Would the Axis have won WW2 if Hitler had not ticked off Stalin?

[mad=dog]

It was not my intention to insult you Link. My pardons. My question was in earnest. I would like to have obvious mistakes corrected.

[Kakero]

Originally posted by Q'alooaith: You've just got to find the losers side to the story, was more to japans attack than a simple act of agression, it was an act of desperation, had it worked as planned things would have gone very diffrently.

I was looking at the loser point of view. If you didn't read ealier I've said that If I were Hitler I would be cursing the japanese for bombing pearl habour.

It was an act of desperation indeed. However, if the US carrier were present at Pearl Habour when the bombing occur OR Japan also uses land based assault ( sending troops ) to add to their suprise air attack things would be different.

Originally posted by mad=dog Well the peculiar thing is that the Axis was not a true alliance. Japan didn't declare war on Russia either remember. They were not obliged to as Germany attacked first.

Since my history books were printed in chinese. It's clearly printed there as "tong meng". Which has the similar meaning an alliance that work side by side. A blatant translation mistake perhaps? hmm...

Anyway, Japan did not declare war with Russia. But did this stopped Russia from " swallowing " a few japanese northern islands towards the end of the war?

Originally posted by Link I think it's safe to say Hitler's warmachine paid little or no attention to what happened with Hirohito in Asia

When Germany finally ' fallen ' ( I blatantly used the word fallen ). A small sub and it's crew bound for japan surrendered to the ally. Inside it was some materials that could have been used to develop the A bomb. Maybe Hitler decides to give a little help to their oriental ally?

Originally posted by Aragorn1 I disagree with the fact that when the US entered germnay was doomed.

First thing first, how many population does US had compared to Germany at that time? Second thing, how are the industries in US compared to Germany? Third thing, Germany produced their war machines in quality instead of quantity compared to US who produces their war machines in quantity. Germany only changes their production from quality to quantity during final few years of war but this has come too late. So, I believe that US had the upper hand of superior numbers.

US war machine produced - Germany's
5 - 2
10 - 4
15 - 6
20 - 8
So in the end who would have won?

Originally posted by Gangrell No, you have to understand that the Japanese in that time period didn't exactly have their heads on straight. They were the first to use the kamikazi pilots

The japanese only resort to using kamikaze pilots in 1944 ( If i still remember it ). So which mean they aren't entirely not having their head straight. The nanjing masscare was a result of hatred from the japanese towards the chinese ( The japanese for centuries had always wanted to show that they are superior to chinese.

Hmm...have I open war on all front? Just like Germany did? LOL!

[Link]

Originally posted by mad=dog: It was not my intention to insult you Link. My pardons. My question was in earnest. I would like to have obvious mistakes corrected.

I see my sense of humour isn't as good as it used to be. There was no offense taken from your words! I was kidding!! [img]smile.gif[/img]

On top of that, trust me when I say that with my 20 years of so-called wisdom I am hardly a historical know-it-all. I'm a padawan myself, young grasshopper

[Attalus]

As noted, the Axis pact bound the signatories to declare war on any nation that attacked the other signatories. It was far from a full-fledged alliance. As for the atomic bomb, Germany was nowhere near to making one work. Maybe -just maybe - if they had conquered the USSR and threw a full effort into it, they could have had a bomb by 1948.

[Lucern]

Interesting discussion. I fancy that I know a thing or two about WW2, but I did not actually know that Russia had a planned attack date. You wouldn't think so, considering how under-equipped their overall infantry was in the early 40's. I also heard about that sub carrying nuclear information to Japan after the fall of Germany, Kakero. I'd like to read some correspondence between Germany and Japan, Germany and Italy, and Germany and Finland to get a better idea of the nature Axis alliance.

Originally posted by Dalamar Stormcrow: A better question: Would WW2 ever have happened if the French tried to liberate the Rhineland from Nazi invasion?

If you're talking about modern military interventionism, that's an interesting question. Especially since national socialism, IMO, is best examined from a social perspective, one that points towards the punishing Treaty of Versailles as a catalyst for the rise of Nazi Germany. France, amongst the victors of WW1 and signatories/host of that treaty, could be argued to be partially responsible for the events leading to WW2.

But it seems France was preparing to keep the world out rather than intervene. The Maginot line and the focus on defensive (unfortunately for them, rather immobile) tactics serve as examples through that ill-fated 1940 campaign. Also recall that, generally speaking (excuse the simplification), WW1 marked the end of the 'Age of Imperialism'. From that point European powers would shrink in territory, access to resources, and thus political influence eroded somewhat. France had its own problems, and may have been said to have been consolidating its former power in the time between ww1 and 2. It does make me wonder if France could have pulled it off if they struck early though. Now that I think about it, that makes me wonder if Britain would have ever declared war on Germany in that case.

Oh well, speculation is just so...speculative [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Thoran]

I think the notion that Russia was planning a pre-emptive attack on Germany is definitely debatable (if not dubious), the general historical stance is that she was working hard to avoid being attacked (including sending gifts to germany), and there are sound strategic reasons for Germany to look east. A second hand report of attack would make me dig deeper, but is nothing close to proof on its own.

As far as the eventual outcome of the war if the Germans had not invaded Russia, I think the Germans (Hitler) had decided that he needed to invade russia eventually. They NEEDED the raw materials (oil especially) that was one of their main reasons for invading Russia. Invading Britain brought them niether land nor resources, it's only value was strategic, and I think they underestimated its strategic value. I think it would have improved their chances of a successful campaign if they had avoided a two front war and eliminated Britain as a staging ground for Allied forces (Air as much if not more than ground). If they could have rapidly defeated Britain (risky) they could have taken the Brits out of the war to free forces for a more powerful thrust into Russia at a later date, and the motherland would have been fairly safe from air attack for the remainder of the war.

With the British island unavailable as a staging point for Allied troops, an Allied invasion of Europe via France would not have been possible... leaving the Med as the only likely venue, improving the Axis defensive posture later in the war.

Of course the real question IMO is this ... could Germany have taken Britain at all? I have my doubts. The channel would be a very tough obstacle for a German force to overcome, and the British navy was nothing to scoff at during that period (not by any stretch, they were the largest naval force in the world at the time), while the German Navy was incomplete (thanks to the early attack as mentioned earlier). Personally I don't think they'd have pulled it off at all, and they'd have needed to do it quick enough to avoid facing a Britain that was being strengthened by US forces on the ground after our entry into the war. I don't think Germany would have had a chance in hell of landing against a combined British/US force (JMO).

Even if they had somehow blitzkreig'd accross the channel and through the island, another thing to consider would be the need to maintain security in conquered lands. The French had an active resistance and I think it likely that the British resistance would have been even more active. How many troops would it take to secure Britain against a large insurgency... a LOT... so perhaps the final result would have been no different had Germany taken Britain before attacking Russia, but IMO it certainly would have been more costly for the allies had it gone down this way.

[Felix The Assassin]

Well if we start @ 1 Sep 39 we see the Wehrmacht running a blitzkrieg through Poland, total control, use of resouces, and the last resistance failing 6 Oct 39. Do not forget about the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, which puts Soviet forces invading Poland from the East middle of September.

This brings France and UK into the treaty bound agreement. Which they basically sat on their laurals beleiving this to be a phony war.

The winter war is very important, because this puts Soviet forces invading Finland November of 39.

September of 40 brings us to the Tripartite Pact, where the 3 name themselves as the Axis. Soviet Russia is still non-agressive towards Germany under the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

April of 40 brings us to Operation Weserbung, which is the German invasion of Denmark and Norway, by June Germans have control. May has France and the low countries are invaded. All kinds of mishaps, evacuations etc. Bottom line, Germany is again victorious.

Still in June of 1940 the Soviet Union occupied Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, and annexed Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina from Romania.

Now it gets a little tricky. We are now faced with the assualt titled Battle of Britan, which was a long and drwan out failure. But, also, Italy invades Greece, but cannot hold the counter attack. First victory by the aliies.

Also, President Roosevelt is chomping at the bit to enter, but is or thinks he is not supported by the American people.

1941 brings the politics to Yugo, then the coup, then the invasion and fall of Yugo, by the Germans. Hitler is faced with a tactical decision, and makes a devastating Airborne raid into Crete which devastates the Allies, and secures the Southern flank, while renforcing the axis Italians there.

Also 1941 brings us to what could be considered the biggest mistake of the war. Operation Barbarossa. This operation brings the full weight and bearing of the German Axis into the mainland of Russia. Why? Why? Why? Anyhow, Russia does not take to kindly to this and moves from the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, to what is known as The Eastern Front, aka the Great Patriotic War. Remember Russia is in the mist of full battle with Finland, and is not only caught off-guard, but by surprise.

7 December 1941, irregardless of what the real intelligence was, was made to be, or what was released to public knowledge, Japan launced an assualt against the US at Pearl Harbor. What was thought to be the entire 7th fleet at port was only enough war ships to create enough public outcry to allow President Roosevelt to invoke the war powers and declare war against Japan. But the final twist goes back to Europe. Hitler declares war against the US on 11 Dec 1941. This was not an obligation, it was more of a hope, or a prayer, that Japan would provide support and launch an attack against the Soviets. As we know, Japan did not attack, fearful of what they failed to do at Pearl, they went into preperation for the insuing battle of the Pacific. But, more importantly, this decision also allowed President Roosevelt to declare war on Germany unchallenged in Congress.

1942 brings us The battle of Stalingrad which brought urban warfare to the front, and now the Germans are the ones mired. Probably the real turning point of the war.

1943 brings us to the 'Mother of all tank battles' the Battle of Kursk! The first Soviet counter attack, or aka: Counter-Offensive, as they drove, then routed the Germans.

1944 brings us to D-day, minor axis surrenders, Soviet-Finland armistice, and the Ardennes offensive, where movies make heros out of warriors. And TV becomes a brotherhood for shows, Battle of the Bulge, is the true grit of a soldier fighting to maintain, and one who is fighting to keep his country. The Germans retreat back into Germany.

1945 Brings us to bear. The Red Army is on the move, all the way into Berlin in fact, and the Allies are preparing for the meeting and the Yalta conference.

Also, with the surrender of Germany, the Soviets declare war on Japan, and invaded Manchuria as their part in Operation August Storm. After Tokoyo was firebombed, and Japan did not surrender, the US went to phase two, and dropped "Little Boy" on Hiroshima, still Japan did not yield, that brings us to the "Fat Man" and Nagasaki.

So, in essence, the probable answer is yes!
But, more importanly, WHY did Hitler sucker punch Stalin?

[Aerich]

I disagree, Thoran, it is fairly clear that the Soviets were planning a pre-emptive attack on Germany. Consider that about 90% of the Soviet Army was near the Soviet border. The Soviets had to rebuild their army almost from scratch after the first few months of Operation Barbarossa (German invasion), losing 4 million soldiers to casaulties and captured in a matter of weeks. Also consider Stalin's lack of commands and indeed, of public visibility, in the first week of the German invasion. It is widely accepted among military scholars that Stalin suffered a nervous breakdown because of his inability to fathom that Hitler struck first. Stalin was much impressed with his own intelligence and cunning compared the rest of the world ("egomaniac" does not begin to describe his neuroses), and it was more than his psyche could handle.

Getting back to the original issue, the question of whether the Allies would have won WWII if Hitler had not "ticked off" Stalin is fundamentally flawed. The Non-Aggression Pact was never more than a convenience to either side; it ensured the security of one border for an indeterminate length of time, providing Hitler the security to act aggressively, and Stalin the time the Soviets needed to build their military-industrial output - the division of Poland was a nice bonus for each of them.

There were two real reasons Germany and the USSR signed the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact. First, both sides wished to buy time. Neither was suitably ready for war with each other (and Germany was not expecting a declaration of war by the Western powers following their invasion of Poland, in light of their success in Czechoslovakia), which is why the secret part of the agreement provided for the peaceful division of Poland between the two powers. Second, their historical relationship (beginning in the mid-1930s) grew out of the industrial and trade-related constraints on both powers - on the Germans because of the Versailles Treaty, and on the Soviets because they couldn't trade or otherwise acquire military materiel and expertise from wary European powers.

Previous to the Non-Aggression Pact, the Soviets provided tank testing areas, land for chemical and munitions plants forbidden under the Versailles Treaty, and raw materials in exchange for organizational and logistical advice (recall that 90% of the Soviet general staff had been purged, along with the majority of effective officers) and military technology (plans for tanks and subs). This co-operation was flawed (money issues, trust issues in the withholding of certain designs, industrial efficiency), but provided the basis for negotiations and continued recognition of commonality of interests.

Realistically, the ideology of the Nazis and the Soviets almost "fated" the countries to fight. Any reading of the diseased ramblings of Mein Kampf will indicate the absolute hatred and disdain felt by Hitler toward an "inferior race", the Slavs (the dominant ethnic group in Soviet Russia). Additionally, the Nazi policy of lebenschraum ("living space" for the supposedly superior Aryan race) explicitly mentioned the Slavs as a group that must give up much of their land to the Aryans. The Soviets trusted no one, not even themselves, and were certainly aware of Hitler's aspirations. Moreover, Stalin & Co had their own ideas about world domination.

Therefore, Hitler and Stalin "ticking off" each other was a foregone conclusion. If you wish to speculate on the importance of the timing of the official breach between them, go ahead.

A quick note on my qualifications to pontificate - I graduated two years ago in Modern European History "with distinction" (defined as GPA over 6.0, a B+; was actually closer to 7.5, in my case). I've taken several courses focusing entirely on World War II, its causes, politics, economics, impact, etc. I also wrote a 20 page full research paper in a seminar course on Weimar & Nazi Germany on Nazi-Soviet co-operation prior to the signing of the Non-Aggression Pact. The paper got an A+, and is one of the best pieces of work I've ever written. I would be pleased to provide a copy of the paper and bibliography via email attachment if anyone cares to PM me about it. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 07-01-2005, 02:49 AM: Message edited by: Aerich ]

[Black Baron]

Stalin was not planning a preemptive strike, since that he did not believe in the first place that hitler will dare to attack him. What he planned was a war on hitler probably in autumn of 1941.

Proofs: Enourmous forces near the border.
preparation of plakates, slogans etcetera prior to 22 of juny. The famous plakate-Mother land calls (rodina mat zovet) went public in the entire russia within 2 days after 22.6.
preparation of russsian -german "dialouge books" of the following content:
"where are oil fields"
"where is the nearest water supply"
"you drink first"
"where are nearest german forces".

There are numerous proofs of the incoming war.
To these who wish to read furter on the subject i recommend victor suvorov's books, and after you have read them (just for getting a more balanced opinion) read mark solonin book "22 of juny, or when did the great patriotic war begin?".

[Aragorn1]

Originally posted by Felix The Assassin: Remember Russia is in the mist of full battle with Finland, and is not only caught off-guard, but by surprise.

I think the only one suprised in the whole of Stavka was Mashall Stalin, who seemed to have buried his head in the sand and refused to believe the inevitable German attack was imminent.

Originally posted by Kakero: quote: Originally posted by Aragorn1 I disagree with the fact that when the US entered germnay was doomed.

First thing first, how many population does US had compared to Germany at that time? Second thing, how are the industries in US compared to Germany? Third thing, Germany produced their war machines in quality instead of quantity compared to US who produces their war machines in quantity. Germany only changes their production from quality to quantity during final few years of war but this has come too late. So, I believe that US had the upper hand of superior numbers.

US war machine produced - Germany's
5 - 2
10 - 4
15 - 6
20 - 8
So in the end who would have won?

[/QUOTE]These figures are really irrelvant to the hypothetical situation. IF Germany had sole contorl of Europe, access to all her resources, the oil in the Caucuses, the various countries' industrial infrastructure etc, it is entirely possible that Germany could out strip the US, particulalry as the US industry did not have a focus war materials. In fact, the amazing ability of Germany to increase capacity when they finally accepted total war was necessary, given the fact there access to supplies from captured teritories was rapidly diminuating, show tat it COULD indeed be possible. Given the superior nature of German, and indeed what would, given the scenario, be captured Russian designs, may have meant that a huge advantage was not necessary. Tigers, King Tigers etc could take out many more of the inferior Western Allies' tanks, and with the increase production capacity they MAY have been able to supply them with the labour-intensive parts they needed.

[ 07-01-2005, 07:42 AM: Message edited by: Aragorn1 ]