Axis joined-up thinking?

[Ambusher11]

Hitler though he could work with GB until 1939 when he withdrew from AGNA and initiated the Z-Plan.

Hitler actually already believed by November 1937 at the latest that Britain was a "hate-inspired antagonist" that didn't want Germany to be strengthened further, even if he believed that difficulties in the Empire and unwillingness to get involved in another long European war had already caused Britain to ultimately tacitly write off the Czechs.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

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

You can code it, it isn't perfect but if you really needed to use it there are ways to do so.

 

[thaddeus]

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.

that is probably the logical answer, and most viable scenario, as illustrated by AH shuttling between (Vichy) France and Spain in 1940. an Axis of Germany, Italy, Spain, and some agreement with the Vichy regime. Germany could continue trade relations with the USSR and China. (this all being more likely with a successful Nationalist coup or abbreviated Spanish Civil War)

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Germany could continue trade relations with the USSR

Hitler? No.
If Hitler was less ideologically fanatic he wouldn't have arrived where he was as constantly bluffing isn't something someone normal would do.

 

[Sekhmet_D]

The only cooperation that really makes sense is between the European Axis countries.

I don't know about that. Having the Japanese on your side is a great route towards ruling the seas.

 

[The Tai-Pan]

I don't know about that. Having the Japanese on your side is a great route towards ruling the seas.

The IJN (while formidable) is on the wrong side of the planet.

 

[CaptainCalvert]

The IJN (while formidable) is on the wrong side of the planet.

And even more to the point, not as good as they thought it was [1].
However, one of the more damaging characteristics [2] of the Nazi government (and to a slightly lesser extent the Italian fascist and Japanese governments) was obsession with competition for its own sake, favouritism and rating political acceptability and loyalty above competency. Collaboration, trust and sharing will not thrive in such an environment and are likely to be viewed as signs of weakness.
Add to that that if the IJA and IJN struggle to cooperate, if the Luftwaffe, SS and army all have their own command structures, and if the nazis hate and despise even their own European allies, then what chance could they have of strategic cooperation going beyond a few insincere words at state visits?

[1] Perhaps it was, for a time, extremely good, but had insufficient depth and resources to stay good.
[2] I suspect that viewing (some of) your countrymen as a superior race to everyone else would also create a barrier to collaboration with people who - under this distorted world view - must, by definition, be inferior in some way.

 

[Beatriz]

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.

Huh - was English the most common foreign language in. 1930s Europe followed by French?

 

[CaptainCalvert]

Huh - was English the most common foreign language in. 1930s Europe followed by French?

I can't help thinking that French might not have been too popular after Versailles. Of course, that doesn't explain English being popular unless as a common language for dealing with other countries who also used English as a second or third language.

 

[thaddeus]

that is probably the logical answer, and most viable scenario, as illustrated by AH shuttling between (Vichy) France and Spain in 1940. an Axis of Germany, Italy, Spain, and some agreement with the Vichy regime. Germany could continue trade relations with the USSR and China. (this all being more likely with a successful Nationalist coup or abbreviated Spanish Civil War)

Hitler? No.
If Hitler was less ideologically fanatic he wouldn't have arrived where he was as constantly bluffing isn't something someone normal would do.

of course I was outlining something approximating a Med Strategy and to pursue such a strategy the Nazi regime would need to continue (just IMO) trade with both of the countries mentioned, and trade with China during wartime would require at least some continued dealings with the Soviets (and no invasion East.)

when there were talks to have the Soviets join the Axis, the Soviet demands probably reflected the state of the war more realistically than the Nazi view? if the Nazis had managed to enlist the above mentioned countries, however unlikely that may be, the deal the Soviets would have offered would probably have been much different. (i.e. it would look that the Nazis had a huge Fascist clique ready to possibly invade East)

 

[Blue cat]

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

Yes and and no I seem to recall reading there were at least some WW2 era coding systems that were not broken (at least not during WW2.)

 

[Rattenfänger von Memphis]

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.

I really enjoy it when someone, like you did here Dorknought, posts a link to a fact-based, interesting article on a relatively obscure piece of history on what-might-have-been.

Before this I had only read scant references to a possible cooperation between the Italian position in Italian East Africa on the western Indian Ocean and a Japanese fleet entering and conquering ports and islands in the eastern Indian Ocean.

I did a quick Google check and the distance from Italian Somaliland across the Indian Ocean to Japanese-occupied Sumatra is about 3,800 miles (about 6,150 kilometers). That is almost exactly the same distance between the United States to Western Europe. Perhaps, like the Allies in the Atlantic, had the Axis taken virtual control of the Indian Ocean, they would have had a direct geographical link and could have done untold damage to the Allied position.

 

[Ambusher11]

I did a quick Google check and the distance from Italian Somaliland across the Indian Ocean to Japanese-occupied Sumatra is about 3,800 miles (about 6,150 kilometers). That is almost exactly the same distance between the United States to Western Europe. Perhaps, like the Allies in the Atlantic, had the Axis taken virtual control of the Indian Ocean, they would have had a direct geographical link and could have done untold damage to the Allied position.

Marshall was told in April 1942 by the British what the consequences of the Axis controlling the entire Indian Ocean would be.

The British Chiefs stated the consequences of Japanese control of the western Indian Ocean as follows: (1) the Allies would be unable to support forces in the Middle East, and the Germans would gain access to oil and other resources of the area, and the Far East; (2) the loss of oil supplies from Abadan would be irreparable; (3) the southern supply route to the Soviet Union would be cut; and (4) Turkey would fall an easy prey to the Germans, and German naval forces would be able to enter the Black Sea and turn the Soviet position in the Caucasus.

 

[Dorknought]

It seems the consensus moves between 'we are better off without Japan to defeat Russia' (Continental cooperation) and 'only Japan can cut off Russia from supply' (Maritime cooperation)

Interestingly, Japan refused to target supply lines to Russia for fear of ending the neutrality agreement. Of Lend Lease shipping of 17.5 m tons to Russia:

• 8.2m tons - 50% of Lend Lease went from US West Coast (no weapons as these shipments were inspected by Japan) via Vladivostok.
• 7.9m tons through Iran (4.1m tons for Russia - 27% of total aid to Russia). This route wasn't fully operational till mid 1942. Longest route.
• 3.9m tons via Northern Route (93% arrived) - 23% of total aid to Russia. Shortest but most dangerous route.

Over half of the combat aircraft went via Alaska-Siberia Air Route (8000 aircraft). The rest (6000) via Iran route.

Only the Northern Route was contested and aside from the material losses of PQ-17, the political fallout was significant - the USN withdrew its forces while the Russians couldn't understand why the convoy was dispersed and blamed the British for the debacle.

Perhaps greater coordination is in 2 parts, Italo-Japanese Naval and German-Russian Military until Germany dumps Russia for Italy+Japan as Russia can't be defeated when it has aid from the US.

 

[Gudestein]

The axis lacked the most basic insight into the strategy of winning. Not only do you need to get what you want (they understood that). The three axis were perfectly positioned to beat the Soviet Union by combining attacks and cutting them off (even though Japan didn’t need that), and strike for the Indian Ocean to cut out GB and cut off China (which do bring strategic benefits for Japan/Italy).

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

of course I was outlining something approximating a Med Strategy and to pursue such a strategy the Nazi regime would need to continue (just IMO) trade with both of the countries mentioned, and trade with China during wartime would require at least some continued dealings with the Soviets (and no invasion East.)

when there were talks to have the Soviets join the Axis, the Soviet demands probably reflected the state of the war more realistically than the Nazi view? if the Nazis had managed to enlist the above mentioned countries, however unlikely that may be, the deal the Soviets would have offered would probably have been much different. (i.e. it would look that the Nazis had a huge Fascist clique ready to possibly invade East)

Fascist Italy, Vichy France and Nationalist Spain are threatening the Soviets? That's the just completely unrealistic

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

The axis lacked the most basic insight into the strategy of winning. Not only do you need to get what you want (they understood that). The three axis were perfectly positioned to beat the Soviet Union by combining attacks and cutting them off (even though Japan didn’t need that), and strike for the Indian Ocean to cut out GB and cut off China (which do bring strategic benefits for Japan/Italy).

The problem is there is no reason to do that for the Japanese, you have just declared war on the US and you have no troops nor ships to spare for the invasion of the USSR.
Also an invasion by the Japanese is almost impossible to succeed: the Soviets are better equipped and are defending while the Japanese lack motorized divisions and adequate equipment in the cold conditions. Even if they did somehow manage to take Outer Manchuria, the Soviets can just defend the Trans-Siberian railway and focus on the Nazis, the Japanese weren't able to defend the area against Bolshevik Russia so against the Soviet Union...
Also the Siberian divisions were from Western Siberia not from Vladivostok

 

[NoMommsen]

@EasternRomanEmpire
... defend against eventual japanese invasion ... with what forces?
... that weren't already sent against the Wehrmacht or - if 'tensions' grew before due to axis-agreements as proposed here - wouldn't dearly lack in the defense of the german onslaught?

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

@EasternRomanEmpire
... defend against eventual Japanese invasion ... with what forces?
... that weren't already sent against the Wehrmacht or - if 'tensions' grew before due to axis-agreements as proposed here - wouldn't dearly lack in the defense of the German onslaught?

The Soviet Union never really sent all of their forces against Nazi Germany, there was a substantial force that was defending Vladivostok during the entire war, so no the Soviets aren't in a shortage of troops.

 

[NoMommsen]

... how substantial ? ... in contrats to a ITTL much more to the "Northern Road" - tactically and/or operationally not necessarily 'exactly' as the plan(s) put aside IOTL in 1939 and 1941 - dedicated Japan.

The troops that replaced the troops (and most of their equipmental outfitting [artillery, tanks]) sent west seems toi have been of rather ... 2nd to 3rd tier quality.