• As for Spain, history is basically in agreement that Franco wouldn’t join the Axis unless he got everything he wanted which was former French colonies in Africa and Gibraltar.

  • 2021 '18 '17

    Everyone has an interesting point of view and comments here.

    Moscow as a lynchpin, is given too much emphasis by its enemies, and by commentators before and since.  Yes, the loss of Moscow would have been a major blow to the USSR, but as the Ural-Plan and Barbarossa show, no one angle of attack or attained objective can put such a massive nation, industry and people out of the game no matter how much materiel is destroyed or relocated or manpower lost.  This also demonstrates why strategic bombing, destruction of physical assets (or even a nuclear attack) without more cannot defeat a nation in a total war.

    Moscow falls, symbolic victory etc. lets for the sake of argument presume that Stalingrad fell, now its 1942 and the German’s “won” at a massive cost in lives and materiel, and critically, time, and they still have many more such pyrrhic “victories” left to fight, attempting to hold and pacify such a gigantic nation.  Even if they’d kept Von Paulus’ Army, the armor, air and men were totally exhausted and its hard to imagine a cakewalk victory over any one of these theatres, much less all of them.  Without replacing the leadership that kept driving these pyrrhic and unsustainable efforts…how can we imagine a different set of outcomes?

    I don’t think the USSR or other Allies would have sought a peace, because there was no hope of constraining Germany to any borders or conditions by such a peace, and no way to enforce it without Germany first defeating itself through attrition.

    I don’t think war would not have ended there, ts equally plausible that even after 2 or even 10 such “victories” (and there were many victories) that there would be 10 more required to disintegrate the Soviet Union.    In fact, the national defense of the USSR seems to have solidified its philosophical conception, unified it, killed off a lot of potential opposition (in multiple ways) and probably empowered it quite a bit by focusing it on external, rather than internal strife.

    The idea that Japan could have effectively invaded the Soviet Union seems implausible.  1) there was nothing of economic or strategic interest in that area at that time for over a thousand miles west, endless untapped wilderness  2) Japanese power projection away from the sea and mechanization were deeply wanting whereas the Soviets had heaps of well-suited irregular troops and a sweet new railroad leading right to the front 3) all Japan’s efforts were long term tied up by a huge, endless intervention in the most populous nation on earth and could not be redirected without major consequences (loss of manchuquo, former UK areas) 4) Japan had looked from sea to land, land to sea, back and forth until they were defeated everywhere 5) both the USSR and USA dwarf Japan in terms of economic power and projection and those were all new all-in enemies for 1941.

    Even if they’d been foolish enough to attack, it still may have done little to affect the Russian economy, as they could simply scorch earth and hide behind literally thousands of miles of tundra and boreal forest without any roads.

    One last thing to mention is that the Axis’ and their leadership had great contempt for Russia and the United States, considering them weak and not unified.    This belief was a major undoing, as the conduct of the actual war did not support this view, at all.

  • '17 '16 '15

    @taamvan:

    …One last thing to mention is that the Axis’ and their leadership had great contempt for Russia and the United States, considering them weak and not unified.    This belief was a major undoing, as the conduct of the actual war did not support this view, at all.

    heh heh reminds me of a WW II German vet my OM worked with. He said “I was brought up to believe Americans were weak. Then i moved to Minnesota” lol


  • Well the reason why the Axis was foolish enough to think that the West and USSR wouldn’t work with each other is because the West tried to to destroy Communism in the 20-40’s by support the exact opposite side of any conflict involving Communism and you have to remember that the Axis and Allies had their military’s in the Soviet Union trying to destroy the Red Army while supporting the White Army during the Civil War.

    As for Germany conquest, Germany never intended to drive the Wehrmacht to Soviet Far East, they wanted the large cities in the west and push the Red Army pasted the Ural Mountains and just hold on those lands and hope USSR would eventually seek peace otherwise force to depend on attrition warfare as that was already working in favor for the Axis during the opening invasion. Japan just wanted to cease moment and invade USSR in the east if Stalingrad fell as they figured engaging Soviet Eastern Army would not have support in the long run and it would be easy for the Japanese navy to easily support the Army in the invasion. The real problem is that if USSR did get invaded by Japan, it would put USSR as a direct ally with the US in Asia so the question really would be, would Stalin allow US forces on Soviet lands?


  • Stalin would not have surrendered, and while the psychological impact of losing the capital sucks… that would not have won the Germans the war.  The biggest impact from losing Moscow would be that it was the central hub of the railways for the USSR.  That in and of itself may have caused Russia to collapse.  It would be like the U.S. losing Chicago.  While Chicago is an important US industrial city, the biggest ramification of its loss would be to cut the US in 2.

    I think it would have taken a one, two punch from losing Moscow and Stalingrad to force a Russian surrender.  Loss of its major rail hub and the Volga would have split up the Russians too much and Germany could have divided and conquered.


  • As for the statement that there isn’t resources in the eastern USSR that Japan couldn’t take is factually inaccurate, do people forget that Japan was in eastern USSR stealing coal until 1922?

  • 2021 '18 '17

    This is minor stuff though sir, in the 20th century world there were so many areas where they were driving back and forth over untold riches and resources they didn’t even know about (eg Libya)?


  • Sure however we’re taking about 1940’s when coal is a dominate resource, it still is for the most part today. My point is that Japan had reason to invade USSR and even though people will argue the claim, it doesn’t change the fact that Japan did have plans in place to invade USSR. And as I argued and this is something that Axis and Allies doesn’t teach is that Japan imperialism was for one simple reason at the end of the day, Japan was getting over populated and they needed more lands for cities and farms, simply conquering nations for their lands was good enough, that’s why they went into China.

  • 2021 '18 '17

    Those lebensraum arguments sound empty because their current populations are 100% greater than they were back then, and there is no problem whatsoever.  That had nothing to do with space or limited natural resources–it was technology they needed, not physical space.  They don’t even produce their own food (and didn’t then either).

    The green revolution was the solution, the idea that some kind of crowding or overpopulation makes zero sense when the world’s population has doubled (in spite of tens of millions of deaths during the war) and are far better fed than in the past.  The difference is that agricultural production takes a fraction of the effort/resources that it did in 1900, so there is plenty of food for everyone and they can stack up on top of each other as much as they want, because they’re not starving.

    The entire idea was a propaganda effort that focused on the myth of scarcity.  The development of nuclear weapon and power should emphasize that it was technology that was the limiting factor on available power, inputs, not space or a lack of production.


  • @Caesar:

    As for Spain, history is basically in agreement that Franco wouldn’t join the Axis unless he got everything he wanted which was former French colonies in Africa and Gibraltar.

    Didn’t Hitler send admiral Canaris to Madrid to get Franco to fully commit, with Canaris then doing the exact opposite telling Franco to stay out at all cost?

  • '17 '16 '15

    yea Y think Spain was war weary after their civil war. Surprising Franco lasted as long as he did : )

  • 2021 '19 '18 '17

    @8thGuards:

    @Caesar:

    As for Spain, history is basically in agreement that Franco wouldn’t join the Axis unless he got everything he wanted which was former French colonies in Africa and Gibraltar.

    Didn’t Hitler send admiral Canaris to Madrid to get Franco to fully commit, with Canaris then doing the exact opposite telling Franco to stay out at all cost?

    That is my understanding but I don’t have any sources for that.

    -Midnight_Reaper


  • If moscow would have fell it would have caused a huge logistic nightmare for the russians while at the same time helping german logistics.

    Leninggrad would have surely fallen if germany would have accepted its surender so then germany could safely use ships and trains to move large quantities of supplies to the front. Compared to horse drawn carts this is a huge improvement.

    Stalinggrad and the caucasus where also supplied through moscow so there the russians would also have lost a great part of their logistics and most likely the region.

    If the germans also would have been better to the russians they captured they would not have had many partisans behind their lines making logistics a lot easier for them.

    Stalin was already sueing for peace before moscow was under threat if they would have taken it and offered decent terms of surrender most likely europe would have been united 50 years ealier and with 1 language iso 10.

  • 2021 '19 '18 '17 '16

    Nazi Germany couldn’t afford to roll with the partisans neither!

    Sueing for peace? Yeah to backstab Nazi Germany of course…. :lol:


  • @Midnight_Reaper:

    @8thGuards:

    @Caesar:

    As for Spain, history is basically in agreement that Franco wouldn’t join the Axis unless he got everything he wanted which was former French colonies in Africa and Gibraltar.

    Didn’t Hitler send admiral Canaris to Madrid to get Franco to fully commit, with Canaris then doing the exact opposite telling Franco to stay out at all cost?

    That is my understanding but I don’t have any sources for that.

    -Midnight_Reaper

    The book Hitlers Krieger by Guido Knopp


  • Stalin would have relocated to Central Asia, Siberia, or Kazakhstan and continued the Great Patriotic War. More partisans would’ve sprung up, and they would have continued destroying supply lines. Only now, the Germans are deep into Russia, where the terrain is even less friendly to attacking armies, so the damage would have been worse. A hypothetical German invasion of Central Asia and western Siberia would’ve been tricky, but they’d have been able to do it. The real question is whether they would have been able to hold it long-term, and the answer is no. Although the Red Army itself couldn’t have ejected them, partisans could have made this far-off occupation just not worthwhile.


  • @AxisAndAllies1940:

    Stalin would have relocated to Central Asia, Siberia, or Kazakhstan and continued the Great Patriotic War. More partisans would’ve sprung up, and they would have continued destroying supply lines. Only now, the Germans are deep into Russia, where the terrain is even less friendly to attacking armies, so the damage would have been worse. A hypothetical German invasion of Central Asia and western Siberia would’ve been tricky, but they’d have been able to do it. The real question is whether they would have been able to hold it long-term, and the answer is no. Although the Red Army itself couldn’t have ejected them, partisans could have made this far-off occupation just not worthwhile.

    All sources ( I can’t site any off the top of my head ) has stated that Germany had no plans to drive into the Asian part of USSR, they only wanted the west side of it and was going to hold on it.

  • '19 '18 '17 '16 '15 '14 '12

    @Caesar:

    @AxisAndAllies1940:

    Stalin would have relocated to Central Asia, Siberia, or Kazakhstan and continued the Great Patriotic War. More partisans would’ve sprung up, and they would have continued destroying supply lines. Only now, the Germans are deep into Russia, where the terrain is even less friendly to attacking armies, so the damage would have been worse. A hypothetical German invasion of Central Asia and western Siberia would’ve been tricky, but they’d have been able to do it. The real question is whether they would have been able to hold it long-term, and the answer is no. Although the Red Army itself couldn’t have ejected them, partisans could have made this far-off occupation just not worthwhile.

    All sources ( I can’t site any off the top of my head ) has stated that Germany had no plans to drive into the Asian part of USSR, they only wanted the west side of it and was going to hold on it.

    Look no further Caesar Seriona: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-A_line

    It was the Arkhangelsk-Astrakhan line, the line of optimal advance according the Germans at the start of Barbarossa.

    Re: Germany’s ability to occupy the conquered parts of Russia, let’s be serious: they would have exterminated every village/farm/town that fostered partisans.

    The reason insurgencies tend to succeed against the West is that Western powers are too crippled by moral expectations about their own behavior.  The US could end the Taliban in Afghanistan if we wanted by exterminating the bases of support among the people, even if that mean a number of “innocent” people were swept up too.  But of course we can’t because of popular reaction by our own citizens and allies.

    Germany would not have faced this problem.  They weren’t interested in fostering allies among the eastern untermensch.  They were to be slaves or liquidated.  The Germans thus could and would have stacked the bodies even higher than they did.  Whatever insurgency would have eventually faded.  Can’t run a rebellion if you don’t have any warm bodies left.


  • The irony too is that I also do not believe Germany was going to keep USSR territory in Russia itself. The reason I can state that with some logic is because of the Axis powers openly and willing recruiting former Red Army soldiers and pilots who were anti Stalin or Pro Russia. Granted, it would be a puppet state to Germany but history of WWII says that Germany isn’t against doing that.


  • @Caesar:

    @AxisAndAllies1940:

    Stalin would have relocated to Central Asia, Siberia, or Kazakhstan and continued the Great Patriotic War. More partisans would’ve sprung up, and they would have continued destroying supply lines. Only now, the Germans are deep into Russia, where the terrain is even less friendly to attacking armies, so the damage would have been worse. A hypothetical German invasion of Central Asia and western Siberia would’ve been tricky, but they’d have been able to do it. The real question is whether they would have been able to hold it long-term, and the answer is no. Although the Red Army itself couldn’t have ejected them, partisans could have made this far-off occupation just not worthwhile.

    All sources ( I can’t site any off the top of my head ) has stated that Germany had no plans to drive into the Asian part of USSR, they only wanted the west side of it and was going to hold on it.

    I did not know that. One learns something new every day, thanks for that bit of info!

    Isn’t it possible that mass partisan activity could have simply made the German holdings in Russia untenable over time? I mean, the destruction of ALL towns and farms and cities (as was Hitler’s plan), would have made occupation difficult at best, as there would be zero supplies for an army of over a million men (3000000 started 0n June 22), and it would be fairly easy to cut a supply line stretching from Berlin to Moscow. Plus, the USSR’s roads were dreadful, making supplying this army trickier.


  • @AxisAndAllies1940:

    @Caesar:

    @AxisAndAllies1940:

    Stalin would have relocated to Central Asia, Siberia, or Kazakhstan and continued the Great Patriotic War. More partisans would’ve sprung up, and they would have continued destroying supply lines. Only now, the Germans are deep into Russia, where the terrain is even less friendly to attacking armies, so the damage would have been worse. A hypothetical German invasion of Central Asia and western Siberia would’ve been tricky, but they’d have been able to do it. The real question is whether they would have been able to hold it long-term, and the answer is no. Although the Red Army itself couldn’t have ejected them, partisans could have made this far-off occupation just not worthwhile.

    All sources ( I can’t site any off the top of my head ) has stated that Germany had no plans to drive into the Asian part of USSR, they only wanted the west side of it and was going to hold on it.

    I did not know that. One learns something new every day, thanks for that bit of info!

    Isn’t it possible that mass partisan activity could have simply made the German holdings in Russia untenable over time? I mean, the destruction of ALL towns and farms and cities (as was Hitler’s plan), would have made occupation difficult at best, as there would be zero supplies for an army of over a million men (3000000 started 0n June 22), and it would be fairly easy to cut a supply line stretching from Berlin to Moscow. Plus, the USSR’s roads were dreadful, making supplying this army trickier.

    Germany was already building newer roads and rails lines in the territory they secured so given time, they might of had some kind of Wehrmacht highway.

Suggested Topics

  • 8
  • 913
  • 19
  • 1
  • 1
  • 3
  • 147
  • 3
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

76
Online

15.8k
Users

37.3k
Topics

1.6m
Posts