Alternate WWII?

[SCFalken]

Topic: What can the Axis, collectively or seperately, do to maximize their gains and minimize losses. Assuming that Hitler kicks things off approximately when he did in OTL (Fall '39/Spring '40).

 

Can (Germany, in particular) end up a "winner" (defined as being in a much more powerful Strategic position than when they began) in 1945?

 

Could retrenchment and consolidation after the Fall of France, along with ignoring/sueing for peace with the UK (so as not to widen the war), have prevented the historical mass assault by the remaining Western Powers? Can they keep the US off the active playing field.

 

Hitler ends 1940 essentially in control of Europe west of the Ukraine. The areas not annexed are occupied, and the areas not occupied by German troops are controlled by puppets, proxies and allies. They have the French, Norwegian, Danish and Dutch ports on the Atlantic/North Sea. Basically, they are the preeminent Power in Europe.

 

How do they keep it?

 

Can the UK be bought off with a Settlement (necessarilly a Seperate Peace, abandoning the Free French)? Is US intervention inevitable, regardless?

 

If the Western Allies can be persuaded to accept the status quo, can the Axis deal with the USSR?

 

This isn't a "how does the Axis win against the Allies?"-thread, but a "how does the Axis go about reducing the number of enemies facing it to a more manageable level than it historically faced?"-thread.

 

This would of course, require the Germans to not mistake operations for strategy, as they did in OTL...

 

Falken

Edited November 29, 2007 by SCFalken

[Assessor]

No small questions then?

 

Disclaimer – I’m an engineer, not a historian. This is my opinion, fwiw.

 

I’ve always thought Britain’s greatest moment was in 1940 to continue to fight, and stand with her allies (e.g. but not limited to Poland, the Netherlands, Free France). Britain and her allies had been roundly beaten, had no obvious source of re-enforcement and no quick way of re-equipping themselves.

 

I can’t say the extent to which Churchill read the mood of Britain and strengthened it with his speeches, or whether he made that mood, but a different leader might have “blinked” at that point. Another leader might have tried to come to an accommodation, some sort of mutual ignoring by the British Empire and the Third Reich, whereby no-one bombs one another, sinks one another’s ships etc. How this could be played with Britain’s allies heaven only knows.

 

However, I think the key lay in two other areas. The first is, what happens in the Far East. If Japan attacks Pearl Harbor, the Philippines, Malaya etc, the US, plus Britain and the Netherlands are drawn into a war with Japan. Hitler cannot control whether or not Japan attacks. If he throws in behind Japan (per treaty requirements) he inevitably comes into conflict with Britain (again) and the US. With the US behind Britain, he CANNOT defeat Britain. The Reich may not be defeated, or even significantly engaged by US / UK / other forces, for years (a “Japan first” strategy, for want of a better phrase), but it cannot defeat, or ignore the allies. Sooner or later, therefore it is either defeated (per OTL) or it reaches and accommodation with the allies.

 

If he doesn’t throw in with Japan, he still can’t do anything about Britain. If he attacks Britain while she is allied to the US against Japan, he draws in America. If he waits, Britain becomes stronger and more experienced as a result of the war with Japan, and has direct access to America’s resources. After the defeat of Japan, these resources still defend the British Empire. Hitler still can’t win.

 

The second is can Hitler make himself NOT invade Russia? If he can manage to not become embroiled in Russia, the Reich’s chances of longer-term survival must rise enormously. The caveat to this is how long can Stalin (or a successor) put up with a strong German empire on his borders? Irrespective of who is the original aggressor, can the Reich survive a war with Russia?

[ShotMagnet]

'how does the Axis go about reducing the number of enemies facing it to a more manageable level than it historically faced?'

By choosing its timing better. In the case of Germany, it seems that if they'd been a little more deliberate and a little less-obviously rapacious, they might have forced allies who weren't eager to go to war in the first place to 'really think things through'. Manufacture an incident with regard to the Poles. Then use the incident as a pretext. Same for the Japanese, if maybe in somewhat different guise. Tamp down Mussolini, and remind him who's the junior partner.

 

Again for the Germans, play the anti-Communist card hard in the US. There was no love lost with regard to the Soviets, spreading the word that Commies Are Bad, sooner and clearer might have bought the Germans some atemsraum, though in my opinion Hitler's failure to appreciate how hard the Soviets would fight doomed his efforts in Russia.

 

Establish and adhere to a set of limited objectives, see how well those do for you, and in the meantime attempt to enlist the support if not outright cooperation of the Western powers. They don't like the Commies any more than you do; if you show them that you're 'really' just trying to protect your society, then you may find yourself backed by sympathetic folks who might even turn a blind eye toward the awful things you're doing to untermenschen.

 

Hitler was doing fine when he was rebuilding Germany's infrastructure. Where he stumbled was when he believed started believing in his own greatness, and acted accordingly.

 

 

Shot

[Xavier]

Manufacture an incident with regard to the Poles

they did, look up the Gleiwitz incident, although I'd admit it's not a masterpiece of False Flag operations

Tamp down Mussolini, and remind him who's the junior partner

IIRC Hitler just wasn't told of Italian plans by Mussolini

Hitler's failure to appreciate how hard the Soviets would fight doomed his efforts in Russia

...who might even turn a blind eye toward the awful things you're doing to untermenschen

IMHO the only chance for winning in Russia is playing the Anti-Communist Liberator card instead of the Horsemen from the Apocalypse one. Declare the baltic states independence along with White-Russia and Ukraine + for Russia proper the "We will deliver you from the tiranny of Stalin" card. This means no üntermenschen, no stealing all livestock & harvest from farmers and definitely no Einzatsgruppe. Of course this would mean the Nazis wouldn't be Nazis anymore but pragmatic German Imperialists...

Hitler was doing fine when he was rebuilding Germany's infrastructure. Where he stumbled was when he believed started believing in his own greatness, and acted accordingly.

IIRC he was bankrupting Germany by doing that (especially the military buildup) and was only saved from bankuptcy by occupying the Low Countries and France and taking their gold reserves

 

 

One thing they would need to do is getting a decent war time economy from the start

[Redbeard]

My bid for a number of changes in German action:

 

- A minimum of plans for what to do if the allies actually declare war in September 1939, like having produced ammo for more than the Polish campaign. Might have made it possible to overrun France in November 1939. Having the entire German economy on war footing by 1939 instead of 1942/43 is probably too much to ask.

- Train the Luftwaffe in co-operation with Kriegsmarine pre-war.

- Equip the Bf 109 with drop tanks before BoB.

- Be sure von Rundstedt and Guderian have a saying on planning the attack on France.

- Plan for Barbarossa going on into 1942. With winter clothing, lubrication etc. the Wehrmacht will be in a good position in early 1942 to push the Red Army over the edge.

- Do not declare war on USA if/when Japan attacks PH, but offer USA (and UK) a place in the common fight against Bolschevism and other more or less Asiatic threats.

- Include German women in the workforce, the babies must wait until after the war.

- Consider Slavs more Aryan than not

- Postpone the "Jewish question" until after the war.

 

The best would however be:

- Drop being nazis and do something sensible instead...

 

Regards

 

Steffen Redbeard

[swerve]

...

- Include German women in the workforce, the babies must wait until after the war.

- Consider Slavs more Aryan than not

- Postpone the "Jewish question" until after the war.

 

The best would however be:

- Drop being nazis and do something sensible instead...

 

Regards

 

Steffen Redbeard

 

The first set seem to imply the last . . .

[Ssnake]

Topic: What can the Axis, collectively or seperately, do to maximize their gains and minimize losses.

The war in the east could have been won if it had not been a war of extermination but one of liberation from communist rule. But the war in the east wouldn't have been started without the ideology that necessitated the extermination. Hitler was fundamentally incapable of doing anything different than the way he did. Without an aggressive ideology, no war with the Soviet Union. Without an ideology of nationalism, no Sudetenland, no Anschluss. Without an ideology of revanchism, no war with Poland nor France, and hence none with Britain. But the Nazi ideology was aggressive, rassist, revanchist, and nationalistic, and that prevented dealing with the populace of subjugated countries in a humane and reasonable manner. Consequently it was inevitable to alienate about everybody save for the lucky few who managed to stay out of the whole mess (Switzerland, Sweden, Ireland) and those who had no choice (Finnland), or those who were lucky enough to fit into the erratic categories of worthy lives (e.g. some of the Baltic ethnicities).

Ultimately I find the proposed question unanswerable because it seems to me that there is no substance in the fundamental assumption that there actually WAS an alternative other than not being Nazi in the first place. Of course, once that we abandon the link between ideology and actions, we can think of a lot of alternatives. But it would fundamentally change the nature of the actors which formed "the Axis" because of common elements in their national ideologies, not just because of shared interests. Rational actors might have had alternatives, but rational actors wouldn't have started wars of extermination in the first place.

[redcoat]

About the most important thing Hitler could have done differently was not to occupy the rump of Czechoslovakia, in March 1938, because this is the act which set alarm bells ringing in both Britain and France, and caused them to sign a treaty with Poland, on the issue of Polands borders with Germany.

If he hadn't done this, its unlikely Britain and France would have had a treaty with Poland, and so when the Germans attack Poland in September 1939, its highly unlikely Britain and France would have declared war on Germany.

[JWB]

About the most important thing Hitler could have done differently was not to occupy the rump of Czechoslovakia, in March 1938, because this is the act which set alarm bells ringing in both Britain and France, and caused them to sign a treaty with Poland, on the issue of Polands borders with Germany.

If he hadn't done this, its unlikely Britain and France would have had a treaty with Poland, and so when the Germans attack Poland in September 1939, its highly unlikely Britain and France would have declared war on Germany.

Yeah but Hitler really wanted the Sudetenland. Do you think he could have gotten it without provoking the Brits?

[Brian Kennedy]

I think the most important one for the Germans would be -- don't declare war on the US. (It's crazy how many educated people I meet still think that we declared war on Hitler first). Sure, we'd probably enter eventually, but we'd be a lot more divided politically, a lot more prone to a Japan First policy, etc. He wrote us off as a nation of bankers with a pathetic army, which we were at the time, but 1) he wasn't really keen on studying up about our Navy and 2) he vastly underestimated our determination and potential.

 

Runner-up is obviously not to declare war on the Soviet Union -- this hurt them rather more than declaring war on the US did, but like other posters have mentioned earlier, Hitler wouldn't be Hitler if he didn't attack the USSR at some point.

 

Most counterfactuals involving Hitler end up resembling something like "how many people could Jeffrey Dahmer have killed if he wasn't a complete psychopath." Probably a hell of a lot more, but if he wasn't a complete psychopath then he wouldn't have killed anybody, you know? And Hitler got damn lucky in 1939-40.

[dpapp2]

It would help if the three Axis powers decide to coordinate even a bit. Let's see...

 

- SA staging a coup to overthrow Hitler&Co, Roehm cannot be worse than the lunatics staying in power, and it removes some politically incorrect issues from the picture

- Germany not supplying the Kuomintang with modern weapons

- preparing for a naval war by building more submarines pre-war, or at least some coherent naval expansion plan. Germany had almost the same ship tonnage left incompleted as was commissioned.

- building up critical resources stockpile to last for 5 years that are unavailable in Europe in large quantity (Nickel, Chromium, Vanadium, Tungsten)

- build adequate number of coal-to-oil conversion plants and getting American know-how for high-octane fuels

- Italy doing at least some minimal war preparations

- preparing for the invasion of Malta

- building up port infrastructure, or even laying down some narrow-gauge railroad in Libya (forgetting the Foresight of Lybian oil)

- military assistance to the Eastern European Axis minors - historically, they did not start licence producing German weapons until the war was effectively lost. Imagine Romania and Hungary building Me-109s (or Heinkels) and more importantly aircraft engines from 1939-40 not 1944, or Pz-III/IVs instead of Swedish light tanks or improved Pz38(t)s

- unifying most of the ammunition supply of the European

- naval technology cooperation might require an early POD, but would be beneficial to all parties. German diesel engines and high-pressure powerplants, Long Lance in the Med, Italian guns for the Bismarck (if they insist on building it)

 

How the war would go?

Phoney war continuing until the Norway invasion, where a better prepared and cooperating Kriegsmarine and the Luftwaffe would prevent any meaningful British intervention. Then commerce raiding starts against the British merchant marine with a larger than historical force

As the French front is collapsing, Italy enters the war, launching attack on Malta, Tunisia and Egypt. The fall of Malta secures lines of communication, better supply situation, and a field railroad laid down in Egypt as the Italian forces advance solves most of the supply problems. With the British defeated in Norway, and the BEF engaged in France, the RN must evacuate the Med. While I consider any adventure further into the Middle East (e.g. Mesopotamia) unfeasible, the loss of Suez and the Fall of Paris would be a blow enough to force even Churchill to the negotiating tables.

Now Germany has half a year to build up the Wehrmacht with a larger Luftwaffe, useful Axis minor forces, no strategic bombing to tie down fighter assets. The rest of the Balkan is coerced to join the German-Italian alliance, including Greece. A brief war is concluded with Yugoslavia divided between the neighbors, and a puppet Croatia and Serbia established. Resources are flowing in from Indonesia and Indochina through the puppet Holland and the German-friendly Vichy regime.

War is declared on the USSR. No lend-lease for a while, and Germany officially announces a blockade of the Russian North Sea ports - which is maintained.

 

Far East

With the war ending in Europe UK reinforces Singapore and Australia starting late 1940 so that a Japanese surprise attack would not be successful. But Japan is not forced to declare war on the Allies, as they can buy oil from the DOI and steel from Europe.

Japan will declare war on the USSR. Their units are better equipped than historical, their airforce better trained they would be at least on par with the Soviets. The main effect would be that now the only way to get any significant amount of Lend-Lease to the USSR is through Persia, which might not agree to pass the convoys through. By September-October, the loss of the explosives factories cause a shortage in ammunition. The Luftwaffe, supported by other Axis airforces rules the sky, why aluminium shortage forces the Soviets to cut bomber production to minimal. The Italian Navy, after coercing Turkey to let them through the Bospurus supports advance along the Black Sea. By Winter welcomes the German troop, clad in sufficient winter gear, Leningrad is completely isolated with no supply routes even over the lakes, the Germans are at the gates of Moscow, Krimea and Sevastopol fallen and the Red Army had to withdraw behind the Donets.

[Marek Tucan]

Yeah but Hitler really wanted the Sudetenland. Do you think he could have gotten it without provoking the Brits?

He got it. What provoked the Brits was occupation opf remnants of Czechoslovakia. Had he dropped that and instead played Sudetenland card on Poland, Brits may have swallowed it again.

[Marek Tucan]

As for the question, how would it look like if Hitler just invaded Poland and left France and Britain completely alone? No subs even? If he did later try back channel negotiations that he has no grievances in fact with them and if they leave him alone he is going to keep that nasty Commies away?

[Sardaukar]

Whole concept of "smarter Nazis" is oxymoron. They were "victims" of their own belief-system..they would have not been Nazis if smarter, but (like said previously) German Imperialists.

[Detonable]

The only thing within the means of the Germans was to possibly get rid of the Churchill government. If Britain stays in the war, eventually the US gets into the war in some way, at a minimum by supplying the Empire.

 

So, the Germans need to get to the Suez canal and start unraveling the empire. This might allow British conservatives, who probably supported Churchill, to support a peace treaty to preserve the empire. Postponing the war in Russia 10 months would have allowed this. Germany did not have the resources to fight the British Empire, the United States, and Russia too. They cannot ever occupy the United States, so the weak link is Britain.

 

Hitler regarded Russia as the weak link which would collapse in a few weeks. But, even if it had been, his plan was still stupid because the US could never be knocked out of the war.

 

Perhaps Germany can promise the Japanese a steady fuel supply from the colonies of the countries they had occupied? That avoids dragging the US in the war through Pearl Harbor. Even if the US does not declare war on Germany, as happened historically, you just cannot let the US get to a full war economy. All those weapons have to end up somewhere.

[Burncycle360]

Use the manufacturing technique they used in the late war with the elecktro boats from the beginning. After teething, throughput should be significantly increased and you might see twice as many subs early war.

[George Newbill]

I have asked myself this question a thousand times and the answer is this:

 

A. Don't start WWII.

 

or

 

B. Convince Japan to attack the USSR first.

 

If you want to war game this try Axis and Allies.

[Brian Kennedy]

The only thing within the means of the Germans was to possibly get rid of the Churchill government. If Britain stays in the war, eventually the US gets into the war in some way, at a minimum by supplying the Empire.

 

So, the Germans need to get to the Suez canal and start unraveling the empire. This might allow British conservatives, who probably supported Churchill, to support a peace treaty to preserve the empire. Postponing the war in Russia 10 months would have allowed this. Germany did not have the resources to fight the British Empire, the United States, and Russia too. They cannot ever occupy the United States, so the weak link is Britain.

 

Hitler regarded Russia as the weak link which would collapse in a few weeks. But, even if it had been, his plan was still stupid because the US could never be knocked out of the war.

 

Perhaps Germany can promise the Japanese a steady fuel supply from the colonies of the countries they had occupied? That avoids dragging the US in the war through Pearl Harbor. Even if the US does not declare war on Germany, as happened historically, you just cannot let the US get to a full war economy. All those weapons have to end up somewhere.

 

I don't think that there's any way the US plus UK could defeat Germany on their own -- they just don't have the manpower, and in any case wouldn't tolerate the losses that the USSR was able to tolerate. The best they could have hoped for is a ceasefire and a prolonged cold war.

[DesertFox]

I don't think that there's any way the US plus UK could defeat Germany on their own -- they just don't have the manpower, and in any case wouldn't tolerate the losses that the USSR was able to tolerate. The best they could have hoped for is a ceasefire and a prolonged cold war.

 

Would Germany have imploded eventually anyway though?

[Ssnake]

Without the Russians Britain might have sued for peace, maybe not. If Britain would continue, nuclear bombs would go off in August 1945 over Berlin, and other major cities. I'm pretty sure, at that point the already stretched support of the German population for the Nazis would have fallen apart and a collapse would have been a quite realistic development.

 

Even without that, I'm sure that the Nazis would have been replaced by some other group of rulers simply because the economy of the then Teuto-European empire was unsustainable, and/or partisan presence would have tied down a larger number of troops than Germany could keep in the field for a prolonged time. Surely, a collapse of the Soviet Union would have been a very severe blow to all other groups resisting the rule of Nazi boots. And without foreign support the partisans would have had a hard time. Still, I doubt that the Nazis could have kept the post-war economy running.

[SCFalken]

Is US intervention inevitable, once Germany invades France? Or is it possible for Germany to convince the British Empire, the US, or both to accept the status quo (German domination of Europe)? Especially once Japan takes over the headlines in the US.

 

Falken

[Ssnake]

Sure.

The one reason the US were drawn into the war in Europe was that Churchill convinced FDR about the necessity. Had Chruchill failed to do, for a variety of reasons; had Britain stopped to resist, it would have been a lot less compelling cause to participate in the war in Europe.

 

I think it is less likely to see Churchill prevailing in WW2 than expecting him to fail. Sure, in retrospect he turns out victorious, but it seems to be far from inevitable at almost any given point in the course of WW2 save for the time after Germany declared war on the US. The Soviet Union was on the brink of collapse, so was the British supply situation for a few weeks in 1942. With Stalin or Churchill suffering a heart attack or falling victim to an assassination plot, I think we'd have a totally different history of WW2, and in either case no direct US involvement in Europe.

[Xavier]

The only thing within the means of the Germans was to possibly get rid of the Churchill government. If Britain stays in the war, eventually the US gets into the war in some way, at a minimum by supplying the Empire.

Aye, if one man is to get credit for Allied victory it would be Churchill with his balls of steel

So, the Germans need to get to the Suez canal and start unraveling the empire. This might allow British conservatives, who probably supported Churchill, to support a peace treaty to preserve the empire. Postponing the war in Russia 10 months would have allowed this. Germany did not have the resources to fight the British Empire, the United States, and Russia too. They cannot ever occupy the United States, so the weak link is Britain.

The Suez canal wasn't much easier to reach than Moscow thanks to logistics unless they could cripple British shipping of supplies to Egypt, which would require cutting of the Red Sea...

Hitler regarded Russia as the weak link which would collapse in a few weeks. But, even if it had been, his plan was still stupid because the US could never be knocked out of the war.

In his "plan" the USA doesn't take part in the war, period, until 7/12 that is

Perhaps Germany can promise the Japanese a steady fuel supply from the colonies of the countries they had occupied? That avoids dragging the US in the war through Pearl Harbor. Even if the US does not declare war on Germany, as happened historically, you just cannot let the US get to a full war economy. All those weapons have to end up somewhere.

Impossible, that fuel would have to come from the Dutch East Indies, which were still under control of the Dutch government in exile in London...

Edited December 1, 2007 by Xavier

[dpapp2]

The Suez canal wasn't much easier to reach than Moscow thanks to logistics unless they could cripple British shipping of supplies to Egypt, which would require cutting of the Red Sea...

Yes, but a smarter Italy (well, they would have to exert some great effort to do worse than OTL) would have the required logistical support - Malta fallen, enlarged ports in Tobruk and Benghazi, and prepositioned stocks of field railways to support the advance.

Perhaps Germany can promise the Japanese a steady fuel supply from the colonies of the countries they had occupied? That avoids dragging the US in the war through Pearl Harbor. Even if the US does not declare war on Germany, as happened historically, you just cannot let the US get to a full war economy. All those weapons have to end up somewhere.

Impossible, that fuel would have to come from the Dutch East Indies, which were still under control of the Dutch government in exile in London...

Supplying resources from the DOI to Japan presupposes a peace deal between Berlin and London, so there'd be no government in exile. And even the allied Netherlands sold oil to Japan until the embargo.

[SCFalken]

Sure.

The one reason the US were drawn into the war in Europe was that Churchill convinced FDR about the necessity. Had Chruchill failed to do, for a variety of reasons; had Britain stopped to resist, it would have been a lot less compelling cause to participate in the war in Europe.

 

But what can Hitler do to make US intervention less likely, after France falls?

 

 

 

Falken