Luftwaffe focused in the East

[Juha]

How about Hitler takes Western Europe, but stays away from Italy (as an ally), England and the US while sticking to the Mien Kampt scenario. Japan could be given the conquered European countries' colonies in the East for oil and other resources in return for a second Soviet front...

Germany couldn't deliver those colonies neither it could deny them. Why would Japanese agree such a deal? Look what happened in the Dutch East India, the main target of Japanese Southern expansion in 41-42, Japanese had to conquer it.

Juha

 

[Balljoint]

I would view it as more a case of admiration than favor by the Wehrmacht. The Army was quite negative towards the Ardennes attack –its plans having been rejected- and Hitler's strategy succeeded brilliantly. You can't argue with success. Still there was the background of the formation of the SS divisions based upon Hitler's lack of trust of the Wehrmacht and Hitler's penchant for micromanaging the professionals. For instance, Hitler halted the panzers near Dunkirk and allowed the British Exp Force to largely escape.

Case Yellow is a part of my overall scenario and there was certainly much less Army dissension during the period. But I still don't see Hitler allowing the Army to formulate the strategy I outline, and only the Wehrmacht had the expertise to do so.

I am extrapolating that without Sea Lion and the BoB, or other threat, Great Britain would reset to the Phony War mentality. Japan attacked the US and Germany followed by declaring war on the US. Absent these actions and without a threat to their Pacific possessions, it's my belief that Japan could have acquired the colonies of the conquered European nations without much resistance from the US and Great Britain. Of course this is just the way my toy soldiers line up when I play the game.

 

[tyrodtom]

As already pointed out, in the real world Germany did conquer Holland , but that didn't help Japan get access to the oil in the Durch east Indies.

They had to take them by force, and being sure the USA wouldn't just stand by and let this happen, they attacked the US.

Without Brirain and France envolved in a European war, it makes it even more difficult for Japan to go south for any resources IMO.

 

[Balljoint]

As already pointed out, in the real world Germany did conquer Holland , but that didn't help Japan get access to the oil in the Durch east Indies.

They had to take them by force, and being sure the USA wouldn't just stand by and let this happen, they attacked the US.

Without Brirain and France envolved in a European war, it makes it even more difficult for Japan to go south for any resources IMO.

At the end of 1941, well after general hostilities broke out in Europe and China, The US was involved only to the extent of embargoes and supplies to Britain -other than the unofficial shooting war in the mid-Atlantic. And it was Japan and Germany that initiated war with the US. If the US wouldn't go to war over Holland, why would we do so over their colonies -assuming we weren't otherwise threatened and worried about strategic oil? And if Japan had not gone to war with China to no purpose, there wouldn't have been an embargo.

My point is that Hitler did take Western Europe with little repercussion from the US. Had he pulled in his horns, not attacked Great Britain, the US public would not support a European war. And certainly not if Hitler and his former ally Stalin, along with Japan, were the only active combatants.

Actually, IMO the problem would be for Hitler to decouple from Mussolini as he attempted to reconstitute the Roman Empire. But Great Britain could handle Italy and be occupied as Germany and Japan took on the Soviet Union to gain the empires that, IMO, were the underlying causes of the war. This would not draw the US into the war.

But I grant that the personalities, both individual and national, would not have allowed such a strategy.

 

[Juha]

... If the US wouldn't go to war over Holland, why would we do so over their colonies -assuming we weren't otherwise threatened and worried about strategic oil? And if Japan had not gone to war with China to no purpose, there wouldn't have been an embargo...

Firstly, Japan invaded China with purpose.
secondly, US have great intrest in Pacific and would not allow Japan to dominate Western Pacific. Dutch East India lay across stratecigally very important sea route nad Philippines lay alongside the sea route between Japan and Dutch East India, so Japan needed Philippines to secure its link to Southern oil and was pretty sure that US would not allow it to seize Dutch East India witout at lest some actions, so Japanese decided that they had to invade Philippines which would meant war with USA, so PH became into picture.

Juha

 

[rank amateur]

It's not likely France and Britain would just stand by and do nothing while Hitler rolled over Holland and Belgium.

Mussolini deceided for him self to join in the victory when the battle of France was nearly done. In doing so he managed to get the French some won battles
Anyway, I'm not sure if Hitler was to pleased with this ally. I'm sure he particularly hated them for declaring war on Greece later on.
I think Holland and Belgium were overrun to insure a better position for a war against France and the UK. If Hitler would not engage in an active war against either there would be no need to invade the low countries. These would provide a safetyzone against invasions from France and the UK.

 

[rank amateur]

At the end of 1941, well after general hostilities broke out in Europe and China, The US was involved only to the extent of embargoes and supplies to Britain -other than the unofficial shooting war in the mid-Atlantic. And it was Japan and Germany that initiated war with the US. If the US wouldn't go to war over Holland, why would we do so over their colonies -assuming we weren't otherwise threatened and worried about strategic oil? And if Japan had not gone to war with China to no purpose, there wouldn't have been an embargo.

My point is that Hitler did take Western Europe with little repercussion from the US. Had he pulled in his horns, not attacked Great Britain, the US public would not support a European war. And certainly not if Hitler and his former ally Stalin, along with Japan, were the only active combatants.

Actually, IMO the problem would be for Hitler to decouple from Mussolini as he attempted to reconstitute the Roman Empire. But Great Britain could handle Italy and be occupied as Germany and Japan took on the Soviet Union to gain the empires that, IMO, were the underlying causes of the war. This would not draw the US into the war.

But I grant that the personalities, both individual and national, would not have allowed such a strategy.

The US considered the Pacific to be something like their own backyard so if Japan would take any action against the Dutch colonies, the US would surely react. If only to protect their interest in the Philippines.

I agree that the US could have been kept out of the war in Europe if Hitler had handled his politics better.

 

[Balljoint]

The US considered the Pacific to be something like their own backyard so if Japan would take any action against the Dutch colonies, the US would surely react. If only to protect their interest in the Philippines.

The US had agreed to leave the Philippines during 1944 so the US interest was strategic rather than territorial. But the point was that Japan was not to threaten US interests. FDR probable would have gone to war fairly early if the country would have allowed him to. Without Pearl or other Pacific threats –as would be realistic if the IJA and IJN were focused on the Soviet Union- it's feasible that the US wouldn't have gone to war.

Also, as much as Churchill hated Hitler, he loved his Empire more. Without the BoB and sans US involvement, he would have swallowed the French defeat and protected his island. The Soviet Union was hardly a sympathetic entity. Absent the enemy-of-my-enemy rationale, the West would not have supported Stalin.

 

[tyrodtom]

Where is the IJN and IJA going to get the oil they need to focus on the USSR.

The US had already cut off Japan from US oil over their policies in China, and since neither Briain nor the US is occupied with the war in Europe, they're even less likely to just let Japan take the Dutch east Indies to get the oil.

This whole scenario is just too unrealistic, first we have to agree that Britain and France doesn't enter WW2 when Germany invades Poland, since there's no way for Germany to get to Russia without first going thru Poland.

OK, we accept no war over Poland. But no European war with Britain envolved when Germany also takes Holland, Belgium and France is just too far from realistic to accept.

 

[gjs238]

Is there some way Germany could get Poland's "permission" to cross thru into the USSR?
Even under coercion?

 

[Gixxerman]

I agree that the US could have been kept out of the war in Europe if Hitler had handled his politics better.

Also, as much as Churchill hated Hitler, he loved his Empire more. Without the BoB and sans US involvement, he would have swallowed the French defeat and protected his island. The Soviet Union was hardly a sympathetic entity. Absent the enemy-of-my-enemy rationale, the West would not have supported Stalin.

Sorry but I do not see this at all.

You only have to read what Churchill was saying to know that he would never have reached an accomodation with Hitler's Germany.
Churchill fully understood the potential of a technically able nazi dominated Europe the threat it would pose (if given the requested 'free hand in the east') to both the UK it's Empire as well as, eventually either directly or through it's allies, the USA.

A short-term policy of avoiding war was no guarantee of the British Empire, and Churchill was fully aware of this had no intention of ever allowing the UK to become another emasculated vassal state of Hitler's Greater Germany.

This is the reason why Roosevelt agreed on the Germany first policy.

Not declaring war on the USA makes little or no difference to the growing US involvement in WW2, however it came (and Pearl Hargboyur pretty much guaranteed it) the USA was bound to come in at some point on the allies side.


The total failure to understand this is also the reason why Germany had many deluded enough to imagine that the UK USA would ever accept this as a 'minus Hitler' option, it was never going to happen and those who imagine it might are simply in denial of the facts.

A nazi or neo-nazi Germany occupying dominating almost all of western, central eastern Europe coupled to the Ukraine western central Russia their resources (perhaps including later elements of 'Operation Orient' where Britain loses touch with Persia her oil) was never one that the UK or USA would ever find acceptable.

(one reason why the German army resistance was cold-shouldered by the allies....but had they been successful they would no doubt have been put straight on this quite rapidly.....although should they have been open to this and then flexible on how the peace should be engineered is another matter, but the tales I have read indicate that a still military Germany, even with many of the nazi gang locked up and brought to justice, was no guarantee of the war ending)

 

[Balljoint]

Is there some way Germany could get Poland's "permission" to cross thru into the USSR?
Even under coercion?

Probable not. Though likely not planned, the joint German, Soviet invasion of Poland was an effective means to put the Soviets at ease and at a tactical disadvantage. The Soviets had a reasonable good defensive line established in the Pripet marshes though it would have been breached at some cost. The invasion of Poland pulled much of the Soviet defense to the border where it was much less effective.

In any event an accommodation with Poland would have likely telegraphed Hitler's intentions

 

[Balljoint]

Where is the IJN and IJA going to get the oil they need to focus on the USSR.

The US had already cut off Japan from US oil over their policies in China, and since neither Briain nor the US is occupied with the war in Europe, they're even less likely to just let Japan take the Dutch east Indies to get the oil.

This whole scenario is just too unrealistic, first we have to agree that Britain and France doesn't enter WW2 when Germany invades Poland, since there's no way for Germany to get to Russia without first going thru Poland.

OK, we accept no war over Poland. But no European war with Britain envolved when Germany also takes Holland, Belgium and France is just too far from realistic to accept.

Yes it's unrealistic since it would involve Hitler coming to the OKH as a client and then limiting himself to fine tuning a comprehensive strategy. It would involve Japan operating as a truly modern entity rather than a militaristic feudal state. But if it did happen, the probability of success would have been greatly increased.

While the US had embargoed oil, Japan had an eighteen month reserve. Iron might be another problem, but the original premise was limited to oil. And with the US in the war Japan took the Dutch East Indies in about six weeks and wiped out the opposing fleet in, I think, the battles of the Java Sea. There's a timing mismatch, but every thing would happen sooner.

The original premise was to be that Poland was taken as was France, i.e. cherry picking the successful campaigns. But no BoB and no Pearl Harbor. Japan takes the occupied countries colonies but avoids confronting the US and GB. They then turn north and establish a second front to compliment Barbarossa which advances the timing of Japan's involvement. Italy does what it pleases but is a sacrificial pawn to occupy GB as it defends its African and Middle Eastern protectorates.

 

[rank amateur]

Sorry but I do not see this at all.

You only have to read what Churchill was saying to know that he would never have reached an accomodation with Hitler's Germany.
Churchill fully understood the potential of a technically able nazi dominated Europe the threat it would pose (if given the requested 'free hand in the east') to both the UK it's Empire as well as, eventually either directly or through it's allies, the USA.

A short-term policy of avoiding war was no guarantee of the British Empire, and Churchill was fully aware of this had no intention of ever allowing the UK to become another emasculated vassal state of Hitler's Greater Germany.

This is the reason why Roosevelt agreed on the Germany first policy.

Not declaring war on the USA makes little or no difference to the growing US involvement in WW2, however it came (and Pearl Hargboyur pretty much guaranteed it) the USA was bound to come in at some point on the allies side.


The total failure to understand this is also the reason why Germany had many deluded enough to imagine that the UK USA would ever accept this as a 'minus Hitler' option, it was never going to happen and those who imagine it might are simply in denial of the facts.

A nazi or neo-nazi Germany occupying dominating almost all of western, central eastern Europe coupled to the Ukraine western central Russia their resources (perhaps including later elements of 'Operation Orient' where Britain loses touch with Persia her oil) was never one that the UK or USA would ever find acceptable.

(one reason why the German army resistance was cold-shouldered by the allies....but had they been successful they would no doubt have been put straight on this quite rapidly.....although should they have been open to this and then flexible on how the peace should be engineered is another matter, but the tales I have read indicate that a still military Germany, even with many of the nazi gang locked up and brought to justice, was no guarantee of the war ending)

Nobody is claiming that Churchill would be happy with the situation but I still doubt that Churchill would have engaged in an agressive war against Germany IF Germany abstained from any action against Danmark and Norway or the low countries. The man detested Stalin and communism in general. So if Hitler would have take on the Sovjet Union I think noth France and the UK would have waited to see wait the result would be. Meanwhile both countries would be rearming

 

[Gixxerman]

Nobody is claiming that Churchill would be happy with the situation but I still doubt that Churchill would have engaged in an agressive war against Germany IF Germany abstained from any action against Danmark and Norway or the low countries.

Well we'll have to agree to disagree then.

I can point to writings before the war where Churchill clearly (and absolutely accurately) recognised the enormous danger of and the aggressive malevolent nature of Hitler's nazism and the threat this would undoubtedly pose to any of those countries willing to stand against him.

Basically you can't have one without the other.
Hitler is always going to be act like Hitler. Western Europe is always going to have to be nullified and that means a war in the west, with the attack occupation of Belgium, Holland and France.
Swedish ore sources are always going to have to be ensured maintained that - given the nature of those countries at the time - means a war occupation in Norway Denmark.
The UK is never going to sign up to anything allowing this unless she is defeated - or starved into submission.

The man detested Stalin and communism in general.

Yes he did.....but as history shows he detested Hitler nazism even more so, possibly because he understood that with Germany's technical scientific culture enabling it it (nazism) represented a greater longer-term threat if it was not stopped when it was.

So if Hitler would have take on the Sovjet Union I think noth France and the UK would have waited to see wait the result would be. Meanwhile both countries would be rearming

Again, I don't think so, and I think the events of the time back my view up..

The actual events show that Churchill understood Hitler had to be stopped, even if that meant allying with Stalin expending huge amounts of British materials, treasure lives - and at a time when they could be ill afforded.

As has been mentioned earlier here there is no way Hitler moves against the USSR without the attack on Poland happening - and he never once had any intention of doing otherwise - his disappointment at being robbed of his war at Munich the year before is well documented.
This itself guarantees (as events showed proved) that the British French declare war on nazi Germany.

 

[Glider]

There have been a number of comments around Churchills comment, writings and views on Hitler and less about his equally negative views on Stalin.
However we and I do include myself have forgotten one important point. Churchill wasn't the Prime Minister when war broke out, Neville Chamberlain was and there was a strong lobby for peace in english politics.

Had Hitler avoided attacking France then Chamberlain wouldn't have fallen from power, Churchill wouldn't have become leader and Stalin would have been on his own. I cannot see France and the UK who were basically defensive supporting Stalin as he was loathed as much as Hitler.

 

[rank amateur]

I have no problem with us agreeing to disagree Gixxxerman. Fact remains that we'll never know. Fact too is that Chamberlain felt compelled to resign when his appeasement politics clearly had failed, the day Germany invaded Holland, Belgium and France. In 'my' alternative scenario Hitler would not have invaded any western European countries so Chamberlain had no direct reason to resign. As I said earlier neither France nor England were very eager to start a full scale war. I don't think either ready for it.

I think that it is a reasonable assertion that France and England would have waited for the outcome of the battle between Germany and the USSR whilst speeding up their rearmentprogrammes so at a latter point in time they could fight a war on their own terms. Would be a whole other ballgame with to many variables to draw any conclusions. For me that is.

 

[stona]

Is there some way Germany could get Poland's "permission" to cross thru into the USSR?
Even under coercion?

Absolutely not. Polands territorial integrity was guaranteed under various treaties and protocols by both Britain and France. The Poles are not daft,they would have understood the consequences of allowing German troops into their territory.

Your alternative scenario was never going to happen. The political climate of 1939,after the appeasment of the previous years,was never going to allow it. The minute German forces crossed the Polish border they were going to trigger the guarantees of the Anglo-French entente. There only chance then was to knock France out of the war and force a compromise peace on Britain. They succeeded in the first case but obviously failed in the second.

Churchill was always going to wage war against Nazi Germany on moral as well as pragmatic grounds. This seems difficult for some people today to understand. With the sleazy politicians we manage to elect nowadays maybe we don't believe them capable of making a moral stance!

Churchill had already likened the appeasment of Nazi Germany,particularly the deal over Czechoslovakia,to throwing tit bits to a ravening wolf. When you run out of treats he will come for you.

Churchill's words below are,of course,rhetoric but they don't come from a man who was going to compromise with nazi Germany. He fully understood just what that represented and it was anathema to everything he stood for and believed in.
I am not a huge fan of Churchill,he was essentially a 19th century imperialist but he was the right man at the right time and for that I respect him.

"What General Weygand called the Battle of France is over. I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this Island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, This was their finest hour."

They don't make them like that anymore.

Cheers
Steve

 

[michaelmaltby]

"... I am not a huge fan of Churchill, he was essentially a 19th century imperialist..."

So .....? The 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th centuries were all about imperialism .... it would be surprising if Churchill wasn't an imperialist.

PC thinking is insidious.

MM

 

[Balljoint]

Sorry but I do not see this at all.

You only have to read what Churchill was saying to know that he would never have reached an accomodation with Hitler's Germany.
Churchill fully understood the potential of a technically able nazi dominated Europe the threat it would pose (if given the requested 'free hand in the east') to both the UK it's Empire as well as, eventually either directly or through it's allies, the USA.

A short-term policy of avoiding war was no guarantee of the British Empire, and Churchill was fully aware of this had no intention of ever allowing the UK to become another emasculated vassal state of Hitler's Greater Germany.

This is the reason why Roosevelt agreed on the Germany first policy.

Not declaring war on the USA makes little or no difference to the growing US involvement in WW2, however it came (and Pearl Hargboyur pretty much guaranteed it) the USA was bound to come in at some point on the allies side.


The total failure to understand this is also the reason why Germany had many deluded enough to imagine that the UK USA would ever accept this as a 'minus Hitler' option, it was never going to happen and those who imagine it might are simply in denial of the facts.

A nazi or neo-nazi Germany occupying dominating almost all of western, central eastern Europe coupled to the Ukraine western central Russia their resources (perhaps including later elements of 'Operation Orient' where Britain loses touch with Persia her oil) was never one that the UK or USA would ever find acceptable.

(one reason why the German army resistance was cold-shouldered by the allies....but had they been successful they would no doubt have been put straight on this quite rapidly.....although should they have been open to this and then flexible on how the peace should be engineered is another matter, but the tales I have read indicate that a still military Germany, even with many of the nazi gang locked up and brought to justice, was no guarantee of the war ending)

GB's, i.e. Churchill's, resolve is not in question; only its capability to act effectively.

Shortly after the fall of France a report evaluating GB's chances and containing a pregnant preamble was issued. It contained the language,

"…in the even of terms being offered to Britain which would place her entirely at the mercy of Germany through disarmament….; what are the prospects of our continuing the war…"

This suggests that had more favorable terms been offered, the matter would have been open to other consideration.

And during the closing months of the war, Churchill put GB's blood into gaining democracy for Greece. However, lacking FDR's support, he was unable to do the same for Poland though the Free Polish forces had been extraordinarily brave allies. It can be argued that Churchill came to view Stalin as fully as evil as Hitler. Though irrepressible, he was disheartened by the outcome with Stalin occupying Eastern Europe rather than Hitler.

Finally, there's good reason to believe that a military empire, particularly a brutal one, drains rather than strengthens the aggressor. This was George Kennon's insight that lead to containment rather than military action against the Soviet Union. But development of this theory would be even greater abuse of the thread.

I suspect that an evening over a pint would bring us much closer in our views.