Which doesn't change that they would still lose the grain and oil imports that they had OTL if they declared outright for the Axis.
No Operation Barbarossa is a negotiated peace with the Western allies possible
- Thread starter walmart
- Start date
Which doesn't change that they would still lose the grain and oil imports that they had OTL if they declared outright for the Axis.
Deleted member 1487
Sure, which is why he didn't ultimately jump in without assurances all that would be replaced in case of war.
Yeah, I can't see something like Downfall going ahead if the Germans are still in the war. The Japanese will be left to stew until the main enemy's defeated, a "Japan First" policy isn't in anyone's interest except the Nazi's.
Pretty much, and I don't see them being replaced in this situation (I doubt the Germans could extract more from the Soviets to make it up, or that the Germans would even do that, or that the Soviets would be willing to support Franco).
So I don't see how the Spanish jump in in a situation where Germany doesn't invade the USSR and all other things hold equal.
You should stop applying post-45 logic to pre-45 decisions. Seriously. So from day one the WAllies were going to storm the reichstag. Yeah, right. RL isn't a videogame. The british will quit (even if only temporarily), if the situation is hopeless enough. There is no "indomitable WAllied will" which will have them aways declare on and fight the Nazis to total victory. Roosevelts maneuvering may very well end with him impeached because, lets' face it, he tried to provoke others into war.
As for the casualties: It has never been tested either. The USA never fought a war (aside from the war of Independence) which could concievably lose by military defeat. Pounding your chest and proclaiming the UK will fight on is fine. But when every family has a corpse, how long will that last?
BobTheBarbarian
Banned
It would look like a bigger version of OTL's Western Front. The Eastern Front was conducted in wide open spaces; there was no beachhead to be broken out of.
In the West the Germans would face the impossible task of preventing Allied breakthroughs in Normandy and Southern France under conditions of total air inferiority - their supply lines will be shot up and forces on the ground greatly outclassed in terms of equipment and firepower. Fixed fortifications along the Atlantic coast mean relatively little and would be neutralized within hours to days; it was not possible for the Germans to muster the resources to form a continuous "Maginot Line" style belt defense tens of miles deep along the whole coast of Europe.
Planners were anticipating essentially a doubling of US killed and wounded as a consequence of operations against Japan through the end of 1946, i.e, an additional million or so. This was before the actual strength of the Japanese defenses was discovered, more than twice as great as previous estimates. American leaders were more than willing to accept casualties numbering in the millions and the public, though they certainly weren't happy about it, were prepared to grit their teeth and endure the cost - ditto for Britain.
"Hard fighting lies ahead and there is very little likelihood that the Jap warlords will sue for peace. We are yet to meet the major portion of the ground forces of the Jap empire. They have 5,000,000 to 6,000,000 under arms and it will cost us 500,000 to 750,000, perhaps 1,000,000 lives of American boys to end this war."
-- Kyle Palmer, "Los Angeles Times" 17 May 1945, substitute "Krauts" for "Japs" and you've got the picture.
-- Kyle Palmer, "Los Angeles Times" 17 May 1945, substitute "Krauts" for "Japs" and you've got the picture.
"Will" was more the German's forte, especially because it was meant to overcome tangible obstacles that couldn't be solved but as you say real life isn't a video game and in a material world the numbers weighed too heavily in the WAllies favour for victory not to be assured.
Not counting the Civil War? A war where the US lost more, proportionally, than Great Britain in WW2? (comparing the low end of American losses to the high end of British ones) A war that basically set American growth back by over two decades (similar to a more well known Lost Generation).
Or even the War of 1812 was one they could conceivably lose as well. Heck, many argue that they lost, or at best achieved a status quo ante bellum. It certainly wasn't a win, except by saying the US managed to come out of it unscathed after going into a war with practically no military to speak of.
And we're also ignoring that by the time the casualties start mounting, the Allies will be far too invested. They will have moved far enough up in Italy to force the Germans to move in and support. They will have landed in Southern France, maybe even in Northern France as well. There may even be a Balkan diversion at this point. The US forces have air superiority, they have naval superiority, and they will start to approach ground superiority (as the Germans will have to keep troops in the East to prevent the inevitable Soviet Backstab). And this is against a Germany that, while not fighting the Soviets, also do not have access to any resources from the Soviets either.
So, are we going to have the Allies retaken portions of France and advancing, forced Italy to either capitulate or change sides (with only the North holding out), and have forced the enemy on the defensive, and they'll simply pull out and let the Germans have it when they have major superiority except in wasting money on useless Wunderwaffe? Are we going to tell all those families with corpses coming home that those lives were spent in vain? Because that's the only point in time when corpses are going to come back in numbers enough to matter.
That sounds more like Vietnam era US vs WW2 era US, frankly - except the Germans are much more a threat to the US than the Vietnamese would ever be.
BobTheBarbarian
Banned
The Germans themselves virtually ensured this after World War I. In light of the experience from 1918 to 1939, only unconditional surrender was acceptable and FDR said as much at the Casablanca Conference.
Furthermore, prior to their official entry into the conflict the US War Department drew up plans to raise 213 divisions in the event the USSR fell. In hindsight, given the huge contribution of British/Commonwealth forces to the war in Europe it seems possible that even this would have been unnecessary and that the Allies could have defeated Germany with the forces on hand - all without the Red Army.
Seeing as how they actually fought the Nazis to final victory and were prepared to do the same in Japan, this seems to be a dubious assertion.
You do recall that the declaration of war was issued by Hitler on the United States and not vice-versa? President Roosevelt did everything in his power to offer economic and military aid to nations at war with the Axis, but all such actions were legal and there was no Constitutional violation involved. Any movement to impeach FDR on those grounds would have been completely stillborn.
The War of 1812 and American Civil War would have words with you. Meanwhile, Germany and Japan could never have defeated the United States militarily; the balance of resources was tilted too heavily against them. You can claim that Germany could have exhausted American morale all you want, but primary documents from the time period show this was little more than a pipe dream the Axis propagandists feverishly clung to in the hopes that they could pull victory from the jaws of defeat.
Marc
Donor
One of the other variations on the theme is how markedly increased the guerrilla warfare against the Germans is likely to be. We all know, or should, how major the resistance movements were in Poland, France, and in Yugoslavia. There were smaller but very active groups in every country, including of course Germany.
"By the middle of 1943 partisan resistance to the Germans and their allies had grown from the dimensions of a mere nuisance to those of a major factor in the general situation. In many parts of occupied Europe Germany was suffering losses at the hands of partisans that he could ill afford. Nowhere were these losses heavier than in Yugoslavia,"
And that is not including the Russian story.
For the same reason aid was funneled to the Soviets, one could easy see a larger scale of support to the anti-axis resistance. Sub-conventional warfare is often overlooked it seems on these boards, perhaps because it rarely has strategic importance, if tactically devastating. But for the Germans, it did prove to be debilitating to some degree, and could fairly easily been a whole lot more virulent.
"By the middle of 1943 partisan resistance to the Germans and their allies had grown from the dimensions of a mere nuisance to those of a major factor in the general situation. In many parts of occupied Europe Germany was suffering losses at the hands of partisans that he could ill afford. Nowhere were these losses heavier than in Yugoslavia,"
And that is not including the Russian story.
For the same reason aid was funneled to the Soviets, one could easy see a larger scale of support to the anti-axis resistance. Sub-conventional warfare is often overlooked it seems on these boards, perhaps because it rarely has strategic importance, if tactically devastating. But for the Germans, it did prove to be debilitating to some degree, and could fairly easily been a whole lot more virulent.
Deleted member 1487
Resistance movements were largely an inconvenience if not post-war exaggeration throughout most of Europe the outside of Yugoslavia, Poland, and Russia (though there has been modern scholarship to show that the claimed Soviet partisan effort was FAR less deadly or damaging than Soviet historiography claimed). In France the resistance was highly limited until 1944 when it was clear the Germans were going to lose and the Allies were about to land or had already landed in France. Without the Russian Front it is highly unlikely occupied Europe would be a significant issue for the Axis powers, especially in Yugoslavia, which had it's partisan movement largely aided by the German weight of effort being in Russia until it got enough legs to be nearly impossible for the forces able to be committed to deal with.
Yes, against a Japan that betray attacked them, and as you show, 1 million was the absolute worst numbers.
To defeat Germany it will take more 2 millions is plausible.
The American public might be willing (very reluctantly) to put 1 million bodies to defeat the guys that unilaterally attacked them. The same willingness might not be found to put 2 million bodies for the sake of geopolitical balance of power in aid of the British.
There is also the fact that if Germany doesnt declare war on the US (and God help FDR if Germany take steps to actively avoid war with the US) the US will be forced to go for Japan first. Because again, the American public will not tolerate the US waging war on an at peace Germany for the sake of balance of power geopolitics and put Japan latter.
This means that every casualty taken against Japan, will add to the war weariness against Germany. Now imagine the situation if your nightmare scenario happens and the US ends up invading Japan and losing 1 million troops and FDR telling the public they will now fight an even stronger foe.
That... doesn't really correlate with historical polling data?
Gallup said:
To note: Take 5-10 days after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, in the immediate aftermath of the high emotions and disgust aimed at the Japanese, you know who the US thought was a danger to the US?
Not the Japanese.
Germany was one of three nations that could pose a material danger to the United States. Germany was a nation that had also conquered nearly an entire continent at this point. Even sans Operation Barbarossa, the Fall of France alone was enough to sponsor major US military expansion in preparation to enter the war.
So, I feel it's a bit fallacious to say that defeating Germany was only a fight that would help the British... when, at the same time, the US public was well aware that the Germans were far more of a threat, and the US government was planning its own intervention to contain the Germans.
Threat =/= want to fight.
The sentiments you portray exist all the way prior to Pearl Harbor in the polls. All of them speak extremely negatively against Germany, with the exception of when asked if they would vote for a war against Germany the overwhelming response was no.
Yes, the public saw Germany as a threat, that doesnt mean they wanted to fight Germany.
The fact remains that in an alternate timeline where Germany does not declare war against the US (and take steps to avoid war) the public are going to demand immediate retalliation against the guy that attacked them, not against another country based on worries of what they MIGHT do in the future.
The Soviets certainly precented a way greater threat to the US than the Viet Cong, that doesnt means the public would actually want to fight the Soviets.
Without an over undeniable causes belli FDR is not going to convince the public to die fighting Germany based entirely on geopolitics and preventive warfare while the actual guys that attacked them remain at large.
I agree.
Even Winston "We shall fight" Churchill actually conceded that if Germany made a good enough peace offer he would give Germany overlordship over central Europe.
"The issue which the War Cabinet was called upon to settle was difficult enough without getting involved in the discussion of an issue which was quite unreal and was unlikely to arise. If Hitler was prepared to make peace on the terms of restoration of German colonies and the overlordship of Central Europe, that was one thing. But it was quite unlikely that he would make any such offer."
So yes, the position that since September 3 1939 the Wallies would accept nothing less than a march through the Reich Chancellery is completely ridiculous.
Gallup said:
No one wants to go to war. No one wants loved ones to die. However, regardless if the US wanted to go to war, there was a large sentiment for the war if the US must go to war to defeat Germany and Italy.
And this is taken from before Barbarossa, so this is from before any change would be seen by the American public.
Gallup said:
A month before Pearl - greater than 2-1 ratio saying that the defeat of Germany is more important than staying out of the war.
Note that the level of support for defeating Germany has not change after the launch of Barbarossa. This almost suggests that the invasion of the USSR had no galvanizing effect on the US public that the war must be launched.
The chance of it remaining a European War ended the moment it defeated France. Britain remains at war with Germany and Italy, in Europe and Africa - and they continue to get supplies from the US, regardless. The only way the Germans could play it safe would basically be to cease their submarine warfare. That's the only way they can guarantee that no Americans get killed, no american ships get sunk, nothing. The Germans simply have to sit and watch as the world's worth of supplies fill up British ports, as American tanks and arms and fighters are used to counter the Germans at pretty much every turn.
We have a Germany that is focused on defeating Britain, removing them from their position. We have a Germany that has repeatedly lied in the past about its desires for just a little bit more land, just one more concession, just a little bit more. We have a Germany that, while it is playing meek and puny, is sitting astride a continent that it has conquered. If Germany starts pressing on the Iberian nations to try and go to war, the US was already making plans to occupy strategic islands so that the Germans could not have access to the ports - back in 1940!
And, regardless, if the US goes to war with Japan, this is also a Japan invading British and Dutch colonies; a coordinated defense will be necessary in order to prevent the Japanese from taking over too much. And if the US are allied with the British and Dutch, et al, in the Pacific, there is only a matter of time support for the European theater will arise, if only out of natural camaraderie.
And, heck, look at the election in 1940; both of the candidates were interventionists of various stripes.
-
Nevertheless, you never answered previous points about the US simply being able to use most of its war material against Japan, especially as it doesn't need massive armies and tanks, etc against the Japanese, and it won't be able to build the fleet train to carry it until 1943. What is the US going to do, then, with all the forces used for Operation Torch et al?
Why aren't the Germans contesting US shipping at all? How are the Germans not threatening the US when they are threatening Britain, the other top Naval Power? A subjugation of Britain as a German puppet, or even an equal, would theoretically allow Germany to try and muscle its way into a naval race with the US, especially with the aid of the Western European Ports. How is Germany going to allow the US and UK access to the European economy, when German requires a closed market to dominate?
How is Germany, after being hyper-aggressive, land-hungry, and deceitful for years suddenly turn in 1941 into an honest broker?
And, as you keep alluding to this mysterious middle ground between total subjugation and ceasefire, would you please tell us how you see it ending up? You've never actually said what it is, so I find myself curious.
Without Operation Barbarossa, German Industry is freed up, being able to spend more resources on Plains and Anti-Air artillery. There would be no WAllied air superiority over Continental Europe, and no widespread bombing campaign of Germany. Also Germany would be able to send most of there Eastern Forces South to North Africa. The WAllied forces (which didn’t included the Americans by this point) would be defeated in El Alamein. The Germans would thus be able to reach the Jordan River by 1942. It’s Important to remember that British Rule was unpopular among Arabs, and that there were numerous pro-German Resistance groups against the British in the Middle East. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1941_Iraqi_coup_d'état Also the Germans would again have a much larger Air Force and Navy and would be able to supplies North Africa and have more devisions there if it weren’t for Barbarossa sucking up 70% of there Industry. By Spring of 1942 Germans would launch an offensive into Jordan, Syria and Iraq capturing all three. It’s likely they would give up these lands to Saudi Arabia in return for German ownership of the oilfields and Saudi Arabia joining the Axis. The only thing that’s valuable to the Germans in Iraq is the oil, and giving up the actual land in return for the oil to ensure that there long-term control of the oil was secured seems like a sensible deal. The Arabs would welcome this, and would fight for the Axis. In WW1 the WAllies promised the Arabs a united nation, but never gave the Arabs Ottoman land,instead colonizing it. If the Germans gave them their land it would secure there loyalty. An Axis Saudi Arabia would allow German forces to enter British Yemen and threaten British shipping along the important Bab-el-Mandeb straight. By the Summer of 42 German offensive into Iran would begin. Iran IOTL was invaded by Britain and the Soviets to secure it’s oil reserves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran Without the Soviets this invasion would be harder for the British, but still durable. However come the Summer of 42 the Germans would be entering Iran, the mountainous terrain would make Panzers unable to effectively fight. However Iran’s mountains would make British supply of there troops hard, and in a country where they aren’t wanted it’s only a matter of time the Germans with local allies eventually retake Iran. The Germans would reinstall Reza Shah as King of Iran, in a German puppet Government. These loses would be taking there toll on British moral, and while the British public would still by in large support the War Effort, the same wouldn’t be true in India. Indians have long desired Independence, and with the British being weakened by the war with Germany, and Germans perfectly willing to airdrop guns to Indian nationalists. India would be in a Civil War between the British Colonial Government, and German backed Nationalist rebels. With the British Empire in ruins the British would sue for peace in hopes that they could reorganize and save at least part of there empire from collapse. And once the British signed peace, so would the rest of the WAllies. And before anyone says they could just NukeGermany. INTL Germany doesn’t have oils shortages and they spend a lot more of there Industry on building planes and Anti-Air Defenses. Any WAllied Bombers would be shot down before reaching Berlin.
Well apparently even Churchill was willing to write off the entirety of Central Europe (during the war cabinet crisis) if Germany made a formal peace offer.
Likely such an advantadgeous peace would be off the table latter on.
But I think a peace where both sides can save face is possible. Have Germany reclaim everything lost at Versailles and withdraw from everything else.
If defeat for Germany is a must even then, there are intermediate stages that could happen way before boots at Wilhelmstraße 77 is a thing. Like withdrawing to pre invasion of Poland borders.
Completely denuding their eastern border with both their greatest ideological foe and with the nation they are dependent upon for material goods for their economy and sending it across the poor infrastructure of the Middle East? That doesn't seem like a sound strategic decision.
Then we enter the catch-22 of getting the Allies to the point of wanting to sue for peace due to casualties and the actual effort on the ground. Until the Allies get on the ground, the Germans can barely inflict casualties. The Italians aren't going to let the Germans help much until it's too late and the Allies have a foothold on the continent. And then we enter the phase where the Allies go for another landing (Dragoon or Overlord) and commit enough that they likely succeed - after all, the Germans still have to guard their eastern border, as the Soviets are likely casting eyes at quite a bit of German land, now that they're on the defensive.
And it's not like the Germans have had the years of Barbarossa to learn tank tactics and adopt more modern tanks.
Even if we assume that the Allies get bogged down, even with air superiority in both numbers and, generally, quality, and with localized superior numbers of troops that are better supplied with the Germans, we eventually get to the point where Bomber command comes forward and starts burning every German city to the ground, one at a time. And if casualties are as high as might be expected, there will be less civilian resistance to wanton destruction brought about by it. And if the Germans break out the chemical weapons, it's pretty much game over for them.
And I think that the argument of "untrustworthy Hitler-regime" tries to ascribe some morality-based acting to second-world-war that never existed at all in reality - even not today, not at any other time.
For former times I might name the Berlin-Congress of 1978 or the treaty of Dan Stefano of 1878 as well or the several british "dealings" about the portuguise colonies (with Germany btw.)
... Munich 1938 after throwing not only the ToV military restrictions in 1935 but also the Locarno-treaty in 1936, the ban of german-austrian unification - just reaffirmed in 1931 - in also 1938 under the bus. There Hitler violated not only the 'meanings# but also the words of the treaties. With his grab for Prague in 1939 he "only" violated the meaning while strictly by the words he did not violated the Munich agreement.
About your argument, that "threat-of-existence" suddely changes this ... see the Curchill comment in post #56 by @Anti-GrammarNazi .
And IMHO Hitler would have asked 'only' for the overlordship of Central Europe, as he was completly desinterested in oversea colonies ... beside some niggling constant-complaining of the navy to get some oversea bases ... which could be obtained without fully fledged taking over of whole colonies.