GerWWII: A Different Two Front War

because teaming up with the conquerors of the British Empire and the whole of Continental Europe doesn't look impressive enough to face the "invincible" Red Army...
Are you saying that invading the Soviet Union would be a walkover? If not, you must agree there is a large element of risk. If you agree there is a large element of risk, you must agree there is a good chance Turkey will stay out.
One thing I always wondered to ask Russian/Sovietwanking, just how big needs to be the stacking of countries, military/industrial resources, and great powers against the Russia/URSS alone, so that their "invincible" country is eventually but surely overrun and crushed ? Is there a threshold the poor wankers of other countries can rely on when discussing and writing TLs, without suffering this annoying "the Russians/Soviets will always win" mantra ? Germany, Japan, Britain, France, the USA, the Race, China, NATO, twelve legions of angels, the Draka, what ??? :confused::confused:
If the Soviets were against continental Europe, Britain and America, she would have lost. Had the Soviets been against America they probably would have lost. Had the British Empire, Turkey and Japan allied themselves to the Nazis then they would have likely lost. Against the Nazis, Turkey and Japan, it is almost an even bet, where the Soviets would lose a short war, but win a long war. Against the Nazis and Japan, I think the result is similar with less hurt to the USSR, Against Nazi Europe, Nazis make gains early on but eventually get fucked.

I do not believe that Britain would get involved. I do not believe Turkey would get involved and I think the Japanese would be concentrating on China in the short-term and also their earlier defeat against Russia also counts for them thinking twice before entry. As such I think Germany would get fucked. The German command structure almost made it certain.
Even if the Germans had asked them to enter ???? :eek:
"Please sir, go to war with us, it'll be a jolly jape! You can finish China off later!":rolleyes:
Oh, yes because the fall of Franchist Spain, Salazarist Portugal, the Generals' Greece, Videla's Argentina, Pinochet, Communism in Eastern Europe, South Africa Aparthed has always required military invasion and foreign occupation. Every people is perfectly able to walk back the path to democracy on its own but the Germans. The usual racist anti-German prejudice that the whole "unconditional surrender" argument was based upon in the minds of Roosevelt & Co. :mad::mad::mad:
Wrong, and I find quite amusing that the person who in this thread has talked of the evils of "self-hating multiculturalism" to call me a racist.

Nazi Germany was quite unlike any of the above regimes. Look at the Poles who were herded from the "incorporated territories" to the General government in Poland just because their face didn't fit. Look at the Volksdeutsche who were quite openly and being encouraged to take over land and businesses in the occupied territories, including the General Government. That alone would fuck up Eastern and Central Europe far more than years of dictatorship which would eventually lift. It was due to this that the Nazi changes were in a sense irreversable and directly affected nations as few other dictatorships did. The Soviet changes were not. After Communism fell, the Poles etc. took charge of the affairs of state, once the Nazis would fall, would you tell the grandchildren of the Nazis that they were to lose their land? This is not to mention the lack of education the eastern europeans would have recieved. The very policy of the Nazis would have wrecked Europe and created a racial tension ten times worse than today.

Such a philosophy had to be strangled whilst it was small and I am glad the allies did so. Any compromise peace would risk the policy being continued and is why the Nazis had to be crushed.
Only after Hitler saved their butts by the unspeakable idiocy of declaring war on the USA for no perceivable gain and provided Roosevelt the only way America was going to accept the war with Germany or another Great Power after Pearl Harbor. The out-of-the-blue idiocy of your enemy doesn't excuse your own stupidity.
Defending the territorial integrity of a nation is not stupidity. Even had Britain and the Empire gone down in 1940, at least she would have gone down fighting the most repugnant regime the Empire had ever faced. Such is a badge of honour.

I see you made other points but I have answered them in my above replies.
 
Last edited:
No matter how you hack this, it isnt going to fly...

Lets give the Germans all the advantages (no matter how unlikely), and ignore the logistical problems of taking Egypt via Tunisia.
Lets even assume Turky joins the Axis.

So...the British are forced out of Egypt. Some of the army will probably head south, up the Nile, the rest will retreat towards India. And given they are falling back on their supply lines, and the Axis is trying to get to go forward over terrain that makes North Africa look good, they arent going to catch them.

Then what? Hitler still needs to start Barbarossa on time, or it isnt going to work before winter. And their is no way its going to go any better (OK, they may have a few more Italian and Turkish divisions, but they will also have troops tied down in Africa, and the Russian logistics havent improved). They still stop short of Moscow and freeze.

Now, the interesting question is what will the Japanese do? The USA was responsible for the embargo, and again there is no reason for this to change. If anything, this time the British will be eager for it, as they will now be using the asian oil to supply their needs in India and asia. (The loss of the middle east oil is a nuisance, but there is the DEI - the position in the UK isnt affected, the UK was getting petrol (not oil) from the USA).

So the Japanese are still screwed. Even worse, there are now more, and better, British troops in theatre, and with the new need for the local oil, its incomprehensible that the British wouldnt put better troops and leaders into Malasia. So its quite probably Singapore wont fall (although both side would probably end up bogged down in Burma and malasia, Britain can live with that).

The only real difference now is that in late 42 we dont have Alamein and Torch. But the Germans are still bogged down in Russia, its likely we see a slow thrust west from India, and maybe one up the Nile - depending on what the Axis defence is like.
It will take longer to retake the Med, especially if Turkey is still a problem, but its going to happen.

So all in all, it doesnt really look like it would change things that much. And thats with Everything falling in the axis gavour, ignoring logistics and the sheer time it takes to mount w2 campaigns...
 

General Zod

Banned
Are you saying that invading the Soviet Union would be a walkover? If not, you must agree there is a large element of risk. If you agree there is a large element of risk, you must agree there is a good chance Turkey will stay out.

A "good chance" is by no means "they will never enter".

If the Soviets were against continental Europe, Britain and America, she would have lost. Had the Soviets been against America they probably would have lost. Had the British Empire, Turkey and Japan allied themselves to the Nazis then they would have likely lost. Against the Nazis, Turkey and Japan, it is almost an even bet, where the Soviets would lose a short war, but win a long war. Against the Nazis and Japan, I think the result is similar with less hurt to the USSR, Against Nazi Europe, Nazis make gains early on but eventually get fucked.

I do not believe that Britain would get involved. I do not believe Turkey would get involved and I think the Japanese would be concentrating on China in the short-term and also their earlier defeat against Russia also counts for them thinking twice before entry. As such I think Germany would get fucked. The German command structure almost made it certain.

I abstain to make comments on this since I cannot find any common ground to discuss, given your assumptions. In particular, I find utterly ridiculous the assumption that the URSS would be expected to win a three-front war (DE-TU-JP) or would have any chance whatsover, short of nuclear monopoly, against a BR-DE-TU-JP alliance.

"Please sir, go to war with us, it'll be a jolly jape! You can finish China off later!":rolleyes:

"Oil ? Do you want oil ? OK, you can have plenty of it, it, at a nice discount, too, but you have to lend us an hand to kill the Russian bear once and for all. You always wanted to it, with our alliance, they are going to sink like a stone."

Wrong, and I find quite amusing that the person who in this thread has talked of the evils of "self-hating multiculturalism" to call me a racist.

Making a value judgement on inability to feel healthy pride and lack of self-guilt in one's culture is way, way different from making a value judgement on races. Races are a shallow cosmetic category with no impact whatsover on behavior, performance, or lifestyle, nor any real basis in human biology, therefore making value judgements based on them is nasty, petty, and way stupid.

Nazi Germany was quite unlike any of the above regimes.

Oh, sure, communist genocides never happened. :rolleyes:

Look at the Poles who were herded from the "incorporated territories" to the General government in Poland just because their face didn't fit.

Look at the Germans expelled from Poland, Eastern Germany, Sudetenland, and Hungary.

Look at the Volksdeutsche who were quite openly and being encouraged to take over land and businesses in the occupied territories, including the General Government.

Look at the Poles, Russians, and Czech who were resettled in the territories the Germans were expelled from.

That alone would fuck up Eastern and Central Europe far more than years of dictatorship which would eventually lift.

Since kicking out the Germans from Central and Eastern Europe hasn't "fucked up" Europe in the last 60 years, kicking out the Poles from Posen, Silesia, and the Corridor wouldn't have, either.

It was due to this that the Nazi changes were in a sense irreversable and directly affected nations as few other dictatorships did. The Soviet changes were not.

Besides the mass expulsions the Germans suffered, I suppose you are utterly unfamiliar with all the mass expulsions that Stalin performed in the Soviet space.

After Communism fell, the Poles etc. took charge of the affairs of state,

And so they would have done after the ATL Nazi empire fell.

once the Nazis would fall, would you tell the grandchildren of the Nazis that they were to lose their land?

Of course not, the same way Poles and Russians they have not been forced to lose land after Communism fell, or Anglos are not going to relocate to Europe and give North America back to the natives any time soon.

This is not to mention the lack of education the eastern europeans would have recieved.

True, but in the long term the German overlords would have been forced to reverse that policy. A utterly uneducated work force makes for a terrible economic mess.

The very policy of the Nazis would have wrecked Europe and created a racial tension ten times worse than today.

General plan Ost would have but it was an unworkable idiotic racist pipedream. Mass expulsion or extermination of 100 million-plus Slavs would have broken the back of the Nazi Empire. Mass expulsion of Poles from the German-annexed territories (essentially the 1914 possessions) would have been assimilated in the fabric of Europe very soon, the same way population exchances between Greece and Turkey post-WWI have not "wrecked Europe".


Such a philosophy had to be strangled whilst it was small and I am glad the allies did so.

Exchanging Hitler for Stalin was zero sum gain for Europe and the world.

Any compromise peace would risk the policy being continued and is why the Nazis had to be crushed.

If the Nazi were removed by an internal coup, this would have been accomplished with much less bloodshed.

Defending the territorial integrity of a nation is not stupidity.

When are we going to nuke Russia to defend the territorial integrity of Georgia, or China to defend the territorial integrity of Tibet ??
 
A "good chance" is by no means "they will never enter".
I would never say never in such a scenario, but I would think the odds would be stacked against it.
"Oil ? Do you want oil ? OK, you can have plenty of it, it, at a nice discount, too, but you have to lend us an hand to kill the Russian bear once and for all. You always wanted to it, with our alliance, they are going to sink like a stone."
So if Japan says no, you destroy the axis, besides why would Hitler want Japan in on the invasion from the start? He expected the USSR to fall like a house of cards IOTL. This would mean Japan would be getting oil from the outset even if they did not enter. Besides, again you are attempting to make the invasion of geographically the worlds biggest state as an easy, no risk matter. Do you work in an investment bank in the city per chance?
Making a value judgement on inability to feel healthy pride and lack of self-guilt in one's culture is way, way different from making a value judgement on races. Races are a shallow cosmetic category with no impact whatsover on behavior, performance, or lifestyle, nor any real basis in human biology, therefore making value judgements based on them is nasty, petty, and way stupid.
As far as I was aware, multiculturalism allows you to take pride in your own culture, whilst at the same time allowing others who happen to live in the same country to take pride in and enjoy theirs. Such diversity can only in the long term strengthen a nation.
Oh, sure, communist genocides never happened. :rolleyes:
Where did I say Communist Genocides never happened? I challenge you to find that comment. Besides I go on to explain, as you would see but mysteriously decided to seperate out from the rest of my quote.
Look at the Poles, Russians, and Czech who were resettled in the territories the Germans were expelled from.
In an effort to create homogeous states to ensure you would never see a repeat of a little bit of the sudetenland, a little bit of the polish corridor again by any nation.

This is a mile away from installing as many colonial settlers as possible to lord it over the natives, owning the businesses and the land due to race.

Again though, this is linked in with my next point....
Since kicking out the Germans from Central and Eastern Europe hasn't "fucked up" Europe in the last 60 years, kicking out the Poles from Posen, Silesia, and the Corridor wouldn't have, either.
Are you deliberately being ignorant?

Nazi policy would not have been to allow homogenous sattellite states to develop. Had it done so, I would agree that the difference between a Nazi victory and a Communist victory, except amongst different groups who would either be sent up the chimney by the Nazis or sent to Siberia by the Soviets would be small. As it is it was not. It was about creating a racial empire in the east, which would plant millions of settlers to do complete the task.

This would mean that, and this is a major point you ignored, that if and when the Nazi state collapsed that as opposed to what happened IOTL when the Poles, Czechs etc. went on to declare the end of Communism that Poles, Czechs etc. took control of their own economies. If the Nazis had won, you would see decendents of German settlers controlling the economy. You would also see a lack of education amongst the natives given the Nazi policy in considering the Eastern Europeans untermensch. Such a policy would lead to extremes when the Nazi empire fell.

If you want a picture of the developing Nazi power structure, look at Generalplan Ost. It was totally different from forty years of Communist dictatorship. Are you saying Communism was similar to such a system? Are you saying Nazism would fall before a good chunk of this would be implemented? Are you saying this would fuck Europe up just to the same extent as Communism? Note Communism was terrible, but could be undone. Nazi Germany was worse and needed to be destroyed.
And so they would have done after the ATL Nazi empire fell.
So you would see the few remaining ill-educated Poles(such was Nazi policy) snatch businesses from the hands of the grandchildren of those who took the businesses in the first place. This is assuming the Poles are still in the majority!
Exchanging Hitler for Stalin was zero sum gain for Europe and the world.
You keep saying this, but it means bugger all. As I have said ad nasseum, Communism in eastern europe(and note this is where the discussion centres)could be reversed. Given Nazi plans, Nazi policy would be far more difficult to reverse, unless you plan on bringing millions of slavs back from the dead.

Also, I was unaware that Western Europe was under Stalins boot IOTL.
If the Nazi were removed by an internal coup, this would have been accomplished with much less bloodshed.
If, if, if. A small word signifying nothing. Had Hitler won the war, until his death, his position would have been unassailable within Germany. By then, Nazi policy in the east would have been either completed or a good chunk of the way there. That would be worse than OTL.
When are we going to nuke Russia to defend the territorial integrity of Georgia, or China to defend the territorial integrity of Tibet ??
Because it does not happen in every occasion a states territory is violated does not make it wrong. As I said, opposition to Hitler, even had Britain lost the last world war, would have been the right thing to do.
 
Firstly, again you have the Japanese entering the war without cause or reason, which again is by no means certain. Also, in pact with Germany in control over the middle east, any issues they would have over oil would be taken away so they could get on with destroying China. That counts against Japanese entry.

There are many factors against a Japanese entry that having an effect. Are you aware how big the USSR was? The Japanese would suffer the same logistical problems in the east, probably worse as moving an army across mud roads is no easy matter, as the Germans would have in the west, and Siberia can get awfully cold.

This as a given, what is to stop the Russians moving troops west to defeat the Germans whilst holding a skeleton army in the east to hold the Japs?

As it goes though, I dont think the Japanese would enter anyway.

Well, since Japan was itching to attack the Soviets as late as July 1945 OTL, if it's looking like a German victory, the chances are pretty good, IMO. And, given Hitler's less of a meddlesome idiot, & doesn't order an 800+km march-countermarch exercise to the outskirts of Stalingrad & back:eek: (as OTL), but instead concentrates on Moscow, it's entirely possible the Heer could've defeated the SU by taking Moscow in less than the 10 wk planned for. Which gives the IJA a much easier time of it, no?
 
Well, since Japan was itching to attack the Soviets as late as July 1945 OTL, if it's looking like a German victory, the chances are pretty good, IMO.
I would like to see a link to Japanese intentions in July 1945 please.

Just because something would be convenient to back up your POV it does not mean that it is likely for reasons quoted throughout the thread.
And, given Hitler's less of a meddlesome idiot, & doesn't order an 800+km march-countermarch exercise to the outskirts of Stalingrad & back:eek: (as OTL), but instead concentrates on Moscow, it's entirely possible the Heer could've defeated the SU by taking Moscow in less than the 10 wk planned for. Which gives the IJA a much easier time of it, no?
A city, an Empire does not make.
 
Some points I'd like to add:

There are no railroads in nothern africa capable of carrying supplies for four armoured divisions (an often suggested number to take out the British forces in north Africa) at that time. Tripolis is the largest axis-controlled harbour. The cranes and facilities of Benghazi and Tobruk are too small to make them good ports (and the Germans and Italians were never good at expanding them despite the huge need).

Yes, the Germans can take Malta. But since late 1940 all British convoys ran around Africa anyway, due to the risc in the mediterenean, so it wont make much of a difference really, other than making the axis convoys safer.

The British will surely destroy the cranes and other facilities of Alexandria, and then Rommel will need to have all his supplies transported by truck from Tripolis to the Suez, an impossible task that will consume all fuel intended for the tanks on the way.

And even if the Germans get Alexandria running, there is Cyprus that can be a new Malta for axis convoys. Part of the Royal Navy is sure to make base in the levant and on Cyprus instead of escaping into the red sea.

The British had substantial forces in the levant, Iraq and Iran, and Iran also had large Soviet forces. We are talking Palmach, the Arab Legion, several Indian divisions (including one armoured), all what remains of the 8th Army, free Belgian, Greek, French, Yugoslav and Polish forces (2 divisions) as well as a South African division. The Commonwealth also has subsantial forces in Ethiopia and Sudan which the Germans cannot ignore.

Remember that the British were superior in sea-based logistics (and frankly, also in building railroads, roads and supply nets in North Africa and the Middle East). By the time Rommel reaches the canal, he is entirely out of supplies, while the British are offloading in Eritrea and Kuwait without problems.

One could use the example of France 1944. The western allies had total aereal and naval superiority, their supply base very close (England) and three years of preparations (special egineering crews, mulberry harbours etc) as well as the full support of the locals and a good base infrastructure to build on, as well as several harbours. Still they ran out of supplies, and did so BADLY. It took four months to get Antwerp operational again after the Germans did only superficial damage - how quickly would the Germans get Benghazi, Tobruk, Bardia, Alexandria et al running again? The Germans had a bad track record of reparing sabotaged infastructure and industry.

The sheer scale of refurbishing a captured overseas port is really outside Germany's or Italy's capacity in 1940 or 1941. Cranes were built in place during those times, they were not mass produced. You needed engineers on place to build new things from scratch. It takes a LOT of time to get that materiel, the engineers and the workers there and complete the work. And as was the case when the Germans captured Tobruk (which happened very quickly), a single sunk ship and a few explosive charges can render a port unusable for months and months. Well enough for the offensive to stall due to lack of supplies.

Gibraltar is irrelevant for the supply of troops in the med - as soon as Italy entered the war, all british supply went around Africa. Even if the Suez channel is captured, the British can still use Yemen, Aden and Kuwait (if they had to, they would simply take the railroad north through Saudi Arabia, they had no problems occupying Iran).

The Vichy French in Syria were ousted early 1941 and replaced by Free French, well before Rommel would have neared El Alamein, even with 4 armoured divisions, so that is not an option either, methinks.

At El Alamein, 1½ year after the arrival and continious buildup of German forces in north Africa, the German supply situation was summarized by the troops as "Three field marshals, but no gasoline".

Some information on the ports available:
Tripoli: 45 000 tons/month (under ideal conditions) ~2000km from Alexandria
Benghazi: 2 700 tons/day or 75 000 tons/month (theoretical) - 21 000 tons/month was reached on two occasions. ~1800km from Alexandria
Tobruk---1 500 tons/day or 42 000 tons/month (theoretical) - even 600 tons/day or 17 000 tons/month was rarely met.

But the ports are not the problem. The real problem is getting the supplies from the ports to the front. With no railroads, it is trucks.

About 30-35% of the trucks in the logistics apparatus of the DAK were in overhaul at any given time. The harsh desert conditions took a high toll on the machinery.

Summer 1941, the DAK (2 German, 5 Italian divisions) demanded 70 000 tons of supplies per month.

Travelling in a column, a ww2 truck does about 40km/h. 12 hours of loading, 50 hours of driving, 12 hours of unloading, 50 hours of driving back makes 124 hours for a round trip, which means a truck can make 5,8 trips on a month, lets be generous and say 6. A truck loads 2 tons, which means each truck transports 12 tons of supplies et al from Tripolis to Alexandria. Since a third of the trucks are out of service at any given time (not even counting unloading and reloading its supplies) you need 8 750 trucks to supply 2 German and 5 Italian division fighting at Alexandria. And those trucks need about 16 000 men that needs food and water, so add more trucks etc.

The three German Panzergruppen that were the core of the invasion of the Soviet Union had about 14 000 trucks between them. You need to seriously demobilise the German motorised divisions to accomplish this, which will make the German invasion of the Soviet Union much, much harder.
 
I would like to see a link to Japanese intentions in July 1945 please.
Just because something would be convenient to back up your POV it does not mean that it is likely for reasons quoted throughout the thread.
Hasegawa, Racing the Enemy, IIRC, quoting (or relying on) IJA docs around the time of the Hiroshima bomb. Not my POV. (I didn't even know it before that.)
A city, an Empire does not make.
Moscow was central to the Soviet road & networks. Control it, you control the ability to move troops & supplies. Not to mention the grand strategic implications of capturing the capital.
 
Top