Slitherine

Without the intervention of the US, and with different German policies in the conquered eastern territories (ie: without Hitler) leading to the collapse of Russian resistance or even cooperation with some former Soviet "states", the Germans and the English would probably have ended up facing each other across the channel, neither capable of doing more than steady harassment by air and sea. While the Germans would have suffered catastrophic losses by trying to make the crossing, the same could be said for the British. With all of Europe under its control, and England unable to muster enough manpower by itself to attack the mainland, I'd call that a fairly substantial German victory.

The war was not "winnable" by the Axis using the standard game conditions of "occupy London and Washington DC", but could have been fought to a standstill, where the Atlantic and the English Channel would have become one giant "no-man's-land".

Would there have been war in the first place if Hitler wasn't the Hitler of history?

So in this game format: Axis hold Berlin, Rome, Paris and Moscow....Axis victory with 2 points. Allies hold Washington D.C. and London and even if they should get either Paris or Rome, but not both (Allies=1 point),... they(the Axis) still win, 2 to 1.

stalins_organ wrote:Would there have been war in the first place if Hitler wasn't the Hitler of history?

Absolutely. WWII was a natural and inevitable continuation of WWI.

First, let's review the way WWI ended. Actually, before that, let's review the way WWI started.

OK, so Archduke Ferdinand was killed by a serbian anarchist in Sarajevo.

For reasons that are not immediately obvious to me, all the nations of europe took this as a signal to "mobilise". Now, let's remember that at this time every militarily significant nation in europe used some variant of the "Prussian Reserve System". (For that matter, the same is still true today.)

Under this system, all able-bodied men without an exemption did 2 years (more or less) active duty in the armed forces, and were then discharged into the reserves. These reserves were then active until the age of 50.

If your neighbor mobilised all his reserves, and you didn't, then your small peace-time army was going to face his equivalent peace-time army bolstered by reserve units that numbered 10-20 times as many.

Say you both have an active-duty component of 10,000. Then Slobovia next door calls up its reserves of 90,000. Do you want to fight his 100,000 men with your 10,000? No, so you have to mobilise as soon as Slobovia does.

There remains some doubt as to who mobilised first in 1914. Official history says the germans did. Then again, as a historian, I can tell you that the losers always get blamed for starting the war

None the less, once one major european nation had mobilised, all the others had to.

Great, then everybody was mobilised. Now, what happens to a modern industrial economy when almost all able-bodied males between the ages of 18 and 50 have been "called to the colors"? Right, it goes into a nosedive. Nobody can build anything because all their workers are off playing soldier.

Yes, yes, of course there are means of partial remediation. Women can work, the elderly can work, the handicapped can work, some men will have exemptions, etc. But the effect remains severe.

Once the armies of europe were mobilised, war was inevitable. Nobody could afford to sit there and glare at each other endlessly, and nobody could risk being first to de-mobilise.

Yes, the germans attacked first. But this does not mean that WWI was their "fault" in the sense that WWII (in europe) clearly was if viewed in isolation.

As long as I've gone and mentioned the word "fault", let me go ahead and record my personal opinion that neither World War was anyone's "fault". WWI just happened, and WWII was inevitable because of the way that WWI ended.

OK, let's fast-forward to 1917. Germany was pinched by blockade. Her armies had been on the defensive for roughly 2 years now. Despite all the mud, blood, and slaughter, the stalemate was seemingly unbreakable. At Passchendaele the Allies took 51,000 casualties to advance 2 miles/3.2 kilometers. Total casualties for the battle, both killed and wounded, ran to 450,000 allies and 260,000 germans. It was at this time, (July 1917), that Mustard gas was first used.

Now, with the collapse of Russian resistance after the October Revolution in 1917, Germany was able to withdraw those eastern front troops, rest and re-equip them, and most importantly train them in the new "Hutier tactics", so called after Oskar von Hutier, and commonly today called infiltration tactics.

On March 21 1918, Germany launched Operation Michael, using the new tactics, and for the first time in 4 years the stalemate was broken. By May, the Germans were driving on Paris. Yes, May of 1918! Indeed, only a heroic action by the US Marines at Belleau Wood stopped the German offensive and saved Paris.

Let me offer you this quote from the wikipedia entry on Belleau Wood -

On 6 June, the casualties were the highest in Marine Corps history (and remained so until the capture of Tarawa in November 1943).[4] Overall, the woods were taken by the Marines (and the US Army 3rd Infantry Brigade) a total of six times before they could successfully expel the Germans. They fought off more than four divisions of Germans, often reduced to using only their bayonets or fists in hand-to-hand combat. In order to rally his platoon of pinned-down Marines, Gunnery Sergeant Dan Daly encouraged them with what would become another famous phrase "Come on, you sons of bitches, do you want to live forever?"


None the less, by July, the German offensive was completely stalled. On November 11th of 1918, the armistice was signed, ending WWI for Germany. Yes, I'm glossing right over the Allied introduction of tanks in 1918, the German Revolution, the Kaiser's flight to the Netherlands, and all that. This post has gotten too damn long already!

OK, a few points that need making here.

1. Unlike the end of WWII, when Germany's armies were scattered and her territory occupied, the end of WWI saw Germany with her armies still in the field, and not much of her territory under enemy control.

2. Within 6 months of the end of the war, Germany had threatened the Allies with defeat.

3. Unlike WWII, when Germany was attacked from both east and west, the late stages of WWI saw Germany with a totally secure eastern border, and successfully holding a limited front from the sea to the northern end of the Ardennes.

Holy ****, this post has turned into War & Peace!

Right, the end of WWI inevitably led to WWII because the treaty of Versailles humiliated Germany without permanently neutralising her. Had the treaty been less harsh, perhaps WWII could have been avoided. But the massive reparations Germany had to pay to France caused the rampant inflation that led to the collapse of the Weimar republic, thus paving the way for the rise to power of the National Socialists.

And it gave every patriotic German abundant reason to hate France.

Germany did not start out looking to reconquer the world until Hitler was in power. There was no great nationalistic ferver before then - Hitler pretty much bought it into existance, then fanned it and rode it. Without him what is the political course that leads to war?

Certainly Germany had not been occupied in WW1, but it was only some sections of the country that believed in the "stab in the back" theory. Without Hitler you have large Communist and Social democrat parties that are not interested in war.

Instead you probably have negotiated reoccupation of Saarland - probably a few years later than hitler did it. You do not have Chezchoslovakia dismembered, you do not have the Anschluss with Austria - and you do not have a close relationship with fascist Italy - indeed Fascist movements all over Europe look to hte Italian model rather than hte Nazi one.

And you do not have German forces fighting in the Spanish Civil War.

without Hitler and German rearmament is much slower, the German state is not nearly bankrupt in 1940 and there is no economic pressure for war.

Without Hitler you simply do not have the situation that Germany was in from 1933-1939, and without that whole scenario you do not get WW2 in Europe.

You get something else - possibly Soviet invasion, and you might still get Japan vs America & the UK in the Pacific.....but probably not - Japan could not afford to fight if there wasn't a war in Europe already and might have to back out of China! Maybe Germany finds another nationalistic leader - but if that happens then there's a delay - maybe WW2 in 1950?

Too many it's and buts on what might have happened - but what is certain is that Germany would not have gone on the rampage as it did under Hitler.

Stalin - are you playing the Beta? If so, want to try a PBEM game?

First, the network of alliances before WWI left Europe divided into two distinct "camps", with a number of nations unaligned. When Austria declared war over the assasination of the Archduke and the subsequent lack of an apology, the other countries were bound by treaty to follow. Most of the countries went into the war with high expectations and no clue as to how horrifyingly deadly warfare had become with the large-scale deployment of artillery and the machinegun.

Near the end of WWI, Germany was no longer able to muster the manpower or resources needed to "win" the war, and found itself unable to borrow more money to finance further military spending, which was one of several reasons they sought an armistice. Repayment of the loans had been contingent upon using captured resources and "reparations" from occupied countries, which was no longer a realistic scenario. The resentment against the bankers who refused to throw good money after bad led to hostility against "Jewish" bankers, even though they weren't the only ones to refuse further financing.

War reparations led to massive inflation and severe depression in Germany, which in turn caused social chaos and violence. The established political parties were only able to promise more of the same, because the cause was "unsolvable". Only someone willing to risk another war by refusing further payments was able to get Germany out of the terminal decline, and if Hitler had not done it, another fanatical "crazy" would have, sooner or later. While his willingness to risk everything based on his assessment of the reactions by the Allies led to a rapid German recovery, the same willingness also led to the occupations of Czechoslovakia, the Saarland, and eventually war against Poland. The unstable situation was there regardless of who was in control, the manner in which it was handled it was largely dependent on the personality involved, which was almost guaranteed to become volatile.

Oh, BRAVO, Honvedseg! Well said, well said indeed

You make my point more concisely than I could have done myself.

Since this discussion turned this way, I've been reading up, trying to imagine who would have wound up at the head of the National Socialists in Germany in the absence of Hitler.

Ernst Rohm is one possibility, but Rohm was actually a Socialist, and took socialism seriously. This made him less acceptable to the military and the industrialists who were some of Hitler's major backers.

I almost cringe at mentioning an RTS game in the context of such a scholarly discussion, but what the hell. Iain worked on C&C Red Alert, so I guess that makes it semi-legit in this forum

The basic premise of C&C:Red Alert was that Hitler was "out of ze vay" as of 1923 or so. And that the 1940's saw the western allies, including a weaker Germany, defending europe against a soviet invasion.

Let's return (for a moment) from fantasy to history. Rudel, the stuka legend, states quite unequivocally in his memoirs that what he saw during the early stages of Barbarossa convinced him Stalin was preparing to invade europe.

Ah well, as S-O pointed out above, historical what-if's are useful when one step removed from reality, but as soon as you go two or three steps away from reality, the whole exercise starts to degenerate into fantasy

seamonkey wrote:So in this game format: Axis hold Berlin, Rome, Paris and Moscow....Axis victory with 2 points. Allies hold Washington D.C. and London and even if they should get either Paris or Rome, but not both (Allies=1 point),... they(the Axis) still win, 2 to 1.

correct, axis wins holding 3 primary capitals.

Pretty straight forward strategy and historical, if I do say so myself.

Axis objectives, conquer France and go after USSR, no need for Sealion, or anything else for that matter.

Fortify France concentrating fortifications around Paris on the way to Moscow, no need to actually take the Russian capital, just keep the Red Army at bay until the clock runs out.

Italy builds a navy and fortifies the Boot.

Perhaps easier said than done!

The greatest threat to Hitler, personally, was his own army. At least three serious attempts were made on his life with the involvement of one or more German generals, and two of those attempts failed only due to odd coincidences. In one case, a bomb was planted on the plane which he arrived on, but due to a minor oil leak he used an alternate aircraft on the return flight. Late in the war, a bomb detonated in the podium from which he was speaking, just as he stepped aside for a drink of water behind a heavy pillar; it was still powerful enough to permanently impair his one arm. Assuming that one of the attempts in '41 or earlier had "removed" him, the war might have played out quite a bit differently.

The Soviet Union put a huge amount of effort into a monumental defensive line several hundred miles deep into their territory, which was only partially finished and left almost deserted by the Russian army when the Germans pushed through. A large portion of the Russian forces had moved up toward the border in the month or so preceeding the German Barbarossa offensive, although ammunition in many cases had not yet been allotted to the freshly moved Russian units. What other reason would prompt such a move forward, ahead of a prepared defensive line, if not an impending offensive campaign?

You should never discount stupidity as a reason for an otherwise unexplainable move.