1943-01-01 Redefine victory

Hkelukka

Banned
Since I have a lot of different projects going on i wont be able to write much in here. I did however have this idea.

Victory should be categorized into 4 different victories and defeat into 4 different defeats.

Complete victory
Strategic victory
Tactical victory
Pyhrric victory
and
Pyhrric defeat
Tactical defeat
Strategic defeat
Complete defeat

Main issue Hitler et al had was going for a complete victory when it was far out of any realistic reach.

On the other hand, had Germany aimed for a Strategic victory (lebensraum, resources, increased prestige, military dominance) or tactical (unified Germany + national areas) or even a Pyhrric victory (pre-1936 Germany) they might have had a shot.

One scenario I've been thinking about is this.

1943-01-01, Hitler has one of his rare moments of clarity, sets out a clear "hold this area as a minimum, let the generals decide how, I'll go to the mountains to relax". This results in a situation where German high command is in the hands of the generals and Hitlers meddling is only in the very broad sense and no individual orders.

Troops are ordered to hold and dig in on the Dnieper river to Kiev, and north to Oisha, from there to close to the present Estonian border. Area east of the front is depopulated and scorched for as far as artillery range. Turned into an elastic defense area rooted in the river as its western range. Combining both defense in depth and elastic defense to form a strong depth-elastic defense.

Following this E-Europe is cleared of anyone deemed undesirable by the nazis and the women, children, sick, elderly are deported over the river to the Russian side to create a food shortage. The young men are sent to forced labor prison camps.

Germany and Axis minors receive pioneer attachments from Finland during summer 43 that specialize in building cheap durable winter housing from dirt and wood, both Korsus and Saunas, for quick to build winter lodging as well as infection control. Germany attempts to dig in and entrench themselves and simply carry on as if the war in the east is effectively a victory. Without costly assaults, with good winter lodgings and the entire summer to build strong entrenchments the Germans are in very good positions for the winter during which soviet units will again and again throw themselves against very well prepared German defense positions, the limited success the soviets have is countered by mobile panzer armies in reserve that are not spent pointlessly attacking. Fuel is reserved as much as possible and only spent when necessary.

This would be the reverse of the Kursk salient, the Germans would no longer seek to advance, only bleed the soviets dry. Constantly offering Stalin a generous peace treaty. The reserve units otherwise used and spent pointlessly attacking would be deployed to fortress Europe. Bomber production would decrease as conquests are done and interceptor production would increase substantially.

As i see this situation the following would happen.

Stalin would sue for peace since most of the territory occupied is minor soviets and not Russian. Stalin would seek to rebuild his army and potentially re-DW since he knows western powers would not accept peace. Or potentially join in the splitting of Japan to reclaim lost territory.

Churchill would find his position very very precarious. UK is mostly unharmed, gained more territory (Italian Africa) and an increasingly bankrupt and fighting an unpopular war that the other side considers over.

US would focus efforts on taking out Japan, Germany would phase out support for Japan in favor of peaceable relations with the allies.

Japan surrenders 1944 after SU invasion of Manchuria, US invasion of okinawa, UK clearing of Burma and cessation of German relations.

Post war world would be:

UK with an expanded empire (Italian Africa, former Japanese SE-asian countries and allies where applicable)

Italy with a slightly greater European empire (French med islands, Corsica, Yugoslavian coastline. Greek islands and crete)

Germany that annexes Alsace-Lorraine, Benelux German areas, most of E-Europe is split between minor axis puppet states ala "central polish gov" Stronger than Maginot fortifications built on the east line, then secondary and tertiary divisions are demobilized, weapons are sold to axis minors and puppets. Vichy France is given all of former French mainland short of the previously mentioned area.

SU with all of its major industrial areas intact, most of its population intact, facing a very well entrenched Germany on its western front, cold war would develop.

Soon a three party cold war would develop. Stalins death would cause friction but no civil war, neither would Hitlers.

War officially over in mid to late 1944.

Thoughts?
 
ASB.

By 1943, the material advantages enjoyed by the Allies were too great for the Axis to overcome. The situation you describe mat allow Germany to live past May 7th 1945. Germany will not live into 1946.

Mike Turcotte
 
By January '43, the Germans were totally invested in Stalingrad, and Hitler and Goering were routinely making statements about how the Germans were never going to leave, and they meant it. And anyway, generally Hitler was pretty goddamn big on the whole "Never Retreat" thing, and having him shift from it for no good reason is pretty much ASB and out-of-character.
 

Hkelukka

Banned
ASB?

A shade better is the closest one i can think of to fit that one, never heard it before.

See here is where I disagree with most interpretations of WW2. If we are assuming two equal powers with two similar objectives in the war, then yes, material production is the biggest single indicator.

If we are however assuming 1 side desiring total victory (allies) and another side desiring to bleed them white and retain at least a tactical victory (the axis) then the situation shifts around dramatically.

We are left with a situation where the only goal the axis powers have from 1943 is to force a peace on even tactical victory grounds.

It would only take one of the allied powers to crack under the pressure and the balance would radically shift in the axis direction.

Imagine a soviet union that spends almost a year fighting Germans who do everything possible to simply delay the soviet advance, trading time and space for everything else when they reach the line where they were in 1943-44 the Germans have had a year of preparing defenses.

I find it very hard to believe that SU would have seriously managed to push through such a defense any more than the Germans managed to destroy the Kursk salient. They would have certainly tried but after spending the year trying and the following 1944 summer axis continue to dig in deeper and deeper extending supply networks and so forth, I seriously doubt Stalin would desire to continue the war since from his view, the areas Germany occupied were never traditional Russian areas, they were in his words, buffer zone from the core areas.

At this point the shortening of the supply lines, no Kursk invasion and using mobile forces in Italy, not in the Kursk salient would make a Normandy landing at best significantly more difficult than OTL and at worst impossible. So in 1944-01-01 a year after ATL start the situation i envision would be

Allies control Sicily and perhaps south Italy, but not necessarily. Italy still in the war but wobbling heavily.

West Wall is more than double its historical strength.

East wall winter attrition + offensive attrition is significantly less as full military power on defense with no regard for destruction of environment, (defoliation, flooding, mining, anything deemed fit, not like in a civilian wall such as Maginot)

SU can either continue wasting men in an attack it sees not functioning, or go on the defensive and spend energy on driving Japan out of china and setting up a com china puppet before allies do.

In this case I seriously think that SU would sue for peace, exchange prisoners, and 2 def lines would form across Russia, UK would be content with its larger empire, De Gaulle would fade from public life, US would occupy mainland Japan. Main losers would be Japan, Italy and France. All of which historically were more or less devastated by OTL war.

Start bombing alone would not bring Germany down, not without Normandy, and Normandy against a half a million battle hardened east front soldiers would be a literal suicide. This all depends on how successful the east front dig in would be in reality. This I have no actual certainty on but based on the Kursk salient I would estimate that it is very effective if Germans have a year to prepare for it.
 

Hkelukka

Banned
Aa, now i get the ASB thing.

I disagree on the Hitler thing.

Having studied substance abusers to some extent one thing I can say with authority is that no one can really predict what they would do. Hitler instead of going in a rage and controlloing more could simply go into a rage and dissapar and "sulk" as cocaine addicts quite often do. In this fit he would be pictured as "withdrawing to the healthy alps" and so forth. In reality having something of a cocaine fit which he often did but going the introspective, not the scream at everyone path. In his mind everyone is against him and HE knows the only way, therefore he will punish people by NOT telling them the way. Thus, Hitlers withdraws from life and lets the generals "fudge things up".

So, i disagree on ASB.
 
Yes, but as said, short of something drastic, there really isn't anyway to have Hitler change his views on the ultimate goal of the war. Also, with Sicily going, there is no way Mussolini can stay in power, without the Germans actually invading-which won't go over very well, and would likely give the Allies a more-or-less OTL position.
 
Aa, now i get the ASB thing.

I disagree on the Hitler thing.

Having studied substance abusers to some extent one thing I can say with authority is that no one can really predict what they would do. Hitler instead of going in a rage and controlloing more could simply go into a rage and dissapar and "sulk" as cocaine addicts quite often do. In this fit he would be pictured as "withdrawing to the healthy alps" and so forth. In reality having something of a cocaine fit which he often did but going the introspective, not the scream at everyone path. In his mind everyone is against him and HE knows the only way, therefore he will punish people by NOT telling them the way. Thus, Hitlers withdraws from life and lets the generals "fudge things up".

So, i disagree on ASB.

Uhhhhhh...

That would be a total reverse from his previous positions, which weren't really caused by substance abuse. He loved Germany. He would have done the "right" thing, no matter what the cost or stakes.
 

Hkelukka

Banned
Cocaine addict changing his opinion about how the world works is hardly drastic. UFO's in 1945 would be, Hitler changing his mind and thinking "peace now, wait 20 years, attack again" is at best, unlikely, imho.

However, you might be right about the Italy thing. It all depends on success at the E-Front.
Hand wavy Hitler changes mind about present war-strategy, decides its best to do to SU what he did to UK, and simply create a fortress Europe, since now the bad bad commies are way over there and not a few hundred Km from Berlin.

Example would be sealion postponed indefinetly. Hitler decided after battle of Britain that UK invasion is unfeasible. Same happens after Stalingrad encirclement. Realises that SU cant be beaten, say he has one of his coke induced moments and thinks "naploeon lost this way, better not be like the french corporal aye!"... Granted, handwavy but far from impossible.

Timeline after event goes like this

1943-01-01
Orders breakout from Stalingrad, fortification of line mentioned above, fighting withdrawl in good order to said line, digging in at line when there and redeploying units to S-Europe in anticipation of allied landing and N-Europe

1943-06-01
6 months of continuous digging in by 2-3 million german soldiers in the eastern front.
1 month before Sicily landing number of germans in S-europe considerably larger than in OTL.

1944-01-01
Sicily landing a Pyhrric victory, allies lose a considerable amount of material but manage to evict axis from Sicily. Due to the presence of a large German garrison in and around Rome and S-Italy, Mussolini likely to stay in power as long as E-front holds.

At this point the big question is how much actual effect against the red army would 12 months of intensive entrenchment actually have. The only good example I can think of is the Kursk salient, there are others of course. If we assume losses inflicted on Kursk reversed and axis on heavy defensive.

At this point the major questions are this.

Does stalin sue for peace, if so, does germany accept it.

Does the american voter continue to support the war once Japan falls.

If SU or US drops out of the war then Germany wins a Strategic victory, if neither then at most a Tactical.

All in all, this ATL rests on Hitler having an unexpected flash of clarity / sulking and leaving the strategic commands to someone who opts for a strong defence and quick exit from the war.
 
ASB?

A shade better is the closest one i can think of to fit that one, never heard it before.

See here is where I disagree with most interpretations of WW2. If we are assuming two equal powers with two similar objectives in the war, then yes, material production is the biggest single indicator.

If we are however assuming 1 side desiring total victory (allies) and another side desiring to bleed them white and retain at least a tactical victory (the axis) then the situation shifts around dramatically.

The Axis lacked the ability to 'bleed them white'. Even if they miraculously able to fortify 3.000 KM of Russian front is a couple of months, it does nothing to change the strategic situation. Allied bombers are hammering the cities and the Luftwaffe. The Soviets are producing scads of tanks and IL-2s. The USA is still gearing up. There is no reason for the Allies to quit, and the Germans can't make them.

We are left with a situation where the only goal the axis powers have from 1943 is to force a peace on even tactical victory grounds.

It would only take one of the allied powers to crack under the pressure and the balance would radically shift in the axis direction.

No. Even if the USSR quits (for reasons that are not clear to me), the USA/UK can still crush the Germans - even if it comes down to nukes. The USA alone was several times the size of German economy, and - despite what some would say - was bullding a tech lead as well. Yes, starting in 1943, the Germans could have lasted longer. No, they could not force a peace.

Imagine a soviet union that spends almost a year fighting Germans who do everything possible to simply delay the soviet advance, trading time and space for everything else when they reach the line where they were in 1943-44 the Germans have had a year of preparing defenses.

Fixed defense rarely worked in WWII - especially on open plains (like the Ukraine or Poland) against Armor. Why do they work here? The Soviets (in OTL) were willing to expend literally millions of lives to crack the Germans - why are they unwilling now to do so? Because Hitler has a brain transplant, and offers them a peace? Why on Earth would they trust that. One of the few scenarios I can see Stalin actually getting overthrown would be if he tried to make peace with the Germans in 1943.

I find it very hard to believe that SU would have seriously managed to push through such a defense any more than the Germans managed to destroy the Kursk salient. They would have certainly tried but after spending the year trying and the following 1944 summer axis continue to dig in deeper and deeper extending supply networks and so forth, I seriously doubt Stalin would desire to continue the war since from his view, the areas Germany occupied were never traditional Russian areas, they were in his words, buffer zone from the core areas.

But the Soviets did push through in OTL. They simply rammed ahead until they got in - in the Ukraine, over the Vistula, in East Prussia, in Budapest and in Berlin. How do the Germans stop them? The Soviets have more troops, tanks, planes, and by this time operational ability. STAVKA had learned from it's mistakes. Finally, the Soviets had scads of tactical air that in addition to slaughtering Germans, was really, really good at disrupting supply. Even if the Germans magically manage to build these maginot-esque fortifications, they lack the troops or firepower to hold them.

At this point the shortening of the supply lines, no Kursk invasion and using mobile forces in Italy, not in the Kursk salient would make a Normandy landing at best significantly more difficult than OTL and at worst impossible. So in 1944-01-01 a year after ATL start the situation i envision would be.

How do the 'mobile forces' get to Italy? Why don't the Soviets react to their move? Normandy and Italy weren't (despite the movies) that close. Italy was out before the Alllies even hit the mainland - why does that change? The Americans and British trashed German tanks in the open - more German tanks means more kills.

Allies control Sicily and perhaps south Italy, but not necessarily. Italy still in the war but wobbling heavily.

Nope - see above. Italy was already out.

West Wall is more than double its historical strength.

How?!? How do the Germans magically double their production of the industral materials necessary for that top happen?

East wall winter attrition + offensive attrition is significantly less as full military power on defense with no regard for destruction of environment, (defoliation, flooding, mining, anything deemed fit, not like in a civilian wall such as Maginot)

Because the Germans had 'environment concerns' in OTL?!? Both sides practices scortched Earth. No fortification could have held the USSR.

SU can either continue wasting men in an attack it sees not functioning, or go on the defensive and spend energy on driving Japan out of china and setting up a com china puppet before allies do.

In this case I seriously think that SU would sue for peace, exchange prisoners, and 2 def lines would form across Russia, UK would be content with its larger empire, De Gaulle would fade from public life, US would occupy mainland Japan. Main losers would be Japan, Italy and France. All of which historically were more or less devastated by OTL war.

Start bombing alone would not bring Germany down, not without Normandy, and Normandy against a half a million battle hardened east front soldiers would be a literal suicide. This all depends on how successful the east front dig in would be in reality. This I have no actual certainty on but based on the Kursk salient I would estimate that it is very effective if Germans have a year to prepare for it.

Under no circumstances would anything you posit come to be. A more defensive German stance after 01/01/1943 is an interesting POD, but the Germans were dead by that point - it was simply a question of time. The only question I would debate is if German defeat was assured 06/22/1941 or 12/11/1941. By December 12, 1941, there was no hope for the Reich.

Mike Turcotte.
 

Hkelukka

Banned
Several sweeping statements by mike that I feel I should point out that I disagree with:

No. Even if the USSR quits (for reasons that are not clear to me), the USA/UK can still crush the Germans - even if it comes down to nukes.

Strongly disagree, historical effect of nukes is vastly blown out of proportion. The 20-40kt available at that time would make jack all of a difference assuming east front is at peace.

Fixed defense rarely worked in WWII - especially on open plains (like the Ukraine or Poland) against Armor. Why do they work here?

There is a difference between haphazardly built lines by a considerably inferior force to hold back a superior such as Budapest and 2 roughly equal forces where one just spent 6 months to a year building fortifications. In stead of fighting an offensive war with little purpose the axis would simply shift to an defensive plan lead by good generals in 1943. There is a massive difference in the outcome militarily here methinks.

They simply rammed ahead until they got in - in the Ukraine, over the Vistula, in East Prussia, in Budapest and in Berlin.

All examples you give are post Kursk where the balance of power is vastly in SU's corner. Im talking far closer to equal footing which is before kursk.

How do the 'mobile forces' get to Italy? Why don't the Soviets react to their move? Normandy and Italy weren't (despite the movies) that close. Italy was out before the Alllies even hit the mainland - why does that change? The Americans and British trashed German tanks in the open - more German tanks means more kills.

Soviets cant since these are reserves moved after the main soviet offensive is used up. Even moving 5-10% of the total E front manpower and gear to Italy and N europe would make both Normandy and Sicily possibly very different affairs.

Nope - see above. Italy was already out.
OTL yes
ATL no

Italy left axis in 25th July 1943 in OTL
in ATL:
Italy in July 1943 is a country that is garrisoned by quite a large amount of german E front veterans moved from the mobile armies that were in reserve that just spent 3-6 months digging in

If we assume immidiate fortification efforts in 010143 then by 010343 we'll have 90 days of heavy digging in at the riverbanks, this is still roughly 9 months before the OTL riverbank battles. Lets assume that the germans only manage to hold the SU back for 3 more months, that would place the ATL battle of this "maginot like line" at 3-6 months earlier than OTL. The line is actually nothing like the maginot and more like the kursk salient but spread along a long 3000km front with panzer reserves in the rear and according to an elastic defense.

I doubt that in this case Italy would topple since it was almost a direct result of the failed Kursk offensive. Without Kurks. Axis on the defense and German garrisons in Italy, mussolini is unlikely to topple.

How?!? How do the Germans magically double their production of the industral materials necessary for that top happen?

wait... what?

Do you think that west wall used all of German industry, therefore the only way to double the west wall is to double German industry?

West wall fortifications used at most 5-10 percent of German industry, if even that. Doubling this would only take 5-10% more from total german industry, which would be about 7-14% of the E front forces. Considering the rough number where E front is 80% of all resources, west is 20% based on troop distributions and equipment.

Because the Germans had 'environment concerns' in OTL?!? Both sides practices scortched Earth. No fortification could have held the USSR.

Hitler ordered Manstein not to fortify the riverbank, not really enviromental concern nor did i mention such. I said that as an example why something like the maginot line is REALLY not a good example of a full military scorched earth defensive line. They are like comparing Jupiter and the sun.

Under no circumstances would anything you posit come to be. A more defensive German stance after 01/01/1943 is an interesting POD, but the Germans were dead by that point - it was simply a question of time. The only question I would debate is if German defeat was assured 06/22/1941 or 12/11/1941. By December 12, 1941, there was no hope for the Reich.

Here I disagree strongly. History is always up for grabs and the Reich had every possibility of winning the war. But sadly, history is written by the victors most often in a way that the present outcome is the only logical outcome.
 
Here I disagree strongly. History is always up for grabs and the Reich had every possibility of winning the war. But sadly, history is written by the victors most often in a way that the present outcome is the only logical outcome.

I'm sorry but that is mindnumbingly naive, the reason history is history is because it's the most likely outcome, yes real ASB moments do exist, but those are few and far between. The idea that in '43 Germany had any hope of forcing a peace, let alone winning, by any definion, the war is fantasy, they simply were vastly inferior to the allies in ALL categories, tanks, fighters, bombers, manpower, reasorces, they lacked any kind of air superiority and even their technological advantage was almost gone and you want in those conditions to actually bleed the SU white on a 3000 km front? Delusional.
 

Hkelukka

Banned
See, the idea that war is won by pure production with little regard to political situations in member countries not to mention the desire of democracies for extended war is delusional.

This is why wars like Vietnam were such easy cakewalks for the US...

Really now, do you really believe that the only defining attribute that will prove who wins is who produces more? That view of war is Clausewitzian and wrong. The most important attribute of war is the desire for war.

I'm inclined to a more Sun Tzu like view of war. That to even consider winning a war one must define victory, that is the first mistake the axis made. Then they started a war that they had no real objectives in instead of prolonging the war.

They were in a difficult war with little to no longer term planning, relying in haphazard situation by situation plans that did not prove a way out of the war or any realistic goal for the war.

The allies had a clear objective for the war ever since the first conferences between SU, UK and US. But the problem here is that a new PM for the UK could radically change the goal of the war, and the US is historically weary of prolonged wars and bodybags.

And the axis advantage in technology up until the end is quite well proven, things like jet fighters, rocket technology, tanks, XXI subs and so on. What was lacking was not technology, but a coherant battle plan that could utilize this technology without resorting to wasting it in pointless attacks. By the end of the war what gave out was not german technology but german will to fight. Following 6 years of war and 2 of which during it was quite clear that Hitler had gone bonkers no one was really in the war anymore.

Compare that situation to something like the winter war, yes, the unlikely scenario but still same time period. Due to the Finnish desire and a well formulated defensive plan a technologically inferior force with vastly inferior air units, production and with very little outside help managed a kill ratio of 1:10, Historically germany with bad overall coordination and immensely stupid "stand or die" orders and idiotic decisions like the Kursk salient, Battle of the Bulge, V2, Maus, and the list goes on and on still managed anywhere between 1:1.5 to 1:3 kill ratio. IF we extend this kill ratio to 1:5 then SU runs out of manpower first, not Germany.

If we add to this a coherent battle plan and high organizational cooperation and moral by the German high command resulting from hitler meddling less then simply focusing on high tech mass production of working models a bitter peace type situation is not an impossibility.

Stalin was ever the realist and he did historically offer peace treaties to the Germans up until 42-43: "http://www.historykb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/world-war-ii/2572/Stalin-s-Peace-Offer-1941" specific quote is: "Later on, in 1943, Stalin made peace overtures but that was on the basis
of a return to the 1941 borders, whereas Hitler was not prepared to give
up his conquests" Of course not a valid historical source but this is the general date where Stalins offers stopped.

All my situation relies on is SU spending the 43-44 attacking, being rebuffed with heavy losses to Germany but far heavier on the SU. Then Germany offers peace to Stalin that is a return to 1938 not 1941 borders, for the SU at least.

All the countries swallowed in the interviewing years will be puppeted to Germany, full return of all POW's from both sides, as well as some a deportation of ethnically Russian people from the occupied territory, release of all Russians from prison camps and return to Russia.

In this case the only areas under German control with historical Russian ties would be E-Poland, Baltic, and Romanian border areas. Of course they would both know this is little more than a cessation in hostilities, a kind of Korean "peace". It could flare up a year or two later, but that would give the Germans a massive defense superiority by cleaning out partisans, building supply networks without being (edit typo): Bombed constantly and spending up until the peace treaty building a massive defensive fortification and bomb proof housing underground all along the eastern front for years until a possible reflare of hostilities. Stalin was ever one thing, and that was a realist. He would most likely do the math over in his head and realize taking out a well lead, defensive Germany would be a massive loss of MP, and focus his energy on taking out Manchuria, Korea, Mongolia, Nat-china and so on.

Stalin made bad peaces, went back on his word and acted all in all crazy his entire life. He had no problem declaring at best a tactical victory at worst a defeat into a victory and moving on, this was the case with Finland, 2 times. I have little problem believing that he would do this. Both superpowers would then spend years arming themselfs to the teeth and possibly re-DW, or it could settle into the Korean type deal with a balance of power fixed firmly on the border.

And it IS delusional to think that the west could really mount something like the Normandy landing if German garrisons there were double, triple or even quadruple strength, this would mean increase from 10-15% of German war capacity to 20-30 or 30-45 or 40-60. Doubling would be quite possible, higher than that would most likely invite an SU DW. German shift in production to defensive weapons, taking away focus from V weapons and stupid super projects like the maus would also help immensely. Not to mention a shift in production from tanks and tank related research to airforce and subs. The XXI type subs backed by full dev funding from the now even remotely at peace E front backed by air force that is attempting to regain air superiority over Germany from a single front and no longer needs to build so many dive bombers and can focus on jet fighters is, overall, a game changer.

In a case where Allies are stuck in the very south of Italy or even exclusively in Sicily and Normandy landings lose and news of a peace in the east is a war where the allied voter might snap under the pressure, even if the leaders wouldn't. It could force some of the allies out of the war after elections and the peace would be very hard for Germany but still possible. Return to 1939 borders in the west would count as a strategic victory, in fact even a return to 1936 borders would be a tactical victory. Germany could say that the borders in the East are where Germany wanted them and are excluded from peace discussions.

In this case if E front is at peace and SU attacks Japan and in 1944 German negotiation stance is:

Release all W and N Europe countries occupied
Release Yugoslavia to a general election on new ruling party
Release Greece

Retain Austria, Polish corridor (including Danzig), Sudetland but not central areas... This would still be a massive victory by Germany that establishes it as the eminent military power in Europe, gives it back all its 1914 land + Austria - colonies. Moves SU back by thousands of kilometers, guaranteed supply of industrial goods from now German leaning puppets in the east.

In this situation the allies would have a very tough time convincing their populations why continue fighting just to destroy Germany if all non German areas will be freed? This would of course require massive allied garrisons all along Germanys border for years but its hardly a high price compared to the potential costs of invasion and occupation.

I would wager that in this situation the peace deal is made, Germans withdraw, Allies land in force all across the former occupied areas granted as liberators. Move to the German border, dig in heavily and partly demobilize and move to take out Japan. American garrison would remain in Europe for years, ending in a situation very similar to the cold war.

War could easily restart in a few years, that is, if Germany and SU doesn't develop the A-bomb in response to US developing it. And if there is peace i find it incredibly difficult to believe that after 2-3 years of peace (from 1944 to say late 1946 when allies had sufficient nuclear capability to destroy Germany) that any US president would order a surprise nuclear destruction of a, at that point, peaceful former enemy. I can imagine the shock all over the world when after 2-3 years of peace US suddenly drops 10-20 A-Bombs all across central Europe and attempts to blitz to Berlin. This would almost certainly not happen unless Germany acted first. And in this scenario, Germany is content and not about to start another war.

Meh, thats how I look at it anyway.
 
I'm inclined to a more Sun Tzu like view of war. That to even consider winning a war one must define victory, that is the first mistake the axis made. Then they started a war that they had no real objectives in instead of prolonging the war.

They were in a difficult war with little to no longer term planning, relying in haphazard situation by situation plans that did not prove a way out of the war or any realistic goal for the war.
Not quite true. What the Axis did was develop mission creep; ie adding new objectives as they went along. Whilst this may have been fine for Japan as it was effectively isolated, it was not so good for Germany as they had to keep bailing out IL Duce from North Africa to Yugoslavia.

And the axis advantage in technology up until the end is quite well proven, things like jet fighters, rocket technology, tanks, XXI subs and so on. What was lacking was not technology, but a coherant battle plan that could utilize this technology without resorting to wasting it in pointless attacks.
Some technology and only by Germany. The Americans and British had superior radar and could build long range bombers that better than any thing the Germans could.

Anyway, having great technology is a fat lot of good if you can't deploy it in significant numbers in the field. For example the Germans undoubtly have the best fighters in the world in the form of the Me 262. However the Americans had so many Mustangs manned by veteran pilots that they could swamp the few Me 262s there were,
 

Hkelukka

Banned
Not quite true. What the Axis did was develop mission creep; ie adding new objectives as they went along. Whilst this may have been fine for Japan as it was effectively isolated, it was not so good for Germany as they had to keep bailing out IL Duce from North Africa to Yugoslavia.

Some technology and only by Germany. The Americans and British had superior radar and could build long range bombers that better than any thing the Germans could.

Anyway, having great technology is a fat lot of good if you can't deploy it in significant numbers in the field. For example the Germans undoubtly have the best fighters in the world in the form of the Me 262. However the Americans had so many Mustangs manned by veteran pilots that they could swamp the few Me 262s there were,

True, tho I would say a matter of definition as the thread implies. Since from the start the goal was very broadly defined as "lebensraum and security". It was obvious that Germany would get into a war with SU.. But would the war stop at total annexation, Ural, Moscow, Stalingrad, Kiev? I have never read a clear outline on this other than some general "lets win this war" style of thing.

Far as I've read the axis didn't have a clear plan for winning the war, only to fight the war.

By the end of the war German prototype tech was 3-5 years ahead of allies in the areas mentioned but their actual field application was lacking. This based on what I've read had more to do with the desire for a quick one time end to the war via superweapon type deals and not developing a good sturdy high tech base-line weapon. Such as a cheap Tiger or Panther and making incremental updates and focusing on mass production. But constantly designing new weapons from scratch and refitting the entire production line. This was a costly way of doing things, which came and bit the axis in the ass.

When you want to build an army:
Establish a good baseline weapon to use, make sure it can be upgraded easily without refitting the whole production line, modular being the key.

Set up a network for construction that is not dependant on any single industrial center or area.

Make the modular construction such that you can easily remove and or replace a single part of the production line with no damage to any other.

Such as taking a Panzer production line. Designing it in a fairly easy to upgrade form and then simply producing the hull in one place, turret in another, radios and internals in one and tracks and engines in another and then fitting them all together. Then it is easier to upgrade the technology.

Axis never seemed to get this, making outstanding individual products but never getting their mass production in line. This made training of crews difficult due to the rapid turnover time of equipment and specialization very difficult. If anything, the axis advantage in technology was a weakness due to inability to standardize production, not a strength.

More and more I study WW2, the more convinced I am that it was far less about material advantage, technology or anything like that, and more and more about a clear outline on how to win the war. From the start to finish the axis had no clear outline on what constitutes a victory. Going from one fight to another with no clear plan on:

When it starts
With who
On what terms it ends
When

Start was not clearly set more than a few months in advance (confusion on if UK would help Poland or not).
Enemy was not clearly set (is the UK an enemy or not, if they are why let dunkirk evacuate, if they are not why go with unrestricted sub warfare or even go for a blockade) many confusing mistakes made like this.
No outline on what would constitute a victory.
And no production outline on when the war ends, what should generally be mass produces, for how long, what is the next military tech. With no outline on the end of war little can be done to fine tune mass production to fit the time table.

Thanks for the reply MB.
 
When you want to build an army:
Establish a good baseline weapon to use, make sure it can be upgraded easily without refitting the whole production line, modular being the key.

Set up a network for construction that is not dependant on any single industrial center or area.

Make the modular construction such that you can easily remove and or replace a single part of the production line with no damage to any other.

Such as taking a Panzer production line. Designing it in a fairly easy to upgrade form and then simply producing the hull in one place, turret in another, radios and internals in one and tracks and engines in another and then fitting them all together. Then it is easier to upgrade the technology.

Axis never seemed to get this, making outstanding individual products but never getting their mass production in line. This made training of crews difficult due to the rapid turnover time of equipment and specialization very difficult. If anything, the axis advantage in technology was a weakness due to inability to standardize production, not a strength.
The British were not too hot here either, for example the fiddling about in trying to build a decent medium tank. Compare the range that they built with the Russians and the Americans. In addition they had as many designs of heavy bombers as the Americans but with smaller production runs on each. On the other hand they did look at the Hurricane and Spitfire, decide that the former had latter development potential than the latter and so efficiently froze work on it.

************
On a strategic level the Germans had a problem that the Allies did not, namely ighting an enemy that they could not realistically take out and would not quit when "obviously" beaten. Britain. Given time, organisation and maintenance of aim they might have been able to launched Operation Amphibious Mammal, but they would have had to totally change direction and canceled Barbarossa. Given Hitler's obsession with colonising the East and defeating Communism that is a non starter.

Of course if the Poles had been co-operative and given the Germans the Danzig corridor, the Germans would have continued to have been friendly with them and no doubt not gone West. In fact given that the Polish grabbed part of Czechoslovakia, one might vaguely see a Operation Barbarossa with the Poles getting a slice of the action!

In contrast the Allies objectives were whack Germany then whack Japan. Italy only got whacked because Britain "diverted" the Americans into the Med; she could have easily been mopped up later. More than one US commander wanted to just go straight across the Channel without going via Rome. This is a minor point though because the Western Allies had the capacity to launch amphibious operations large enough to build a bridgehead from which to expand as well as the numbers and equipment to finish their enemies off. The Axis thus could be defeated in a way that Germany had not been able to do with Britain.
 

Hkelukka

Banned
I agree with you here.

On the E-front we had 2 obsessed leaders fighting a war to the death. Unless one of them or both of them decide that its a bad idea it will continue until one is exhausted. Due to the sheer size and industrial capacity of SU, a complete victory for Germany is a near impossibility after 41.

So, from this point unless Hitler stands aside as the wartime strategist and appoints someone like Manstein then there wont be much of a chance for the Axis. That is why I play various starting dates in my head and assume the standard "what if Hitler appoints X as commander of Y with full authority, what would happen" One I come back to most often is the 42-43 period when the coin was still in the air.

01-01-41 is a no brainer, with a lenient policy for the E-Europeans and a general draft against the SU and so forth axis victory would be near certainty. Concentration camps and the likes could be set up later in an incremental fashion for larger and larger parts of the population in stead of "lets move them all soon as we get there" style.

01-01-42 is a bit trickier, with certain adjustments it would be possible, but still, at most 50-50.

01-01-43 is at best a hellishly difficult fight and even then at most to a strat and never a complete victory.

01-01-44 might be possible to gain at best a tactical defeat (Hitler executed, forcibly demilitarized Germany and so forth but still remaining a single country.) But anything even resembling a victory would require something akin to "heres a division of space marines".

One I find most interesting is the scenario where for some reason Hitler decides its best to leave the war planning up to Manstein. Say when Göring, Hitler and Manstein argue about the Air Bridge to the encircled Stalingrad. Historically Göring convinced Hitler and Manstein fell out of favor. Now in this situation lets assume Manstein manages to convince Hitler to appoint Manstein as "chief of the eastern front" with orders to "just make sure no Russian ever sets foot in Germany"

In this case Manstein in ATL, Manstein would reinforce and harden the rivers, attempt to use his influence to carry a cease fire with the SU forces. Both sides would of course think this is at best a temporary affair while they build forces. Stalin would figure he could join against Japan, take out china and Asia in the process and recruit Mao's help in return against the Germans, bolster his lines that way and let UK and US hammer Germany while he takes out Asia and take another whack at it a few years later. Neither would realize that the game would change in Hiroshima. At which point all 3 major powers (US, Ger, SU) Would scramble to produce nuclear arsenals.

Still, this relies on Hitler understanding that he is losing his grip on reality, appointing someone good in his stead to the E-front. Best shot for this is the discussion between the 3 when Göring convinces Hitler of the Air Bridge. If Manstein instead convinced Hitler of a defensive strategy and used Manstein's strategic expertize to take control of the entire E-front with defensive battle plans... It is definitely something that as I see would change the game.
 
Top