Axis in WWII

[Rosbjerg]

Imagine, for a moment, that Hitler had succeeded in taking a great slice of Poland with no outbreak of a larger war and then stopped to consolidate his successes. What if that had been the end of the conflict. What would we call him then? Just because he failed dismally, for which we should all be thankful, doesn't mean his preceding moves were not intelligent. To our chagrin, Hitler was quite crafty.

 

He still would've mass murdered millions of Jews.. I wouldn't exactly call him nice or brilliant, even if he had "only" conquered one country.

 

Remember everyone.. That the point of this thread is not to discuss whether Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Hirohito, Truman or Churchill were evil/brilliant or not.. but rather if Germany could've won the war.

[lord of flies]

How could Hitler's regime in Germany have done better?

 

Well, I once read a cool alt-hist timeline where Hitler got hit by a car in the '20s and became a communist. But, uh, I don't think that's what you're talking about.

 

So, how could it have done better? A later attack on the USSR? That's actually a terrible idea. The fact that the Nazis caught the Soviets off-guard is what allowed them their "massive" success. "Ideal" war scenario is a "Peace with Honor" with a Halifax-led Britain in 1940-ish and a massive troop build-up and cold war with the USSR, while the USA just beats on the Japanese. Of course, Hitler would never have stood for "jewish Bolshevism" to live on his eastern frontier, so we'll have to kill him at about that point. This would probably butterfly away the Holocaust, since that only really got going in '41, and without Hitler never would've shown up (the rest of the Nazi leadership had no real plan on what to do about "all these jews").

 

For Japan, just never getting involved would probably be best. Maybe take another couple of coastal cities, but leave the Chinese Civil War alone in general. The United States got really pissed that Japan was screwing up its business interests in China, and conflicts over control of the Pacific were a real boiling point for the two nations. Remember that Pearl Harbor was a pre-emptive strike from a threatened nation. The USA was helping out the Chinese well before then.

 

Basically though, the best way for the Axis to "win" WW2 was to not start it. Japan and Germany were big industrial and economic powers, and neither of them "needed" to do what they did to maintain their position.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Certainly Germany had many chances to if not outright win, at least greatly improve its chances of winning. For example, had they not inexplicably stopped their advance for several days at Dunkirk, they could've annihilated the British Expeditionary Force (as everyone including Churchill expected) and knocked Britain out of the war. There were also many blunders in Russia, e.g. I believe at Kursk hitler delayed the offensive against Von Mannstein's advice.

[Tigranes]

For Japan, just never getting involved would probably be best. Maybe take another couple of coastal cities, but leave the Chinese Civil War alone in general. The United States got really pissed that Japan was screwing up its business interests in China, and conflicts over control of the Pacific were a real boiling point for the two nations. Remember that Pearl Harbor was a pre-emptive strike from a threatened nation. The USA was helping out the Chinese well before then.

 

The invasion of China was a preoccupation with various Japanese regimes throughout the 19th century, and the steps taken to invade and eventually annex Choson/Korea in the late 19th century was explicitly a build-up to a general invasion of China. You'd have needed some massive changes in the direction of the country to have a situation where they weren't getting their nuts itchy about China.

 

Basically though, the best way for the Axis to "win" WW2 was to not start it. Japan and Germany were big industrial and economic powers, and neither of them "needed" to do what they did to maintain their position.

 

Wonder what Hitler would have done without the war. I mean, what happens if he goes with anschluss and everything, but just stops short of Poland? Or if he took Poland, people let him, then he stopped? How long would he have held on to power?

[cronicler]

Hitler made the absolutely dumbest move on the Soviets during WWII.

 

Actually this is not true. The Soviets were also preparing to hit the Germans (At least they were creating serious ammo and fuel dumps and other logistical supports). If the Germans Were more prepared for the winter, (Both in supplies and in mindset) they could have broken the Soviets.

 

Anyway, the German high command didn't make too many mistakes but their mistakes were fatal in the long run;

 

-As MEntioned before, Hitler was a "dumb NCO" as far as the Battlefield tactics go. If he was not trying to Micro-Manage the war (and had some yes-man in some positions) The german offensive could have been much more deciding. There are lots of instances where high-command or generals in charge had to... nag and beg Hitler for permission.

-Being Bogged down in Russia instead of letting them (encircled positions) die on the vine. while hitting the logistics.

-Letting Brits and Polish regulars escape and regroup

-Italian Blunders

-Technological Blunders (Over Engineering on later model Tanks)

 

They were a hair's breath away from crumbling everyone to dust. (1943+ is just spiralling down to dust. Don't consider that period for a chance of total Victory.)

 

 

As the Generals of the old have said, Amateurs study tactics. Pros study logistics.

Edited August 11, 2009 by cronicler

[Gorth]

Wonder what Hitler would have done without the war. I mean, what happens if he goes with anschluss and everything, but just stops short of Poland? Or if he took Poland, people let him, then he stopped? How long would he have held on to power?

Not very long. The Nazi "movement" was sort of an apt description. Being powered by dissatisfaction and hope, it needed momentum. If you slow down and break the momentum, it cracks and falls apart. War was inevitable, as it was needed to focus the anger of the masses. Try switching off the magnetic field that keeps a ball of plasma in place.

[Aristes]

Imagine, for a moment, that Hitler had succeeded in taking a great slice of Poland with no outbreak of a larger war and then stopped to consolidate his successes. What if that had been the end of the conflict. What would we call him then? Just because he failed dismally, for which we should all be thankful, doesn't mean his preceding moves were not intelligent. To our chagrin, Hitler was quite crafty.

 

He still would've mass murdered millions of Jews.. I wouldn't exactly call him nice or brilliant, even if he had "only" conquered one country.

 

Remember everyone.. That the point of this thread is not to discuss whether Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Hirohito, Truman or Churchill were evil/brilliant or not.. but rather if Germany could've won the war.

Really, this simply must be a language thing with folks or something.

 

First of all, we should separate Hitler's mental acuity from his twisted moral compass. I don't, in any way, mean he was intelligent in his philosophical outlook. I am a true believer in democracy, so I find fascism repugnant. Not only that, but nazi fascism is particularly evil because it revolves around racism and genocide. Hitler was not a brilliant moralist.

 

However, if we remove his twisted philosophy from the question and focus on his ability to foresee possible events, assess the situation, and then form plans accodingly, then we can give a better answer to the question of his mental abilities. For example, if Hitler had died before Kristallnacht, would the country have been in worse shape or better? That's an honest question, since the country was better than when Hitler had taken office, but he had already ushered in changes that would have long term, and I believe disasterous, effects.

 

The other thing we should do is look at his actions in terms of their short-term goal and judge them separately from Hitler's long term objectives. Hitler was undoubtedly hell-bent on a course that would involve Germany in war. He finally ended up in a war with Poland. If his belief that the French and British would back down had born true, as it had so often by that time, then his plan was apparently to hold fast and consolidate these new areas into Germany. Now, some folks will undoubtedly scream murder at that. Please keep in mind, he was certainly evil enough for having annexed his neighbors and attacked Poland. Saying he would have stopped for some years after Poland is not my way of excusing the wickedness of his previous actions, either domestically or internationally.

 

Nevertheless, since the lands he took, from the Rhineland in the west to Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Prussia in the east, were apparently his primary objectives. I personally think that he would have stopped for some time to consolidate. Thank God that the British, particularly the British people, decided to hold the line where they did. Hitler most assuredly had larger goals in mind, and a later war with the Soviet Union would have been quite different, in my mind, had Hitler been given enough time to consolidate his greater reich.

 

So, let's change the word from brilliant. I have no regret using the word and I still believe that, in these terms, it applies, but maybe it would be easier to digest if I instead substitute 'shrewd.' Hitler had a viable plan that hinged on west European leaders remaining docile. Luckily he was wrong, but we'd undoubtedly be having a different conversation if Hitler had been right. ...And there was ample evidence to suggest that he might have been.

 

Frankly, I have long been an admirer of Churchill. He is certainly one of the greatest men in history, but I've often had folks, particularly in academic settings, who challenge that idea. Still, I have always felt quite at home facing off against folks who did not appreciate Churchill's greatness. Hitler had some spark of brilliance, but it was accompanied by an evil and twisted nature. Certainly most folks would have no troubles seeing that Churchill was a great man with some shortcomings (as all people have) and that Hitler was an evil man possessed of some positive attributes (which he unfortunately employed for the sake of his evil plans).

[Hurlshort]

History is filled with men (and maybe a few women) who achieved greatness, and at the same time were absolute monsters.

[Gorth]

Actually this is not true. The Soviets were also preparing to hit the Germans (At least they were creating serious ammo and fuel dumps and other logistical supports). If the Germans Were more prepared for the winter, (Both in supplies and in mindset) they could have broken the Soviets.

Two major blunders...

 

Not finishing off England as a combatant, leaving an allied "standing stone" in the west.

 

Attacking the Soviets in fall, (I seem to remember reading somewhere that the generals wanted a spring offensive, but logistical problems kept delaying it).

 

I wonder if they could have have waited until next spring though, as Stalins purge of trained and/or experienced officers was at its highest and the red army in complete disarray. They might have have been able to ship out new indoctrinated junior officers and ncos at least the following spring.

 

He (Hitler) had a strange habit of being decisive in both opportune and inopportune moments. His ruthlessness prevented a total collapse the first winter, but the same ruthlessness when changing strategy on the fly, overruling army officers, also managed to spread the war effort thin against a numerically superior enemy, rather than decisively go for targets within reach. Leningrad and Moscow in particular.

 

Oh yeah, and the assumption that the lines on the map actually meant roads.

[cronicler]

Btw, On the business of using Anatolia to Attack Russia (or Balkans); Do you have any idea what Anatolia looks like on a map ?

 

The only realistic route to use is the middle parts of Anotolia and we did see how well it worked for Motorised Transport (in hostile country) without any log support or any train lines. Hell the place didn't even have any roads that were capable of handling major transits.

 

Sure the Tankettes and Bunker systems at Marmara region wouldn't have stopped the Germans but their attack would have opened the southern coast to Allied landings.

[Monte Carlo]

^ The theory is (and it's not mine, although I like it) that Hitler would have rolled across Turkey / The Crimea and into Persia. He'd have secured oil pipelines there, denying the Russians of the same resource and exposing the Soviets to the South.

 

After all, Turkey was NATOs prized 'Southern Flank' against the WP in the Cold War.

[Humodour]

Some very important, and imho impossible victories, for Germany could've won them the war, at least in the short run.. Dissent and guerilla activities would've eventually broken their control of Europe I think.

 

One thing that would've made a huge difference to the war in Europe, could've have started as far away as China.. if Mao hadn't allied himself with China to defeat Imperial Japan, then Japan would probably have taken control of China, which would've meant America had to divert many resources to defeat Japan.. Giving Germany time to fight Russia without worrying so much about 2 fronts.

 

The biggest difference though would have been if Hitler had gone through the middle-east and attacked Russia from 2 sides (see picture), via Turkey, and taking out the Russian oil wells. If that had been successful, Germany could've cut off most of Russia's retreating troops and supplies. Possibly turning the war to Germany's favour, at least until America gained a foothold.

 

To avoid a lengthy war with America later, Germany would have to conquer England and thereby deny America a proper footing in Europe.

 

America only entered the war near the end when Japan attacked and generally speaking things were already going badly for the Germans, right? Suppose Japan invaded China, didn't touch America, and that Germany was performing better against the Commonwealth?

 

Would America remain essentially non-aligned and hope the fascists left her alone?

[Rosbjerg]

America only entered the war near the end when Japan attacked and generally speaking things were already going badly for the Germans, right? Suppose Japan invaded China, didn't touch America, and that Germany was performing better against the Commonwealth?

 

Would America remain essentially non-aligned and hope the fascists left her alone?

 

They entered the war in late 41, 2 years after it started and ended it 4 years later.. so technically it wasn't really near the end. In 41 things seemed to be going quite well for Germany, they were making good progress in Russia and they had control of almost all of mainland Europe, the only democracy which wasn't overrun at this time, on the mainland, was Sweden.

 

Of course we know now that the war is about to turn once the winter hits and by 42, when America starts sending mass supplies and troops to England and Russia halts the advance, the war really turns sour for Nazi Germany.

 

But to answer your question - I think America would've thought long and hard on it's position if Germany had fared well against England and Japan had control of China.. Because it's hard to deploy troops to a theatre of war, across an ocean, into the enemy's backyard. I don't think America could've done much except try to nuke Germany if they had total control of Europe. But they would've probably waited in response to see if Russia could withstand I think.

[Aristes]

Remember that it's not completely about Hitler going down. These countries also had to contend with each other. The United States and the United Kingdom still saw the Soviet Union as essentially hostile. They were uneasy bedfellows who allied together for survival. The United States and England undoubtedly didn't want the Soviet Union to take everything in Europe. What use would it be to have Europe completely in the hands of the Soviets rather than the Germans? On the other hand, Ros is right. It was hard enough to supply through the United Kingdom and the wester allies still had to make their way into Europe. The primary reason that the brunt of the war fell on Russia rather than the United States and the United Kingdom is because the Russian was simply proximity. It's also one reason the United States suffered far less than Russia. The United Kingdom has always had a relatively small population by comparison. The idea that they would be able to bear the brunt of the fighting alone was simply never in the cards. I'm convinced, however, that the English did more than their share to ensure an allied victory. They bought a lot of time and tied up a lot of men. Sure, you might look at the numbers on the eastern front and think that the troops England engaged or otherwise drew from the east were negligible, but I am convinced that it simply not the case. Getting men and material ready and in place and moving rapidly in modern warfare is essential.

[213374U]

You're forgetting that Germany wasn't any better off before the second war than after.

Actually that's not true. Germany lost a good chunk of territory to Poland (and K Edited August 11, 2009 by 213374U

[Humodour]

I never really understood how the Russians got to keep K

Edited August 11, 2009 by Krezack

[Gorth]

I never really understood how the Russians got to keep K

[Aristes]

I'm thinking specifically of the moves to occupy the Rhineland and annex Austria and Checkoslovakia. In my mind, those were bold moves that required a lot of instestinal fortitude. Also, I've always looked askance at the argument that the person in charge is a bumbling fool but the people around him were so good they kept him afloat. If someone maintains power for over a decade, especially someone not born into that power in the first place, I think citing luck or his lackeys is the ultimate cop out. Clearly, Hitler was by and large self taught and I think his reasoning was quite erratic, but he wasn't a bumbling fool nonetheless.

 

More to the point, I don't want the fact that Hitler rightfully deserves condemnation for his long list of crimes to detract from the fact that he enjoyed amazing success. Now, I can accept what the leet one says because it's clearly an argument. I contend that Hitler is 'briliant' for these reasons. Numbers says that Hitler is not brilliant because, while these reasons exist, those other reasons make a different case. That's much better than: Hitler is evil, therefore he must be stupid as well. I still think he was far too shrewd for folks to discard him out of hand as nothing more than a raving lunatic. The danger in that, of course, is that we figure we can always tell the evil folks because they're raving lunatics, whereas there are many many accounts of Hitler acting quite urbane and making his arguments in a well ordered and reasoned manner. Isn't that worse? I mean, if he were nothing more than a raving lunatic, wouldn't that be so much easier to swallow than realizing that he was a human being? Because, if he were demon, he'd be just a demon. Born and bred evil to act evil. If he's a human being like the rest of us, then whatever he had inside him that allowed him to commit his acts is the same thing we all have inside of us somewhere. I don't cite Hitler's shrewdness to praise him, but to condemn him.

 

I admit, I'm not really a World War II buff. Most of my education, self or otherwise, is in classical times, but have read as much as most other folks not directly involved in the field. It seems to me that we can't get around the fact that Hitler managed to carry out some daring and decisive victories in domestic and international politics. I think these victories ultimately cost his country and the world greatly, but we can never understand Hitler if we refuse to see past his monstrous side. Hitler the monster is a story book character, fit to scare children. Hitler the person, terrible as it is to contemplate, is a lesson. The lesson that Hitler the person teaches us is that there could a Hitler born today. There could be a Hitler among us, sitting in our classes, walking down our streets, watching the same television shows, because whatever Hitler had that made him a monster is the same thing every other person on earth has in potential.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Attacking the Soviets in fall, (I seem to remember reading somewhere that the generals wanted a spring offensive, but logistical problems kept delaying it).

 

Germans attacked in June.

 

And no, Russians weren't about to attack Germany at that time: http://www.battlefield.ru/content/view/208/108/lang,en/

[213374U]

Dissent and guerilla activities would've eventually broken their control of Europe I think.

I'm not so sure about that.

 

 

[snip]

Yeah, good points. I suppose that, as with everything once you take a closer look, this isn't a black and white issue. Hitler was very, very good at manipulating the fears and frustrations of post-Versailles Germany, and he also had a knack for accumulating and keeping power by any means necessary. He was also probably quite intelligent. However, I think other than that, he was terrible. You sustain that he achieved some great victories in foreign policy, and that's undeniable. But that makes him "brilliant" as much as it makes him a pushy brute. With the world immersed in the 30's crisis, the last thing anyone in his right mind wanted was another Great War. Hitler, on the other hand, made war a central part of his agenda - not surprising given his messiah complex and his possession of a great vision whose realization was inevitable.

 

His brilliance resided in his will to keep pressing for more and more until somebody finally drew a line - which Hitler promptly crossed. He wasn't a good administrator. He wasn't a good general. He wasn't a good negotiator, always wielding the threat of war to get what he wanted. He was a pretty terrible philosopher. He was historically ignorant. But all of this is, to me, secondary to the trait that in my eyes shows his true stature as a man: he was utterly incapable of dealing with criticism and was almost as quick to dismiss those with dissenting opinions (and the braveness to voice them) as he was to fly into storming rages.

 

I don't know man, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

 

That's why my opinion is that, once war broke out, he was more a liability than an asset, what with his insistence to manage the war and his faith that England would eventually agree to a peace treaty. That's why he didn't want the British Expeditionary Force annihilated at Dunkirk, btw. He deeply admired the British Empire and its institutions. Of course, without him, it's anyone's guess how things may have played out.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I think that was more of a rationalization for his getting cold feet, politically it didn't make any sense since that was his one chance to get rid of Churchill. Edit: May be the drugs he was taking kicked in. Some of the stuff he supposedly said was just weird.

Edited August 11, 2009 by Wrath of Dagon

[Rosbjerg]

Dissent and guerilla activities would've eventually broken their control of Europe I think.

I'm not so sure about that.

 

You can't really compare a desperate uprising, by starved and undernourished people, to a possible continental wide insurgency, by ex-soldiers/workers etc, with access to military weapons, who hasn't been living in diseased and horrible conditions..

[Wrath of Dagon]

You mean like the very successful uprisings against the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe?

Edited August 11, 2009 by Wrath of Dagon

[Monte Carlo]

I will clarify the bit I don't get about this argument, taking on board what people mean by Hitler's brilliance.

 

Generally major historical figures are considered in the round, as in are they more than the sum of parts? Whilst we are on WW2, Churchill is a good example. A deeply flawed man (Gallipoli springs to mind) he was nonetheless brilliant by any objective measure of the term. Why? His doggedness, ability to build alliances, courage (both political, moral and physical). One looks back over a life and sees something special - achievements that mean something.

 

Ghengis Khan might be described as 'brilliant' by this argument. Undoubtedly a butcher and a tyrant, he nonethless showed nothing less than genius as a general and king with the world at his feet - there are achievements there in politics and logistics and even a legacy of sorts. This is the man who had clerics tied into sacks and trampled by horses. Who razed cities by the thousand.

 

I'm sure you get the picture.

 

Hitler? Nope.

 

Misanthropic weirdo and failure joins bully-boy political party full of cranks. Uses it to take over country already on it's knees and ripe for revolution. Uses age-old turnip ghost of anti-semitism to provide scapegoat. Exploits exisiting corporatist economic framework but adds rallies, flags and Leni Reifenstahl movies to make it seem groovier. Equally odd friends develop almost comical Gothic death cult to pander to their depraved sensibilities (ironically, almost all of them are deviants who bear no resemblance to the aryan ubermensch they venerate). They then declare war on THE REST OF THE WORLD and suffer entirely predictable crushing defeat.

 

There's nothing 'brilliant' here, my friends, just a bizarre tragedy. Hitler's legacy is to be a bogeyman, a Charlie Chaplin villain, a be-medalled lunatic ranting in his bunker and confiding in his dog. It's like saying that The Manson Family were brilliant because they evaded justice for as long as they did.

 

Cheers

MC

[HoonDing]

There's nothing 'brilliant' here, my friends, just a bizarre tragedy. Hitler's legacy is to be a bogeyman, a Charlie Chaplin villain, a be-medalled lunatic ranting in his bunker and confiding in his dog. It's like saying that The Manson Family were brilliant because they evaded justice for as long as they did.

...and apparently according to myth, his skull ended up as Stalin's ashtray.