The ideal Axis strategy

[gebhk]

De Meritum

Germany was not going to win a war with the USSR because of simple economics, without active participation on the German side of a significant portion of the Soviet population. As the latter was not going to happen with the Nazis in charge, the optimum solution was not to invade the USSR. And since the whole point of the war was to invade the USSR, logically, the optimal strategy was not to start the war in the first place.

[nota]

if the axis had a strategy is the question

a united axis inc japan could have won a one country at a time against the whole axis wars
first england if japan sends its fleet big if big stake big war

I don't think they thought of it let alone talked about it

because the axis had NO axis strategy
each nation charged off in different wars
no join plans or even notification

if they knock out england without much blood and get a quick peace
we know both hitler and japan favored england so possible
the empire calms to trade with the axis
and the axis can plan a united anti-red war with fuel and what ever else they need from world trade

[TheMarcksPlan]

Germany was not going to win a war with the USSR because of simple economics

Guys...

Germany produced over 3x as much steel as SU in 1942.
It had a larger economy before Barbarossa, which shrank the Soviet economy by at least a third.

[gebhk]

Hi Nota

You are quite right on many points and above all to point out the Axis includes Japan.

However, the problem with your suggested plan is that in the meta analysis firstly it does little or nothing for the Japanese, so why should they do it? And secondly you assume that the British Empire as a whole would meekly surrender if the Home Country does and that the USA would remain passive if these events unfolded. That's on top of the primary debatable proposition that Japan could project power to the other side of the world to a degree that would make a decisive difference.

In the macro analysis, adding Japan to the equation simply magnifies the economic disparity rather than reducing it because it adds China and the USA to the anti-Axis side of the balance. And if one can argue that the optimal plan for the European Axis was to not start the war in the first place, that argument holds for Japan a dozen times over!

The MarcksPlan - I take your point, however the war economy is not just steel production; it is predominantly space, population and natural resources.

[nota]

well geb
the benefits to japan are clear with england limited and making concessions to stop a successful land invasion
india and other far eastern areas are on the table to get troops off their home soil parts if not the whole bit
dutch and french areas defenseless near japan
USA still not in it or geared up and few allies so no quick rescue from usa

if england gets a good peace deal not occupied just a overseas non white area trim and demanded free trade deals
would the USA care ? let alone go to war ?

[TheMarcksPlan]

The MarcksPlan - I take your point, however the war economy is not just steel production; it is predominantly space, population and natural resources.

Space and population aren't the economy though. Natural resources is closer to the mark but still not the economy.
The best single-figure measure of the economy is GDP and Germany's was higher than SU's in 1940 and much higher in 1942.
So it wasn't "simple economics" nor simply space/population/resources that explains the Eastern Front (otherwise China would have been the ww2 superpower).

Trying to reduce the Eastern Front to any "simple" factor diminishes Soviet heroism and German stupidity. The Germans should have won.

[Aida1]

The MarcksPlan - I take your point, however the war economy is not just steel production; it is predominantly space, population and natural resources.

Space and population aren't the economy though. Natural resources is closer to the mark but still not the economy.
The best single-figure measure of the economy is GDP and Germany's was higher than SU's in 1940 and much higher in 1942.
So it wasn't "simple economics" nor simply space/population/resources that explains the Eastern Front (otherwise China would have been the ww2 superpower).

Trying to reduce the Eastern Front to any "simple" factor diminishes Soviet heroism and German stupidity. The Germans should have won.

You make it sound too simple where German victory is concerned.

[doogal]

There was no axis strategy .... There was Germany doing what Germany wanted.... The axis was like most political decisions an exigent circumstance. There was no co-ordination only Germany leading and everybody else was a junior partner if they even warranted such a distinction.....

[nota]

EXACTLY doogal

there was not any plan except in hitler's head
and that could change on his whim
a united axis has a chance to limit the war to one country at a time after june 1940

japan is the key to take out england they need to risk their fleet
while doing staged withdrawal from rural china to both get the men
and mitigate the USA's trade bans on oil and scrap with a fake china peace plan to buy time


but the axis had no long or short term plan other then grab what they can as individual nations
no desire to plan or work to common goals short or long term

russia was a semi-allied axis member but unused at any point except for trade

if japan transported 2-300,000 marine troops by train thru russia to europe
to use as a small boat/units to land in england say 5-10 troops to a small fast speed boat
and try to overwhelm england before the main sealion attack with mass but distributed landings all over
sure losses would be extreme but the troops would do it and maybe grab a few small ports at high cost

ideas never tryed can never win
and a over all axis strategy was never tryed

[ljadw]

plans do not win wars .

[nota]

lack of plans can lose wars

[ljadw]

De Meritum

Germany was not going to win a war with the USSR because of simple economics, without active participation on the German side of a significant portion of the Soviet population. As the latter was not going to happen with the Nazis in charge, the optimum solution was not to invade the USSR. And since the whole point of the war was to invade the USSR, logically, the optimal strategy was not to start the war in the first place.

What was the optimal strategy ?
The invasion of Poland was a given : Germany ( not only the Third Reich ) would never accept an independent Polish state .

[ljadw]

lack of plans can lose wars

The Axis did not need a joint strategy, because Germans and Japanese could not fight together .They were separated by thousands of km of water and land .
A German victory in Europe would not help Japan or Germanyand a Japanese victory in China would not help Germany or Japan ..

[Peter89]

lack of plans can lose wars

The Axis did not need a joint strategy, because Germans and Japanese could not fight together .They were separated by thousands of km of water and land .
A German victory in Europe would not help Japan or Germanyand a Japanese victory in China would not help Germany or Japan ..

On the contrary, actually. The German victories in 1940 made it possible for the Japanese to shift their policies and seize European colonies in SE Asia.

[Aida1]

lack of plans can lose wars

The Axis did not need a joint strategy, because Germans and Japanese could not fight together .They were separated by thousands of km of water and land .
A German victory in Europe would not help Japan or Germanyand a Japanese victory in China would not help Germany or Japan ..

They did not need to fight together but a common strategy could have meant Japan attacking the USSR. That is called coordination.