PDA

View Full Version : Axis Victory



Mister D
11-15-2012, 03:39 PM
Question for our history buffs: at what point did victory become unachievable for the Axis?

My view: after the failure to take Moscow in 1941. I do think it was likely that the government would have fallen. This wasn't 1813. If the beating Soviet forces took all along the front had been capped off by the fall of the capital I think that would have been the end for the Soviet government or at least Stalin. Negotiations would have ensued. The survival of the Soviet state coupled with the entry of the USA made victory impossible, IMO. Not a stalemate of some kind. I think that was still achievable through the Summer of 1943.

I am not considering any other what-ifs here (e.g. no declaration of war on the US by Germany, increased cooperation between the Japanese and Germans etc.)

KC
11-15-2012, 04:09 PM
Question for our history buffs: at what point did victory become unachievable for the Axis?

My view: after the failure to take Moscow in 1941. I do think it was likely that the government would have fallen. This wasn't 1813. If the beating Soviet forces took all along the front had been capped off by the fall of the capital I think that would have been the end for the Soviet government or at least Stalin. Negotiations would have ensued. The survival of the Soviet state coupled with the entry of the USA made victory impossible, IMO. Not a stalemate of some kind. I think that was still achievable through the Summer of 1943.

I am not considering any other what-ifs here (e.g. no declaration of war on the US by Germany, increased cooperation between the Japanese and Germans etc.)

Maybe I'm over simplifying here, but I would say it was over the moment Operation Barbarossa began in June. They simply took too long to invade.

Mister D
11-15-2012, 04:12 PM
Maybe I'm over simplifying here, but I would say it was over the moment Operation Barbarossa began in June. They simply took too long to invade.

We more or less agree. I'm focusing on the failure to take Moscow and the late invasion date was no doubt a factor in that failure. Does it explain the failure completely? I don't think it does but I don't think any one factor could.

KC
11-15-2012, 04:21 PM
We more or less agree. I'm focusing on the failure to take Moscow and the late invasion date was no doubt a factor in that failure. Does it explain the failure completely? I don't think it does but I don't think any one factor could.

You're right. It's hard to point to a single factor. You gotta take into account the whole big picture. The involvement of the US, the full impracticability of the Hunger Plan, the failure to take Moscow and the underlying late invasion all contribute.

What I never understood, maybe this is naive, is why the Nazis wasted so much resource on carrying out their ethnic cleansing goals around the same time?

Mister D
11-15-2012, 04:33 PM
You're right. It's hard to point to a single factor. You gotta take into account the whole big picture. The involvement of the US, the full impracticability of the Hunger Plan, the failure to take Moscow and the underlying late invasion all contribute.

What I never understood, maybe this is naive, is why the Nazis wasted so much resource on carrying out their ethnic cleansing goals around the same time?

Because they believed in them. We tend to think everyone thinks exactly like we do. It may not seem rational to us but the Nazis became even more murderous when it was clear they were losing. The thinking being that while we may lose this war we will finish the job.

Mister D
11-15-2012, 04:38 PM
As I recall, the final decision (no pun intended) to exterminate western European Jewry was not made until early 1942. IMO, this influenced by war with the US and perhaps the failure of Barbarossa.

Mister D
11-15-2012, 04:53 PM
With regard to a stalemate of some kind, I think that had Germany not launched Operation Citadel in the Summer of 1943 but switched over to the strategic defense the Soviet offensives of late 1943 and 1944 would have met much more capable resistance. IMO, this would have made the potential for Soviet exhaustion (they were scrapping the bottom of the barrel by 1945) greater.

Mister D
11-15-2012, 04:54 PM
I haven't said much about Japan because Japan was totally outgunned in the Pacific Theater. I don't believe Japan ever had a chance of winning the war.

KC
11-15-2012, 06:12 PM
Because they believed in them. We tend to think everyone thinks exactly like we do. It may not seem rational to us but the Nazis became even more murderous when it was clear they were losing. The thinking being that while we may lose this war we will finish the job.

I guess that makes sense given the desperation the loss caused. But was Hitler destined to fail from the get go? One of his reasons for invading the Soviet Union was to ensure that the Reich would get enough calories to continue the war effort.

Mister D
11-15-2012, 07:15 PM
I guess that makes sense given the desperation the loss caused. But was Hitler destined to fail from the get go? One of his reasons for invading the Soviet Union was to ensure that the Reich would get enough calories to continue the war effort.

It was an inexcusable waste of equipment that would have been much better deployed on the defensive. The Germans managed to inflict significantly greater casualties than they took at Kursk but they simply did not have the resources that the Russians possessed. Any chance for a knockout was long gone so, IMO, this was a disastrous campaign that spelled doom from the get go.

I don't think Hitler wanted anything more than Russian territory for "living space". Had that been obtained I think the war would have been over.

KC
11-15-2012, 07:27 PM
It was an inexcusable waste of equipment that would have been much better deployed on the defensive. The Germans managed to inflict significantly greater casualties than they took at Kursk but they simply did not have the resources that the Russians possessed. Any chance for a knockout was long gone so, IMO, this was a disastrous campaign that spelled doom from the get go.

I don't think Hitler wanted anything more than Russian territory for "living space". Had that been obtained I think the war would have been over.

Lebensraum on that fertile bread basket of the Ukraine. I think he wanted Germany to produce most of its own grains so it could be self sufficient.

Mister D
11-15-2012, 07:34 PM
Lebensraum on that fertile bread basket of the Ukraine. I think he wanted Germany to produce most of its own grains so it could be self sufficient.

Right. Self-sufficiency is part and parcel of fascist doctrine.

DonGlock26
11-17-2012, 12:08 PM
First off, great OP question and thread. I think the German position in the USSR could have been turned into a German victory. I think Germany declaring war on the US was the fatal error. Hitler made many critical errors. I'd say that if he made a few less, then Nazi Germany may have survived.

If Hitler had not declared war and made diplomatic overtures, he would have put FDR in a very difficult position Public Opinion would have certainly wanted Japan crushed, and the US has a large German population that would not have appreciated FDR declaring war on Germany. Hitler's declaration of war on the US allowed FDR and Churchill to do exactly what they wanted to do. It ensured that Germany would face a two front war unless the USSR was knocked out, which was of course the most difficult feat.

I've read at some point early on (1941-42) Hitler had many scientists taken off of projects and sent into the front line. This was reversed, but it ensured that many superior weapons were denied to the Wehrmacht until the very end of the war. They may have played a key role in blunting the Allied air offence over Germany.

Hitler's strategy was flawed. He went for Moscow, then he backed off. He went for the oil fields, then he focused on Stalingrad. If he had simply seized the oil fields in the Caucuses, he could have starved the Red Army of its oil. He could also have laid a trap for a counter-offensive, when the Russians attacked the army group holding the oil fields.

He could also have avoided war with the US and doubled down on the U-Boat campaign against the UK. This was his best chance to end the threat of a prolonged two front war. With the US tied up in the Pacific, a starving UK could have been persuaded to accept a peace settlement. Churchill may well have been thrown out of office by a hungry nation.

Mister D
11-17-2012, 12:40 PM
Good points especially about war with US.

I think Hitler's decision to go after the oil fields in 1942 was the right one and he showed an understanding of economic factors that was absent among the top brass. That said, his decision was based with a longer war in mind; a war that, IMO, Germany could not win.

DonGlock26
11-17-2012, 12:50 PM
Good points especially about war with US.

I think Hitler's decision to go after the oil fields in 1942 was the right one and he showed an understanding of economic factors that was absent among the top brass. That said, his decision was based with a longer war in mind; a war that, IMO, Germany could not win.

Thanks!

True, and he got fixated on Stalingrad. They were too wrapped up in taking strong points. Long sieges plagued the German effort IMHO. He should have by passed Stalingrad and taken the oil fields or just went after the political center at Moscow (Of course, the Soviet gov't would have just pulled back east of the Urals).

I think that after failing to take Moscow in 1941, Germany's best bet was to avoid war with the US, knock the UK out of the war with the U-Boats, and seizing the oil fields from the Soviets. If they had accomplished those three goals, they could have pulled it off-IMHO. Luckily for us they didn't. ;)

KC
11-17-2012, 12:52 PM
Thanks!

True, and he got fixated on Stalingrad. They were too wrapped up in taking strong points. Long sieges plagued the German effort IMHO. He should have by passed Stalingrad and taken the oil fields or just went after the political center at Moscow (Of course, the Soviet gov't would have just pulled back east of the Urals).

I think that after failing to take Moscow in 1941, Germany's best bet was to avoid war with the US, knock the UK out of the war with the U-Boats, and seizing the oil fields from the Soviets. If they had accomplished those three goals, they could have pulled it off-IMHO. Luckily for us they didn't. ;)

Luckily I only think one of those things is realistic for the Third Reich. Roosevelt was itching to get the US more involved, and the Nazis simply didn't have the resources to out do the British at that time.

Mister D
11-17-2012, 12:56 PM
I do think the fall of Moscow would have ended Stalin's career and forced a change in government. Perhaps even the collapse of an organized war effort. It wasn't 1813.

Peter1469
11-17-2012, 01:39 PM
What would have happened had Hitler not invaded the Soviet Union at all? Or at least until after it had won in the West.

Mister D
11-17-2012, 01:53 PM
What would have happened had Hitler not invaded the Soviet Union at all? Or at least until after it had won in the West.

Good point and one we have overlooked. What if the UK had been finished off before Barbarossa thus eliminating the potential for a real two front war? That would have give the Soviets much needed time to reorganize...

DonGlock26
11-17-2012, 07:41 PM
What would have happened had Hitler not invaded the Soviet Union at all? Or at least until after it had won in the West.

IMHO- Stalin would have attacked Germany. He was aggressive and building a powerful army, when Hitler attacked him first. War was inevitable.

DonGlock26
11-17-2012, 07:44 PM
Luckily I only think one of those things is realistic for the Third Reich. Roosevelt was itching to get the US more involved, and the Nazis simply didn't have the resources to out do the British at that time.

Of course, this all speculation, but without the US in the European war, Germany would not have had to deal with the USAAF in daylight bombing raids, the US Navy, and the UK and USSR would not have received nearly as much aid. The Kriegsmarine's submarine warfare could have been ramped up and put the UK on the ropes.

Deadwood
11-17-2012, 07:58 PM
I guess that makes sense given the desperation the loss caused. But was Hitler destined to fail from the get go? One of his reasons for invading the Soviet Union was to ensure that the Reich would get enough calories to continue the war effort.

No. Historians agree that he had the power and the resources even if America entered the war. It was the Napolean moment for Third Reich; they truly believed the English would tired and hungry enough would do a Vichy' form of control. When that happened he had to look his ouwn resources and not miss the fact that without Soviet coal they were finished. Even at the retreat from Moscow they were sure they would win.

They refused accept that after 5,000 years of trying someone had found a way to land a heavy army. And, they, like the Japanese, believed that Pearl Harborf had destroyed the US capabilities to wage war on the Pacific.

Truthfully, how fast the US retooled and rearmed remains an astonishing feat. That's what killed 'em, but I agree it was Moscow the step too far.

Mister D
11-17-2012, 08:09 PM
IMHO- Stalin would have attacked Germany. He was aggressive and building a powerful army, when Hitler attacked him first. War was inevitable.

That is a popular POV among German historians.

KC
11-17-2012, 08:17 PM
No. Historians agree that he had the power and the resources even if America entered the war. It was the Napolean moment for Third Reich; they truly believed the English would tired and hungry enough would do a Vichy' form of control. When that happened he had to look his ouwn resources and not miss the fact that without Soviet coal they were finished. Even at the retreat from Moscow they were sure they would win.

They refused accept that after 5,000 years of trying someone had found a way to land a heavy army. And, they, like the Japanese, believed that Pearl Harborf had destroyed the US capabilities to wage war on the Pacific.

Truthfully, how fast the US retooled and rearmed remains an astonishing feat. That's what killed 'em, but I agree it was Moscow the step too far.


Clearly I'm out of my league here. I usually think of war as the least interesting part of history. The effects of war, either foreign or domestic are much more interesting for me. But I do stand by my earlier statement that the Third Reich couldn't have won once they started Barbarossa so late in the year.

Mister D
11-17-2012, 08:20 PM
Clearly I'm out of my league here. I usually think of war as the least interesting part of history. The effects of war, either foreign or domestic are much more interesting for me. But I do stand by my earlier statement that the Third Reich couldn't have won once they started Barbarossa so late in the year.

I find war one of the most interesting aspects.

KC
11-17-2012, 08:26 PM
I find war one of the most interesting aspects.

I think most people do. Who knows. Maybe when I learn more I'll come to enjoy military history more.

Peter1469
11-17-2012, 10:34 PM
I think most people do. Who knows. Maybe when I learn more I'll come to enjoy military history more.

I also see it as the most interesting part. Conflict is what has propelled human advancement.

Deadwood
11-17-2012, 11:50 PM
Clearly I'm out of my league here. I usually think of war as the least interesting part of history. The effects of war, either foreign or domestic are much more interesting for me. But I do stand by my earlier statement that the Third Reich couldn't have won once they started Barbarossa so late in the year.


What is fascinating about war in the political sphere is that the difference between direct and indirect cause widens as time goes by, but the distance between the stated "reason" for a war and the real reasons. War is the last stage of diplomacy not a breakdown in diplomacy.

There are a lot of people who think the Russians would have attacked Germany anyway. I tend to agree, but she would have played a waiting game. They were growing less and less worried about its back door, Asia and was literally drooling about the industry and ore in the west.

These were communists in their infancy with a man man at the helm. But as it turned out he had some military men who knew what they were doing. But Hitler's invasion came too soon for them. They had lots of coal and ore, but no industry. And they were missing three other rather important ingredients for a good war pie: an army, a navy, and an air force.

They would have waited.

Ivan88
11-18-2012, 11:09 AM
The security of Germany was impossible under the NAZI's and Hitler, whose purpose was to destroy Germany.
http://mysite.verizon.net/ress8ouv/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/StalinHitler.jpghttp://mysite.verizon.net/ress8ouv/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/StalinHitler2.jpg963964

Ivan88
11-18-2012, 11:16 AM
I also see it as the most interesting part. Conflict is what has propelled human advancement.
What comrad Peter sees is the hallucination that propelled Europe and Russia into devastating wars and vast slaughters over the last 100 years.

They all were swept away with the idea of "survival of the fittest" in deadly struggle, and how it would enhance the advance of civilization.

It sets back civilization and human progress. Hopefully Americans will wake up from their collective insanity of believing in war as a virtue, and a necessity before the Furies of Justice come to punish us.
http://www.youall.com/HELL/furies21921.gif965