Axis joined-up thinking?

[Dorknought]

So what could Axis joint thinking and working look like? ie. Grand Strategy, Naval Cooperation, Military Cooperation, Aeronautical Cooperation, Industrial Cooperation, ventilation ducting too small to crawl through, etc?

Having recognised that they had shared issues with Poland and were were international pariahs, Germany and Russia inked the 1922 Rapallo Treaty. Among other things, this enabled German-Soviet covert military cooperation with a flying school, chemical weapons plant and tank factories to be established in Russia.

What if these types of secret arrangements could be concluded with other aggrieved nations in the post war world? Italy had been duded at the 1919 Peace table on territorial aspirations and Japan assigned to a 2nd rank status at the 1921 Washington Treaty.

Secret Axis conference room or FIFA HQ?

What could be the goals of a 'League of pariah nations'?

• Germany - space to the east
• Japan - expelling European colonialism from Asia
• Italy - new Med and North African empire
• None of these overlap or compete.

As an example: Naval Cooperation

• Japan takes the lead.
• Each navy has its own airforce.
• Standardised equipment
• Develop counters for lack of strategic bases
• Develop counters for Naval treaty compliance
  • Shadow programs
• Development of amphibious forces (no 'Gallipoli shadow' with these countries)
• Collaboration between naval aircraft builders
• Collaboration on marine propulsion
• Italy as a leader in special forces
• Japan as a leader in naval aviation
• Japanese and Italian torpedoes
• Germany as a leader in submarines and diesels
• Japan-Italy cruiser exchange program from East African bases.

Grand Strategy? Only one opponent at a time? - which first - GB-US or Soviets?
Useful political relationships, ie Coalition building?
Netherlands - oil access for Japan and covert submarine design and development
Turkey - strategic location against Soviets. Ataturk was the master, Hitler and Mussolini were students
Spain - strategic location against GB. Need help in subduing the Rif
Siam - strategic location against GB
Mexico - strategic location against US

How could greater cooperation be achieved if working towards an agreed goal, say defeating or neutralising the British Empire?

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

So what could Axis joint thinking and working look like? ie. Grand Strategy, Naval Cooperation, Military Cooperation, Aeronautical Cooperation, Industrial Cooperation, ventilation ducting too small to crawl through, etc?

Having recognised that they had shared issues with Poland and were were international pariahs, Germany and Russia inked the 1922 Rapallo Treaty. Among other things, this enabled German-Soviet covert military cooperation with a flying school, chemical weapons plant and tank factories to be established in Russia.

What if these types of secret arrangements could be concluded with other aggrieved nations in the post war world? Italy had been duded at the 1919 Peace table on territorial aspirations and Japan assigned to a 2nd rank status at the 1921 Washington Treaty.

Secret Axis conference room or FIFA HQ?

What could be the goals of a 'League of pariah nations'?

• Germany - space to the east
• Japan - expelling European colonialism from Asia
• Italy - new Med and North African empire
• None of these overlap or compete.

As an example: Naval Cooperation

• Japan takes the lead.
• Each navy has its own airforce.
• Standardised equipment
• Develop counters for lack of strategic bases
• Develop counters for Naval treaty compliance
  • Shadow programs
• Development of amphibious forces (no 'Gallipoli shadow' with these countries)
• Collaboration between naval aircraft builders
• Collaboration on marine propulsion
• Italy as a leader in special forces
• Japan as a leader in naval aviation
• Japanese and Italian torpedoes
• Germany as a leader in submarines and diesels
• Japan-Italy cruiser exchange program from East African bases.

Grand Strategy? Only one opponent at a time? - which first - GB-US or Soviets?
Useful political relationships, ie Coalition building?
Netherlands - oil access for Japan and covert submarine design and development
Turkey - strategic location against Soviets. Ataturk was the master, Hitler and Mussolini were students
Spain - strategic location against GB. Need help in subduing the Rif
Siam - strategic location against GB
Mexico - strategic location against US

How could greater cooperation be achieved if working towards an agreed goal, say defeating or neutralising the British Empire?

They will never be aligned on who to attack first, Japan wants to fight China and maybe the US, Germany the Soviets and GB and Italy wants to join when they are on the winning side.

 

[Popcorn]

There would be much closer cooperation between the British, French, and US, possibly up to a quasi-NATO alliance. Some diplomatic legwork might even bring in the Low Countries.

 

[The Tai-Pan]

There are several big problems with closer Axis cooperation.

The biggest one is sheer geography. Germany and Japan are on opposite sides of the globe, and direct communication is impossible. No cable can reach between the two that can't be cut, no radio transmission is possible over that distance and direct travel is difficult. Once the war starts, connection will be cut off.

Second, none of the Axis nations had defined strategic aims to work with. Hitler's vision of the war was basically a mystical crusade born on the winds of Destiny. He lurched from war to war as chance and his own gut-based hunches. Japan was, if possible, even more muddled due to a clear lack of strategic goals and planning, as well as confused chain of command.

 

[Dorknought]

They will never be aligned on who to attack first, Japan wants to fight China and maybe the US, Germany the Soviets and GB and Italy wants to join when they are on the winning side.

Perhaps.

It was China that wanted to fight Japan when they wanted Manchuria back in the late 20's. Japan thought it could count on US-GB support but this was an illusion. At this time Germany wanted Poland rather than attacking the Soviets. Hitler though he could work with GB until 1939 when he withdrew from AGNA and initiated the Z-Plan. I agree that Italy was opportunistic but they had already invaded Ethiopia without any support.

1. Italy gains nothing from attacking the Soviets first. All that she wants is at the expense of GB in Asia. The A-J Treaty was to keep Japan focused on northern China, not Southern.
2. Japan could gain from either a Soviet first or GB first strategy. Japan would have as much difficulty joining a pact including Russia as the US making an Alliance with France.
3. Germany gains nothing from fighting GB but GB (and France) are the only ones to ensure Germany doesn't have a free hand in Europe.

They would have to collectively focus on GB provoking incidents to draw off Empire strength. In 1939 GB rolled over to Japan over the Tientsin Incident as there was trouble brewing in Eastern Europe. They couldn't afford war with Japan at that time.

There would be much closer cooperation between the British, French, and US, possibly up to a quasi-NATO alliance. Some diplomatic legwork might even bring in the Low Countries.

Is this harder to achieve than Axis cooperation? This is what France wanted in the 20's from the US and GB who were steadfastly against an open ended European commitment. While the US may be alert, it's not alarmed until France falls as in OTL.

 

[Dorknought]

There are several big problems with closer Axis cooperation.

The biggest one is sheer geography. Germany and Japan are on opposite sides of the globe, and direct communication is impossible. No cable can reach between the two that can't be cut, no radio transmission is possible over that distance and direct travel is difficult. Once the war starts, connection will be cut off.

Second, none of the Axis nations had defined strategic aims to work with. Hitler's vision of the war was basically a mystical crusade born on the winds of Destiny. He lurched from war to war as chance and his own gut-based hunches. Japan was, if possible, even more muddled due to a clear lack of strategic goals and planning, as well as confused chain of command.

I agree that geography is their biggest issue. From this perspective then the most vital power to include is the Soviet Union but this would be anathema to Japan. With no Japan then no need for the Soviets. While the Soviets could be lured into a pact, what they wanted was the Balkans, not chunks of British Empire to the south.

Yes, Japan threw away it's guiding principle of 1 enemy at a time to everyone at once. I agree that there was no coordinated strategic aim - hence my original question, could they work to a common goal?

 

[Alex1guy]

To answer your question, no they couldn't work to a common goal. Neither was planning for a long drawn out war, it just kinda happened. The Allies meanwhile after a point knew that they were going to be in it for the long haul and planned accordingly.

In the case of Germany and Japan, you had a leadership that was kind of drinking its own cool aide. Both had an ideological complex that compelled them forward, and to be honest, really poor leadership that just kept rolling the dice and dealing with whatever numbers came up. Neither nations were expecting, nor wanted to be drawn into long drawn out conflicts.

Both Germany and Japan were aware of their limitations, but hoped speed, surprise and the perceived weaknesses of their enemies/surety of their own capabilities (imagined and otherwise) would work in their favor. In Germany's case, it was hope that the sharp campaign that brought France to her knees could be repeated with Britain and the Soviet Union. Japan likewise were hoping China would fall apart, and in the case of the US, that Americans could not stomach a long conflict. I'd wager in any situation where one managed to triumph in their sphere, they'd happily let the other get stomped. If Germany somehow knocked out the USSR, I'd wager there'd only be a token effort (if any) to really assist Japan against the US/British and vice versa.

While Japan and Germany had common enemies, they had no real common goals, they were Allies of convivence. Both were very opportunistic in their approach which didn't really allow for any real co-operation. They were always acting in their own self interest. Only circumstance really brought them together, while they signed agreements and pacts, they couldn't actually co-operate or co-ordinate due to limitations in geography, technology for communication and overarching aims.

TLDR: Both Germany and Japan were led by oppurtunistuc dick heads who were only in it for themselves.

EDITED

 

[YYJ]

You really need some geopolitical changes to make your OP Run. IOTL, Germany, Italy and Japan were manoeuvring against each other until the mid 1930s. Germany was arming Ethiopia against Italian aggression, Italy and Germany were arming and training China against Japanese aggression. Italy deployed troops to stop a German invasion of Austria in 1934.

The "Axis" did not congeal until late, and it was not at all inevitable that the major members of that alliance would take part.

I like this video for giving a quick primer on the forces at play, that caused this unlikely alliance to come about.

I know a lot of folks do not like this YouTube historian, but I find him great as long as you stay away from his libertarian economic theories.

 

[Sekhmet_D]

The best 'joint Axis strategy' scenario is a concerted attack on the Soviet Union from east and west simultaneously.

Another possibility is them working together to base a sizeable U-boat force in South-East Asia and the Central/South Pacific, from which raiding operations against both India and the US West Coast can be mounted - long-range Japanese maritime patrol aircraft are used to vector U-boat wolfpacks against Allied shipping.

 

[Sekhmet_D]

IOTL, Germany, Italy and Japan were manoeuvring against each other until the mid 1930s.

There is evidence that Japan did not completely trust Germany even after the Tripartite Pact was signed. Cases in point - German personnel were forbidden from boarding Japanese submarines that came to deliver cargo to German-occupied ports, and the IJN concealed battleship Yamato's true capabilities even from Paul Wenneker. I am almost certain that in the event of an Axis victory, Germany and Japan would have wound up fighting each other.

 

[Pax_Nihil]

There is evidence that Japan did not completely trust Germany even after the Tripartite Pact was signed. Cases in point - German personnel were forbidden from boarding Japanese submarines that came to deliver cargo to German-occupied ports, and the IJN concealed battleship Yamato's true capabilities even from Paul Wenneker. I am almost certain that in the event of an Axis victory, Germany and Japan would have wound up fighting each other.

Japan and Germany both assumed that they were the destined rulers of the entire planet and human species, so of course they were paranoid of one another gaining some edge over the other, Japan probably moreso because of their imposed national 'inferiority' complex (other countries didn't have to maturity to recognize facts as they were without letting cultural ignorance cloud their judgements). Plus maybe the Japanese were aware that Enigma was hacked (idk if they'd have a chance to make this determination since idk what their intelligence network was like internationally during WW2 (or if they even had one after Pearl Harbor....)

 

[Dorknought]

The best 'joint Axis strategy' scenario is a concerted attack on the Soviet Union from east and west simultaneously.

Another possibility is them working together to base a sizeable U-boat force in South-East Asia and the Central/South Pacific, from which raiding operations against both India and the US West Coast can be mounted - long-range Japanese maritime patrol aircraft are used to vector U-boat wolfpacks against Allied shipping.

An alternative could be continued pressure on the British Empire without an attack on the Soviet Union. Japan was not going to focus on the Indian Ocean until, the Italo-German forces had taken the Suez Canal. The Germans had expected the Japanese to attack into the Indian Ocean in conjunction with the push by the Afrika Corps. What if the Japanese based subs and patrol aircraft from East Africa just as the Italians based subs in Bordeaux?

 

[Sekhmet_D]

Plus maybe the Japanese were aware that Enigma was hacked (idk if they'd have a chance to make this determination since idk what their intelligence network was like internationally during WW2 (or if they even had one after Pearl Harbor....)

Nah they weren't. As late as April 1944, the Japanese were still importing Enigma machines from Germany.

 

[Sekhmet_D]

An alternative could be continued pressure on the British Empire without an attack on the Soviet Union. Japan was not going to focus on the Indian Ocean until, the Italo-German forces had taken the Suez Canal. The Germans had expected the Japanese to attack into the Indian Ocean in conjunction with the push by the Afrika Corps. What if the Japanese based subs and patrol aircraft from East Africa just as the Italians based subs in Bordeaux?

Pressure on the British Empire is also feasible, but not focusing on the Indian Ocean until Suez falls is unrealistic. If the Japanese opt to leave America well alone, they can focus on helping Germany crush the British by invading India in early 1943. Indian ports can then be used to mount and/or support any naval operations that range farther westward.

 

[conormonroe]

There were points where an Alliance between the US, British and Germany was more likely than Germany allying with either the Soviets or the Japanese let alone both

I wonder if such an alliance could beat the other two

 

[Dorknought]

Pressure on the British Empire is also feasible, but not focusing on the Indian Ocean until Suez falls is unrealistic. If the Japanese opt to leave America well alone, they can focus on helping Germany crush the British by invading India in early 1943. Indian ports can then be used to mount and/or support any naval operations that range farther westward.

An interesting article on Italian efforts at naval coordination with Japan beginning in 1937. Shearing GB of it's Empire would leave it a 3rd rate power but this would probably provoke the US into military action.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

It was China that wanted to fight Japan when they wanted Manchuria back in the late 20's. Japan thought it could count on US-GB support but this was an illusion. At this time Germany wanted Poland rather than attacking the Soviets. Hitler though he could work with GB until 1939 when he withdrew from AGNA and initiated the Z-Plan. I agree that Italy was opportunistic but they had already invaded Ethiopia without any support.

Japan didn't invade Manchuria in the 1920s, it supported the Fengtian Clique which was based in Manchuria, the original idea of the Japanese was to have a few client states in China and dominate thanks to that; however there is the slight problem that China unified under the Kuomintang so you cannot support one warlord against the other, that is why they invaded Manchuria in 1931 because they didn't want to lose the investments in the area and since the client states option wasn't an option anymore they decided to invade all of China in 1937. US-GB support wasn't great but it already was more than the Japanese could hope for with certain events happening *cough*Nanking*cough*.
Hitler always had the goal of overturning Versailles and the Lebensraum was probably somewhere in his head, he just wanted to be able to form greater Germany and then attack the Soviets, an alliance with the Japanese would help him only in the second part of his plan so allying right now wouldn't benefit him.
Italy had invaded Ethiopia but that was because relations worsened with the Allies once they started to do Appeasement. Mussolini wouldn't have declared war on France if it wasn't for the fact that the war seemed over, he knew that he wasn't ready for war but he thought (just as Hitler) that GB would surrender once France was beaten.

 

[NoMommsen]

...
The biggest one is sheer geography. Germany and Japan are on opposite sides of the globe, and direct communication is impossible. No cable can reach between the two that can't be cut, no radio transmission is possible over that distance and direct travel is difficult. Once the war starts, connection will be cut off.
...

Sry to contradict you on that:

After an upgrade of pre-war technology (despite tube radio already to be known) in 1917 Nauen Station was able to communicate as far as Java, Beijing an Buenos Aires​

Given further improvements of technology during the interwar period during the 2nd WW they communicated with their subs all around the globe (i.e. heard of Monsun Gruppe ? ... or U 179 ? ... if they could communicate from Nauen to Capetown, Tkio won't be too much of a problem ;-) ).
Radio communication - though perhaps not radio-telephoning - was well in the cards.

 

[Petr K.]

The only cooperation that really makes sense is between the European Axis countries. Especially Germany and Italy, there is real room for improvement. Germany could change a lot with its different policy and partly had a big influence on other important Axis countries like Hungary and Romania. But the German policy in the OTL, rather the policy of the Nazis, was never able to use the potential of such an alliance. And I'm not just talking about the fact that the Germans refused to share technology, the problem was also a certain form of contempt for the capabilities of the armies of those countries. Whether the contempt was justified or not was not to be a reason for the Germans to refuse to give them their help.

The Germans generally respected the Finns the most among their allies, not only because of their high military prowess. However, Finland was not directly an ally, but only a brother in arms. Nevertheless, there is a relatively big difference in how the Nazis treated Finns and/or Romanians. At the same time, the Romanians were a much more important ally in practically all respects.

The problem was not only the Nazis, but the functioning of the Wehrmacht itself. A military academy was founded during Wever's lifetime, Wever understood that the education of officers was a key thing. For example, he wanted the average German staff officer to know at least one foreign language. When he died, the military academy was closed by Hermann Göring. Once the war started, the Germans had an enormous shortage of linguists in the army. Most of the officers knew only English, only a few could speak Russian, Italian, Spanish, French, or even Romanian and Hungarian. Exotic languages were completely unknown, and Heer had to hire linguists from German universities to communicate in areas like the Caucasus.

Not knowing foreign languages and generally relying on translators doesn't exactly help you build mutual trust. The Allies had a much easier time of it.

So, if you want better cooperation in Axis, keep Wever alive. He is generally highly regarded primarily because of the Luftwaffe, but his ideas went far beyond just the air force.

 

[The Tai-Pan]

Sry to contradict you on that:

After an upgrade of pre-war technology (despite tube radio already to be known) in 1917 Nauen Station was able to communicate as far as Java, Beijing an Buenos Aires​

Given further improvements of technology during the interwar period during the 2nd WW they communicated with their subs all around the globe (i.e. heard of Monsun Gruppe ? ... or U 179 ? ... if they could communicate from Nauen to Capetown, Tkio won't be too much of a problem ;-) ).
Radio communication - though perhaps not radio-telephoning - was well in the cards.

Thanks for the correction, I didn't know that. Of course, radio communication is useless for this sort of thing due to outside listening.