What about “General Winter” and the scorched earth policy? If I remember my history correctly, both Charles XII of Sweden and Napoleon both invaded Russia (by WWII the USSR) and failed. Didn’t Hitler’s overreaching on the Eastern Front help defeat Germany? Please correct me if I am wrong.
I am fond of a phrase I read or heard somewhere (I apologize to my source for not recalling it) that when Queen Victoria of England died, Kaiser Wilhelm lost his adult supervision.
A (probably paraphrased because I don’t have the reference (Dreadnaught) handy) quote from a letter written by Queen Vctoria to Kaiser Wilhelm after the Kaiser had publicly castigated the British Prime Minister: “never has one sovereign spoken so harshly of another sovereign’s minister, and that sovereign his own grandmother!”. Even better than “We are not amused” as a Vicky quote IMHO 
Can anyone confirm or deny this claim? It’s one I’ve never heard, at least not with such certainty.
As long as we are playing the what if game, imagine this. During WWII, Germany does basically what it ended up doing, that being its two-pronged assault on the west and Russia. Now however imagine that Japan instead of foolishly attacking Pearl Harbor instead focussed 100% on going for Rusia as well? With Russia out of the way, Britain was no match for the focussed attention of the German war machine.
Let us not forget that FDR only managed to win re-election for his third term by promising to keep America out of what was called at the time a European war. American public opinion before December 7, 1941 was very clear and very much against entering the war.
While it most likely was inevitable that the U.S. get involved, Pearl Harbor had dire consequences for the Axis. If Japan does not attack Pearl Harbor, the U.S. does not enter the war for an indeterminable amount of time, effectively removing one entire opponent. And it should also be noted that for the most part, American war technology, training efforts and strategy were still rooted in WWI and as mentioned way up top somewhere, the U.S. was not nearly as dominant a world power as it is today.
The only way for Pearl Harbor to have succeeded was if it crippled the U.S. war effort in the Pacific. The fact that it did not spelled fairly certain eventual doom for the Axis, as it did not force the Americans to focus their efforts, thus freeing them to contribute in Europe without sacrificing too much against Japan. When you factor in Italy and how mismanaged they were basically from day one, I’d say the only thing that stopped Germany in WWII was its choice of allies.
I was paraphrasing out of Strange Victory by Ernest May. I admit going by memory, but I read the book fairly recently so I’m pretty sure I got it correct.
I think Hitler was as sucessful as he was early on because he took big risks that paid off. Remilitarizing the Rhineland, taking over Austria, demanding the Sudetenland and then taking all of Czechoslovakia, dividing up Poland with the Soviets, attacking France through the Ardennes, even the attack on the USSR was a daring move that paid off for a while.
In the early stages Germany couldn’t back up any of the aggressive moves Hitler made if they were seriously challenged. He was super lucky that everyone backed down. I’m guessing Germany would have a harder time in the fight with France if he hadn’t earlier remilitarized the Rhineland. And there is no question that the Poland and Czechoslovakia were real stumbling blocks on the way to Russia.
In the case of World War I Germany took fewer risks and apparently came quite close to capturing Paris. Towards the end of the war Germany made a push that moved forward sucessfully but didn’t manage to go far enough. The Allies then made a counter push that pushed the Germans back, but whether they would have conclusively defeated Germany is not certain because the Germans sued for peace before the Allies even entered German territory (I believe, in any case, if they did enter German territory it wasn’t all that far).
It seems to me that the Germany of WWI had a better advantage in resources, territory and strategic position (?), but didn’t forsee a general war. In contrast WWII Germany, while probably being in a less advantageous position, was thinking of a general war and planned accordingly.
I’d say that the Germany of World War I had a better chance of winning.
Remember that America was getting more and more nervous about Japan’s Asian conquests. Japan was also much more of a threat to American interests than Germany was, so the United States’ isolationism didn’t limit the prospect of a Pacific war. Furthermore, no matter how the war started, the States probably would have involved themselves in Europe, too. Imperial Tragedy (by Thomas Coffey) argues that the men who lobbied for the Pearl Harbour strike rightly saw it as the only chance Japan had in the inevitable (and imminent) war with U.S.
It’s a good point, but neither Hitler nor the Kaiser (since the remark stands in both cases) had much choice, for similar reasons. They were belligerent and threatening, each in their own way. Look at each of the potential allies Nazi Germany had:
France wanted nothing to do with Germany, for obvious reasons.
Russia was Hitler’s main target, and everyone knew it (Mein Kampf).
Italy was fascist–a natural ally.
England’s leadership was generally pacifistic and/or suspicious of Germany.
Japan was a militaristic and belligerent, just like Germany. Furthermore, Hitler hoped that they could interfere with other European powers’ Far Eastern possessions.
As Hitler’s little land-grabs continued, fewer nations wanted much to do with the Axis powers.
The only thing I know is that the German units advancing towards the Ardennes formed a huge, very long, slow and lasting “traffic jam” and that they might have been decimated quite easily had they been noticed. But I don’t know whether the Belgians were tasked with this. I’ve heard about this in a documentary about the operations (or lack thereof in this case) of the french airforce at the onset of the 1940 campaign. But I don’t remember any detail.
That’s a pretty interesting what-if. It could lead to an Axis victory, but then again, it might not. Even more so than in European Russia, the far eastern areas of the Soviet Union lent themselves to trading space for time. It would be relatively easy to retreat into the depths of Siberia and let the Japanese outrun their logistical capabilities. There’s no knowing whether Stalin would have allowed such a strategy, though. He did keep considerable forces facing Japan until he was truly desparate, and he might have gambled that he could fight them off.
Any scenario involving the Japanese taking the southern option and going for Indochina and Indonesia would probably have led to US entry into the war, but if they attacked Russia, I think they would have had US neutrality (there was certainly no love lost between the US and USSR, even then). They still wouldn’t have had oil and metals from commerce with the US, though, so I’m not sure how far they would get before their armies ran out of steam.
Risk is set in WW2, not WWI, hint hint??
Although I’ve conceded Germany lacked the pre-war capacity to construct 10 Bismarcks it would be possible to severely damage American Naval capacity in the short term with such an armada. Hitler chose a different strategy to choke off American shipping support using hunter subs. It was a strategy that would have remained successful had the enigma not been defeated. Pearl Harbor happened because nobody believed it was possible. The Japanese Navy sailed to Hawaii despite every effort to locate it. 9/11 happened for the same reason. Both were predicted and ignored. It’s what isn’t possible that wins wars.
The premise that Germany could not conquer Europe rests solely on Britain’s ability to stay in the fight long enough for her allies to join in. Because the United States held to agreements not to make offensive weapons (such as the B-17) we were unprepared to wage the war Germany brought to the table. It was the shear size in American industrial capacity that allowed for a timely entry into war.
I’m not suggesting Germany could have conquered North America but by delaying US and Canadian supplies it may have been possible for a European defeat. It would have been a short-lived victory with the introduction of the atomic bomb. The successful completion of the Manhattan project rested in the political ability to throw large sums of money down a military wishing well. Considering it was based on German discoveries in 1938 and that Germany had the intellectual capacity to complete such a project it wasn’t a given that the United States would be the first to succeed. The amount of money thrown at it represented the reality that such an event was feared above all else.
I participate in “what if” scenarios because it’s generally interesting to see what people come up with. I don’t mind rebuttals to my idea’s but I’m more interested in concepts that I haven’t considered. Learning from the past makes it possible to prepare for the future.
[irrelevant nitpick]You mean Axis and Allies.[/irrelevant nitpick]
I was thinking the same thing.
Of course, yes, although it wasn’t so much overreaching on the Eastern Front as overreaching by there being an Eastern Front at all. IOW, if Hitler attacks Russia he loses the war, but as his entire reason for going to war was to take out Russia, there’s no plausible scenario where he wins WWII.
Japan went to war because she believed 1/ she was being strangled of natural resources by the Americans and 2/ she deserved a bigger empire. Given that, she had two choices: attack Russia, which had no natural resources, would result in no empire, and who had soundly beaten her in 1939; or attack south. In reality there was 0 chance she would attack Russia, which would only have benefited the Germans anyway.
Well this certainly accords with your principal that what’s impossible wins wars 
Yes, if Germany had more warships than she could possibly build it would have changed things. I maintain that 1/ this was not possible 2/ if it was it would have been unwise. American naval capacity to England did not primarily win the war, the war could only have been won or lost in Russia.
Actually he chose no such thing; he went for a mix of surface navy and subs to the detriment of both. A surface navy was a point of foolish pride for the Germans that cost them in both world wars. And it was not primarily Enigma that defeated the subs, although it certainly helped. It was the Allied adoption of sensible convoying and protection techniques, air coverage across the whole Atlantic, and improved radar and radio location - things they could have done a year earlier than they did.
No, it rests solely on the Russian capacity to continue to wage war.
I’ve always suspected the Americans would be very reluctant to use it on a European country, but I have no documentary basis for that.
Hmm, is a sense. But a large chunk of the scientists the Germans needed to do this were the very ones they drove out in the 1930s, while decrying nuclear physics and relativity as “Jewish Science”. So again the Nazis essentially defeated themselves by their very own nature.
In terms of conquering Russia, both environmental conditions and German nonchalance towards logistical issues made total victory unlikely. However, with respect to merely defeating the USSR, perhaps with sizeable eastward shifts of the boundaries from the 1941 jumpoff points I don’t think it is out of the question. Given that by the end of 1941 the world’s number two industrial power had invaded and siezed great swaths of the world’s number three industrial power, included its former industrial heartland, bread basket, large chunks of population, while capturing or slaughtering vast numbers of soldiers. From that starting point, Germany’s performance on the eastern front has to be considered disappointing. There is no material reason why the production battle should be so one-sided. By 1945 nobody has hordes of infantry to swamp the opponent. The Soviets do however, have a huge materiel edge everywhere else.
Germany’s inability to obtain a separate peace with the USSR has far more to do with Germany’s inability to rationally analyze the situation than with an unwillingness on Stalin’s part. This is as late as mid '44 But as long as the Germans were winning they would accept nothing less than conquest. And while they were losing they insisted that all border adjustments be to the east of the frontlines.
I should note that while not going to a total war economy is foolish from a historical perspective, it made sense from a domestic German political front. The war was only going to be politically sustainable if it were quick and hardship free.
Que? You do know the US built well over a hundred B-17s before the war, right? As well as submarines, battleships, aircraft carriers, and even tanks (although not many of these). I’m really not sure what you’re talking about, unless you’re alluding somehow to the Washington Naval Treaties which limited fleet sizes, but not the construction of “offensive weapons.”