D-Day "myths". Actually not a bad article at all...

[Richard Hakluyt]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_aircraft_production

Some fun with those figures:

Total aircraft production: 824,102 (the total on the page is wrong)

Total Allied aircraft production: 604,911

The Allies produced nearly 3/4 of the total ...

The craziest figures are the German and Japanese ones.  Contrary to the allies, they knew they were going to war.  Yet they don't prepare themselves for it.  Compare the 1941 vs 1939 figures for the UK, Germany and Japan.  In the case of the UK, they increased production by more than 200%.  Germany, only around 50%.  Japan, which was the first nation to go to war in 1937, only increased production by 10-20% from 1939 to 1941.

I think one has to genuinely subscribe to fascist ideology to be quite so foolish as the Axis leaders were. They must have had some knowledge of the USA's industrial capacity (more than all of Europe if memory serves)........expecting Britain to throw in the towel too..........and expecting the Soviet Union to give in.........

Oh well, don't fall for your own propaganda is the lesson I guess.

[viper37]

The craziest figures are the German and Japanese ones.  Contrary to the allies, they knew they were going to war.  Yet they don't prepare themselves for it.  Compare the 1941 vs 1939 figures for the UK, Germany and Japan.  In the case of the UK, they increased production by more than 200%.  Germany, only around 50%.  Japan, which was the first nation to go to war in 1937, only increased production by 10-20% from 1939 to 1941.

Hitler thought the war with the UK & France would not come until 1945, that they would still let him go his own way toward the east, despite the treaties.

In the past, his generals always advised caution, saying they could not risk a war with France, UK and USSR.  And always, Hitler's bold strategy proved wise.  That's one reason why so many followed him for so long, because they looked like over-caution fools before.  Even the biggest threat, France, was basically walked over by the Whermacht.  So when you tell your Fuhrer that you can't possibly defeat England and the USSR with what you have, when you said the same thing about France and managed to conquer the country and push the Brits out of there, really, who would support you?

The Whermacht had very good soldiers at the beginning of the war, they had experienced veterans from previous conflicts, but they had a lousy government system, their best engineers had fled the country and they couldn't out-produce the allies.

Even with all the might of the Luftwaffe and the Kriegsmarine, they could not directly attack the UK and hurt them enough to force a surrender.

Hitler's strategy of isolating England from its colonies (well, Commonwealth) was sound, but he had nowhere near enough submarines to do that, and he shifter resources from submarine production to surface warships around 37-38.  By the time the resoures were shifted back to the subs, there was no more such a thing as a fleet of surface ships (if it could ever be considered a fleet) and submarine production had difficulties keeping up with the losses.  IIRC, I think they had less than 100 u-boats at the beginning of the war.  You can't isolate England with 100 boats.

[viper37]

I think one has to genuinely subscribe to fascist ideology to be quite so foolish as the Axis leaders were. They must have had some knowledge of the USA's industrial capacity (more than all of Europe if memory serves)........expecting Britain to throw in the towel too..........and expecting the Soviet Union to give in.........

Oh well, don't fall for your own propaganda is the lesson I guess.

The high ranking generals, the carreer military officers, they didn't believe in it.  But what could they do, really?  It's not like they were listened to.  And it wasn't really a good carreer move to criticize the Fürher.

I think, even among non military advisors, there were serious reservations about declaring war to the US, but I don't Hitler asked everyone to voice in their opinion before doing it

Hitler wasn't exactly a rational man, and he did not seek rational people to surround him.  People like Goebbels, Himmler, Goering, not exactly the smartest military advisors.

No one in the Whermacht pushed for Barbarossa.  They kept telling Hitler how bad an idea it was, but they said the same for France...

[Berkut]

Germany at least tried to deal with the issue in the manner that makes sense - when you have foes that are in aggregate larger and more powerful than you are, you have to either not engage them, or make sure you take them on (and defeat them) one at a time.

Germany, kind of reasonably, thought that once France fell and the Brits were pushed off the continent, they would make peace of some kind or another. In the face of an occupied France, a alliance/treaty with the USSR, and England standing alone, what choice would they have but to accept the status quo and a cease fire? They didn't know Germany would be throwing themselves at the USSR, right?

So the plan seems pretty rational, even if it made necessary assumptions that turned out to not be the case:

1. Take out Poland.
2. If France and England fight, take out France.
3. Negotiate some kind of deal with England.
4. Turn attention to the real target - the USSR.

The English, however, were not "reasonable" and just said "Yeah, we are going to just keep fighting. Sure, we have no way of getting back onto the continent, but we don't care. We can blockade you and be a pain in your ass, so take your peace feelers and shove them."

I still maintain that this was the crucial turning point in the war, the decision made that doomed the Axis - the UK just giving Germany the bird and fighting on even when it seemed pretty reasonable for them to make a deal.

Japan? There war against the US never made any sense - there was no reasonable response form the US that could have possibly had an outcome other than what happened. The idea that the US was ever going to just negotiate a peace after Pearl harbor? No real chance of that, and no rational reason for the US to even contemplate it. The US certainly had the capability, will, and opportunity to crush Japan on their own.

[Malthus]

I think one has to genuinely subscribe to fascist ideology to be quite so foolish as the Axis leaders were. They must have had some knowledge of the USA's industrial capacity (more than all of Europe if memory serves)........expecting Britain to throw in the towel too..........and expecting the Soviet Union to give in.........

Oh well, don't fall for your own propaganda is the lesson I guess.

The expectation that the Soviets would quickly collapse looks totally nuts in hindsight, but at the time it seemed a lot more reasonable: many unbiased contemporary observers thought they would collapse, too. The Nazis based this notion on four facts, all true:

1. The Soviet army had performed pathetically against tiny Finland.

2. The Soviet army leadership was gutted in the purges. The generals and officers who survived were noted more for their ability to survive Stalin's purges than for their military skills.

3. The Soviet leadership was deeply unpopular, having persecuted various ethnicities and segments of society horribly. Many in the Soviet Union would welcome a German invasion.

4. The Soviet system was rigidly hierarchical, with decision making concentrated on the dictator: military officials feared to show initiative. If Stalin's morale collapsed, or there was a fight at the top among Soviet grandees, the system could not recover.

The Nazi grand strategy was that they realized they could not successfully invade England, and so they thought that if they eliminated the Soviets they would have a unified European empire as an accomplished fact. Britain would have to make a deal then, or be totally cut off by submarine blockade. Also, the US would be tied down dealing with Japan. True, the Nazis could do nothing to the US - but with the Soviets defeated and UK neutralized, the US could do nothing to the Nazis, either. There would be a new cold war, between US and Nazi continental blocks. 

[Malthus]

Japan? There war against the US never made any sense - there was no reasonable response form the US that could have possibly had an outcome other than what happened. The idea that the US was ever going to just negotiate a peace after Pearl harbor? No real chance of that, and no rational reason for the US to even contemplate it. The US certainly had the capability, will, and opportunity to crush Japan on their own.

What doomed Japan to taking this hopeless path was that the leadership was unable to cope with the demands of the army. The army had managed, over the preceding decade, to enforce its will on the leadership through terrorism and assassination: and the army was totally committed to expanding its empire in China.

The US basically told Japan that the price for continued supply, on which it was dependent on, was giving up its China empire. That was the one thing the Japanese leadership could not do (and survive). Any leader who agreed with that demand would have been assassinated for sure. Yet Japan could not survive without supplies.

The only way out of that was to simply grab the supplies Japan needed. Yet they knew the US would never simply stand aside and allow that. The only way out of this self-imposed dilemma was to convince themselves against all reason that the US would be deterred by the destruction of their Pacific Fleet.

[Berkut]

I've always thought that if you were going to make a wargame of the Eastern Front in the manner that Germany thought the war would work out, you would have some system for modeling "Soviet Political Failure" that would result in a political collapse of the Soviet Union (meaning a coup that overthrows Stalin, or Stalin is simply shot, a revolution, or something like that resulting in a structural collapse of the soviet nation).

Each time some milestone is reached, the Soviet player would have to roll on the "Political Collapse" table. Like

Standing Soviet Army 90% destroyed - roll
Kiev captured - roll
Moscow threatened - roll
Moscow captured - roll+1

Etc., etc.

In the German thinking, at some point these blows would result in the Soviet government collapsing, that at some point their hits will result in the Soviet player rolling that '6' needed, and they get to make a "Brest-Litovsk" like treaty with the remaining government.

You could look at their failure (in that context) in one of two ways:

1. Their table odds were not actually as good as they thought - in reality, they didn't need to roll a 6 on d6, but rather a 12 on 2d6, hence it just wasn't as likely as they thought..., or
2. Their table odds were fine, they just never managed to roll that 6, and if you re-fought the war 10 times with the exact same operational results, 7 out of 10 times the Soviet Union does in fact collapse and they "win" the war. The historical result just happened to be one of the 3 out of 10.

It is, of course, impossible to say which scenario was actually true. Was the USSR even close to simply collapsing, but simply did not? Really hard to say.

But I think that is the thought process that went into Hitler's decision to attack - that at some point the Soviet will to fight will break and he will be able to consolidate his gains.

[Malthus]

I've always thought that if you were going to make a wargame of the Eastern Front in the manner that Germany thought the war would work out, you would have some system for modeling "Soviet Political Failure" that would result in a political collapse of the Soviet Union (meaning a coup that overthrows Stalin, or Stalin is simply shot, a revolution, or something like that resulting in a structural collapse of the soviet nation).

Each time some milestone is reached, the Soviet player would have to roll on the "Political Collapse" table. Like

Standing Soviet Army 90% destroyed - roll
Kiev captured - roll
Moscow threatened - roll
Moscow captured - roll+1

Etc., etc.

In the German thinking, at some point these blows would result in the Soviet government collapsing, that at some point their hits will result in the Soviet player rolling that '6' needed, and they get to make a "Brest-Litovsk" like treaty with the remaining government.

You could look at their failure (in that context) in one of two ways:

1. Their table odds were not actually as good as they thought - in reality, they didn't need to roll a 6 on d6, but rather a 12 on 2d6, hence it just wasn't as likely as they thought..., or
2. Their table odds were fine, they just never managed to roll that 6, and if you re-fought the war 10 times with the exact same operational results, 7 out of 10 times the Soviet Union does in fact collapse and they "win" the war. The historical result just happened to be one of the 3 out of 10.

It is, of course, impossible to say which scenario was actually true. Was the USSR even close to simply collapsing, but simply did not? Really hard to say.

But I think that is the thought process that went into Hitler's decision to attack - that at some point the Soviet will to fight will break and he will be able to consolidate his gains.

That would be an awesome game. 

I think that the Soviet Union came reasonably close to collapse, early on. My evidence: that Stalin suffered what appeared to have been a nervous breakdown on the news of the invasion; and that when his officials went to his dacha, he thought they were there to arrest him. Had they done so, it likely would have triggered a power struggle among the surviving Soviet leaders, most of whom hated and feared each other and with good reason. It is highly possible that the Soviets could not have survived a prolonged leadership failure at the top at the very moment when the Nazis were dismembering their armies - it may even have been the case that some Soviet power contenders would have sought to make deals with the Nazis for survival. 

[Richard Hakluyt]

If we look back at WW1 Russia collapsed but Germany was still brought to the brink of starvation and lost the war. So even if they smash the SU is that enough to win? I don't think so, they have to deal with the British somehow, and to deal with the British they have to go wild with the submarines in a way that offends the USA.

Perhaps it all turns on summer 1940 and the possibility of a successful operation Sea Lion?

[Berkut]

If we look back at WW1 Russia collapsed but Germany was still brought to the brink of starvation and lost the war. So even if they smash the SU is that enough to win? I don't think so, they have to deal with the British somehow, and to deal with the British they have to go wild with the submarines in a way that offends the USA.

Perhaps it all turns on summer 1940 and the possibility of a successful operation Sea Lion?

Ahh, but in WW1 they made the "mistake" of taking them all on at the same time. In WW2, they succeeded in removing one of their strongest opponents completey right at the start, which in their view they had already succeeded in doing what Germany tried and failed to do in WW1.

Taking the Russians out of the war in 1917 during a war that lasted from 1914-1918 is not even remotely the same as taking France out of the war in 1940 in a war that went 1939-1945. In WW1 taking Russia out was "too little, too late". In WW2 taking France out seemed to be a decisive action.

From the standpoint of 1939, there was another *huge* difference. The alliance with Russia allowed them to isolate their Western opponents in a manner they could never hope for in 1914. WW2 was a fine example, at least in theory, of how to win a war against stronger opponents by politically isolating them from one another so they can be defeated in detail.

The political machinations pre-war were really quite brilliant - assuming that you have already decided that you must go to war. Which certainly was not so brilliant, of course.

[DGuller]

I always wondered what would've happened if some Soviet officials were quick-thinking enough to go "Arrest?  What are..  Oh, yes, yes, you're under arrest, put your hands behind your back", instead of  "Oh, no, God no, comrade Stalin, we just came to chat about that war thing."

[Tamas]

I always wondered what would've happened if some Soviet officials were quick-thinking enough to go "Arrest?  What are..  Oh, yes, yes, you're under arrest, put your hands behind your back", instead of  "Oh, no, God no, comrade Stalin, we just came to chat about that war thing."

I remember reading in the Red Tsar's Court (most excellent book) that Stalin feared his "war council" was visiting to arrest/overthrow him in his dacha during the early days of Barbarossa, I don't remember after exactly which fiasco.


And also, very informative discussion guys!

I think all this points out how in WW2 the Axis powers tried to turn a trend that was already dead set against them from the very start. In WW1 at least it was more or less a coin toss, even if time favoured the Entente.

[The Minsky Moment]

The English, however, were not "reasonable" and just said "Yeah, we are going to just keep fighting. Sure, we have no way of getting back onto the continent, but we don't care. We can blockade you and be a pain in your ass, so take your peace feelers and shove them."

I still maintain that this was the crucial turning point in the war, the decision made that doomed the Axis - the UK just giving Germany the bird and fighting on even when it seemed pretty reasonable for them to make a deal.

Clear historical precedent there from the Napoleonic Wars. 
A cursory review of that precedent might also have suggested the potential downside of responding via a massive invasion of Russia.

[Berkut]

The English, however, were not "reasonable" and just said "Yeah, we are going to just keep fighting. Sure, we have no way of getting back onto the continent, but we don't care. We can blockade you and be a pain in your ass, so take your peace feelers and shove them."

I still maintain that this was the crucial turning point in the war, the decision made that doomed the Axis - the UK just giving Germany the bird and fighting on even when it seemed pretty reasonable for them to make a deal.

Clear historical precedent there from the Napoleonic Wars. 
A cursory review of that precedent might also have suggested the potential downside of responding via a massive invasion of Russia.

Excellent point.

[viper37]

Germany at least tried to deal with the issue in the manner that makes sense - when you have foes that are in aggregate larger and more powerful than you are, you have to either not engage them, or make sure you take them on (and defeat them) one at a time.

Germany, kind of reasonably, thought that once France fell and the Brits were pushed off the continent, they would make peace of some kind or another. In the face of an occupied France, a alliance/treaty with the USSR, and England standing alone, what choice would they have but to accept the status quo and a cease fire? They didn't know Germany would be throwing themselves at the USSR, right?

So the plan seems pretty rational, even if it made necessary assumptions that turned out to not be the case:

1. Take out Poland.
2. If France and England fight, take out France.
3. Negotiate some kind of deal with England.
4. Turn attention to the real target - the USSR.

Yes, Churchill really screwed with the Nazis plans

The idea that England could be submitted/starved while waging war on the USSR at the same time was pretty silly.  First, defeat England, or at least sign a status-quo peace, then focus on the USSR.
be a pain in your ass, so take your peace feelers and shove them."

Japan? There war against the US never made any sense - there was no reasonable response form the US that could have possibly had an outcome other than what happened. The idea that the US was ever going to just negotiate a peace after Pearl harbor? No real chance of that, and no rational reason for the US to even contemplate it. The US certainly had the capability, will, and opportunity to crush Japan on their own.

After seeing the movie Midway, I was reading on Yamamoto, and apparently, when asked by the Emperor how he would fare in a war against the US, he was quite blunt and honest: I shall be on the offensive for 1 year and half, maybe 2 years, then I will be forced to retreat until the final defeat.

The whole war was illogical, despite US support to the UK against Nazi Germany, the Americans did not want to enter the war.  It is doubtful the US public opinion would have been moved enough to enter the war by the UK (and other Europeans) losing all its colonies to the Japanese.