Aside from being unrealistically nice to the Soviet population (we are talking about Nazis here), was there anything they could have done to win the war? My impression is no, but there a many people here who know more about the situation than I.
Making peace with Britain in early 1941.
Only by sucking up to the Ukrainians I guess, but as you said, the nazis were, well, nazis. The German's drive was their idea of supremacy, they had no patience for the untermensch. Look at WW1 occupation in Belgium for a prime example.
Roll more sixes.
:face:
Taking Moscow on the first try would have helped.
Quote from: Tamas on December 19, 2011, 08:22:26 AM
Only by sucking up to the Ukrainians I guess, but as you said, the nazis were, well, nazis. The German's drive was their idea of supremacy, they had no patience for the untermensch. Look at WW1 occupation in Belgium for a prime example.
I thought they were very patient with Hungary.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 19, 2011, 08:28:03 AM
Quote from: Tamas on December 19, 2011, 08:22:26 AM
Only by sucking up to the Ukrainians I guess, but as you said, the nazis were, well, nazis. The German's drive was their idea of supremacy, they had no patience for the untermensch. Look at WW1 occupation in Belgium for a prime example.
I thought they were very patient with Hungary.
:moon:
yeah, until we kept sucking their dicks. But then Horthy didn't want to swallow so they moved in. Luckily for them, our army was full of nazis as well so we kept fighting on their side.
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 19, 2011, 08:27:52 AM
Taking Moscow on the first try would have helped.
Yep. Might not have won the war but certainly would not have hurt.
Quote from: Valmy on December 19, 2011, 08:51:24 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 19, 2011, 08:27:52 AM
Taking Moscow on the first try would have helped.
Yep. Might not have won the war but certainly would not have hurt.
Ok, but how do they do that? Weren't they basically forced to halt their central thrust towards Moscow because of logistical constraints? The turn south turned out pretty well for them didn't it?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 19, 2011, 08:55:21 AM
Ok, but how do they do that? Weren't they basically forced to halt their central thrust towards Moscow because of logistical constraints? The turn south turned out pretty well for them didn't it?
I was not aware it was because of logistical constraints, but strategic ones. And all it may have taken is having their army equipt for winter action.
Better coats.
Quote from: Tyr on December 19, 2011, 09:12:02 AM
Better coats.
Maybe some anti-freeze.
For an army renown for its management of the details they sure wiffed on that one.
Quote from: Valmy on December 19, 2011, 09:00:43 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 19, 2011, 08:55:21 AM
Ok, but how do they do that? Weren't they basically forced to halt their central thrust towards Moscow because of logistical constraints? The turn south turned out pretty well for them didn't it?
I was not aware it was because of logistical constraints, but strategic ones. And all it may have taken is having their army equipt for winter action.
Or invading earlier. If Germany started the invasion even a few weeks earlier, they could have arrived much closer to Moscow before the autumn rains started. The original invasion date was in may, IIRC, and it was delayed because of the Balkans campaign. Also, once the invasion began the army group aiming for Moscow was at some point diverted southwards to support the campaign in Ukraine, which delayed their advance towards Moscow.
Also, the nazis had no problem justifying the cuddling of slavic populations when it suited their needs, so they could have done the same in Ukraine if they wanted.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 19, 2011, 08:22:04 AM
Making peace with Britain in early 1941.
And start the attack in early may as original planned. Il Duce just have to learn how deal with the Greeks the hard way...
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on December 19, 2011, 09:43:04 AM
And start the attack in early may as original planned. Il Duce just have to learn how deal with the Greeks the hard way...
Just another example of Germany screwing things up with its allies. Seriously both Italy in WWII and Austria-Hungary in WWI were almost allied sleeper agents in the way they both managed to screw up German plans at key moments.
Did Germany never bother to monitor their allies or at least get them on board with their plans? I mean there never was a supreme war council or anything by the European Axis countries to coordinate everything I am even aware of. And there certainly never was between Germany and Austria-Hungary in WWI like the British and the French were meeting constantly to make sure they were on the same page.
I mean, thing is, as long as Germany was at war with Britain, Germany was going to wind up at war with the United States. The United States gets the bomb in 1945.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 19, 2011, 09:48:17 AM
I mean, thing is, as long as Germany was at war with Britain, Germany was going to wind up at war with the United States. The United States gets the bomb in 1945.
Well Britain was not going to make peace without Germany leaving everything it had occupied in Europe, Germany was going to have to defeat the British. But the question here is if Germany could have won on the Eastern Front, not win the war.
I think that it depends on how you define a win. The Germans could probably have gotten a negotiated peace of some sort from Stalin that would have given them considerable territorial gains if they'd pushed for one in September of 41, or in the summer of 42. The problem was that they were looking for a total victory over the Soviet Union, which I don't think that they could have gotten that under the conditions that existed in 1941, but they weren't going to settle for anything less at any time it looked like they might be winning, and Stalin wasn't going to offer them anything once it was obvious that the Germans would eventually be defeated (i.e., after Stalingrad).
Quote from: Valmy on December 19, 2011, 09:51:00 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 19, 2011, 09:48:17 AM
I mean, thing is, as long as Germany was at war with Britain, Germany was going to wind up at war with the United States. The United States gets the bomb in 1945.
Well Britain was not going to make peace without Germany leaving everything it had occupied in Europe, Germany was going to have to defeat the British. But the question here is if Germany could have won on the Eastern Front, not win the war.
They don't win on the Eastern Front if they don't win the war. It's not like we're gonna nuke Hamburg, Dresden, and Cologne and say "Give us back France. What, Russia? Poland? Oh, that's cool. You guys earned it. A for effort."
Quote from: Ideologue on December 19, 2011, 09:55:26 AM
They don't win on the Eastern Front if they don't win the war. It's not like we're gonna nuke Hamburg, Dresden, and Cologne and say "Give us back France. What, Russia? Poland? Oh, that's cool. You guys earned it. A for effort."
Um they won on the Eastern Front in WWI and lost the war. Remember that?
Quote from: dps on December 19, 2011, 09:55:00 AM
The problem was that they were looking for a total victory over the Soviet Union, which I don't think that they could have gotten that under the conditions that existed in 1941.
Yeah Hitler and Stalin were never go to negotiate. It was a fight to the death.
Quote from: Valmy on December 19, 2011, 09:58:27 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 19, 2011, 09:55:26 AM
They don't win on the Eastern Front if they don't win the war. It's not like we're gonna nuke Hamburg, Dresden, and Cologne and say "Give us back France. What, Russia? Poland? Oh, that's cool. You guys earned it. A for effort."
Um they won on the Eastern Front in WWI and lost the war. Remember that?
WWI wasn't fought with weapons of national annihilation.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 19, 2011, 10:00:48 AM
WWI wasn't fought with weapons of national annihilation.
I am just saying they could have "won" (well presuming it was possible) on the Eastern Front in WWII and still have eventually been made to give it all up once they were beaten elsewhere...just like they had to in WWI.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 19, 2011, 10:00:48 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 19, 2011, 09:58:27 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 19, 2011, 09:55:26 AM
They don't win on the Eastern Front if they don't win the war. It's not like we're gonna nuke Hamburg, Dresden, and Cologne and say "Give us back France. What, Russia? Poland? Oh, that's cool. You guys earned it. A for effort."
Um they won on the Eastern Front in WWI and lost the war. Remember that?
WWI wasn't fought with weapons of national annihilation.
The Austro-Hungarian Empire would disagree. Arguably, so would the Ottoman and Russian Empires (and if you really think about it, in the long run WWI is the reason the British and French lost their overseas empires, too).
Though I'm not really sure what you mean by "weapons of national annihilation" anyway.
Quote from: Valmy on December 19, 2011, 10:00:02 AM
Yeah Hitler and Stalin were never go to negotiate. It was a fight to the death.
Didn't Stalin send out peace feelers sometime in '41 or '42?
Quote from: dps on December 19, 2011, 10:03:13 AM
Though I'm not really sure what you mean by "weapons of national annihilation" anyway.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.shoemoney.com%2Fimages%2Fnuke.jpg&hash=223d8257686bf590e4bf5692ac73fe98f0b99cef)
Quote from: Valmy on December 19, 2011, 10:02:01 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 19, 2011, 10:00:48 AM
WWI wasn't fought with weapons of national annihilation.
I am just saying they could have "won" on the Eastern Front in WWII and still have eventually been made to give it all up once they were beaten elsewhere...just like they had to in WWI.
That doesn't really count as a victory, imo. I feel that winning on the Eastern Front would have to entail recognition from the Western Allies of a new status quo. And since the Western Allies were going to get and use the bomb, and nothing Germany could do could stop that (short of developing their own atomic weapons, I suppose), any occupation of the Soviet Union was never going to last more than a few years.
Now, the USSR would not likely have been reborn from the ashes of Reichskommissariat Moskau, so maybe a Nazi "victory" would actually have been the best of all possible worlds. :hmm:
Quote from: Ideologue on December 19, 2011, 10:06:24 AM
That doesn't really count as a victory, imo.
Well not a geo-political one. I thought we were just talking militarily here.
Ok, fair enough.
Anyway, even to a lesser extent, I think that to win in the East, even temporarily, the Germans needed to have made peace with Britain. The distractions of air war, submarine war, overseas war, and eventually land war significantly impacted their ability to fight the Soviets, and the existence of co-belligerents meant material support. And I don't know how much, but surely their allies contributed to their will to continue fighting.
Quote from: Kleves on December 19, 2011, 10:03:53 AM
Didn't Stalin send out peace feelers sometime in '41 or '42?
True but we are not sure what exactly his game was right? Isn't it a bit controversial as to what Stalin was up to with that? In any case Hitler was not interested. And it was later than that, 1943 IIRC.
Quote from: Kleves on December 19, 2011, 10:06:09 AM
Quote from: dps on December 19, 2011, 10:03:13 AM
Though I'm not really sure what you mean by "weapons of national annihilation" anyway.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.shoemoney.com%2Fimages%2Fnuke.jpg&hash=223d8257686bf590e4bf5692ac73fe98f0b99cef)
Ooooo, Pretty lights, pretty lights
Quote from: The Larch on December 19, 2011, 09:17:26 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 19, 2011, 09:00:43 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 19, 2011, 08:55:21 AM
Ok, but how do they do that? Weren't they basically forced to halt their central thrust towards Moscow because of logistical constraints? The turn south turned out pretty well for them didn't it?
I was not aware it was because of logistical constraints, but strategic ones. And all it may have taken is having their army equipt for winter action.
Or invading earlier. If Germany started the invasion even a few weeks earlier, they could have arrived much closer to Moscow before the autumn rains started. The original invasion date was in may, IIRC, and it was delayed because of the Balkans campaign. Also, once the invasion began the army group aiming for Moscow was at some point diverted southwards to support the campaign in Ukraine, which delayed their advance towards Moscow.
Also, the nazis had no problem justifying the cuddling of slavic populations when it suited their needs, so they could have done the same in Ukraine if they wanted.
Story I've heard is that the "the Italians (fatally) delayed 'em" account is pretty much a myth - that because of a late spring Rasputitsa, the invasion could not have been launched earlier than it was.
No peace was possible with Hitler, because Hitler had already framed Fall Barbarossa as a war of annihilation and extermination, and he genuinely believed the Wehrmacht only needed to kick in the door for the whole rotten Russian structure to fall down.
Besides, signing a truce with Stalin would only served to allow him to bide time to rebuild his forces for a new round, and Stalin would never have signed a treaty that required him to step down, the Communist Party to dissolve, and Russia to become a puppet ally of Germany.
Well, I think the relevant factors are that
- Stalin would only make peace if his own personal political power was threatened. IMHO the only possible candidate for this during a German victory would be a victorious general or obvious sabotage to the war effort by Stalin. The former would suggest that Germany was not winning and the latter was resolved by Stalin in the fall of 1941 when he gave up army control.
- German occupation policy means that at least 3 million men would be required to merely hold occupied Soviet land. (I got the 50-1 ratio from Gen. Eric Shinseki)
I don't really think anything could really have been done differently. If you are going to make the changes that might be necessary to win the war in the field would mean abandoning the central war aim; the conquest of the east; the destruction of bolshevism, judaism and less than enthusiatically pro-nazi attitudes and; the enslavement of the slavs.
The kinder gentler hitler might have won the war but he certainly wouldn't have started it.
So, is there any mistake or choice the Germans made that lost them the war? The only plausible one I can think of is to spend September 1941 going from Smolensk to Moscow rather than the historical option of going from Smolensk to Kiev. Even that one isn't very likely since the movement of the government was prepared and half completed from moscow to the urals. The Soviets were prepared and probably expected it. However, I think losing the Ukraine caused the Soviet Union more economic and manpower harm than a potential loss of moscow would have been.
Apart from the seriously foolish mistake of starting the war in the first place the OKW usually made the best choices available to them at any time. GRÖFAZ, however, kept taking credit when the Heer exceeded it's own expectations and whenever the Heer had successed GRÖFAZ intervened. When the Heer failed GRÖFAZ blamed the Heer.
Another question is could the Germans force a separate peace on the Soviets or fight them to a standstill if the western allies made a separate peace? I think so, fighting a mobile defense bleeding the Soviets like Mannstein did in the Kharkov offensive before Kursk could have turned the Ukrain and Belarus into deathtraps for the Soviets possibly getting the Soviets to agree to a white status quo ante bellum peace.
My impression is that there was a way. The Soviets took a severe pounding and almost lost some very important cities. Who knows what would have happened if they lost them and/or took an even harder pounding? It seems unlikely to me that what happened historically was at an extreme pro-German end probabilitywise.
Probably the what if with the highest chance of success is no diversion of Guderian to the Kiev pocket.
A better question woudl be would the soviets have held out if Trotsky had emerged victorious rather than Stalin?
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on December 19, 2011, 11:20:39 AM
A better question woudl be would the soviets have held out if Trotsky had emerged victorious rather than Stalin?
Or what if they had been ruled by a circle of liche false Dmitris?
Quote from: Malthus on December 19, 2011, 10:16:46 AM
Quote from: The Larch on December 19, 2011, 09:17:26 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 19, 2011, 09:00:43 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 19, 2011, 08:55:21 AM
Ok, but how do they do that? Weren't they basically forced to halt their central thrust towards Moscow because of logistical constraints? The turn south turned out pretty well for them didn't it?
I was not aware it was because of logistical constraints, but strategic ones. And all it may have taken is having their army equipt for winter action.
Or invading earlier. If Germany started the invasion even a few weeks earlier, they could have arrived much closer to Moscow before the autumn rains started. The original invasion date was in may, IIRC, and it was delayed because of the Balkans campaign. Also, once the invasion began the army group aiming for Moscow was at some point diverted southwards to support the campaign in Ukraine, which delayed their advance towards Moscow.
Also, the nazis had no problem justifying the cuddling of slavic populations when it suited their needs, so they could have done the same in Ukraine if they wanted.
Story I've heard is that the "the Italians (fatally) delayed 'em" account is pretty much a myth - that because of a late spring Rasputitsa, the invasion could not have been launched earlier than it was.
IIRC that was in june, if Barbarossa had begun in may as initially planned the late spring rains would have caught them already around Smolensk.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 19, 2011, 09:48:17 AM
I mean, thing is, as long as Germany was at war with Britain, Germany was going to wind up at war with the United States. The United States gets the bomb in 1945.
Any reasonable scenario that has Germany winning the war with the Soviet Union has a very quick victory by Germany, so the war would be over by 1942 or so. Even if Germany would need huge amounts of manpower to occupy the East, it would free virtually all of the air force to fight in the West. With more resources devoted to air defense, Germany wouldn't be nearly as vulnerable as it was in reality, especially not by 1945 when it should have jet fighters. And it might still have enough resources to retalitate with chemical weapons in V2s to nuclear strikes...
Quote from: The Larch on December 19, 2011, 12:37:47 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 19, 2011, 10:16:46 AM
Quote from: The Larch on December 19, 2011, 09:17:26 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 19, 2011, 09:00:43 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 19, 2011, 08:55:21 AM
Ok, but how do they do that? Weren't they basically forced to halt their central thrust towards Moscow because of logistical constraints? The turn south turned out pretty well for them didn't it?
I was not aware it was because of logistical constraints, but strategic ones. And all it may have taken is having their army equipt for winter action.
Or invading earlier. If Germany started the invasion even a few weeks earlier, they could have arrived much closer to Moscow before the autumn rains started. The original invasion date was in may, IIRC, and it was delayed because of the Balkans campaign. Also, once the invasion began the army group aiming for Moscow was at some point diverted southwards to support the campaign in Ukraine, which delayed their advance towards Moscow.
Also, the nazis had no problem justifying the cuddling of slavic populations when it suited their needs, so they could have done the same in Ukraine if they wanted.
Story I've heard is that the "the Italians (fatally) delayed 'em" account is pretty much a myth - that because of a late spring Rasputitsa, the invasion could not have been launched earlier than it was.
IIRC that was in june, if Barbarossa had begun in may as initially planned the late spring rains would have caught them already around Smolensk.
The issue is - was the ground dried out in May? If not, it would make sense to delay until is was, as bogging down in mud would reduce the shock value the Germans were relying on to knock the Soviets out of the war.
Oh sure, they could have won. An insidious plague strikes the Soviet Union, a giant volcano erupts under Moscow etc. While remotely possible these aren't really plausible or likely. I think the Germans got about as far as they were likely to get in destroying the Soviet Union. I'm not convinced that an earlier Barbarossa would have actually helped much. They still would have run into fresh reserves at the gates of Moscow, and I don't know when the Spring mud clears. While it's easy to criticize the Germans for not being prepared for winter, carrying along those big coats and antifreeze would have further taxed the supply system. They would have moved even slower if they had to carry all that stuff, and they were operating on a tight time table with a somewhat chaotic supply system. It coasts gasoline to move material like that, which is not something the Germans had in abundance.
I think it's true that Germans could have gotten a peace deal where they took some western Soviet territory (such as the Baltic states, the Ukraine, and Belarus), but Stalin would bide his time building up his forces in preparation of a strike to take it back. It would be hard to defend, and difficult to classify. In the end, I don't know if it would have helped them that much.
Quote from: ZanzaAny reasonable scenario that has Germany winning the war with the Soviet Union has a very quick victory by Germany, so the war would be over by 1942 or so. Even if Germany would need huge amounts of manpower to occupy the East, it would free virtually all of the air force to fight in the West. With more resources devoted to air defense, Germany wouldn't be nearly as vulnerable as it was in reality, especially not by 1945 when it should have jet fighters. And it might still have enough resources to retalitate with chemical weapons in V2s to nuclear strikes...
Chemical weapons aren't really in the same league.
I also suspect that V2 delivery of WW2-era chemical weapons would be a pretty lossy affair.
And while Germany might have more resources to devote to air defense, the U.S. and Britain may as well, since an invasion of France would probably have to be abandoned. The Brits had a jet, too (Gloster Meteor), and stopping one specific bomber is a difficult task--although the expense and sensitivity of the bombs may have made them demur from the prospect of it being destroyed (at least it'd give 'em cancer :P ), or maybe even captured.
The Germans could perhaps win a war of attrition against conventional bombing with the Schwalbe, the extra flak, and an asymmetric KIA/POW ratio due to operating over home soil, but nuclear war is not a long grinding struggle. I think we'd have managed to get a few bombs through by 1946.
The possibility for German victory would lie in, I suppose, the prospects for the Western Allies to negotiate a peace.
As the movie Wargames WOPR learned, this goes for Germany - "The only way to win is not to play." "How about a nice game of chess?"
I never played SS Amerika. :(
Very unlikely.
It's true that Putin's authority has been compromised and the Russian army is a hollow shell of the hold Soviet forces. But Germany doesn't have much of an offensive striking force, and Merkel is too cautious to roll the dice, even with Polish cooperation. The one long shot would be somehow tricking the Russians into the Eurozone (thus collapsing their economy) but Putin is far too wily to fall for that one.
Meh.
There is only one way for Germany to win the war: it has to swiftly and decisively crush the Brits in the Battle of the Atlantic. Once Albion is isolated the Americans are out of the picture and the Soviet Union stands alone.
Quote from: The Larch on December 19, 2011, 09:17:26 AM
Or invading earlier. If Germany started the invasion even a few weeks earlier, they could have arrived much closer to Moscow before the autumn rains started. The original invasion date was in may, IIRC, and it was delayed because of the Balkans campaign.
Weather precluded the May start, and thus allowed
Merika to proceed. This is addressed by General von Senger in
Neither Fear nor Hope.QuoteAlso, once the invasion began the army group aiming for Moscow was at some point diverted southwards to support the campaign in Ukraine, which delayed their advance towards Moscow.
Just as they had diverted the German army away from Paris and towards the Channel in 1940. Army Group Center was not in a position to attack Moscow yet, due to supply considerations. A lateral move was possible, though, and defeat of the enemy armies in the field had resulted in a quick capture of an enemy capital in the past.
One can argue that the extra wear and tear on the men and machines that resulted from the diversion of forces to the Balkans and Kiev was a factor in slowing the German advance, but I don't think it was a decisive one. Plus, the Soviets would have been much stronger in front of Moscow if they had had the men they lost in the Kiev pocket.
QuoteAlso, the nazis had no problem justifying the cuddling of slavic populations when it suited their needs, so they could have done the same in Ukraine if they wanted.
I agree with this, but I also think the Germans had lost the war by the time this would have yielded any fruits.
To bring the English to heel Hitler must bleed the French white.
Quote from: Iormlund on December 19, 2011, 02:11:52 PM
There is only one way for Germany to win the war: it has to swiftly and decisively crush the Brits in the Battle of the Atlantic. Once Albion is isolated the Americans are out of the picture and the Soviet Union stands alone.
Possibly, but Germany lacked the means to decisively crush the British in the Battle of the Atlantic.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 19, 2011, 02:05:15 PM
Very unlikely.
It's true that Putin's authority has been compromised and the Russian army is a hollow shell of the hold Soviet forces. But Germany doesn't have much of an offensive striking force, and Merkel is too cautious to roll the dice, even with Polish cooperation. The one long shot would be somehow tricking the Russians into the Eurozone (thus collapsing their economy) but Putin is far too wily to fall for that one.
:lol:
If the Soviets don't play Sorge on time, they might be in trouble.
Quote from: Malthus on December 19, 2011, 10:16:46 AM
Quote from: The Larch on December 19, 2011, 09:17:26 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 19, 2011, 09:00:43 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 19, 2011, 08:55:21 AM
Ok, but how do they do that? Weren't they basically forced to halt their central thrust towards Moscow because of logistical constraints? The turn south turned out pretty well for them didn't it?
I was not aware it was because of logistical constraints, but strategic ones. And all it may have taken is having their army equipt for winter action.
Or invading earlier. If Germany started the invasion even a few weeks earlier, they could have arrived much closer to Moscow before the autumn rains started. The original invasion date was in may, IIRC, and it was delayed because of the Balkans campaign. Also, once the invasion began the army group aiming for Moscow was at some point diverted southwards to support the campaign in Ukraine, which delayed their advance towards Moscow.
Also, the nazis had no problem justifying the cuddling of slavic populations when it suited their needs, so they could have done the same in Ukraine if they wanted.
Story I've heard is that the "the Italians (fatally) delayed 'em" account is pretty much a myth - that because of a late spring Rasputitsa, the invasion could not have been launched earlier than it was.
Still wouldn't they be in a better position if they hadn't had to wast men and supplies on a pointless Balkan campaign?
Quote from: Ideologue on December 19, 2011, 01:41:20 PM
Quote from: ZanzaAny reasonable scenario that has Germany winning the war with the Soviet Union has a very quick victory by Germany, so the war would be over by 1942 or so. Even if Germany would need huge amounts of manpower to occupy the East, it would free virtually all of the air force to fight in the West. With more resources devoted to air defense, Germany wouldn't be nearly as vulnerable as it was in reality, especially not by 1945 when it should have jet fighters. And it might still have enough resources to retalitate with chemical weapons in V2s to nuclear strikes...
Chemical weapons aren't really in the same league.
I also suspect that V2 delivery of WW2-era chemical weapons would be a pretty lossy affair.
The Germans had nerve gas.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 19, 2011, 06:33:11 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 19, 2011, 10:16:46 AM
Quote from: The Larch on December 19, 2011, 09:17:26 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 19, 2011, 09:00:43 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 19, 2011, 08:55:21 AM
Ok, but how do they do that? Weren't they basically forced to halt their central thrust towards Moscow because of logistical constraints? The turn south turned out pretty well for them didn't it?
I was not aware it was because of logistical constraints, but strategic ones. And all it may have taken is having their army equipt for winter action.
Or invading earlier. If Germany started the invasion even a few weeks earlier, they could have arrived much closer to Moscow before the autumn rains started. The original invasion date was in may, IIRC, and it was delayed because of the Balkans campaign. Also, once the invasion began the army group aiming for Moscow was at some point diverted southwards to support the campaign in Ukraine, which delayed their advance towards Moscow.
Also, the nazis had no problem justifying the cuddling of slavic populations when it suited their needs, so they could have done the same in Ukraine if they wanted.
Story I've heard is that the "the Italians (fatally) delayed 'em" account is pretty much a myth - that because of a late spring Rasputitsa, the invasion could not have been launched earlier than it was.
Still wouldn't they be in a better position if they hadn't had to wast men and supplies on a pointless Balkan campaign?
They'd have to go anyway, as they needed to prevent Britain from getting entrenched in Greece and setting up airfields within bombing range of Ploesti and its vital oil for the German war effort. Also, after strong-arming Yugoslavia into joining the Axis, it got couped and an anti German king placed on it, so they couldn't afford to have such a hostile country nearby.
Then again the Balkan campaign was pure overkill, as both countries, Yugoslavia and Greece, were ran over in less than a month, except for Crete, which took another month. Germany could have sent less troops there and get the same results, although in a bit more time, of course. They could have also ignored Crete altogether, I guess.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 19, 2011, 06:36:42 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 19, 2011, 01:41:20 PM
Quote from: ZanzaAny reasonable scenario that has Germany winning the war with the Soviet Union has a very quick victory by Germany, so the war would be over by 1942 or so. Even if Germany would need huge amounts of manpower to occupy the East, it would free virtually all of the air force to fight in the West. With more resources devoted to air defense, Germany wouldn't be nearly as vulnerable as it was in reality, especially not by 1945 when it should have jet fighters. And it might still have enough resources to retalitate with chemical weapons in V2s to nuclear strikes...
Chemical weapons aren't really in the same league.
I also suspect that V2 delivery of WW2-era chemical weapons would be a pretty lossy affair.
The Germans had nerve gas.
Which could withstand without denaturing what kind of temperatures? I have no idea.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 19, 2011, 06:33:11 PM
Still wouldn't they be in a better position if they hadn't had to wast men and supplies on a pointless Balkan campaign?
The invasion of Yugoslavia cost the Krauts something like 17 casualties.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 19, 2011, 06:52:24 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 19, 2011, 06:33:11 PM
Still wouldn't they be in a better position if they hadn't had to wast men and supplies on a pointless Balkan campaign?
The invasion of Yugoslavia cost the Krauts something like 17 casualties.
Almost. According to wiki:
- Yugoslavia: 152 dead, 392 wounded.
- Continental Greece: 1099 dead, 3752 wounded.
- Crete: 2124 dead, 1917 missing and presumed dead, 2640 wounded.
None of which includes the casualties incurred while occupying those countries.
Quote from: Habbaku on December 19, 2011, 07:08:14 PM
None of which includes the casualties incurred while occupying those countries.
Nope, that's just the invasion itself. A good what if would be if Germany could have kept Yugoslavia from getting couped and enlisted as another friendly ally. They'd have some communist partisans anyway, I guess, but they'd have saved plenty of garrisons.
More important than the personal loss is the gallons of gas used, the ammunition, spare parts, rail stock, etc.
Quote from: The Brain on December 19, 2011, 01:58:35 PM
I never played SS Amerika. :(
I did in HOI2. Wrote an AAR about it. Wasn't as well received as Euro Wars and Euro Wars 2: Tank Treads of Doom, but it generated some buzz.
Maybe if Britain had joined Germany as ally like Hitler wanted. Though that was fairly unlikely.
I'm not sure if even capturing Moscow would have won the war. It would have helped, but I imagine that war would still go on. Germans putting nerve gas on V2 rockets probably wouldn't have helped them. The Allies had their own poison gas and having a thousand bombers drop poison gas over a city would have a rather nasty effect. And while Germany was manufacturing gas just in case the war took that turn, they would have had to divert more resources to maintain the ability the use it.
Eliminating the V2 and V1 programs would have been more sensible, since they cost a great deal of money, resources, and manpower and provided very little useful war material. I'm not even sure if the jet program was worth it.
Quote from: The Larch on December 19, 2011, 07:12:18 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on December 19, 2011, 07:08:14 PM
None of which includes the casualties incurred while occupying those countries.
Nope, that's just the invasion itself. A good what if would be if Germany could have kept Yugoslavia from getting couped and enlisted as another friendly ally. They'd have some communist partisans anyway, I guess, but they'd have saved plenty of garrisons.
Indeed, especially if the Yugoslavs allying includes their getting a slice of Greece. If the Yugos are then willing to send some volunteers off like the other Balkan allies (save for Bulgaria), then it becomes potentially decisive.
Or have the Yugos simply remain neutral. Yugoslavia took up lots of resources, but provided little benefit.
11B4V, you've certainly read a lot of books on this subject, what do you think?
If the Germans unleashed gas warfare, the Allies were prepared to unleash anthrax. Imagine the German Army with no artillery, supply wagons, or food (as the farm animals would have died as well). The Germans did not want to let that genie out of the bottle.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 19, 2011, 10:30:56 PM
11B4V, you've certainly read a lot of books on this subject, what do you think?
Unless you change a
whole lot of the "conditions" to favor the Germans at the start of Barbarossa, no.
They gave it a good go.
Quote from: grumbler on December 19, 2011, 02:13:10 PM
Army Group Center was not in a position to attack Moscow yet, due to supply considerations. A lateral move was possible, though, and defeat of the enemy armies in the field had resulted in a quick capture of an enemy capital in the past.
One can argue that the extra wear and tear on the men and machines that resulted from the diversion of forces to the Balkans and Kiev was a factor in slowing the German advance, but I don't think it was a decisive one. Plus, the Soviets would have been much stronger in front of Moscow if they had had the men they lost in the Kiev pocket.
In the orginal plan AG Center and AG South were to clear the Pripyat Marshes abreast. This didn't happen. The Russians had grouped a bulk of their moblie units with the Southwest Direction facing AG South, which slowed AG South considerably.
The intial Soviet War/Defense Plan created by their General Staff,
predicted the main German effort with AG Center. Stalin rejected this, because he thought that Hitler's main target was the Ukraine. Stalin had them change the plan to reflect this. Hence why the bulk of the Soviet mobile forces were grouped with Kirponos. So, Stalin's generals got it right. Stalin did not.
That being said, if AG Center had proceeded against Moscow without aiding AG South, they would have had a southern flank/salient upwards to 350 miles long with very strong Russian forces there.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 19, 2011, 10:30:56 PM
11B4V, you've certainly read a lot of books on this subject, what do you think?
Some good reads;
Moscow to Stalingrad: Decision in the East Ziemke uses German primary sources. Great book along with it's follow on
Stalingrad to Berlin.
When Titans Clashed: How the Red Army Stopped Hitler Decent overall if not general
Before Stalingrad: Barbarossa, Hitler's Invasion of Russia 1941 Excellent
The Road to Stalingrad Good but dated
Stumbling Colossus: The Red Army on the Eve of World War Good insights into Soviet prewar planning and deployments.
Others of interest;
Standing Fast: German Defensive Doctrine on the Russian Front During World War II
Prewar to March 1943 Fighting the Russians in Winter:
Three Case Studies
Quote from: 11B4V on December 19, 2011, 11:19:04 PM
In the orginal plan AG Center and AG South were to clear the Pripyat Marshes abreast. This didn't happen. The Russians had grouped a bulk of their moblie units with the Southwest Direction facing AG South, which slowed AG South considerably.
The intial Soviet War/Defense Plan created by their General Staff, predicted the main German effort with AG Center. Stalin rejected this, because he thought that Hitler's main target was the Ukraine. Stalin had them change the plan to reflect this. Hence why the bulk of the Soviet mobile forces were grouped with Kirponos. So, Stalin's generals got it right. Stalin did not.
That being said, if AG Center had proceeded against Moscow without aiding AG South, they would have had a southern flank/salient upwards to 350 miles long with very strong Russian forces there.
Sound likes Stalin's move influenced Hitler's. I know a lot of German generals criticized the operation around Kiev, but they could hardly drive on Moscow with a very large army near their rear. Would clearing the Pripayt marshes like that even be possible? It's a huge swamp. It would swallow up whole armies. I don't think the Germans ever really pacified it.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 20, 2011, 03:54:25 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 19, 2011, 11:19:04 PM
In the orginal plan AG Center and AG South were to clear the Pripyat Marshes abreast. This didn't happen. The Russians had grouped a bulk of their moblie units with the Southwest Direction facing AG South, which slowed AG South considerably.
The intial Soviet War/Defense Plan created by their General Staff, predicted the main German effort with AG Center. Stalin rejected this, because he thought that Hitler's main target was the Ukraine. Stalin had them change the plan to reflect this. Hence why the bulk of the Soviet mobile forces were grouped with Kirponos. So, Stalin's generals got it right. Stalin did not.
That being said, if AG Center had proceeded against Moscow without aiding AG South, they would have had a southern flank/salient upwards to 350 miles long with very strong Russian forces there.
Sound likes Stalin's move influenced Hitler's. I know a lot of German generals criticized the operation around Kiev, but they could hardly drive on Moscow with a very large army near their rear. Would clearing the Pripayt marshes like that even be possible? It's a huge swamp. It would swallow up whole armies. I don't think the Germans ever really pacified it.
You misinterpit.
AG Center was operating north of the marshes and AG South was south of that area. When they moved "past", "cleared" (it was no longer on their flanks) they were to be linked up. That did not happen. Hence AG South could not secure AG Centers right flank.
Stahel's books are supposed to be pretty good too. Havent read them yet. Too busy with Nipe's and Nash's tomes.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 20, 2011, 04:09:10 AM
You misinterpit.
AG Center was operating north of the marshes and AG South was south of that area. When they moved "past", "cleared" (it was no longer on their flanks) they were to be linked up. That did not happen. Hence AG South could not secure AG Centers right flank.
Ah okay. I understand what you mean.
But Lenningrad was initially ole Adolf's first objective of Barbarossa. Then Moscow. But not both simultaneously. Unless their was a total collaspe of Russian resisitance.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 20, 2011, 04:50:22 AM
But Lenningrad was initially ole Adolf's first objective of Barbarossa. Then Moscow. But not both simultaneously. Unless their was a total collaspe of Russian resisitance.
The good'ole Nipponese WWII ability to focus on everything.
Quote from: Viking on December 20, 2011, 07:01:04 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 20, 2011, 04:50:22 AM
But Lenningrad was initially ole Adolf's first objective of Barbarossa. Then Moscow. But not both simultaneously. Unless their was a total collaspe of Russian resisitance.
The good'ole Nipponese WWII ability to focus on everything.
Yea, apparently he had a hard time following his own operations directive..lol
Even if there hadn't been a Smolensk and Moscow fell in record time, there would've been no capitulation. Moscow to Kuibyshev to Perm...the Hun would've been swallowed whole eventually by patriotic workers and peasants.
Anyway, the cooler question to answer, besides if there were any real way for the Germans to win (which there wasn't), would be: what if Stalin's plan for his own eventual attack got the drop on Hitler and the Soviets pushed east first in late summer of 1941?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 20, 2011, 07:21:14 AM
Anyway, the cooler question to answer, besides if there were any real way for the Germans to win (which there wasn't), would be: what if Stalin's plan for his own eventual attack got the drop on Hitler and the Soviets pushed east first in late summer of 1941?
Interesting. Are the Germans in the midsts of their Barbarossa build-up when Stalin gets froggy?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 20, 2011, 07:21:14 AM
Anyway, the cooler question to answer, besides if there were any real way for the Germans to win (which there wasn't), would be: what if Stalin's plan for his own eventual attack got the drop on Hitler and the Soviets pushed east first in late summer of 1941?
I'm guessing the British would have found common cause with their fraternal Germanic cousins.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 19, 2011, 06:33:11 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 19, 2011, 10:16:46 AM
Quote from: The Larch on December 19, 2011, 09:17:26 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 19, 2011, 09:00:43 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 19, 2011, 08:55:21 AM
Ok, but how do they do that? Weren't they basically forced to halt their central thrust towards Moscow because of logistical constraints? The turn south turned out pretty well for them didn't it?
I was not aware it was because of logistical constraints, but strategic ones. And all it may have taken is having their army equipt for winter action.
Or invading earlier. If Germany started the invasion even a few weeks earlier, they could have arrived much closer to Moscow before the autumn rains started. The original invasion date was in may, IIRC, and it was delayed because of the Balkans campaign. Also, once the invasion began the army group aiming for Moscow was at some point diverted southwards to support the campaign in Ukraine, which delayed their advance towards Moscow.
Also, the nazis had no problem justifying the cuddling of slavic populations when it suited their needs, so they could have done the same in Ukraine if they wanted.
Story I've heard is that the "the Italians (fatally) delayed 'em" account is pretty much a myth - that because of a late spring Rasputitsa, the invasion could not have been launched earlier than it was.
Still wouldn't they be in a better position if they hadn't had to wast men and supplies on a pointless Balkan campaign?
Aside from Crete, which while the Germans won essentially destroyed their crack airborne troops, the Germans used very little in the way of resources in the Balkan campaign.
If anything it had major benefits for them, not the allies - as the British foolishly committed resources they could not afford to support the Greeks, impairing their N. African campagn to do so.
I sorta suspect the whole "it threw the Barbarossa timetable off" thing is a bit of hindsight to make the British strategic foolishness look better than it was.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 20, 2011, 07:21:14 AM
Anyway, the cooler question to answer, besides if there were any real way for the Germans to win (which there wasn't), would be: what if Stalin's plan for his own eventual attack got the drop on Hitler and the Soviets pushed east first in late summer of 1941?
Where exactly would he have pushed? Alaska? The Pacific Ocean?
I guess it would settle the North/South debate between the IJA and IJN.
Quote from: derspiess on December 20, 2011, 10:21:29 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 20, 2011, 07:21:14 AM
Anyway, the cooler question to answer, besides if there were any real way for the Germans to win (which there wasn't), would be: what if Stalin's plan for his own eventual attack got the drop on Hitler and the Soviets pushed east first in late summer of 1941?
Where exactly would he have pushed? Alaska? The Pacific Ocean?
All the way around to France. Can't trust the Allies to start the second front.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 20, 2011, 08:19:20 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 20, 2011, 07:21:14 AM
Anyway, the cooler question to answer, besides if there were any real way for the Germans to win (which there wasn't), would be: what if Stalin's plan for his own eventual attack got the drop on Hitler and the Soviets pushed east first in late summer of 1941?
Interesting. Are the Germans in the midsts of their Barbarossa build-up when Stalin gets froggy?
Or how about a "Hitler dies (plane crash or assassination) in 1938" (sometime after the annexation of Austria) and Chancellor Goering chooses diplomatic schmoozing over war.
Presuming Himmler doesn't decide to off the fat man and take over himself.
But either way, all that, and then Stalin invades...
Quote from: Malthus on December 20, 2011, 09:02:51 AM
Aside from Crete, which while the Germans won essentially destroyed their crack airborne troops, the Germans used very little in the way of resources in the Balkan campaign.
I went to the German military cemetery on Crete. Only historical war thing I've ever been to, except a couple minor US Civil War sites. It was surprisingly moving. Though filled with a lot of platitudes about working for peace, which I'm sure would not impress the Languish crowd.
The old man we were staying with made me engage in an extended colloquy in broken English about how terrible Bush is (this was 2005), then showed me all of British military awards and described killing a German paratrooper with a pitchfork when he was 14. :mellow:
Quote from: Malthus on December 20, 2011, 09:02:51 AM
Aside from Crete, which while the Germans won essentially destroyed their crack airborne troops, the Germans used very little in the way of resources in the Balkan campaign.
If anything it had major benefits for them, not the allies - as the British foolishly committed resources they could not afford to support the Greeks, impairing their N. African campagn to do so.
I sorta suspect the whole "it threw the Barbarossa timetable off" thing is a bit of hindsight to make the British strategic foolishness look better than it was.
The issue with the Luftlande Troppen is not that Crete destroyed them. You have them fighting as light infantry for the rest of the war, at Cassino among other places. It's rather that Crete convinces Hitler that mounting airborne attacks is really really stupid. The allies, not knowing the german casualty rate, learn the lesson that paratroopers can jump significant geographical obstacles and fight and win battles after landing; or at least hold the positions they sieze immediately after landing.
What's the strategic rationale for attacking Crete in the first place?
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on December 20, 2011, 05:44:08 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 20, 2011, 09:02:51 AM
Aside from Crete, which while the Germans won essentially destroyed their crack airborne troops, the Germans used very little in the way of resources in the Balkan campaign.
I went to the German military cemetery on Crete. Only historical war thing I've ever been to, except a couple minor US Civil War sites. It was surprisingly moving. Though filled with a lot of platitudes about working for peace, which I'm sure would not impress the Languish crowd.
Peace is fine once the enemies foreign and domestic have all been destroyed.
QuoteThe old man we were staying with made me engage in an extended colloquy in broken English about how terrible Bush is (this was 2005), then showed me all of British military awards and described killing a German paratrooper with a pitchfork when he was 14. :mellow:
Makes sense to me.
Quote from: MIMWhat's the strategic rationale for attacking Crete in the first place?
Pursue the British evacuees from Greece and deny Britain a base. Arguable how good those are.
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 20, 2011, 01:18:53 PM
Or how about a "Hitler dies (plane crash or assassination) in 1938" (sometime after the annexation of Austria) and Chancellor Goering chooses diplomatic schmoozing over war.
Presuming Himmler doesn't decide to off the fat man and take over himself.
But either way, all that, and then Stalin invades...
So German army with less operational experience and less time spent on war footing with the Soviets having the initiative? Also they would have Poland in the way. I'm not sure Germany could have escaped it's creditors with out the war. The German economy was surviving on schemes and tricks to finance rearming. This kind of thing wasn't going to last forever. In fact HJalmar Schact thought this would blow up in their faces fairly soon. The longer the peace, the more chance this would collapse the Germany economy. The war prevented creditors to demand back their money.
Well, on the plus side for Germany, an invasion of Poland by the USSR would have brought Britain, France, and Germany together.
Didn't Germany repudiate its debt prior to the war, too? I don't know that much about that aspect of the antebellum period.
Quote from: grumbler on December 19, 2011, 02:22:23 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on December 19, 2011, 02:11:52 PM
There is only one way for Germany to win the war: it has to swiftly and decisively crush the Brits in the Battle of the Atlantic. Once Albion is isolated the Americans are out of the picture and the Soviet Union stands alone.
Possibly, but Germany lacked the means to decisively crush the British in the Battle of the Atlantic.
I don't think they lacked the means. What they lacked was motivation -- which they found in a hurry in 1943 -- to develop a new doctrine.
How much evidence is there that the Soviets were contemplating betraying the Germans on such short notice? 1941 seems much too early to me.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 20, 2011, 07:38:16 PM
How much evidence is there that the Soviets were contemplating betraying the Germans on such short notice? 1941 seems much too early to me.
I agree, probably '43-45 is more likely.
Or not at all. I kinda doubt Stalin would be interested in occupying all of Western Europe. But it's hard to tell before the spectre of nuclear annihilation got in the way of such things.
Might the Germans have better spent their time in '41 trying for a knock out blow in North Africa in order to force the British to sue for peace, so that they could concentrate all of their power on the Soviets in a '42 campaign?
There isn't any good lebensraum in the Sahara.
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 20, 2011, 01:18:53 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 20, 2011, 08:19:20 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 20, 2011, 07:21:14 AM
Anyway, the cooler question to answer, besides if there were any real way for the Germans to win (which there wasn't), would be: what if Stalin's plan for his own eventual attack got the drop on Hitler and the Soviets pushed east first in late summer of 1941?
Interesting. Are the Germans in the midsts of their Barbarossa build-up when Stalin gets froggy?
Or how about a "Hitler dies (plane crash or assassination) in 1938" (sometime after the annexation of Austria) and Chancellor Goering chooses diplomatic schmoozing over war.
Presuming Himmler doesn't decide to off the fat man and take over himself.
Himmler doesn't have the juice to take on Goering before Barbarossa. Sure, the SS was powerful, but Goering was enormously popular. If Himmler moved against Goering, the Wehrmacht would crush the SS like an egg.
I would think Himmler would be more shrewd than to make an open play, but rather stage an "accident" for Goering.
I agree, Goering had the edge, though in '38, Hess was still a nominative (if not real) factor.
But the main point was that probably only Hitler or Himmler would lead to a World War. Goering would never risk war, and be content with schmoozing European diplomats, partake of narcotics and ride the Hitler-mourning train until he overdoses on opiates.
Goering would make a good Sir Topham Hatt.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 20, 2011, 08:35:29 PM
Might the Germans have better spent their time in '41 trying for a knock out blow in North Africa in order to force the British to sue for peace, so that they could concentrate all of their power on the Soviets in a '42 campaign?
The Soviets would have been a much tougher foe in 1942. What the Germans might have gained by freeing up DAK or even temporarily shutting down the Suez canal would have been outweighed by the increased readiness and modernization of the Red Army and Air Force.
The Germans may not have been
capable of knocking out the British in the desert. There weren't the logistics (particularly port space) to support even the troops they had there. They would have had to withdraw probably three Italian divisions for every one of their own that they added, and that would have been difficult.
Now, if they had simply taken over the French colonies in North Africa, then the port restrictions would be lifted. OTOH, that would have given the British a significant new ally, and a new front that was much easier for Britain to support than for Germany. Not to mention the possibility that such an attack might draw in the US.
Quote from: grumbler on December 20, 2011, 09:01:36 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 20, 2011, 08:35:29 PM
Might the Germans have better spent their time in '41 trying for a knock out blow in North Africa in order to force the British to sue for peace, so that they could concentrate all of their power on the Soviets in a '42 campaign?
The Soviets would have been a much tougher foe in 1942. What the Germans might have gained by freeing up DAK or even temporarily shutting down the Suez canal would have been outweighed by the increased readiness and modernization of the Red Army and Air Force.
The Luftwaffe in the west would be transferred to the East as well, as would some of the occupation forces, but I see your point.
And then there's still that pesky attack on Pearl Harbor by Japan, which probably wouldn't depend on Barbarossa having taken place or not.
Even if Goering dies, I can't see how Himmler can seize power before the war.
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 20, 2011, 09:10:25 PM
And then there's still that pesky attack on Pearl Harbor by Japan, which probably wouldn't depend on Barbarossa having taken place or not.
Well, if Germany's forced the Brits to concede already by winning in Africa that hardly matters does it?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 20, 2011, 09:42:50 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 20, 2011, 09:10:25 PM
And then there's still that pesky attack on Pearl Harbor by Japan, which probably wouldn't depend on Barbarossa having taken place or not.
Well, if Germany's forced the Brits to concede already by winning in Africa that hardly matters does it?
Even if the Brits lost in North Africa, I fail to see how they would concede. They didn't concede even after they lost France.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 20, 2011, 09:42:50 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 20, 2011, 09:10:25 PM
And then there's still that pesky attack on Pearl Harbor by Japan, which probably wouldn't depend on Barbarossa having taken place or not.
Well, if Germany's forced the Brits to concede already by winning in Africa that hardly matters does it?
Germany declared war on the U.S. to support their Japanese allies while Britain was in the war. Why wouldn't there be even more reason to do the same without Britain in the war?
I could easily see that if somehow, Britain felt forced to sign a white peace (certainly no earlier than Spring/Summer '41, if that), if Germany declared war on the U.S. after Pearl Harbor, Britain would be right back in it on our side.
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 20, 2011, 09:10:25 PM
And then there's still that pesky attack on Pearl Harbor by Japan, which probably wouldn't depend on Barbarossa having taken place or not.
I'm not sure that's actually true. I watched a panel of historians of WWII a few days ago. One of the more esteemed members of the group made the case that the Japanese only made the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 because they were assured that Hitler was winning and would declare war shortly after. Their original plan called for an attack on the USA in 1946, but the Germans assured them that Germany would stand against the USA alongside them in the event of an earlier attack. Germany's initial successes in Barbarossa were key in convincing the Japanese that the Germans weren't going to lose the war and that it was best to jump onto the winning side as early as possible.
Quote from: Habbaku on December 20, 2011, 10:27:43 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 20, 2011, 09:10:25 PM
And then there's still that pesky attack on Pearl Harbor by Japan, which probably wouldn't depend on Barbarossa having taken place or not.
I'm not sure that's actually true. I watched a panel of historians of WWII a few days ago. One of the more esteemed members of the group made the case that the Japanese only made the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 because they were assured that Hitler was winning and would declare war shortly after. Their original plan called for an attack on the USA in 1946, but the Germans assured them that Germany would stand against the USA alongside them in the event of an earlier attack. Germany's initial successes in Barbarossa were key in convincing the Japanese that the Germans weren't going to lose the war and that it was best to jump onto the winning side as early as possible.
That doesn't really sound right. The Japanese couldn't wait until 1946 to attack, unless they were to pretty much suspend operations in China till then.
Why would they be forced to suspend operations for an attack that's 5 years away?
Quote from: Habbaku on December 20, 2011, 10:38:47 PM
Why would they be forced to suspend operations for an attack that's 5 years away?
Weren't they going to run out of oil within months?
I'll just provide the link rather than poorly paraphrase the argument made. I'll try to find the portion again, though, since the whole segment is 1.5 hours long.
http://youtu.be/79KU997m9o4
The segment starts at 1:07:00 for the direct question that leads to it, but he touches upon it in the first half-hour as well.
Quote from: Habbaku on December 20, 2011, 10:27:43 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 20, 2011, 09:10:25 PM
And then there's still that pesky attack on Pearl Harbor by Japan, which probably wouldn't depend on Barbarossa having taken place or not.
I'm not sure that's actually true. I watched a panel of historians of WWII a few days ago. One of the more esteemed members of the group made the case that the Japanese only made the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 because they were assured that Hitler was winning and would declare war shortly after. Their original plan called for an attack on the USA in 1946, but the Germans assured them that Germany would stand against the USA alongside them in the event of an earlier attack. Germany's initial successes in Barbarossa were key in convincing the Japanese that the Germans weren't going to lose the war and that it was best to jump onto the winning side as early as possible.
My point still stands....if there is no war with Russia at all, what is to stop Japan from attacking Pearl Harbor with promised German support?
Surely a war between just Germany and Britain is far closer to "winning" than a war against both Britain and Russia. And if you take it further, that Britain peace's out too, what inhibitions could Japan then possibly have?
I suspect that, without the war on the Soviets, the Japanese would be worried about things flaring up with the Soviets again like they had at Nomonhan. Now, this is not to say that the Japanese are not insane enough to press on against the USA while also at war with China and without a war distracting the Soviets, but I think they would be at least somewhat more reticent.
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 20, 2011, 11:17:37 PM
Surely a war between just Germany and Britain is far closer to "winning" than a war against both Britain and Russia. And if you take it further, that Britain peace's out too, what inhibitions could Japan then possibly have?
Well the Brits would be able to concentrate their whole strength against the Japanese, and why would Germany desire to restart a conflict with Britain now that they're preparing for a massive campaign against the USSR?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 20, 2011, 11:39:30 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 20, 2011, 11:17:37 PM
Surely a war between just Germany and Britain is far closer to "winning" than a war against both Britain and Russia. And if you take it further, that Britain peace's out too, what inhibitions could Japan then possibly have?
Well the Brits would be able to concentrate their whole strength against the Japanese, and why would Germany desire to restart a conflict with Britain now that they're preparing for a massive campaign against the USSR?
So Barbarossa get's pushed back to '42 or 43'?
- Germany invades a much better prepared USSR, lets say in May '42.
- Germany will still probably do well enough initially that Japan goes all-out in December '42.
- Britain comes back into the war now that the USSR and the USA are in it.
- WW2 turns out the same way it did originally, just maybe ending a year or two later.
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 21, 2011, 12:53:54 AM
So Barbarossa get's pushed back to '42 or 43'?
- Germany invades a much better prepared USSR, lets say in May '42.
Debatable. It took the war for them to unfuck their leadership, oragnization, and doctrinal issues.
For Germany to really be able to win, they need one of two things. A massive technological ace in the hole ie a nuclear bomb, or a new ally with a lot to bring to the table. There are only two states in the world that could bring enough resources to the Axis win a war in the East: the UK and the US. Neither are particularly interested in helping the Germans despite a great deal of antipathy toward the Soviets. The UK is slightly more likely but they would need to either turn fascist at an early date or have Germany less aggressive while the Soviets are more aggressive. If say Hitler died early and Goering became leader he may have moved more cautiously in rearmament and demands of territorial expansion. Instead of starting a war perhaps building a system of encirclement around the Soviet Union and goad it into lashing out. Such a scenario could result in Germany leading an international alliance against the SU that could include the UK or even the US eventually. It would still be a nasty war but the combined might of Europe might be able to bring the Soviet Union down. Germany, playing a central role in the war end up with a massive army and a prostrate Russia. Germany armies already allied with states such as Poland and Romania might already find themselves occupying those countries. The Germans may simply refuse to leave resulting in either satellite states across Eastern Europe or outright annexation. Vast tracks of Russia would be in the same situation. The result would be German subjugation of the East with the Western powers unable to really do anything about it.
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 21, 2011, 12:53:54 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 20, 2011, 11:39:30 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 20, 2011, 11:17:37 PM
Surely a war between just Germany and Britain is far closer to "winning" than a war against both Britain and Russia. And if you take it further, that Britain peace's out too, what inhibitions could Japan then possibly have?
Well the Brits would be able to concentrate their whole strength against the Japanese, and why would Germany desire to restart a conflict with Britain now that they're preparing for a massive campaign against the USSR?
So Barbarossa get's pushed back to '42 or 43'?
- Germany invades a much better prepared USSR, lets say in May '42.
- Germany will still probably do well enough initially that Japan goes all-out in December '42.
- Britain comes back into the war now that the USSR and the USA are in it.
- WW2 turns out the same way it did originally, just maybe ending a year or two later.
Pretty much. And this is why strategic WW2 what-ifs are so boring. You had Nazi Germany, and Asstard Japan with their own questionable motivations on the world stage, but motivations which were the very foundation and reason for existence of the governing forces in the countries. And you had ALL the other major powers who wanted one or both to go. They wanted this for different reasons perhaps, sure, but they wanted it.
The ideology and internal political needs put the Axis countries on an unavoidable collision course with countries whose combined strength far outweighted their own. The only what-if regarding WW2, is how much more or less time and casualities it had taken to get to the same result. The result was inevitable.
If you want to contemplate what-ifs which had a reasonable chance at changing the world compared to what we have today, look at WW1.
Trench warfare is sooooo boring.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 21, 2011, 02:50:49 AM
Trench warfare is sooooo boring.
The participants found it exciting enough.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 21, 2011, 03:17:05 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 21, 2011, 02:50:49 AM
Trench warfare is sooooo boring.
The participants found it exciting enough.
Not sure why, but that literally made me laugh out loud! :lol:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 20, 2011, 10:40:56 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on December 20, 2011, 10:38:47 PM
Why would they be forced to suspend operations for an attack that's 5 years away?
Weren't they going to run out of oil within months?
Yeah, pretty much. They were really starting to feel the pinch of the US oil embargo (and the price the US wanted to lift the embargo was essentially a return to the pre-1937 status quo in China). They weren't directly interested in any US territory as a source of oil--they wanted the Dutch East Indies for that--but they felt that they had to kick the US out of the Philippines and the British out of Malaysia in order to secure their supply lines to Indonesia. Considerations of what was going on in Europe didn't really play any part of their calculations.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 20, 2011, 08:19:20 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 20, 2011, 07:21:14 AM
Anyway, the cooler question to answer, besides if there were any real way for the Germans to win (which there wasn't), would be: what if Stalin's plan for his own eventual attack got the drop on Hitler and the Soviets pushed east first in late summer of 1941?
Interesting. Are the Germans in the midsts of their Barbarossa build-up when Stalin gets froggy?
We know Stalin was adamant on Timo and Zhuk drawing up pre-emptive invasion plans against Hitler, advancing from a possible 42 kickoff to as early as late summer 41; so, say that Germans maintained their eastern presence without the Barbarossa build-up, but weren't necessarily preparing for Sea Lion, either.
Is the 1941 Red Army, stuck between undoing its original defensive borders prior to partition of Poland, and not yet fully deployed defensively in the newly acquired territories, prepared enough for offensive operations for seizing the rest of Poland and other locales? Do the Germans stonewall the patriotic hordes of workers and pheasants?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 21, 2011, 06:32:56 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 20, 2011, 08:19:20 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 20, 2011, 07:21:14 AM
Anyway, the cooler question to answer, besides if there were any real way for the Germans to win (which there wasn't), would be: what if Stalin's plan for his own eventual attack got the drop on Hitler and the Soviets pushed east first in late summer of 1941?
Interesting. Are the Germans in the midsts of their Barbarossa build-up when Stalin gets froggy?
We know Stalin was adamant on Timo and Zhuk drawing up pre-emptive invasion plans against Hitler, advancing from a possible 42 kickoff to as early as late summer 41; so, say that Germans maintained their eastern presence without the Barbarossa build-up, but weren't necessarily preparing for Sea Lion, either.
Is the 1941 Red Army, stuck between undoing its original defensive borders prior to partition of Poland, and not yet fully deployed defensively in the newly acquired territories, prepared enough for offensive operations for seizing the rest of Poland and other locales? Do the Germans stonewall the patriotic hordes of workers and pheasants?
It's hard to get past the Russian tactical and operation ineptness this early in the game. They may have got some gains, but would have got their asses kicked by a veteran Wehrmacht.
Found this today, reminded me of this thread so thought I'd pop it in here.
http://www.rodvik.com/rodgames/STAVKA-OKH.html
Do it better on the Eastern Front as the OKH or Stavka, or something.
Quote from: Alcibiades on December 21, 2011, 04:02:32 PM
Found this today, reminded me of this thread so thought I'd pop it in here.
http://www.rodvik.com/rodgames/STAVKA-OKH.html
Do it better on the Eastern Front as the OKH or Stavka, or something.
Neat. I won the war and succeeded Hitler as leader. Europe is mine! Made the final push in the autumn of 1945. Only cost 26,219,516 lives.
That game helps with my murder boner.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 21, 2011, 08:21:00 PM
That game helps with my murder boner.
Fucking Wimbledon match helps your murder boner.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 21, 2011, 08:21:00 PM
That game helps with my murder boner.
For a murder boners lasting more then six hours see your physician immediately.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 21, 2011, 04:54:41 PM
Quote from: Alcibiades on December 21, 2011, 04:02:32 PM
Found this today, reminded me of this thread so thought I'd pop it in here.
http://www.rodvik.com/rodgames/STAVKA-OKH.html
Do it better on the Eastern Front as the OKH or Stavka, or something.
Neat. I won the war and succeeded Hitler as leader. Europe is mine! Made the final push in the autumn of 1945. Only cost 26,219,516 lives.
Played as STAVKA (I wish it would let you choose which side you play for), Won the War in Winter of '45. Only cost 27,918,879 people. I succeeded Stalin as well.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 22, 2011, 12:35:21 AM
Played as STAVKA (I wish it would let you choose which side you play for), Won the War in Winter of '45. Only cost 27,918,879 people. I succeeded Stalin as well.
It only lets me play the soviets.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 21, 2011, 11:53:17 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 21, 2011, 08:21:00 PM
That game helps with my murder boner.
For a murder boners lasting more then six hours see your physician immediately.
Note: actually murdering your phyiscian is not recommended and may be illegal in some jurisductions.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 20, 2011, 09:42:50 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 20, 2011, 09:10:25 PM
And then there's still that pesky attack on Pearl Harbor by Japan, which probably wouldn't depend on Barbarossa having taken place or not.
Well, if Germany's forced the Brits to concede already by winning in Africa that hardly matters does it?
What would the British have been forced to concede by the Germans winning in North Africa?
Quote from: Maximus on December 22, 2011, 05:19:03 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 22, 2011, 12:35:21 AM
Played as STAVKA (I wish it would let you choose which side you play for), Won the War in Winter of '45. Only cost 27,918,879 people. I succeeded Stalin as well.
It only lets me play the soviets.
Just keep loading it, it'll randomly switch.
Quote from: grumbler on December 22, 2011, 05:27:26 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 20, 2011, 09:42:50 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 20, 2011, 09:10:25 PM
And then there's still that pesky attack on Pearl Harbor by Japan, which probably wouldn't depend on Barbarossa having taken place or not.
Well, if Germany's forced the Brits to concede already by winning in Africa that hardly matters does it?
What would the British have been forced to concede by the Germans winning in North Africa?
A much longer journey for their curry?
Quote from: Habbaku on December 20, 2011, 10:27:43 PM
I'm not sure that's actually true. I watched a panel of historians of WWII a few days ago. One of the more esteemed members of the group made the case that the Japanese only made the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 because they were assured that Hitler was winning and would declare war shortly after. Their original plan called for an attack on the USA in 1946, but the Germans assured them that Germany would stand against the USA alongside them in the event of an earlier attack. Germany's initial successes in Barbarossa were key in convincing the Japanese that the Germans weren't going to lose the war and that it was best to jump onto the winning side as early as possible.
The Two-Ocean Navy Act of 1940 is what propelled the Japanese to plan for an early war against the US. Had they waited until 1946 after the US completed its buildup, it would have been a very short war, indeed.
The Axis ("Tripartite") Pact didn't commit the Germans to declare war on the US, and in fact had Germany told Japan they would not do so if Japan attacked first. The revision of the Axis Pact to require Germany to do so (the Japanese aim in the revision), and to also forbid any Axis member from making any separate peace (the German aim in the revision), was signed on Dec 10, and Hitler declared war a day later.
Paukenschlag. :wub:
Quote from: Alcibiades on December 22, 2011, 05:28:17 PM
A much longer journey for their curry?
The Med was closed to them as it was. The Canal was useful to them to supply their troops in North Africa, and Alexandria was a key repair base, but losing the canal and Alex wouldn't have knocked them out of the war.
Plus, i am not at all sure the Germans could have done it, even lacking an Eastern Front. The logistics capabilities just weren't there to even keep what they had in supply.
Quote from: The Brain on December 22, 2011, 05:45:59 PM
Paukenschlag. :wub:
Have you read
Operation Drumbeat http://www.amazon.com/Operation-Drumbeat-Dramatic-Germanys-American/dp/1591143020/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1324594224&sr=8-1 ?
An excellent book. If it had been published as fiction, it would have been decried as absolutely unrealistic. It makes you understand that Admiral "Terrible" Turner's nickname referred to his ability, not his temper.
Quote from: grumbler on December 22, 2011, 05:55:08 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 22, 2011, 05:45:59 PM
Paukenschlag. :wub:
Have you read Operation Drumbeat http://www.amazon.com/Operation-Drumbeat-Dramatic-Germanys-American/dp/1591143020/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1324594224&sr=8-1 ?
An excellent book. If it had been published as fiction, it would have been decried as absolutely unrealistic. It makes you understand that Admiral "Terrible" Turner's nickname referred to his ability, not his temper.
No. Maybe I'll include it in my next shipment. :)
Quote from: Habbaku on December 20, 2011, 10:44:15 PM
I'll just provide the link rather than poorly paraphrase the argument made. I'll try to find the portion again, though, since the whole segment is 1.5 hours long.
http://youtu.be/79KU997m9o4
Listened to the portion to do with the question at hand, and compared what Prof. Weinberg says to what Michael Gannon says in Operation Drumbeat (which deals fairly extensively with the German DoW). I think Weinberg overstates the nature of the Hitler-Matsuoko talks in the spring of 1941 committed Hitler to. In those informal talks, Hitler got Matsuoko's assurance that Japan would attack the USSR, and assured Matsuoko in return that Germany would declare war on the US even if Japan found it necessary to attack the US first. When Japan, in November 1941, reminded Hitler of his promise to declare war on the US even if japan attacked first, Hitler deferred an answer until he could get the revision of the Tripartite Pact (committing each member to "no separate peace"), which occurred on Dec 10.
Thus, I disagree with Weinberg that Japan would not have attacked unless they
knew Germany would come into the war on their side. I think that this is also the positions of John Toland in
The Rising Sun and H.P. Wimot in
Empires in the Balance, but those books are at school and I would have to check them to verify. I think Japan's timing and actions were driven by their own perceived needs, and by their perception that they could succeed in a short war against the US. Weinberg ignores this perception, which also drives his analysis that pearl harbor was a disaster for japan because the US could, over the course of a few years, recover almost all of the ships lost there.
Good points, grumbles. I haven't studied the DoW nearly as much as I probably should, so thought it wisest to defer to someone who's rather learned on the subject. That you disagree makes me curious to find more from Weinberg's perspective than just the short Marshall Foundation speech in the video.
Of course, it's also more a boot to the ass that I need to read Toland's book, which has been languishing on my shelf for the past year. :blush:
Why couldn't the Japanese just buy oil from the British or the Dutch? The British were in desperate straits and couldn't have to picky in who was willing to give them cash. I don't know who was actually running Indonesia at the time if it was the British or the Dutch, but I couldn't imagine the Dutch being in such a comfortable position as to turn up their noses at money.
In fact, wouldn't an alliance with Britain be much more lucrative then a war against them? The Japanese could ally with Britain and help out in the Atlantic and perhaps send an expeditionary force in North Africa while the Japanese are sold oil and tacitly given a free hand in China. In 1940-41 the British essentially had to take what ever help was offered, and weren't in a position to make many demands. An agreement with the British might also lessen pressure from the US.
Quote from: Habbaku on December 22, 2011, 08:00:41 PM
Good points, grumbles. I haven't studied the DoW nearly as much as I probably should, so thought it wisest to defer to someone who's rather learned on the subject. That you disagree makes me curious to find more from Weinberg's perspective than just the short Marshall Foundation speech in the video.
To be fair to him, he was brought in to address myths, etc, so maybe he is being more provocative there than he usually is. His presentation of "myths" in general is pretty much just a litanies of when leaders took specific steps that went counter to their announced principals, rather then genuine myths.
Pretty much everyone ignored the fact that the US didn't pursue in 1942-43 the "Germany first" strategy it had supposedly planned from the start. There were good reasons for this, but it makes for an interesting myth to bust.
QuoteOf course, it's also more a boot to the ass that I need to read Toland's book, which has been languishing on my shelf for the past year. :blush:
The book is a bit dated, given that it was written before the whole cryptanalysis/ULTRA story broke, but is still very well-written and gives a fairly good view f the war from the Japanese perspective as well as the American. Toland was the first, and perhaps only, writer to interview all the surviving principals from both sides, and one of the few writers on the topic who spoke Japanese fluently and so was able to address the subtleties of what the Japanese wrote and told him. You'll like it, but should keep in mind that it
is dated.
I remembered that H.P. Wilmott (probably my favorite author on WW2) had a book on the precise topic of the coming of war to the Pacific, and that I'd always meant to get it. So I did. But I ended up getting a couple of his other books I had always meant to get, and ended up spending $200 at Amazon and AbeBooks. :(
I'll let Wilmott have the final word on whether Japan would have attacked the US without a guarantee the Germans would DoW, and let you know what he says.
Quote from: Habbaku on December 22, 2011, 08:00:41 PM
Of course, it's also more a boot to the ass that I need to read Toland's book, which has been languishing on my shelf for the past year. :blush:
I'll add my recommendation to grumbler's. It was a while ago that I read it, but I really liked it. (I think the only thing I didn't like was that in like 1000 pages it only managed to find about 40 to deal with China. But the Sino-Japanese War doesn't exactly move units, I guess.)
Quote from: Ideologue on December 23, 2011, 10:05:55 AM
But the Sino-Japanese War doesn't exactly move units, I guess.)
Not in English anyway.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 25, 2011, 04:27:56 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 23, 2011, 10:05:55 AM
But the Sino-Japanese War doesn't exactly move units, I guess.)
Not in English anyway.
It moves your unit I'm sure.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 25, 2011, 04:27:56 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 23, 2011, 10:05:55 AM
But the Sino-Japanese War doesn't exactly move units, I guess.)
Not in English anyway.
And I think half of those probably were probably about how Joe Stilwell was tired of being used as a sexual prop by the Chiangs.
Quote from: grumbler on December 23, 2011, 08:25:53 AM
I'll let Wilmott have the final word on whether Japan would have attacked the US without a guarantee the Germans would DoW, and let you know what he says.
Finally finished my HP Wilmott marathon (I re-read all the books by him I had, as well as reading his stuff I hadn't had) so can return to this topic.
The most relevant book on the topic is Wilmott's collaboration with Japanese author Hauruo Tohmatsu,
A Gathering Darkness. The authors make it clear that Japan had decided to go to war with the US by the end of July, 1941, and that their timing for the attack on pearl Harbor was based on 3 primary considerations:
(1) the end of monsoon season in November
(2) the completion of preparations for the participation of the Shokaku and Zuikaku (commissioned at the beginning of August 1941 and the end of September, 1941, respectively) for participation in the attack It was felt essential that they participate), and
(3) the completion of modifications to the Japanese oilers and warships to allow them to refuel at sea (this took longer than anticipated, and the attack was delayed into December because of this; the IJN's first-ever underway replenishment came during the transit to Pearl Harbor - there wasn't even time to rehearse the operation).
Germany's attitude was not considered. In fact, Japanese war plans had always been made under the assumption she would have no allies. I think Weinberg is dead wrong on this.
Weinberg is right that Pearl Harbor was a disaster for the Japanese, but not for the reasons he stated. Had the US carriers been there, and destroyed, the attack would have been equally disastrous. I think Wilmott's argument is persuasive; Japan's decision to go to war was a decision to lose the war, because Japan's leaders failed to understand that the alternative to her victory in a limited war was not her defeat in a limited war, but her defeat in an
unlimited war. He notes that japan had never fought a war in which the terms were not dictated by her. Thus, her leaders didn't consider what might happen if the terms were dictated by Japan's enemies. The disaster that PH represented was the disaster of not considering rationally what the potential consequences were, and instead allowing wishful thinking to be the bedrock of policy analysis.
Quote from: grumbler on May 03, 2012, 10:55:19 AM
Weinberg is right that Pearl Harbor was a disaster for the Japanese, but not for the reasons he stated. Had the US carriers been there, and destroyed, the attack would have been equally disastrous. I think Wilmott's argument is persuasive; Japan's decision to go to war was a decision to lose the war, because Japan's leaders failed to understand that the alternative to her victory in a limited war was not her defeat in a limited war, but her defeat in an unlimited war. He notes that japan had never fought a war in which the terms were not dictated by her. Thus, her leaders didn't consider what might happen if the terms were dictated by Japan's enemies. The disaster that PH represented was the disaster of not considering rationally what the potential consequences were, and instead allowing wishful thinking to be the bedrock of policy analysis.
I'm not a naval expert by any means, but I never fully understood the argument that the outcome of the war would have been significantly different had the carriers been at Pearl Harbor during the attack. Like we couldn't have built more while fighting delaying actions against the Japs?
Trusting Weinberg is a fool's game. His "Visions of Victory" was painful to read, particularly with regards to Japan and Germany.
:Joos
Quote from: grumbler on May 03, 2012, 10:55:19 AM
(3) the completion of modifications to the Japanese oilers and warships to allow them to refuel at sea (this took longer than anticipated, and the attack was delayed into December because of this; the IJN's first-ever underway replenishment came during the transit to Pearl Harbor - there wasn't even time to rehearse the operation).
Which reminds me: who was the Eurodouchebag on EUOT that used to argue endlessly that the IJN was prepared to remain on station and starve out the Hawaiian islands immediately after Pearl, anyway?
Quote from: derspiess on May 03, 2012, 11:02:49 AM
I'm not a naval expert by any means, but I never fully understood the argument that the outcome of the war would have been significantly different had the carriers been at Pearl Harbor during the attack. Like we couldn't have built more while fighting delaying actions against the Japs?
Yes. Plus, the carriers would have been much easier to raise and return to service than the battleships.
Wilmott also demonstrates pretty convincingly that the whole "third strike wave controversy" at PH is based on myths perpetrated by Fuchida. There was no possibility of the third strike being launched without requiring an after-dark recovery, which the IJN had never attempted on any scale. Given that the ships and aircraft had pressing missions waiting for them after this mission and that a third strike would have been hard-pressed to inflict meaningful damage, no one considered the issue until Fuchida wrote his self-serving history after the war. Wikipedia notwithstanding, the issue was always moot.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 03, 2012, 11:11:45 AM
Quote from: grumbler on May 03, 2012, 10:55:19 AM
(3) the completion of modifications to the Japanese oilers and warships to allow them to refuel at sea (this took longer than anticipated, and the attack was delayed into December because of this; the IJN's first-ever underway replenishment came during the transit to Pearl Harbor - there wasn't even time to rehearse the operation).
Which reminds me: who was the Eurodouchebag on EUOT that used to argue endlessly that the IJN was prepared to remain on station and starve out the Hawaiian islands immediately after Pearl, anyway?
:lol:
Quote from: grumbler on May 03, 2012, 10:55:19 AM
The disaster that PH represented was the disaster of not considering rationally what the potential consequences were, and instead allowing wishful thinking to be the bedrock of policy analysis.
Let's hope America never makes that mistake.
Quote from: The Brain on May 03, 2012, 01:33:06 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 03, 2012, 10:55:19 AM
The disaster that PH represented was the disaster of not considering rationally what the potential consequences were, and instead allowing wishful thinking to be the bedrock of policy analysis.
Let's hope America never makes that mistake.
:pinch:
How did a thread about the Eastern front get hijacked into a thread about Pearl Harbor? :huh:
Quote from: DGuller on May 03, 2012, 01:38:54 PM
How did a thread about the Eastern front get hijacked into a thread about Pearl Harbor? :huh:
the very far eastern front.
Quote from: The Brain on May 03, 2012, 01:33:06 PM
Let's hope America never makes that mistake.
Indeed. Too late for Sweden, of course. :console:
Quote from: grumbler on May 03, 2012, 01:50:44 PM
Quote from: The Brain on May 03, 2012, 01:33:06 PM
Let's hope America never makes that mistake.
Indeed. Too late for Sweden, of course. :console:
You will use our plutonium for good. :(
Quote from: Lettow77 on May 03, 2012, 11:03:52 AM
Trusting Weinberg is a fool's game. His "Visions of Victory" was painful to read, particularly with regards to Japan and Germany.
:Joos
:yeahright: Elaborate
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 04, 2012, 12:44:00 AM
Quote from: Lettow77 on May 03, 2012, 11:03:52 AM
Trusting Weinberg is a fool's game. His "Visions of Victory" was painful to read, particularly with regards to Japan and Germany.
:Joos
:yeahright: Elaborate
Oh come on. Even you know that this is a bad idea.
This thread should be dead.