AHC: Make Germany win WW2 by giving them a reliable ally.

But that fact isn't an absolute, was completely a racist myth without basis, so just delete it and you can win in Russia.
No, it's definitely an absolute.

"As for the ridiculous hundred million Slavs, we will mould the best of them as we see fit, and we will isolate the rest of them in their own pig-styes; and anyone who talks about cherishing the local inhabitants and civilising them, goes straight off into a concentration camp!"

- Adolf Hitler, August 6, 1942.

 
Of course it did not work. What was the OKH planning assumption behind Barbarossa again? Hint... (^^^)
It didn't work for very different reasons. In 1812 the Russians made the very good call of withdrawing and avoiding defeat. In 1941 the Russians on the front got encircled and destroyed but the reserves were sufficient to replace losses. In 1812 it was actually feasible for Napoleon to inflict a decisive defeat on the Russians near the front and make Tsar Alexander accede to his wishes, whereas in 1941 the Germans didn't have a living chance of forcing Stalin to surrender, because the end in itself was the destruction of the Soviet State in Europe, which could never be accepted even with all the defeats near the front. See the difference? Napoleon had an objective which could be feasibly fulfilled and wasn't asking for the Russian State to be destroyed. Hitler had an objective that could not be feasibly fulfilled and made capitulation an impossibility.
 

McPherson

Banned
It didn't work for very different reasons. In 1812 the Russians made the very good call of withdrawing and avoiding defeat. In 1941 the Russians on the front got encircled and destroyed but the reserves were sufficient to replace losses. In 1812 it was actually feasible for Napoleon to inflict a decisive defeat on the Russians near the front and make Tsar Alexander accede to his wishes, whereas in 1941 the Germans didn't have a chance of forcing Stalin to surrender, because the end in itself was the destruction of the Soviet State in Europe, which could never be accepted even with all the defeats near the front.
The differences about the world's greatest military genius *(Stalin) and the world's second greatest military genius *(The Berlin Maniac aka Hitler) are telling but the geography, terrain, weather and the Russian people's courage and stoicism were identical. The stupid decision to plunge into the steppe without the proper logistics preparations or a clearly defined and achievable set of objectives within the limited time, resources and political will available was convergent between the war criminal Napoleon and the even worse war criminal Hitler.

The trivia about Kutuzov playing Cincinnatus against Napoleon's Hannibal and the STAAVKA playing scorched earth and trading trapped armies and space for time to make their Red Army stand before Moscow when they overextended the criminal Nazi aggressors logistics and the Red Army would have a superiority in supply and operational reserve for the conditions prevailing may fascinate some in the technical tactical differences, but Kutuzov or Zhukov, BOTH understood BATTLE SPACE management and logistics constraints applicable. Both understood WEATHER EFFECTS.

Cold kills men and horses. Lack of food and shelter, ditto. So if it is Pierre in 1812 or Hans and Gunther in 1941, -40 Centigrade is going to be a wee bit of a problem. As for Mister Ed? In either case, if he has not been eaten, he will be stiff in the snow because horses, believe it or not DIE faster than men to exposure. And even in 1941, 2/3 of the Herr's tactical logistics was HORSE drawn.

How is your fodder situation von Bock? NTG? Now don't you wish you had put a bullet into the world's second greatest military genius back in August when this cockamamie Moscow operation was cooked up?
 

Garrison

Donor
I did say it was a stupid idea to bomb France to the same extent as Germany and I never said it was a good idea or a realistic one. I chose that answer to be as least ASB as possible. While Germany and Italy are stripped of French resources, Axis manpower is doubled with the French army more motorized than the Heer. If Vichy France joins Axis, French industry buildup will continue continue to feed the French war effort.

As for oil : https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=59630
Lets just count the multiple implausibility's here:

1-France as dependent on oil imports as much as Germany and none of the French or Italian possessions in the Middle East produced oil at this time. So any fuel allocated to mobilize French forces comes straight from the Wehrmacht.

2-French industry was also heavily dependent on imported raw materials and its agriculture on imported fertilizers and animal feed. The stockpiles of raw materials seized by the Germans were taken because Germany was running desperately short of them, copper being a case in point. Overall industrial production was also affected by food shortages that had the biggest effect in industries that depended on heavy manual labour. like coal mining. Coal production declined, which meant steel production declined, which meant production of everything else declined. Again the only way Germany can offset this is by depriving its own industries of raw materials.

3-The notion that the Germans would build up the strength of the French army to be equal to the Heer, and do so at the expense of their own build up, is beyond absurd and then the idea that they would fight with the enemy that is occupying their country beggars belief.

4-Your overall plan here renders the entire Battle of France worthless for the Germans, not only gaining no resources but having to share their own stocks with the French, rebuilding the French military and then hoping that it doesn't turn on them. This is really reaching the point where only ASB intervention could make this happen.
 
The differences about the world's greatest military genius *(Stalin) and the world's second greatest military genius *(The Berlin Maniac aka Hitler) are telling but the geography, terrain, weather and the Russian people's courage and stoicism were identical. The stupid decision to plunge into the steppe without the proper logistics preparations or a clearly defined and achievable set of objectives within the limited time, resources and political will available was convergent between the war criminal Napoleon and the even worse war criminal Hitler.
It doesn't seem you at all understand the Russian Campaign of 1812. Napoleon's objective was NOT to take Moscow until the Russian army escaped decisively at Borodino. He wanted to defeat the Russian field armies and make a favorable deal. He just got carried away with the sunk cost fallacy and tried and tried and tried to catch the Russian army further and further inland. The German objective was from the very start to go all the way. Say what you will about Napoleon, but his initial plan was somewhat feasible, where the German one was not.
 
Last edited:

Garrison

Donor
Even then, the Royal Navy already struggled in the Mediterranean OTL against the Italians, this time with the French fleet it would be an absolute nightmare for the British
Again you can't just make such bald assertions and expect them to be treated seriously. The French fleet was laid up as of 1940 or sunk. The RN had the Italian Fleet largely contained after Taranto. I'm sure you are going to dredge up a couple of occasions when the Italians got the upper hand over the RN, which does not equate to them ever being in serious danger of defeat. Also again you are conjuring fuel out of thin air to allow both these fleets to operate when historically the Italians had grave difficulty maintaining operational stocks, without having to share with the French.
 

McPherson

Banned
I understand what Napoleon said he wanted. What MATTERED was what the Russians DID.

From WIKI since I do not have my books with me.

For Hitler, the Soviet capital was secondary, and he believed the only way to bring the Soviet Union to its knees was to defeat it economically. He felt this could be accomplished by seizing the economic resources of Ukraine east of Kiev.[20] When Walther von Brauchitsch, Commander-in-Chief of the Army, supported a direct thrust to Moscow, he was told that "only ossified brains could think of such an idea".[20] Franz Halder, head of the Army General Staff, was also convinced that a drive to seize Moscow would be victorious after the German Army inflicted enough damage on the Soviet forces.[21] This view was shared by most within the German high command.[20] But Hitler overruled his generals in favor of pocketing the Soviet forces around Kiev in the south, followed by the seizure of Ukraine. The move was successful, resulting in the loss of nearly 700,000 Red Army personnel killed, captured, or wounded by 26 September, and further advances by Axis forces.[22]
What MATTERED was what the Russians DID.

QED.
 

nbcman

Donor
Even then, the Royal Navy already struggled in the Mediterranean OTL against the Italians, this time with the French fleet it would be an absolute nightmare for the British
How exactly did the RN struggle against the RM? The RN struggled against Axis airpower which wasn't a threat until early 1941 but not against Axis ships. In 1940, the best result the RM got was inconclusive battles (Calabria, Cape Spartivento) versus getting smashed up in port (Taranto).

You should research what the MN had operational after Mers-el-Kebir before thinking that the MN could do more than contest the Western Med against Force H.
 
Just Spitballing Ideas Here.... Please note that some of these contradict one another.

1) How to make otl Axis allies more reliable:

A. Italy - Possibly get Italy to discover Libyan oil in the 30s. Large oil reserves means a more aggressive Italian navy and Afrika Korps. Depending on development, oil could be exported to Germany as well. Improve quality of Italian officers and commanders. Focus on quality over quantity for armored development, tankettes are not in Italy's best interest, even if they can only build real tanks in small amounts.

B. Japan - More communication with Germany. More trading technology via submarine. Don't attack the United States. Have Germany teach you how to produce synthetic oil from coal, then mine the hell out of Manchuria coal reserves. Have the Japanese reevaluate their armored doctrine, and persuade them to go North and cut off the Siberian Lend Lease route.

C. Finland - Radicalize Mannerheim or persuade him to go all in during the Continuation War instead of playing defensive after retaking pre 1940 territory. Give the Finn's some subs and have them focus on taking Murmansk instead of moving towards Leningrad so that the White Sea Lend Lease route gets cut off. Also, potentially deploy Finnish ski troops to other parts of the Russian front during winter.

D. Vichy France - Try to collaborate more with Vichy France. Operation Torch shows that there were French willing to fight the Allies. Have them deploy more troops to Syria to tie down the British. Or you could go the other route and argue a fully occupied France is better for Germany than a collaborationist Government. Try to secretly capture the French Mediterranean Fleet and have more French citizens for forced labor.

E. Balkan States - First, keep them away from each other. Romanians should not be deployed alongside Hungarians. Second, give them as much armored vehicles as you can as early as you can. All available French tanks should be given to them, as well as anything captured from the Brits and Soviets. Also, idk if it's a conspiracy theory or not, but I read somewhere that the Germans assassinated the Bulgarian Tsar. Don't do that. Bulgaria outside of Hungary is probably your best ally in the Balkans in terms of quality.

2) Potential atl reliable Axis allies:

A. Soviet Union - Hitler dies post French invasion. Molotov-Ribbentrop lasts longer. British and French actually go along with the plan they had for attacking the Soviets during the Winter War.

B. Nationalist China - Probably needs a early pod, but have Chiang be slightly more fascist, and have Germany continue to show preference for China. Chiang wipes out Communists during the Long March and contains Japan in Manchuria. Soviet- Japanese border conflict goes hot, and the Nationalists have the chance to look South and go after Hong Kong and French Indochina.

C. Brazil - Requires a lot of Pods. Have Brazil be super facist because of Great Depression. You probably can't get them to join Germany, but they may be willing to tell the US to F off and continue trading rare metals/other resources to Germany via blockade running subs.

D. Spain - Only way this happens is if the Soviets fall in 42, Germany can make up for loss of US imports, and Hitler gives up on wanting to kill Spanish Jews. Also, you either need to offer Franco Vichy French colonies, or have a more heavily pro Axis Vichy France so Franco knows he has a more reliable ally in North Africa.

E. Turkey - Have the Greeks win the Greco Turkish War in the 1920s and have Kemal die while also being replaced by a more radical facist who wants to take back land lost to the Greeks, Soviets, and British. This means less British troops deployed in Crete, and more British troops tied down in Iraq. Also, the Russian front goes slightly better for the Germans since the Turks can advance on the Caucuses.

F. Tibet - Long shot, but during the interwar years, Tibet was de facto independent. Let's say that Chiang and the Nationalists are a bit more aggressive, while Japan and Germany open up relations with Tibet, with Japan even officially recognizing the Dali Lhama as the leader of independent Tibet. Tibetan troops can raid Chinese bases from the west and attack India from the North. If they get their hands on some AA, they can cut off the Hump.
 
Last edited:
Lets just count the multiple implausibility's here:

1-France as dependent on oil imports as much as Germany and none of the French or Italian possessions in the Middle East produced oil at this time. So any fuel allocated to mobilize French forces comes straight from the Wehrmacht.

2-French industry was also heavily dependent on imported raw materials and its agriculture on imported fertilizers and animal feed. The stockpiles of raw materials seized by the Germans were taken because Germany was running desperately short of them, copper being a case in point. Overall industrial production was also affected by food shortages that had the biggest effect in industries that depended on heavy manual labour. like coal mining. Coal production declined, which meant steel production declined, which meant production of everything else declined. Again the only way Germany can offset this is by depriving its own industries of raw materials.

3-The notion that the Germans would build up the strength of the French army to be equal to the Heer, and do so at the expense of their own build up, is beyond absurd and then the idea that they would fight with the enemy that is occupying their country beggars belief.

4-Your overall plan here renders the entire Battle of France worthless for the Germans, not only gaining no resources but having to share their own stocks with the French, rebuilding the French military and then hoping that it doesn't turn on them. This is really reaching the point where only ASB intervention could make this happen.
Which is why it’s a stupid idea to begin with
 
How exactly did the RN struggle against the RM? The RN struggled against Axis airpower which wasn't a threat until early 1941 but not against Axis ships. In 1940, the best result the RM got was inconclusive battles (Calabria, Cape Spartivento) versus getting smashed up in port (Taranto).

You should research what the MN had operational after Mers-el-Kebir before thinking that the MN could do more than contest the Western Med against Force H.

The end of 1941 saw the nadir of British naval fortunes in the Mediterranean. The Mediterranean Fleet lost the services of HMS Illustrious to bomb damage, HMS Barham was sunk off Crete by U-331, and its two remaining battleships were put out of action by an Italian raid on Alexandria. Force H in its turn suffered as well: Ark Royal was sunk byU-81 in November 1941. It was only the lack of action by the Italians that prevented a complete disaster for British fortunes. The most urgent task during the first part of the year was supplying Malta. The island had been under heavy attack for many months and supply convoys had to be escorted by many ships and aircraft to stand any chance of getting through. Malta was kept from starving but it was very close. Operation Pedestal, the most escorted convoy in the Second World War, took place in August and delivered enough supplies to keep Malta going.
 

Deleted member 94680

Yes because Hitler hoped for a negotiated peace. However if Vichy France joins Axis, Sealion is a hell lot more realistic as the Kriegsmarine, Regia Marina, and Marine Nationale wound work together in conjunction with their navies. French, German, and Italian naval industry would have to pump out naval land equipment real fast though. And even if they don’t conduct Sealion, I can still see Axis win.
Is this sarcasm or USM bait?
 
Even then, the Royal Navy already struggled in the Mediterranean OTL against the Italians, this time with the French fleet it would be an absolute nightmare for the British
Most of the battles between the RN and Regia Marina ended up as either British victory or inconclusive, mostly because 1) The Regia Marina remained in harbor due to a lack of fuel and 2) Italy had no aircraft carriers and overall lacked in air power.
Adding to the equation the Marine National (whatever escapes british preemptive strikes and scuttling) is just going to complicate things as the Axis need even more fuel which they can't spare.
Also IIRC France only had one light carrier anchored in the caribbeans which was seized by the US.

Possibly get Italy to discover Libyan oil in the 30s. Large oil reserves means a more aggressive Italian navy and Afrika Korps. Depending on development, oil could be exported to Germany as well. Improve quality of Italian officers and commanders. Focus on quality over quantity for armored development, tankettes are not in Italy's best interest, even if they can only build real tanks in small amounts.
Lybia is really big, I don't think it's something you can "have them discover" at the time except by sheer luck.

And even then, is it even possible to build all the infrastructure required in just a few years? Especially when the Lybian interior (where most of the oil is located I think) wasn't properly conquered until 1932 and it still took another couple years of brutal reprisals/ethnic cleansing to stop the local insurgencies.
Italy had no oil of its own, so it would need to build everything from scratch with its lacking industrial base.
And since Mussolini's autarchia is a thing, foreign companies wouldn't be allowed to work there.
 
Last edited:

Garrison

Donor
Which is why it’s a stupid idea to begin with
And yet you keep defending it as if it were someway plausible. Understand 'stupid' and implausible' are not the same thing. An idea that is merely stupid might be plausible, likewise many a good idea may be implausible because of the constraints of resources, timing, etc.
 
Top