Garrison
Donor
Well they did as it happens, its why the tempo of the assault dropped so dramatically even before the mud and snow came.
September 1939: has Germany lost the war already?
- Thread starter Byzantine fanatic
- Start date
Well they did as it happens, its why the tempo of the assault dropped so dramatically even before the mud and snow came.
Thank you, Garrison. Yes, exactly.
Yes, because they rationed it and kept going on oil captured from the USSR, imported from Romania, synthesised etc. However, critical fuel shortages hampered the Wehrmacht at every step. There was not enough fuel to operate the transports supplying the pocket at Stalingrad. Fuel shortages also dictated the campaign of 1942 in the first place, since the point of the whole Fall Blau plan was to secure oil supplies.
Shortages of supplies severely limited the effectiveness of the Luftwaffe. Planes were never in short supply, but not much good without fuel to fly them. Also, as we all know despite Herculean efforts to increase the fuel supply which included use of synthetic fuels, commandeering the entire supply of Romania and severe rationing, it still wasn't enough.
Famously, the German panzers were abandoned in large numbers during the battle of the bulge when they ran out of fuel.
Because they rationed it and they captured it and they synthetically produced it. But there was never enough for full scale operations on land, sea and air after September 1941. They were forced to cannibalise domestic consumption completely. It still wasn't enough. See Tooze, the Wages of Destruction.
Last edited:
Unless there is a crushing unbalance of powers, a war is not 100% won or lost when it starts.
Counting the gaiter buttons is not the right way to predict who is going to win the war.
Because on the paper, Alexander the Great should never have conquered the Persian empire, Caesar should have never have defeated Pompey and the optimates, Edward III and Henry V should never have inflicted crushing defeats on the French, Napoleon should never have lost the Russian campaign, ... etc. And however it happened, contrary to the odds.
The French government launched a propaganda campaign, in the beginning of WW2, whose caption was « we will win because we are the strongest », with a world map showing the extent of the French and British empires.
With hindsight, we know that given Germany’s edge in military doctrine, Britain and France alone could not defeat Germany and France was knocked out of the war in 6 weeks.
Most often, the one who wins a not too unbalanced war is the one who sets rational goals and is able to execute the right strategy.
Setting wrong goals or giving right goals up to suddenly follow nonsensical goals always is fatal.
I don’t mean Nazi Germany was doomed from the start in 1939. This is not the right POD.
What I mean is that Nazi Germany was doomed from the start in 1933 and even in 1924, in the sense that Hitler’s and the Nazis goal was suicidal. Waging war against the USSR to conquer a lebensraum for Germany was suicidal because it was obvious it would end in a 2 fronts war. It also should have been obvious that the USSR was too big a piece to swallow for Germany.
But if Hitler had been more rational, would he have been Hitler ?
Being rational would have implied giving-up the goal of conquering the eastern lebensraum and remaining in friendly terms with Stalin until Germany could force the UK and the US to accept German domination of central and western continental Europe.
And Hitler had no such patience.
Counting the gaiter buttons is not the right way to predict who is going to win the war.
Because on the paper, Alexander the Great should never have conquered the Persian empire, Caesar should have never have defeated Pompey and the optimates, Edward III and Henry V should never have inflicted crushing defeats on the French, Napoleon should never have lost the Russian campaign, ... etc. And however it happened, contrary to the odds.
The French government launched a propaganda campaign, in the beginning of WW2, whose caption was « we will win because we are the strongest », with a world map showing the extent of the French and British empires.
With hindsight, we know that given Germany’s edge in military doctrine, Britain and France alone could not defeat Germany and France was knocked out of the war in 6 weeks.
Most often, the one who wins a not too unbalanced war is the one who sets rational goals and is able to execute the right strategy.
Setting wrong goals or giving right goals up to suddenly follow nonsensical goals always is fatal.
I don’t mean Nazi Germany was doomed from the start in 1939. This is not the right POD.
What I mean is that Nazi Germany was doomed from the start in 1933 and even in 1924, in the sense that Hitler’s and the Nazis goal was suicidal. Waging war against the USSR to conquer a lebensraum for Germany was suicidal because it was obvious it would end in a 2 fronts war. It also should have been obvious that the USSR was too big a piece to swallow for Germany.
But if Hitler had been more rational, would he have been Hitler ?
Being rational would have implied giving-up the goal of conquering the eastern lebensraum and remaining in friendly terms with Stalin until Germany could force the UK and the US to accept German domination of central and western continental Europe.
And Hitler had no such patience.
Why was it obvious it would end in a two front war? Hitler didn't expect Britain and France to go to war over Danzig. He thought they were bluffing. By the time the ultimatum was issued, the invasion of Poland had gone too far to be stopped. Hitler's plan was to curb stomp Poland to settle the eastern frontier.
Assuming Britain never enters the war, he probably invades the USSR next. Or perhaps he doesn't, since without the British blockade, Germany can continue importing oil from the USA and Venezuela (and therefore no "need" to secure Soviet resources).
Assuming Britain never enters the war, he probably invades the USSR next. Or perhaps he doesn't, since without the British blockade, Germany can continue importing oil from the USA and Venezuela (and therefore no "need" to secure Soviet resources).
It was obvious because any other European power would want to maintain a decent balance of power.
It was so obvious for the German general staff that at the time of the crisis of the Sudetenland, it had decided to overthrow Hitler if Britain and France had decided to declare war in case of german agression of Czechoslovakia.
thaddeus
Donor
my view they made a bad deal with the Soviets, giving away their little trading bloc of Poland, Finland, and the Baltics. that amplified their dependence on the Soviet resources as has already been noted. possibly a deal could have been made over Poland alone?
my question is always how could they get the Soviets involved in shooting war with Allies? my only (vague) idea is to deliver some of the ships the Soviets (Stalin) wanted? which would be foolish diversion of Soviet resources and alarm the British, while keeping their trade with Soviets in balance.
my question is always how could they get the Soviets involved in shooting war with Allies? my only (vague) idea is to deliver some of the ships the Soviets (Stalin) wanted? which would be foolish diversion of Soviet resources and alarm the British, while keeping their trade with Soviets in balance.
German oil production and imports peaked in 1943 at over 10 million tons. This was not enough for a war including the USA. Luftwaffe frontline strength peaked in early 1944 at around 5,500 frontline combat aircraft - just before the USAAF oil bombing campaign really started to bite.
Deleted member 1487
That would be incorrect. The tempo of the offensive tapered because of the distances from the border to the front made logistics more difficult and casualties had sapped the strength of the attacking units, while Soviet resistance increased due to the huge influx of reservists who were appearing at the front in increasing numbers (by the end of Barbarossa the Red Army was large than it was on June 22nd despite taking over 4.5 million casualties) and they fell back on their supply hubs. Stockpiles at home and replacements were at hand, they were either held back by Hitler to form new divisions or were difficult to bring forward (in part because of weather in September, in part because of limited rail transport, in part of Soviet rear area resistance largely from units that took to the woods during pocket battles).
BigBlueBox
Banned
Technically France chose to surrender, it wasn’t physically forced into doing so. France could have continued the war from Algeria and the colonies. This board has also come to the consensus that a successful German invasion of the UK was impossible.
Yes, you are absolutely correct that France could have chosen to continue fighting from North Africa. Sit down with the German army in June 1940 and explain how France would like 6 months in order to organize the sea lift of a substantial chunk of the French army from French ports to North Africa - could the Wehrmacht be a dear and take a powder in the meantime?
Had the French attempted to continue the war from North Africa in June 1940, the net result would be the Axis occupation of all of North Africa by the end of 1940.
Deleted member 1487
Would it? First of all the German military would need to occupy all of continental France, while the French fleet would go over to the British and resist the Italians in the Mediterranean, decisively shifting the naval situation against them; if anything Italy loses Libya in 1940 as a result and the Allies have a Mediterranean base camp as the Germans are forced to defend and administer all of France as if it were 1943. French forces in North Africa was quite large as it was and they'd probably be able to overrun Tripoli quite quickly. The Battle of Britain would probably be delayed a while and more Germans locked down administering a much less cooperative France. I wonder then what Britain and France would do if Japan decided to take it's historical actions against French Indochina...
Depending on the situation in North Africa, perhaps with the Free French help (Syria and all the rest of the French colonies would still be at war too) perhaps Britain could even invade Sicily or at least Sardinia and Corsica, which would really create problems for the Axis.
With whom, the same Italian Army that was soundly defeated at Operation Compass in OTL? The net effect of French Navy and airforce at the defence of Tunis would mean that DAK would be really hard-pressed to get accross to Libya.
Deleted member 1487
Well, in that situation they were out of supply and poorly deployed on foreign territory to satisfy Mussolini's demands to have boots on the ground for an anticipated peace deal. Defending on Libyan turf will be a lot easier for their unmotorized infantry, so it won't be as if they would be pushovers having never invaded Egypt, but numbers and supply would decide the campaign. Except instead of Britain being the deciding factor it would be the French forces. DAK would never even have a chance to be a thought in Hitler's mind.
destiple
Banned
What do you think? Was Germany's defeat inevitable from the start?
Yes indeed we forget even in the darkest hour after dunkirk it was still
GERMany vs BRITISH EMPIRE ( CANADA, AUSTRALIA,NZ ,INDIA ETC)
so even before USA comes in germany is far outnumbered in resources and has no sea control
its just british propoganda that makes germany so mighty and awe inspiring
in reality germany of 1940 is a second rate land power, a reasonable airforce and an embroyonic navy
Yes indeed we forget even in the darkest hour after dunkirk it was still
GERMany vs BRITISH EMPIRE ( CANADA, AUSTRALIA,NZ ,INDIA ETC)
so even before USA comes in germany is far outnumbered in resources and has no sea control
its just british propoganda that makes germany so mighty and awe inspiring
in reality germany of 1940 is a second rate land power, a reasonable airforce and an embroyonic navy
You mean before or after the Luftwaffe pounded the French fleet and air forces in Tunisia into a fine powder?
The French fleet is about the only thing that, realistically, could get out of the debacle of the Battle of France in any significant strength. However, the possession of the French fleet by the Royal Navy would not significantly alter the balance of power in the Sicily-Tunisia-Tripoli triangle, as airpower would dominate and Allied bases outside Luftwaffe range in Sicily and Southern Italy would be too far away to effect the outcome in dash-and-run convoy battles. The German army would land in Tunisia and seize the ports and airfields, and then the French logistics and position would collapse, because Britain had nothing to spare. French army or air units would lose most of their equipment transferring over, then soon run out of spares and supplies for what remained as heavy combat exhausted local stockpiles.
Even assuming Tripoli falls, (unlikely, IMO) that won't save Tunisia or French North Africa.
The more forces the French wasted on a drive towards Tripoli, the greater the French debacle when the door gets kicked in from Sicily and Tunisia falls behind them.
Right, but by the same token, the BoB not being delayed could well be the one thing that might gain the Allies some time for North Africa. The joker in the deck.
I think the influence of the Luftwaffe on Allied naval options in the Med in this period would prevent these from being considered - unless, as you mention, the LW was fully embroiled in the BoB.
There was no British course to victory in WW2 that did not involve either the USSR, or the USA, or both, to go to war with Germany.