How to Refight WW2

Lord Fairfax

Ad Honorem
Jan 2015
3,398
Changing trains at Terrapin Station...
But Hitler doesn't want to 'liquidate the British Empire', he wants to destroy the Russians. The entire point to WW2 was the German invasion of Russia - the creation of Lebensraum based on Polish and Russian territory is one of the founding tenants of Nazi ideology (not to mention of Hitler's personal ideology). Why would Hitler ally with the Russians? What does Germany get out of it? Hitler is not going to trade the possibility of the Ukraine and Belorussia - the breadbaskets of Russia - for Irag or Syria, especially when he would be dependant on moving his forces thousands of miles through Russian territory to get there. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was a marriage of convenience, and both sides entered it knowing one of them was probably going to break it at some point.

.
Also, the only real point of attack for the Soviets would be through Persia, and the logistics/transport system there leaves much to be desired.
The Axis in general suffer from poor logistics.
Italians in North & West Africa, Japanese in Burma/India and Germans had severe logistics problems.
Soviets trying to project armies through Persia & Afganistan is not an operation that I'd have much confidence in.
 
Dec 2014
441
Wales
Also, the only real point of attack for the Soviets would be through Persia, and the logistics/transport system there leaves much to be desired.
The Axis in general suffer from poor logistics.
Italians in North & West Africa, Japanese in Burma/India and Germans had severe logistics problems.
Soviets trying to project armies through Persia & Afganistan is not an operation that I'd have much confidence in.
And yet all of the Axis problems would pale compared to this one.

Every piece of German equipment and every soldier would have to be shipped by train to Russia, offloaded, and re-loaded onto a Russian train waiting there for them, since the Russians historically use a different gauge so there's no chance of loaded German trains using those tracks (and I'm pretty sure the Russians wouldn't want German trains using those tracks).

Then the equipment has to travel thousands of miles across Russia, often through under-developed country with poor infrastructure , places such as Georgia and Armenia were in the 1940's. All the while they are at the mercy of the Russian authorities, who are struggling to deal with language problems and presumably giving priority to any Russian trains heading that way to supply their own troops.

Then when they get to Persia the goods have to be unloaded again and sent through some of the most inhospitable terrain on the planet to wherever the troops were actually fighting by an army still largely dependant on horse-drawn transport!

And all of this is dependant on the two nations co-operating, two nations who loath and detest each other.

What could possibly go wrong?
 
Aug 2014
296
New York, USA
Hitler detests communists, blaming them - along with the Jews - for the defeat of Germany in WW1. Stalin doesn't trust the Germans anymore than they trust him - Russia still remembers the humiliation of the Brest-Litovsk treaty. Both nations are at the heart of expanding empires trying to secure more territory for themselves and share a border almost 3,000 km's long. Both are totalitarian regimes with a history of breaking treaties. Both have massive armies and a willingness to use them. Neither of them like Britain, but they hate and truly detest each other. The Germans regard Britain as a dangerous enemy, but they regard the Russians as sub-human animals to be exterminated

Even long after his death there is nothing that would make Hitler consider allying with the Russians.
Not only that, but during the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, Stalin already read a copy of Mein Kampf and he highlighted the parts about Hitler invading Russia for lebensraum. Stalin knew perfectly well what Hitler's intentions were. Stalin was a very shrewd and calculating individual, however his plans blew up in his face twice:
1. When Germans invaded Poland and the French/British declared war but did not attack, despite the fact that Germans had nobody guarding the Western front.
2. When France folded in 6 weeks with Germans suffering relatively minor casualties compared to estimates.
French collapse was a big blow to Stalin.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: sailorsam

Lord Fairfax

Ad Honorem
Jan 2015
3,398
Changing trains at Terrapin Station...
Hi Grey Fox.

Regarding Chapter 6....Malta ?. A significant island that enabled British and Commonwealth forces to fight effectively in N Africa before and after Operation Torch. A constant thorn in the side of German and Italian ambitions and African/Med campaign with the destruction of vital fuel for Rommel. The Germans missed a great opportunity in early 1941, even late 1940. Germans could have after Sealion postponed redeployed its strong airborne assault forces along with several front line fighter, dive bomber and bomber squadrons to rapidly gain air superiority and force the Royal Navy away so any seaborne support etc would have no opposition. Axis forces would have taken the airfields and sufficient territory away from the British artillery in Valletta and counterattacks by any British Army land units liquidated. A short siege of Valletta with the threat of significant civilian casualties and no reinforcements due to powerful Luftwaffe and Italian forces would have resulted in the capitulation of Malta.
In late 1940 there is basically an entire British division on Malta
Germany has the ability to land a single LW division (used on Crete), and unlike the much larger island of Crete, on Malta they would be dropping on top of British positions, and woul d be decimated

OK, Operation Barbarossa comes to mind but the Germans had sufficient strength to deploy at least 8 fighter squadrons, Italians 4, 3 dive bomber and at least 8 bomber squadrons for required air superiority as the RAF late 1940 into 1941 had a handfull of biplanes, very few Hurricanes, no Spitfires and a few slow torpedo bombers. Having visited Malta several times and areas of proposed landings and land topography, in those crucial months German and Italian forces would have won so leaving the Axis supply and troop movements to N Africa with no losses as had happened in 1941-43.
Even without Malta, the supply bottlenecks still prevent a much larger army from being supplied in Africa
 

Dir

Nov 2015
1,955
Kyiv
Chapter 9 Stalingrad - better to destroy enemy armies than to capture his cities
Stalingrad was absolutely critical for the entire Eastern WWII campaign. After the capture of the city the Germans would cut for the Russians the main route for delivering oil along the Volga. Baku gave at least 90% of the oil to the Russians, and besides the Volga river route they did not have enough alternatives to deliver oil to Russia from Baku. After the Germans had reached the Volga bank and entrenched there - in 2-3 months the Red Army would have lost most part of their fuel, and the Germans would have won the campaign against Russia
 

Chlodio

Forum Staff
Aug 2016
4,450
Dispargum
Stalingrad was absolutely critical for the entire Eastern WWII campaign. After the capture of the city the Germans would cut for the Russians the main route for delivering oil along the Volga. Baku gave at least 90% of the oil to the Russians, and besides the Volga river route they did not have enough alternatives to deliver oil to Russia from Baku. After the Germans had reached the Volga bank and entrenched there - in 2-3 months the Red Army would have lost most part of their fuel, and the Germans would have won the campaign against Russia
But the Germans didn't need the city itself to cut the Volga River Route. They could have occupied the river bank either above or below the city or both. Sure go ahead and occupy the city of Stalingrad if you can do so easily and cheaply, but when it became obvious the Soviets intended to fight for the city, the river route could have been cut in other ways.
 
Last edited:

Lord Fairfax

Ad Honorem
Jan 2015
3,398
Changing trains at Terrapin Station...
But the Germans didn't need the city itself to cut the Volga River Route. They could have occupied the river bank either above or below the city or both. Sure go ahead and occupy the city of Stalingrad if you can do so easily and cheaply, but when it became obvious the Soviets intended to fight for the city, the river route could have been cut in other ways.
Stalingrad was a watershed, the massive Axis casualties were a major blow to the war effort
 

notgivenaway

Ad Honorem
Jun 2015
5,743
UK
Allied:

- Have a multi-layered strategy in France. Don't assume the Ardenne was impenetrable, and extend the Maginot Line towards the North Sea
- Have a co-ordinated Anglo-French defence strategy, even including naval assets. Sign over ships for the Royal Navy if France falls.

Axis

- Take over St. Helena and Reunion, which would force Allied responses. St. Helena was key for Allied defence in the Atlantic, as a Britsh territory.
- Establish naval bases in the Indian Ocean, where a joint German/Japanese command could threaten British India and Australia
 

notgivenaway

Ad Honorem
Jun 2015
5,743
UK
There was a major flaw in his victory, while Britain remained in the war Germany did not have access to certain vital resources, mainly oil. Germany and it's occupied territories were running an oil deficit even with the imports it was getting from Russia.
Germany's best chance at that point was to focus on North Africa, and spend all time to get the British out of the war. HOwever, if the British had severe losses, then the USA may still have entered, if it meant fewer people to fight Hitler. Either way, defeat was perhaps always inevitable for Germany. Most of the world was ideologically or racially opposed to Hitler in some form, and the USA knew Hitler would be an eventual enemy to it. It just didn't want to get involved at the time, but after Peal Harbor had no choice.