World War 2 at a Grand Strategic Level: Correcting Mistakes

[Dark Age]

To say Stalingrad was a Pyrrhic victory at best fails to acknowledge what effect it had on Fall Blau as a whole.

The entire campaign that resulted from Case Blue was a Pyrrhic victory for the Soviet Union nor was the Soviet counter-attack decisive as seen with the 3rd Battle of Kharkov and Kursk. The Red Army prevented the German conquest of the Caucasus but at a tremendous cost. Do you somehow think the Soviet manpower pool was infinite and could sustain such casualties indefinately when the Soviet population is only 2.2 times that of Germany? It only did so because of German commitments on other fronts once the USA entered the conflict.

The Germans though successful in defending the continent from invasion lacked the strength to even force a favorable stalemate with England.

Wrong. In late 1940 Germany was in possession of Western Poland, Denmark, Norway, the Low Countries and 60% of France. Germany was in a much much better position than in Sept 1939. Since Britain lacked the strength to take these territories back from the Germans, a stalemate could only be in the Germans favor and unfavorable to the British. Therefore Germany did not even have to go on the offensive against Britain. As long as it held its recently conquered territory, it would win against the British by placing them in a worse situation then they were in Sept 1939-May 1940. Hence the Battle of Britain , despite the British defensive success, could not hide that fact that Britain was objectively at a disadvantage.

[Dark Age]

2: HITLER WOULD HAVE WON THE WAR IF HE LISTENED TO HIS GENERALS

Many of his generals were unimaginative and too fixated on convential warfare with the occupation of enemy cites rather than Hitler who prefered to attack an enemy's resources.

No his generals were focused on destroying the enemy army.

As was Hitler :they were unanimous

True which is why Hitler revised the original Eastern invasion plan to destroy the Red Army West of the Dnieper and Divina Rivers

[Dark Age]

Really? Then explain to me how and when Roosevelt will convince Congress to declare war on Germany then I might be inclined to agree with you. Much of the American population seemed isolationalist until Pearl Harbor. Even then they would be fixated on the Japanese not Europe. With the series of early Japanese victories in the Pacific, I do not see the USA officially declaring war on Germany until Japans defeat was obvious.

And no America and Germany werent at war before Dec 41. Sending 3 million troops to Europe is war. Having American ships guard convoys is bait for the Germans.

Regarding your first question, two names :
Kearny & Reuben James.
And it was sure more of such incidents were to come.
IIRC, U-203 had USS Texas in its crosshairs in the summer 41, requested permission to fire and was denied. With time, it's highly probable that a misidentification would lead to the torpedoeing of a US heavy unit. What do you think American people would say if a battleship is torpedoed or even goes down ?

The isolationnist sentiment was waning quickly by 1941. A search on the forum will send you to threads were it's been discussed at length.

And yes, Germany and the US were, for all practical purpose, at war from the autumn of 1941. See the rules of engagement of the US warships in the Atlantic.
Moreover, have a look at the buildup of the military power in the US. It dates back from 1939-1940.
It was planned (and work had actually largely begun by 41) among other things to build 50,000 aircraft a year, a navy twice the size of what existed.
Do you think those weapons were not meant to be used ?

And note that many of those plans (especially w.r.t. the aerial buildup) were coordinated with the British far earlier than December 1941.
The air war over Europe was not effective yet for the Americans in 41, but it was certainly in the making.
(and note that, reciprocally, Germany was planning its own air buildup in late 40/early 41 anticipating the US on the enemy side).

I have no doubts the USA was planning a war with Germany. However, Germany was successful for two years keeping the USA out of the conflict so is it not possible that Germany could avoid a war against the US for another year or two considering the USA would be fixated on the Pacific after Dec 1941?

When do you think the USA would have declared war on Germany if Hitler was cautious not to provoke the Americans ?

[ljadw]

Rastenburg was convinced that the war with the US was ineluctable and nearing:in august 1941,Churchill and FDR were meeting at NewFoundland to discuss how they should reconstruct the world after"the inevitable annihilation of nazism".The marines were in Iceland,the USN joined the RN in the battle of the Atlantic .
Should Germany wait till the US forces had debarqued in Britain ?

[Kingfish]

The entire campaign that resulted from Case Blue was a Pyrrhic victory for the Soviet Union

You fail to appreciate the full significance of the German reversals. Fall Blau was Germany's lone attempt at maintaining the initiative in the East during the summer and fall months of '42, and the Russians not only checked the advance but regained the initiative on their own right. Furthermore, Operation Uranus was not a flash-in-the-pan success story. The Russians followed up this with other advances -not always successful- but definitely proof that the pendulum had swung.

The Red Army prevented the German conquest of the Caucasus but at a tremendous cost.

If cost is the sole measure of victory then the Russians lost decisively in the battle for Berlin.

Do you somehow think the Soviet manpower pool was infinite and could sustain such casualties indefinately when the Soviet population is only 2.2 times that of Germany? It only did so because of German commitments on other fronts once the USA entered the conflict.

Which brings us back to the importance of the BoB to the overall allied cause.
How difficult do you think it would have been for the US to threaten Germany's European empire had England been taken out of the war? If you think very difficult then you need to revisit your assertion that the BoB was nothing more than the British defending their air space.

Wrong. In late 1940 Germany was in possession of Western Poland, Denmark, Norway, the Low Countries and 60% of France. Germany was in a much much better position than in Sept 1939. Since Britain lacked the strength to take these territories back from the Germans, a stalemate could only be in the Germans favor and unfavorable to the British. Therefore Germany did not even have to go on the offensive against Britain. As long as it held its recently conquered territory, it would win against the British by placing them in a worse situation then they were in Sept 1939-May 1940. Hence the Battle of Britain , despite the British defensive success, could not hide that fact that Britain was objectively at a disadvantage.

Please explain how German occupation of western Europe places England in an unfavorable position.
Apart from the U-boat Germany had no other asset to use against the British. Her land forces? Well, they first need the Kriegsmarine to escort them across the English channel, but the Kriegsmarine won't go unless the Luftwaffe can first establish air superiority, which brings us back to the importance of the BoB.

[Dark Age]

Should Germany wait till the US forces had debarqued in Britain ?

What choice did they have? Historical record showed that the USA in WW1 tipped the balance against the Central Powers. No reason to think that the same wouldnt happen in 1941.

[Dark Age]

You fail to appreciate the full significance of the German reversals. Fall Blau was Germany's lone attempt at maintaining the initiative in the East during the summer and fall months of '42, and the Russians not only checked the advance but regained the initiative on their own right. Furthermore, Operation Uranus was not a flash-in-the-pan success story. The Russians followed up this with other advances -not always successful- but definitely proof that the pendulum had swung.

You are not appreciating Grand Strategy or historical record. You are thinking too conventionally when it comes to history like an unimaginative college professor who simply regurgitates what he has been taught instead of adding anything new.

The common unimaginative/incorrect view points of the war on the Eastern Front are " Hitler's failure to take Moscow demonstrated that he couldnt win the war" then "Stalingrad was an epic turning point that showed Hitler would lose the war eventually" Such statements are ridiculous and flat out wrong. Historically the Germans in 1917 forced Russia to sue for peace and they hardly had to penetrate into Russia passed Riga on the Baltic yet with the collapse of the Russian war effort the Central Powers eventually seized all of the Ukraine, Belarus and the Baltic States with the treaty of Brest-Litovsk.

There is no reason to believe the same event would not occur in 1943 or 44 had Germany not been at war with the USA. The Germans could have simply remained on the defensive after 1941 and let Stalin bleed himself to death attempting to dislodge the Germans from Soviet territory. So the truth is the Germans did not even need to seize Moscow or the Caucasus to win. They can simply remain on the defensive and let the Red Army exhaust itself and then take Moscow and the Caucasus in a treaty, similar to what they did in 1918.

And now with that understood we can better examine Case Blue and the Soviet counter-attacks. The German plan , even when not considering the war in the West, was over-ambitious and would have failed to achieve its original goal of Baku. But on the Grand Scale it did not matter if Germany could inflict massive casualties on the Red Army. The Red Army would likely have achieved the same success in their counter-attacks even if Germany wasnt at war with the USA because of Case Blue's over-ambitious goals but what would it matter if they suffered twice the casualties as the Germans?

The Soviet victories after Stalingrad furthermore were only achieved because Hitler was forced to weaken the Eastern Front to strengthen the West in anticipation of allied assualts. Despite likely winning a victory in 1942-43 due to Operation Blue's over-ambitious goals, the Russians could not hope to dislodge the Germans without American attacks in the West. Germany would have won the war of attrition against the Soviet Union and seized more territory once Stalin's armies were bled dry.

Which brings us back to the importance of the BoB to the overall allied cause.
How difficult do you think it would have been for the US to threaten Germany's European empire had England been taken out of the war? If you think very difficult then you need to revisit your assertion that the BoB was nothing more than the British defending their air space.

I am fully aware of Britains geographical importance to the allied war effort , as it served as a staging area for attacks against Germany. However when viewing the bigger picture, the German aerial attacks in 1940 were inevitably doomed to failure from the start. The British possessed heavy bombers at the start yet they did nothing of any siginficance so what hope did Germany have to bomb Britain from the air with a tactical air force. Furthermore Germany possessed no long range fighter. So the campaign was inevitably going to lead to high German casualties. British aircraft production was not affected in the slightest either. And what hope did the Kriegsmarine have in transporting hundreds and thousands of German troops across the channel?

And even if Germany could have invaded Britian, imagine the casualties (Think Crete times 20) and imagine the troops Germany would need to occupy such a country if they win anyway (probably at least 350,000). Invading and holding Britain therefore could not help the German war effort overall. It spreads them too thin. And had Britain been conquered or neutral, it is likely the USA would have invaded North Africa and used it as a staging area to launch attacks in Italy and Southern France. Perhaps they would have used Iceland as a staging area to invade German held Britain. Either way, Germany loses if the USA enters the war before Germany defeats Russia, even with Britain hypothetically defeated and occupied.

Please explain how German occupation of western Europe places England in an unfavorable position.
Apart from the U-boat Germany had no other asset to use against the British. Her land forces? Well, they first need the Kriegsmarine to escort them across the English channel, but the Kriegsmarine won't go unless the Luftwaffe can first establish air superiority, which brings us back to the importance of the BoB.

1: Britain's main continental ally France is smashed

2: Germany is in possession of Channel Ports. ( Partly a reason why Britain went to war against Germany in 1914 when it invaded Belgium)

3: Germany is in possession of coastal territory in a arc around Britain from France to Norway which makes a blockade impossible

4: German armies and aircraft , now based in France and the Low Countries, are in closer striking distance

5: Germany is in possession of more European territory to expand their population which within a generation leads to a larger manpower pool and thus leads to larger field armies.

6: Germany is in possession of more European territory and therefore has more resources to fuel their military

7: Germany's domination of Western and Central Europe allows them to muscle other countries on the continent to become German satellites, thus providing Germany more allies , geographical advantages, and more resources.


Hence peace in late 1940 would be unfavorable to the British

[Graeme Sydney]

Really? Then explain to me how and when Roosevelt will convince Congress to declare war on Germany then I might be inclined to agree with you.

I don't know if you are naive, argumentative, uninformed or just a troll.

The obvious answer is that FDR would have convinced Congress the same way all US presidents convince Congress, indeed the same way FDR had previously convinced Congress - a few homelies for public consumption about neighbouhood house fires and garden hoses in a Fireside Chat, grease a few political palms and promise the 'big end of town' some fat profits (I hate to be so cynical).

FDR was the master politician, he had a long record of pushing through unpopular policy - for 12 years in the end. In the immediate pass there had been the New Deal, bases for destroyers, Lend Lease etc etc.

And of course if policy fails there is always manipulation by mass hysteria - think USS Maine, SS Lusitania, Gulf of Tolkin, WMD's and maybe Pearl Harbour. (I hate to be so cynical).

As I said earlier; "Not that the declaration of War meant much - Hitler just played into FDR's hand and made it politically easy for him at home in the USA. (I can only imagine FDR wobbling around on his braced legs in the White House punching the air saying 'yo beauty, thank you God'. "

In Dec '41 the American public was politically and psychologically well prepared for war with Germany and intervention in Europe. It was a small step to a DofW.

Much of the American population seemed isolationalist until Pearl Harbor.

Did isolationism ever truly exist in American politics? Maybe in the 1850-70's but think Spanish American War and WW1.

I think isolationism was more a political slogan and a policy of convenience for the morally weak and the vacillating.

Undoubtedly it was a political factor. Even today there would be elements of the American public who would strongly espouse isolationist doctrine. But what percentage are we talking of?

Even then they would be fixated on the Japanese not Europe.

And yet history shows they accepted the 'Germany first' policy immediately and without hesitation or argument.

With the series of early Japanese victories in the Pacific, I do not see the USA officially declaring war on Germany until Japans defeat was obvious.

Nice to have an opinion but why would she wait? America had so many military resources that she could beat Japan with both hands tried behind her back. It was a foregone conclusion. The only question was how much time it would take to marshall her resources.

You seem to continually ignore the concept of National Interest and that America was ranged against Germany because a Europe dominated by Nazi Germany was against her National Interest. I'm not certain when the Strategic and/or Foreign Policy 'think tank's deep within the bowels of the American Govt first identified Nazi Germany was threat to America's National Interest but it would have been well before 1939.

This is what drove American policy and not FDR's personal political agendas or like and dislikes. And as such there was no imperative for America to defeat Japan first and then maybe turn to Nazi Germany.

And no America and Germany werent at war before Dec 41. Sending 3 million troops to Europe is war. Having American ships guard convoys is bait for the Germans.

This is just silly and pointless pedantism. There may have been no DofW or open conflict but America's actions were obvious and open acts of aggression Germany's National Interest and disadvantaged her war effort - it was something Germany had to manage, neutralise or counter if she was to achieve her war aims.

[ljadw]

After the British decision at the end of june 1940,the German situation was hopeless:the ONLY way to force Britain to give up was to starve Britain by winning the Battle of the Atlantic,and,an unlimited submarine war would result in a war wit the US .
Already in august 1940,war with the US was inevitable :in november,the US voters would chose FDR,or the republican FDR (=W.Willkie).
The only hope for a neutral US was the election of Lindbergh

[South]

Good morning Dark Age,

Re: "Historically the Germans in 1917 forced Russia to sue for peace.";

This quote requires clarification and amplification.

Recall that the Czar suspended the Duma 10 Mar 17 and on 15 Mar 17 (forgot if OS or NS dates) the Czar abdicated. There were some domestic Russian political disturbances taking place resulting in a change of administrations.

Brest-Litovsk of 3 Mar 18 was the treaty between Germany and the Soviet Union that took the new government out of the war. How much of the Russian war effort before the Brest-Litovsk armistice - believe 3 days prior to the treaty - indicated a collapse of the Russian military because of armed conflict or a collapse because of the domestic political disturbances is not relevant to the German campaign victory but it is relevant as to a campaign that does not display German military strength fighting their eastern adversary.

Thus, there is reason to believe that events leading to the 3 Mar 18 Brest-Litovsk treaty might not be duplicated.



The following quote requires more than clarification and amplification. It requires reflection.

"Germany would have won the war of attrition against the Soviet Union."



Re: "Germany is in possession of the Channel Ports";

In 1934 (1934) the US Vinson-Trammel Act approved FDR's building requirement to allow the US Navy to reach its Treaty limits and funded 141 (141) various types of - new - vessels.

Sidebar: A slang term making the rounds among USN officers called above "waging neutrality".

America's depression was still going on but the US was rearming in tandem with the UK. This rearmament program was not to protect Anglo-American missionaries preaching to pagans (less the quality Madison Avenue-Hollywood PR) but to
protect US wealth and the Channel Ports were like Wall Street banks.

Warm regards,

Bob

[Kingfish]

You are not appreciating Grand Strategy or historical record.

This is an interesting comment coming from someone who refers to the BoB as simply an aerial battle or that Hitler's attack on Russia was not a major military blunder.

You are thinking too conventionally when it comes to history like an unimaginative college professor who simply regurgitates what he has been taught instead of adding anything new.

There is a section on this site that allows one to discuss how the war might have spun out if certain events/circumstances were to occur outside the historical timeline. If you want to debate the probability of Germany conquering Russia without US involvement I would suggest you move your thread there.

The common unimaginative/incorrect view points of the war on the Eastern Front are " Hitler's failure to take Moscow demonstrated that he couldnt win the war" then "Stalingrad was an epic turning point that showed Hitler would lose the war eventually" Such statements are ridiculous and flat out wrong. Historically the Germans in 1917 forced Russia to sue for peace and they hardly had to penetrate into Russia passed Riga on the Baltic yet with the collapse of the Russian war effort the Central Powers eventually seized all of the Ukraine, Belarus and the Baltic States with the treaty of Brest-Litovsk.

I fail to see what the political and military situation in 1917 Russia has to do with 1941 Russia. In 1814 the British successfully invaded the US and burned our capital. Are we to suggest the same thing would happen in 1851?

The Germans could have simply remained on the defensive after 1941 and let Stalin bleed himself to death attempting to dislodge the Germans from Soviet territory.

Apparently such infallible logic was lost on the German high command.

Any idea why?

Here's one by some guy named Clausewitz:
Generally speaking, the chief aim is the certainty (high probability) of victory, that is, the certainty of driving the enemy from the field of battle. The plan of battle must be directed towards this end. For it is easy to change an indecisive victory into a decisive one through energetic pursuit of the enemy.

But on the Grand Scale it did not matter if Germany could inflict massive casualties on the Red Army.

The basis of your original argument was that Russia only had twice the population of Germany, and the loss ratio of '41 carried over (which BTW is highly unlikely) would eventually spell doom for Russia. Now you are saying that doesn't matter on a "Grand Scale". Odd contradiction.

The Soviet victories after Stalingrad furthermore were only achieved because Hitler was forced to weaken the Eastern Front to strengthen the West in anticipation of allied assualts.

Actually, part of the force that attempted the relief of Stalingrad came from the west.

Despite likely winning a victory in 1942-43 due to Operation Blue's over-ambitious goals, the Russians could not hope to dislodge the Germans without American attacks in the West. Germany would have won the war of attrition against the Soviet Union and seized more territory once Stalin's armies were bled dry.

Again, there is a section that allows for such interpretations. Go there and do a search before posting. You'll see there were many before you with this line of reasoning.

I am fully aware of Britains geographical importance to the allied war effort , as it served as a staging area for attacks against Germany. However when viewing the bigger picture, the German aerial attacks in 1940 were inevitably doomed to failure from the start.

The inevitable outcome is open to debate, but there is a line of thought that suggest the German efforts at RAF airfields during the opening stages were having an effect.

And even if Germany could have invaded Britian, imagine the casualties (Think Crete times 20) and imagine the troops Germany would need to occupy such a country if they win anyway (probably at least 350,000). Invading and holding Britain therefore could not help the German war effort overall. It spreads them too thin.

And the rational for attacking Russia is....?

And had Britain been conquered or neutral, it is likely the USA would have invaded North Africa and used it as a staging area to launch attacks in Italy and Southern France. Perhaps they would have used Iceland as a staging area to invade German held Britain. Either way, Germany loses if the USA enters the war before Germany defeats Russia, even with Britain hypothetically defeated and occupied.

Here we again are venturing into the "what if" which incidentally there is a section just for this kind of debate.

1: Britain's main continental ally France is smashed

The majority of the BEF was successfully withdrawn, and bolstered by newly raised units and Commonwealth reinforcements.

2: Germany is in possession of Channel Ports. ( Partly a reason why Britain went to war against Germany in 1914 when it invaded Belgium)

Which has what effect on British defenses?

3: Germany is in possession of coastal territory in a arc around Britain from France to Norway which makes a blockade impossible

What ships could slip past the blockade would bring in only a miniscule amount of German needs.

4: German armies and aircraft , now based in France and the Low Countries, are in closer striking distance

Until the luftwaffe can achieve air superiority the armies are limited to wagging their genitals at whomever is looking across the channel with high-powered binoculars.

5: Germany is in possession of more European territory to expand their population which within a generation leads to a larger manpower pool and thus leads to larger field armies.

This is strikingly reminiscent of another poster who suggested a successful German campaign in North Africa would eventually produce an army of Egyptians to fight alongside the Axis.
Are you two related?

6: Germany is in possession of more European territory and therefore has more resources to fuel their military

All grant you that one, but also bear in mind Britain's access to the world's raw material.

7: Germany's domination of Western and Central Europe allows them to muscle other countries on the continent to become German satellites, thus providing Germany more allies , geographical advantages, and more resources.

What other countries? By the time of Germany's attack on Russia all of Europe minus Sweden, Switzerland and the Iberian peninsula was either a German possession or ally.

[LWD]

While many of your points have a fair amount of validity I take issue with

... COMMON WORLD WAR TWO VIEWPOINTS THAT ARE WRONG:
...
3: THE BATTLE OF BRITAIN WAS A BRITISH VICTORY
.... Hence the Battle was not a British victory but a propoganda attempt to hide the fact that the British were in a hopeless situation.....

A successful defense is a victory just as much as a successful offence is. Furthermore the British were in no more of a hopeless situation than the Germans were and it was the Germans who made the first serious mistake trying to change things.

I would have to disagree. Without help from the Soviet Union and the United States, Britain had no hope for victory. It lacked the stength to invade German occupied Europe even as German armies fought primarily in the East.

After the BoB it was also pretty clear that Germany had little hope of directly defeating Britain and help from the US had started in earnest in June of 1940. Hope for help from the USSR was also present and often stated as one of the reasons Hitler attacked the Soviets.[/quote]
Germany on the other hand , while unable to invade England, would be victorious just maintaining a defensive strategy in the West after June 1940.[/quote]
Possibly but I think not. There were considerable resources that were just not avaialbe to Germany at that point and he could hardly guarantee to hang on to every thing he had taken especially considering there was alsways a chance the Soviets would join the allies.

... It is objective fact that Britain was in a far less favorable situation then Germany, even after the aerial battle was over. It was a stalemate, that still left Britain in a desperate situation.

Germany was also in a rather desperate situation and the indicators were it would get worse.

Furthermore as I explained, Barbarossa was not a military blunder but a logical necessity to turn Germany into a superpower so on a Grand Stretegic Scale the only mistake Germany made was declaring war on the USA.

It was indeed a military blunder. Defeating the Soviets was certainly required the Hitler's grand plan but that doesn't mean that it was possible or even likely. As to declaring war on the USA as has been discusse many times on this forum the US would likely have been in the war by mid 42 if not earlier and if it's delayed much past that there will be no "happy time" on the US East Coast.

Hmm My take on Axis Mistakes. (no particular order)
1. Standardisation - ...
2. Working With Allies - ...
3. Less Racist Ideology - ...
4. Not Declaring war on the US. ...
5. Better Appreciation of the problems in Russia - ...
6. Taking Moscow & Leningrad in the first attack on Russia. ....

1: STANDARDISATION
I have yet too hear a convincing argument that Germany's truck production cost them the war or any argument at all .

I think this is a bit of a straw man. Now I don't agree with all of pugsvilles items but I think he was listing major errors made by Nazi Germany. No one item on the list can be considered the sole cause and IMO as others have stated even eliminating all the above errors (if errors they are) doesn't guarantee the Germans a win.

The Germans dont have to fight the perfect war. They just do not have to declare war on the USA in Dec 41 and they win. Edit: Unless the USA declares war but they would probably hold off until 1943 after Guadacanal

IMO this is wrong on several levels. Even if the US doesn't declare war directily US industrial aid was pouring into Great Britain by the end of 1941. As others have stated and I've stated above the US will probably be officially in the war by mid 42 in any case. Indeed FDR's military advisors had told him the US wouldn't really be ready for war until mid 1942 and not ready for offensive action until the end of 1942. If nothing else the US could take over the defensive effort in the Pacific which would mean at least some British resources could be devoted elsewhere and once lines of communication were clear to India British manpower resources there could be utilized more effectively.

The entire campaign that resulted from Case Blue was a Pyrrhic victory for the Soviet Union

The course of the war afterwards suggest that this is not an accurate assesement.

The Germans though successful in defending the continent from invasion lacked the strength to even force a favorable stalemate with England.

Wrong. In late 1940 Germany was in possession of Western Poland, Denmark, Norway, the Low Countries and 60% of France. Germany was in a much much better position than in Sept 1939. Since Britain lacked the strength to take these territories back from the Germans, a stalemate could only be in the Germans favor and unfavorable to the British.

You are not examing all fassets of the situation. German commerce with the world outside of Europe was pretty well cut off. Nor is it clear that they could hold on to all of this once the US enter the war or that they would not sustain more losses than they took if the war continued in any case. Then there's the fact that the German economy was already in bad shape. How long could they continue if things kept up as they were. Indeed by the time they attacked the USSR they were already well behind on their payments to them for resources delivered so that source was likely to be curtailed in the not to distant future.

... I have no doubts the USA was planning a war with Germany. However, Germany was successful for two years keeping the USA out of the conflict so is it not possible that Germany could avoid a war against the US for another year or two considering the USA would be fixated on the Pacific after Dec 1941?

That's not a very accurate assesement of the situation. The US didn't stay out of the war for two years because of anyting Germany did or didn't do. They stayed out because neither the US military or the US population was ready for war. Both of those were changeing rather rapidly in late 41 and likely by mid 42 at the latset would no longer apply. While it's theoretically possible that Germany could do something to keep the US out until 43 I seriously doubt that Hitler was capable of doing it.

[Dark Age]

Apparently such infallible logic was lost on the German high command.

Any idea why?

Here's one by some guy named Clausewitz:
[i]Generally speaking, the chief aim is the certainty (high probability) of victory, that is, the certainty of driving the enemy from the field of battle. The plan of battle must be directed towards this end. For it is easy to change an indecisive victory into a decisive one through energetic pursuit of the enemy.

Clausewitz is only half right. His logic doesnt even apply to certain cases even in his day such as the Naopleonic Wars. Napoleon had many victories in 1813 but it didnt matter because no matter how great his tactical brillance , he couldnt defeat the combined armes of the other European powers allied against him, mainly Russia, Austria, Prussia and Britain.

Try applying Clausewitz's logic to the First World War where annihilation of enemy armies was almost impossible and apply his logic to the the Russo-German conflict of 1941-45. Yes destroying enemy armies is good but if a nation has the population, geographical space and will to absorb huge losses, then you either have to break their will to fight or break their means to fight by attacking their resources.

Hitler has the basic idea as did Falkenhayn in the First World War. Regardless in late 1941 , the German armies held all the advantages on the Eastern Front so whatever option they chose for the following year, whether defensive or offense, they would win unless Russia received American military aid.

The basis of your original argument was that Russia only had twice the population of Germany, and the loss ratio of '41 carried over (which BTW is highly unlikely) would eventually spell doom for Russia. Now you are saying that doesn't matter on a "Grand Scale". Odd contradiction.

Nope, you misread. A Soviet victory against Case Blue would not matter if they sustained twice the casualties as the Germans. Objectively, its a Pyrrhic victory.

Actually, part of the force that attempted the relief of Stalingrad came from the west.

Whats your point? I said AFTER Stalingrad anyway. Will you argue that German commitments on other fronts had no impact on the war in the East? Of course you wouldn't

And the rational for attacking Russia is....?

1: To Turn Germany into a superpower by increasing their resources and population by aquisition of European Russia

2: War was inevitable between the two

3: Doing nothing might put Germany in a war against Britain , the USA and Russia since the latter two seemed to be moving toward that direction

4: Germany defeated Russia in the First World War while fighting on other land fronts. Hence no reason to believe Germany couldnt succeed in 1941 with no other land fronts to fight on.

The majority of the BEF was successfully withdrawn, and bolstered by newly raised units and Commonwealth reinforcements.

Minus the French army and France's resources and France itself with its 40+ million population from which to draw men from

Until the luftwaffe can achieve air superiority the armies are limited to wagging their genitals at whomever is looking across the channel with high-powered binoculars.

Correct. But objectively its easier to launch airstrikes against Britain from France and the Low Countries than from Germany because of distance

This is strikingly reminiscent of another poster who suggested a successful German campaign in North Africa would eventually produce an army of Egyptians to fight alongside the Axis.
Are you two related?

Dont know or care but objectively the more territory a country has the larger its population. This is why the USA has a population of 312 million and Germany today has a population of still 80 million. So a Germany in late 1940 has possession of more territory to expand their population, mainly in Poland. So objectively its stronger in late 1940 than it is in 1939.

All grant you that one, but also bear in mind Britain's access to the world's raw material.

Hitler has access to European resources, especially after summer 1940, which makes a continental blockade laughable

What other countries? By the time of Germany's attack on Russia all of Europe minus Sweden, Switzerland and the Iberian peninsula was either a German possession or ally.

Thanks for making my point. You have Germany's early victories against the allies to thank for that.

[Orwell1984]

Dont know or care but objectively the more territory a country has the larger its population. This is why the USA has a population of 312 million and Germany today has a population of still 80 million. So a Germany in late 1940 has possession of more territory to expand their population, mainly in Poland. So objectively its stronger in late 1940 than it is in 1939.

Not so. Look at a list of the 10 ten countries in land mass and 10 ten countries in population and while there are some similarities, there are some dramatic differences.
Among the 10 ten biggest countries by land mass: Canada, Australia, Argentina and Sudan.
Biggest countries by population include Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria and Japan.
In fact looking at the top ten of each classification you get a 60% match. More than 50% yes but certainly not enough to make such a definitive statement. You need to look at other factors than size (climate and terrain for example) before leaping to that conclusion.

[Dark Age]

After the British decision at the end of june 1940,the German situation was hopeless:the ONLY way to force Britain to give up was to starve Britain by winning the Battle of the Atlantic,and,an unlimited submarine war would result in a war wit the US .
Already in august 1940,war with the US was inevitable :in november,the US voters would chose FDR,or the republican FDR (=W.Willkie).
The only hope for a neutral US was the election of Lindbergh

The fact is none of you can say for certain that the USA would have entered the European conflict in time to save the Soviet Union, if at all. I understand that war would have been likely but the fact that Hitler foolishly took the American bait is convenient.

The truth of the matter is not enough time elapsed between Pearl Harbor and Hitler's declaration of War to know for certain what really would happen or how US consensus would be affected. I understand that FDR was a very smart man who understood strategy and that Germany was far more dangerous than Japan but the US population isnt as intelligent, grand thinking or insightful so it is possible the reluctance to interfere in Europe might have started to rise again.


Hitler made the decision easy for the Americans. Had he not declared war , the American congress would be forced to settle a serious debate themselves and had they waited too long , it could have been costly for the Soviet Union.


Had he not declared war on the USA , regardless of the outcome, Hitler's military record as a strategist would have been virtually exonerated with exception to the BoB and Crete. Also for what it is worth, the USA being the aggressor against Germany might have caused the Germans to fight more fericously since America's entry wasnt a cause of their own government's folly. Germany would no doubt still lose however.

Overall the claim, HITLER LOST THE WAR IN 1939, can not be said with any certainty. Nor can it be used as a rational justification for Germany to do nothing and accept Versailles.