There will be butterflies though, some quite large, some for the better, some for the worse.
Axis Best Case - WW2
- Thread starter Fulton 44
- Start date
Raulpankine
Banned
Wow. After this wrong claim, I can tell that no argument - however good it is - will convince you otherwise.
Raulpankine
Banned
Again:
The Great Man Theory has its flaws, but it is not entirely wrong. Yes states have interests, but it is the interpretation of these interests by the "Great Man" that ultimately lead to action and policies. And the severity of these actions and policies depend to a very high degree on how energetic a leader pursues them.
During the 7 - Year War Russia sided against Prussia because supposedly Prussia was a threat. Yet the moment Elizabeth died (she strongly disliked Fredrick), her nephew Peter made peace with Prussia (he strongly liked Fredrick).
Different leaders come to different conclusions - who would have thought?
Garrison
Donor
And again we are not talking about 16th century monarchs, we are discussing the leaders of democratic nations who can only act with the support of other elected politicians. Halifax wasn't rejected as PM because of some mythos about not speaking up but because he could not command the support of parliament. Whoever gets the job in 1940 is going to face the same constraints, even if they decide to explore peace terms the likelihood is that whatever terms Hitler offers are almost inevitably going to be unacceptable and of course Hitler has proven himself utterly untrustworthy. As I said earlier its possible that once a peace deal is off the table Churchill's replacement might be less inspirational but also less prone to interfering in military matter.
Roosevelt didn't support the British because he was some naïve Anglophile, he did so because he recognized the USA's strategic interest in not having Nazi Germany controlling Europe, and the nightmare prospect of Britain and its Empire becoming puppets of the Nazi regime. There's also the not so small consideration that the US could use its support of the British to break up that empire and open it to US trade and influence. Whoever is in charge is going to have to deal with that reality, whether they are 'isolationist' or not.
All you have proposed is that whoever takes their places will conform to your vision of how things would work out, that's great if you are writing a novel, not so good here in the Post-1900 forum where plausibility matters.
Well firstly you haven't made any arguments, and secondly are you seriously suggesting that Stalin's refusal to act before Barbarossa and his idiotic orders after it began helped the USSR? Had the military been able to withdraw as they wanted to instead of being forced to stand their ground as Stalin ordered untold lives would have been saved and the USSR would have been in a much stronger position to fight the war. Your obsession with the 'Great Man' thesis is blinding you to the fact that some of those 'Great Men' were a distinct drawback for the nations they ruled over.
Last edited:
BlackDragon98
Banned
Churchill was the most vocal about no surrender.
FDR was determined to help UK.
Other men might not be the same.
Garner? Dewey?
Eden? Halifax?
Garrison
Donor
Garner and Dewey are unknowns to some degree. Garner was no fan of the New Deal and if we are talking about Zangara killing Roosevelt in 1933 the chance of him winning in 1936 on his own ticket are slim to say the least. Dewey, again its uncertain how he would act as President, rather than the rhetoric expected of a candidate, when faced with the same circumstances as Roosevelt.
Eden is a good bet as an alternative to Churchill precisely because he is hawk and might be able to get the support needed to form a government of national unity, Halifax can't which is why he was never in the running. Whoever is in Number 10 faces the same issues, Hitler's terms are unlikely to be acceptable and even if they were acceptable on paper persuading parliament to ratify them given Hitler's track record is a big ask.
I'm not saying that getting Britain to come to terms in 1940 is impossible, its just I can't see you can bridge the abyss between the two sides when it comes to acceptable terms. Maybe if Hitler drops dead after France falls and some new regime offers to give up everything in the West bar Alsace-Lorraine maybe an agreement could be reached, but that still stretches the boundaries of plausibility.
BlackDragon98
Banned
Only way for UK to come to terms is a combo of the following in this order:
-Dunkirk falls, BEF killed or captured. BEF imprisoned in POW camps in Ruhr and Rhineland regions. That info is given to the Red Cross. If RAF wants to bomb Ruhr or Rhineland, then they will knowingly kill their own people.
-Malta falls to a well planned attack after mass raid by DF MAS frogmen blowing up shore guns using lined shaped charges (German used them Eben Emael), gliders launched over airfields. Germans provide the gliders, DFS 230s. Brandenburgers who speak English are disguised as UK troops (plenty of uniforms and stuff after Dunkirk) and sabotage AA guns before OP.
Gliders are easier than para because only 2 people need to know how to steer the glider. Rest just sit and wait. Heavier weapons can also be carried. Hvy weapons weapons are carried by glider instead of airdropped. Paras dropped after airfields neutralized by glider infantry. Tanks are shipped using local Italian ferries after shore batteries down and airfields secured.
Captured UK merchants used to house Italian marines. Sail them into harbor and disembark after attack begins.
-Urge Mussolini not to attack Greece, instead put all troops on Egyptian border and in defensive until Panzergruppe Afrika arrives. Tell him that Mideast oil is accessible if Egypt invaded
-After Malta falls use it as transit point and airbase
-Appoint Manstein to command Panzergruppe Afrika. Rommel is a prick and not popular with the Italians (at least their high command)
-Drive across Egypt full speed. Coordinate with Egyptian resistance. Try to have strikes happen at Canal and have strikes block streets. A riot would be best. Egyptian army will await signal and then betray the UK once Pzarmee Afrika reaches Alexandria.
-RN now trapped in Eastern Med. Eliminate them ASAP using air attack to damage first, then have Italian Navy move in. Don't send U-boats into Med. It's a waste.
-Drive across Palestine with help from local rebels. (Grand Mufti)
-Iraqi coup begins and Axis drive across Syria to assist.
-Iran occupied. Iranian resistance begins.
-Captured ships used to ship oil thru Bosporus to Romania and then transshipped to Axis forces before OP Barbarossa.
-Advance across Iran after OP Barbarossa. Try and get Turkey to join. Drive to Baku ASAP.
The best course to prolong the existence of the Axis powers is to not invade the USSR until the British are finally and properly dealt with: Hitler's abrupt turn into Russia left a wounded but still fighting Lion at his back, and that would ultimately spell his downfall as, besides the British War effort as a whole and their early coordination with the USSR, the British were vital in supplying Allied agents on the Continent, serving as a launchpad for D-Day, and providing the crucial bomber bases that pounded the German production efforts into dust.
Assuming Dunkirk goes on as in reality (French defense of the Beachhead was one of the reasons the Germans failed to push through even after the halt order was lifted, so SOME men would still get away) the drastically weakened British military holes up and prepares for the "inevitable' invasion. Of course, Operation Sealion would never have succeeded, as the Germans simply lacked the maritime capacity for a seaborne invasion. The Battle of Britain instead goes ahead, but as the RAF wasn't so torn apart as the Army, they would likely still fend off the Germans unless the Luftwaffe made a more concentrated effort to disable the Chain Home Radar array, and even then, the shortcomings in Luftwaffe aircraft design(the BF-109's oft-cited short range, for example, and the limited bomb loads of the Heinkel and Dornier bombers) would still put the ball in the UK's court. So the Battle of Britain would likewise play out as in reality.
However, the Germans were still by and large "beating" the British for the first two years of the war, denying them any significant land victories and repeatedly driving them from the Continent (France, Norway, Greece.)
Refocusing their production on Aircraft and U-boats while offering the Italian fleet modern upgrades such as radar to close the Naval gap in the Mediterranean could have helped with the commerce war, as would ensuring the Kriegsmarine Surface fleet at the very least had a coordinated battle group instead of sending their capitol ships out in ones and twos. The Graf Zeppelin Carrier, while its prospective role is greatly overhyped, could have served as an excellent support vessel in the "Mid-Atlantic Gap" where Allied Air power was restricted in the early part of the war. Coordinated with the Bismarck, Tirpitz, and the Upgunned Scharnhorst and Gniesenau (fitted with 15-inchers, as was originally planned) could have struck the balance against British battleships, especially with aircraft from the GZ to hunt British vessels and protect against Torpedo planes
Of course, the Royal Navy would have eventually hunted down and destroyed the German fleet, but doing more damage earlier in the war could have tipped the Balance in Germany's favor, especially if they scared merchant crews into refusing to sail or forced the British to spend more resources protecting Convoys or hunting the KM, weakening their forces in the Med and Pacific.
Closer coordination with the Italians and Japanese and a concentrated effort in North Africa (sending more than, you know, three Panzer divisions) could have taken Cairo and the Suez Canal, cutting the British off from their Pacific holdings which the Japanese would then attack, forcing the Commonwealth to either withdraw their troops to defend their own shores (as Australia's PM threatened to do at one point, though his seriousness can be taken with a grain of salt) and likely leading to anti-colonial uprisings in India.
(Indeed, a particular German failure was their lack of effort to exploit the anti-colonial/anti-Soviet attitudes in the regions they occupied or wanted to deny to the Allies: the Middle East held a good deal of Pro-German sentiment, such as Reza Shah in Iran, and the Ukrainians and Baltic peoples welcomed the Germans as liberators from Stalinist oppression. )
With the British Empire torn to pieces and bleeding from every limb, the Parliament would likely oust Churchill and replace him with someone more willing to negotiate. Not Halifax, as he never wanted to be PM, and certainly not Oswald Mosely, as some people have suggested, but someone.
Assuming Dunkirk goes on as in reality (French defense of the Beachhead was one of the reasons the Germans failed to push through even after the halt order was lifted, so SOME men would still get away) the drastically weakened British military holes up and prepares for the "inevitable' invasion. Of course, Operation Sealion would never have succeeded, as the Germans simply lacked the maritime capacity for a seaborne invasion. The Battle of Britain instead goes ahead, but as the RAF wasn't so torn apart as the Army, they would likely still fend off the Germans unless the Luftwaffe made a more concentrated effort to disable the Chain Home Radar array, and even then, the shortcomings in Luftwaffe aircraft design(the BF-109's oft-cited short range, for example, and the limited bomb loads of the Heinkel and Dornier bombers) would still put the ball in the UK's court. So the Battle of Britain would likewise play out as in reality.
However, the Germans were still by and large "beating" the British for the first two years of the war, denying them any significant land victories and repeatedly driving them from the Continent (France, Norway, Greece.)
Refocusing their production on Aircraft and U-boats while offering the Italian fleet modern upgrades such as radar to close the Naval gap in the Mediterranean could have helped with the commerce war, as would ensuring the Kriegsmarine Surface fleet at the very least had a coordinated battle group instead of sending their capitol ships out in ones and twos. The Graf Zeppelin Carrier, while its prospective role is greatly overhyped, could have served as an excellent support vessel in the "Mid-Atlantic Gap" where Allied Air power was restricted in the early part of the war. Coordinated with the Bismarck, Tirpitz, and the Upgunned Scharnhorst and Gniesenau (fitted with 15-inchers, as was originally planned) could have struck the balance against British battleships, especially with aircraft from the GZ to hunt British vessels and protect against Torpedo planes
Of course, the Royal Navy would have eventually hunted down and destroyed the German fleet, but doing more damage earlier in the war could have tipped the Balance in Germany's favor, especially if they scared merchant crews into refusing to sail or forced the British to spend more resources protecting Convoys or hunting the KM, weakening their forces in the Med and Pacific.
Closer coordination with the Italians and Japanese and a concentrated effort in North Africa (sending more than, you know, three Panzer divisions) could have taken Cairo and the Suez Canal, cutting the British off from their Pacific holdings which the Japanese would then attack, forcing the Commonwealth to either withdraw their troops to defend their own shores (as Australia's PM threatened to do at one point, though his seriousness can be taken with a grain of salt) and likely leading to anti-colonial uprisings in India.
(Indeed, a particular German failure was their lack of effort to exploit the anti-colonial/anti-Soviet attitudes in the regions they occupied or wanted to deny to the Allies: the Middle East held a good deal of Pro-German sentiment, such as Reza Shah in Iran, and the Ukrainians and Baltic peoples welcomed the Germans as liberators from Stalinist oppression. )
With the British Empire torn to pieces and bleeding from every limb, the Parliament would likely oust Churchill and replace him with someone more willing to negotiate. Not Halifax, as he never wanted to be PM, and certainly not Oswald Mosely, as some people have suggested, but someone.
marathag
Banned
Not to the same level that the Nazis and Soviets were at.
Most of the US 4F classification would have been in uniform in those two countries, as well as the younger and older, under 18 and over 38.
Using the Draft Pool levels of those two, the US could have Drafted 50 million, and that's just 18-45
Last edited:
marathag
Banned
But by Summer 1942, USA industrial side for production of Uranium was at a level that not even the Soviets would match until the late 1940s, years after the War was over
nbcman
Donor
OTL BEF raids killed POWs. Why would the BEF stop now?
How is Germany managing to coordinate so extensively with a neutral Italy for an attack in the Med when Germany had no idea that France was going to fall so fast. Requires magical forethought. Also, you should review the relative operational strength of the RN and the RM in the Med during the summer of 1940 IOTL before you make assumptions on what can be done for an invasion of Malta. Or is there magic involved on making Italian ships operational before the fall? And how is Italy or Germany capturing UK merchies? Barbary Coast Pirates?
Why would Mussolini listen to Germany in their own back yard? Italy wasn't a German puppet in 1940. Also Italy crammed a bunch of leg infantry into Cyrenacia and invaded Egypt in September 1940. They didn't get far due to logistic limitations. Feeding more Italian troops across the Med only makes the logistics worse.
Not really necessary in the unlikely event that Malta is taken in 1940 as aircraft can stage from Sicily to north Africa.
No idea how a full Army group is getting across the Med and being supplied in 1940 or 1941, but OK.
The logistics for the Axis in 1940 preclude a 'full speed' drive across Egypt.
In the unlikely event the Axis forces get close, the RN will shift out of the med as they began to do in 1942 when the Italians / Germans advanced to El Alamein.
-
And where is the time to repair the pipelines, oil fields, and refineries that the UK would blow up before handing them over. And where are these additional tankers coming from - the tanker fairy?
marathag
Banned
Not sure. He was for most New Deal programs, and may have done the '37 Recession better than FDR, even avoiding it completely.
Garrison
Donor
And here we have the issue with having the Axis do better, its never one POD, its a Jenga tower of them, some of them implausible some impossible and almost all depending on the Allies to do nothing by the way of reacting to changed circumstances or doing exactly what the Axis needs them to do. nbcman has gone into details of why this particular stack is flawed, but you can swap out one brick for another, you still end up with a wobbling tower doomed to collapse at the slightest nudge.
McPherson
Banned
Can I add?
-professional democratic politicians, even back then, usually climb up the ranks of their national election process and have prior government service in administration and management? They have a good feel for their electorates and a fundamental understanding of policy process and by the time they reach the apex of their nation's political structure KNOW how the civil services, their war machines, and their economies work?
-these same professional politicians when confronted by war, if they have any common sense and due intelligence, will set policy and let their professional militaries fight the op-art problems out.
-consequently when Churchill is removed from the equation, it will probably be Eden though I frankly think Clement Attlee (Labor) would have been a better harness mate for Alan Brooke. He was not likely to bolo Compass, play musical generals with 8th Army or fail to listen to Alan Brook or the Americans (King and Ingersoll) when options for the Mediterranean are discussed. (Better Husky, Baytown and Avalanche,) certainly no fiasco like Anzio became.
-Roosevelt did all of those things because he had learned seapower and naval geography in WWI as an assistant secretary of the American navy. He knew full well what that geography meant because as a civilian leader of the American navy it had been pounded into him by William S. Benson and Robert E. Coontz and William Sowden Sims that Mahan was the prophet and "The Influence of Seapower Upon History" was the bible. You cannot understand FDR in WWII without knowing that fundamental. Being competent, FDR did things mostly the right way as in listening to good advice, setting policy and letting his military professionals run the op-art.
-and as has been repeated about a dozen times (including this one.) it is a function of systemic logic, that democracies adapt quickly with leadership being an earned right from the electorate who replace incompetents with rapidity; while tyrannies, because the idiot in charge, is usually in and remains in power due to terrorism and political balkanization, will operate with extreme rigidity and factional designed incompetence to prevent the rise of a rival to "dear leader" who usually has corrupted the polity into a cult with him as their "god". Murphy, even the Soviet Union exhibited those failings until Stalin at least let the STAAVKA do its job, it having finally dawned on him that his generals actually were better battle managers than he was, and they were the ones between him and a rope.
-yeah. (^^^) what you said.
Last edited:
Again they were effectively dictators Delano and Winston were not
Those Gentlemen could only lead where the nation was willing to go.
Garrison
Donor
This is an excellent point and I think it actually explains part of why the democracies handled the European dictators so badly during the 1930's. They were used to dealing with professional politicians who had to have some grasp of the mechanics of how politics and economics worked. For all the bombast from Mussolini and Hitler there was still the assumption that they understood something of the basics or could be controlled by people who did in their countries. They simply could not comprehend that they were dealing with people who genuinely believed they were somehow exempt from the normal way of doing business and had world views based on ludicrous fantasies of a new Roman empire and Aryan supermen. The people so eager for peace in Britain in 1940 weren't cowards or defeatists, they were simply people who thought there might be some way to save the old world that was doomed to destruction regardless of who won.
McPherson
Banned
It is unfortunately a WWII post war political lesson learned that NEEDS to be constantly relearned especially when people fantasize about the Axis or the Cold War equivalents.
That's a bit misleading. While its fair to say Garner was opposed to the Second New Deal, he supported or at least was fine with most of Rosevelt's first term legislation. The only thing of note he objected to was the NRA, which wasn't above scrutiny.
I disagree. The Republican party was still tainted by the legacy of the Hoover Administration and Garner will easily be reelected after passing most of the legislation that Roosevelt did OTL. Especially if he faces someone like Alf Landon, who was one of the worst campaigners in modern US history.
Garrison
Donor
Fair enough.
To be clear I don't think the Republicans would win in 1936, I'm just not sure that Garner could get the nomination at the top of the ticket for the Democratic Party.
Last edited:
These are... is 3 PoDs, all of which require god to appear and smite these people off the face of the Earth...
No Churchill doesn't really mean much unless the there's further Axis successes (i.e. capturing most of the BEF at Dunkirk or greater advances in North Africa).
No Roosevelt doesn't do anything that significant unless you make it somehow further lead into a hard-line isolationist becoming President.
No Stalin doesn't mean the Soviet war effort falls apart if his central committee calls a "ceasefire" on their internal power struggle and collectively works together to defeat the Nazis. Not exactly outlandish.