|
|
Post by Haelicon on Mar 5, 2018 12:13:17 GMT
Destroy forces at Dunkirk Fund a 'stay neutral' campaign in Washington with Lindbergh and Ford as main campaigners Negotiate Japan to launch an assault in Siberia, to prevent the relocation of siberian divisions and to avoid Pearl Harbor Launch Barbarossa at April for good weather conditions Avoid Stalingrad and go full on Caucauses Pressure the Finns to advance in Stalingrad Target Radar stations and other strategic british facilities instead of cities Take Malta and shorten axis supply routes Equip Italians with German weaponry If Japan disagrees- support ROC so an invasion of china is still plausible I highly doubt that the "Stay Neutral" campaign might succeed since 1) The best place to get resources from is Southeast Asia, meaning that conflict with USA is inevitable unless the Japs avoid the Philippines & the USA stays out 2) The Japs were taught a strict lesson about attacking the Soviets in the undeclared Soviet-Jap border war so they'd be more weary of attacking them again 3) The above makes it more likely the Japs will repeat the same mistake again of Pearl Harbour. Agreed. It's nearly impossible for the US not to get involved in WW2. Only a very strict isolationism policy can keep the US out of the war. In 1941, USA had been engaged in a massive lend-lease program to Britain and the Soviets, technological exchange (Tizard mission), Destroyers for Bases deal, etc. It's hard to say that the USA wasn't neutral at this point. While the majority of US' population supported isolationism, Japan's imperialist ambition proved too great to be ignored. With Philippines, South-East Asia, and nearly the entire western half of Pacific Ocean claimed by Japan, US couldn't sit down and wait any longer. US believed it's a matter of time before they will be engaged in a full-scale war with Japan. Japan knew about this too. For decades, the Japanese Government knew that their government will eventually clash with the US because of Japan's growing territorial ambitions and interests in the Pacific. Their Navy's - Teikoku Kaigun - policy for decades was to contain, and eventually, defeat the American Pacific Fleet in a full-scale battle. The only reason why Japan accepted the Washington Naval Treaty was because it significantly limit US Navy capability in the Pacific, giving the Kaigun a much better chance to successfully eliminate the American threat. The American response to the Second Sino-Japanese War was a full oil blockade on Japan. With 90% of Japan's oil supply now gone, they were in a dire situation. This devastating blockade only seemed to confirm decades-long Japanese assumptions: Japan will go to war against the United States, no matter what. With only 6 months of oil reserves left for Kaigun to operate freely, they need to act fast. Eventually, this breaks down to Attack on Pearl Harbour, Invasion of Philippines, Malayan Campaign, etc etc. We all know how it unfolds. Facing a fanatical enemy, with a vision of attacking America for decades, it was really hard for the USA to be neutral.
BUT, doing alternate history, and then someone said that it will still unfold the same way isn't interesting and fun.
Let's speculate how it could succeed:The first way for the USA to be neutral was to actually do what the Japanese expect America to do, seeking a peace treaty with Japan after a disastrous attack on its fleet. For this to happen, the Japanese need to inflict a far greater damage on Pearl Harbour. Destroying Pearl Harbour's facilities, runways, oil supplies might be required. With the loss of their Pacific Battleship fleet, and eventually, their Carrier fleet at Midway might force the American public to sign a treaty with Japan. (With all that said, that is still impossible.) The second way was to America end its oil blockade on Japan, and giving the Japanese a free hand in Asia. With Japan's promise not to touch any American territories, other important assets, and the continuation of trades, coupled with massive American support for strict isolationism, this might happen. (Still highly unlikely though.) The third way, was to go back further in history. To be exact, in 1936.
This time, Japan chose the Hokushin-ron, the Northern Expansion Doctrine, as their main strategy, rather than the Nanshin-ron, the Southern Expansion Doctrine. At that time, the Japanese HQ was actually at a dilemma, stuck between supporting the Rikugun (Army) that supported an attack on the Soviet Union, or the Kaigun (Navy) that argued that South-East Asia was a better choice for Japan to expand to. Historically they chose both doctrines. Following Japanese experiences in Manchurian-Mongolian Border Conflict, more known for its largest battle, Khalkin-Gol, the Japanese government eventually abandoned Hokushin-ron. With the Soviet Union as Japan's main rival and target, Japan chose to ignore the American threat, and focus more on its Army to attack the Soviet Union. With more restructuring, training, and a better-equipped army, the Japanese might win the Khalkin-Gol conflict, strengthening their confidence that they might win the war against the Soviet Union. After all, their ancestors did win a massive conflict with Russia before, didn't they? With total support from Nazi Germany, Japan embraces war against the Soviet Union. Coordinating their attacks with the Germans, they may invade the Soviet Union. At this point, it is hard to predict USA's reaction. But they might be still neutral. With the Japanese threat in the Pacific gone, they even may not issue any protests at all. All of that, is why America might be drawn into the war, and how you can force America to be neutral. |
|
|
|
Post by Iron Duke on Mar 5, 2018 16:51:45 GMT
Here's my 2p, fwiw (probably a lot less than that  ) It seems to me that Japan is the key. If they hadn't bombed Pearl Harbour perhaps USA would remain mostly un-involved (iirc correctly they were already sending supplies to GB but not actively taking part). Also a co-ordinated attack on USSR from the east and west might have been enough to defeat them (again iirc wasn't Stalin able to move several hundred thousand troops from Siberia to his western front at some point as he knew the Japs wouldn't be troubling him?). Without the US there really wasn't much GB could do after Dunkirk, at least in terms of any kind of major ground offensive in western Europe. |
|
|
|
Post by Tito on Mar 5, 2018 17:12:22 GMT
Here's my 2p, fwiw (probably a lot less than that ) It seems to me that Japan is the key. If they hadn't bombed Pearl Harbour perhaps USA would remain mostly un-involved (iirc correctly they were already sending supplies to GB but not actively taking part). Also a co-ordinated attack on USSR from the east and west might have been enough to defeat them (again iirc wasn't Stalin able to move several hundred thousand troops from Siberia to his western front at some point as he knew the Japs wouldn't be troubling him?). Without the US there really wasn't much GB could do after Dunkirk, at least in terms of any kind of major ground offensive in western Europe. Well if it wasn't for some Italian messups so Germany wasn't forced to help them like in Balkans and in Africa. Still I'd focus on a front in Africa and probably the british would funnel in a lot of Men and Equiptment there. I'd actually try to blitz on two sides in the "African front" with the Actual African front being pushed mostly towards the Suez from the west and an army taking out the Middle Eastern Colonies on the Med to seize Suez and so the British empire would collapse easily with a huge navy being in the Med with no exit, no supplies being able to go to India, rest of the Middle Eastern Colonies and so on withou taking the longest roudabout ever. I'd just try to blitz and focus on keypoints which were essential to the British Empire with the best example being here as already said, Suez, take that, the colonies are very fragile. And I'd force the Italians to push into the rest of Africa from Ethiopia. With Africa gone, India and China being downed, The UK are already dead or at the brink of surrender. Then I'd peform some kind of invasion on the Isles to knock them out, and probably get the Irish on my side promising them whole of Ireland. Then the USSR is an easy picking and so is the US. The Americans are in too weak of a position to do anything without being destroyed totally, and cannot supply the Soviets any way. The Northern Supply route is a nogo (close to Alaska) because Japan would probably retaliate quickly Navaly or Groundly. And still even if they supplied them that way the main front in Europe is too far away from there and I doubt USSR-America could beat the Axis with it having total control of the old world (well yeah except The Soviet lands) |
|
|
|
Post by Georgi Zhukou on Mar 14, 2018 19:37:14 GMT
They would need to take Moscow, Which would have hurt the Soviets bad, and then call in Japan, get Turkey as a ally as well. Take Leningrad and the Causcus, along with the old fields, and then wait a few years to make a nuclear bomb to nuke London, done
|
|
|
|
Post by Tito on Mar 15, 2018 12:48:25 GMT
Easier said than done. They can just say "take that that and that"
Producing a nuke ain't as easy as you think.
And you cannot just say "boom you are an ally"
Taking the Middle East would be basically easy and a bit larger Med Axis fleet could have proved useful, mainly subs imo
Anyhow, with no costly war in the east and Germany supporting the war in Africa would be basically game over for the UK. Making supply flow a nightmare for the British, with the Navy being stuck there, and a small army in the ME it would be easy to go over and take the oil. If the Soviets don't declare war on Germany, just go with the flow and get rid of Allies bit by bit, India being taken down and support in the Indonesian and Pacific theatre.
I would keep a army close to the soviet border but I doubt they would have done much with the superior german army in technology.
The British Mainland would have been either taken care of or unable to do anything that would harm the germans a lot with the colonies being gone. The Soviets would be surrounded at all sides by the Axis and wouldn't be able to fend off their assaults. I wouldn't push into Siberria while I would urge the japs to fortify the border with the ussr from the beggining as a war in siberria would be too costly.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Light Bringer on Mar 15, 2018 14:32:31 GMT
I mean Germany did mistakes at few key positions, like they stoped bombarding UK when UK had almost no resources left to defend, a week longer and all of the British airforce would had been down and therefore would make Britain an easy target, if they had taken Britain, Mexico would be persuaded in to war with USA, a support from German war machinery and America is a busy place with a long and hard war, after taking out Britain of the game, Baku campaign and war in both Africa and against USSR would be quite easier... That's about axis, but the part that most people doesn't realize there were no 2 sides, they call it the war between axis and allies, actually it was more of a 4 sided war, there was Germany with it's axis members in Europe, there was the allied alliance, there was USSR and there was Japan+ there was a civil war in China, while you could say Japan was allied with axis, at the same time it was in war with USSR, while USSR was allied with Germany and well allies were a big mess, they could had stopped ww2 from happening in multiple ways and they didn't do that even after Austria was annexed again...
To be honest WW2 was too colorful for me to analyze in a post, but the fact is mistakes were made on all sides and they did cost dearly to everybody...
|
|
|
|
Post by ErwinRommel on Jul 1, 2018 0:56:21 GMT
After conquering france From germanys point of view i would chose to reinforce africa. First of all to seize gibraltar and malta (to secure the mediterranean) and pushing towards egypt and middle east to weaken the british empire. And in my point of view it would be stupid to advance east before destoying great brittain itself so there would be no place for the americans to land. Hitler made the first mistake by letting the tropps in dunkerque evacuate and the second one to shift bombings to london instead of military targets. Thats the west strategy in few words presuming france had been occupied. So with brittain out of the war it would be ideal to attack the USSR as it would be isolated from 3 sides thus making it a perfect target. I wouldnt declare war in the USA to be on japan’s side but i doubt the US would have stayed out of europe for long. But main thing is to get brittain out of the war. That leaves the whole europe in german control and making it virtually a fortress.
|
|
|
|
Post by Harry Lillis "Bing" Crosby Jr on May 18, 2019 9:16:10 GMT
My take: It is a terrible idea to halt and regroup, and not rush to cut off the allied escape at dunkirk. If Hitler had known of the consequences of that on D-Day, he would have sent ALL troops and generals rushing to encircle Dunkirk.
No u-boats but plenty of warships? Useless as the enemy has the same numbers. Donitz should be assigned a lot more submarines to effectively secure naval control of the English channel, winning half the war for the Operation Sea Lion. More tech research on submarines too to develop the better classes and radar.
Beg Italy to NOT invade France or Greece. Just ask them to force all their troops towards africa and egypt.
Don't carry out the genocide at all! If it was Hitler(not to be insensitive), at least wait till the war is actually won? Killing your own people(some of them werent even Jews) during a war leads to failure. No wonder Hitler had to call upon a Youth squadron later on. Some annexed Russian regions were also eager to fight their soviet oppressors, but the germans just raped and purged them. Neither cool nor smart.
Spain should remain neutral. If not USA can just land in Spain, a weak link like Italy, and cause even bigger problems for Nazi Germany to secure the massive coastlines. Just secretly enlist MORE troops from spain. 18 000 is a weak number for volunteers(to make a significant impact), maybe 30 000 would help.
Got the massive rail artillery for the Maginot Line? Dumb idea trying to send it all the way to Leningrad only to fail. Since its pretty close, just send them to the coast of the English channel, and maybe it can serve to raid British ships or even possible be able to shell British mainland.
Just stay neutral with the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact with the USSR. Secure the west first. Any time to spare should be focused on Operation Sea Lion, the navy and helping italy in africa. Until the time is right to start Operation Barbarossa, and to avoid the Rasputita and the winter, dont attack yet.
Japan should use the materials for its super battleships to build many more aircraft carriers. Thailand could be persuaded to help invade British Burma. Japanese should not commit atrocities as many south east asian citizens were actually tired of British rule and could be enlisted to help against Burma or even for the invasion of Australia.
Army group center should have been sent to capture Leningrad with the other army group first, before swooping down to encricle moscow. No moscow, much lower morale for the russians. And with air superiority of the Lufftwafe, Stalin would be trapped in Moscow, and just make sure that commandos can prevent his escape. No stalin, 0 morale for russia. Who knows they might even give up.
After this Britain and Russia would fall, giving Japan and Germany a lot more time to focus on the Middle east and asia before defending against USA.
|
|
|
|
Post by Harry Lillis "Bing" Crosby Jr on May 18, 2019 9:17:55 GMT
even so all this is from a retrospective point of view, and what Germany actually achieved during WW2 is an impressive feat.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2019 15:36:51 GMT
Nope. The only chance Germany would have won is through a cultural and intellectual war rather than a physical one, but of course since Hitler is the leader, i'd say they won't win. Besides, even if he won the war, a lot of the survivors will most likely revolt.
|
|
|
|
Post by Harry Lillis "Bing" Crosby Jr on May 18, 2019 16:13:54 GMT
Nope. The only chance Germany would have won is through a cultural and intellectual war rather than a physical one, but of course since Hitler is the leader, i'd say they won't win. Besides, even if he won the war, a lot of the survivors will most likely revolt. mmm I agree. One can win wars by not waging one at all  |
|
|
|
Post by opinionmaker on Jul 21, 2019 19:34:49 GMT
Nope. The only chance Germany would have won is through a cultural and intellectual war rather than a physical one, but of course since Hitler is the leader, i'd say they won't win. Besides, even if he won the war, a lot of the survivors will most likely revolt. mmm I agree. One can win wars by not waging one at all Heres my opinion on it all |
|
|
|
Post by Harry Lillis "Bing" Crosby Jr on Jul 22, 2019 11:02:48 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by K S Thimayya on Jul 22, 2019 14:47:58 GMT
The video above was in my recommendations but I didn't watch it (alas!).
As for the question I think that it was very unlikely that axis power could have won the war. They lacked resources, despite or having some of the best generals of that time. Simply because they can not impose their superiority on every land no matter how strong the dictator is.
Talking about Japan, not invading US and and not attacking its facilities was a must.
About Germany, digging in for the winter after operation Barbarossa was crucial but they didn't (thanks to Hitler).
About Italy, I don't know to be honest, their geography restricted them from advancing in the land, due to alps, and they didn't had any air or naval superiority as they were never threatened by anyone in the past.
|
|
|
|
Post by Harry Lillis "Bing" Crosby Jr on Jul 22, 2019 15:03:07 GMT
well if the germans could have victory in the caucausus they could gain access to more resources, and if japan and germany defeated britain in iran they could gain more oil than the allies could, ensuring stronger defence and more troops
|
|
)
