[Oxymoron]

direct result... nearly two decades later, with several changes of leadership? Keeping in mind that with the partial exception of Mongolia, none of those Soviet acts of aggression had been successful. Or that Nazi Germany happily facilitated Soviet ambitions in the Baltics when it suited them.

two decades later? FInland was in 38.

[Smilin' Dave]

two decades later? FInland was in 38.

... no it wasn't:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_war

Date 30 November 1939 – 13 March 1940

Which is after WWII had commenced. The only other conflict was during the Finnish Civil War, which ended in 1918, and some uprisings in Eastern Karelia which were supported by the Finns which still were over by 1922 at the latest.

It would be a better argument to say that it was Nazi Germany's aggression that facilitated the Soviets, rather than the other way around.

[Oxymoron]

World war 2 started after Poland.


If you think Russias actions in the Baltic,Mongolia,and Finland didnt lead to German movement east then your delusional.

[Wolfman]

Hitler talked about the need to take over Russia and murder or deport to uninhabitable areas in Mein Kampf. In 1926. If you think Russia's actions in the immediate pre-war era led to Nazi Germany invading Russia then you're delusional. And WWII started with the German Invasion of Poland, not after.

[Oxymoron]

Hitler talked about the need to take over Russia and murder or deport to uninhabitable areas in Mein Kampf. In 1926. If you think Russia's actions in the immediate pre-war era led to Nazi Germany invading Russia then you're delusional. And WWII started with the German Invasion of Poland, not after.

right poland was after Finland.

Wet dreams dont equal actual plans Wolf, hitler would not invade Russia if russia was not a threat, an agressive threat. A threat that had the biggest tank fleet, the biggest air force, and one that was reorganizing and becoming dangerouls given that and add their aggression, Germany took the gamble of trying to win the coming war with Russia before Russia was unstopable force that would swallow Germany and rest of Europe. Germany was forced into WW2.

[Wolfman]

Wet dreams dont equal actual plans Wolf, hitler would not invade Russia if russia was not a threat, an agressive threat. A threat that had the biggest tank fleet, the biggest air force, and one that was reorganizing and becoming dangerouls given that and add their aggression, Germany took the gamble of trying to win the coming war with Russia before Russia was unstopable force that would swallow Germany and rest of Europe.

Hitler invaded a lot of countries that were not a threat. Or do you think Denmark, Austria, Norway, or, fuck, any of the countries that Germany invaded except France.

Germany was forced into WW2.

Oh great, a Jewish Neo-Nazi. Now I've seen it all.

[Oxymoron]

Hitler invaded a lot of countries that were not a threat. Or do you think Denmark, Austria, Norway, or, fuck, any of the countries that Germany invaded except France.

Austria welcomed Hitler.


Others were needed to eliminate the threat of the antagonistic France, and lower Englands influence on the continent. They were not the targets, rather Germany had no choice or live under Franco/Anglo dominance forever.

Oh great, a Jewish Neo-Nazi. Now I've seen it all.

How am I a Neo Nazi? I am just stating my opinion given the information. Also Russia was not a fan of my people, who did the pogroms?

[pugsville]

Some Austrians welcomed Hitler. Any expression that Hitler wasnt welcome was asking to be sent to a concentration camp at best. Hitler get a majority of support in Germany under free elections. The exact amount of support in Austria is hard to judge.

The Nazis were aggressive and expansionist. To claim that the Nazi's were forced to invade Denmark, Norway, Greece, Belgium. Czechoslovakia, Poland, Yugoslavia, Greece, Netherlands is to distort history and be a Nazi apologist.

Hitler like most of the word simply did not rate the Red Army. One swift kick and the whole rotten structure collapses was his opinion. It wasnt fear of Soviet Aggression.

[Wolfman]

How am I a Neo Nazi? I am just stating my opinion given the information.

The information you have is incredibly wrong. In order for Germany to have waged ongoing war they had to capture the Russian oil fields. Period. The militarism of Germany was pretty much going to flop on its own if they couldn't control those fields. And yes, it was militarism. Hitler wanted territory for Germany, and he took it. He said he wanted to recapture all of the German speaking territories and punish Russia, France, and the UK for WWI in Mein Kampf, in countless speeches, in his papers, and he went out and did it. What you are saying, in claiming that Germany was forced into WWII, is something no accepted historian claims. The only people who say these things are Neo-Nazis.

Also Russia was not a fan of my people, who did the pogroms?

Oh don't wet yourself. The highest estimate for the numbers of Jewish deaths in pogroms is in the low thousands, which were disorganized and sporadic. The Nazis killed half of the Jews in Europe, as you may recall.

[Smilin' Dave]

World war 2 started after Poland.

Fantastic we're making progress. Now, if you get a calender out and perhaps do two seconds of research, you'll realise that Poland was invaded on the 1st of September 1939. Finland was not invaded until November 1939 (and just to be really clear, the campaign in Poland was over in October). That's after France and Britain had declared war on Germany, so that's after WWII began.

If you think Russias actions in the Baltic,Mongolia,and Finland didnt lead to German movement east then your delusional.

So, first you tell me the Soviets invaded Finland in 1938. Then you tell me that despite it actually occuring in 1939, and in fact occuring after WWII had officially started with the invasion of Poland, that somehow you're still right. You think Nazi policy in 1939 was driven by events that hadn't actually happened yet, probably wouldn't happened were it not for Nazi policy in the first place and had no real equivilent action after the early 1920s. I don't think I'm the one experiencing delusion here.

and add their aggression

Much of which had been agreed to with the Nazis in advance. The only items not covered by the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was the invasion of Finland (though again, parts of Finland were placed in the Soviet "sphere of influence" by the agreement) and some of the territory annexed from Romania (Bukovina, Bessarabia was signed off on). If Hitler was really concerned about Soviet aggression, he wouldn't have teamed up with the Soviets to destroy Poland, which placed the Red Army even closer to Germany.

Germany was forced into WW2.

Germany actually engineered its own entry into WWII with the Gleiwitz incident far from being forced. This was then compounded with further pieces of stupid aggression like invading all of Poland and France. We'll call Denmark and Norway a wash, because the British were probably planning to 'intervene' there too.

Others were needed to eliminate the threat of the antagonistic France, and lower Englands influence on the continent. They were not the targets, rather Germany had no choice or live under Franco/Anglo dominance forever.

Czechoslovakia was not a threat, in fact the only threat it represented was if the Germans had opted for an invasion, because then their defensive lines might have actually done something. Instead the French and British, far from being antagonistic, did a deal and essentially screwed over the Czechoslovak government. The invasion of Norway and Denmark had nothing to do with France or British influence and everything to do with securing iron ore supplies (needed for Germany's war industry...). Belgium and Holland were similarly not a threat to Germany in any sense, instead they were invaded to facilitate a broader invasion, again not for political reasons.

Tell us Oxy, how had Anglo-French 'dominance' effected Germany in the interwar years? See if you can answer this without referring to something with a military dimension, because making war for the right to the means of making war makes no sense.

[Oxymoron]

I appologize, I screwed up the dates and shit. You are right, my argument is kind of weak, perhaps I should better say that both parties had a large role in the enivitable conflict between Facists and communists.

[Far-Right Sage]

How? The Germans didn't have the capacity to support a larger force in North Africa. There were not enough ports, not enough ships, and even if you can get material and men to North Africa, getting it all up one road is a nightmare. Any delay to negate British advantages in the region (naval bases, airbases etc.) just gives them more time to dig in and build up their land forces in North Africa.

The British could have built up their forces until the cows came home, but the reality is that German forces only lost the initiative in North Africa because millions and millions in men and materiale was now tied to the Eastern Front. Axis forces were still delivering crippling defeats on land in Tunisia as late as '43, even after the disaster at Stalingrad. Without this theatre, there is no way no how that the British would have maintained control of Egypt with German forces pouring in, millions more in numbers, from Italian Libya.

This fantasy is also incompatible with Kirby's. Super-peaceful Hitler still has an amazing war machine for some reason? Please.

I never once stated I suscribed to any such scenario; you so arrogantly assigned it to me, and it's a very puerile method of debate.

The infrastructure for a push into the Middle East via Egypt is even worse than in North Africa, especially if you assume the British were willing to destroy infrastructure rather than let Germany have it, which was pretty much the plan anyway.

With German control over Suez and Egypt proper, the time required to repair, rebuild, and create alternate infrastructure would be an inconvenience, not a sign of defeat. The British could have shoved as many Indian conscripts as they could find into Iraq and Palestine, but this was not even practical considering the superior British position in our own timeline.

Also making a dash for the oil fields pretty well guarantees US intervention. They've got an interest in the oil fields of the Middle East already, and their only previous barrier had been the British. As much as they might have disliked the British Empire, a Nazi Empire bent on autarky (again, see the Hossbach Memorandum) wasn't going to be a better partner in the Middle East.

And once Axis forces were moving freely throughout Egypt, with the time constraints and logisics of mobilization and expedition, the U.S. would have been hard pressed to make a quick and decisive impact in the Middle East. As I highlighted earlier, considering the U.S. performance in the Battle of the Kasserine Pass and the undoubtably inferior German position at the time, that scenario doesn't make much logical sense.

A lack of troops was never the issue that prevented an occupation of Spain and Portugal

I'm aware of this, but lack of troops among other things was what prevented a far more extensive and comprehensive anti-British effort on the continent and in the Mediterranean between '40 and '43.

it was strictly political (well that and occupied Spain probably would have been a weeping sore of insurgency but anyway...).

An insurgency of ex-Republican soldiers, anarchist ideologues, etc. that posed no serious challenge to the legitimacy or effective qualities of Franco's government. Why would they be a serious challenge for a joint German and Italian occupation force? And if you are assuming that an Axis presence, whether hostile or upon invitation, would have reignited Spanish political tensions, it would be nothing worse than what was being dealt with in Yugoslavia with Tito's Partisans or the Polish Underground Army in the General Government.

Knocking out Gibraltar would have been a good strategic move, but any other gain of occupying Spain etc. would have been negligble.

How so? Physical control of Spain, Portugal, Italy, and Greece, all of Latin Europe, in addition to a far more likely successful siege and conquest of Malta in that scenario seems to put German forces on a much better footing with respect to Mediterranean operations.

Oh, and it would have alienated the other Axis powers and potentially friendly neutrals, which would probably be an issue further down the line.

I fail to see how it would have alienated allies such as the Romanians, the Hungarians, or the Slovaks, for example, and these continental allies (and the Slovak Republic was essentially a client) would be even less important without the need for men, far more extensive resources, and broad cooperation that the Eastern Front demanded of its participants.

As for neutrals, there would be very few left. Switzerland would have done nothing and were the Swedish to take a hostile tone, they wouldn't have a military position to negotiate from.

And again, incompatible with Kirby's peaceful Hitler.

Entirely irrelevant.

And 'but I'm talking about something else' isn't an excuse, you posted in this thread, you can stick with the OP.

What are you talking about?

My first post here was in response to some of Gandalf's comments. You are creating a position for me which doesn't exist and never existed. Quite bizarre indeed.

[pugsville]

Millions of Axis Troops in North Africa? Really? Laughable. Critical shortages of shipping, port capacity, trucks, roads, absence of railways etc. Maybe if they were organized they could have supported another 2-3 high quality divisions. The British had plenty of resources scattered around the Globe that could have been committed in the Axis increased their forces , British forces would be increased. Result is not certain and subject to a lot of debate. Many people start wild posts about the a mythical Axis "southern" or Med strategy and it's normaly with complete ignorance about Logistical constraints. Millions of troops in Africa. L A U G H A B L E.

Tunisia is not Libya, it had much greater infrastructure and was a much easier place to support troops. They also were not trucking supplies vast distances once they get to North Africa. Situation in Tunisia very different to pushing troops into Egypt.

IF Spain was aligned with the Axis, the Allies would be almost certainly lose Gibraltar but aside from that what does it achieve? It does not get the Axis more resources, or deny them to the Allies. It would present problems. The Spanish economy was dependent on imports. The Loss of Oil imports would have bad effects on the Spanish economy. Any alignment of Spain would involve quite a bit of giving, Franco wanted a lot. Trouble with the Vichy French and Italians would be the result, both important to any Axis prospects in the Mediterranean. Resources given to Spain would not be available for other areas.

Attacking Spain would be hard. The "occupied" part France has a very small border. To really attack collapse of the Vichy regime is almost certainly required, this would almost certainly throw the French Mediterranean into the Allied camp leading to greater resources and opportunities for the Allies in the Mediterranean. The overrunning of Libya could be happening while the Axis are dealing with Spain, Malta supported by North African air bases is a much harder prospect. The Build up for an attack of Spain would be Obvious. Franco was pragmatic, the support of Allies in material, and some forces would make a campaign through the Pyrenees no small undertaking.

There are Logistical constraints, some Political moves have consequences. Things are really as simple as they seem.

[Smilin' Dave]

Without this theatre, there is no way no how that the British would have maintained control of Egypt with German forces pouring in, millions more in numbers, from Italian Libya.

Learn some logistics, the idea of Germany being about to sustain more troops in North Africa is, as pugsville said, laughable. Even with absolutely no opposition to their shipping there simply wasn't the capacity to unload it all in a timely fashion, never mind getting it up the only real road in the region.

I never once stated I suscribed to any such scenario; you so arrogantly assigned it to me, and it's a very puerile method of debate.

So you wanted to jump into this thread for a bit "me too!" but now wish to distance yourself from it. What is it now "it wasn't me sir, it was that other boy"?

With German control over Suez and Egypt proper, the time required to repair, rebuild, and create alternate infrastructure would be an inconvenience, not a sign of defeat.

...do you have any idea how long it took for the British to build up that infrastructure? Or how much time it would take to clear up any damage? Of course not, you think Germany had a teleporter from Berlin to Alexandria.

And once Axis forces were moving freely throughout Egypt

How exactly was Egypt taken again? Your fantasy of millions of Axis troops does not bear repeating, and all your alterations impose delays. It was similar delays that allowed the British to build up a defensive position at El Alamein, which is a natural chokepoint that Germans can't really go around (since they'll still be short on fuel). I suppose they have German military magic to power those teleporters.

As I highlighted earlier, considering the U.S. performance in the Battle of the Kasserine Pass and the undoubtably inferior German position at the time, that scenario doesn't make much logical sense.

It doesn't make much logical sense to suggest the entry of the US into the war into important because of one battle early in their intervention, especially since this stupid fantasy scenario is all about trying to rig it so Germany only has to fight Britain, because US intervention is one crucial stroke to inevitable German defeat.

I'm aware of this, but lack of troops among other things was what prevented a far more extensive and comprehensive anti-British effort on the continent and in the Mediterranean between '40 and '43.

...which has nothing to do with your proposed invasion of Spain and Portugal for some extra naval bases and to knock out Gibraltar. Spain is not a realistic option for Nazi Germany, if Franco won't go along (and he won't), forget it.

An insurgency of ex-Republican soldiers, anarchist ideologues, etc. that posed no serious challenge to the legitimacy or effective qualities of Franco's government. Why would they be a serious challenge for a joint German and Italian occupation force? And if you are assuming that an Axis presence, whether hostile or upon invitation, would have reignited Spanish political tensions, it would be nothing worse than what was being dealt with in Yugoslavia with Tito's Partisans or the Polish Underground Army in the General Government.

1. In your Fascist wet dream you've perhaps not thought that sections of the right would fight a German invasion too. Being the "sage" you perhaps think all Fascist type groups are alike.
2. Yugoslavia and Poland's uprisings, insurgency etc. disrupted Axis logistics and tied down disproportionate numbers of troops. In your dream scenario, Nazi Germany ends up occupying both of those AND Spain AND Portugal which are bigger and have a history of guerilla resistance to invaders. And you don't think that's a big deal?

How so? Physical control of Spain, Portugal, Italy, and Greece, all of Latin Europe, in addition to a far more likely successful siege and conquest of Malta in that scenario seems to put German forces on a much better footing with respect to Mediterranean operations.

Cutting the fluff from your post it emerges the only actual gain in Spain and Portugal. Malta is possibly neutralised. I'm unclear how you think it would be taken, the plans laid out by the Axis were either silly or looked like a potential re-run of Crete, but this time with the paratroopers already having been gutted by Crete. So Spain and Portugal give... what? Some extra naval bases (never the pivotal problem in Axis naval operations) and the neutralisation of Gibraltar. Instead you gain another area that needs heavy garrisons and little in the way of resources. And political ill will from other Axis members.

I fail to see how it would have alienated allies such as the Romanians, the Hungarians, or the Slovaks, for example, and these continental allies (and the Slovak Republic was essentially a client) would be even less important without the need for men, far more extensive resources, and broad cooperation that the Eastern Front demanded of its participants.

Yes, how could the invasion of a pro-Fascist state for no reason other than you're failure to negotiate possibly make your allies uneasy. You also kind of miss that that Germany would still be dependent on the Eastern European states for materials for its war industry, and Romanian oil. After all the Middle Eastern oil fields can't be taken instantaneously, and once you do, getting them back online (since they'll probably be blown up...) and getting regular supply lines from them will take a while.

Come up with a reply that doesn't completely ignore logistics and the opposition and we'll talk.

I appologize, I screwed up the dates and shit. You are right, my argument is kind of weak, perhaps I should better say that both parties had a large role in the enivitable conflict between Facists and communists.

Okay, fair enough.

[Preston Cole]

Attacking Spain would be hard. The "occupied" part France has a very small border. To really attack collapse of the Vichy regime is almost certainly required, this would almost certainly throw the French Mediterranean into the Allied camp leading to greater resources and opportunities for the Allies in the Mediterranean.

Why would Vichy France collapse? It was a German puppet and would have most definitely stayed neutral, if not support, the invasion of Spain. There's no possible way Vichy would collapse unless the Spanish took advantage of its military weakness and launched a preemptive invasion of Vichy themselves, which would could be swiftly countered by occupying German troops in the north. I imagine the Germans would place troops along the Vichy border prior to the invasion anyway.

That does raise the interesting question of how the Wehrmacht would conduct conflict in the Pyrenees. The only mountainous region the German Army had experience in was Norway, but that was a piece of cake.

[pugsville]

The Movement of a large Germany army would by and large mean the complete renunciation of the terms of the German- French agreement. It would reduce Vichy to puppet regime without any credibility if it cooperated. There would be political outfall from this. Most likely the remain Vichy colonies would have been thrown into the free french camp. It would require some time to build up on the french border. Without "invading" Vichy France the area to invade from was like 50km a very small area of the border which would easily be defended.