At what point did German defeat in WW2 become inevitable?

[Mr. Harley]

Sikander - good post reference military potential.

Reference the A-bomb, the Nazis really were not that close. Between the British commando raids on the Norwegian heavy water supplies/production, and the number of scientists who had fled the Facist regimes in Germany and Italy, they were at a huge disadvantage. They had a limited number of people working on the problem, and had gotten into a practical blind alley - heavy water as the moderator for the reactor, which has real problems from an engineering standpoint. Read the first link that shows how Fermi engineered the first working nuclear reactor. He did some truly brilliant work, and ended up using Cadmium rods and then graphite blocks as a moderator - which are much easier to use from an engineering standpoint. www.ces.clemson.edu/linux/fermi.pdf
Also check out the attached document file from a different source, boredofstudies.org.


The Yanks are going to have the first A-bomb, period. Now the question is, in the case of Germany controlling Russian (with extensive forces tied up with anti-insurgency duties) with a Vichey-Britian, who is the US going to use them against? You could end up with WW2 1/2 being fought accross the middle east, the Indian subcontinent, the Urals, and maybe into Southern Africa, between a Euro-African Germany and a Pacific-America US. That becomes an interesting scenario.

[Alexander's Horse]

Another interesting scenario is USA stays out of the war in Europe and Russia wins anyway.

Is it possible Britain and the USA might have sided with Germany to prevent Russia taking Europe?

[Dr Strangelove]

Don't forget that later in the war the allies started turning some of their best fighter aircraft into fighter-bombers, and were much more successful at it than the axis. The P-47 was particularily effective as a dive bomber.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
The person who posted about shooting Hitler earlier in the thread has the most practical solution - I would choose sometime after the absorbtion of the Sudenten land and prior to Barbarossa. Then that invasion can be stopped, and I suspect that the Brits may be willing to negotiate.

Why would the Brits negotiate? Germany did not have the naval capacity to invade Britain, nor did the axis have the capacity to ship enough equipment to North Africa to seriously threaten British territory in the middle east. The British OTOH were counting on the US eventually coming to their aid. Heck, adding the Soviets to the list of Hitler's enemies probably made US entry into the war slightly less likely, as many American found the idea of becoming de facto allies with the commies distinctly distasteful.

[David Floyd]

Not really. Defeating Russia was the key. Either that or avoiding war in the East and defeating Britain.

You can wargame either scenario with any number of military sims. If Germany wins in the East they can keep the Western allies at bay quite easily.

The joker is nukes, which Germany may or may not have developed. In either case the most likely outcome is negotiated settlement leaving Germany dominant in Europe i.e. they win.

Wrong. Once the US enters the war, the US is in it to win it, as they say. That is, the US only would enter the war for a good reason, with a large amount of popular support. Given that situation, it stands to reason that the US would not negotiate a settlement with the Nazis.

If that is the case, it is absolutely inevitable that the US would be the first to atomic weapons, and, even IF Britain was conquered, which, I can argue, would be impossible for Germany to do after the Battle of Britain with the US supporting Britain, then by 1948-1949, B-36 bombers would be able to absolutely annihilate Germany with atomic weapons from bases in the Continental United States.

I don't care how many countries Germany conquers, and I don't care if they conquer England the the Soviet Union. Once the US enters the war, the eventual defeat of Germany is inevitable - the only question is the level of atomic destruction of Germany, and the number of German civilian casualties.

Sikander,

The U.S. never hit its peak potential of forces during the war, and was already gearing down during the last year or so

Well, actually, the US DID reach it's peak potential forces, given the priorities set at the beginning of the war - that is, "only" 89 Army and 6 Marine divisions, with a major emphasis on specialist forces, naval forces, and army air forces, as well as industrial production (the US pretty much outproduced the rest of the world combined from 1941-1945).

By 1944-1945, US forces were suffering from a shortage of infantry, and US generals were arguing for a larger number of infantry divisions. Thank God those arguments did not prevail.

[David Floyd]

DS,

nor did the axis have the capacity to ship enough equipment to North Africa to seriously threaten British territory in the middle east.

Well, that isn't necessarily true. Remember that following Operation Torch the Germans somehow found the ability to ship tens of thousands of men and hundreds of tanks to Africa.

Furthermore, had the Germans/Italians have undertaken Operation Herkules - the invasion of Malta - operations in North Africa would have been much easier for them. I believe that Malta would have fallen to a major offensive - the Allies simply lucked out in that they were able to destroy enough German airborne forces on Crete to dissuade Der Fuhrer from rebuilding the Fallschirmjaeger forces very quickly and committing them to Malta en masse.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Wrong. Once the US enters the war, the US is in it to win it, as they say. That is, the US only would enter the war for a good reason, with a large amount of popular support. Given that situation, it stands to reason that the US would not negotiate a settlement with the Nazis.

Ah - That would explain why the US never made peace with Vietnam

[Saras]

That's punching under the belt horsie

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by David Floyd
DS,



Well, that isn't necessarily true. Remember that following Operation Torch the Germans somehow found the ability to ship tens of thousands of men and hundreds of tanks to Africa.

Furthermore, had the Germans/Italians have undertaken Operation Herkules - the invasion of Malta - operations in North Africa would have been much easier for them. I believe that Malta would have fallen to a major offensive - the Allies simply lucked out in that they were able to destroy enough German airborne forces on Crete to dissuade Der Fuhrer from rebuilding the Fallschirmjaeger forces very quickly and committing them to Malta en masse.

The Axis didn't have the capability to sustain a large enough force to overwhelm the British in Egypt and gain access to the vital areas of the middle east. Remember that the further the Axis advanced into Egypt, the further they were from their supplies centers in Libya. Even if they had taken Malta supplies to the front would still have had to cross all that dessert. Remember that most other Axis formations relied upon animal transport bringing stores from railheads. In North Africa they had neither railheads nor sufficient suitable draft animals.

[Mr. Harley]

Dr. Strangelove (you and Sikander are my two favorite WW2 posters, BTW) do you have any documentaton on that one - Axis supply capabilities in North Africa (I've never seen a comprehensive source - both shipping and wheeled transport - that's why I'm curious). With Malta not falling, I agree due to documented shipping losses. But if it does fall?

You get to increase the shipping potential, the British Mediterranean fleet is largely bottled up in the western Mediterranean (Italian three-engine torpedo bombers could wreak havoc with iit - we are not talking Pacific theatre quality naval air here), and I would assume (so feel free to challenge this one ) that the British submarine warfare will be less effective since they will not have the aircover/reconissance from Malta.

Now I will grant you the Axis was none too sharp on the logistics side - I have to considering all my posts. But if Rommel can take out the British in 1941 (i.e. Malta is taken - cutting supplies/units/hardware available to the British or do they all ship around Cape Horn?) prior to US direct involvement, what other forces are going to be opposing them? I know the British had some smaller units deployed throughout Africa, but how many front line units are left if Rommel destroys the British army opposing him?

Rommel was using motorized supply, albeit with great difficulty - the Wehrmacht simply didn't have the logistics or the reliable hardware to do it well. However, against the limited British forces that remain, will he need to have that much logistics? Also, once he takes Alexandria the supplies can be brought in by ship.

[Alexander's Horse]

The Germans only put a measly 2 divisions into North Africa, at the time they had 200 divisions in Eastern Europe, but the total forces were well over half a million if you count Italian forces. They could easily have put enough forces into North Africa to overwhelm the Brits.

The real reason they didn't was Hitler wasn't interested, he never saw the potential of taking Egypt and the Suez canal, which might have knocked Britain out of the war by causing the fall of Churchill's government.

[Shogun Gunner]

There are few wargames out there that have scenarios that model the fall of Suez to Germany and start the scenario with fighting in Palestine and the rest of the middle east.

This is a more probable alternative history than many other WW2 scenarios. Montgomery was more lucky than good.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
The Germans only put a measly 2 divisions into North Africa, at the time they had 200 divisions in Eastern Europe, but the total forces were well over half a million if you count Italian forces. They could easily have put enough forces into North Africa to overwhelm the Brits.

The real reason they didn't was Hitler wasn't interested, he never saw the potential of taking Egypt and the Suez canal, which might have knocked Britain out of the war by causing the fall of Churchill's government.

Most of the Italians were infantry - not nearly as demanding logistically as armor, and its more armor they would have needed to win.

and supposing they take Suez, and Churchill falls - why should a successor Brit goverment make peace? Suez doesnt matter, the Brits arent moving anything through the Med other than for the defense of Egypt anyway.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Also, once he takes Alexandria the supplies can be brought in by ship.

Once hes rebuilt the port, which the Brits will destroy on their way out. It took the Brits months to get Benghazi going, and they were in a better position to move equipment there. This gives the Brits a lot of time to respond before Rommel is supplied out of Alex.

and of course the axis is short of merchant ships, and theyve got farther to go from Italian ports to get to Alex than to Libyan ports.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by David Floyd
DS,



Well, that isn't necessarily true. Remember that following Operation Torch the Germans somehow found the ability to ship tens of thousands of men and hundreds of tanks to Africa.

To Tunis, which they didnt have access to before Torch, and which is alot closer to Italy than the Libyan ports. Also they just used them in Tunisia - that doesnt say anything about the problem of moving supplies overland with not enough trucks, not enough infrastructure, etc.