WW2 - the Axis in the Mediterrenean

[Ned]

Originally posted by molly bloom


So not because the Nazis over reached themselves and were bogged down in Autumn rain and mud, and Winter snow and blizzards then ?

And were caught without sufficient winter clothing or vehicles that could operate in below freezing conditions ?


And not because the Japanese (having been beaten by the Russians in the East, quite badly prior to the outbreak of WWII in Europe) chose not to attack Russia, thus freeing up Zhukov and men and supplies from the East of Russia ?


I seem to recall some of those things certainly had an impact.

In this universe, anyway....

There is a difference, molly, between winning and not losing. Germany could not beat Stalin because of logistics issues, mainly. But for Stalin to roll into Germany, where he would have the logistics issues and not Hitler, he need trucks, fuel and ammo. A lof of that came from Britain and the US.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Lord Avalon
Ned, you're just wrong, wrong, wrong. If the battle wasn't over, why did Germany go in other directions? Fleet issue, red herring???

Now THAT is a good question. Whatever the answer, it cost Germany the war.

[Ned]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Uh huh. And yet the stupid British managed to build a Spitfire and develop radar and bouncing bombs and break Nazi codes....


One wonders how.


Couldn't be any of those nasty Jewish people who left Nazi Germany could it ? They betrayed Hitler!

That's it !

molly, we all know the West had some pretty good weapons as well. But without the US helping Britain, how long do you think Britain lasts if Hitler's sole object is the invasion of Britain?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Saras


It's Saras, not Sara.

And that "propaganda" is more commonly known as "history". You know, the disciplined, rigorous and scientific study of past events and people.

I note that there many here are unwilling to think, to question, to look deeply at issues and at causes and effects. Instead they simply want to demonstrate the breath of their knowledge about history with no apparent concern for understanding it, and with an obvious pro-war and pro-justification-of-the-allies viewpoint.

[Myrddin]

Originally posted by Ned


molly, we all know the West had some pretty good weapons as well. But without the US helping Britain, how long do you think Britain lasts if Hitler's sole object is the invasion of Britain?

As long as it needs to.

Britain has a good track record of creating coalitions against dominant European powers and so creating threats to distract the Germans.

To sustain an invasion the Germans would need to control the Channel at night as well as during the day. The Luftwaffe cannot do this and so would need a German Navy that could defeat the Royal Navy. To do this would need battleships, which would have a construction time of c4 years. So the Germans might be ready to invade by 1944, except that British defences would have also improved.

[Ned]

Myrddin, no doubt it would have taken some time, but Germany wins in the end as they had the shorter route to downtown England from air bases in France and Belgium making the air campaign easier for them -- everything else being equal.

I still maintain that building a fleet is unnecessary if one has air supremacy in the channel. The night-time issue is a red herring as the Brit navy can't do anything effective at night even if it was in the channel. The Germans simply wait to daytime to send their barges and ferries across.

The armor-piercing bomb is also a red herring. How long do you think it would take the Germans to develop and deploy such a bomb if it were needed? The design was not as difficult as making an atom bomb.

The ground war in England would have been interesting, but I think that plays out pretty much like Normandy in 1944. The Germans establish a foothold, build up, and then break out a couple of months later.

[Lord Avalon]

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by molly bloom

Which is why 'persuading' Franco would have to take place in 1940...

Ethiopia will still be vulnerable. RN operating out of Aden will dominate the Red Sea.

I'm not suggesting it was an immediate threat- just offering it as an example of former French colonies that were not for De Gaulle or the Free French.

OK.

Six months worth of fighting suggests otherwise...

UK held all the parts of the island they needed to hold, pretty quickly.

The (failed) assault on Dakar was not a great Free French/Allied moment.

But Im suggesting that if Germans were starting to use it as an important base, an attack on Dakar would have gotten much higher priority than in OTL.

[lord of the mark]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WW2 - the Axis in the Mediterrenean

Originally posted by Ned


Only if they don't take on the whole world and just focus on Britain. Germany vs. Britain was a very even match.

yeah, and Stalin would have stood aside and watched Germany beat Britain, just to be sporting, right? (and no, that does not mean Stalin had a plan for an imminent invasion of Germany in 1941)

And Hitler, whose whole poltical career was based on hatred of slavs, Bolsheviks, and Jews (who were behind Bolshevism in his mind) was really gonna leave Stalin unmolested? And just take on Britian alone, like some good Prussian conservative?

Germany vs UK alone is interesting, but youve got to first show a political history of Germany that avoids Hitler, and gives you a german militarist/conservative regime that isnt Nazi. And that is able to reach a deal with Stalin. And you have to show that such a regime would still take the risks Hitler took earlier, despite real life Prussian military types opposing such risks at every step of the way in OTL.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned
Lord Avalon, I never said Germany had to match Britain's surface fleet. All they had to do was get air supremacy over the channel. That would have been enough to keep the Brit fleet at bay.

Admittedly, this will not have happened overnight. Germany would have had to make serious investments in new fighter and bomber designs and ramp up production of these new new designs. That would have taken time -- which would have deferred the date for an invasion for years -- perhaps even to 1943 or 44. During this entire time, they would have been pounding Britain daily and wearing her down. In the end, I think Germany would have prevailed.

By '43 the Soviet army will have fully recovered from the purges. And the US will have more or less completely rearmed. Why either should allow Germany to beat the UK and overthrow the balance of power is beyond me.

The Germans dont have till '43, unless FDR and Stalin both buy in to Neds vision of the world, in which Hitler is a poor put upon guy whose moderation is ignored due to UK propaganda.

besides, I think its questionable that they could have gone in '43 anyway. The advantage of going in '40, if you ignore they dont have transports that can manage the channel waves, or any naval protection worth anything, or that the Luftwaffe has almost zero experience hitting moving surface vessels (not the easiet thing in the world to do, as the USN and IJN both learned at Coral Sea) or that they DONT have air supremacy over the channel yet, is that the UK has very limited forces ready to defend - Basically, IIUC, one Canadian div, some disorganized units from Dunkirk without their equipment, and some homeguards. To wait, mean hitting a large, multidivisional UK force, which vastly magnifies the transport requirements, and means a much wider bridgehead, and thus more of a burdern on the Luftwaffe, etc.

In OTL the allies, with the industrial power of the USA behind them, werent ready to do that untill 1944. UK can undoubtedly launch as much of defense as Germany had in the West in 1944, and Germany does NOT have anything close to the industrial output of the US even with all the conquered areas.

Ergo, Germany will not be able to launch reverse Overlord in 1944. If they can at all, it will take them at least a couple of more years. During which time the US and USSR both continue to grow stronger, and have even less reason to tolerate the German dominance of Europe.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned


There is a difference, molly, between winning and not losing. Germany could not beat Stalin because of logistics issues, mainly. But for Stalin to roll into Germany, where he would have the logistics issues and not Hitler, he need trucks, fuel and ammo. A lof of that came from Britain and the US.

Allied lend lease DID play its biggest role in helpiing the Soviets from 1943 on, as they rolled into Germany. Suppose UK has made a seperate peace in 1940, and US stays out, and Germany fights USSR alone. Will the Soviets be in Berlin by spring of '45? probably not. But will they just stop and fail to advance? also probably not. They will turn resources to trucks, and aviation fuel,etc (IIUC they made all their own tank fuel, and most of their own ammo) and will gradually wear the Germans down. It will take them several additional years to get to Berlin. Long enough for a German A bomb? Maybe, but probably not.

[Ned]

As I said, LoTM, the diversion of Hitler elsewhere is why, IMO, Germany lost. You seem to contend that Germany had no choice but to attack the USSR because Stalin would have attacked Hitler before he beats the UK regardless. The only evidence you supply is Hitler's well known racism and anti-communism. You ignore the fact that Hitler was saying nice things about Stalin and the USSR after their semi-alliance of 1939. You also cite nothing from the USSR itself that suggests that Stalin had formed a plan to attack Germany before the end of the German-UK war.

Note, the special on the Military Channel made the point that Hitler already believed that Stalin was going to attack in alliance with the UK and that is why he struck first. But, the reality was that Stalin had no intention of attacking, at least for the time being.

Hitler's belief was in part caused by British propaganda that persuaded Hitler of Stalin's intention to attack. He believed this propaganda because the Brits refused his offer of peace after the fall of France. He reasoned that the Brits chose to stay in the war because it was counting on the USSR.

[Ned]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Allied lend lease DID play its biggest role in helpiing the Soviets from 1943 on, as they rolled into Germany. Suppose UK has made a seperate peace in 1940, and US stays out, and Germany fights USSR alone. Will the Soviets be in Berlin by spring of '45? probably not. But will they just stop and fail to advance? also probably not. They will turn resources to trucks, and aviation fuel,etc (IIUC they made all their own tank fuel, and most of their own ammo) and will gradually wear the Germans down. It will take them several additional years to get to Berlin. Long enough for a German A bomb? Maybe, but probably not.

Could be. But Germany's techinical advantages would have been enormous and may have prevailed in the end.

[Lord Avalon]

Wow! In the Nediverse Ned communes with the dead! Or are Hitler and Stalin still alive?

With what other figures of history have you conversed, Ned?

[Ned]

LoTM, setting the USSR aside for the moment, there is a very large issue about America entering into a hot war with Germany. Even after Pearl Harbor, FDR did not have the votes for a DOW. The American people were happy to supply the UK and the Soviet Union, but were also happy to stay out of the fighting and dying.

Why this would have been any different if we flash forward to 1943 with Germany now invading the UK. Germany is going to win the war clearly, and the British Empire will cease to exist. The European continent will be dominated by Germany and its allies on one side, and the Soviet Union on the other. Two powers, not three: but what difference does that make the United States? Why would we have then enter into a war against Germany? It makes no sense whatsoever; and, given the enormity of the cost in both money and lives to beat Germany without the UK and the USSR, I am quite sure FDR would not have gotten the votes.