Germany to Africa, how?

Oh yeah, I bet you can find tons of Axis equipment with Allied origins. I remember reading a book talking about Sea Lion and the Germans put together what very little landing craft they had and it turned out these craft in origin were all US and British that was sold prior to WWI.

@morrel:

russia didn’t border Czechoslovakia so direct support would have been through air power or invasion of someone else most likely         This was prior to the winter war with finland    I wonder how effective russian help would have been?

Russia didn’t border Spain either, but that didn’t stop them from sending a lot of tanks and planes to support the Republicans. But as in Finland, the russian help was not very effective. The russian “political officers” spent more time in purging western commies that had joined the International Brigade, than to fight the fascists. And unlike the Germans, the russian officers never learned any lesson in Spain.

Still pretty decisive. Imagine if it had lasted 10 days instead of 1. :-o

Read “world war 2 behind closed doors” by laurence rees

There was a secret part in the treaty between the french, british and poles which the brits and the french promised military assistance against a German attack not a Soviet attack and remember they did not help in the war between the poles in the soviets in late 1910’s and early 1920’s but instead suggested the curzon line (which the Molotov-Ribbentrop line basicly followed)

Also the soviets at Tehran were more interested in soviet post war borders than they were in actually winning the war and remember in 1943 this was not a certainty. They wanted to keep there pre 1941 gains.

This is just a brief overview of some othe parts of the book I suggest you read it. It is very good.

The brits and the french could have attacked the siegfried line before the germans finished it and probably would have been succesful and because they did not co-operate with the Belgium people (I don’t know the correct word) and the dutch because the later two did not want to appear co-operating with the allies because at that time they were neutral. The Germans had a brilliant strategy in attacking (the aaa territory North West Europe) and then following nit up with the tank drive through the ardennes they cut of the Elite French and British troops from the rest of the army. They shouldn’t have allowed Dunkirk and should have forced the British and French into the sea and this would come back to haunt them.

@calvinhobbesliker:

How did Poland provoke the Germans into attacking?

they didn’t, they just were in between…

@KurtGodel7:

@Imperious:

But short of that I think they could have won if Japan even made the gesture of attacking Russia.

The forces in the ‘far east’ didn’t cause Hitler to lose, Hitlers decision to attack Stalingrad and how he did it destroyed his chances in 1942.

In 1941 The winter caused Hitler to lose because he didn’t prepare for it and underestimated the Soviet army. Those forces were just icing on the cake used for the foiled counteroffensive, AFTER the Germans failed to take Moscow. The battles just before Moscow at Vyzma are the ones that cost the Germans too much time, so they didn’t get to Moscow in force after fighting 5 Soviet Armies.

“Contrary to German expectations, the encircled Soviet forces did not surrender easily. Instead, the fighting was fierce and desperate, and the Wehrmacht had to employ 28 divisions to eliminate the surrounded Soviet armies, using forces that were needed to support the offensive towards Moscow. The remnants of the Soviet Western and Reserve Fronts were able to retreat and consolidate their lines around Mozhaisk.[22]  Moreover, the surrounded Soviet forces were not completely destroyed, as some of the encircled troops escaped in groups ranging in size from platoons to full rifle divisions.[23]  Soviet resistance near Vyazma also provided time for the Soviet high command to quickly bring some reinforcements to the four armies defending the Moscow direction (namely, the 5th, 16th, 43rd and 49th), and to transport three rifle and two tank divisions from the Far East.”

I hardly think “three rifle and two tank divisions from the Far East” were the cause of the German failure. The weather and Hitlers unprepared logistics past a campaign of over 4 month duration were catastrophic.

If Japan attacked Russia it would have done nothing except expose yet another front to them and cause a 3 front war for Japan. The balance of the Soviet forces on the border were more than enough to wipe out the japanese Kwangtung army as they did in 1939.

Japan would gain nothing but another defeat, and tie up units that were used after Dec 41 in a protracted battle. Declaring war and doing nothing was not an option either. Stalin would go on the defensive if he was engaged with Germany. If Japan didn’t get her feet wet, the ploy would fail and 5 divisions still head toward Moscow. If they committed, it would have hastened japanese defeat in Asia. Stalin had more than enough forces for both once Moscow was protected.

You are obviously very familiar with this period of history. I think that the forces from the east to which the earlier poster was referring may have been the 100 divisions the Soviets shipped west during the winter of '41 - '42. After the Japanese attacked Britain and the U.S., Stalin knew they would have little attention to spare for a war against the Soviets.

I agree, however, that Stalin was probably guilty of being overly cautious on his eastern front, and that he could have safely sent large numbers of divisions westward against Germany regardless of what Japan did.

1905 may have played a role in Stalins units  in the East.

@ABWorsham:

Should the Italians and Germans occupied Tunisia in 1941? This would have given more airfields to attack Malta bound convoys, provided more ports for shipping, ports that were closer to the Apennine Peninsula. The addition of these ports would forced the British to hunt for shipping west of Malta, which could have helped ease the stress on Tripoli and Benghazi convoys.

Those might have proved to be advantages to the Axis, but they might have come at the cost of negative consequences that would have offset them.  Tunisia was a Vichy-controlled territory at the time.  If the Axis had invaded Tunisia, the Vichy regime would likely have regarded this as a breach of the 1940 armistice terms with Germany, and would probably have reacted in ways Germany would not have liked.  Remember that when the Allies invaded North Africa, Germany occupied the “unoccupied” Vichy-controlled southern part of France, to which France responded with the scuttle of its fleet at Toulon to keep it out of German hands.  France might have done the same thing if the Axis had walked into Tunisia in 1941, and might even have jumped to the Allied side entirely.  So the cost-benefit analysis of an Axis invasion of Tunisia involves some tricky might-have-beens.

No, The back half of russia is much like Alaska, a frozen wasteland. It would take them forever to get troops north of manchuria, and supplying them would be nearly impossible. There werent any natural resource up there so the japanese had no interest in “capturing” (if you can even call it that) north russia. It would be smarter to send troops into china or inda, where the resources were.