Germany could not win ww2?

Assuming all of this happens and the USSR is pushed back past the Urals (and effectively knocked out of the war) would the WAllies continue fighting against an extremely formidable Germany that can now direct almost their entire war machine against them or would there eventually be a peace like in AANW with Germany left in charge of the continent?
The A-A Line will probably be the logistical limit of what the Axis could achieve. Japan might also come in if Moscow falls, as that was one of their criteria for entry into the war.

If by 1942 the Soviets are in the process of collapse I think the Wallies would go for an invasion of France ASAP (probably by September 1942 at the earliest even if curtailing offensive plans in the Pacific) and see how that goes before deciding if they needed to negotiate. At that point even IOTL negotiations weren't off the table; IOTL that wasn't until FDR's January 1943 declaration of unconditional surrender. I do think that the Wallies would be much more willing to negotiate a final peace deal rather than a quasi-peace, which basically gives the Axis a free hand in Eurasia due to lack of being willing to pay the price to defeat the Axis in Europe.
 

Coulsdon Eagle

Monthly Donor
OK. . .bombing Britain hurt the nation, the Blitz was damaging and unpleasant. The Battle of the Atlantic was also harmful to Great Britain, and had Hitler not invaded the USSR, Germany could have devoted a lot more resources to both the V1 and the V2 program. I think that if Germany were patient and kept hammering away at Great Britain, peace would eventually have ensued. Also, if the Germans were really being smart, eventually they could have just ceased offensive operations against Great Britain and concentrated on extracting resources from its newly conquered territory and building itself up. Let England try to defeat the Nazi Empire all on its own, they could never do that, and would only wear themselves out trying.
I doubt that Germany would - or could - leave Britain alone. At some point Bomber Command will strike at German cities, and we all know what Hitler's reaction to (literally) a few bombs falling on Berlin was. The Luftwaffe would be expected to strike back. It happened in 1940 and again with the "Baby Blitz" in 1944, let alone the V-weapons. Hitler was incapable of bearing the other cheek - for him it was retribution of several orders more (or so he wished).
 
OTL Germany could not win WW2 no matter how hard they tried.
To have Germany win WW2 with a Nazi government, you need a really big POD right at the end of WW1 where the Kaiserreich still loses.
And then the snowball has to start rolling. And fast.
Otherwise you have to start entering the realms of impossibility to give them victories.
 

Coulsdon Eagle

Monthly Donor
In very binary terms...

At the highest level, if Germany is to win a global war, they must knock either Britain or the Soviet Union out of the conflict before: -
1) Starting the war on a second front;
2) The USA enters the conflict.

It is almost impossible to come up with a reasonable scenario that will see Britain permanently out of the war (or for as long as it takes to smash Russia) without risking US intervention on some level.

That leads to attacking Russia before Great Britain & France enter the war, hoping they will sit back & watch the Bolshevik bogeymen smashed - who knows, perhaps the fight on the western front will never happen.

This will require a whole slew of PODs - at the latest the reoccupation of the Rhineland in 1936.

Even then, could we see an inexperienced German war machine destroying the Soviet Union in less than 24 months?

As BlackDragon98 states, we are pretty much in the realms of impossibility.
 
At the highest level, if Germany is to win a global war, they must knock either Britain or the Soviet Union out of the conflict before: -
1) Starting the war on a second front;
2) The USA enters the conflict.
Pretty much this. If Germany is going to win WW2, it's probably a good idea not to be fighting against an enemy with vastly greater industrial resources and unfettered access to raw materials; an enemy with a significantly larger population, and an ability to defend in depth with an impossibly deep depth that will screw with any attackers logistics (which Germany was never much good at); and an enemy located in a position that it is both close at hand, and yet impossible to get at other than throwing expensive bricks at which are, strategically, annoying but not much more than that (I can't locate the source, but I recall someone stating that the cost of building a V1 or V2 was considerably greater than the average cost of the damage it caused). It's certainly a bad idea to fight against all three at the same time.
 
Pretty much this. If Germany is going to win WW2, it's probably a good idea not to be fighting against an enemy with vastly greater industrial resources and unfettered access to raw materials; an enemy with a significantly larger population, and an ability to defend in depth with an impossibly deep depth that will screw with any attackers logistics (which Germany was never much good at); and an enemy located in a position that it is both close at hand, and yet impossible to get at other than throwing expensive bricks at which are, strategically, annoying but not much more than that (I can't locate the source, but I recall someone stating that the cost of building a V1 or V2 was considerably greater than the average cost of the damage it caused). It's certainly a bad idea to fight against all three at the same time.
The V2 was, but the V-1 was absurdly cost effect, forcing a massive diversion of Allied resources relative to the cost to build and launch them.
 
As pretty much every time this topic comes up,the short answer is Hitler would have to stop being Hitler and the Nazis/Werhmacht would need not to be racists. They might have had a chance in Russia with "independent" regimes in Ukraine and Belarus guarding their supply lines and hunting down partisans: definitely would have had a few months without the USA in the war if AH didn't declare war: would have made the manufacturing sector easier with a Rosie the Riveter type of mobilization of German women instead of slave labor: but being Nazis with a whacko leader,ideology trumped reality. At least that's my take from reading history from last fifty yrs.And a lot of this isn't Monday morning qb,well documented that this country had a shot of controlling continental Europe,but thankfully the regime was run by junkies and screwball ideologues.
 
Im not bothered to read all of this thread and i dont know if it has already been said or not, but all Germany needs to win ww2 is for Britain to peace out after the fall of france. Maybe the Dunkirk halt order is not issued, maybe events happen differently, maybe Churchill has less power as opposed to Halifax and Chamberlain. Even with Churchill he was extremely close to losing resolve around this time in 1940, and could easily have broke.

If peace is made with Germany its not like this is bad in the short run for Britain, especially for its cities and citizens. Once Germany invades the USSR, Britain may even, if still led by the peace faction, make moves that will directly or indirectly help Germany's war effort in the East. For example they the British conservative establishment was extremely pro Finland. Aside from that I remember reading something about a British bombing or seizure of the Caucasus oil fields, although I'm unsure of this one.

Either way when this happens, the Soviet Union will have no help from any allies in the west. IIRC, lend lease wasn't as much of a factor in the war as it is made out to be, but i think if Europeans(outside of Britain), especially western Europeans have no alternative other than Nazism and Bolshevism, then the Nazis will have much less problems in general. Focusing all of their resources on the SU I doubt the SU could survive.
 
I think if Moscow falls then it is certainly over for Russia despite what Stalin wants...some sort of deal would be made
"Some sort of deal" implies that the Germans can bring themselves to present realistic demands and that there is a sufficiently weakened Soviet government that nonetheless is still sufficiently organized to negotiate with.

Even in OTL, a second Brest-Litovsk treaty was probably possible in the first year after Barbarossa. Sure, Stalin probably didn't intend for such a treaty to be long term, but temporary truces can sometimes become very durable. Witness the truce between North and South Korea. Of course, it didn't happen because the Germans wanted to go right to the Urals. And by the time they realized that wasn't happening, the Soviets had realized they could win the war without any breaks.

Temporarily it might have been possible.
Treat the Ukrainians good ,get them to sign up and fight against Hitler for you when The War is over demobilize Ukrainian army or what is left of it then start acting like Nazis
The Germans didn't have the logistical capacity to do this. For their own army to just survive, massive atrocities were required against the civilian population, which kinda gets in the way of winning hearts and minds. Not to mention, how to get the uniforms and guns and ammo to these Ukrainian stooges when their own forces can't get enough?

To be sure, Nazi ideology made things even worse, but even the much less taxing advance into Russia in WW1 had been brutal on the civilian population. And given the ideas and attitudes of the German officers to Russia and to how wars should be fought and what the goals should be, I don't thing replacing the Nazis with Notzis would be enough to save the mess from German fantasy slamming face first into reality.

Define 'winning'! If the aim is to bulldoze over every country in Europe PLUS the US, PLUS the USSR, AND all at the same time, Germany already lost the war from the start, when the aim was to just 'reverse' the 'injustices' of the treaty of Versailles, they pretty much already won in 1939 bu then they gambled it all away. If the aim was to replace all of the former WWI adversaries with friendly puppet regimes and make them economically vasal states, there are voices out there that say that in the long run Germany DID win that war. It only took them until 1996.
Well, for the Nazis "winning" was getting Labensraum, overthrowing the Versailles treaty and destroying the Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy.

And since the last is a fiction, there is no way the Nazis can win.

Even if we ignore the last delusional win condition, I don't think the Nazis can get the first two conditions. I do think it is possible for the Allies to LOSE however. No FDR or no Wendell Willkie could mean a US that doesn't get involved (or at least not sufficiently involved). The Soviets could break politically in the same way the French broke, since even if the Germans don't have the material means to break the Soviets materially, we shouldn't underestimate the importance of the psychological in war. I am sure there are other possibilities too. Though probably you'd need more than one PoD.

Germany made one stupid, obvious, and very easy to avoid mistake that cost them the war, and that was opening up a second front against the USSR before getting England out of the war. Had they not done that, they almost certainly would have won. It took the combined might of the US, the USSR, and the British Empire to defeat Nazi Germany, and even then it was a close-run thing early in the conflict. Some members of German leadership knew that a two-front war was suicidal for Germany in WW1 and would inevitably lead to defeat again in WW2. In Real Life the Germans appeared to have mistakenly thought that the USSR was somehow convincing the British not to surrender, and that the key to ending the war in the West was by launching a war in the East. The second big mistaken assumption the Germans made was that the Soviets would be easy to quickly defeat. By their actions, the Germans turned the war from a fight with Great Britain, that they were slowly winning, into a fight with GB, the USSR, and the USA, that they could not possibly win.
Keep in mind that the Nazis thought that the Jewish conspiracy was controlling the good Germanic Brits to oppose Germany. And since the Soviet Union was the one openly Jewish-controlled state in their minds, destroying this center of "Jewish power" was thus a necessary step to destroying Judaism and hence its supposed opposition to Germany's "deserved" rise to the state of premier world power. That the British might oppose Germany because they might want to be premier world power doesn't seem to have occurred to the Nazis. At least not in any of the turgid prose that I've forced myself to read through.

Also, the Germans did seriously try to knock Britain out, but they knew they had a very limited time in which to attack the Soviet Union and, you know, they failed to break the UK during the buildup to Barbarossa.

Which isn't a surprise, Germany really had very little ability to strike a decisive blow against Britain.

Some say that it was absolutely inevitable that Nazi Germany would attack the Soviet Union. I do not think this is the case, for a variety of reasons, but even if one assumes that sooner or later war with the USSR was coming, there is nothing that says it had to start in the summer of 1941, while air and sea battles between Germany and Great Britain were still ongoing. It is entirely possible that Hitler and his staff could have decided to wait a year, and concentrate on bombing Great Britain and deploying U-boats against its navy and merchant fleet. Eventually the Germans would have developed V1 and V2 rockets, and without wasting so many resources on an unwinnable fight with the USSR, they could have rocketed England with terror attacks sufficient to cowe its people into coming to the negotiating table. Who knows, perhaps their V-3 cannon even could have been successfully used against Great Britain in this scenario.
Terror attacks don't win wars. And Germany just can't get the volume, power and accuracy to make either the V1 or V2 practical weapons. They'd need decades of work and resources they just don't have.

And waiting a year before attacking the Soviet Union would have meant giving the Soviet armed forces time to finish their expansion and re-armament. And diverting valuable workers and factory time to producing trade goods to keep Stalin happy while trying to drown the UK in V1s. The German planners didn't know what we know, so they wouldn't know exactly how bad delaying things would be for them, but they did know that the Soviets were working on expanding and upgrading their forces and fortifying the border.

Going to war with the USSR made their oil shortage much worse, not better. The USSR was exporting large quantities of oil, along with other important raw materials, to Germany right up until they day after the invasion, literally. Without the threat of massive allied bombing Germany's domestic production of oil would have increased over time as well. Germany chose to lose WW2, a war it was handily winning for the first couple of years.
You are right about it making the oil shortage worse. But the Germans still didn't have the oil to wage war against the UK and run the European economy before Barbarossa started. They were already up the creek and knew it. That meant they were beholden on Stalin (who, you know, was part of the Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy and thus out to destroy Germany, as far as the Nazis were concerned) and were also having to divert significant manufacturing capacity to paying for the resources they were buying from the Soviets, which also cut into their ability to make V1s, subs, planes, torpedoes and bombs for attacking the British.

And since the Germans would never trust the Soviets enough to significantly demobilize their land forces while the Soviets were building theirs up, they can't gain much capacity there either.

fasquardon
 
Last edited:
1602217515449.png


The axis had control over the whole of Europe, only the Iberian peninsula, Switzerland and Sweden were neutral, and did trade with the Axis, in addition to other neutral countries that did trade with the axis. How, having all this territory, they were unable to extract resources to feed the war machine?
 
Germany has to de-escalate after beating France in 1940.

1) Come to some final peace with the French in the summer of 1940. (and Belgium too)
2) Have the French resist Japanese incursion into Indo China in 1940. Hopefully this avoids conflict with USA.
3) No Sea Lion or Air campaign over Britain (which will just invite retaliation and drain stocks of captured fuel).
3) Of course no Barbarossa.
4) Hope if no Barbarossa is in the works, the British tire of the war.
5) The submarine campaign is futile and can't be won. Perhaps focus on prize capture of scarce resources (kind of like they did with the captured whaling fleet OTL).
2 - The French could have resisted for some time, but given the context of the time, they could not resist for long.

3- Without the air campaign against England, they could build an ever greater force, since the factories would be unharmed, they would not be losing fighters and infrastructure, so they would be able to undertake a much stronger air campaign against Germany eventually.

If Germany did not attack the Soviet Union, there would inevitably be war, it was only a matter of time before Stalin attacked, and the longer he waited, the stronger the Soviet Union would be, which would strengthen in a way that Germany could never keep up with, so , Operation Barbarossa came at a good time, when the Soviets had their army weakened by the purges, completely unprepared and poorly supplied. The longer you waited, the stronger the Soviets would be.

5- Submarine campaigns cost millions of tons of sunk equipment for the allies, so they were vitally important.

According to your answer, did Germany win the war doing nothing?
 
The axis had control over the whole of Europe, only the Iberian peninsula, Switzerland and Sweden were neutral, and did trade with the Axis, in addition to other neutral countries that did trade with the axis. How, having all this territory, they were unable to extract resources to feed the war machine?
They did. Romanian oil powered their aircraft and panzers, French and Czech factories churned out considerable quantities of equipment (and French stocks prevented a total collapse of ammunition production in late 1940/1941), and practically all of Europe contributed food.

However, the Nazis' terrible economic fundamentals meant they were squeezing blood from a stone, a large amount of resources had to go to maintaining allied armies like Hungary, Romania, and Italy, and fundamentally the resources of Europe were ill-suited to the kind of war WWII was. Europe had coal and iron in abundance, but not a whole lot in the way of oil or rarer metals like chromium or aluminum. And these were just plain small economies in general compared to even Britain or the USSR, to say nothing of the United States.
 
By that logic the Wallies didn't have POL in September 1944 because they couldn't move up enough to sustain combat operations until they took Antwerp. Logistical difficulties aren't the same as lacking a resource. Even the US with it's near unlimited resources suffered from logistical issues at various points during deep advances, it's the nature of war.
What is POL?
 
View attachment 589352

The axis had control over the whole of Europe, only the Iberian peninsula, Switzerland and Sweden were neutral, and did trade with the Axis, in addition to other neutral countries that did trade with the axis. How, having all this territory, they were unable to extract resources to feed the war machine?
What CV12Hornet said.

Plus even the region they controlled is not self sufficient in several key commodities. Food and fuels being the most limiting but some key raw materials were also lacking. Fertiliser too I think.

Hence the UK blockade restricted potential output even before Barbarossa.
 
Glantz was wrong about the strength of Soviet forces in front of Moscow in August and September. It would take a while to find the link where Per70 listed the numbers. German forces were also stronger in August and September, not having suffered the heavy losses taken during the Soviet offensive period. Also during 1941 German forces suffered much fewer losses on the attack than the defense, so continuing to attack toward Moscow instead of Kiev or Leningrad in August or September would actually spare losses suffered IOTL during AG-Center's defensive phase, especially given Operation Typhoon's casualty ratios. The only addition by October was 2 full strength fresh Panzer divisions, meanwhile every other part of AG-Center had been weakened during the Soviet offensives toward Smolensk in August-September and both Panzer groups were worn down from attacking toward Leningrad and Kiev despite getting some new equipment in the meantime. Plus in October right at the start the weather changed, which hampered operations throughout the month.

As to the Kiev situation in particular they really offered no thread to AG-Center. AG-South had them largely pinned down and eventually AGS would breakout into Ukraine as they did historically anyway, while 2nd army (not 2nd PG) would be continuing to attack south against Central Front, which would secure the flank of AG-Center against forces in Ukraine. 2nd Panzer Group would be fine with a large open flank given that they had one throughout OTL Kiev campaign and were heavily assaulted by Soviet forces on the flank throughout August-September by forces from the Moscow region while they were pushing on Kiev and never had a problem. Moscow flanking forces were quite a bit stronger than the forces south of AG-Center IOTL, so the flank threat would actually be less if they pushed on Moscow and had an early Vyazma pocket. Plus people seem to forget that the forces along the Moscow axis kept getting more reinforcements and equipment throughout August-September and Ukraine's industry was still pumping out equipment, but that didn't make a difference to the result either. If anything letting Moscow's massive industrial base continue pumping out weapons would be more damaging compared to letting East Ukraine continue to do so for a little while longer than IOTL.

Also Glantz is flat out wrong about the capabilities of Soviet reserve armies over the winter if Moscow falls and does not even factor in the loss in morale and transport/communication abilities if the Soviet capital is lost. Moscow also had the best heated airfields in the USSR (huge for the Wehrmacht in winter), was a huge warehouse for supplies and industry (10% of USSR's industrial output in one city, not even counting the wider Moscow Oblast), plus losing it would mean the USSR loses it's biggest concentration of AAA which then becomes German or at least is removed from the equation, which is rather huge. Plus Moscow had a disproportionate role in Soviet military production, as certain high tech industries were located there. Taking Moscow also cuts off the high capacity rail line to Leningrad, which disrupts Soviet ability to supply or draw reinforcements from that city.

Plus if the capital is lost the Soviet government is pushed back to nearly the Urals, which makes it quite a bit harder to direct the war, while Stalin would likely get heavily irrational and order a bunch of immediate and costly/pointless counterattacks and burn up reserves before they can be properly prepared and equipped, which is really bad news for the Soviets. Not only that, but the Soviet citizens of Moscow would panic like IOTL and flee the city to avoid the Germans (like in most cities in the USSR when they had time to flee) and having 1-2 million refugees flooding the streets and trains would be a humanitarian and military disaster (see the role fleeing French civilians had on disrupting military operation in France in 1940).

Frankly losing Moscow is a blow hard to overestimate in it's impact and Glantz's comment is more wishful thinking than reality.
Russian industry was already being moved east of Moscow by this point, yes there was some left in the Moscow area but the Russians are not lacking in production capability. e.g. even in 1941 while all this was happening Soviet tank production was considerably greater than German production and the disparity only grew.

You are also assuming that Moscow will somehow be captured not intact but the soviets won't have made some effort to redeploy that AAA and supplies, or destroy those lovely heated air fields

If you not going to make a concerted push to take Leningrad than cutting off Leningrad from Moscow is less of an issue anyway,

While i agree that if the Germans don't encircle Kiev and trap the forces as per OTL those forces aren't going to suddenly leap north east and counter attack into AGC flanks. But they will be redeployable and the German will end up fighting them on the way to Moscow at some point. Basically AGS needed AGC to help to trap them, if they don't get that help or are even syphoned off to help AGC, then more of them will escape

You say Glantz doesn't factor in loss of morale and communication, but frankly it is you who keep's on assuming that these will be crippling as part of the general 'if Moscow falls the soviets lose' narrative that you don't support. It's also not just Glantz you're arguing against. But what you actually mean here is that Glantz doesn't agree with you on this, not that he doesn't factor it in

You also claim Glantz is wrong about the Soviet reserve armies, were is your proof for this assertion, or rather why are Per70's figures and the conclusions you draw from them suddenly unimpeachable just because they fit your narrative? Plus you have the far east armies being redeployed

Talking about weather the Germans lose more on the attack than in defence OTL is an odd way to assess things, first off there's unlikely to be such a hard and fast distinction between the two, and it ignores the fact that the Germans had suffered plenty of losses of operational capability while attacking in 1941. (in 6 months the Germans suffered only slightly less than they did in all of 1942)


Plus there's the fact that the pause and redeployment of AGC also allowed them to resupply and refit as their logistics somewhat caught up with them.

Either way you cut it, a single thrust will have longer unsupported flanks then OTL and leave more Russian forces about to be redeployed, either in front of them or on either side of them

Basically you are changing the German tactics but not really allowing the Russian to change theirs while threatening Moscow. or in fact just assuming everything else will play out the same. For instance you make the point about how 2nd panzer was able to do it's thing in the Kiev campaign despite it's long flank and attacks from the Moscow region on it. And then assuming that because that's true their even longer flanks will be fine if they push on to Moscow even if the situation in the south has changed. As if all flanks and attempt to pinch them everywhere are the same.

But talking about Panzers, how will the German overcome the same basic issue they had since June in that no matter how they split their advances, in order to do their job the panzers will invariably leave the infantry behind?

This is the fundamental problem with the whole "go for Moscow faster" plan, the panzers will leave the infantry further and further behind as they do that. And the longer you do that for that gap will only increase as will the risk to the panzers. Supplying the Panzers will also only get harder as your logistics will have to somehow keep up with the accelerated from OTL pace and be supplying them through territory the panzers have gone through but the Germans don't actually control yet. This is also an issue even if the panzers get to Moscow, they will need infantry to surround and hold it. This is all made worse because even if the Panzers get to Moscow before the weather kicks in in your faster timeline, how will the marching infantry? There is a significant risk of losing your panzer forces here even if they reach Moscow. The Russian aren't going to just sit there while they wait for the German infantry to catch up either! Armour might be fast, but it can't hold ground (Cities are even harder for them), especially if it's been worn down by months of constant fighting. Even in OTL and with the earlier pause, panzer commander were reporting 50%+ reduction in operational capabilities even before Typhoon.

But this of course brings us back to the central issue in all this. The assumption that if the Germans reach Moscow at any point in 1941 with more than a few panzers in any state it will instantly fall, the USSR will then either give up the ghost right then or become so paralysed by that the Germans will be given free reign to overcome all other difficulties and factors and win shortly after.

Stalin getting irrational, yes maybe, I can certainly see him ordering counter attacks, but again this idea that the Germans are going to work like clockwork but the soviets will be hamstrung by the whims of their dictatorial leadership does rather ignore reality. So again ignoring a problem for the Germans but assuming it will be in fuller effect for the Soviets isn't really very realistic.

P.S. On fleeing refugees that had been going since June with over 10m in 1941, and the soviets didn't collapse
 
Last edited:
The V2 was, but the V-1 was absurdly cost effect, forcing a massive diversion of Allied resources relative to the cost to build and launch them.
What was the massive diversion of resources you refer to here, particularly:

1). in terms of overall Wallie resources, i.e. yes they had to deploy AA guns to shoot the V1's down that they otherwise wouldn't have needed to, but given Wallie production was that really a significant diversion of resources.

2). in terms of sunk resources that had no other benefit for them but just countered V1's. e.g. radar controlled AA was bigger tool than just vs V1's. Similarly those AA guns were available once the V1 threat was gone.

EDIT: Sorry don't get me wrong the V1's were damn cheap so if you say to me the allies spent more countering them than the Germans spent making and shooting them then yes I'd likely agree. But the Germans and the allies are not starting at teh same point in terms of available resources. Plus another point the costs of the V1s wasn't just in the making and firing them, but also the development of them as a working tech.

The A-A Line will probably be the logistical limit of what the Axis could achieve. Japan might also come in if Moscow falls, as that was one of their criteria for entry into the war.

If by 1942 the Soviets are in the process of collapse I think the Wallies would go for an invasion of France ASAP (probably by September 1942 at the earliest even if curtailing offensive plans in the Pacific) and see how that goes before deciding if they needed to negotiate. At that point even IOTL negotiations weren't off the table; IOTL that wasn't until FDR's January 1943 declaration of unconditional surrender. I do think that the Wallies would be much more willing to negotiate a final peace deal rather than a quasi-peace, which basically gives the Axis a free hand in Eurasia due to lack of being willing to pay the price to defeat the Axis in Europe.

The Germans can't get to or hold up to the A-A line (a task made even harder if you've side-lined the 3 thrust strategy before driving on Moscow), that's a vast area of land. Not every armed Russian disappears in a puff of smoke when panzers get to red square

Japan is already hip deep in a war in china, and by teh 2nd half of 1941 its planning on and by 1942 it's invading SEA/Pacific and is at war with pretty much everyone else included the US. They're not going to conveniently march across Siberia and the Urals to help the Germans out in 1942. The Japanese had also seen the reality of Barbarossa in 1941, knowing it's not going to be over in 1941 because Barbarossa has already failed it's stated goals by September.

The Wallies aren't going try and invade France in 1942, if nothing else what would they invade with anyway?! You say curtailing offensive plans in the Pacific, but what does that mean for pulling a seaborne invasion on the other side of the world?

This would only happen if the Wallies just completely lost their minds. So it's the same again Germany's enemies collectively lose their mind just because Germans get to certain points on the map

The US can still basically out produce all of the axis and it's conquered territory* with one hand behind it back. Hell the UK can out produce Germany just by itself. Pacifying Russia will take a lot of time and resources and converting what will be devastated or to a much greater extent removed Russian industry and resources** even longer, so you won't suddenly get the huge increase in German production as is often imagined. On top of that the Germans will also be enacting general plan Ost. This will not only take up even more resources but conflict with converting Russia into a nice fully functioning workhouse for the Germans. And no the Wallies won't just conveniently sue for peace to give the Germans the time it will take for that to happen (but no that doesn't mean it's half arsed invasion or suing for peace).

The axis won't have a free hand in Eurasia because it's a huge bit of land, for instance Japan still hasn't won in China!


*even if all the pre-defeat production capability in those areas suddenly magically flips over 100% for the axis (and it won't)


**sorry as in a large proportion of western Russian industry had been moved east of the Urals, the Russians hadn't moved their Western Oilfields etc! But the oilfields etc would have been sabotaged so again any idea that the pumps or mine are just going to flip over 100% is unrealistic
 
Last edited:
Top