Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Could the Axis powers have won WWII????
Author Message
chiefsfan Offline
No Seriously, they let me be a mod
*

Posts: 43,711
Joined: Sep 2007
Reputation: 1061
I Root For: ASU
Location:
Post: #101
RE: Could the Axis powers have won WWII????
(01-11-2018 11:17 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I haven't read the entire thread, but IMO the ultimate determinant on which side was going to win was whether the U.S. jumps into the war or stays out of it. If the Japanese never attack Hawaii and the U.S. are never drawn into the war, the Axis wins the war. Since the U.S. entered on the side of the Allies, the WWII would have been won by the allies sooner or later. The U.S.had attributes that the Axis could not overcome - like a large population base, significant natural resources, the best manufacturing base in the world and the advantage of being located far away from the major battlefields. Despite the late technological advances made by the Germans with the jet engine, V1 and V2 missiles and the research on the atomic bomb - all of that was too little and too late.

I imagine a lot of brits would roll their eyes at this statement, because its a very "American" way to view things. You are right in the sense that the US entering the war makes it almost impossible for the axis to win (And both Germany and Japan knew a war with the US was a losing battle) The thing is, I don't think the US stays out regardless.

It's very likely even without Pearl Harbor that the US enters the war eventually anyway. By the time Pearl Harbor happened, the US had already agreed to the land lease deal with Britain, and were already supplying the allied forces. Public Sentiment was already starting to turn in favor of fighting.

Even if you look at Europe, I think there is little chance the US stays neutral forever. FDR was convinced after Dunkirk that the Britiah would surrender. He had already begun to try and work out and arrangement for the UK to sail its Navy into American and Canadian harbors, so the Germans could not make use of them. Those are not actions of a "neutral country"

We were always looking for a way to enter that war. All we needed was a reason. Eventually that reason would have been provided...with or without Pearl Harbor.
01-12-2018 02:00 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HeartOfDixie Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,689
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 945
I Root For: Alabama
Location: Huntsville AL
Post: #102
RE: Could the Axis powers have won WWII????
(01-12-2018 02:00 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  
(01-11-2018 11:17 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I haven't read the entire thread, but IMO the ultimate determinant on which side was going to win was whether the U.S. jumps into the war or stays out of it. If the Japanese never attack Hawaii and the U.S. are never drawn into the war, the Axis wins the war. Since the U.S. entered on the side of the Allies, the WWII would have been won by the allies sooner or later. The U.S.had attributes that the Axis could not overcome - like a large population base, significant natural resources, the best manufacturing base in the world and the advantage of being located far away from the major battlefields. Despite the late technological advances made by the Germans with the jet engine, V1 and V2 missiles and the research on the atomic bomb - all of that was too little and too late.

I imagine a lot of brits would roll their eyes at this statement, because its a very "American" way to view things. You are right in the sense that the US entering the war makes it almost impossible for the axis to win (And both Germany and Japan knew a war with the US was a losing battle) The thing is, I don't think the US stays out regardless.

It's very likely even without Pearl Harbor that the US enters the war eventually anyway. By the time Pearl Harbor happened, the US had already agreed to the land lease deal with Britain, and were already supplying the allied forces. Public Sentiment was already starting to turn in favor of fighting.

Even if you look at Europe, I think there is little chance the US stays neutral forever. FDR was convinced after Dunkirk that the Britiah would surrender. He had already begun to try and work out and arrangement for the UK to sail its Navy into American and Canadian harbors, so the Germans could not make use of them. Those are not actions of a "neutral country"

We were always looking for a way to enter that war. All we needed was a reason. Eventually that reason would have been provided...with or without Pearl Harbor.

I don't know if you would find a consensus on that.

There was vasty anti-war sentiment among the public until the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Wilson needed unrestricted submarine warfare and FDR too would need something.

Our special relationship with Britain didn't exist to the same level prior to WW2, in fact both us and the British had made extensive plans to fight one another through the 20s and 30s. The largest single ethnic group in the US was German, and they were not disposed to fighting Germany.

So, in the end, FDR would have needed something galvanizing and the Germans didn't seem to have a plan to do that.
01-12-2018 11:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #103
RE: Could the Axis powers have won WWII????
(01-11-2018 10:03 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  
(01-11-2018 09:42 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(01-11-2018 07:55 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  
(01-10-2018 11:00 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  There was no chance of Germany successfully invading Great Britain successfully with or without the Dunkirk evacuation.

The Royal Navy could have taken 4 to 1 losses vs Kreigsmarine and still been able to maintain operations in the Med vs Italy. The Germans had only one heavy cruiser, two light cruiser and four destroyers available immediately after the fall of France. D-Day the Allies had 5 battleships, 20 cruisers and 65 destroyers.

The German “plan” for invasion was designed to use a Dunkirk style cobbled up fleet primarily relying on river barges. They estimated they could land 100,000 soldiers in 10 days. The Allies landed nearly 160,000 in the first 24 hours of Overlord. Germany had less than 40 available minesweepers to clear a path to the invasion. The Allies used 350 ships to clear mines and it took about a month. Unlike the Germans the UK had tanks of oil on standby to dump at each potential land site and planned to set the slicks ablaze which would have been rather deadly for packed wooden barges.

The Luftwaffe could not have protected the landings. They lost 25% of their fighter pilots to death, injury, POW by July 1940. The Brits were out-numbered but each day built more fighters than Germany was building and any pilot shot down who escaped death or injury was stuck in a new plane. The Luftwaffe managed 327 sorties on D-Day vs about 14,000 by the Allies. Germany could not have achieved that sort of air dominance.

The civilian population of France was friendly to the Allies, that would not have been the case in Sea Lion.

It is likely that between the limited shipping capacity and Royal Navy and Royal Air Force that a German invasion force would quickly be out of food and ammunition and hurting for reinforcements.

Sea Lion was called off because they couldn’t gain air superiority, naval superiority and even with them needed at least 10 good weather days and an absolute minimum of three and had extremely limited access to any weather data west of the French Coast while the UK had weather data from Ireland, Iceland, Greenland, Canada, the US and convoys. They were looking at shooting into the dark. Remember their best guess at weather convinced them June 6 was a improbable date for attack.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I would strongly disagree with that.

The Regina Marina was a seriously potent force, in the Mediterranean.

Italian expansion plans to make it a true Atlantic navy were never completed, although sans the outbreak of war they would have by 1943.

The Regina Marina wasn't in any position position to help an operation such as Sea Lion but it was more than capable of dominating the Mediterranean, which it did briefly achieve at several points during the war. It is worth pointing out though that Italian submarines were a useful part of the war in the Atlantic.

It, along with limited portions of the Army and certain, but significant, portions of the Air Force were well equipped and well led. But, they were largely placed in a subordinate roll with just about every grand strategic decision falling to the Germans who were executing a war the Italians had never envisioned and hadn't spent the last 20 years preparing or equipping for.

Hell, the Italian military going into the war was strategically, tactically, and in terms of equipment most prepared for a war with Germany. They nearly went to war with one another of Austria in the 30s. The war that ultimately took place was not what had been contemplated and Mussolini's calculated risk that he could grab what he wanted before Germany won has been relegated to a bad decision by history.

A 4 to 1 loss vs Kreigsmarine would be 28 ships.

Regnia Marina had 6 battleships, 19 cruisers, and 59 destroyers.

In 1939 the Royal Navy had 15 battleships and battle cruisers, 7 aircraft carriers, 66 cruisers and 184 destroyers.

Losing 28 of 272 would have still permitted the Royal Navy to operate in the Med.

Probably not as aggressively but the likely losses the Luftwaffe would have experienced supporting Sea Lion would have reduced their ability to provide Regina Marina with air support at Malta.

The Luftwaffe played an overstated roll in the Mediterranean.

It's true that the Luftwaffe had to step in to prevent the collapse of the Regina Aeronautica but the Regina Aeronautica's roll in the war shouldn't be understated.

The Royal Navy would have to have committed more than half of its entire available fleet to the Mediterranean in order to ensure victory and that is just ship to ship and not considering the ability of the Regina Marina to conduct greater numbers of sorties and of the Regina Aeronautica's ability to use Italy as a carrier in its own right.

The Luftwaffe of the major powers was no better than fourth best at air to naval engagement behind the US, UK, and Japan. So taking on the Royal Navy, they were not well equipped for.

What the Luftwaffe was providing was air cover and recon. Remember that radar on ships while superior to lookouts was far inferior to the ability of aircraft to locate opposing forces. They also provided a boost to the number of flying fighters.

Regina Aeronautica could cover much of the Med from home bases and that should never be discounted (see Battle of Britain) but they could not put anything in the air as fast as the Hawker Hurricane until mid-1942. Yeah they shot down some Hurricanes in the early war but that was top Italian pilots vs pilots the UK was willing to "spare" from Great Britain. Even with generally better skilled pilots in East Africa, Italy lost about 40% of their aircraft in theater in three months and production pace was never close to keeping up.

I don't believe Italians ever had more than 2000 ready to fly aircraft at any given time and had only a brief period of technological superiority as the advanced fighters which were arguably superior to the Luftwaffe's 109 were facing Hurricanes and production couldn't keep pace.
01-12-2018 11:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #104
RE: Could the Axis powers have won WWII????
(01-12-2018 11:45 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 02:00 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  
(01-11-2018 11:17 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I haven't read the entire thread, but IMO the ultimate determinant on which side was going to win was whether the U.S. jumps into the war or stays out of it. If the Japanese never attack Hawaii and the U.S. are never drawn into the war, the Axis wins the war. Since the U.S. entered on the side of the Allies, the WWII would have been won by the allies sooner or later. The U.S.had attributes that the Axis could not overcome - like a large population base, significant natural resources, the best manufacturing base in the world and the advantage of being located far away from the major battlefields. Despite the late technological advances made by the Germans with the jet engine, V1 and V2 missiles and the research on the atomic bomb - all of that was too little and too late.

I imagine a lot of brits would roll their eyes at this statement, because its a very "American" way to view things. You are right in the sense that the US entering the war makes it almost impossible for the axis to win (And both Germany and Japan knew a war with the US was a losing battle) The thing is, I don't think the US stays out regardless.

It's very likely even without Pearl Harbor that the US enters the war eventually anyway. By the time Pearl Harbor happened, the US had already agreed to the land lease deal with Britain, and were already supplying the allied forces. Public Sentiment was already starting to turn in favor of fighting.

Even if you look at Europe, I think there is little chance the US stays neutral forever. FDR was convinced after Dunkirk that the Britiah would surrender. He had already begun to try and work out and arrangement for the UK to sail its Navy into American and Canadian harbors, so the Germans could not make use of them. Those are not actions of a "neutral country"

We were always looking for a way to enter that war. All we needed was a reason. Eventually that reason would have been provided...with or without Pearl Harbor.

I don't know if you would find a consensus on that.

There was vasty anti-war sentiment among the public until the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Wilson needed unrestricted submarine warfare and FDR too would need something.

Our special relationship with Britain didn't exist to the same level prior to WW2, in fact both us and the British had made extensive plans to fight one another through the 20s and 30s. The largest single ethnic group in the US was German, and they were not disposed to fighting Germany.

So, in the end, FDR would have needed something galvanizing and the Germans didn't seem to have a plan to do that.

German-Americans were according to many sources not as inclined to support entering the war on the German side or as inclined to remain neutral as had been the case with WWI when it was not a given that the US would side with the Allies if the US were to enter the war before the mood changed with the offer to Mexico and the increasing outrage over submarine warfare.

A Gallup poll in April 1941 82% of Americans believed the US would join the war in Europe. A month later 13% believed the US was already in thanks to arming the UK and only 14% believed the US would stay out.

Polling concluded a week before Pearl Harbor that 52% believed the US would be at war with Japan shortly and 27% did not think we would be at war with Japan soon, the rest no opinion or didn't know.

The biggest roadblock to entering was some of the wealthiest and most prominent Americans.
You had Ford and Lindbergh who supported Hitler.
Joe Kennedy who was less "for" Hitler and more "anti" British.
Prescott Bush who by several accounts wanted a fascist type government because he thought (like many others) that traditional capitalism had been proven a failure and Communism was inevitable if we didn't move to Fascism but no reputable account has him being a Nazi sympathizer on matters of race though I would expect he had views we today would deem racist.
Then you had a longer list of American millionaires and industrialists who funded directly or at least implicitly supported groups devoted to keeping the US on the sidelines. More than happy to sell to the combatants they weren't interested in seeing the US join.
01-12-2018 12:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HeartOfDixie Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,689
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 945
I Root For: Alabama
Location: Huntsville AL
Post: #105
RE: Could the Axis powers have won WWII????
(01-12-2018 11:45 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(01-11-2018 10:03 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  
(01-11-2018 09:42 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(01-11-2018 07:55 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  
(01-10-2018 11:00 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  There was no chance of Germany successfully invading Great Britain successfully with or without the Dunkirk evacuation.

The Royal Navy could have taken 4 to 1 losses vs Kreigsmarine and still been able to maintain operations in the Med vs Italy. The Germans had only one heavy cruiser, two light cruiser and four destroyers available immediately after the fall of France. D-Day the Allies had 5 battleships, 20 cruisers and 65 destroyers.

The German “plan” for invasion was designed to use a Dunkirk style cobbled up fleet primarily relying on river barges. They estimated they could land 100,000 soldiers in 10 days. The Allies landed nearly 160,000 in the first 24 hours of Overlord. Germany had less than 40 available minesweepers to clear a path to the invasion. The Allies used 350 ships to clear mines and it took about a month. Unlike the Germans the UK had tanks of oil on standby to dump at each potential land site and planned to set the slicks ablaze which would have been rather deadly for packed wooden barges.

The Luftwaffe could not have protected the landings. They lost 25% of their fighter pilots to death, injury, POW by July 1940. The Brits were out-numbered but each day built more fighters than Germany was building and any pilot shot down who escaped death or injury was stuck in a new plane. The Luftwaffe managed 327 sorties on D-Day vs about 14,000 by the Allies. Germany could not have achieved that sort of air dominance.

The civilian population of France was friendly to the Allies, that would not have been the case in Sea Lion.

It is likely that between the limited shipping capacity and Royal Navy and Royal Air Force that a German invasion force would quickly be out of food and ammunition and hurting for reinforcements.

Sea Lion was called off because they couldn’t gain air superiority, naval superiority and even with them needed at least 10 good weather days and an absolute minimum of three and had extremely limited access to any weather data west of the French Coast while the UK had weather data from Ireland, Iceland, Greenland, Canada, the US and convoys. They were looking at shooting into the dark. Remember their best guess at weather convinced them June 6 was a improbable date for attack.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I would strongly disagree with that.

The Regina Marina was a seriously potent force, in the Mediterranean.

Italian expansion plans to make it a true Atlantic navy were never completed, although sans the outbreak of war they would have by 1943.

The Regina Marina wasn't in any position position to help an operation such as Sea Lion but it was more than capable of dominating the Mediterranean, which it did briefly achieve at several points during the war. It is worth pointing out though that Italian submarines were a useful part of the war in the Atlantic.

It, along with limited portions of the Army and certain, but significant, portions of the Air Force were well equipped and well led. But, they were largely placed in a subordinate roll with just about every grand strategic decision falling to the Germans who were executing a war the Italians had never envisioned and hadn't spent the last 20 years preparing or equipping for.

Hell, the Italian military going into the war was strategically, tactically, and in terms of equipment most prepared for a war with Germany. They nearly went to war with one another of Austria in the 30s. The war that ultimately took place was not what had been contemplated and Mussolini's calculated risk that he could grab what he wanted before Germany won has been relegated to a bad decision by history.

A 4 to 1 loss vs Kreigsmarine would be 28 ships.

Regnia Marina had 6 battleships, 19 cruisers, and 59 destroyers.

In 1939 the Royal Navy had 15 battleships and battle cruisers, 7 aircraft carriers, 66 cruisers and 184 destroyers.

Losing 28 of 272 would have still permitted the Royal Navy to operate in the Med.

Probably not as aggressively but the likely losses the Luftwaffe would have experienced supporting Sea Lion would have reduced their ability to provide Regina Marina with air support at Malta.

The Luftwaffe played an overstated roll in the Mediterranean.

It's true that the Luftwaffe had to step in to prevent the collapse of the Regina Aeronautica but the Regina Aeronautica's roll in the war shouldn't be understated.

The Royal Navy would have to have committed more than half of its entire available fleet to the Mediterranean in order to ensure victory and that is just ship to ship and not considering the ability of the Regina Marina to conduct greater numbers of sorties and of the Regina Aeronautica's ability to use Italy as a carrier in its own right.

The Luftwaffe of the major powers was no better than fourth best at air to naval engagement behind the US, UK, and Japan. So taking on the Royal Navy, they were not well equipped for.

What the Luftwaffe was providing was air cover and recon. Remember that radar on ships while superior to lookouts was far inferior to the ability of aircraft to locate opposing forces. They also provided a boost to the number of flying fighters.

Regina Aeronautica could cover much of the Med from home bases and that should never be discounted (see Battle of Britain) but they could not put anything in the air as fast as the Hawker Hurricane until mid-1942. Yeah they shot down some Hurricanes in the early war but that was top Italian pilots vs pilots the UK was willing to "spare" from Great Britain. Even with generally better skilled pilots in East Africa, Italy lost about 40% of their aircraft in theater in three months and production pace was never close to keeping up.

I don't believe Italians ever had more than 2000 ready to fly aircraft at any given time and had only a brief period of technological superiority as the advanced fighters which were arguably superior to the Luftwaffe's 109 were facing Hurricanes and production couldn't keep pace.

The Fiat G.50 and Macchi MC. 200 were a match for the Hurricane. They were slightly slower but far more maneuverable and had a superior rate of climb.

The CR.42 Falco, the biplane, made up a big part of the Regina Aeronautica at the outbreak of the war but by mid 1941 the 2nd Generation of Monoplanes were already in production, the MC 202 for example, and the CR 42 was relegated to secondary fronts. The East African campaign was largely flow against the CR42.

Production numbers are a good point, the MC 202, which was a major player, had roughly 1100 built. The far more advanced and capable MC 205 had roughly 300, along with nearly 500 G55s. The MC 200 had roughly 1100 produced.

As for technological superiority, the second generation, and ultimately the third generation, outpaced the technological advancement of both the Germans and the Allies.

When the MC 202 came out it was one of the finest aircraft in the world, though relatively poorly armed. The third generation, the MC 205, G55, and RE.2005, were some of the finest aircraft built during the entire war and even the Luftwaffe considered ditching Bf109 production in favor of the Fiat G55. There are extensive notes of the German pilots sent to Turin to test the new generation of Italian fighters and the overwhelmingly positive opinion they had of them. The suggestion that the design be adopted and built under license went as high up as Goering himself.

The MC 205, and the slightly superior G55, outclassed even the later variants of the Spitfire and were dramatically superior to the P38s and P47s they flew against. The Re.2005, which was even better, was perhaps the best fighter of the war, except fewer than 50 were built.

Those are all small numbers but sufficient to make the Italian Air Force a serious opponent.

The SM 79, another very fine example of Italian air craft design, was a serious issue for the Allies. They were fast, enjoyed a level of maneuverability more akin to a fighter than a bomber of its size, and were made in large numbers.

Overall, Italian aircraft of the war were as good, and often better, than their opponents. There just weren't enough of them.

I mentioned it previously, during early 1942 the Regina Aeronautica nearly collapsed and the Luftwaffe did have to step in.

While ultimately not that important, the Italians, as usual, had a sense of style even with the names like, Saetta (Lightning), Fresca (Arrow), Veltro (Greyhound), Sparviero (Sparrowhawk), Folgore (Thunderbolt), Centaro (Centaur), and the very best Sagittario.
(This post was last modified: 01-12-2018 12:30 PM by HeartOfDixie.)
01-12-2018 12:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #106
RE: Could the Axis powers have won WWII????
(01-12-2018 01:49 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 01:16 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(01-10-2018 11:00 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  There was no chance of Germany successfully invading Great Britain successfully with or without the Dunkirk evacuation.

The Royal Navy could have taken 4 to 1 losses vs Kreigsmarine and still been able to maintain operations in the Med vs Italy. The Germans had only one heavy cruiser, two light cruiser and four destroyers available immediately after the fall of France. D-Day the Allies had 5 battleships, 20 cruisers and 65 destroyers.

The German “plan” for invasion was designed to use a Dunkirk style cobbled up fleet primarily relying on river barges. They estimated they could land 100,000 soldiers in 10 days. The Allies landed nearly 160,000 in the first 24 hours of Overlord. Germany had less than 40 available minesweepers to clear a path to the invasion. The Allies used 350 ships to clear mines and it took about a month. Unlike the Germans the UK had tanks of oil on standby to dump at each potential land site and planned to set the slicks ablaze which would have been rather deadly for packed wooden barges.

The Luftwaffe could not have protected the landings. They lost 25% of their fighter pilots to death, injury, POW by July 1940. The Brits were out-numbered but each day built more fighters than Germany was building and any pilot shot down who escaped death or injury was stuck in a new plane. The Luftwaffe managed 327 sorties on D-Day vs about 14,000 by the Allies. Germany could not have achieved that sort of air dominance.

The civilian population of France was friendly to the Allies, that would not have been the case in Sea Lion.

It is likely that between the limited shipping capacity and Royal Navy and Royal Air Force that a German invasion force would quickly be out of food and ammunition and hurting for reinforcements.

Sea Lion was called off because they couldn’t gain air superiority, naval superiority and even with them needed at least 10 good weather days and an absolute minimum of three and had extremely limited access to any weather data west of the French Coast while the UK had weather data from Ireland, Iceland, Greenland, Canada, the US and convoys. They were looking at shooting into the dark. Remember their best guess at weather convinced them June 6 was a improbable date for attack.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Destroy the BEF on the beach and simply the threat of invasion is enough for Great Britain to sue for peace. As it stood even with the evacuation the Brits were scared enough that they resorted to building trucks armored only with concrete to serve as mobile pillboxes to fight the feared invasion.

The evacuation at Dunkirk gave the Brits exactly what they needed when they needed it most....hope.

Yes and No. A lot of the transcripts from those cabinet meetings in the UK right around the time of Dunkirk are available publicly now, and they make an interesting read.

Even with failure at Dunkirk, Britain's idea of peace and Hitler's were likely radically different. The people in the UK who supported appealing for peace believed that Germany would look to get out of the fight cleanly, and not request much in the way of reparations. Others were convinced that Germany would insist on the UK giving up a lot of its colonial territories in Africa and Asia, and there was little chance the British would ever do that.

If Hitler had come to the table with reasonable demands, there's a decent chance Britain gets out. That's a big ask though.

It also now appears that Churchill and Elizabeth II believed that Hitler wanted Edward VIII to regain the throne to make the UK a Vichy France style client state.

It is fascinating reading to see that divestiture of the colonies was not an acceptable term for peace in 1941 but ended up being the cost of victory.
01-12-2018 12:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,301
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #107
RE: Could the Axis powers have won WWII????
(01-12-2018 01:49 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 01:16 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(01-10-2018 11:00 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  There was no chance of Germany successfully invading Great Britain successfully with or without the Dunkirk evacuation.

The Royal Navy could have taken 4 to 1 losses vs Kreigsmarine and still been able to maintain operations in the Med vs Italy. The Germans had only one heavy cruiser, two light cruiser and four destroyers available immediately after the fall of France. D-Day the Allies had 5 battleships, 20 cruisers and 65 destroyers.

The German “plan” for invasion was designed to use a Dunkirk style cobbled up fleet primarily relying on river barges. They estimated they could land 100,000 soldiers in 10 days. The Allies landed nearly 160,000 in the first 24 hours of Overlord. Germany had less than 40 available minesweepers to clear a path to the invasion. The Allies used 350 ships to clear mines and it took about a month. Unlike the Germans the UK had tanks of oil on standby to dump at each potential land site and planned to set the slicks ablaze which would have been rather deadly for packed wooden barges.

The Luftwaffe could not have protected the landings. They lost 25% of their fighter pilots to death, injury, POW by July 1940. The Brits were out-numbered but each day built more fighters than Germany was building and any pilot shot down who escaped death or injury was stuck in a new plane. The Luftwaffe managed 327 sorties on D-Day vs about 14,000 by the Allies. Germany could not have achieved that sort of air dominance.

The civilian population of France was friendly to the Allies, that would not have been the case in Sea Lion.

It is likely that between the limited shipping capacity and Royal Navy and Royal Air Force that a German invasion force would quickly be out of food and ammunition and hurting for reinforcements.

Sea Lion was called off because they couldn’t gain air superiority, naval superiority and even with them needed at least 10 good weather days and an absolute minimum of three and had extremely limited access to any weather data west of the French Coast while the UK had weather data from Ireland, Iceland, Greenland, Canada, the US and convoys. They were looking at shooting into the dark. Remember their best guess at weather convinced them June 6 was a improbable date for attack.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Destroy the BEF on the beach and simply the threat of invasion is enough for Great Britain to sue for peace. As it stood even with the evacuation the Brits were scared enough that they resorted to building trucks armored only with concrete to serve as mobile pillboxes to fight the feared invasion.

The evacuation at Dunkirk gave the Brits exactly what they needed when they needed it most....hope.

Yes and No. A lot of the transcripts from those cabinet meetings in the UK right around the time of Dunkirk are available publicly now, and they make an interesting read.

Even with failure at Dunkirk, Britain's idea of peace and Hitler's were likely radically different. The people in the UK who supported appealing for peace believed that Germany would look to get out of the fight cleanly, and not request much in the way of reparations. Others were convinced that Germany would insist on the UK giving up a lot of its colonial territories in Africa and Asia, and there was little chance the British would ever do that.

If Hitler had come to the table with reasonable demands, there's a decent chance Britain gets out. That's a big ask though.

What would Hitler want in Africa other than the pre-war status quo? What could he have use for in Asia? That was the Japanese. The Middle East would be the only potential issue.
01-12-2018 12:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,301
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #108
RE: Could the Axis powers have won WWII????
(01-12-2018 02:00 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  
(01-11-2018 11:17 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I haven't read the entire thread, but IMO the ultimate determinant on which side was going to win was whether the U.S. jumps into the war or stays out of it. If the Japanese never attack Hawaii and the U.S. are never drawn into the war, the Axis wins the war. Since the U.S. entered on the side of the Allies, the WWII would have been won by the allies sooner or later. The U.S.had attributes that the Axis could not overcome - like a large population base, significant natural resources, the best manufacturing base in the world and the advantage of being located far away from the major battlefields. Despite the late technological advances made by the Germans with the jet engine, V1 and V2 missiles and the research on the atomic bomb - all of that was too little and too late.

I imagine a lot of brits would roll their eyes at this statement, because its a very "American" way to view things. You are right in the sense that the US entering the war makes it almost impossible for the axis to win (And both Germany and Japan knew a war with the US was a losing battle) The thing is, I don't think the US stays out regardless.

It's very likely even without Pearl Harbor that the US enters the war eventually anyway. By the time Pearl Harbor happened, the US had already agreed to the land lease deal with Britain, and were already supplying the allied forces. Public Sentiment was already starting to turn in favor of fighting.

Even if you look at Europe, I think there is little chance the US stays neutral forever. FDR was convinced after Dunkirk that the Britiah would surrender. He had already begun to try and work out and arrangement for the UK to sail its Navy into American and Canadian harbors, so the Germans could not make use of them. Those are not actions of a "neutral country"

We were always looking for a way to enter that war. All we needed was a reason. Eventually that reason would have been provided...with or without Pearl Harbor.

But it could have been too late to save the USSR.
01-12-2018 12:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
miko33 Offline
Defender of Honesty and Integrity
*

Posts: 13,117
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 848
I Root For: Alma Mater
Location:
Post: #109
RE: Could the Axis powers have won WWII????
(01-12-2018 12:52 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 01:49 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 01:16 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(01-10-2018 11:00 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  There was no chance of Germany successfully invading Great Britain successfully with or without the Dunkirk evacuation.

The Royal Navy could have taken 4 to 1 losses vs Kreigsmarine and still been able to maintain operations in the Med vs Italy. The Germans had only one heavy cruiser, two light cruiser and four destroyers available immediately after the fall of France. D-Day the Allies had 5 battleships, 20 cruisers and 65 destroyers.

The German “plan” for invasion was designed to use a Dunkirk style cobbled up fleet primarily relying on river barges. They estimated they could land 100,000 soldiers in 10 days. The Allies landed nearly 160,000 in the first 24 hours of Overlord. Germany had less than 40 available minesweepers to clear a path to the invasion. The Allies used 350 ships to clear mines and it took about a month. Unlike the Germans the UK had tanks of oil on standby to dump at each potential land site and planned to set the slicks ablaze which would have been rather deadly for packed wooden barges.

The Luftwaffe could not have protected the landings. They lost 25% of their fighter pilots to death, injury, POW by July 1940. The Brits were out-numbered but each day built more fighters than Germany was building and any pilot shot down who escaped death or injury was stuck in a new plane. The Luftwaffe managed 327 sorties on D-Day vs about 14,000 by the Allies. Germany could not have achieved that sort of air dominance.

The civilian population of France was friendly to the Allies, that would not have been the case in Sea Lion.

It is likely that between the limited shipping capacity and Royal Navy and Royal Air Force that a German invasion force would quickly be out of food and ammunition and hurting for reinforcements.

Sea Lion was called off because they couldn’t gain air superiority, naval superiority and even with them needed at least 10 good weather days and an absolute minimum of three and had extremely limited access to any weather data west of the French Coast while the UK had weather data from Ireland, Iceland, Greenland, Canada, the US and convoys. They were looking at shooting into the dark. Remember their best guess at weather convinced them June 6 was a improbable date for attack.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Destroy the BEF on the beach and simply the threat of invasion is enough for Great Britain to sue for peace. As it stood even with the evacuation the Brits were scared enough that they resorted to building trucks armored only with concrete to serve as mobile pillboxes to fight the feared invasion.

The evacuation at Dunkirk gave the Brits exactly what they needed when they needed it most....hope.

Yes and No. A lot of the transcripts from those cabinet meetings in the UK right around the time of Dunkirk are available publicly now, and they make an interesting read.

Even with failure at Dunkirk, Britain's idea of peace and Hitler's were likely radically different. The people in the UK who supported appealing for peace believed that Germany would look to get out of the fight cleanly, and not request much in the way of reparations. Others were convinced that Germany would insist on the UK giving up a lot of its colonial territories in Africa and Asia, and there was little chance the British would ever do that.

If Hitler had come to the table with reasonable demands, there's a decent chance Britain gets out. That's a big ask though.

What would Hitler want in Africa other than the pre-war status quo? What could he have use for in Asia? That was the Japanese. The Middle East would be the only potential issue.

Hitler could have asked for the African colony that Germany lost from WWI, or more likely he probably would have taken over the French colonies in Africa plus some from Britain - maybe some of the British holdings in the ME. Russia likely does their own thing and the British sue for peace and the war ends up being Russia fighting alone. That all assumes the U.S. never enters the war. IMHO, the U.S. was the difference maker in both world wars. Without them, either you get a stalemate in WW1 or an Axis victory in WW2.
01-12-2018 01:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Love and Honor Offline
Skipper
*

Posts: 6,919
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 237
I Root For: Miami, MACtion
Location: Chicagoland
Post: #110
RE: Could the Axis powers have won WWII????
(01-12-2018 02:00 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  
(01-11-2018 11:17 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I haven't read the entire thread, but IMO the ultimate determinant on which side was going to win was whether the U.S. jumps into the war or stays out of it. If the Japanese never attack Hawaii and the U.S. are never drawn into the war, the Axis wins the war. Since the U.S. entered on the side of the Allies, the WWII would have been won by the allies sooner or later. The U.S.had attributes that the Axis could not overcome - like a large population base, significant natural resources, the best manufacturing base in the world and the advantage of being located far away from the major battlefields. Despite the late technological advances made by the Germans with the jet engine, V1 and V2 missiles and the research on the atomic bomb - all of that was too little and too late.

I imagine a lot of brits would roll their eyes at this statement, because its a very "American" way to view things. You are right in the sense that the US entering the war makes it almost impossible for the axis to win (And both Germany and Japan knew a war with the US was a losing battle) The thing is, I don't think the US stays out regardless.

It's very likely even without Pearl Harbor that the US enters the war eventually anyway. By the time Pearl Harbor happened, the US had already agreed to the land lease deal with Britain, and were already supplying the allied forces. Public Sentiment was already starting to turn in favor of fighting.

Even if you look at Europe, I think there is little chance the US stays neutral forever. FDR was convinced after Dunkirk that the Britiah would surrender. He had already begun to try and work out and arrangement for the UK to sail its Navy into American and Canadian harbors, so the Germans could not make use of them. Those are not actions of a "neutral country"

We were always looking for a way to enter that war. All we needed was a reason. Eventually that reason would have been provided...with or without Pearl Harbor.

I tend to agree with this sentiment. While imo FDR may have underestimated Stalin and didn't anticipate the scale of what the Cold War would become after his death, I think he and many within the government were aware of the threat Nazi Germany posed if left free to their own devices. Had they been allowed to continue unopposed and win the war you may have seen an alternate Iron Curtain of fascism emerge out of Europe and East Asia that would've been diametrically opposed to American values (especially given that the Holocaust wasn't going to remain a secret forever), and in that we would've had no choice but to fight unless we wanted to see the domino theory play out.

While I'm not a believer of the 'FDR knew about Pearl Harbor' theory, he had to have known that the oil embargo was going to have repercussions that were likely to hit the US and given us cause to enter. Hell, the US has gone to war over a lot less, something like the sinking of the USS Maine or the Gulf of Tonkin Incident was enough to incite wars under far less tense circumstances.
01-12-2018 05:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Native Georgian Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 27,519
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 1024
I Root For: TULANE+GA.STATE
Location: Decatur GA
Post: #111
RE: Could the Axis powers have won WWII????
(01-12-2018 12:07 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The biggest roadblock to entering was some of the wealthiest and most prominent Americans.
You had Ford and Lindbergh who supported Hitler.
Lindbergh did not “support Hitler.”
01-12-2018 07:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
rath v2.0 Offline
Wartime Consigliere
*

Posts: 51,151
Joined: Jun 2007
Reputation: 2150
I Root For: Civil Disobedience
Location: Tip Of The Mitt

Donators
Post: #112
RE: Could the Axis powers have won WWII????
Had Hitler accepted peace terms with russia and just left England an island before the Battle of Britain the game short play was over.

Pigs get fat and hogs get slaughtered along with innumerable other human misery.
01-12-2018 07:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #113
RE: Could the Axis powers have won WWII????
(01-12-2018 07:04 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 12:07 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The biggest roadblock to entering was some of the wealthiest and most prominent Americans.
You had Ford and Lindbergh who supported Hitler.
Lindbergh did not “support Hitler.”

We are talking about the guy who said the agitators to join the war were FDR, the British and the Jews?
01-14-2018 01:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Native Georgian Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 27,519
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 1024
I Root For: TULANE+GA.STATE
Location: Decatur GA
Post: #114
RE: Could the Axis powers have won WWII????
(01-14-2018 01:07 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 07:04 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 12:07 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The biggest roadblock to entering was some of the wealthiest and most prominent Americans.
You had Ford and Lindbergh who supported Hitler.
Lindbergh did not “support Hitler.”

We are talking about the guy who said the agitators to join the war were FDR, the British and the Jews?
Indeed.
01-15-2018 12:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #115
RE: Could the Axis powers have won WWII????
(01-14-2018 01:07 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 07:04 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 12:07 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The biggest roadblock to entering was some of the wealthiest and most prominent Americans.
You had Ford and Lindbergh who supported Hitler.
Lindbergh did not “support Hitler.”
We are talking about the guy who said the agitators to join the war were FDR, the British and the Jews?

Lindbergh supported neutrality, which I suppose was indirectly benefitting Hitler. But I'm not aware of his support for Hitler. He is from an area with a lot of people of German descent, and I think many of them emotionally supported Germany if not Hitler.
01-15-2018 12:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
miko33 Offline
Defender of Honesty and Integrity
*

Posts: 13,117
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 848
I Root For: Alma Mater
Location:
Post: #116
RE: Could the Axis powers have won WWII????
(01-12-2018 05:24 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 02:00 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  
(01-11-2018 11:17 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I haven't read the entire thread, but IMO the ultimate determinant on which side was going to win was whether the U.S. jumps into the war or stays out of it. If the Japanese never attack Hawaii and the U.S. are never drawn into the war, the Axis wins the war. Since the U.S. entered on the side of the Allies, the WWII would have been won by the allies sooner or later. The U.S.had attributes that the Axis could not overcome - like a large population base, significant natural resources, the best manufacturing base in the world and the advantage of being located far away from the major battlefields. Despite the late technological advances made by the Germans with the jet engine, V1 and V2 missiles and the research on the atomic bomb - all of that was too little and too late.

I imagine a lot of brits would roll their eyes at this statement, because its a very "American" way to view things. You are right in the sense that the US entering the war makes it almost impossible for the axis to win (And both Germany and Japan knew a war with the US was a losing battle) The thing is, I don't think the US stays out regardless.

It's very likely even without Pearl Harbor that the US enters the war eventually anyway. By the time Pearl Harbor happened, the US had already agreed to the land lease deal with Britain, and were already supplying the allied forces. Public Sentiment was already starting to turn in favor of fighting.

Even if you look at Europe, I think there is little chance the US stays neutral forever. FDR was convinced after Dunkirk that the Britiah would surrender. He had already begun to try and work out and arrangement for the UK to sail its Navy into American and Canadian harbors, so the Germans could not make use of them. Those are not actions of a "neutral country"

We were always looking for a way to enter that war. All we needed was a reason. Eventually that reason would have been provided...with or without Pearl Harbor.

I tend to agree with this sentiment. While imo FDR may have underestimated Stalin and didn't anticipate the scale of what the Cold War would become after his death, I think he and many within the government were aware of the threat Nazi Germany posed if left free to their own devices. Had they been allowed to continue unopposed and win the war you may have seen an alternate Iron Curtain of fascism emerge out of Europe and East Asia that would've been diametrically opposed to American values (especially given that the Holocaust wasn't going to remain a secret forever), and in that we would've had no choice but to fight unless we wanted to see the domino theory play out.

While I'm not a believer of the 'FDR knew about Pearl Harbor' theory, he had to have known that the oil embargo was going to have repercussions that were likely to hit the US and given us cause to enter. Hell, the US has gone to war over a lot less, something like the sinking of the USS Maine or the Gulf of Tonkin Incident was enough to incite wars under far less tense circumstances.

Regardless of what Hitler did, the U.S. was going to be dragged into WW2 because of the Japanese. In particular with the Japanese, I'm surprised that they chose to go after the U.S. as opposed to focusing more on Russia and the vast natural resources there. I don't know enough about the petroleum industry in the USSR during the 30s into the 40s, so perhaps the issue was that their energy supply was grossly underdeveloped compared to the U.S. and that was why Japan took the gambit of attacking the U.S. the USSR is right on their doorstep, and the red army was pretty weak when Hitler invaded.
01-16-2018 08:41 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,301
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #117
RE: Could the Axis powers have won WWII????
(01-16-2018 08:41 AM)miko33 Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 05:24 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 02:00 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  
(01-11-2018 11:17 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I haven't read the entire thread, but IMO the ultimate determinant on which side was going to win was whether the U.S. jumps into the war or stays out of it. If the Japanese never attack Hawaii and the U.S. are never drawn into the war, the Axis wins the war. Since the U.S. entered on the side of the Allies, the WWII would have been won by the allies sooner or later. The U.S.had attributes that the Axis could not overcome - like a large population base, significant natural resources, the best manufacturing base in the world and the advantage of being located far away from the major battlefields. Despite the late technological advances made by the Germans with the jet engine, V1 and V2 missiles and the research on the atomic bomb - all of that was too little and too late.

I imagine a lot of brits would roll their eyes at this statement, because its a very "American" way to view things. You are right in the sense that the US entering the war makes it almost impossible for the axis to win (And both Germany and Japan knew a war with the US was a losing battle) The thing is, I don't think the US stays out regardless.

It's very likely even without Pearl Harbor that the US enters the war eventually anyway. By the time Pearl Harbor happened, the US had already agreed to the land lease deal with Britain, and were already supplying the allied forces. Public Sentiment was already starting to turn in favor of fighting.

Even if you look at Europe, I think there is little chance the US stays neutral forever. FDR was convinced after Dunkirk that the Britiah would surrender. He had already begun to try and work out and arrangement for the UK to sail its Navy into American and Canadian harbors, so the Germans could not make use of them. Those are not actions of a "neutral country"

We were always looking for a way to enter that war. All we needed was a reason. Eventually that reason would have been provided...with or without Pearl Harbor.

I tend to agree with this sentiment. While imo FDR may have underestimated Stalin and didn't anticipate the scale of what the Cold War would become after his death, I think he and many within the government were aware of the threat Nazi Germany posed if left free to their own devices. Had they been allowed to continue unopposed and win the war you may have seen an alternate Iron Curtain of fascism emerge out of Europe and East Asia that would've been diametrically opposed to American values (especially given that the Holocaust wasn't going to remain a secret forever), and in that we would've had no choice but to fight unless we wanted to see the domino theory play out.

While I'm not a believer of the 'FDR knew about Pearl Harbor' theory, he had to have known that the oil embargo was going to have repercussions that were likely to hit the US and given us cause to enter. Hell, the US has gone to war over a lot less, something like the sinking of the USS Maine or the Gulf of Tonkin Incident was enough to incite wars under far less tense circumstances.

Regardless of what Hitler did, the U.S. was going to be dragged into WW2 because of the Japanese. In particular with the Japanese, I'm surprised that they chose to go after the U.S. as opposed to focusing more on Russia and the vast natural resources there. I don't know enough about the petroleum industry in the USSR during the 30s into the 40s, so perhaps the issue was that their energy supply was grossly underdeveloped compared to the U.S. and that was why Japan took the gambit of attacking the U.S. the USSR is right on their doorstep, and the red army was pretty weak when Hitler invaded.

The US had a navy in the Pacific and more importantly, the Phillipines. If the Phillipines were already independent, the Japanese may not have made the Pearl Harbor mistake and continued just fighting the British and Chinese. They had their hands full with that.
01-16-2018 12:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #118
RE: Could the Axis powers have won WWII????
(01-16-2018 08:41 AM)miko33 Wrote:  Regardless of what Hitler did, the U.S. was going to be dragged into WW2 because of the Japanese. In particular with the Japanese, I'm surprised that they chose to go after the U.S. as opposed to focusing more on Russia and the vast natural resources there. I don't know enough about the petroleum industry in the USSR during the 30s into the 40s, so perhaps the issue was that their energy supply was grossly underdeveloped compared to the U.S. and that was why Japan took the gambit of attacking the U.S. the USSR is right on their doorstep, and the red army was pretty weak when Hitler invaded.

The Wehrmact was defeated by the Russian winter, without every getting to Siberia. Japan would have had to work its way all the way across Siberia before getting to anything that was worthwhile. There's no way they could have maintained the necessary logistics pipeline to support that kind of operation with the infrastructure available to them in Siberia.
01-16-2018 01:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Love and Honor Offline
Skipper
*

Posts: 6,919
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 237
I Root For: Miami, MACtion
Location: Chicagoland
Post: #119
RE: Could the Axis powers have won WWII????
(01-16-2018 08:41 AM)miko33 Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 05:24 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  I tend to agree with this sentiment. While imo FDR may have underestimated Stalin and didn't anticipate the scale of what the Cold War would become after his death, I think he and many within the government were aware of the threat Nazi Germany posed if left free to their own devices. Had they been allowed to continue unopposed and win the war you may have seen an alternate Iron Curtain of fascism emerge out of Europe and East Asia that would've been diametrically opposed to American values (especially given that the Holocaust wasn't going to remain a secret forever), and in that we would've had no choice but to fight unless we wanted to see the domino theory play out.

While I'm not a believer of the 'FDR knew about Pearl Harbor' theory, he had to have known that the oil embargo was going to have repercussions that were likely to hit the US and given us cause to enter. Hell, the US has gone to war over a lot less, something like the sinking of the USS Maine or the Gulf of Tonkin Incident was enough to incite wars under far less tense circumstances.

Regardless of what Hitler did, the U.S. was going to be dragged into WW2 because of the Japanese. In particular with the Japanese, I'm surprised that they chose to go after the U.S. as opposed to focusing more on Russia and the vast natural resources there. I don't know enough about the petroleum industry in the USSR during the 30s into the 40s, so perhaps the issue was that their energy supply was grossly underdeveloped compared to the U.S. and that was why Japan took the gambit of attacking the U.S. the USSR is right on their doorstep, and the red army was pretty weak when Hitler invaded.

At the end of the day FDR and the higher-ups knew that Hitler in Europe was the bigger fish to fry. Japanese actions made it convenient for us to enter, but had they managed not to directly provoke us at some point point we would've gotten involved imo. Even if there was quite a bit of isolationist sentiment present within the population and Congress at the time, FDR would've had enough political clout to eventually push us into the war under similar justification as Wilson's "make the world safe for democracy" argument, combined with an appeal to humanitarian morality against a genocidal regime. The Selective Service Act was signed into law over a year before Pearl Harbor after all, and primarily in response to the fall of France.
01-16-2018 06:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #120
RE: Could the Axis powers have won WWII????
(01-16-2018 06:45 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  
(01-16-2018 08:41 AM)miko33 Wrote:  
(01-12-2018 05:24 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  I tend to agree with this sentiment. While imo FDR may have underestimated Stalin and didn't anticipate the scale of what the Cold War would become after his death, I think he and many within the government were aware of the threat Nazi Germany posed if left free to their own devices. Had they been allowed to continue unopposed and win the war you may have seen an alternate Iron Curtain of fascism emerge out of Europe and East Asia that would've been diametrically opposed to American values (especially given that the Holocaust wasn't going to remain a secret forever), and in that we would've had no choice but to fight unless we wanted to see the domino theory play out.

While I'm not a believer of the 'FDR knew about Pearl Harbor' theory, he had to have known that the oil embargo was going to have repercussions that were likely to hit the US and given us cause to enter. Hell, the US has gone to war over a lot less, something like the sinking of the USS Maine or the Gulf of Tonkin Incident was enough to incite wars under far less tense circumstances.

Regardless of what Hitler did, the U.S. was going to be dragged into WW2 because of the Japanese. In particular with the Japanese, I'm surprised that they chose to go after the U.S. as opposed to focusing more on Russia and the vast natural resources there. I don't know enough about the petroleum industry in the USSR during the 30s into the 40s, so perhaps the issue was that their energy supply was grossly underdeveloped compared to the U.S. and that was why Japan took the gambit of attacking the U.S. the USSR is right on their doorstep, and the red army was pretty weak when Hitler invaded.

At the end of the day FDR and the higher-ups knew that Hitler in Europe was the bigger fish to fry. Japanese actions made it convenient for us to enter, but had they managed not to directly provoke us at some point point we would've gotten involved imo. Even if there was quite a bit of isolationist sentiment present within the population and Congress at the time, FDR would've had enough political clout to eventually push us into the war under similar justification as Wilson's "make the world safe for democracy" argument, combined with an appeal to humanitarian morality against a genocidal regime. The Selective Service Act was signed into law over a year before Pearl Harbor after all, and primarily in response to the fall of France.

If Japan's Army hadn't stalled out on the Asian mainland, the Empire never would have had to turn west to meet their raw material needs.
01-17-2018 11:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.