The ideal Axis strategy

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1286
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by Aida1 » 20 Jan 2020 12:51

ljadw wrote:
20 Jan 2020 12:36
gebhk wrote:
20 Jan 2020 12:13
The USSR was not really an ally. The agreement of 1939 did not go as far as that.
We can debate the semantics, in reality the USSR was an ally where Germany needed one the most - by providing the massive and steady stream of the raw materials that Germany needed to prosecute the war. I would also suggest that from the Polish perspective in 1939, it mattered little how far the agreement of 1939 did go. :wink:

And for Poland : as they ,justifiedly, refused any Soviet intervention, they can not blame the Soviets :without the Soviet intervention,the Germans would have occupied the whole of Poland .
Haha Given how the red army behaved, Poland was not better off under communist occupation. :lol:

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1286
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by Aida1 » 20 Jan 2020 12:55

ljadw wrote:
20 Jan 2020 11:56
If Italy remained neutral, Britain could have started attacks on the southern coasts of Europe already in 1940, tying a lot of German forces .
Other points :
the majority of Axis forces in Yugoslavia and Greece were Italian.They spared a lot of German divisions .There were only a few German divisions in the Balkans in June 1941 but a lot of Italian divisions .
To say that Italian armed forces were inferior,is something meaningless: inferior to whom ?
The Italians were useless in Greece and yougoslavia. Germany could easily deal with any british activity on the southern coasts in 1940 or 1941. The italian army was far inferior to the western allies and the red army.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1286
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by Aida1 » 20 Jan 2020 12:57

ljadw wrote:
20 Jan 2020 12:36
gebhk wrote:
20 Jan 2020 12:13
The USSR was not really an ally. The agreement of 1939 did not go as far as that.
We can debate the semantics, in reality the USSR was an ally where Germany needed one the most - by providing the massive and steady stream of the raw materials that Germany needed to prosecute the war. I would also suggest that from the Polish perspective in 1939, it mattered little how far the agreement of 1939 did go. :wink:
This is a big exaggeration : Germany did not need the raw materials of the SU to prosecute the war : on June 22 1941, it no longer received these raw materials and still prosecuted the war .Besides, the SU provided also raw materials to Britain , France, China and Japan . Thus ....
The raw materials from the USSR were very useful to Germany.

gebhk
Member
Posts: 1750
Joined: 25 Feb 2013 20:23

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by gebhk » 20 Jan 2020 13:42

An ally actively participates in the war.
Which the Soviet Union did in 1939 by providing Germany with navigation beacons for the Luftwaffe and then invading Poland on 17 September.

gebhk
Member
Posts: 1750
Joined: 25 Feb 2013 20:23

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by gebhk » 20 Jan 2020 14:01

they ,justifiedly, refused any Soviet intervention, they can not blame the Soviets :without the Soviet intervention,the Germans would have occupied the whole of Poland .
This must be the first time I have ever heard the refusal to hand over your country to a foreign power is a justifiable excuse for military invasion.
Given that the depopulation of those parts of Poland that fell to the Soviets was at least as severe if not more so than that which fell to the Germans in 1939-41, I fail to see the benefits. And in any event, whether the Germans would have occupied the whole of Poland without Soviet acquiescence is unknowable.

User avatar
BDV
Financial supporter
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009 16:11

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by BDV » 20 Jan 2020 15:23

gebhk wrote: And in any event, whether the Germans would have occupied the whole of Poland without Soviet acquiescence is unknowable.
Using LJADW's go-to argument to argue against him. :D
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1286
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by Aida1 » 20 Jan 2020 16:05

gebhk wrote:
20 Jan 2020 13:42
An ally actively participates in the war.
Which the Soviet Union did in 1939 by providing Germany with navigation beacons for the Luftwaffe and then invading Poland on 17 September.
Inlading Poland when the fighting was almost over is not very usefull.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12165
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by ljadw » 20 Jan 2020 18:13

BDV wrote:
20 Jan 2020 15:23
gebhk wrote: And in any event, whether the Germans would have occupied the whole of Poland without Soviet acquiescence is unknowable.
Using LJADW's go-to argument to argue against him. :D
Stalin had 3 choices
a Declare war on Germany and help Poland : something for which he had no obligation ,and which was impossible,as Poland refused a possible advance of the Red Army to the border with Germany ,
b Declare war on Poland and help Germany, which he did not
c Remain neutral ,but prevent Germany from taking the whole of Poland ,something which was logical,as it war very dangerous for the SU if Hitler could occupy eastern Poland with its numerous Ukrainians : there were a lot of UKrainian emigrés living in Germany .
And of course, Germany would have occupied the whole of Poland,if Stalin did nothing .Hitler would not let subsist a Polish state .
It was a total illusion, spread by the usual ignorant Western journalists to assume that Stalin would fight to save a country that was his arch enemy .
If the West would fight against Germany, they would not need the SU to win. If they were not willing to fight for Poland, why should Stalin fight for Poland and the statu quo in Eastern Europe ? Russia had lost a lot of territories at the end of WWI .You can't expect that its successor (the SU ) would fight to preserve this situation .
And, for Stalin ,the war between Poland, France and Britain (who had invaded the SU after WWI ) and Hitler,was a capitalist civil war ,and the longer he lasted, the better for him .
What Stalin did see was that USA did not help Poland, thus, why should he help Poland ?

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12165
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by ljadw » 20 Jan 2020 18:19

Aida1 wrote:
20 Jan 2020 12:57
ljadw wrote:
20 Jan 2020 12:36
gebhk wrote:
20 Jan 2020 12:13
The USSR was not really an ally. The agreement of 1939 did not go as far as that.
We can debate the semantics, in reality the USSR was an ally where Germany needed one the most - by providing the massive and steady stream of the raw materials that Germany needed to prosecute the war. I would also suggest that from the Polish perspective in 1939, it mattered little how far the agreement of 1939 did go. :wink:
This is a big exaggeration : Germany did not need the raw materials of the SU to prosecute the war : on June 22 1941, it no longer received these raw materials and still prosecuted the war .Besides, the SU provided also raw materials to Britain , France, China and Japan . Thus ....
The raw materials from the USSR were very useful to Germany.
Haha : In 1940/1941 Germany produced 10 million tons of oil and received 1 million tons from the SU and 3,5 million tons from Romania .
There is no proof that Fall Gelb would have failed without the imports of Soviet oil and when these imports stopped on June 22 1941,the Germans were still able to advance to the east .

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1286
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by Aida1 » 20 Jan 2020 21:33

ljadw wrote:
20 Jan 2020 18:19
Aida1 wrote:
20 Jan 2020 12:57
ljadw wrote:
20 Jan 2020 12:36
gebhk wrote:
20 Jan 2020 12:13
The USSR was not really an ally. The agreement of 1939 did not go as far as that.
We can debate the semantics, in reality the USSR was an ally where Germany needed one the most - by providing the massive and steady stream of the raw materials that Germany needed to prosecute the war. I would also suggest that from the Polish perspective in 1939, it mattered little how far the agreement of 1939 did go. :wink:
This is a big exaggeration : Germany did not need the raw materials of the SU to prosecute the war : on June 22 1941, it no longer received these raw materials and still prosecuted the war .Besides, the SU provided also raw materials to Britain , France, China and Japan . Thus ....
The raw materials from the USSR were very useful to Germany.
Haha : In 1940/1941 Germany produced 10 million tons of oil and received 1 million tons from the SU and 3,5 million tons from Romania .
There is no proof that Fall Gelb would have failed without the imports of Soviet oil and when these imports stopped on June 22 1941,the Germans were still able to advance to the east .
You will have to look up what the word “” usefull “ means. :lol: If you import something, it means you have a use for it. :lol:

Berto
Member
Posts: 145
Joined: 06 Oct 2016 14:27
Location: Italy

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by Berto » 20 Jan 2020 22:31

Aida1 wrote:
20 Jan 2020 12:46
Berto wrote:
20 Jan 2020 12:16
Aida1 wrote:
20 Jan 2020 11:35

Italy was a burden in every sense of the word. It needed resources that Germany was not rich in itself
While the Commonwealth was absolutely not forced to divert substantial resources to Africa and the Mediterranean for three years, right?
You are conveniently forgetting all the resources Germany had to pour into Italy from 1943 onwards which it could ill afford.
And you are conveniently forgetting all the resources the Allies had to pour into the Italian campaign from 1943 onwards...

gebhk
Member
Posts: 1750
Joined: 25 Feb 2013 20:23

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by gebhk » 20 Jan 2020 23:43

Declare war on Poland and help Germany, which he did not
That is quite correct. He helped Germany and invaded Poland without declaring war.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12165
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by ljadw » 21 Jan 2020 07:51

How did the Soviet invasion of Eastern Poland help Germany ?
This invasion was a result of the German invasion of Western and Central Poland .
Imagine the opposite : the SU invades Poland on September 1 1939 .Do you think that Germany would remain idle while the Soviets were marching to its borders and occupied Posen and West Preussen ?
Germany would have done what the Soviets did : recuperate the territories they had lost in 1918 .

gebhk
Member
Posts: 1750
Joined: 25 Feb 2013 20:23

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by gebhk » 21 Jan 2020 10:41

Hi Ijadw.
Not sure what point you are making in the last entry.

The question was whether the Germans had allies in 1939. They clearly did even if their agreement with the USSR was not, arguably, a formal alliance.

How did the Soviet Invasion of eastern Poland help Germany? By ending the campaign substantially more quickly than it would have continued otherwise, thus saving the Germans many casualties and expenditure. One could, with equal reasonableness, ask how did the invasion of Normandy in 1944 by the Western Allies help the Soviet Union. However I would also point out that my reference to helping was not the invasion which came later (17 September when the Soviet Union began predominantly 'helping itself') but the minor assistance it gave such as the provision of navigation beacons.

What Germany may or may not have done in some alternative history is immaterial. The question relates only to what the Soviet Union (and Slovakia plus, arguably, Lithuania) actually did.
Last edited by gebhk on 21 Jan 2020 10:56, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Aida1
Member
Posts: 1286
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 08:46
Location: Brussels

Re: The ideal Axis strategy

Post by Aida1 » 21 Jan 2020 10:55

Berto wrote:
20 Jan 2020 22:31
Aida1 wrote:
20 Jan 2020 12:46
Berto wrote:
20 Jan 2020 12:16
Aida1 wrote:
20 Jan 2020 11:35

Italy was a burden in every sense of the word. It needed resources that Germany was not rich in itself
While the Commonwealth was absolutely not forced to divert substantial resources to Africa and the Mediterranean for three years, right?
You are conveniently forgetting all the resources Germany had to pour into Italy from 1943 onwards which it could ill afford.
And you are conveniently forgetting all the resources the Allies had to pour into the Italian campaign from 1943 onwards...
Which they could better afford than Germany which had not the resources to be sufficiently strong on several rronts.

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”