Did the Axis have any chance at all in WWII?

[David Floyd]

And also, Germany was far from getting the bomb in 1945, but I think they most certainly would have had it by 1950.

You mean 5 years after the US and a year after the Russians? Uhoh

Secondly, I think if the Germans were in London after a successful invasion they could have negotiated a treaty with England. You said that England wouldn't agree to peace according to Churchill. Well, Churchill wasn't exactly the most unbiased man on the subject. If HE was in power, that is very true, but on the other hand, if the Germans pulled off the invasion, he wouldn't be in power. I think England would have accepted an equitable peace, which Hitler might have offered.

A)If Hitler was in London, why should he negotiate equitable peace?
B)The British - not just Churchill - would have fought for every inch of land with every available weapon. There were even plans to dump oil into the Channel and light it on fire. They would not have surrendered.

What if the Sealion invasion had FAILED? What if all 30+ divisions were wiped out by combined land and sea attack?

It would have taken weeks just to get 30+ divisions into England with opposition from the RN and RAF - I think any landing would have been contained and pushed back.

No Barbarossa might have led to increased German activity in Africa, possibly even an assault on Malta, which would have been disastrous for the British.

[David Floyd]

The Germans were developing jet bombers (in their early developments by 1945) that would be capable of reaching the eastern coast cities of the United States.

Escorted how? Transatlantic fighters? No, long range jet bombers would have hit hard by US fighters, including the first P-80 Shooting Stars (jets), and would have been a disaster for Germany.

[Dom Pedro II]

A)If Hitler was in London, why should he negotiate equitable peace?
B)The British - not just Churchill - would have fought for every inch of land with every available weapon. There were even plans to dump oil into the Channel and light it on fire. They would not have surrendered.

Hitler never wanted to take over Britain. He just didn't want to be fighting them. He felt that since they were also part of similar bloodlines, they were worth keeping around. The trouble is that its easy to "They would have fought for every inch...", but when its YOU making the decision to go out and take on a German panzer, its a different story. Actions are made by individuals, and I would imagine many would rather keep their families alive than charge a tank with a rifle.

Escorted how? Transatlantic fighters? No, long range jet bombers would have hit hard by US fighters, including the first P-80 Shooting Stars (jets), and would have been a disaster for Germany.

True. I'm just explaining that this is what the Germans were intending to do. It might not have worked, that is true. But I highly doubt there would have been many jet fighters to shoot them down considering that the Americans were still using propeller planes against Russian jet-powered MiG's at the beginning of the Korean War.

It would have taken weeks just to get 30+ divisions into England with opposition from the RN and RAF - I think any landing would have been contained and pushed back.

Wait? So you think that they wouldn't have even had a chance to land the 30 divisions. Sorry, I'm genuinely asking. It sounds like you're saying that they couldn't have won but they couldn't have been destroyed either.

[Cavalcadeus]

Originally posted by Sprayber


How far are you willing to go to get a copy from her?

She is 70 or 80 years old. If it comes to that, I can live without reading the books.

[David James]

Hmmm... Were Britain and France actually contemplating ground action against Germany sometime in 1940? My argument has been based on the assumption that they weren't planning any such thing but I don't know that for sure.
Anyway, if they weren't then my argument is that Germany should have just stayed put, fortifed the Rhineland and built up its military for a planned attack against Russia in 1941. They would have had to leave some troops in the Rhineland but obviously less than they actually had to employ garrisoning France, the Low countries and Scandinavia. This would also allow Germany to keep all their logistical capability available for use in the east. The central point is that Germany's assault on Russia very nearly succeeded in 1941 as it was, and the extra troops and supplies (and not screwing around in the Balkans and Greece for 6 weeks) that would have been afforded by not having to occupy the rest of Europe would have been enough to tip the balance.

The point about the French maybe trying to appease communist elements in France is taken, but then the evidence is that the British at least were willing to supply the Finns against the Soviets, so I'm not sure how much can be read into that either way. Plus, given the later existence of the Vichy regime there were apparently more than a small number of fascists in France anyway, so appeasing communists would hardly be of any help there.

Another point is that until Hitler invaded Western Europe no one really had any sense of how dangerous he was (except maybe Churchill of course). So if he had spent 1940 apparently not doing too much other than offer a buffer against Communism then the western powers may well have been lulled into a sense of complacency. At the same time Stalin was already known to be dangerous, so it's arguable the western powers may have been willing to turn a blind eye to any conflict between the two, at least for awhile. I certainly doubt that Chamberlain would have been ousted on account of Hitler attacking Stalin...

I just don't see what benefit there was in attacking France and Scandinavia. It turned the British from being luke-warm enemies into white-hot enemies because (1) France was overrun and (2) Germany now controlled most of Europe's coastline, something that Britain has always sought to prevent from happening (ie Napoleon). Nor did these conquests add much to Germany's industrial strength (unlike much of central Europe) and there was a tremendous garrisonning cost. The costs outweighed the benefits.


Of course, if the British and French really were planning to attack Germany in 1940 then all of the above is kind of pointless...

[MORON]

Can't the US just drive carriers around and nuke the rest of the world into a radioactive rubble?

Who needs Eurowimps to win anyway?

[Dom Pedro II]

DJ, you have a point. Before the blitz into Western Europe was the Phoney War where it seemed like neither side was doing much of anything. However, the British weren't in Belgium for nothing... I don't think that they would've made the first move initially if Hitler did nothing, but if Hitler opened a war with the Soviets, then most likely they would have siezed the oppurtunity.

On the other hand, maybe not because France and Britain probably would've preferred to let the fascists and communists wipe each other out. Still, I don't think the Western Front would have been inactive for almost a whole year without some kind of fighting.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On another point (just because your post reminded me of it), I have often been one to defend the French for the fiasco of the summer of 1940. True, they were overrun, which was bad, but I don't think this shows cowardice. It was a terrible strategic disaster. The fact that they complied with Hitler isn't cowardice either. Remember, many people in France remembered the horrors of the First World War in which millions of their countrymen were flung into the furnace of the trenches and perished there. As I have said elsewhere, conquest wasn't that common, so they probably assumed that if the Nazis took over then they'd pay reparations, be occupied for a little bit, and that'd be the end of it. Remember, heinsight is 20/20. Petain, the man who created Vichy France, was a schmuck, I have no questions about that, but it was also in southern France where the greatest resistence sprung up. By the time that the French really knew that Hitler meant to stay, military reaction was impossible. The only thing they could do was become subversive. This was the Maquis, and the Maquis did quite a bit in the Resistance. In short, remember that people are people and you can't make blanket statements about one nationality or another.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Dom Pedro II
David :

The Germans were developing jet bombers (in their early developments by 1945) that would be capable of reaching the eastern coast cities of the United States.

Early jets drank fuel like mad. Those engines would never have done the job at that time. Not till jets were getting most of their thrust from the air that was pushed through by the fans was long range a possibility. Also the the engine temperatures had to be increased quite a lot to get the needed eficiency.

[Dom Pedro II]

Ah whatever... I'm going by what I saw on the History Channel on German jets. They said they could've reached NYC, so I say so. It's not pivotal to my point since (as I said) it would be the worst case scenario.

[Ramo]

DF - Turkey had only aging WWI equipment to fight off any possible violations of its neutrality. I don't see it as all that likely that it could withstand a fullscale German invasion, even if the Italians are involved in the operation.

[David Floyd]

DP,

Hitler never wanted to take over Britain. He just didn't want to be fighting them. He felt that since they were also part of similar bloodlines, they were worth keeping around. The trouble is that its easy to "They would have fought for every inch...", but when its YOU making the decision to go out and take on a German panzer, its a different story. Actions are made by individuals, and I would imagine many would rather keep their families alive than charge a tank with a rifle.

Just because Hitler didn't necessarily want war with Britain doesn't mean he would have invaded England, and, with the Royal Family and British Government languishing in the Tower, decided to make an equitable peace.
As for Britain fighting for every inch - the Russians certainly did it.

But I highly doubt there would have been many jet fighters to shoot them down considering that the Americans were still using propeller planes against Russian jet-powered MiG's at the beginning of the Korean War.

There was no sense of urgency - the West was concerned with massive military cutbacks, not expenditures.

Wait? So you think that they wouldn't have even had a chance to land the 30 divisions. Sorry, I'm genuinely asking. It sounds like you're saying that they couldn't have won but they couldn't have been destroyed either.

If Germany destroyed the BEF in France and been able to land and supply 30-40 divisions, they possibly could have won. But they could not have landed that many troops - the first day of Overlord only 5 divisions were landed by nations with exponentially more naval power than Germany had.

DJ,

Anyway, if they weren't then my argument is that Germany should have just stayed put, fortifed the Rhineland and built up its military for a planned attack against Russia in 1941. They would have had to leave some troops in the Rhineland but obviously less than they actually had to employ garrisoning France, the Low countries and Scandinavia. This would also allow Germany to keep all their logistical capability available for use in the east. The central point is that Germany's assault on Russia very nearly succeeded in 1941 as it was, and the extra troops and supplies (and not screwing around in the Balkans and Greece for 6 weeks) that would have been afforded by not having to occupy the rest of Europe would have been enough to tip the balance.

Actually, historically, the garrisons in France and the Balkans only became as big as they were once invasion was a serious threat. The vast majority of the German military (in terms of combat effective troops) participated in Barbarossa.

It sounds to me as if you are saying Germany could garrison the West Wall with under 40 divisions - which would necessarily be low quality troops with Panzer Is and IIs primarily, unless you want to weaken the Barbarossa force.
Against that, in 1941, would be a French force of probably around 100 divisions, and a BEF of probably 15 or so, bothforces independently enjoying armored and air superiority, as well as a 4 or 5 to 1 advantage in manpower.
Again, I would also remind you that when the majority of German airpower was put in the East, Churchill could possibly have successfully advocated the implementation of 'Catherine', cutting off Germany's iron ore, and threatening her entire coast.

but then the evidence is that the British at least were willing to supply the Finns against the Soviets, so I'm not sure how much can be read into that either way.

This was mostly an excuse to get troops into Scandanavia, cut off Germany's iron ore, and threaten a northern front.

I certainly doubt that Chamberlain would have been ousted on account of Hitler attacking Stalin...

I agree, but Chamberlain was fully committed to war, and had a working relationship with Churchill. Peace would have been unlikely.

I just don't see what benefit there was in attacking France and Scandinavia.

It secured Swedish iron ore, excellent U-Boat bases such as St. Nazaire, and wiped out the threat of a 5,000,000 man French army sitting only miles from the Ruhr, as well as throwing the British off the continent, for starters.

Ramo,

DF - Turkey had only aging WWI equipment to fight off any possible violations of its neutrality. I don't see it as all that likely that it could withstand a fullscale German invasion, even if the Italians are involved in the operation.

There is the problem of crossing the Bosporous in the face of English naval and air superiority. The Brits would certainly have landed troops and especially air power in Turkey, and been able to use Turkish bases to toss Italy totally out of the Eastern Med, as well as Germany's main oil fields at Ploesti being within range. Turkey was also not ideal blitzkrieg country, and a slugging match and attrition was to Turkey/Britain's benefit here.

[Dom Pedro II]

As for Britain fighting for every inch - the Russians certainly did it.

I don't think that's a really fair comparison. I mean, the Nazis were pillaging and destroying as they moved through Eastern Europe since they thought the Slavs were a subhuman race. The Russians would've joined Hitler to get away from Stalin if he hadn't been even worse than Stalin once he got there. This kind of war wouldn't have been what they would have seen in Britain. As I said before, in autumn of 1940, nobody had seen what horrors Nazi Germany was truly capable of.

The point is that I think that it would have taken a lot to get the British fighting in house-to-house fighting with the German Army. For that to even happen though, some sort of terms of surrender would already have to be worked out and the Germans would have to continue occupying Britain for quite some time, which is not what I think Hitler would have done. If, let's say, the British offered a truce under such and such terms, and then the Germans replied that they would only accept unconditional surrender, it might have roused guerilla warfare amongst the British population. If they demanded annexation or the establishment of a new government, than it most probably would have.


Anyway, so you think that Operation Sea Lion wouldn't have been a disaster for the Germans even if they failed?

[David Floyd]

DP,

My opinion that Britain would have fought no matter what is based upon my understanding of British thought and opinion regardng the war coming from Chirchill - it's conjecture and I could always be wrong.

Anyway, so you think that Operation Sea Lion wouldn't have been a disaster for the Germans even if they failed?

It depends on what they did afterward.

[Ned]

DF, et al., Despite all the tactical mistakes of the Germans and Japanese, it is clear to me that the Axis had only one small chance to win WWII. Germany had to take Moscow in 1941 and force Soviet capitulation. This would have opened a supply line to Japan through Russia, thus obviating their need to attack the U.S. Without Pearl Harbor, active American participation would probably not have occurred. Eventually, Japan would have taken all of China and the British and the Germans would have negotiated a peace. The Brits undoubtedly would have negotiated for a German withdrawal from France, etc., as a condition of peace. I believe the Germans would have agreed to this.

Ned

[Serb]

Even if he took the Moscow, it changed nothing we’ve keep fought till last man.