Could Germany and the Axis powers have Won the Second World War?

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NEXT

ambush RE:Historical review 10/11/2004 10:43:53 PM

Even if German had not declared on the US after Pearl Harbor the US would have impacted the war in Europe. The Japan did not only just attack the US but they attacked the British and the Dutch in the Pacific/Asia. A US/UK alliance against Japan would have envitable consequences on the European theater even without the direct commitment of US forces in Europe. Just one possible senerio is where by agreement the US shoulders the burden of the Pacific /Asian war to the extent that the UK is able to tranfer considerable resources to the European theater. As an ally in a war all pretense of neutality and the few restricitons on leand lease would have been removed. It is doubtful that US aid to the UK would come with the restriction "for use against Japan only" printed on it. Nor did the theaters operate in total isolation. Both German and Japnese Naval forces oeprated in the Indian Ocean. This would have brought German Submarines into confrontation with US Naval Forces. This had already happened in the Atlantic before Pearl Harbor with the Germans attacking US convoy escort vessels. After Pearl Harbor all it would have take was another such incident for the US to declare war on Germany. Such a confrontation nwas unavoidable. Germany could not allow US war materials to flow to the UK with no attempt to stop it.

Quote Reply

fall out RE:Not only NO but heck NO 10/11/2004 11:16:08 PM

as ive said, 3 heavy battleships were built for ww2 and hardly used, 1 heavy battleship has the same manpower and resources of 50 atlantic going subs; the only time Germany needed the navy the most for an army op was Norway and they used nothing heavier then than a heavy cruiser so i think it's perfectly logical to say that Germany could've had a much bigger u-boat force and still had their edge in the army and airforce.

Quote Reply

fall out RE:Historical review 10/11/2004 11:22:12 PM

"Germany declared war on America. Not the other way around. (arguably Hitler's worst single choice of the war)." - hey mate, not arguably, definately! there was hardly any real dialogue between Japan and her european allies, let alone any real co-operation, so why on earth would germany and italy want to declare war against the largest economy in the world defies logic and reason.

Quote Reply

ozigrunt RE:Not only NO but heck NO 10/12/2004 12:47:17 AM

"as ive said, 3 heavy battleships were built for ww2 and hardly used, 1 heavy battleship has the same manpower and resources of 50 atlantic going subs; the only time Germany needed the navy the most for an army op was Norway and they used nothing heavier then than a heavy cruiser so i think it's perfectly logical to say that Germany could've had a much bigger u-boat force and still had their edge in the army and airforce " And ditto to what I said earlier. If Britain didn't have to prepare to counter the battleship threat she may have put more resoucres into anti-sub. And they probably would have; they had a fairly competent navy in every regard including threat assessment, planing and forecasting (although they screwed up with the appreciation of the effect of air power on battle ships). I'm not saying Germany couldn't have made different decisions. I'm not saying Germany couldn't have made better decisions. I'm not saying Germany couldn't have prelonged the war. I'm not saying Germany couldn't have put herself in a flavourable position to negotiate a political outcome. I am saying that Germany (the axis) never had the necessary military resources or potential to fight the combined military resources and potential of Britain, USA and Russia (The Allies).

Quote Reply

fall out RE:Not only NO but heck NO 10/12/2004 12:53:23 AM

"I am saying that Germany (the axis) never had the necessary military resources or potential to fight the combined military resources and potential of Britain, USA and Russia (The Allies) " - i think that's a given, hence my divide and conquer alternative tactic, as Bsl outlined, the US were in no way going to get involved for SURE in the european front, pearl or no pearl. and the biggest opportunity to take out both the UK and the USSR were in different times, the UK in 40 and the USSR in the summer's of 41 and 42. germany couldn't take on all 3, but one on one for sure.

Quote Reply

ozigrunt RE:Historical review 10/12/2004 1:25:40 AM

"American participation in WW2 Was NEVER "inevitable". I quite agreed; although it was HIGHLY probable. America had already shown its preference and was strongly aligned with Britain before Pearl Harbour. I?m not quite sure what the logic was but it was obvious that America had identified her National Interest as lying with the fate of Britain and a future of a ?free world?, a world free of colonialism (which they probably, and correctly, perceived as giving them a trade advantage without the moral burden of colonies) and the promotion of democracy (see the North Atlantic Agreement). I believe it was only a matter of time before America found or created the excuse. There is a conspiracy theory which says that Washington knew for certain that the Japs were going to attack Pearl. I don?t subscribe to conspiracy theories but I do believe that the ?statesmen? of Washington have been known to either construe circumstances or take advantage of circumstances to get America involved in an otherwise unpopular war (think The Maine incident (Spanish-American War), the Lusitania (WW1), Bay of Tonkin (Viet Nam) and WMD (Iraq) ? each of these have a conspiracy theory of some substance attached to them). Even without a conspiracy theory there must have been an expectation that Japan would do something spectacular. Without firing a shoot America threatened to cut off her oil supply (her national industrial and military life blood) from the Dutch East Indies. Japan?s only choice was to admit defeat (change her policy of expansion in China) or do something to assert her policies (that is to militarily overcome (smash and grab) what they couldn?t politically/diplomatically overcome. In other words Pearl Harbour may have been a tactical surprise but it should not have been a strategic or geo-political surprise. In other words, Washington policy makers purposely and knowingly manipulated Japan into a rash decision. The ?Europe First? (despite been motivated by revenge for Pearl) policy pretty much confirms it for me.

Quote Reply

ozigrunt RE:Historical review 10/12/2004 1:45:33 AM

"Japan, at least, had some compelling strategic basis on which to have decided to attack Pearl Harbor." It wasn't compelling it was dumb. It was obvious to even some Japanese (adm Yamomoto and others) that they would lose. It was an act of arrogance borne out of ignorance, national pride and personal ego on the parts of Toyo and other genarals. Kicking the biggest kid on the block fair in the nuts, even if he is sleeping, is never a good move. If you are gonna king hit someone, make sure it works!!! It was an act of optimism - Toyo didn't respect America seeing them as weak, 'cream puffs'. He really hoped that if you kick them in the nuts hard enough they would cry and sulk and let them have they way. Yamomoto had a much better appreciation (and like) of Americans and knew and appreciated their size, wealth and industrial capacity. "Germany had no strong reason to believe that America was going to declare war in the next few years, by which time events in Europe would have been decided one way or the other" I think you are been too generious. I don't think Hitler nor anyone else inside the German High Comd thought outside of continential europe. It seems that the only element of the German military that thought in these terms was the navy and it was out of favour/view and it's appreciation were never comprehended let alone heeded.

Quote Reply

ozigrunt RE:Not only NO but heck NO 10/12/2004 2:47:52 AM

We are very close in our views saying that Germany?s one hope was policy and diplomacy and timing and not overpowering military power. But I still say you are looking at the events and time lines extremely optimistically. Britain wasn?t about to fall in ?40. It had the political will to fight and a favourable strategic position behind the 30 miles moat - and had good resoucres of a reasonable pop and industrial capacity. In 1940 Germany didn?t have the means to carry out Operation Sealion. If they tried they would have failed. (Op Sealion has been studied since the war by staff colleges etc and it is generally accepted that germany would have failed.) To develop the resources (primarily landing barges and amphibious doctrine and training of troops) would have taken them 12+months. To establish the necessary naval and air supremacy would have taken months if not 12 months. The longer Germany delayed it invasion the stronger Britain would have become. In 1940 they may have defeated Britain with two divisions landed (but they didn?t have the resources). Six months later Britain would have equipped and trained 10 divisions. Germany would then have then needed 10 invasions divisions. And so it goes. And that applies to all arms (air force etc). Germany could have beaten this impasse by technological advantage or a decisive tactical concentration of strength. But equally Britain could have defeated them by the same means. I?ll leave it to you to argue the merits and probabilities of each. If it took 12 months to take Britain I put it to you that the opening days/months of the war with Russia would have been very different. One of the main reasons Hitler got strategic, operational and tactical surprise was that Stalin and the Kremlin was convinced that Germany wouldn?t start a war in the east whilst it still had unfinished business in the west. Hitler?s justification for war with Russia was that Germany?s attack was preemptive. And he was right. Russia did have expansion in mind. Their justification was couched in socialist theory but it was real. And so were their preparations. Part of Germany?s initial success in the east was the very poor disposition of the Russian forces. This wasn?t incompetence it was surprise. Russia later showed their competence. If the Russians had been expecting the attack I don't think Germany would have had the early success they did. In part German success in France was technological, doctrine and training advantages. By 1942 much of this had been lost (as potential foes leant by the mistakes of others). They would have had the advantage of battle hardend troops but also the disadvantage of battle cas and equipment loss in the invasion of Britain. In deed the technological boot may have been on the other foot. If Russia had used the 12months to produce large quantities of T34?s (that were a surprise to the Germans in 41) what was already a close fight may have swung in favour of the Russians. It is close to call but I reckon a delayed invasion of Russia in '42 would have failed as the invasion of '41 failed. For different reasons and with different critcal moments but it probably would have failed. The ground rules laid out in the opening statement said that all the participants would be involved. So arguments regarding the likelihood of the USA becoming involved are not relevant to this ?what if? debate. Regardless, it was always more likely than less likely. Indeed it was highly probable but is so far left of field it is probably not worth the debate.

Quote Reply

bigfella RE:The US & WW2 10/12/2004 3:22:53 AM

I would not say that US involvement in Europe was 'inevitable', but it was VERY likely. From the time Poland was invaded Roosevelt had been working to shift public and elite opinion toward possible intervention. In fact, by mid-1941 his cabinet was pushing him to declare war. Given how keen Hitler was to starve Britain out of the war & cut off supplies to Russia, increasd clashes with US forces seem highly likely. I think that even if Japan had not attacked in Dec.41 and Hitler had not declared war, Roosevelt would have moved to assist Britain & Russia some time in 1942. Hitler had little knowledge of the US and even less reguard for it. He saw it through his racist goggles as a society infested by Jews, Negroes and the trash of Europe. he saw America as his next conquest after Europe, perhaps starting with the taking over of a state like Brazil. As we have already shown, he was and idiot.

Quote Reply

fall out RE:Not only NO but heck NO 10/12/2004 3:55:06 AM

The British cabinet actually voted about continuing to fight Hitler or sueing for peace after the fall of France and the vote was defeated by ONE; once Germany started to pound the poms into the dust (at least from the air), there was no way that the poms were going to back down then (unless the germans suceeded perhaps in the air). But, without Churchill (as his vote was the deciding vote) Britain would be very likely to have sued for peace with Hitler (Hitler admired the British empire and reguarly tried for peace with the poms). i realise that op sealion was a long shot, but the odds shortened greatly had the luftwaffe actually gained complete air superiority over the south east part of England, no navy in the world at that time could survive without air power so the RN would've received a pounding, as would've the army which after the retreat of dunkirk, had only about 500 anti-tank guns in it's ENTIRE inventory, their army was in no way ready to defeat the world's most powerful army. also, Hitler actually gave operational orders for Op Sealion to go ahead in 2 weeks but due to the continued presence of the RAF fighter command, it was called off, so the Germans were at least prepared to have a go, even if they werent prepared to have a go successfully. i realise that too about the delayed of Op Barborossa, but the Soviet armies were crippled (at least at the top) after Stalin's purges, whilst they may have been able to better prepare defences, with more troops, more tanks (but the soviets remember put alot of T-34s AFTER they realised the Germans were mauling their own armies), however, the Germans would still have (and always did for the entire war) the best army capable of combined arms with a new tactic. plus, the Germans could've gone thru the Mid East to take out the Caucases early (thus taking out the vast majority of Soviet oil), and combined with taking Ukraine, the Russians would be starving; of both oil and food. But, as you said, it's no given, the Germans needed a bit of luck, ditto for the poms ditto for the Russians, and in the end, the best luck the allies had was the fact a corporal was in charge of the most powerful army the world had seen.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NEXT