No Operation Barbarossa is a negotiated peace with the Western allies possible

[The Red]

And Russia has NOTHING to do with this as for all intents and purposes Russia was hardly in the war before December of 41 and they were not exactly doing well for the short time they were in it.

Whilst I agree with you that the WAllies would have been able to defeat the Germans without Soviet help, it also isn't fair to say that the Soviets were "hardly in the war" prior to December '41. Barbarossa had taken an enormous toll on the Germans, from the end of the June to the end of November 160,000 Germans had died, 560,000 more were wounded and 31,000 were missing. This was equivalent to about a fifth of the Ostheer's original size, without mentioning the massive losses in materiel and resources or the heavy casualties suffered by the other Axis powers, particularly Romania. It was a grim time for the Soviets but they were making life hell for the Germans as well.

 

[BlondieBC]

yes well of course its a strange scenario because nazis that don't attack the USSR are not really nazis. But i get what you mean. Although, the OP talks about war with the UK AND US, and in that scenario the UK isn't going for peace. The Meds isn't really goodi dea for the Germans as the UK still controls the sea. All they can do is go through Turkey, but that adds more problems than it solves really.

All of this has been discussed over and over again on this forum of course. Might as well go back to older threads.

Here's my reply. Normally I don't give, but from time to time I have to.

For some odd reason, Hitler is the only person on this board who people argue can't change a decision. Yet Hitler was a mercurial personalty. In Mein Kampf Hitler talks about recovering the Germans in Italy. Come an opportunity to ally with Italy, Hitler abandons them. Hitler paused for several days about invading Poland. Finns are not Aryan, Finns are Aryan. There are a lot more examples of Hitler being persuaded by the last man to talk to him. Hitler is actually more likely to change his mind than almost any modern leader. Napoleon, Kaiser Willie II, FDR, Tojo, etc.

There is only two things that appear constant to me in Hitler from 1923 onwards. The desire to restore German glory and hatred of Jews. The rest appears just to be the tactics of the day/week/month/year for Hitler.

As to a full analysis of alternative war strategies, this really goes beyond the scope of this thread. And we have this thread on the Med strategy every few months anyway so it is easy to find most regular poster opinions and support for their opinions.

 

[starman]

Stalin is never going to attack first if it risks war against the allies. The guy never gambled unless he had a deck with 95%+ chances of winning.

Agreed. If he had wanted to break the '39 nonaggression pact, his big chance was in May-June 1940, when nearly all of the German army was engaged in the west. But he stayed out of it.

 

[BlondieBC]

I think you are right about the first part. For the second part... Considering how badly the Germans did with their logistics invading Russia, I'm not sure they'd be able to do much better in North Africa and the Middle East. Sure, they can hurt the British. But I can't see them reaching Iraq. Indeed, I could only see them barely reaching Suez in the absolute best case.

fasquardon

I guess I should briefly outline. Spain has to be brought into war and the Straights of Gibraltar have to be closed to UK. Malta falls The Germans have to bring enough fighters, dive bombers and tactical bombers to keep the UK surface fleet out of the Med. OTL Africa Corp is about the right size, maybe a division or two more. The change is that these units get only the newest equipment and best men. Probably knowing Hitler, they are the SS Panzer Divisions. The objective is to close the Suez here, not necessarily take it.

Then you have to make a decision about Dakar and West Africa. There is a partially built RR across the Sahara to the river that runs through Dakar. If this is taken, we are looking at a division or two in Dakar so it can be a naval base for U-boats and naval aviation.

Whatever decisions you made above and whatever beliefs you have about how the land battles go, the Germans and UK/USA then fight a battle of the Atlantic with more resources used by the Germans. It might be won in a year. Might be won in several years. Might be lost in a couple of years, might be lost in a decade.

Then you overlay whatever you think the German peaces offers would be.

Iraq really does not play into this strategy. Since the Germans are counting on the Soviets remaining suppliers, their is plenty of oil for this limited operation. We are talking probably 3-6 Corp, twice OTL airpower, and diesel for submarines. Probably Romania has enough oil.

There are also a lot of tactical/strategic/logistical reasons that reaching the Nile does not mean taking the Suez and does not mean knocking the UK out of the war. Quite frankly, the Germans occupying Iraq does not drive the UK out of the war. The war will be won or lost on merchant shipping to the UK.

 

[starman]

The stomach line was something the Axis prattled on about a lot during the war but it was never borne out no matter how grim the situation got. Even without the Soviet Union, the WAllies still greatly surpassed the Germans in regards to industry and manpower, they will still be able to attain air superiority over France as per OTL and by late 1945 the Americans will have the atomic bomb. The war will last longer, and the WAllies will suffer more, but Germany will crack before they do.

I don't think we can be sure. The US and Britain had an achilles heel--public opinion. Unlike the dictatorial reich and USSR they couldn't compel horrendous sacrifices regardless of what the public thought. What if, in the absence of a Russian front and consequently much stronger German defenses, US casualties by November '44 were say 3x those of OTL? And there was no promise of an early or easy end to this? FDR could easily have lost the '44 elections, and a new administration negotiated.

 

[starman]

Most likely, without Barbarossa, the WAllies are able to bribe Stalin into the war - maybe in 1942 or early '43....

How do the WAlllies do that? What do they give or promise?

 

[The Red]

I don't think we can be sure. The US and Britain had an achilles heel--public opinion. Unlike the dictatorial reich and USSR they couldn't compel horrendous sacrifices regardless of what the public thought. What if, in the absence of a Russian front and consequently much stronger German defenses, US casualties by November '44 were say 3x those of OTL? And there was no promise of an early or easy end to this? FDR could easily have lost the '44 elections, and a new administration negotiated.

Although the UK and US were more receptive to public opinion both were solidly behind the war effort throughout without much fluctuation in support even in times of high casualties. I agree that there is a tipping point, although I don't think it's casualties being 3x greater, especially when by November 1944 American industrial potential will be being brought to bear on the Germans in such a way that, even with their improved situation from OTL, will be clearly displaying signs that the war is fundamentally going in the right direction. I don't think FDR could have easily lost the '44 election, it is possible but who's going to replace him? All of the American political establishment was behind the war effort by that point.

 

[fasquardon]

How do the WAlllies do that? What do they give or promise?

By starting to slowly win and offering Stalin a cut of the pie for when the inevitable victory happens, if only he'll speed it up. 42/43 is about when the Red Army would be in shape to fight Germany but before the WAllies had decisively been able to turn the war in their favour. So I figure it's the time when opportunity and capability coincide sufficiently.

Stalin thought he'd have to fight Hitler anyways, and it's very hard to see Hitler offering Stalin enough to draw the Soviets into an anti-British alliance. So that means the WAllies are more likely to win the bid.

I don't think we can be sure. The US and Britain had an achilles heel--public opinion. Unlike the dictatorial reich and USSR they couldn't compel horrendous sacrifices regardless of what the public thought. What if, in the absence of a Russian front and consequently much stronger German defenses, US casualties by November '44 were say 3x those of OTL? And there was no promise of an early or easy end to this? FDR could easily have lost the '44 elections, and a new administration negotiated.

I think the unwillingness of the American and British people to sacrifice for the cause of crushing their enemies and grinding them into dust is grossly overestimated.

fasquardon

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Not after Munich.
Hitler and the Nazis had broken every agreement they signed, as soon as it was convenient for them.

No one, but no one, is stupid enough to believe Nazi promises.

 

[fasquardon]

The "casualties" argument is also a lot of nonsense. The US and Britain would have suffered much more in the absence of Russia, but they didn't fight like the Russians either; the United States OTL was also preparing to accept gigantic losses in the invasion of Japan.

Importantly, they don't HAVE to fight like the Russians. They have sea and distance protecting them from being gazzumped during any re-organizations they might like to do.

Sure. And the Nazi could win the war too, if Stalin does not cut off raw materials.

Hm. Maybe. Of course, for Stalin to continue supplying Germany after they demobilize, the Germans would need to start paying again (as they were supposed to) with the sorts of goods that will be diverting resources from their war machine.

Spain has to be brought into war and the Straights of Gibraltar have to be closed to UK.

Spain is a massive weak-point in Axis Europe though. Gutted by it's recent civil war. Close to the UK and with lots of long coast lines begging for a British expeditionary force.

Even with the Soviets sitting it out, I can't see Spain going Axis being on balance good for Germany.

Interesting point about the Dakar railway. Interdicting the Med from Gib-to-Suez and having U-boats in easy range of the trade routes to S. America would certainly hurt the UK. I really do wonder if the Germans can put together the logistics though. The RN allows the British to deploy to Suez, Gibraltar and Dakar much more easily and cheaply than the Germans can.

I think that we need to quit exaggerating Russia’s contribution to the war. Yes they had a huge effect. And a Large number of Russians dies and the occupied a large chunk of the German military leaving England the US and co to have an easier go of it. But that does not mean that the war would have been lost if they stayed out of it.

They didn't have a huge effect - they had a colossal effect.

Yes, the US is mighty and in a fight between the US and the Nazis, I'd bet on the US. Especially if they had aircraft carrier one to launch their invasion of Europe from (that's before you take into account that aircraft carrier one is inhabited by a bloodthirsty race called "Britons" who will likely be invading with the Americans).

Even so, it becomes much, much harder if the Soviets aren't butchering millions of Germans and sucking up something like 60-70% of German industrial output. If the Germans put the effort they put into the Great Patriotic War into fortifying the Atlantic, then the only way the US can get in really is to blow a hole with nukes and then fill it with a heck of alot of men before mobile forces can plug the gap. We're talking about a Western Front that would look more like OTL's Eastern Front with nukes.

fasquardon

 

[starman]

Even so, it becomes much, much harder if the Soviets aren't butchering millions of Germans and sucking up something like 60-70% of German industrial output. If the Germans put the effort they put into the Great Patriotic War into fortifying the Atlantic, then the only way the US can get in really is to blow a hole with nukes and then fill it with a heck of alot of men before mobile forces can plug the gap. We're talking about a Western Front that would look more like OTL's Eastern Front with nukes.

So in other words significant--if any--progress in a conventional war would be too risky or costly, so the WAllies must wait until they have nukes? Were they even sure they'd have them prior to mid '45? What if, instead of the steady progress of the OTL, the war is a costly stalemate for three years prior to then? Wouldn't FDR and his policy have been challenged in that case, by the '44 elections?

 

[fasquardon]

So in other words significant--if any--progress in a conventional war would be too risky or costly, so the WAllies must wait until they have nukes? Were they even sure they'd have them prior to mid '45? What if, instead of the steady progress of the OTL, the war is a costly stalemate for three years prior to then? Wouldn't FDR and his policy have been challenged in that case, by the '44 elections?

I imagine they'd be trying to crack Germany with conventional bombers. But if Germany can focus more resources on air defense it likely would be a stalemate, but not necessarily a hopeless one.

And the US and UK can attack the outlying parts of the Nazi sphere in N. Africa, Spain (if Franco joins), the Med. islands, Norway.

So I think they can provide people enough hope that combined with the determination to make sure the next generation don't need to fight WW3 against Germany that they'd finish the job.

fasquardon

 

[starman]

And the US and UK can attack the outlying parts of the Nazi sphere in N. Africa, Spain (if Franco joins), the Med. islands, Norway.

Sure, they might lure plenty of German troops into an ultimately hopeless situation, just like in North Africa after alamein.
But there's a problem: Without barbarossa, how far might the allied situation have deteriorated before the US can even enter the war? If the USSR is not to be targeted in '41, and sea lion is too risky, the Germans might try to overwhelm Britain's position in the Med/Near East. What if they took Iraq, Egypt and Iran (besides the balkans and Crete as in OTL). That might not knock out Britain in the sense of making it militarily/economically unable to go on. But might further grave setbacks--beyond those of the OTL--and perception that continuation of the war could cause the whole empire to go down the drain cause many Britons to challenge or even dump Churchill, before the US even enters in December 1941?

 

[NoMommsen]

Not after Munich.
Hitler and the Nazis had broken every agreement they signed, as soon as it was convenient for them.

No one, but no one, is stupid enough to believe Nazi promises.

... as noone had been stupid enough to support and cover-up massacres against civilians with Saddam Hussein for decades.

... as noone has been stupid enough to make agreements about nuclear weaponry with northern Korea for decades.

... as noone has been stupid enough to make agreements with China about economics like ... "copy-cating" for decades.


This kind of 'credibility' or 'trustworthiness' so often brought up as a so strong and clearly an argument ... it never played any such role as it is assigned to especially on this board especially on this theme on so many times.

The behavior describe above is exactly what (especially british ?) diplomacy was and worldwide still is since centuries. ... despite all Wilsonian-LoN and follow-up UN mouth services.

 

[The Red]

... as noone had been stupid enough to support and cover-up massacres against civilians with Saddam Hussein for decades.

... as noone has been stupid enough to make agreements about nuclear weaponry with northern Korea for decades.

... as noone has been stupid enough to make agreements with China about economics like ... "copy-cating" for decades.

Saddam Hussein and North Korea and...Chinese trade policy(?) were not and haven't ever posed the level of existential threat to the UK and US that the Nazis did. It goes back to the old problem of trying to ascribe Cold War or present day morality to that of the Second World War, without ever factoring in the different level of threat or the contemporary memory of the Nazis repeatedly breaking every single promise they had ever made. Allowing them to lick their wounds and get ready for round two thankfully wasn't an option anyone was seriously considering.

 

[The Red]

So in other words significant--if any--progress in a conventional war would be too risky or costly, so the WAllies must wait until they have nukes?

The two may coincide; it's unlikely that the Luftwaffe will have been broken down enough to launch a full-scale liberation of France in 1944 so the WAllies may have to wait a year more or even later, where they'll either have The Bomb or be about to have it.

If the USSR is not to be targeted in '41, and sea lion is too risky, the Germans might try to overwhelm Britain's position in the Med/Near East. What if they took Iraq, Egypt and Iran (besides the balkans and Crete as in OTL). That might not knock out Britain in the sense of making it militarily/economically unable to go on. But might further grave setbacks--beyond those of the OTL--and perception that continuation of the war could cause the whole empire to go down the drain cause many Britons to challenge or even dump Churchill, before the US even enters in December 1941?

The problem with a Med strategy always goes back to logistics, the ports and infrastructure controlled by the Axis in North Africa would never have allowed the Germans to have pulled off that sort of offensive into the Middle East that the British might have feared.

 

[lionhead]

Here's my reply. Normally I don't give, but from time to time I have to.

For some odd reason, Hitler is the only person on this board who people argue can't change a decision. Yet Hitler was a mercurial personalty. In Mein Kampf Hitler talks about recovering the Germans in Italy. Come an opportunity to ally with Italy, Hitler abandons them. Hitler paused for several days about invading Poland. Finns are not Aryan, Finns are Aryan. There are a lot more examples of Hitler being persuaded by the last man to talk to him. Hitler is actually more likely to change his mind than almost any modern leader. Napoleon, Kaiser Willie II, FDR, Tojo, etc.

There is only two things that appear constant to me in Hitler from 1923 onwards. The desire to restore German glory and hatred of Jews. The rest appears just to be the tactics of the day/week/month/year for Hitler.

As to a full analysis of alternative war strategies, this really goes beyond the scope of this thread. And we have this thread on the Med strategy every few months anyway so it is easy to find most regular poster opinions and support for their opinions.

i wouldn't say Hitler doesn't change his mind. He did regularly, like with case blue. Not sure why you make that a point.

The USSR, that was the nemesis, not the UK. Along with hating jews and restoring German glory(by taking back German territory), the USSR had to be taken out. That was the strategy way before Hitler looked to the west.

 

[Anti-GrammarNazi]

There would never have been a negotiated peace, the Allies learned their lesson from World War I and sought nothing less than total victory. Eventually Germany would have been crushed, even if it took an extra year and use of the atomic bomb.

The "casualties" argument is also a lot of nonsense. The US and Britain would have suffered much more in the absence of Russia, but they didn't fight like the Russians either; the United States OTL was also preparing to accept gigantic losses in the invasion of Japan.

Gigantic loses? Yes. Loses numbered in the millions? No. There is simply no way they will do that.

Also if Germany doesnt declare war on the US, even if the US still enters the war in Europe, the US will be forced to do a "Japan First" strategy, meaning that they will already be war weary when fighting Germany.

 

[Luminous]

Spain has to be brought into war and the Straights of Gibraltar have to be closed to UK.

If Spain enters the war, Spain starves as its food imports are cut off from the US. Is Franco willing to trade the starvation of his people in order to assist the Germans in their war?

It is why he asked for so much OTL - the Germans simply did not have the ability to replace the US as a source of supplies (esp as the only alternate, the USSR, wouldn't be a good alternate to turn to)

Gigantic loses? Yes. Loses numbered in the millions? No. There is simply no way they will do that.

Also if Germany doesnt declare war on the US, even if the US still enters the war in Europe, the US will be forced to do a "Japan First" strategy, meaning that they will already be war weary when fighting Germany.

Considering that the US isn't capable of committing to its invasion across the Central Pacific until 1943 at the earliest, due to the need to construction the fleet and logistic train to support it, then the US will be committing forces to Europe simply because it has nowhere else to send the majority of them, much less tanks/etc. The Italian campaigns and all would likely continue similarly to OTL. The US simply doesn't have the material ability to put enough men and ships into the Pacific to defeat the Japanese decisively in the same strategy as OTL.

And, if Downfall proves to have too many casualties (they will have a good estimate in the aftermath of Olympic), the US can simply blockade Japan and cut it off from the mainland, and let it wither on the vine if need be.

Defeating Germany would be quite a bit more important, as Germany is far more capable of posing a threat to the US. Don't forget that, during WW2, many in the US thought that the only reason the Japanese were capable of attacking Pearl Harbor was because the Germans made it technologically feasible for them, as the Americans thought the Japanese were too backwards to be capable of launching such an attack on their own.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

If Spain enters the war, Spain starves as its food imports are cut off from the US. Is Franco willing to trade the starvation of his people in order to assist the Germans in their war?

IOTL he sold food to Germany during the war, while his people basically on starvation rations.