How much of our modern consensus of the inevitability of Allied victory in WWII is due to information after the fact?

[Garrison]

At the time (1940) the British (and the empire) seemed to have been quite confident about eventually defeating Germany and Italy. They seem to have thought mostly in economic terms and like everybody overestimated strategic bombing but at the time they worried about how to win but not about losing. If anything the British seem to have overestimated both German production and the effect of blockade.

They absolutely did. One reason that German oil supplies weren't targeted sooner was that no one on the Allied side believed the accurate estimates they got of German reserves. They couldn't believe that the Germans could possibly have launched a war so dependent on mechanized forces with so little fuel available. Likewise they overestimated the Luftwaffe's strength massively. Of course overestimating the strength of your opponent is probably not as bad as underestimating, which the Germans did when they estimated the Soviets could stand 160 divisions, when in reality the Red Army deployed 600 divisions.

 

[Captain Homicide]

Snip

The question is could the resources the Reich spent in North Africa IOTL be enough to turn the tide in the war against the USSR if Hitler decided to not help Mussolini in Africa?

 

[Garrison]

The question is could the resources the Reich spent in North Africa IOTL be enough to turn the tide in the war against the USSR if Hitler decided to not help Mussolini in Africa?

Problem there is the supply lines are already overstretched with the troops committed. I mean maybe it means they get a few km closer to Moscow before they run out of steam but I just don't think its enough to tip the balance. Also you have to think about the consequences if the British wrap up North Africa in few months instead of a couple of years, and what does it do to the stability of the Fascist regime in Italy? I'm not sure it would represent a net gain.
it always comes back to the same two fundamental issues. Nazi Germany is resource limited, so any changes in one area will exact a serious price in another and Nazi Germany was massively lucky between 1936 and 1942. There were multiple times they probably should have been beaten but were handed victories by some breath taking incompetence from their enemies. Combined it means having Germany do much if any better than OTL is incredibly difficult to do.

 

[CalBear]

The question is could the resources the Reich spent in North Africa IOTL be enough to turn the tide in the war against the USSR if Hitler decided to not help Mussolini in Africa?

I've argued for that point for years.

North Africa was a sideshow of a sideshow.

Mussolini was getting his ass kicked by the Greeks and rather than simply tell him to pull back and we'll grab the Med in due course, Hitler had to go to his Bro's aid. Bad led to worse. Enormous losses for the Axis.

German KIA weren't horrible, at least compared to what was to come, close to the Polish Campaign, but it cost them an Army Group worth of PoW, (plus the quarter million or so Italian troops taken prisoner) 888 single seat fighter, 112 twin seaters, 734 bomber and ~320 transport aircraft, hundreds of tanks and thousands of trucks. Including Italian losses the Axis lost 70,000+ trucks in North Africa and Italy's motorized/mechanized forces were simply obliterated, as was the majority of their air power.

Imagine the Eastern Front with 200K+ more German troops, a couple thousand more combat aircraft and even 20,000 extra trucks, even without the Italians. Get them on line and you can add at least 500,000 troops, the aforementioned 70,000 trucks, a total of 3,000 armored vehicles (lots of them tankettes, but a 7.92mm machine gun that go 25 miles an hour is better than no machine gun a'tall) and few thousand more combat aircraft (against the better MiGs not so good; against Il-15 and Il-16, well lets talk stranger).

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Or GB just decides that they should be more aggressive on land in Europe earlier......?

Exactly - it was when Germany repudiated the AGNA on 28th April 1939 Britain responded, less than a month later with the "Military Training Act 1939" on May 26th (with the decision taken when the cabinet knew what was coming on the 27th April) 1939 among other reactions.

While only limited conscription it did allow the 13 TA Divisions to be brought up to full strength and 220,000 additional men called up for 6 months basic training (that was largely complete before WW2 started

One of the major problems Britian had in Sept 1939 was that it could put just 5 regular Infantry divisions into the field, and it took until about 1942 before Britain was ready for continental warfare, with enough trained troops, experienced NCO's, specialists and educated officers (both field and staff).

An earlier 'telegraphing of intentions' by the Germans, and I cannot think of a bigger one than an earlier increase in the number of U-boats being built over the 100% parity with the RN Submarines that they had agreed to limit themselves to, as U-boats had only one main job, that is to interdict British commerce and blockade the home Island, would serve to advance that May 26th 1939 date to whatever date the Germans repudiate the AGNA.

That is 220,000 additional troops trained every 6 months

So the earlier Germany tells Britain to fuck off with their Naval limits the earlier the British leaders can forget that Herr Hitler is a reasonable fellow with whom they can deal with and act accordingly.

Other things such as the 'The Plan' aka British Commonwealth Air Training Plan (BCATP), or Empire Air Training Scheme (EATS) would be started earlier and increased budgets for everything from increased numbers of boots to Bren guns would also be made available earlier.

And this would also be true of the Empire forces as well as the French etc

In many cases the Imperial forces were little more than militia in 1939 and they also (for the most part) took a few years to get geared up for WW2

 

[Cryhavoc101]

I've argued for that point for years.

North Africa was a sideshow of a sideshow.

Mussolini was getting his ass kicked by the Greeks and rather than simply tell him to pull back and we'll grab the Med in due course, Hitler had to go to his Bro's aid. Bad led to worse. Enormous losses for the Axis.

German KIA weren't horrible, at least compared to what was to come, close to the Polish Campaign, but it cost them an Army Group worth of PoW, (plus the quarter million or so Italian troops taken prisoner) 888 single seat fighter, 112 twin seaters, 734 bomber and ~320 transport aircraft, hundreds of tanks and thousands of trucks. Including Italian losses the Axis lost 70,000+ trucks in North Africa and Italy's motorized/mechanized forces were simply obliterated, as was the majority of their air power.

Imagine the Eastern Front with 200K+ more German troops, a couple thousand more combat aircraft and even 20,000 extra trucks, even without the Italians. Get them on line and you can add at least 500,000 troops, the aforementioned 70,000 trucks, a total of 3,000 armored vehicles (lots of them tankettes, but a 7.92mm machine gun that go 25 miles an hour is better than no machine gun a'tall) and few thousand more combat aircraft (against the better MiGs not so good; against Il-15 and Il-16, well lets talk stranger).

Was it a side show though?

When Italy threw in the towel Germany had to rapidly move around 40 infantry Divisions, and significant air assets to cover what the Italians had been holding (Greece, Balkans and Italy itself etc)

40 Divisions that in 1943 might have been better used elsewhere

And 60 Italian Divisions suddenly gone from the Axis order of battle

And the Med was freed up for Allied commerce and communication - saving mega tons of shipping by not having to go around the long way

I know that people tend to focus on the fact that the fighting in Italy bogged down for rest of the war in Europe but those 'losses' sustained by the Axis in Sept 1943 is not insignificant

So that sudden burden in Sept 1943 was far greater than the German forces lost in Greece, Crete and North Africa etc keeping the Italians in the game from late 1940 and trying to keep the Med an Italian lake.

Had they not done so then its very likely that the events that led to the Armistice of Cassibile would have happened much earlier.

 

[Ambusher11]

Not arguing that at all. The thing is that Hitler saw the British as "fellow Aryans", to become part of the Greater Reich to be sure, but to be treated rather like the Danes or Norwegians rather than General Government or the Slavs as a group. He didn't see a natural reason for hostility with the "Anglo/Saxon"s.

Even before the Putsch, Hitler was of the opinion that there should be no argument with the English and that they should ally with Germany to destroy the Soviets.
He saw "the English nation will have to be considered the most valuable ally in the world" as he "wrote" in Mein Kampf. His stated belief was that German/English friction was economic, not any sort of natural enemy (which he VERY MUCH considered France to be), and could be worked out to everyone's advantage. Right up to the outbreak of the war Hitler told Speer "The English are out Brothers... We should not fight our brothers."

He did actually have a negative opinion of Britain in the early 1920s, saying in June 1920 that Britain was mainly to blame for wars. It was the French occupation of the Ruhr in 1923 (which was opposed by Britain) that seems to have changed Hitler's attitude towards Britain from being an enemy to a possible ally against France (which he further claimed was a natural enemy for Germany because from his POV, it was "Negroizing" its own blood). As for the counterargument that Britain would fight any German attempt to dominate continental Europe, he claimed that Britain only fights attempts to dominate continental Europe if the power aiming for dominance has or is building a threatening navy, which he claims explains why Britain fought the Dutch, but not Prussia when it was ruled by Frederick the Great, as the Dutch had a threatening navy while Prussia under Frederick the Great did not. Of course, he saw it as possible to ally with Britain only if the Jews didn't manage to "corrupt" Britain, and from at least late 1937 onwards, he appears to have believed that the Jews had won in Britain and that it was therefore impossible to ally with Britain, as he in November 1937 called them alongside France "hate-inspired opponents".

 

[Fulton 44]

Actually, I've never quite bought into that part of the "received wisdom".

The Germans actually had a path that could, possibly likely would, had changed that dynamic. It is something that a savvy planning General Staff should have twigged to early on (the WAllies managed a version of it before the war even started). The Soviets 1st.

They needed to ask one question - After the flash knockout of France what country present an existential danger to the Reich? Only one reasonable answer exists, the USSR. The UK was on its heels and had no reasonable prospect of engaging the Reich in anything other than a few commando raids and what was, at the time, quite ineffective bombing. The Reich should have very publicly and loudly, especially in the United States and Canada (were were effectively, then as now, two separate countries that shared one media market, with U.S. radio stations and newspapers almost as available in Toronto as in Buffalo or as in Ottawa as in Erie, PA. or in Vancouver as in Seattle) proclaimed that they were immediately and unilaterally declaring a bombing holiday, with the only exceptions being in response to RAF attacks on civilian targets, and the end of all attacks on civilian shipping in the North Atlantic.

""The German People have no historic argument with our British cousins. We understand that His Majesty's Government* was honor bound to fulfill its obligations to the Polish and French Governments, honor demanded no less, but that fight is at an end. France and Poland have signed Peace Treaties with the German Reich. We offer an end to the war, without any territorial or monetary claims against the United Kingdom."

Goebbels was a special kind of bastard, in some ways worse than Goring, perhaps even Himmler (who, at least, didn't murder his own children to "save them from a world without National Socialism"), but he was, early on, fairly effective as a propagandist. In 1940 there was no particular desire by the American electorate to engage in another European War. The population of the UK was in full "in the fields" mode, but that was because of the Blitz, the U-Boats, and the Western Desert. Those realities were there to exploit.

Would it absolutely have worked? Possibly not, but it is lot easier to accept that there is nothing to come "but blood, toil, tears, and sweat" when the enemy is bombing you, when rationing is happening because so little is getting through the U-boats, and "we have to support our boys" than when the only time German planes appear is after the RAF bombs civilians "quite dastardly, don't you think?" and the only ships being lost is the odd destroyer.

Goes double for the U.S. "Why the Hell is that our Fight?" Isolationism was still a thing in 1940, not as strong as before, but a thing. The way the Nazi's handled France IOTL would play very nicely in this scenario "well, sure they are occupying Paris, but half the country is back under French rule already, and the President there is a WWI war hero who fought alongside Black Jack Pershing!". Country that was on most of the American electorate's radar, if any, was Japan thanks to what they were doing in China.

Even if the ploy failed, it wouldn't really cost the Reich much.


*I know that is the right term, by it really just LOOKS wrong, ya' know?

I have thought about this scenario also. A German "sitzkrieg".
There are a bunch of issues. What do the Italians do? Do they try to invade Egypt and Greece? Does the Uk go ahead and attack the French fleet?

 

[CalBear]

I have thought about this scenario also. A German "sitzkrieg".
There are a bunch of issues. What do the Italians do? Do they try to invade Egypt and Greece? Does the Uk go ahead and attack the French fleet?

There are absolutely combat wings of butterflies that come out of the idea, but it seems to be low probability, but not entirely outlandish option.

 

[Rafi_T]

If I may present this in a meme…

 

[Aphrodite]

Only if by hindsight you mean ignoring all the information acquired since the war that shows just how shaky the Nazi economy was. And the post I was responding to did not appear to be couched in terms of what was thought at the time.

It becomes inevitable if you assume:
1) The Americans finance the British Empire- which was very controversial and that the Americans would sacrifice to the point if gas rationing in a foreign war

2) That the Soviets survive 1941 which is no means assured. They aren't really safe until 1943

3) The US declares war which no one thought inevitable until Pearl

You simply ignore the role unforeseeable events play in the conflict as well as the problems facing Britain's economy.

Lend lease is passed because Britain is broke and can no longer sustain cash and carry.

Of course the German economy cant sustain itself. No war economy can. In war, countries devote everything to immediate victory. Britain fighting the Nazis alone simply wont work

Even Britain and the Soviets arent going to win. America wins it just like she wins WWI

 

[durante]

It becomes inevitable if you assume:
1) The Americans finance the British Empire- which was very controversial and that the Americans would sacrifice to the point if gas rationing in a foreign war

2) That the Soviets survive 1941 which is no means assured. They aren't really safe until 1943

3) The US declares war which no one thought inevitable until Pearl

You simply ignore the role unforeseeable events play in the conflict as well as the problems facing Britain's economy.

Lend lease is passed because Britain is broke and can no longer sustain cash and carry.

Of course the German economy cant sustain itself. No war economy can. In war, countries devote everything to immediate victory. Britain fighting the Nazis alone simply wont work

Even Britain and the Soviets arent going to win. America wins it just like she wins WWI

Britain wouldnt fight the Nazis alone.

Canada, Australia, NZ to name the most obvious but India's contributions to WWI and WWII are arguably even more substantial. (2.5 million Indian troops served in WWII).

 

[Aphrodite]

Britain wouldnt fight the Nazis alone.

Canada, Australia, NZ to name the most obvious but India's contributions to WWI and WWII are arguably even more substantial. (2.5 million Indian troops served in WWII).

of course Britain will fight the Nazis alone. She really has no choice given what defeat means.

The question is can she win? The argument that the British can hold off the Nazis by herself after France and the Soviets are defeated is not real. Germany will win a one on one war with Britain. Germany can win a war against Britain and the Soviets.

Germany cannot win a war against Britain, the Soviets and the Americans. Only the Americans are safe and until America joins, the war is in doubt

 

[Count of Crisco]

of course Britain will fight the Nazis alone. She really has no choice given what defeat means.

There was discussion in the government that Britain should surrender after the fall of France. Not certain how serious it was though.

The question is can she win? The argument that the British can hold off the Nazis by herself after France and the Soviets are defeated is not real. Germany will win a one on one war with Britain. Germany can win a war against Britain and the Soviets.

I would be interested to see a plausible scenario where Germany manages to win against Britain on a one on one. Britain held the economic, industrial, financial, population, institutional, naval, and geographic advantage. It's unlikely that the British would invade Germany on their own. But they would also have zero problem fighting a Napoleonic rehash where they keep the Pressure on the Germans while forming a coalition in the background to hit the Germans on land.

Germany cannot win a war against Britain, the Soviets and the Americans. Only the Americans are safe and until America joins, the war is in doubt

The Germans are really their own worst enemy when it comes to fighting the USSR and with the leadership they had I really doubt Germany could take on the Soviets and win in the cast majority of scenarios.

 

[CaptainCalvert]

Churchill makes no reference to any suggestion or discussion of surrender in his WW2 books. He would have firmly put down any serious suggestion of this and sacked anyone who persisted. I can't imagine him missing such an opportunity to demonstrate his anti-Hitler views in his books which suggests it never happened.

 

[durante]

of course Britain will fight the Nazis alone. She really has no choice given what defeat means.

The question is can she win? The argument that the British can hold off the Nazis by herself after France and the Soviets are defeated is not real. Germany will win a one on one war with Britain. Germany can win a war against Britain and the Soviets.

Germany cannot win a war against Britain, the Soviets and the Americans. Only the Americans are safe and until America joins, the war is in doubt

What I meant is she would never have to, because she has an Empire to draw on.

 

[Aphrodite]

What I meant is she would never have to, because she has an Empire to draw on.

sure she can draw on her Empire but Germany can draw on her conquests as well. America passes lend lease for the simple readon that Britain is broke and the resources of the Empire are not enough

Britain simply cannot turn around the situation in 1940. She has lost. You are essentially arguing that Britain and France cant keep the Nazis from conquering France and Britain and the Soviets cant keep the Germans out of Moscow but Britain by herself can drive to Berlin. Preposterous.

Britain cant even feed herself

 

[durante]

You are essentially arguing that Britain and France cant keep the Nazis from conquering France and Britain and the Soviets cant keep the Germans out of Moscow but Britain by herself can drive to Berlin.

I never said anything resembling this.

 

[cerebus]

….,,

Britain cant even feed herself

What rubbish Britain could feed it’s self easily. Home production + empire + neutrals + USA means the best diet the population ever had.
oh you mean only food not imported can count.
Why? Is somebody giving extra points for local production?
Now occupied Europe + Germany had real problems feeding themselves.
No fertiliser+millions of men off the land+millions of horses called up+no sea trade means severe shortages. Arguably invading Russia and taking the grain was the only way to feed the army😀

 

[Aphrodite]

What rubbish Britain could feed it’s self easily. Home production + empire + neutrals + USA means the best diet the population ever had.
oh you mean only food not imported can count.
Why? Is somebody giving extra points for local production?
Now occupied Europe + Germany had real problems feeding themselves.
No fertiliser+millions of men off the land+millions of horses called up+no sea trade means severe shortages. Arguably invading Russia and taking the grain was the only way to feed the army😀

yeah sure. And what do you think happens when the Americans demand cash. See, that is the first thing you miss.

In June 1940, Britain has no clue that the Americans are going to lift the cash and carry rules let alone finance the war for them.

And no, Germany doesnt need to invade Russia for food. Stalin is happily selling it.

So until the German invasion of Russia, you simply have no argument nor can you lay out how this "inevitable" victory is going to happen.

Given the rapid collapse of the Soviets, there's no reason to say that a Anglo-Soviet victory is probable let alone "inevitable".

Once America enters, Germany will lose. The Soviets can still collapse and Britain will emerge an impotent shell, but America will be standing firm