How Germany could've won?

"Studies" have concluded all sorts of things. That's almost like saying: "Top people are working on it."

 

This is fundamentally wrong.

It is Marxism that declared war against Capitalist society, and the exploitation of the common labourer. Communism spread like wildfire in the working classes. Everywhere, working class people were forming Trade Unions, and fighting for greater rights. Well before Bolshevism raised its head. The behaviour and rhetoric of the Bolsheviks once they appeared on the political scene in Russia did nothing to improve the situation. Is it then any surprise, that many political leaders of the 'teens and twenties would be outspoken against communism in general, and Bolshevism?? The very foundation of their wealth and society as they saw it was threatened. Western Allied troops were sent into Russia primarily to support the White Russian Government (not the Tsar, nor necessarily to defeat the Reds: that was expected that the White Russian Government troops would do, as it was believed they had popular support).

America continued business in the Soviet Union well after Trotsky was banished. Companies and wealthy individuals will invest wherever they see opportunities, and sell to the devil unless explicitly forbidden to do so. They don't care about democratic principles or human rights. Look at Uzbekistan today. Even if you take the moral high ground, someone else will step in if there is an opportunity. Corporate investment is fundamentally amoral (without morals, not quite the same as being immoral).

 

Gunslinger, I would suggest you read the first couple of Chapter's of Norway:1940 by Francois Kersauldy. A french Author who delves deeply into Phoney War period. The miscalculation's, unrealistic strategic plans and self serving attitudes of both Britain and France are laid bare and none escape censure.

In a nutshell, both wanted to hurt Germany, but they counted on the other party to do the heavy lifting and their interest was to strike on the margin's, primarily Hitler's economy, rather than direct action aimed at the Wehrmacht.

Yes anti Soviet feeling was high, inflamed by Poland and Finland, but much like Hitler a year later they greatly misjudged the purported "weakness" of the USSR. Britain wanted to wreck Germany's economy in Norway, France thru Russia.

There were some segments who dreamed of a great war between dictator's, just as Stalin dreamed of one between western empires, BUT when push came to shove they shed, for a time, these desires for more practical applications of Realpolitik.

The rest is hyperbole.

 

The 'Poland was anti-USSR' thing is nonsense, they just didn't let foreign troops onto their land, just like all other countries. Poland was just so un-expectant of Germany's attack, so unprepared, that it was a miracle that they even had battles. Germany was already supported by most of Poland, and they didn't expect Britain to stay true to their pact with Poland, especially after it was proven how easily Poland crumbled under attack.

The Americans were signing deals with the Nazis, and Hitler's propaganda effort was enough to keep it going until Germany sided directly against US troops, and started developments in occupied Greenland. Hitler was the 1933 Time Person of the Year and he had shown his power with speeches and Zeppelins, directed to the USA.
The French had no chance against the oncoming German invasion, as after Belgium and Holland were taken, the French had no choice but to surrender, as they viewed Germany as a future world power.

Hitler chose to invade the USSR just for Lebensraum (living space) at that moment, which seems absurd, seeing as the Soviets could easily compete with Germany, and a 2 front war would be almost impossible to win. If he had directed Germany's strength to Norway, Finland and Denmark (the Scandinavian Front) and the Battle of Britain, he would easily be done with both in a matter of months. The war in Africa seems like another failure, a waste of manpower, because the capture of Britain, France and Spain would lead to almost guaranteed control of the entire continent.

The attack on the USSR could be carried out after the capture of Europe, for the USA would not dare to attack the continent in a one front face-off. After the capture of Moscow, Stalingrad, and Leningrad, it would be easy to force the Soviets to surrender, leaving only Minsk, Omsk and Vladivostok behind.

Siding with the Japanese was another error, since the Germans had vastly superior technology, and had more morale and propaganda power over the people. Though the Japanese were taking over huge swathes of China and South East Asia, the Germans could attack Japan with the support of the Korean, Chinese and American people, allowing for a safe victory over three continents.

Once in control over Asia, the Germans could attack the unprepared Americans, who had less troops and low morale, and would be fighting a two-front war over the Atlantic and Pacific fronts. The attack could also be eased with the capture of Latin America and Canada, who had almost no defence against the Germans, and it would be Poland all over again. Once in control of the US, they could take force the Soviets and Italians to be puppet countries, with heavy ties and pacts between them, but always the Germans would be superior.

 

Not everything is black and white. The Victors write the history books. I've read the Poland anti-Soviet stance in the Cohen book and in "the Devil's Disciples" about Hitler and the inner circle. I will put quotes of Churchill's speeches if need be as well. And yes America with GE was going to electrify the Soviet Union amongst other manufacturing businesses, because the Nazis and Soviets had a common thread of controlling the worker, and in the Nazis case, suppressing them and keeping them in line with no say (much like the Republicans want today in America) by busting unions and taking away the bargaining chip with the Industrialists of today. Fascism is the blending of the State with Corporate Power and if people are in denial about that process happening in America today then they just aren't looking.

 

Well as you say black/white think is bad, and I may suggest that indeed a large portion of Polish were anti-soviet. They still are anti russian today. But not all of them.
And of course Churchill had an interest in keeping Germany small and weak. That was always Britains policy. However this was not the main reason of the war.
The Germans started this war, didn´t they. This was the main reason for Britains course. In WW1 this was a bit different btw.

And to OPs question, yes, but only if the USA would stay out and the Japanese had not attacked Pearl Harbour instead opened a 2nd front against the USSR.
Britain alone without USA support would be unable to put any heavy pressure in Germany (except bombings) so with Japanese support the Germans could have beaten the USSR. With that I mean not really beaten as a portion of the large area would be impossible to control, but Germany could have established a line behind Moscow and if Fins would also help vs. Leningrad that city would have fallen too. Stalin finally had to fall back to Urals area and fight a kind of partisan war there. Without USA lend lease they also would have large logistical problems (many locos and trucks came from leand lease).

 

So how do you propose that Japan an Russia nullify their Non Aggression Pact / Treaty that was in place until August of 1945?

 

Well if Japan hadn´t signed it in the 1st place and better coordinate actions with Germany. But Japans goals did not lie in the USSR anyway...

 

Kuril Islands, google them up and see what you get. Japan wanted the natural resources available in Russia and China. The problem with your thesis is that Japan could not project a ground force far enough into Russia to help the Germans. Japan wanted the Pacific Rim.

 

Yes, but the Kuriles don´t have that much raw materials as eg. the DEI (east indies)....well this is "what if..." right ? We asume therefore that Japan of course stationed much more troops vs. the USSR. I realize that this army wouldn´t be motorized or armored that much, but still could cause a lot of trouble. At least most or all of the reeinforcements that the Russians sent west would have to stay at least in place. Missing these forces maybe Moscow would have fallen. We asume that the Italians did also not adventure in North Africa and Greece etc. So they didn´t need help by Germans, these troops instead would be stationed vs. Russia (I guess Rommels elite troops would make a difference in Russia too).. Then also the strike vs. Russia could get underway earlier while Japan keeps the eastern USSR forces in place or even conqueres some land. This is a huge what if I admit, because Japan wouldn´t do that probably because it served not their main aims..

 

That would explain the conflict they had in the previous decade.

source please

I'm not sure just what you are talking about here. I could range from totally false to sort of true but misleading depending on just what you mean. The comment about "occupied Greenland" is extremly curious as well.

??? By the time he attacked the USSR he had already conquered Norway and Denmark and he gained Finland as an ally by attacking the Soviets. Furthermore he had been defeated in the Battle of Britain. So no he couldn't be "done with both in a matter of months".

Or not. Especially since he already had France and there was not practicle way of taking Britain and going after Spain would have cost more than it was worth.

Japan was essentially a freebee. It cost him little to do so and they provided a singicant potential distraction to the allies (which didn't really come to pass but he could hardly be sure of that). Furthermore the Japanese advances in China were grinding to a bit of a halt at that point I believe. The Germans operating in the East in such a manner is pure fantasy.

??? This ist the what if board but this one is on the level of Hitler being aided by the LGMs and/or BEMs.

 

Japan and Russia had battles in Mongolia where Zhukov led them to victory over the Japanese, and after that Japan wanted to stay away from open conflict with Russia.

 

Yup, cause they stand no chance in armored or mobile warfare vs. Russians. There equipment wasn´t made for this purpose. Bad tanks and AT too.

 

Often stated, not particularly accurate or unless you are talkng about cerain specific events not particularly useful.

Some businesses in the US were working with Both the USSR and Germany. That however doesn't mean that they were working with them because of their antiworker stance. Indeed Ford made a point of paying his workers a reasonable amount so they could by his products. Nor were workers supressed more in Germany than they were in the USSR indeed my impression is just the opposite.

Please leave modern politics out of historical threads, your welcome to your opinions but that's all they are and others are likely indeed almost certain to disagree.

Except of course that Churchill wasn't in charge until after the war started. Nor was it Britains policy to keep Germany small and weak at least for any significant period. Indeed much the opposite during signficant periods.

In regards to the first: Well they could also blockade Germany which was hardly insignificant.

As for the second: I've seen that debated many times and the counter argument has been substantially stronger every time.

Didn't Japan already hold the Kuriles? At the time, aside from lumber, it's not clear how that it was really appreciated just how much wealth in raw materials resided in the Eastern parts of the USSR, even if it was accessing them would have been nontrivial. For the reasons you stated as well as a number of others the USSR was a (potentially leathal) distraction for Japan.

As to the former: Don't the Japanese already control at least some of the Kuriles as well? It's also worth noteing that it's not just raw materials that Japan needs but oil in particular is critical especially once the embargo goes into action.

And in regard to the latter: What if doesn't mean anything goes they should still conform to what was possible. Much of the IJA is tied down in China at this point. How much is really available?

Or not. The potential of a serious defeat was there which might actually free up troops. Elsewhere on this board there are post indicating that signifant forces remained in the Far East.

Possibly but probably not.

More PODs. That's as sign of a flawed what if by the way. Especially if they all favor one side and there is no logical reason that one would impact the others.

 

Which is why I don't think Japan would have ever wanted to open up a permanent front against Russia unless Germany not only equipped them with armor and AT technology but also provided the training on how to properly use it, and still I don't know if that would have been enough. Japan wouldn't declare war on Russia even after Germany in a dumbfounded manner did against the US of A.

 

Also true, but that is "what if" - maybe the Germans could have helped the IJA to develop better doctrine and stuff to actually face to Russians...because in my mind Russia could be only defeated without lend lease and only on 1 front. If the Japanese would put a certain pressure in the east and USA stayed out, Germans would win.

 

In a struggle for global domination during the WWII there were more contenders and just one position. Therefore relationships among the Allies were never easy, quite the contrary -- they were also competing for dominant position after the war. However, without direct participation of the USA, the outcome of the war in Europe would have been indeed questionable. The war might have ended with strong Germany controlling the continent. In this sense, contribution of the Japanese to the Allied victory in Europe is significant.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Shumshu#Results

Somewhere there are pics of this battlefield and it is strewn with Russian tanks with holes punched in them, so I a thinking that your assessment might not be accurate in all instances.

 

That battle actually surprised me because the Japanese didn't fight fanatically to the death like they did against us, they were even filmed fraternizing with the Russians after they reached an armistice.

 

[SIZE=12pt]" One of the main reasons for the Japanese Army´s long-term indifference to the United States ( not interested in the US garrisons etc ) was that they were seriously planning a fight with the Soviets,even after the Pearl Harbor attack.According to the Army´s plan, the Pacific war was expected to end by spring 1942, and then they would commence hostilities against the Russians. On January 14,1942, the Operations Department, Army General HQ, informed the Kwantung Army that they would allocate four more divisions to Manchuria by march 1942 when the Kwantung Army had planned to wage a war against the Soviets. When emperor Hirohito visited the Army War College at the end of 1943, he said to the chief aide-de-camp: " I have mixed feelings about the college´s educational tendency to attach too much importance to the Soviet Union, although we are fighting with the United States." Now the IJA ( Imperial Japanese Army ) finally began full-scale studies and information gathering on the United States, but it was too late. Colonel Shinobu Takayama, operations staff, Army General Staff, reflected on his experience: " We should have researched the US power and her state of affairs before the war..."

From " Japanese Intelligence in WW2 " by Ken Kotani [/SIZE]


[SIZE=small]Japan was caught virtually flat-footed bu operation Barbarossa. It was not that it had no advance warning - Japan's ambasssador Oshima Hiroshi had caught notice of the plan earlier in the month and reported it to Tokyo on the 5th of June. But it had received that warning too late still: for no more than two months earlier, it had concluded a neutrality pact with the Soviets.

The man responsible for bringing about that pact was Japan's Foreign Minister, Matsuoka Yosuke.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=small]In personal talks with the Soviets, Matsuoka had followed the example of Germany in befriending the Soviets (or so he thought). Obvious benefits would result from this: improved relations with the Soviets would increase the chance of persuading Stalin to cease aiding China's Nationalist regime, and allow some reorientation away from the Soviet threat, as well as sending a signal to the Americans that Japan was not at all isolated.

on June 23rd, a shattered Matsuoka, who had ignored German hints at their upcoming offensive when he had visited Berlin in April, ruefully admitted to the Cabinet that he had misjudged. He went on to propose that Japan now join the Germans in their attack on the Soviets, a proposal so incredible when coming from the very architect of the neutrality pact that a cabinet member asked it to be repeated. That same day, the Imperial Navy affirmed its wish to strike south and occupy Southern Indochina.

For a week thereafter, at two liaison conferences of the Army, Navy and Foreign Ministries, and the Prime Minister, the Japanese leadership debated the relative options. In the end, however, no decision was come to. An Imperial Conference on July 2nd was summoned to deal with the outstanding decisions. The result of the conference was a decision to leave the Soviets alone for the time being (presumably awaiting more favorable conditions), and concentrate on the South. The resolution called for the occupation of Southern Indochina, for the establishment of the "Greater East-Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere". Alas, it left open just about any route, by conditioning the future course of the Japanese[/SIZE] expansion on the development of the situation. In recognition of that, it called for the secret mobilization of one million reservists and conscripts, for use either against the Soviets or in the southern expansion.