How could Germany have won WWII?

[JerseyJohn]

Panzer

Worse yet, we'll get that guy coming back on taking it literally -- the one who so appreciated your Maryland survives the Plague scenario!

At one point the Japanese could have easily taken both Ceylon and Madegascar. It would still have been exctremely difficult for them to mount that kind of activity -- actually, I don't see it happening at all as I'm sure you can tell. But with Japan controling those two islands and assigning their subs to anti-commerce activity, Britain would have lost just about all it's Asian imports.

There's one nobody's mentioned, didn't occur to me either till you made that suggestion.

The thing is, if the United States weren't in the war and Japan was fighting the UK, Britain couldn't send a decent naval force to oppose them. If they did, there would have been too little left to control the Atlantic and Mediteranean. Interesting situation.

Naturally the Japanese would have needed to take the Dutch East Indies for it's oil. They assumed the U. S. would have gone to war over this and hit the Phillipines / Pearl Harbor simultaneously.

They should have just hit the East Indies and risked a war with the U. S.. Congress would never have passed a DoW and if it did the nation wouldn't have rallied behind it, morale would have been low.

Even without hitting Pearl Harbor the Japanese Navy was more than a match for the U. S. Pacific Fleet in 1942 and they could have just cut the Phillipines off from reinforcement and supply, forcing an American relief expedition -- the resultant Naval Battle would have been in Japan's favor.

Of course these ideas are very hard to reflect in war games.

It will be interesting to see how you expand on these ideas in the expanded editor -- I mean, those similar to a Japanese Fleet moving to the Atlantic -- who's to say it couldn't have happened? Interesting premise. I think they'd have needed a friendly base somewhere along the line though, possibly Brazil, where they could refit before continuing into battle. Also, they might have had a problem off South or West Africa, depending upon the status of Allied air power.

[ April 25, 2004, 12:59 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Arngrim]

JerseyJohn wrote:

Portugal's dictator, Salazar, was also a friend of the Axis and Germany benefitted in many ways be having Portugal neutral -- a lot of materials flowed in and out of it's ports that ended up in Germany. That would have stopped if it would have been either conquered or had joined the Axis.

Good point!

Actually, the participation of neutrals, and their importanc to the axis/aliies is something that is rarely (if at all) simulated in a realistic way.

I mean, things like the porugeze harbours, supplies being routed through Spain. Finnish resources, sure, but the swedish steel and german troops using the Swedish railways? There _were_ resaons why Hitler didn't just attack neutrals who didn't join the axis in war. I'm not proud of the fact that Sweden were an Axis minor, although officially neutral. But het, I'm not taking any blame for events before my birth....

back on track though.. the only game i've played with a system that a) represents the political manoeuvering prior to -39 and the positive impact, resources in particular is WiF.

A game that is never played to the end... :-(

[JerseyJohn]

Arngrim

No need to be ashamed about Sweden, it was locked within the Axis, it didn't have much choice, it had to send it's steel to Germany and had to gear it's economy to be married with the Reich's, or choose total isolation, which doesn't work for a moder nation.

Interesting that you mention the German Army's use of Swedish rail roads, a comparatively obscure fact that was first forced upon the country during Germany's invasion of Norway. But once again, the Germans let it be known that if they weren't permitted to do so they would do it anyway even if meant expanding the war. I don't think Sweden acted in a cowardly or collaborative manner.

The Swedes, like the Swiss, Spanish, Portugese and others, didn't ask for the war and had no desire to participate in it.

We had a lot of discussion some time back on neutrals in the wartime economy, one thread was entirely devoted to the idea of placing Sweden in the Axis to simulate it's economic effect -- it was entitled 'Sweden as an Axis Minor.' I'll try to find them and link them here -- I'm pretty sure you'll enjoy reading through the posts.

We were all agreed that there were reasons Hitler didn't just invade these countries -- in the case of Sweden he was particularly afraid of sabotage either to the mines or the railroads while conquering the country. That even in neutrality these countries had a major effect on the war but it's very hard to represent in a war game.

< Thread from March 03: Sweden as an Axis Nation >

< Thread: Neutrals as Economic Factors >

< Kurt88's Idea of Diplomacy and Economic Effects of Minor Neutrals >

[ April 25, 2004, 09:51 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Les the Sarge 9-1]

Well again it's ole mr ideology that interferes.

The Japanese had this Co Prosperity Sphere thing happening, while the Germans had the supermen thing working.

What most seem to forget, is the Japanese weren't fighting WW2 for the Germans, any more than the Germans were fighting it for the Japanese.

Its a curious notion that we just automatically assume they were buddy buddy.

But that's easy I suppose. After all, the US and Britain were buddy buddy. And France was sort of on our side (even though you had to sit them away from the British). Russia was not really our buddy, but we got stuck with them on our side.

We so often call them the Axis as if they planned it that way.

Heck, Italy was in it for prestige, and until the new guy Hitler upstaged Benito, it was actually the other way around.

Italy was the one that had designs of empire at first.

Wargames give what I think our misleading representations of "us" vs "them" depictitions.

It just happened that the Japanese ambitions and the Italian ambitions just happened to occur at approximately the same time period.

Remember, it's not known as WW2 in Russia, it was the Great Patriotic War. It lasted from 41 to 45.

Or it was 31 to 45 if you ask someone that saw action in the Pacific.

Or it was 39 to 45 if you asked a European.

Or it was 41 to 45 if you think it strictly US terms of direct involvement.

"Imagine the Japanese with modern tanks/divisions"

Actually earlof white22, the problem with that remark, was the Japanese heavy industry was not suited for it. Not to mention they ambitions were not geared for it.

They might have desired tanks in Manchuria, but I think it is a bit of a given, they would never have had a chance gaining even a remote chance of gaining par with Russian armour production potentials.

There is more to producing tanks, than just a decent design (although it doesn't hurt).

As wargamers we forget, we have no ideology to mess up our otherwise mathematically precise textbook perfect plannings.

We don't have to fret over politics between our various allied forces.

We can produce what we want when we want it.

We can attack whomever we please, whenever we please.

We can make a treaty, just to break it the second it becomes well timed to do so.

We don't have to worry about our plans being leaked.

Public opinion means nothing to our strategies.

And that is what separates our games, from the messier aspects of the real world.

Which is why, when simulating WW2, the more you edit out the people that made it the way it was, the less you are simulating WW2.

Grand Strategy without the annoying human element, is really a lot of work, for no real gain.

[Edwin P.]

Another item about Sweden, is that their leaders choose the wiser but these days politicially correct course.

By being neutral and dealing with Germany they served as a waypoint for many Europeans that were fleeing Europe and protected the lives of their citizens, why fight a war you are certain to lose.

If they had not played realpolitik then nore people would have died in the German camps as many Europeans escaped over the baltic to Sweden via Denmark.

Also, Sweden like Spain provided Allied agents with an entry point into Occupied Europe.

[JerseyJohn]

Edwin

Agreed, Sweden more than any other nation benefitted both sides by remaining neutral.

Switzerland, though tragically linked with both plundered gold and enethical banking practices against Holocaust victims, was also a valuable link between the two sides. It's a little known fact that Allied and Axis (including the Japanese) financial agents met there on a regular basis to determine the value of the world's gold!

It was also a place where numerous deals were worked out between the two sides.

On the purely pro-Axis side, Swiss electricity was diverted to Germany when Allied bombers hit their dams and various crucial items such as ball bearings and -- even tanks -- were manufactured there and shipped to the Reich. Occasionally Allied bombers would accidentally drop their loads on the Swiss side of the border when it was decided that too much of this was taking place; the result was usually a secret meeting to work it all out.

[ April 25, 2004, 09:59 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

Arngrim

No need to be ashamed about Sweden, it was

locked within the Axis, it didn't have much choice,

< Thread from March 03: Sweden as an Axis Nation >

< Thread: Neutrals as Economic Factors >

You are right. The real crisis came on june 22nd, 1941. In sweden it's refered to as the "midsummer-crisis". German attaché in Stockholm demand the transfer of the Engelbreckt-division through sweden to Finland.

Now remember that this was in a time when Hitler was at the height of his power. People in common thought that Russia would lose.

The socialdemocratic party(biggest pary) was devided in this issue. Ernst Wigforss, minister of finance and primeminister Per-Albin Hansson argued openly against each other but finally the latter got the go ahead to agree to the german demand. The conservative parties in the parliament supported the primeminister in this issue.

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by Edwin P.:

By being neutral and dealing with Germany they served as a waypoint for many Europeans that were fleeing Europe and protected the lives of their citizens, why fight a war you are certain to lose.

If they had not played realpolitik then nore people would have died in the German camps as many Europeans escaped over the baltic to Sweden via Denmark.

Correct Edwin. It was not nice but it benefited both our country and many jews in concentration camps. Raul Wallenberg saved many jews from death in Budapest before the russians shot him in 1945.

The welfare state we got in Sweden is also to a large part a result of our factories beeing intact. THe swedish export to europe after ww2 insured that the socialdemocratic party could work for erradicate unequality within the country.

But the baltic-transit was not only a proud moment for Sweden. many people were handed back to russian authorities which in many cases lead to death.

[JerseyJohn]

Kuni

Glad you posted that, never knew that very interesting information.

Occasionally Goering boasted that he would use his contacts to pull Sweden directly into the Axis but it never actually worked.

In SC terms Sweden actually being in the Axis would mean the addition of two armies (assuming the corps remains in Stockholm) and an airfleet. I think this is a fairly accurate simulation. So the fact it did remain neutral -- at the very least in the sense of contributing troops to Barbarossa -- is fairly significant. Even if used as a behind the lines reserves, two additional armies would have come in very handy.

[Kuniworth]

However we did certain contribution to the axis cause people may not know of.

A certain Heinz Guderian worked on his panzer-tactics with swedish panzer-forces in the 20's...

[JerseyJohn]

Les

Regarding your Italian / Japanese parrelel, one of the reasons Mussolini invaded Ethiopia in 1936 was the planned marriage of an Abasynian Princess to a Japanese Prince -- Mussolini feared it would be diplomatically too late to invade the country after the marriage had taken place.

Another factor was plans by Emperor Haili Salassi to modernize the Ethiopian Army and to also build an Air Force -- in 1936 it had one plane which was crashed by a visiting Ameican from Harlem with scant piloting skills. The visitor was ushered out of the country under armed guard. -- One of histories really obscure and ignominious footnotes!

[JerseyJohn]

Kuni

"A certain Heinz Guderian worked on his panzer-tactics with swedish panzer-forces in the 20's...

Yet another gem -- I didn't know that, if he mentioned it in Achtung Panzer I've forgotten reading it. I knew there was a lot of cooperation between the Soviet and German armies in developing weapons and tactics before Hitler, but not this item. It makes a lot of sense, though; Germany sidestepped many Versailles restrictions though both Russia and Sweden. Again, to me there was nothing wrong with this; the Versailles Treaty was a pathetic rag and it's unwise policies and arbitrary borders did much to create the Second World War.

Many Englishmen, such as Winston Churchill, said that from the start, but were ignored.

Man, you are a treasure trove, hope you'll post more of these things!

[Les the Sarge 9-1]

JJ that tid bit (the Prince Princess thing) was really interesting.

[JerseyJohn]

Les, glad you enjoyed it, the sort of small detail I'm beginning to really enjoy these days.

[Blashy]

I'll give you 19 reasons how they could have won.

If any ONE of the 19 Assassination attempts on the insane Hitler would have worked.

His generals were superior but fortunatly their #1 weakness was thinking Hitler was god or something like that.

Political genius? Yes.

Military genisu? Only in his mind.

[jon_j_rambo]

Actually, the more I think of it, I don't think German could have won. With the United States firepower & population, we could have trashed Germany ourselves & liberated the World.

[Curry]

Very interesting topic and tread

On Germany how to win, that is a very complex question. Some good posts. Its complex on how Germany could have won. Lets all thank God that they didnt, it would have been a very dark world if they would have won.

On Sweden, great posts by Jersey and Kuni. I remember traveling to Scandinavia in the late 80's and taking a historical tour of Oslo Norway and the tour guide was very anit-Swedish about the sweed's role in the war. It was the first time I heard of some of the things discussed. I'm sure its a debated topic in Sweden and Scandinavia. My friends who were my age and young (at that time and Danish) were very sympathic to the Sweeds but his parents were not all all. Perhaps its generational thing. I can understand both sides, certainly understand the Sweedish view and as Kuni said was much debated, and understand that gereration of other Scandinavians who were occupied by Nazi's (Norwegians and Danes). It must have been very hard times and I certainly would not judge anyone in that place.

[ April 26, 2004, 12:09 AM: Message edited by: Curry ]