It pays to have a sense of humor about once ignorance- it is conducive to learning. I know I’m an easy target where WWII is concerned, so wouldn’t cry ‘foul!’ anyway.
Im sure as other have pointed out that Germany’s control of Baku and the Southern Caucusus really wouldnt have had to much of a long term impact on the Russian steamroller. I have read many posts and documents detailing oil production and what the Russians needed(used) to ensure victory over Case Blue and over Germany in general. This question, more or less, points to another much bigger question: How could the Germans beat the Russians? In my humble opinion there is only one timeline (way) in which they could have. It is true that the Germans had it all in 1940 (superior in every way in most areas), but thanks to Hitler they were all for not, for he alone caused Germany’s downfall. Here is my timline(options):
-
Should have thrown in everything and the kitchen sink at Dunkirk. There were many tactical reasons not to, but if Hitler would have gambled here instead of other places those men would have not been able to fight again, and that was a BIG chunk of what Britain needed to fight on at home and North Africa.
-
Should have kept bombing the RAF not London. The air war would have been at least a stalemate and at best an air victory for the Luftwaffe. I think victory BTW. This would have made things very hard for Britain on all other fronts air power wise.
-
By July-Aug, 1940(or as early as possible). A everything Germany has got thrown in with Italy in North Africa would have helped Rommel win and bring Britian to its knees. This and the U-boats would have forced Britain out (and Churchhill too) of the war. The house of commons was very seesaw at this time and the Germans would have been very keen on peace with (even on very Britain favorable terms). Im sure some people will disagree with this but I think pre-Pearl Harbor, sometime winter 40 to summer 41(especially with a Malta not Crete invasion), Britain would have been very open for invasion at least. At most ready for a peace on good terms. And with this no more two front war.
-
Break ties with Japan(good for nothing anyways) and NEVER go to war with USA on Dec 7 1941. Their was A LOT of support for Germany prior to this HUGE mistake. A smart man might say that at this point WW2 would be over and there would be no need to invade Russia. But if Hitler wasnt under a non-agression agaist any other countries type treaty with Britain(very possible the only way Britain would sue for peace) and he wanted to tackle the Russian Bear then a spring 42 Barbarossa would have given Germany all the resources and time to do just as well in 42 as they did in 41.
This would be the only way I can see for the Germans to strike south (one option, and with 100% of the fighting power maybe not the only one at once) and given them there best chance to control Baku and take Russia out(cause at this point in the timeline the USA has remained out of it just like the majority wanted), and the Urals just wouldnt be able to deliver the oil needed until much, much later if ever. Also with Britain at bay Turkey would almost certainly want to repay old debts to the Russians and pincer the oil fields from the south making the mountain asault to the north a more defence, hold them in, and win aspect.
In this by Germany in control of Baku (by bombing or straight out capture) would have made a very big if not a end game deal for the Russians in 42-44. This and Germany’s production ramp-up I doubt that they would many options or friends that would help them escape the German Blitz. Just as long as Hitler stay away from the high command(fire Guderian…WHAT!) and retreat and attack(stay moblile)Russia would have been doomed. I dont care how many troops they had. Game over. Two front(Britain must be knoked out) war against Russia=you lose,period. USA allied with Russia=you lose,period. Russia alone and control(destuction) of Baku=one big chance to win if you Germany in 1940-41. And they almost did anyways. So thank you Hitler and your blunders.
MSG S. P. Watson (Ret.)if the european axes went forward in time to discover all their mistakes, they would have controlled only western and central europe (west to east from france to poland, north to south from denmark to italy.) even with lots of oil, they’d be hard put to finish off britain (assume it hasn’t / cannot be invaded before 1947.) they would become the alternative warsaw pact and engage in a cold war with the US and USSR that would likely have ended sooner than 1991.
but had they teamed up with the USSR, then the US would count as its territories just the 50 states.
They are, but they also aren’t trumped by this. This begs a question that is the same that the what-ifs about Germany getting the bomb begs.
Having nuclear weapons isn’t enough. Delivering them is a pretty fundamental requirement. A late war Germany had no way of delivering such weapons. Now, in July 1945, with a limited number of bombs, we would have to consider how the Allies would choose to deliver them. Germany with more oil would be in a better position with regards the war in the air. I don’t know if they would be in enough of a better position to make bombing raids significantly more dangerous, but if there is a danger of the plane not getting through, I don’t see Allied leaders sending a A-bomb mission.
There was essentially zero chance that either Enola Gay or Bockscar was going to get shot down. That wouldn’t necessarily be the case with Me 262’s fully fueled over German airspace.
The ME 262 really wasn;t that great a interceptor.
What would have won the war for the Axis is having them act like allies rather than just having a common set of foes. This is primary laid upon Japan, Hitler actually tried pretty hard to be a ally.
If Japan had “pearl harbored” the Dutch and British, and not attacked the USA, they would have got plenty of oil and territory. Tojo could have then attacked the Russians. Altho this attack would not done much for the Japanese it would have won the war for the Germans, as those dozens of fresh divisions (with better officers, too) would never have arrived just in time to save Stalingrad.
Yes, the USA would have stepped up “Lend lease”. But once the USSR fell, GB might have accepted peace. Then the USA would not have any reason to nuke anyone.
Japan would have all of Asia (except the Phillipines), Germany all of Europe except GB. If they then took ten years off to solidify and build up, they could have won, even attacking the USA.
But the point is- Tojo was Tojo, and Hitler was Hitler. They weren’t *ever *going to do the best thing in the long run. Men like that don’t think like that.
Slight nitpick, not Stalingrad, it was Moscow. Plus the US was embargoing Japan because of its war in China, I doubt it scooping up the remnants of the colonial possessions would make this situation less tense between the two nations, probably would of geared them more towards war.
As was discussed in another thread, the irony is that the Axis had a huge supply of oil all along and didn’t know it. Libya became an Italian colony in 1911. But Libya’s massive oil reserves remained mostly undiscovered until the nineteen-fifties.
How so? Granted there were serious limits on how much Japan and Germany could cooperate being on opposite sides of the planet, but in what way was Hitler trying pretty hard to be an ally aside from declaring war on the US when it was not required to do so by the Tripartite Pact? Even that wasn’t much of a big deal as the US and Germany had been in an undeclared naval war most of 1941. Hitler didn’t even bother to inform Japan that he was going to invade the USSR.
Attacking the Dutch East Indies or the British would result in war with the US, full stop. The Dutch and the British had joined the US oil embargo of Japan at the US’s behest. The US could and would hardly sit idly by if they were attacked, which is why the US was attacked as well. By December 1941 war with Japan was expected by the US, the surprise was the unexpected attack at Pearl Harbor.
As noted, attacking to seize the oil in the DEI would result in war with the US, so attacking the USSR then would only intensely magnify Japan’s problems. Attacking the USSR instead of going south for the oil was not in Japan’s interest at all; it would be national suicide to add the USSR to its enemies when it didn’t have the oil to continue the war in China for much longer unless it did something to seize a source of oil in the face of the embargo. Japan had a very healthy respect for the USSR after getting its ass kicked by the Soviets at Lake Khasan and Khalkin Gol in border fighting in 1938 and 1939. The Japanese-Soviet Nonaggression Pact was a result of these decisive defeats. Note that with regards to cooperation between the Axis powers, Japan signed this in April 1941, when Germany was in the final stages of its preparations to invade the USSR (violating its own German–Soviet Non-aggression Pact). Hitler had of course not bothered to inform Japan of the impending invasion as he did not even desire Japan’s aid, believing that the campaign against the USSR would be successfully concluded in 8-10 weeks.
With regards to the Siberian divisions saving Moscow at the last moment, as I noted up thread, this is a myth. The link in post 24 deals with this. Keep in mind that the Soviets sent 10,000,000 men against Germany during 1941. 100,000 troops from Siberia was barely a drop in the bucket; for the counteroffensive after Operation Typhoon had been halted before reaching Moscow, STAVKA initially released 8 armies of 800,000 men from its reserves. It’s easy to forget how bad Germany had been bleeding from Barbarossa when looking at the catastrophic Soviet casualties. Horrible as they were, the Soviets were continuously able to replace them. By contrast, before launching Operation Typhoon
Source: Moscow to Stalingrad: Decision in the East (Army Historical Series) by Earl F. Ziemke and Magna E. Bauer.
While it would have allowed the Axis, pre-war, to significantly augment their oil reserves, during the war to make reasonable use of the oil there would have required many oil tankers and a competent Italian Navy and air force to help ensure safe passage to mainland Europe (tho they could have a refinery or two on the spot to help fuel Rommel and company-assuming the British never decide to bomb it). It is more likely that the British would have swarmed the central Med with their subs and planes, and by mid '43 it’s all conquered in any event.
By what standard? It was fast as hell, climbed like an angel, and had immense firepower. As a pure interceptor that’s what you want.
As I posted in the other thread, the Axis could have secured the Mediterranean if it had wished to - the chokepoints at Gibraltar and Aden were easily within reach. But in our history, Germany and Italy didn’t see these operations as vital and committed the resources elsewhere. But if access to oil had been involved, securing the Mediterranean would have become a priority.
The United States wouldn’t sit by if Britain and the Netherlands were attacked? Do you see the flaw in that argument? If Congress wasn’t going to declare war to defend London and Amsterdam, why would it declare war to defend Singapore and Batavia? Congress hadn’t declared war when Japan attacked China or the Soviet Union or French Indochina. The evidence is that only a Japanese attack on an American possession would be seen as a cause for war.
If the Far East is attacked, vital US interests are threatened and it’s war. The legacy of the Pearl Harbour attack masks the fact that it was a side show, designed to cripple the USN to make it irrelevant in the Far East, the Brits being tied up in the Mec and the Atlantic.
I disagree. The United States had already decided that mainland Asia did not represent a vital American interest by not declaring war when Japan attacked and occupied mainland Asia. So why would the United States have decided South East Asia (outside of the Phillipines) was a vital interest? The United States wasn’t dependent on that region for its oil or other strategic materials.
“aside from declaring war on the US when it was not required to do so by the Tripartite Pact” “Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play? “ The declaration of war was a huge deal.
Nope. The USA was still very anti-war. The voters and Congress wasn’t going to allow FDR to declare war without a attack on the USA itself. Germany had already invaded the Netherlands and the US public still weren’t willing to go to war. How much less so when a Dutch colony gets attacked?
I didn’t say to not go south for oil, I suggested instead of attacking the USA. Note that my plan includes a full attack on the UK and Dutch colonies, giving the Japanese full access to the huge oil reserves there.
Like I said- Tojo had little to gain by attacking the USSR- except winning the war. If Japan doesn’t attack the USSR, The Axis loses. Period. If they do, the USSR collapses and the Axis can win.
No, it doesn’t really, yes, only a few divisions from Siberian actually participated in saving Moscow. That cite completely ignores the fact the 28 divisions were transferred West- those that did not directly participate in the battle for Moscow allowed Stalin to free up other divisions to fight for Moscow. Moscow is regarded as a VERY close fought battle. It’s true that in the overall scheme of things, those 100000 men weren’t that big a deal. But they were the tiny tipping point that saved Moscow, and thus the war. “For want of a nail… a war was lost”. Those “few” men won Moscow, and that saved the USSR.
When did Japan attack the Soviet Union or French Indochina? It didn’t attack either one. The oil embargo and causes of the immediate tension between the US and Japan was caused by the Japanese invasion of China.
As I said, the reason Japan would be attacking the DEI or British possessions in the area would be to seize oil they were being denied because of the US lead embargo. This would clearly be an attack on US interests. Talks had already occurred before the war to set up joint command, what became ABDA. The outbreak of war with Japan was expected by December '41. War warnings were sent to US forces in the Pacific beginning on November 24. This one from Nov 27 is particularly telling; note the part I bolded, it will become apparent why shortly.
More directly, attacking either the DEI or British possessions in the area would mean attacking US forces. There is an order of battle of the USN on Dec 7 1941 here. The US Asiatic Fleet had dispersed its surface vessels from Manila bay in late November in expectation of hostilities after the war warnings. Where did they disperse to? Four destroyers of DesDiv 58 and one from DesSqn 29 were at Tarakan, Borneo. Four destroyers of DesDiv 57, the destroyer tender Black Hawk and the light cruiser Marblehead were at Balikpapan, Borneo, with the destroyers of DesDiv 57 on their way to Singapore.
1939 and 1940, respectively. Neither was a formal declaration of war, but the former lead to a decisive battle (which if nothing else taught the Japanese that the USSR was no pushover), and the latter the loss of Indochina after a week or so of fighting.
Agreed, and the myth has always bothered me. The only way that the Germans would have taken Moscow would be if the winter suddenly and mysteriously ended, someone magically repaired most of the (formerly) Soviet rail network, someone else found a few thousand Russian gauge locomotives in a warehouse, preferably filled with 200 000 German soldiers the Wehrmacht had forgotten about.
I don’t want to sound offensive but you really need to learn a lot more about WWII history if you’re unaware of these things.
Japanese units attacked Soviet units on several occasions throughout the thirties. The two biggest were the Changkufeng Incident in the summer of 1938 and the Nomonhan Incident in the summer of 1939. These were essentially probing attacks to see how the Soviets would respond. But they were also serious battles - about 20,000 soldiers were killed in these raids.
Japan invaded French Indochina in September 1940. This was of course only three months after France had signed its armistice after the German invasion of France. So the French forces in Vietnam had limited resources to resist the Japanese occupation. It was this invasion (not the invasion of China which had been going on for years athis point) which caused the United States, United Kingdom, and Netherlands to impose a total oil embargo against Japan in July 1941.
No offense meant, but it’s you that needs to brush up on these things.
Japan and the USSR engaged in border fighting in 1938 and 1939 in Mongolia/Manchuria. You’ll note that I’m quite aware of this; I brought it up in post 48. At no point did Japan attack the Soviet Union.
Japan pressured France and later Vichy France to stop allowing shipments of arms to move from French Indochina into China. Japan moved invasion forces towards Indochina, and when faced with this Vichy France capitulated and agreed to allow Japanese troops to occupy Indochina. They did not invade Indochina, they threatened to if the Vichy government did not allow them entry, at which point the Vichy government caved. They even allowed the French to continue to govern and their military to remain armed to keep Vietnamese insurrection in check. It was only after the liberation of France that the French in Indochina saw the writing on the wall and considered rising against the Japanese. Fearing such an event, the Japanese pre-empted them and suddenly surrounded French garrisons on 9 March 1945 and demanded they immediately disarm.