Vulnerability of Soviet population, agriculture, and industry to German occupation

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 9274
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: Vulnerability of Soviet population, agriculture, and industry to German occupation

Post by Sid Guttridge » 31 Mar 2021 16:20

Hi ljadw,

We can only address what you actually write, not what you mean to write.

You wrote "Germany's allies had not 300 divisions".

That is factually inaccurate.

However, thank you for your post facto clarification.

Cheers,

Sid.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 11683
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Vulnerability of Soviet population, agriculture, and industry to German occupation

Post by ljadw » 31 Mar 2021 18:05

KDF33 wrote:
31 Mar 2021 15:31
ljadw wrote:
31 Mar 2021 14:58
Japan was not at war with the USSR,thus it can not be counted .
Do you lack basic reading comprehension? Counter specifically made the point that he was talking of the balance-of-forces after an eventual defeat of the USSR.
The presence of Japan, neutral during the German-Russian war, would be irrelevant after the defeat of the USSR .
During this war, Japan started a war with the Wallies,making Germany her unwilling ally .
If the USSR was defeated before PH,this would have no effect on the war in the Pacific.
The conclusion is that in the HTL there was no alliance between Germany and Japan : the fact that they both fought against the Wallies thousands of km away,makes them not allies .
If in the ATL the USSR was out ,nothing would change for Japan and nothing would change for Germany .The balance- of-
forces would not change . There were no 500 Axis divisions, not in the HTL,not in the ATL.
Hitler thought,hoped that without the ( non existent ) danger from the USSR,Japan would be stronger in a war against the US. He was wrong .
PH had nothing to do with Barbarossa .

Counter
Member
Posts: 29
Joined: 01 Mar 2019 16:48
Location: Europe

Re: Vulnerability of Soviet population, agriculture, and industry to German occupation

Post by Counter » 31 Mar 2021 18:27

Ijawd wrote:If in the ATL the USSR was out ,nothing would change for Japan and nothing would change for Germany .The balance- of-
forces would not change . There were no 500 Axis divisions, not in the HTL,not in the ATL.
Even not counting the japanese forces as Axis forces related to a Wallies action against the nazi Europe, it is sensible counting 200 german divisions + 300 non-german divisions to confront a Wallies army. If the USSR is defeated and Germany controls the whole Europe that would mean that there would be no neutral european and mediterranean countries anymore. So a hypotetical D-Day of the Wallies would be confronting the armies of the whole Europe (France, Spain and Turkey too... and many ex soviet "cossack" renegades too). The same if the russians are defeated in 1941, 1942 or 1943.

Moreover, if the USSR is defeated, Germany would support Japan because it would be extremely necessary for the germans to get the "rest" of the Eurasian russian territory locked up and surrounded by a "cordon sanitaire" in order to avoid a russian reenactment. The limit of the nazi conquest could be either A-A line (Volga river) or the Urals, but anyway the remaining russian state must allow the nazis to send direct aid to Japan to avoid total japanese defeat (remember how soviets sent the Red Army from central Europe to Manchuria in 1945).
Ijawd wrote:they would never accept a German domination of Europe and the existence of a national socialist Germany
Of course they would. USA were isolationst -America first!- in 1940 and they would be again if the USSR is defeated. Simply, public opinion would never accept an extreme sacrifice of young american lives only to preserve democracy in the world -remember Vietnam war, for instance...

Particularly if there is no hope of a victory against the Axis armies -500 divisions, indeed- that defeated the enormous Soviet Red Army.

So, the real question is pondering whether it was possible or not for the german army to ever defeat the Red Army. What the Wallies could do always depended on that.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 11683
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Vulnerability of Soviet population, agriculture, and industry to German occupation

Post by ljadw » 31 Mar 2021 18:36

Sid Guttridge wrote:
31 Mar 2021 16:20
Hi ljadw,

We can only address what you actually write, not what you mean to write.

You wrote "Germany's allies had not 300 divisions".

That is factually inaccurate.

However, thank you for your post facto clarification.

Cheers,

Sid.
It depends on what you mean with ''Germany's allies '' and on what you mean with divisions :most Japanese divisions did not fight against the Wallies,or against some one else ,the same for the Italian divisions .Most Finnish, Hungarian and Romanian forces never saw a Wally soldier . Thus ,these forces would not become free for other missions if Barbarossa was successful .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 11683
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Vulnerability of Soviet population, agriculture, and industry to German occupation

Post by ljadw » 31 Mar 2021 18:54

Counter wrote:
31 Mar 2021 18:27
Ijawd wrote:If in the ATL the USSR was out ,nothing would change for Japan and nothing would change for Germany .The balance- of-
forces would not change . There were no 500 Axis divisions, not in the HTL,not in the ATL.
Even not counting the japanese forces as Axis forces related to a Wallies action against the nazi Europe, it is sensible counting 200 german divisions + 300 non-german divisions to confront a Wallies army. If the USSR is defeated and Germany controls the whole Europe that would mean that there would be no neutral european and mediterranean countries anymore. So a hypotetical D-Day of the Wallies would be confronting the armies of the whole Europe (France, Spain and Turkey too... and many ex soviet "cossack" renegades too). The same if the russians are defeated in 1941, 1942 or 1943.

Moreover, if the USSR is defeated, Germany would support Japan because it would be extremely necessary for the germans to get the "rest" of the Eurasian russian territory locked up and surrounded by a "cordon sanitaire" in order to avoid a russian reenactment. The limit of the nazi conquest could be either A-A line (Volga river) or the Urals, but anyway the remaining russian state must allow the nazis to send direct aid to Japan to avoid total japanese defeat (remember how soviets sent the Red Army from central Europe to Manchuria in 1945).
Ijawd wrote:they would never accept a German domination of Europe and the existence of a national socialist Germany
Of course they would. USA were isolationst -America first!- in 1940 and they would be again if the USSR is defeated. Simply, public opinion would never accept an extreme sacrifice of young american lives only to preserve democracy in the world -remember Vietnam war, for instance...

Particularly if there is no hope of a victory against the Axis armies -500 divisions, indeed- that defeated the enormous Soviet Red Army.

So, the real question is pondering whether it was possible or not for the german army to ever defeat the Red Army. What the Wallies could do always depended on that.
The 300 non German divisions would ( with the exception of a small part of the Italian divisions )never fight against the Wallies : Finnish divisions would never fight against the Wallies, France had no Army, the armies of Spain and Turkey could not operate outside their country .Germany had in Europe only one ''valuable '' ally in its war against the Wallies : Italy .
And Germany was on its own in Normandy in 1944, if the USSR was defeated, it would still be on its own.
Germany could send nothing to Japan through Siberia to help it in its war against the Wallies .As I already said : the LSSAH would not go to Wladivostok .
About the US : NO ,they were not ( no longer ) isolationist in 1940 : there were two interventionist presidential candidates (Lindbergh was out ):FDR and Willkie, and Willkie was even more hostile to Germany than FDR (if this was possible ) :war with Germany was no longer avoidable,not after the elections, but already in the Summer,when Willkie was the candidate of the GOP.The Germans expected this war before 1942 and this fact determined Hitler's strategy .
Other point : there were no 500 Axis divisions fighting against the Soviets : Italy had only a small expeditionary Force .

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

Re: Vulnerability of Soviet population, agriculture, and industry to German occupation

Post by Aida1 » 31 Mar 2021 19:00

ljadw wrote:
26 Jan 2021 18:32

The truth is very simple : even if the USSR was defeated, Germany would be still defeated by the Wallies.
Very simplistic statement. Would not be easy to do against a Germany that can dispose of more resources and can concentrate on fighting the western allies.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 11683
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Vulnerability of Soviet population, agriculture, and industry to German occupation

Post by ljadw » 31 Mar 2021 19:55

Elimination of the USSR would give Germany not more resources (if it needed them )and would not give Germany the ability to concentrate on fighting the western allies

KDF33
Member
Posts: 907
Joined: 17 Nov 2012 01:16

Re: Vulnerability of Soviet population, agriculture, and industry to German occupation

Post by KDF33 » 31 Mar 2021 20:27

ljadw wrote:
31 Mar 2021 19:55
Elimination of the USSR would give Germany not more resources (if it needed them )and would not give Germany the ability to concentrate on fighting the western allies
Utter nonsense.

Counter
Member
Posts: 29
Joined: 01 Mar 2019 16:48
Location: Europe

Re: Vulnerability of Soviet population, agriculture, and industry to German occupation

Post by Counter » 31 Mar 2021 22:43

Ijawd wrote:Germany could send nothing to Japan through Siberia to help it in its war against the Wallies
Why not? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_in ... _Manchuria There was no logistic problem as long as the russians are subdued by germans.

Of course, japanese needed no german soldiers (they had plenty of fierce ones of their own) but from Vladivostok they would get economic resources and the Luftwaffe (and technology) would be very useful for defense. In exchange of that, a still dangerous Japan would threat the USA forever. Because if the Russians are defeated, what follows is a "Cold War" between the european Reich and the USA... Germany could never invade America, as the Wallies would keep an overwhelming air and naval power. And the Wallies could never invade Europe because they will never have soldiers enough to risk their lives just to liberate the european continent.
Ijawd wrote:they were not ( no longer ) isolationist in 1940 : there were two interventionist presidential candidates (Lindbergh was out ):FDR and Willkie,
They were not "interventionists". They promised never get into the war on the british side... only giving economic support. Every interventionist step FDR did in the Parliament was contested strongly. Without Pearl Harbour, the USA would have never go into the war.

If the USSR is defeated, let say at the end of 1943 (no Stalingrad defeat, for example and keeping attrition war with nazis encouraging muslim nationalism in Caucasus and Central Asia), the first nazi step would be to wipe out the Wallies presence in the Mediterranean (easy, if Axis troops not depending on naval supplies anymore and attacking instead from Turkey or Spain), then locking up the Mediterranean and then making the whole Europe -no neutrality allowed anymore- preparing to invade Brittain (200+300 divisions, sure). Presidential elections in november 1944, USA would look for a compromise.

No US President can win an election by promising "Sweat, Blood and Tears". As a matter of fact, no british premier either: from 1935 to 1945 no Parliament election took place in Brittain...

ljadw
Member
Posts: 11683
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Vulnerability of Soviet population, agriculture, and industry to German occupation

Post by ljadw » 01 Apr 2021 06:26

The order to shoot on every German U Boat that was sighted, conscription (in peace time ! ) of 2 years,economic sanctions against Japan and Germany, Lend Lease, the sale of destroyers to Britain,all this proves that the policy of the US was interventionist.
What they promised is irrelevant : they were politicians .
The Germans expected war with the US before 1942 .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 11683
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Vulnerability of Soviet population, agriculture, and industry to German occupation

Post by ljadw » 01 Apr 2021 07:26

Willkie ( called :the GOP FDR ) was a former Democrat (til 1939 ), partisan of a New Deal Light,of unlimited aid to Britain,and this Dark Horse,who never had occupied an elected office, became presidential candidate of the GOP,defeating people as Vandenberg and Taft,with the aid of Time and the eastern establishment .
Isolationism was dead .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 11683
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Vulnerability of Soviet population, agriculture, and industry to German occupation

Post by ljadw » 01 Apr 2021 07:54

Counter wrote:
31 Mar 2021 22:43
Ijawd wrote:Germany could send nothing to Japan through Siberia to help it in its war against the Wallies
Why not? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_in ... _Manchuria There was no logistic problem as long as the russians are subdued by germans.

Of course, japanese needed no german soldiers (they had plenty of fierce ones of their own) but from Vladivostok they would get economic resources and the Luftwaffe (and technology) would be very useful for defense. In exchange of that, a still dangerous Japan would threat the USA forever. Because if the Russians are defeated, what follows is a "Cold War" between the european Reich and the USA... Germany could never invade America, as the Wallies would keep an overwhelming air and naval power. And the Wallies could never invade Europe because they will never have soldiers enough to risk their lives just to liberate the european continent.
Ijawd wrote:they were not ( no longer ) isolationist in 1940 : there were two interventionist presidential candidates (Lindbergh was out ):FDR and Willkie,
They were not "interventionists". They promised never get into the war on the british side... only giving economic support. Every interventionist step FDR did in the Parliament was contested strongly. Without Pearl Harbour, the USA would have never go into the war.

If the USSR is defeated, let say at the end of 1943 (no Stalingrad defeat, for example and keeping attrition war with nazis encouraging muslim nationalism in Caucasus and Central Asia), the first nazi step would be to wipe out the Wallies presence in the Mediterranean (easy, if Axis troops not depending on naval supplies anymore and attacking instead from Turkey or Spain), then locking up the Mediterranean and then making the whole Europe -no neutrality allowed anymore- preparing to invade Brittain (200+300 divisions, sure). Presidential elections in november 1944, USA would look for a compromise.

No US President can win an election by promising "Sweat, Blood and Tears". As a matter of fact, no british premier either: from 1935 to 1945 no Parliament election took place in Brittain...
1 Logistic problems would prevent German aid to Japan,as Germany was unable to occupy the territories east of the Urals .
2 There is a big difference between the transfer of a part of the Soviet forces in Europe to the Far east,using their own railways,in 1945 and sending raw materials through a non occupied and hostile territory to Wladivostok,besides : goods in Wladivostok are not goods in Japan . And, Germany did not have what Japan needed .
3 Already before Stalingrad Germany had lost 2 million men in the East and was exhausted,thus an intervention in the Mediterranean in 1944 was excluded .
4 Already in May 1943 the Axis had been expelled from Africa and at the end of 1943, the Wallies were nearing Rome .
5 The Mediterranean was only a side show, not very important for both sides .
6 German forces in Turkey and Spain in 1944 was impossible : Franco had already opposed operation Felix (attack on Gibraltar ) in 1940.And logistics would prevent the Germans from traversing Turkey and Spain .
7 Sea Lion was out already in 1940,thus ...
Germany had no 200 divisions available to invade Britain
The forces of its allies would not be available for a landing
AND : even if Germany had 200 divisions, the KM was unable to transport them over the Channel.In 1940 only a few divisions could be transported ,and they would be easily destroyed by the British Home Forces .
Hitler was in the position of Napoleon : both had to defend the whole of Europe with inadequate forces and with allies who would desert them when they were losing .
Napoleon lost .
Hitler was doomed to lose .

KDF33
Member
Posts: 907
Joined: 17 Nov 2012 01:16

Re: Vulnerability of Soviet population, agriculture, and industry to German occupation

Post by KDF33 » 01 Apr 2021 08:27

ljadw wrote:
01 Apr 2021 07:54
3 Already before Stalingrad Germany had lost 2 million men in the East and was exhausted,thus an intervention in the Mediterranean in 1944 was excluded .
Notice the disingenuous nature of ljadw's argument here: he writes of 2 million men "lost", not clarifying that roughly 3/4 of them were wounded, of which the overwhelming majority returned to active service.

Notice also the use of the imprecise term "exhausted", which is meaningless. ljadw doesn't bother analyzing German strength in relation to that of the Anglo-Americans. He instead uses imprecise, slanted terms that he assumes the audience will take at face value.

Counter
Member
Posts: 29
Joined: 01 Mar 2019 16:48
Location: Europe

Re: Vulnerability of Soviet population, agriculture, and industry to German occupation

Post by Counter » 01 Apr 2021 15:28

Ijawd wrote:Hitler was in the position of Napoleon : both had to defend the whole of Europe with inadequate forces and with allies who would desert them when they were losing
That´s the point. If they are losing, allies desert, and if they are winning, new allies join. As this is about Germany defeating the USSR, the whole Europe would join Axis.
Ijawd wrote:There is a big difference between the transfer of a part of the Soviet forces in Europe to the Far east,using their own railways,in 1945 and sending raw materials through a non occupied and hostile territory to Wladivostok
If the USSR is defeated, the result of that would be like Vichy´s France, a slavic "Reserve" under nazi control, so no "hostile".
Ijawd wrote:The Mediterranean was only a side show, not very important for both sides
Previous to the disasters of the nazi Germany in the USSR, the Mediterranean was the only place were the weak Wallies forces could get victories due to the air and naval power. Forced by the dire demands of the Russian Front, nazis could send only few divisions to Africa... and always vulnerable to the naval and aerial interception of the Wallies. Rommel was twice defeated by the British, always because supplies were lost in the Mediterranean, and the same -and worst- happened in Tunis. With the USSR defeated, german could detach ten or twenty divisions from the East, and through Turkey or Spain defeat easily the Wallies.
Ijawd wrote:economic sanctions against Japan and Germany, Lend Lease, the sale of destroyers to Britain,all this proves that the policy of the US was interventionist.
That proves they were democrats, but they could never go to war without Pearl Harbour. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Reube ... rld_War_II 100 american sailors killed by the germans in october 31 1941 and USA did not declare war.

Japanese admirals were idiot as attacking Pearl Harbour. They could have gone south to snatch the Insulindia oil and to seize Singapore and the whole India and the USA would have done nothing. Without the Pearl Harbour trauma USA people would have never accepted war. There are Gallup polls proving that.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 11683
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Vulnerability of Soviet population, agriculture, and industry to German occupation

Post by ljadw » 01 Apr 2021 17:54

KDF33 wrote:
01 Apr 2021 08:27
ljadw wrote:
01 Apr 2021 07:54
3 Already before Stalingrad Germany had lost 2 million men in the East and was exhausted,thus an intervention in the Mediterranean in 1944 was excluded .
Notice the disingenuous nature of ljadw's argument here: he writes of 2 million men "lost", not clarifying that roughly 3/4 of them were wounded, of which the overwhelming majority returned to active service.

Notice also the use of the imprecise term "exhausted", which is meaningless. ljadw doesn't bother analyzing German strength in relation to that of the Anglo-Americans. He instead uses imprecise, slanted terms that he assumes the audience will take at face value.
There is no proof that the overwhelming majority of the WIA returned to active service in the East and we are even not talking about the non combat losses .
And, yes, Germany was already exhausted in 1942 :it could ,after Torch, send only a few divisions to Tunisia .It had only a few divisions in Libya .The RM could supply ,with very big difficulties ,the Axis forces in Libya and Tunisia ,but it could not transport and supply the forces needed to expel Britain from the Mediterranean .And a German intervention through Turkey was excluded .
Germany had in the Summer of 1941 only 2 divisions in NA.Where would they get in 1944 the needed divisions ( dozens were needed ) to expel Britain from the Mediterranean ,to occupy NA from Tanger to Suez and the whole of the ME ?
And,even if these dozens of divisions would be available, it would be impossible to supply them :how would Germany transport the needed fuel for the Axis ground, air and naval forces ?
The Germans had the intention if Barbarossa was successful in 1941,to keep 50/60 divisions in the USSR, 50/60 would be disbanded and the rest of the Ostheer would return to Germany as a general reserve .This reserve of 30/50 divisions could not protect northern and western Europe,thus,it could not be committed in the ME/NA .
After the fall of France ,which would be followed,hoped Berlin,by the capitulation of Britain, the peace army would be brought to a number of 120 divisions . This number was too high for a country of 80 million people and too low to protect the new conquered territories .
A successful Barbarossa in 1941 would only increase the problems and a successful Barbarossa in 1943 followed by an intervention in NA/the ME was totally excluded .
Besides : the bigger the army, the weaker the LW :a strong army would deprive the German cities from an adequate protection and a strong LW would make the defense of the European coasts impossible .

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”