WWII (what if) situation.

[Caesar-Seriona]

@Narvik:

I also remember the movie Casablanca had a Norwegian sailor in it, with a few good lines.

Well, back to topic, I just finished the Roosevelt chapter in Fatal Choices by Ian Kersaw, and it turns out that the main reason that USA would stand back during the first years of WWII, was because they were not ready. In may 1940 when Germany attacked France, the US military outlays increased by 5 times, and Roosevelt also mobilized what he got. When the war started in 1939, USA only got 140 000 men, of this only 4 divisions was combat ready, with French artillery from WWI and English Brody helmets. But in the fall of 1941, Marshall told Roosevelt that the Army was ready, and from that on USA was ready to join. Some weeks later, they joined.

That’s kind of a bleak look at US EMS at the start of WWII, we were much better off than what you are explaining. The US at the start of German invasion of Poland was incredibly small for what we should have but that was because we were heavily dependent on Nation Guard and any unorganized militias that would spawn if we got invaded and the only reason for the peace draft was too boost numbers because the US figured it would of eventually get pulled in which we know it did.

[taamvan]

Another fact we must consider is that even after Pearl Harbor, clearly Japan and the USA were at war, but the USA did not then pre-emptively declare war on Germany, but waited for Hitler to honor his alliance.

An alliance has a meaning, which is that the ally would come to the aid of the other nation if it were attacked.  This is why the alliances that created tripwires in WW1 and WW2 were so fraught, because in ww1 others declared war in a cascade fashion to honor their alliance, whereas, in WW2 Britain (and France) did not truly honor their promises to Poland and Czechoslovakia because they had no practical way of doing so (which implicates what one should consider when entering alliances in the first place).

However, an alliance does not necessarily imply that the other nation (Germany) must declare war on the target of aggression from the other ally.    So Japan’s war on the US, as the aggressor, does not necessarily mean that Germany was legally required to declare war on the US.  However, it did so, to fully honor the Tripartite Pact’s concept of mutual assistance, in the goal of domination within each Axis’ Sphere of Influence.

To sum up, the USA may not have declared war on Nazi Germany.  Seeing Japan as the conceptually easier and more important target, the US may have tried to take advantage of peace with Germany to defeat Japan singly, or force Germany’s hand in a later declaration.    Still, there were many incidents and moves (neutrality patrol) that stepped America towards open war with Germany, though these moves were still intentionally limited and equivocal.

the USA commited at early conferences to defeat Germany first (KGF), 80/20 say, then proceeded to actually deploy 60-70% of its economic power to the war in the Pacific first.    The reasons are clear;  Japan was the more immediate threat, it had an extremely powerful and deep navy that could not be ignored in America’s key Sphere.

I am not saying that war with Nazi Germany was not eventually inevitable, just that the USA may not have decided to declare war, and let Hitler do that dirty deed for them.

[Caesar-Seriona]

@taamvan:

Another fact we must consider is that even after Pearl Harbor, clearly Japan and the USA were at war, but the USA did not then pre-emptively declare war on Germany, but waited for Hitler to honor his alliance.

An alliance has a meaning, which is that the ally would come to the aid of the other nation if it were attacked.   This is why the alliances that created tripwires in WW1 and WW2 were so fraught, because in ww1 others declared war in a cascade fashion to honor their alliance, whereas, in WW2 Britain (and France) did not truly honor their promises to Poland and Czechoslovakia because they had no practical way of doing so (which implicates what one should consider when entering alliances in the first place).

However, an alliance does not necessarily imply that the other nation (Germany) must declare war on the target of aggression from the other ally.    So Japan’s war on the US, as the aggressor, does not necessarily mean that Germany was legally required to declare war on the US.  However, it did so, to fully honor the Tripartite Pact’s concept of mutual assistance, in the goal of domination within each Axis’ Sphere of Influence.

To sum up, the USA may not have declared war on Nazi Germany.   Seeing Japan as the conceptually easier and more important target, the US may have tried to take advantage of peace with Germany to defeat Japan singly, or force Germany’s hand in a later declaration.     Still, there were many incidents and moves (neutrality patrol) that stepped America towards open war with Germany, though these moves were still intentionally limited and equivocal.

the USA commited at early conferences to defeat Germany first (KGF), 80/20 say, then proceeded to actually deploy 60-70% of its economic power to the war in the Pacific first.    The reasons are clear;   Japan was the more immediate threat, it had an extremely powerful and deep navy that could not be ignored in America’s key Sphere.

I am not saying that war with Nazi Germany was not eventually inevitable, just that the USA may not have decided to declare war, and let Hitler do that dirty deed for them.

I think Germany and Italy declaring war on US helped the allies in the end. I get the reasons for Germany and Italy doing that, make them come to us and we will kill them on the beaches. However if they didn’t do that, I am pretty sure US would go to war with Japan only and end up at the end of the war being technically co-belligerent.

[suprise attack]

There are so many “What if’s”
like Italy took Greece with ease, and Hitler bombed Airfields, Radar stations, and Power Plants in Great Briton. Couple that with going farther into France as fast as possible and then to allow no Dunkirk to happen
Or to go after Russia when planned instead of having to help Italy in Greece, they would have been at Moscow 6 weeks earlier, take 1/3 of the forces that went after Stalingrad and Leningrad and add them into the Army Group headed for Moscow, oh yea and listen to his Generals
For Japan, Follow Yamamoto’s plan to use the 400 subs to bomb the Panama Canal and land at Pearl Harbor. Dont start the war in 41 but wait til 42
Then there are the commercial Enigma machines that Polish were able to sneak out of their country and they were key in helping break German codes, along with bombing Bletchley Park.
There are so many.
Have fun

[Caesar-Seriona]

Well Germany and Italy changing targets from airfields in UK to bombing cities was a stupid movie. I am pretty sure anyone who knows anything about WWII will all agree that not destroying the allies at Dunkirk was a foolish movie. Basically the bulk of the UK army as there, UK would not recover if those boys were destroyed.

Germany really didn’t have a choice going into Greece and Egypt. I mean they could of not and let the Italian army get destroyed but it would hurt the Axis cause in the end. Italy was basically a huge cancer in Hitler’s a$$, he would of been better off in the end destroying them or do what I did and actually assist them with technology and weapons.

[taamvan]

They didn’t really have any plan for the Blitz, or actually any plan at all except for “win over and over” and its pretty obvious how that strategy is going to turn out when you run through all the smaller guys and then have to take out the bigger ones.

So changing targets all over UK, picking targets out of the Baedeker tourist guide book?  Not even having a detailed map of the layout and buildings in every, much less any large city in at least England (not to mention the substantial rest of the UK…out of range…out of mind?  Or any more guide than asking a German who had been there or having the pilots tell you what they saw?

Not much chance of the side doing this amount of logical planning winning much of anything, except against Belgium perhaps.

[Caesar-Seriona]

Well remember that Hitler wanted UK as an ally, not an enemy so I am sure some degree of German attacks against UK was to show force of strength rather than destruction of an enemy. Battle of UK was a huge failure for the Axis for several reasons but I think the self gun shot was going for terror over military targets.

[suprise attack]

What if Italy had the resources to take care of the Greeks and the Egyptians and didnt need Germanys help. The German forces could have been used to go after Russia on schedule which would have put them at Moscow 6 weeks earlier, or forget Russia and follow thru with the sea lion. The islands in the channel called the Bailiwik of Jersey and Guernsey were a test, friendly occupation. It could also be used as one of the launching sites.
Lots of cool stuff to read about
Heres another good one what if Franco had taken up arms to help the Axis

[Caesar-Seriona]

In order for Italy to take out Greece and Egypt on their own, they simply needed better equipment. I think no one will argue that. The Italian General didn’t want to attack Alexandria because he lacked radios and modern tanks, something UK had plenty of. As for Greece, I am not too sure how well the Greek Army was however I know that Italy ignored the Greek Navy but Greece didn’t deploy it either.

As for Spain joining the Axis, I also feel like this would hurt Axis in the end because it would give reason for the Allies to ignore France and just land in Spain instead. They almost invaded the neutral nation just to get around the Wall.

[Narvik]

@suprise:

What if Italy had the resources to take care of the Greeks and the Egyptians and didnt need Germanys help. The German forces could have been used to go after Russia on schedule which would have put them at Moscow 6 weeks earlier,

I just read tons of books about the Italian fiasco in Greece, and almost all historians agree that was one of the biggest mistakes of WWII. Since the Brits never surrendered in the summer of 1940, Hitler had only two options, go Mediterranean, or go Russia. After meetings with Franco, Petain and Benito, the Med quickly became out of question, and after USA declared a status as non belligerent, not at war but helping UK with everything, Hitler got no options and was running out of time too. Moscow hat to be captured ASAP.

Then suddenly, out of the blue, Benito put the Balkans on fire. Benito was not a rational man, his decisions was based on feelings. After the Italian fiasco attack at Southern France, Benito now wanted to show off and startet lots of crazy attacks all over the place. Benito attacked Egypt and Greece at the same time. He should have taken them one by one, then maybe he could pull it off. His first attack on Greece was very weak, 98 000 Italians against 450 000 Greeks, who on top of that was defending in mountain terrain, with no roads to move in supply. You dont do this kind of attack in an A&A game, attacking with 1 inf against 5 defending inf, you just dont do it. So all of you are better players than Benito was.

Benito believed that since the Greece Army was facing Bulgaria, he did not need many men, maybe even the Greecs would get panic and surrender with no fight. Benito was wrong. Bulgaria had declared neutrality, because Turkey threatened to Attack Bulgaria if they joined the Italian attack. So, not informing Benito, the Greece Army of 450 000 men now was facing the tiny Italian attack. And thanks to Benito, the Brits was now moving into Greece too, within bombing range of the Ploesti oil fields. There were no way Hitler would dare to attack Russia if he should lose his oil the same week. So there were no other possibility than to send 1000 Tanks and half a million of his best men into the Balkans, and that way weakening the upcoming attack on Russia. Because of this, many historians claim that Hitler lost the war thanks to Benito.

Of Benitos many mistakes during the summer of 1940, was the weak attack on strong French mountain positions in juni, followed by the fiasco attack on the British Navy outside of Malta, then the fiasco attack on Egypt, defended by only 36 000 Brits, but the Italians was out of supply and walking on feet, and the Brits had lots of supply and Tanks, so after one week of fighting, the Brits was half way into Libya, forcing Hitler to send a blocking force of Rommel and some Tanks. The out right stupid attack on Greece is already covered, but that one could have been saved if Benito had not demobilized 1 million men after the Fall of France, because they were needed in the harvest. He should have kept 200 or 300 000 of the best of them, and pulled off the Greece attack, changing history dramatic. But it get worse, since Benito was mad, he also attacked British Somaliland, Sudan and Kenya at the same time. If he had move this half a million of men out of Abyssinia before the fall of France, and used them in Egypt or Greece, that too would have changed history. Lucky to us, Benito was a madman

[barney]

@Narvik:

… Lucky to us, Benito was a madman

Well… he did speak a lot of languages. Perhaps he should have just focused on being a linguist. : )

Any book titles you found particularly interesting Narvik ?

[Caesar-Seriona]

Well as I said before, Italy shot Germany in the foot that lead to Axis defeats years later and Hitler already knew this, that is why he began to reject Italian help whenever it was sent.

Look at it like this, Italy invaded Greece because Muso wanted to restore the Roman Empire hence his attack on Greece plus he just defeated two nations prior without help so in his mind, he thought Greece would be cake. Attacking Greece and being counter attacked by Greek/UK forces lead to the Wehrmacht being sent in to help the Italians which leads to Greek defeat. That lead to the pyrrhic victory that became Crete. Axis looked at paratroopers as being cancer and that lead to the Allies learning why paratroopers are useful which that bit the Axis in the A$$ in the end.

Of course as for Africa, I am sure Germany didn’t mind helping Italy because I figured Germany taking Egypt would cut of the UK navy from India as well as link Axis forces in the Middle East gaining oil reserves and possibly a secondary front against USSR. I don’t know if Germany would have the balls to attack India in this situation.

Obviously Germany had virtually no respect for the Italians. I think Rommel was the only one who spoke favorably about the Italian soldiers, hated their officers. After Italy surrendered and about half of the Italian military joined the Allies, Germany had no problem going from defending their allies to suddenly occupying a nation as well as engaging their former allies.