Germany ran out of steam in the summer of 1941 and from then on was just playing out the game in the hopes of a favorable surrender terms. Considering how far they were from "winning," I don't think it makes any sense to ask whether they could have won.
>>607416 As it was, they were doomed. Maybe if they had of waited until the 50's like the generals wanted. Maybe if they hadn't have gone to war with Russia. Or maybe, and better option for everyone, if they had only gone to war with Russia. Really the war was a terrible idea. After the annexation of the Sudetenland would have been an ideal time to stop, and have developed the new Germany for a couple of years. Then maybe consider some wars.
>>607511 So they wouldn't lose? Because they did. We're not talking about the hypothetical event that they take the East. We're talking about how viable it was for them to win the war in the conditions they had.
the longer the war dragged on, the more Germany's chances of victory dropped.
The Blitzkrieg was a method to completely overwhelm a nation in one strike before they have to tap into the massive amount of resources it takes to fight a long campaign, once the war set in for the long haul after the battle of Moscow, Germany knew they were at the disadvantage.
Germany didn't have much chance of outright victory unless they could secure the resources they need for the long campaign, hence why they aimed for Stalingrad and the Caucasus for oil instead of trying another assault for Moscow, after Stalingrad failed, most people knew that Germany would be fighting on fumes for the rest of the war while the US and Soviets only gained momentum.
Same with Japan. they didn't have the resources they needed for their campaigns, so they believed that knocking out a US fleet in Hawaii would buy them enough time to conquer southeast asia and grab the oil and steel needed for the war effort. They predicted the US taking 1 1/2-2 years to rebuild after pearl harbor and give them time to solidify control of their empire, but the US was on the offensive in 8 months.
>>607724 Had the weather held, or the assault not delayed, Moscow and subsequently the entire war may have gone quite differently. Literally two weeks was the difference between crushing moscow and getting bogged down in the soft autumn ground and having no effective armour. Stalingrad was a mistake no matter how you look at it.
>>607738 I don't think 2 weeks would've made all the difference.
The Germans got to the gates of Moscow, but taking Moscow would've required a massive effort that would have degraded into room-to-room close quarters fighting much like Stalingrad. It wasn't a "cross Moscow's city limit=city taken" scenario. it would've been a bloodbath to rip the city away from the Soviets, one they probably couldn't win even in September/October.
>>607745 Maybe. I think it's rather hard to say how exactly it would have gone. If it hadn't have been for the delay Moscow wouldn't have had the time to fortify and reinforce. I will agree that it still would have been a bloody battle of attrition, but one that maybe Germany could have won. However Moscow wasn't near as strategically important as Stalingrad so it would have been more pointless, but it was less doomed to fail imo. The best move might have been to pull back for winter, reinforce their own lines, then try to put the soviets through a meat grinder again the next summer. Really there was no way for Germany to really win against Russia, but it may have been possible to grind them to a stalemate. Maybe they could have starved them enough, and killed enough of them for the people to revolt and they could have won like they did in WW2, but that's pretty far fetched even.
>"Between 1901 and 1932 Germany had twenty-fice Nobel laureates in Physics and Chemistry, the United states only five. Then came Nazism. In the fifty years after the war, Germany won only thirteen Nobel Prizes to America's sixty-seven. The list of those Emigres from Fascism - not all of them Jewish - who went on to contribute to the creation of the nuclear bomb ,either at Los Alamos or in some other significant capacity, is a very long one , including Einstein, Szilard, Bethe, Teller, Wigner, Segre, Fermi, Stainslaw, Ulam and Bohr." From The Storm of War by Andrew Roberts
>>607809 >they just never intended to use it as a weapon. I'm not saying had they stayed in Germany they would have inevitably created a nuclear weapon (though I think it would have been a real possibility). That level of knowledge would be invaluable to the Reich.
>>607841 >but it was considered jewish physics. um, I think you mean Jewish wizardry, god
>>607848 You understand they had heavy water and light water plants that had to be destroyed multiple times? And had layed out the plans for bombing New York...? >>607856 You know what I mean by Jewish Physics yes?
In 1939 Germany had the second strongest industrial economy in the world, but it was horribly mismanaged. Hitler didn't order full mobilization for war until after Stalingrad.
>German war management “was for a long time halfhearted and incompetent,” Speer told Galbraith’s team. Nazi Germany had initially mobilized at a level sufficient only to support a series of “cheap and easy” victories over its European neighbors. These were Blitzkrieg Wars and they were supported by the Blitzkrieg Economy, a production system mobilized only for the short term. It was a guns-and-butter economy that did not compel the civilian population to make deep sacrifices, for Hitler feared that a program of radical home-front austerity might trigger social discontent that would undermine the war effort, just as such measures had done in World War I.
>After Germany defeated France faster than even Hitler envisioned, weapons production was “intentionally run down,” Galbraith would argue after examining Rolf Wagenfuehr’s economic figures. Even on the eve of Soviet invasion, “no preparation had been made to obtain a genuinely large-scale increase of armament production.” Russian resistance would collapse in a matter of months, Hitler was convinced. So most German factory hands continued to work only one shift, and women were not recruited into the industrial labor force.
>Germany’s failure to prepare for a prolonged war finally backfired when the Wehrmacht was stopped in front of Moscow in the winter of 1941–42, short of clothing and equipment for the brutal winter campaign. That February, Speer was appointed minister for armaments and munitions and inaugurated a program of all-out mobilization.
>>607809 >Germany already had a nuclear program before the United States, they just never intended to use it as a weapon.
They never actually worked on it.
>von Braun and his team of physicists and engineers were also trying to rush into production an ICBM—intercontinental ballistic missile—the A-10, or New York rocket, named for the city it was intended to hit. Allied intelligence knew about this project and suspected the Germans were also developing an atomic bomb. But Hitler’s persecution of Jewish scientists, along with his interest in more conventional vengeance weapons, robbed both programs of industrial resources and indispensable talent. In May 1945, an American intelligence team found that German scientists were “about as far as we were in 1940, before we had begun any large work on the [atomic] bomb at all.” Even the transatlantic rocket would not have been operational until 1947, at the earliest.
>>607955 Fuck. Floens. You fuck. Anyway, throwing out jewish scientists didn't cause the slow of research for nuclear energy, the facilities being blown up twice and the lack of interest in use as a bomb.
Hitler's gamble already failed for the first time when France & Britain declared war when he invaded Poland. He never intended to fight the western powers.
The main speculations that I think would have had significance are - not wearing out the Luftwaffe trying to invade the British islands in 1940 - invading Russia earlier in 1941 instead of Balkan operations - not dividing the forces in Barbarossa, instead pressing on to take Moscow After that there was pretty much nothing to change the course.
>>607416 Not even Hitler thought Germany could win WW2
Let's ignore all hindsight and pretend we are back in 1938
Even Hitler himself knew and made it clear numerous times that a deceleration of war on Germany from France (largest army in the world) and Great Britain (largest navy) would be the end of the Nazi government; it would simply be a repeat of the Great War. Hitler was almost certain that France and the UK feared a war, and was shocked, heartbroken, terrified even, that his life's work was throwing him into a repeat of the war which broke Germany 20 years before.
France fell easily, so a gusto came into the Nazis: maybe they could do this. England proved more difficult. No worries, because England had always been a "secondary" concern. After all, England declared war on Germany, not vice-versa. Germany focused its efforts to the East, which was the goal all along for Hitler.
The professional German generals speculated that Russia could be conquered in as little as a month. Hitler was given another huge confidence boost, and at the same time, the Nazis started their "extermination" of undesirables in preparation for the eventual repopulating of Poland, Ukraine, and Russian lands.
The Nazis got ever close, but of course, hit a brick wall with Russia, and then all the rest is history.
>>607416 No, because even if they had succeeded in conquering Britain and the Soviet Union, they would have just declared war on someone else despite being completely overextended. Hitler just didn't know when to quit. He got a ridiculously lucky break in France, and then decided to keep going. He's like a guy who wins big at the Roulette table and then puts all his winnings on yet another all or nothing gamble on a single number. Those people always lose in the end, no matter how many lucky breaks they get in between starting and ultimately losing everything.
>>608049 I think this is vastly overstating Hitler's ambitions. He knew he wasn't going to be able to forcibly take Britain and also knew America wasn't attainable either and forcing our hand would be a mistake.
So with that being said there weren't very many other areas for Hitler to target. At least not in the forseeable alternate future. There would have been at least a couple decades of peace had Britain signed one of Hitler's several peace offerings and he had put his entire focus on the Soviet Union.
>>608112 Then why did he declare war on the US? Yeah, yeah, he had an alliance of sorts with the Japanese. An alliance built on a mutual hatred of the Soviet Union. But after the disaster at Khalkhin Gol the Japanese avoided any direct confrontations with the Soviets, so their status as allies was useless to Hitler. Perhaps he anticipated the US would declare war anyways, if so he should have forced them to do so, that way he could appear "optional" to the US public. The point is, if he was really so afraid of overextending himself and just tried to get a favorable peace treaty out of the US and Britain, he had an awfully incompetent way of trying to do it.
He also should have toned down the genocide stuff until Russia had been secured. After Stalin had discredited himself in the previous decade, few Russians were willing to throw everything on the line for the Soviet government until the Nazis turned out to be even worse. After the Soviet Union fell, then he could get away with it, because then there would be minimal organized resistance, and no full fledged war machine to oppose him.
>>607524 >The russians didnt start to beat the germans until LL was flowing in. but they did - both at moscow and at stalingrad, which was no (former) or minuscule (latter) amounts of american aid reach the country, let alone the frontlines
>>607994 >- invading Russia earlier in 1941 instead of Balkan operations the balkan intervention did not somehow postpone barbarossa - the invasion date was basically as soon as supply and weather would allow
>>608157 >The bombing of Pearl Harbor surprised even Germany. Although Hitler had made an oral agreement with his Axis partner Japan that Germany would join a war against the United States, he was uncertain as to how the war would be engaged. Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor answered that question. On December 8, Japanese Ambassador Oshima went to German Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop to nail the Germans down on a formal declaration of war against America. Von Ribbentrop stalled for time; he knew that Germany was under no obligation to do this under the terms of the Tripartite Pact, which promised help if Japan was attacked, but not if Japan was the aggressor. Von Ribbentrop feared that the addition of another antagonist, the United States, would overwhelm the German war effort.
>But Hitler thought otherwise. He was convinced that the United States would soon beat him to the punch and declare war on Germany. The U.S. Navy was already attacking German U-boats, and Hitler despised Roosevelt for his repeated verbal attacks against his Nazi ideology. He also believed that Japan was much stronger than it was, that once it had defeated the United States, it would turn and help Germany defeat Russia.
>That very same day, Hitler addressed the Reichstag to defend the declaration. The failure of the New Deal, argued Hitler, was the real cause of the war, as President Roosevelt, supported by plutocrats and Jews, attempted to cover up for the collapse of his economic agenda. “First he incites war, then falsifies the causes, then odiously wraps himself in a cloak of Christian hypocrisy and slowly but surely leads mankind to war,” declared Hitler-and the Reichstag leaped to their feet in thunderous applause.
>>608166 So he was utterly delusional and horribly overestimated both Germany and Japan's strength while underestimating America's military and industrial might. About the only thing I'll give him, is that he didn't appear to have any actual plans to invade the United States. So he wasn't as bad as he could have been. Still, this seems to support the idea that "No, Germany could not have possible won WW2, even if they had yet more lucky breaks."
Let's get rid of our hindsight and take it step by step as if we are in the German command center
France, the largest army in the world, is out of the game. No need to worry about them anymore. Great Britain at this point is more like a nuisance who cannot land on our shores or get into our country, so instead we just have to defend our skies.So, now we are focusing our efforts on Russia.
However, the British and the Americans launch an attack and manage to land inside our borders. Fuck, okay, well how's Russia doing? Oh shit, not so good.
At this stage, this is when Hitler really becomes the problem he has always been. Not that he was before, but he takes it up a notch. Finally realizing the error of his ways, he brings the whole nation of Germany down with him, killing millions in the process.
>>608236 While the USSR probably wouldn't have disappeared outright, seizing Moscow may have fragmented their command somewhat. Especially is Stalin fails to escape and is captured or killed. Who's in charge now? The armies and factories and resources are still there, but the unity isn't. That would have had a huge effect on how things developed from there.
>>608277 Please, without Stalin those guys would have engaged in crippling in-fighting. Besides, how much credibility and legitimacy would that government have had? Would anyone have respected them. Would anyone have feared them? Especially since that would have been the government that had not only engaged in economically crippling idiocy and mass murder the decade before, but had now overseen a complete and total military disaster that culminated in the fall of Moscow itself. On top of that, Hitler's armies would have seemed even more invincible than before. It would have been the beginning of the end.
Also, what would have stopped the Germans from continuing further Eastward to the new capital? It's not like Moscow was just a random collection of buildings in the middle of nowhere. You lose Moscow, you lose Moscow's defenders. What available military resources would the provisional Soviet government have had to properly resist the Wehrmacht's advance? Not to mention, one of the reason's Moscow became Russia's capital is because it is a rather defensible city, a valuable asset throughout that nation's bloody history. Would the provisional government's new location be anymore easy to defend?
>>608277 Also you guys underestimate the psychological situation the soviets were in 1941. Tons of soviets were already throwing down arms and surrendering. Imagine that with moscow captured and possibly stalin captured or at least dead. This would be a giant psychological blow.
>>608293 He is also right, they would have to settle the new government in a new provisional government. Also Beria would try to grab power, the question is would the politbureau fight back like in OTL or would they accept his leadership due to the crisis situation.
>>608293 >Also, what would have stopped the Germans from continuing further Eastward to the new capital? the 1047 kilometers between moscow and samara? the same factors and reasons that caused them to fail in reaching moscow in the real timeline, factors which perhaps were mitigated in this alternate one by focusing on moscow at the expense of other theaters, but factors which are nonetheless still present? logistics? supply? weather? casualties? the entirety of the southern soviet flank which is now threatening to cut into your axis of advance because you did not engage them in order to march on moscow?
>>608324 Of course, the Soviets had logistics issues of their own, and would have to move through large distances themselves. And that's ignoring the fact that the Soviet Union's government probably would have splintered after the fall of Moscow.
I think people underestimate just how important the victory at Moscow was for Stalin. The man was an unpopular, petty, murderous thug who had just overseen a series of catastrophic military defeats. He was able to find a scapegoat for every failure up until that point, but at Moscow the blame fell on Stalin and Stalin alone. That's probably the main reason he stayed in Moscow. If he had lost there, any place he retreated to would have executed him for incompetence. His credibility and political power base were on the line. Everything depended on Moscow. When the Germans were successfully repulsed, Stalin took the credit. He had personally commanded the military force that had handed Hitler his first defeat on land. At least, that's how he sold it. All of a sudden, the Russian people had a champion who could win. Resistance was not futile, the Germans were not invincible. A nation that had almost completely collapsed into despair now and hope and vigor. Stalin was able to unite the country around him, blame a couple scapegoats for the previous military defeats, and eventually lead the nation to victory. This would have been very different if Moscow had fallen.
>>608318 Even that assumes that Beria would have survived. Even if he wasn't killed by the Germans, he probably would have been killed by the provisional government for being one of the people who lost Moscow. A bit of scapegoating in this case, but that's what people do after major military disasters. The fact is, no one is scared of a witless incompetent, and that's what Stalin and his crew would have looked like after Moscow.
Now, I'm not saying the Soviets would have necessarily lost, I'm just saying the Great Patriotic War would have managed to somehow be even more painful than it was in actual history.
>>608367 Stalin would be that Scapegoat. He couldn´t have left moscow and survived. He already assumend before moscow that his comrades would kill him. If he had lost moscow he wouldn´t even have bothered to get executed. Beria probably would have been the power player to grab the leadership after stalins death.
>>608180 He didn't underestimate the United States military might as much as he underestimated their willingness to fight.
Up until that point the American public wanted nothing to do with the war. They were jaded after the first war and after the great depression they wanted even more isolationism. Not to mention there was a fair amount of Nazi support in America.
Hitler thought that if Japan hit them hard a few times and he declared war preemptively, it would be enough to scare America out of any more lend leasing and force them to stay on the sidelines. And to add to this he had hoped he could bomb Britain into surrender and give America even less of a reason to join in.
That didn't work out but you know what they say about hindsight.
Still he knew the best he could hope for was to keep America on the sidelines and that's what he tried.
>>608380 Of course, Beria was practically joined at Stalin's hip. It's the main reason he was executed so quickly after Stalin died in actual history. I find it hard to believe that Beria would have been able to disassociate himself from the Man Who Lost Moscow, as Stalin would have been known at that point.
But even if he did take power, and no one opposed him, how much control would he have realistically had outside the provisional capital? If Moscow had fallen and the remnants of the Soviet government had retreated to the East, would the forces in the South have still had the fighting spirit left to continue resisting, or would they have surrendered? Maybe the Southern USSR would have attempted to make a deal with Hitler like the Vichy regime did.
That said, I think we both agree that the most important point to consider here is the psychological one. The Soviet spirit would have been on life support at the very least had Moscow fallen. If a nation succumbs to despair, than nothing else matters, surrender is inevitable.
>>608387 Because he won. If he had lost, Russians would remember him as a bumbling loser who lost everything. Well, actually, the Russians would have been exterminated and enslaved, but if a victorious Hitler hadn't killed them all, they would have remembered Stalin as the Greatest Loser in Russian History.
>>608399 He was actually really powerful after stalin died. He was seen as the natural successor. Khrushchev conspired with the rest of the politbureau to get rid of him. He had the security apparatus tight under his control, i don´t see what could have stopped him after the fall of moscow. I guess he would have tried to make a peace arrangment with the germans, styling himself as a lenin kind of guy.
>>607524 FFS, people. It was the other way round. LL started flowing only when Russians started clearly winning (Kursk, Stalingrad).
Moreover, initial LL even included Russians supplying Allies (250k rifles for Britain in '41). And about ~28% of LL (IIRC) happened in '45 and was basically payment for joining war on Japan (destroying Kwantung Army)
>>608264 > But it's the greatest city anyway, and a great morale factor at least. Not that great. It wouldn't be the first time Russia lost Moscow (1812).
>>608293 > without Stalin You forgot the Purges - there was no coherent opposition at this point. No charismatic generals to rebel, no persuasive economists to dissent, no canny bureaucrats to schism. The only faction was Stalin faction.
Besides, USSR wasn't as autocratic as you believe. Decisions were made collegially. Beria would've taken over and the rest would've gained a bit more independence.
>>608468 But what is the Stalin faction without Stalin? And after the loss of Moscow, how much power would they have had outside of the provisional capital? And would various Soviet armies have just surrendered at that point? Also, how effectively would the provisional government be at coordinating the war effort during the hectic move east? They wouldn't have just lost a city or a couple buildings, the entire military bureaucracy and command structure would have been completely upended for at least a few months. And the political situation. My God, the Soviet government would have legitimacy issues. Remember, the loss of Moscow would have come at the end of a very long string of defeats that shredded the Soviet Union's national unity and will to fight.
Which brings up another question: What is the Stalin faction after Stalin has been completely discredited? Would the regional governors and generals still feel bound by the new government's dictates?
>>608456 > I guess he would have tried to make a peace arrangment with the germans, styling himself as a lenin kind of guy. Extremely unlikely.
Lenin made a deal with Germans for three reasons: 1) army had proven to be absolutely incapable of fighting 2) public was demanding a peace 3) Germans were expected to have a revolution of their own
Neither of those applied in WWII.
You are also forgetting the Civil War experience Russia had 20 years ago. Even if every single soldier in Red Army died, Soviets would've simply shifted to the unconventional warfare. Judging by their guerrilla efficiency IRL, that would've worked.
>>608486 How much reading have you done on this, exactly? There is no reason to believe the Russians would have straight up and surrendered when, even if we grant you your cultural psyche thing, "General Winter" and deep defense is ingrained. You have provided absolutely no proof of this supposed shredding of national unity and will to fight outside of your own rampant speculation. I do not think you understand that the USSR was not a liberal democracy.
Germany could very well have won. In fact, the only reason they didn't was because of Hitler - which is a cliché but true. Up until the invasion of France, Hitler did not make a single mistake. But you can pinpoint a lot of the mishaps that befell the German to Hitler directly.
1) The miracle at Dunkirk. This was Hitler's fault.
2) Operation Barbarossa. This was Hitler's fault.
3) The ridiculous aims of Barbarossa, to reach the Urals before winter set in.
4) No winter clothing - Because he didn't think they'd need it.
5) Abandonment of the North African theater.
The germans could have won, but Hitler was to aggressive and to "all over the place". If they'd dealt with North Africa first, taken Suez that would have forced the British to abandon Malta and push them out of the Mediteranean. Think about that; Suddenly the Axis control the Mediteranean. The entire Mediteranean. No US landing in North Africa, no Italian campaign and the British Empire is cut off from it's Indian possessions. This very nearly came to be a reality. But North Africa was never given the prioritization that it demanded.
To read more; http://www.amazon.com/How-Hitler-Could-Have-World/dp/0609808443
>>608499 The Soviet Union as a whole probably wouldn't have surrendered. At least, not at once. But there would have certainly been morale issues, and yes, national unity issues (if only because it would have taken months before it became universally clear who was in charge now). And sufficiently discouraged armies and regional governments may have made a "separate peace" with the Germans.
Also, this idea that only liberal democracies can surrender, or lose the will to fight, or suffer from a splintered national command is laughable. Even totalitarian societies can lose their fighting spirit.
And what am I supposed to read? We're discussing Alternate History. And an issue where the Alternate Future would have been very murky indeed. We live in a world where Stalin succeeded in his last chance to blunt the German momentum and rally the Soviet peoples. If that had not happened, who know what would have transpired?
>>608518 Someone up thread claimed that "tons" of Russians were surrendering already. I asked for proof of this claim. To which regional governments do you refer to? You seem to be making several references to the government having "legitimacy" issues that do not apply to the USSR as a one-party state. "Fighting spirit" is not a measurable term and doesn't have much place in a serious historical discussion.
Numerous people have already pointed out that the German Army was already suffering from poor supply lines and lack of sufficient equipment. Focusing on Moscow would have opened up their Southern flank and caused them even more supply issues. The over-engineered German production machine would have still lost to the Soviet pushing out unpainted tanks from behind the Urals - they were still not on full wartime production. You need to read more books written by actual historians, not ones you can buy from airports.
>>608552 Ha! "Fighting spirit" may not be measurable, but if you think it has no place in serious historical discussion, than there is nothing serious about it. And yes, the German's had supply problems, but so did the Soviets. Do you really think the Soviet's would have been able to plan and launch an offensive from the South after the national command structure had been completely upended? How many tanks did they have ready in January, 1942? How long before these tanks from beyond the Urals could be brought to the front? How far would they have to travel to reach the Germans? What other supplies would they have needed?
If nothing else, a German victory at Moscow would have bought the German's time to rest and refit and get their supplies in check. It also would have upended the Soviet command for a few months. Furthermore, in real life, the German's managed to continue on the offensive in spite of the loss at Moscow for most of 1942. Sebastopol, anyone?
This idea that the Soviets would have been able to launch a sudden counter-offensive through hundreds and hundred of kilometers in the middle of a Russian winter is what doesn't belong in a serious historical discussion.
>>608577 >This idea that the Soviets would have been able to launch a sudden counter-offensive through hundreds and hundred of kilometers in the middle of a Russian winter pretty sure this is exactly what the Russians did to drive Germany away from Moscow from 58 divisions that were sitting east of Moscow recalled from Eastern Russia (once the Japs made it clear they weren't going to attack russia)
>>608577 No, the war in the soviet union was never a close deal....
Actually read up on the situation in 41 sovietboos. If the germans would have captured moscow it would have seemed like another blitzkrieg victory. At the very least soviet leadership would have been in disaray for sometime. Making a counteroffensive way harder. Also moscow was a good point to defend, this in combination with soviet lows spirits all bets are open.
>>608577 listen i dont mean to come across as rude but you sound like you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about except in very basic terms, you just throw concepts and vague ideas about "they would have had MONTHS of turmoil!" and "which tanks HUH!" while you blatantly disregard the realities of the eastern front, like any push on moscow coming at the cost of weakening the AGS which already faced the stiffest resistance because the soviets expected the thrust of the invasion to come in the ukraine, and at the cost of further straining logistics which were virtually at the breaking point in the real timeline - and that is with minuscule amounts of troops with no supplies and no infantry support getting anywhere close to moscow, issues ten times worse than the soviet ones precisely because they were not projecting force dozens of miles (or hundreds) into enemy territory - and perhaps most importantly creating a mouthwatering salient for the soviet southern command, now under much less pressure, to exploit, and all this for the dubious possibility to besiege moscow in what would - as urban fighting in the east has shown - have been a protracted affair, further underlining the above issues the germans would be facing
>>608599 Yeah, I know, bad habit that I'm trying to break. I'll get it one day *stares at the horizon* one day.
>>608606 And we're talking about a situation where that failed miserably and those divisions were either wiped out or sent packing east due to a redeployment of German forces to Moscow that were historically sent to the south.
>>608620 So in this alternate history the Germans strengthen Army Group Centre so much that it can not only push through the defensive lines in front of Moscow, reach the city, lay siege to it, conquer it, but also have enough strength and supply remaining so that they can decisively repulse the Soviet counterattack.
I shudder at how much will Army Groups North and South, especially South, suffer against the Soviets after having to be literally gutted to facilitate the feasibility of the above.
>>608643 But would the Soviets be in a situation to take advantage of that? Especially given that they redeployed a lot of forces to the Ukraine to stop an offensive that largely never transpired (If the Germans had gutted Army Groups North and South, they wouldn't have sent said Army Groups on a large offensive). This is based on the idea that Germany has decided to gamble absolutely everything on a decisive push through the center. Would the Soviets redeploy their forces? Would they think it was a trick? When things don't go according to plan, people are not prone to acting rationally.
In this scenario, if you were the Supreme Soviet Commander, how would you respond to this seemingly bizarre move by the Wehrmacht?
The only option was to focus more resources in the Mediterranean and try to take the Suez canal cutting off supplies going to South East Asia. Then push up from the Suez into the Caucasus seizing the oil fields and linking up with the 6th Army at Stalingrad. Also finding a way to take Moscow in December 1941...
Possible on paper if the German high command had foreknowledge of how the war was going to play out.
>>608665 Jesus Christ. 41 was a terrible year for the red army. I bet the typical soviet front grunt would say : Gee, the wehrmacht had relatively high losses. Still we had way more but now my spirits are up again after stalin died in moscow we have no functioning government.
You all underestimate the impact on fighting spirit a capture of moscow would have. The whole narrative of the war would have changed, it would have been a coherent string oif terrible defeats instead of a last ditch patriotic defense lead by stalin.
>>608697 And you're incapable of acknowledging that not everything important in history is quantifiable. Look, I used to be just like you once upon a time, but I learned that the human experience, including our history, can not always be reduced to a set of numbers. The problem with Spreadsheet Historians such as yourself is precisely the fact that you can't measure things like "fighting spirit." And yet it exists, and has even decided entire wars and the fates of nations.
>>608705 I'm not mentioning spreadsheets. You are giving literally no proof whatsoever of your claim, yet you continue to insist upon the importance of this fighting spirit like some kind of militarist Hegel.
>>608705 an army not willing to fight wont launch counterattacks (grodno, brody and probably other i dont know about on a lesser scale) their encircled armies wouldnt fight tooth and nails causing considerable german losses
you are simply wrong and thinking soviets were no different than the french
>>608687 You don´t realize that the question of losses is connected to morale. The narrative was that of a cakewalk or at least a relative easy german progression. Now as a keyboard warrior it is easy to argue with statistics but actual knowledge about the situation suggests that the SU at this point was on the brink of collapse.
>>608705 Its the problem of edgy neckbeards on /his/ reading to much military history and now thinking they understand warfare perfectly. What you say is exactly right, i can´t stress this often enough but moscow was the point when the soviet citizens and soldiers realized victory was possible again. Just try to imerse in the mind of a soviet soldier after the fall of moscow: 1) You are set against a seemingly unstopable warmachine that had stunning successes before and has demolished most of your countries army. 2) Your glorious leader (you probably hated or at the very least feared) is death and whats left is a bunch of fleeing and infighting henchman who didn´t even have the guts to stay and fight for your capital. 3) Would you actually be willing to mount a counteroffensive under the unified command ( if such a thing exists) of cowards who ran away ?
>>608711 Its a figure of speech he used to show your way of thinking. A historical evaluation of a situation must do more than just look at the blank facts. War is also decided through mass psychology, thats a think you cannot quantify but which has a decisive impact. Go read kampfkraft for example, where the author explicetly states that the successes of the wehrmacht are not explainable solely through logistics strategy and tactics.
>>608718 They surely wouldn´t have accepted loss after loss after loss without a massive impact on their morale either...
Russian population 1940 >110 million US population 1940 >131 million German population 1940 >64 million Japanese population 1940 >65 million
Add to the fact that neither Japan nor Germany have any particularly large natural ressources within their own borders and the fact that i haven't even accounted for the Commonwealth, the odds were stacked against the axis from the get go. In the pacific for instance the Japanese could build a single aircraft carrier at the time, while the US could churn out 7 at the same time. Yeah, i haven't counted Italy, but it's fucking Italy. Ihaven'tcounted France either.
>>608793 Belgium and France were forced to give supplies, which is rather different from "help." Spain's "help" amounted to enough men to form one division, which had to be trained, supplied and equipped by Germany.
>>608793 It comes down to counting Saarland, which i didn't in my original count, with Saarland it brings Germany up to 87 million.
My bad. And no, while Germany was not the little guy in Europe, on the grander scale, they were, if we count in Nations like Romania, Hungary etc. We'll also have to account for the Latin American Nations who threw their lot in with the allies, like Brazil for instance.
>>608740 It's not just the Wehrmacht's success that depended on mass psychology overcoming material deficiencies. Try and explain the Battle of Singapore without acknowledging the "fighting spirit" factor. If you can't break the grunts, break the commanding officer.
>>611266 >Try and explain the Battle of Singapore without acknowledging the "fighting spirit" factor 16 brigades of the best the IJA could offer against 15 brigades of recently raised Indian formations. Japan had 5:1 numerical edge in aircraft, and most of its aircraft was modern and was not nicknamed the Flying Coffin. They had tanks, the other side didn't. Japan held the initiative as it could choose where to strike, while the Brits had to defend the whole peninsula with a small force that lacked mobility. Gee, I wonder what the fuck was the decisive factor? Could it have been the complete material and tactical advantage the Japanese held, or perhaps fighting spirit?
>>611290 The Japanese were actually outnumbered 2 to 1. They broke through the British on bicycles not tanks. They couldn't really bring their tanks to bear thanks to the terrain. Also, Japanese tanks were rubbish. Their supply situation was on the brink of collapse. While they held air superiority, they didn't really do much with it. They certainly hadn't bombed Singapore's defenses to rubble. The British lost because Percival lost his "fighting spirit." So, I have no idea what the hell you are talking about, but it isn't the Battle of Singapore.
>>611324 >The Japanese were actually outnumbered 2 to 1 Only if you count the natives who were literally peasant levies.
>They broke through the British on bicycles not tanks. They couldn't really bring their tanks to bear thanks to the terrain. They did bring tanks. Bicycles were used by the supporting infantry.
>Also, Japanese tanks were rubbish. You know what's worse? Not having tanks.
>Their supply situation was on the brink of collapse. Singapore did not have a source of water. Japanese troops could simply have gotten more ammunition and food shipped to them. Singapore could not.
>While they held air superiority, they didn't really do much with it. They certainly hadn't bombed Singapore's defenses to rubble. Bombing a fortified position is not the only way to use air power. Having air superiority allowed Japan to cut off LoC to Singapore and interdict any movement. It doesn't matter if you have 2:1 edge in peasant levies if they can't maneuver. Your spread out forces that can't move simply get isolated and defeated in detail. Another thing that air superiority does is it PREVENTS THE OTHER SIDE FROM INTERDICTING YOU AND CUTTING OFF YOUR LOC.
Honestly your understanding of ww2 and warfare is so infantile that I don't know why I am bothering to reply.
>>611338 You're the one arguing the Japanese had material superiority at Singapore. Infant educate thyself.
You were also really dishonest in your initial comment. Counting "brigades" in order to make it seem like the Japanese had an advantage in numbers. Oh, and an advantage in numbers is an advantage in numbers. Trying to excuse your deceit with "peasant levies don't count" is far more infantile than anything else I've seen in this thread. Also, only bringing up tanks and aircraft and absolutely nothing else. Because then, the material situation isn't in the Japanese's favor is it. Face it, Percival lost his nerve, the men under his command were still ready to fight. And before you give me that "but they would have taken losses," I should remind you they lost the entirety of Malaya command by surrendering.
The real turning point of the war was Kursk. It should have never happened. It was a massive sacrifice of machines and men that Germany never recovered from. Hitler knew it was stupid, his generals knew it was really fucking stupid, but he went for it anyway. All blame is on Hitler.
If the Germans weren't so monstrously horrible to the slavs, invading Russia wouldn't have been so terrible. They spoke about kicking in the door and knocking over the whole rotten structure. But that wasn't going to happen when the Russians were literally fighting for their own survival. There wasn't much of a chance for them to really be like "Yes Germany, I'll fight for you if you help us get rid of these horrible Communists". Because Germany treated the Russians like shit so much they pushed them to the other side, there was no real surrendering, no choice in dying to protect your people, or dying to hand it over. They kicked in the door, and proceeded to reinforce the foundations of the structure.
Imagine if Germany had such large scale support from the Slavs and Baltic people, more than the comparatively small amount they got.
>"Following this meeting, Guderian continued to voice his concerns over an operation that would likely degrade the panzer forces that he had been attempting to rebuild. He considered the offensive, as planned, to be a misuse of the panzer forces, as it violated two of the three tenets he had laid out as the essential elements for a successful panzer attack.[m] In his opinion, the limited German resources in men and materiel should be conserved, as they would be needed for the pending defence of western Europe. In a meeting with Hitler on 10 May he asked,
> Is it really necessary to attack Kursk, and indeed in the east this year at all? Do you think anyone even knows where Kursk is? The entire world doesn't care if we capture Kursk or not. What is the reason that is forcing us to attack this year on Kursk, or even more, on the Eastern Front?
>Hitler replied, "I know. The thought of it turns my stomach." Guderian concluded, "In that case your reaction to the problem is the correct one. Leave it alone."[n]
>Despite reservations, Hitler remained committed to the offensive."
>>611424 >You're the one arguing the Japanese had material superiority at Singapore. Infant educate thyself. Having 500 planes to 100 is not material superiority?
>Counting "brigades" in order to make it seem like the Japanese had an advantage in numbers. You count brigades because 1) Japanese army was constructed similarly as everyone else in the world with the exception of using WW1-style rectangular divisions in early WW2 and 2) because it's way more accurate than using shitty Wikipedia numbers that think a battalion consists of ~2000 men. If you knew anything about how military formations are organized, you would've been able to see through the Wiki numbers for the sham they are.
>Trying to excuse your deceit with "peasant levies don't count" Peasant levies count, but are you seriously trying to argue that hastily raised formations made up of SEA natives and Indians should count the same as battle-hardened divisions with proper training?
>Also, only bringing up tanks and aircraft and absolutely nothing else. Because then, the material situation isn't in the Japanese's favor is it. So what was in the Brits' favor that could have countered the advantage in tanks and aircraft? Go ahead and say it.
>Because then, the material situation isn't in the Japanese's favor is it. Why not? Can you say even one thing of substance other than childishly whining that people are exposing your retardation?
>>611338 Singaporks failings was a lot to do with how spineless and poor the british officer core were, they almost certainly could have won the battle and pushed off the Japanese back to their bridgeheads with the fighting men and shear stockpiles they had. It was a fortress city after all and they had reinforced the garrison and shipped even more supplies before the Japanese invaded.
The brits blew up their own water supply btw when they cut the bridge, inept commanding lost the day.
>Hurr durrr peasant levy
you are attacking that other anons knowledge of history and you show blatant ignorance of history yourself
Hitler KNEW that the Soviets knew that the Germans were planning a two-pronged attack on the Kursk salient. Aerial reconnaisance of the Luftwaffe revealed, months in advance, that the Soviets were amassing huge amounts of soldiers and tanks at Kursk, and that they were building defences right in the planned lines of attack. What does Hitler do? WAITS a few months, "Until we have Panther tanks", yeah sure, and until the Soviets have built the deepest fortification line in the history of the world. Pure and utter retardation. What surprises me, is that the German generals didn't commmit suicide, out of utter disgust of Hitler's commands.
>>611479 >The brits blew up their own water supply btw when they cut the bridge, inept commanding lost the day. Singapore is an island without a source of water. You can't retreat to Singapore and defend it and still count on having water supplies. It doesn't matter who blew up what, because, once you are holed up inside Singapore, there's nothing you can do to stop the other side from cutting off water.
>you are attacking that other anons knowledge of history and you show blatant ignorance of history yourself So you believe that the British "force" at Singapore were elite, trained soldiers?
>>611489 >Singapore is an island without a source of water. You can't retreat to Singapore and defend it and still count on having water supplies. It doesn't matter who blew up what, because, once you are holed up inside Singapore, there's nothing you can do to stop the other side from cutting off water.
As I said if they had an effective officer core they wouldn't have been cut off in the first place.
Really there were a hundred reasons why the defence went tits up, but the biggest one like that other anon said was how useless Malaya command was.
>So you believe that the British "force" at Singapore were elite, trained soldiers?
Say Hitler somehow is convinced to not begin any operation until 1945/1950, could've Italy realistically modernized and industrialized enough to actually be somewhat useful and maybe help Germany in its plans? I remember reading somewhere that according to Italian high ranks, the country wouldn't have been ready for operations of such scale until 1945, but frankly I don't know how realistic this prediction was.
>>611567 Time could have only helped the Italians but it likely would've spelled doom for Germany. The Soviets were consolidating power and France and England weren't exactly sitting around twirling their thumbs.
Had Hitler waited it's very likely he wouldn't have been able to beat France so decisively.
>>611514 >As I said if they had an effective officer core they wouldn't have been cut off in the first place. It doesn't matter if they had Rommel and Alexander for NCOs, they would've been forced to hole up because they cannot conduct offensive maneuvers with zero tanks and aircraft against an enemy with 200 tanks and 500 aircraft.
>but the biggest one like that other anon said was how useless Malaya command was. No, the biggest one was the gross imbalance of forces in favor of the Japanese.
>this straw manning wow You don't even know what strawman means. But go ahead and answer just one question: do you think hastily raised SEA conscripts are equal of battle-hardened vets?
>>607416 If not for a few key mistakes, they could have beaten the Soviet Union. They could also have won the Battle of Britain if they did not switch bombing to the cities. It's possible, but highly unlikely, because even after defeating the Soviets and taking the skies over Britain, they would still have the land invasion to deal with, and the likely intervention from the US.
They would stand a better chance if they waited 3 or 4 years as Mussolini wanted.
Thread replies: 150 Thread images: 14
Thread DB ID: 470332
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.