctuated by ling breaks during the winter, the Russians never let up on the Germans after Kursk. This caught the Germans a littler by surpise, and wore down their reserves at an unsustainable rate. They were never able to recover after Kursk, never allowed to.



Indeed, this is an interesting point. The air and sea wars were a question of attrition, but the land battles could be different.

As for Germany being occupied with or without Hitler if continued to fight, I agree. Personally, I think that in determined situations, it's a good idea to let the leadership of a government genocide as the Nazi one went to exile if civilians and the freedom of nations can be saved by doing this. I don't know if the Nazis would accept this, but if a regime change could have occured in Germany in 1944, and Germany surrendered to the West, it would be interesting in humitarian grounds, saving millions of people from the death. The West then perhaps could have helped the WM to secure that the Russians would not grab Poland. In this case, the idea of the Anglo-Americans and Germans fighting the Russians has sense.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 6, 2013)

There might be some western allied generals that would want to take a German surrender only in the west, ( Patton, for one ) and then take the Wehrmacht as allies. But they weren't in charge.
They'd probably find themselves behind bars before the sun set, if they started along that path.

Unconditional surrender meant exactly that, NO favors, or prearranged understandings with the surrendering power. That means you surrender to us, and we'll make ALL the decisions, and you'll obey.


----------



## altsym (Jun 6, 2013)

Ludwig Beck became a major leader within the conspiracy against Hitler, and would have been provisional head of state had the 20 July plot succeeded. Hitler's death was nessessary to free German soldiers from their oath of loyalty to him, then there would have been a negotiated peace with the Allies. I'm 100% positive the West would have accepted a conditional surrender of Germany. The problem was the Beast in the East, who would have had none of that. At least that's my understanding.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 6, 2013)

After what happened with Versailles and the consequences of the treaty I cannot see anyone in Britain or the French government in exile allowing any conditonal agreement. Why should they, both wanted the problem with Germany sorted once and for all. 3 times in a lifetime German boots were on French soil no one wanted to make it 4.


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 6, 2013)

fastmongrel said:


> 3 times in a lifetime German boots were on French soil no one wanted to make it 4.



One good way of achieving that would be (a) not declaring war on Germany (two times, 1870, 1939), and (b) stopping scheming for nearly half a century (1870-1914) for revanche to make "right" for the last time you declared war on them but it did not end very well for ya at all. The best way of avoiding getting beaten to pulp regularly in bar fights is not going into bars and picking fights with stronger guys in the first place.


----------



## Balljoint (Jun 6, 2013)

> This I find very hard to believe. I agree that the initial concept was suggested by Rossevelt, but given that Casablanca was a conference in which the british almost totally dominated the discussions, and came away with virtually everything they were looking for, and Churchill had always strongly advocated the principal of "no surrendder, no negotiation" it seems very unlikely that the british were reluctant to the concept



My source is TOTAL WAR, a 1972 scholarly work by Calvocoressi and Wint. In the chapter titled Hitler’s German Enemies, they write,
“In January 1943 at Casablanca Roosevelt suggested and Churchill hesitantly agreed that they should declare that the only acceptable conclusion of the war was the unconditional surrender of Germany… The most t pressing aim of the declaration was to hold the Grand Alliance together at a time when Stalin was disappointed and angry and both Japan and Italy were working for a separate peace between Germany and USSR…” The concept is attributed to the US State Department.






> Most of the Germans officers didnt believe the Casaablanca ultiatum was serious. They believed that with Hitler gone, the western allies would join them in a crusade in the East. They didnt seem to realize that it was they, not Hitler, not the Russians, it was the germans themselves that were the enemy.



"The declaration on unconditional surrender ... may nonetheless done something to consolidate German opinion and discourage hitler's enemies at home." Ibid




> In 1943 hitler had had the stuffing knocked out him at Stalingrad and Alamein/North Africa, but he and most generals were far from defeatist. People like Guderiann believed that with proper rebuilding the German Army could bounce back and defeat the Russians, and after that, the western allies. Consistently the German intelligence services predicted the Russians were at the end of their manpower tethers. After Kursk, the Germans consoled themselves that would be able to wear down the Russians by onesided attrition. they were also caught short a little, because they mis-judged the Russian capabilities (the Russians began attacking, and kept attacking summer or winter). unlike the German offensives, that had been punctuated by ling breaks during the winter, the Russians never let up on the Germans after Kursk. This caught the Germans a littler by surpise, and wore down their reserves at an unsustainable rate. They were never able to recover after Kursk, never allowed to.




My take on this is rather mine alone. After Stalingrad, Hitler celebrated the efforts of the Sixth Army and raged at Paulus’ surrender rather than the suicide expected of a Field Marshall. Focus on the “honor” of the matter rather than the catastrophic loss of resources suggests to me a shift to the twisted concept of an “honorable defeat” rather than the expectation of victory. This was reinforced by Hitler’s refusal to cancel the Kursk attack despite being told that it would fail by several knowledgeable officers including Guderiann. Hitler was openly defeatist in his position that the operation was too far alone to cancel. At war’s end, Hitler clearly attempted to destroy Germany –when did this start?

Again, this is my subjective opinion –take it for what it’s worth.


----------

