On Lost Opportunities and Forgone Conclusions: How the Confederates and Nazis could have Won

Location
Israel
The two most oversaturated areas of alternate history are the Civil War and World War Two. In response to this, backlash has erupted along the lines of "A victory for the Confederacy/Hitler is impossible." But nothing in history is ever that simple. Welcome to a not-so-in-depth discussion on how these lost wars could have been won. This will take as given that you have a decent knowledge of the events as they really happened.
DISCLAIMER: What follows is not my own research. It is based almost entirely off the brilliant work of military historian Bevin Alexander, who has written several excellent books on this and other topics. If you notice something that you think is wrong, it's probably from his books, and there's a good chance I won't be able to reply to it.
Alright, let's begin.


PART 1: The Confederate States of America

STONEWALL JACKSON'S RAID THAT NEVER WAS
One of the earliest campaigns of the US Civil War was the Shenandoah Valley Campaign conducted by Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson. As the hero of the First Battle of Mannasas/Bull Run, he'd been put in charge of the small but essential Confederate force in the Shenandoah Valley. And here, he almost won the war.
In spring of 1862, MClellan had gathered a force three times the size of the Confederate's force guarding Richmond. However, McClellan was too cautious, and refused to attack unless the 40,000 strong force of Irvin McDowell, which was guarding Washington, was released to join him. McClellan already had 90,000, but he insisted on getting McDowell's men too. Lincoln gave in and said that he would send McDowell's corps to join McClellan. Meanwhile, Stonewall Jackson had 4,600 men in the Shenandoah Valley opposing 23,000 men under Nathaniel Banks and 15,000 under John Fremont. Jackson was forced out of his positions at Winchester. Banks, realizing that Jackson had very few men, left 9,000 men under James Shields and took the rest of his men to join McClellan. Jackson promptly attacked at the Battle of Kernstown, and suffered a crushing defeat, losing 718 men, but the effect was massive; disbelieving that Jackson would attack without large reinforcements, Lincoln sent back most of Banks' men and ordered McDowell's corps to stay in Washington, reassuring McClellan that he would release McDowell as soon as the threat to th capital disappeared. Meanwhil, Jackson recieved reinforcements, bringing his total strength up to 14,000. An additional 2,800 were blocking Fremont. The two Union armies, with a combined force of 34,000, marched against Jackson. Jackson brilliantly led his men on the railway out of the vally, misleading everyone into thinking he was leaving (and making Banks send 9,000 men off to McDowell), before marching right back in and driving out Fremont before turning and capturing Front Royal, behind Banks' lines, and forcing Banks to abandon his storng defensive positionat Strasburg. Jackson then defeated Banks' main army at Winchester. Lincoln, ordered McDowell to attack Jackson dirctly.
And here Jackson concieved a brilliant plan.
The whole of the Union army was either tied down at Richmond or chasing him to the Shenandoah Valley. If Jackson would suddenly attack north and swep behind Washington, he could capture the undefended Baltimore and maybe even Philadelphia. He could then begin raiding the north with immunity, doing to them what Sherman later did to the South. He requested reinforcements from Davis and Lee to "raise the siege of Richmond and transfer this campaign from the banks of the Potomac to those of the Susquehanna." The plan was brilliant, visionary, and would undoubtedly have worked. Jackson defeated Fremont at Port Republic and Shields at Cross Keys, and then the reply from Richmond came: Jackson would not raid north, and would instead come to Richmond. With Jackson's men, Lee attacked McClellan in the Seven Days campaign, and won a horrendously pyrrhic victory; he pushed McClellan up against the James River at the cost of a quarter of the entire Confederate army. An opportunity for victory had been squandered.

STONEWALL JACKSON TRIES AGAIN
Stonewall Jackson didn't give up trying to convince Lee and Davis to go around th Union lines. He tried to get Lee to swing around the unguarded flank of John Pope's army on the Rapidan River trap it, forcing it into surrender (Lee agreed, but moved so slowly that Pope escaped), he then drew Pope off his defensive position to Manassas where he fought the Second Battlle of Manassas, while Lee just sat montionless on the Union flank, and then Lee invaded the North.
Jackson saw an opportunity.
If Lee would maneuver north of Washington, Lincoln would keep the Union army between Lee and Wahington. The Confderates could then march in the direction of either Baltimore or Philadelphia, forcing the Union to attack. The Confederates could take up strong positions at Groveton and defeat the Union army before capturing Baltimore or Philadelphia. Lee turned down the proposal and instead met the Union at Sharpsburg, where he won a tactical victroy but suffered a strategic loss at Antietam.
Jackson tried again at Fredericksburg, trying to convince Lee to move back to a location where, while the terrain was slightly less favorable, they could attack around Burnside's flank. Lee refused and instead fought at Fredericksburg, winning but gaining nothing.
And then came Chancellorsville.



INCHES FROM VICTORY
Joseph Hooker, nicknamed "Fighting Joe", was a surprisingly adept commander. He almost managed to win, concieving a brilliant plan that failed only becuase he lost his resolve. He launched 10,000 cavalry on a raid on the Confederate rear, while planning to attack Lee with 40,000 men while 42,000 made a wide flanking maneuver onto Lee's left flank. On April 27th, 1863, Henry Slocum took command of the 42,000 flanking troops. Two days later, the battle began with a frontal charge from Hooker to hold Lee in place. Lee, however, was abl to dispatch a division uner Richard Anderson to block Slocum, but was pushed back to Zoan Church where he entrenched.
On April 30, Slocum reached Chancellorsville. Hooker promptly sent 30,000 twoops to meet Slocum and drive east together to overwhelm Lee's left flank with immense numerical superiority. However, there was one danger. Chancellorsville was just inside the Wilderness, a wild forested region. It would be a labyrinth for any fighting force, and the Union's greatest advantage - cannon - would be negated. The Union troops had to get east of Chansellorsville quickly.
Meanwhile, the Union force directly facing the Confederates made no attempt to attack. This allowed Lee to detatch another division to aid Anderson. This left just 10,000 men at Fredericksburg, with 47,000 men facing Hooker. Hooker, however, had 70,000, and on May 1, he advanced.
At 8 AM, Jackson reached Zoan Church, and made a masterful decision; he told the Confederate troops to abandon their strong fortified position and rush at the Union soldiers. This had the desired effect, and Hooker retreated to Chancellorsville. He was in the Wilderness, and his army was now in danger. That afternoon, Lee arrived, and then Jackson made a stunning request.
If the Union army got in trouble, they would have to retreat across the Rappahannock, and the only place to do that was the United States Ford. If Jackson would capture this position, Hooker would be trapped, and the whole 70,000 strong Union force would be forced to surrender.
Lee replied "Well, go on."
On the morning of May 2, Jackson took three divisions, hike for twelve miles around the Union position, and came up on the Plank Road at 2 PM. This was the only path between him and the ford, and at 5:15 PM, he assaulted the Hunion 11th Corps guarding the road. Jackson had ordered that the Confederate forces move as fast as possible irrespective of order or confusion, but Robert Rodes, who had led the assault, stopped and waited for A. P. Hill. This gave Hooker enough time to bring up some cannon and Hiram Berry's division. It took until 8:45 PM for A. P. Hill to arrive, but despite the late hour, Jackson told him "Press them. Cut them off from the United States Ford, Hill. Press them." The attack had begun.
Meanwhile, Jackson rode out ahead to scout the road ahead, when Union cavalry general Alfred Pleasonton burst out of the woods. The charge, going through thick wood, completely collapsed. However, it put the brigade of James Lane on guard, and when Jackson rode out in front of them, they mistook him for a Union general and fired. Three bullets struck Jackson. Soon afterwards, A. P. Hill was hit by artillery fire, and command fell to Jeb Stuart, who was too far away. A stunned Hooker managed to retreat across the Rappahannock, and the South lost it's greatest chance and greatest general. Jackson died on May 10.
They had come so close, but it was all for nothing.


GETTYSBURG
Only one month after Chancellorsville, Lee decided to advance into Pennsylvania. On June 10, 1863, he began marching. The first forces entered Pennsylvania on June 27 in two different places - Carlisle and Wrightsville. On June 28, a Confederate spy reported that the Union army under Hooker's replacement, George Meade, was a few miles west of their position. Lee told his men to march on Gettysburg, thity miles south of Carlisle.
This was a terrible mistake.
At Carlisle and Wrightsville, Lee had had an amazing position. If he had ignored Meade's army and marched on Harrisburg, just twenty miles away, he could have broken the bridges on the Susquehanna and prevented the Union from crossing. He could then march north along the undefended road to Philadelphia, whose capture would win the war. Even if this was too bold, Carlisle offered a far better location to concentrate his forces, without having to march his troops so hard.
A. P. Hill's troops bumped into Union forces on the western edge of Gettysburg, and a fierce struggle ensued. By the end of the day, the Confederates had driven the Union from Gettysburg itself, but the Union had taken very strong positions on hills south of Gettysburg. James Longstreet suggested that the Confederates move towards Washington, forcing Union forces to decamp from their positions to chase them, but Lee refused. Instead, he spent three days in fruitless assaults, losing over a third of his army and destroying the Confederacy's last offensive potential.
But things weren't over for the Confederacy just yet.

TAKEN FOR GRANTED
Ulysses S. Grant is an interesting character. He had shown at Vicksburg that he was more than capable of maneuvering around his enemy, but when appointed had of the Army of the Potomac, he resorted to frontal assaults. These brought him victory at the Wilderness and Petersburg, but at immense cost. The climax of Grant's bloody offensive was Cold Harbor, one of the worst examples of frontal charges in the whole war. By 1864, Grant had managed to wring defeat out of victory, and was stuck in a useless position opposite Richmond. Elections were coming up, and it looked like McClellan would defeat Lincoln. The Union neede a victory, and Grant couldn't provide one. The victory was provided by Sherman, who in his brilliant March to the Sea, ripped the heart of the Confederacy. As this is mostly irrelevant to "How the confederacy could have won", I'm going to mostly skip over it. However, one point must be elaborated on.
On May 10, 1864, John Johnston and William Sherman faced off at Resaca. Johnston was repeatedly outflanked and driven back, first to Cassville, then to Allatoona, and finally to Atlanta. However, this whole time, Sherman had a massive weakness - there was only one rail line supplying him. Had Johnston sent cavalry to raid and cut this railway, he coul have defeated Sherman. However, the only attempt to do so was bungled with the Confederate cavalry trying to hold their section of the railroad instead of cutting it and leaving. The cavalry was defeated, Sherman captured Atlanta, and the rest is history.
Lee's army began disentegrating as troops deserted to protect their homes, and Lee was forced to retreat. Richmond fell, and the Confederacy surrendered shortly afterwards. But it was not Grant who won the war, it was Sherman. Without the March to the Sea, the bogged down Grant would have been stuck, unable to move, and the Confederacy would have kept it's independence.

CONCLUSION
The Confederacy was at an immense disadvantage in the Civil War, but that doesn't mean they couldn't have won. There were several opportunities for a Confederate victory, but they were squandered. A Confederate victory is not impossible, merely unlikely. But unlikely things have happened before, and the Confederacy could have won. (Of course, staying stable afterwards is another matter altogether. THAT is probably near-impossible. This is emphasized so no-one misses it. Winning the war is not the same as thriving afterwards.)
But what about World War 2? Nazi Germany was facing so many powers, had so many disadvantages, and so few options. How could they possibly have won?
 
Last edited:
PART 2: THE GERMAN REICH
The Second World War was a bloody affair. More then 60 million men died in the conflict. Nazi Germany, one of the parties involved, has raised a rather paradoxical reputation; on the one hand, it's despised the world over for some of the worst crimes against humanity, but on the other, it's military prowess is greatle revered by many. But, no mattr how much military prowess they may have had, how could Germany have defeated it's enemies, enemies far stronger then itself? Let's find out, looking at not just the more wll-known possible turning points, but also lesser-known ones.

THE BIRTH OF A MEME
The first stunning achievement of the Wehrmacht was the defeat of France. There's a myth that the Germans won because they went through Belgium. This is simply false, of course; they won because they went through the Ardennes. But it's far more complicated than that.
The high German command, der Oberkommando des Heeres (OKH), came up with a plan for how to handle the western front. It was a simple plan, following the course of the First World War; push through the Netherlands and Belgium into northern France, and hold the Allies there. This plan assigned a paramount role to two exceptional new weapons; special "fast-runner" tanks, and Stuka dive-bombers. However, even the OKH did not grasp the true potential of these weapons.
Erich von Manstein, commander of Army Group A, did.
Manstein was taken aback at the limited scope of the OKH's plan, saying "The offensive capacity of the German army is our trump card, and to fritter it away on half-measures was inadmissible." Instead, Manstein proposed starting the same way, with a strong attack through Belgium and the Netherlands, but then to use their panzers to strike through the Ardennes and encircle the Allied forces in Belgium. The OKH wasn't happy with this plan; it involved several river crossings, which required a strong assault. The preparartions would allow the French to build up a defense. Just crossing was inconceivable to them; sending tanks forward without an infantry detatchment was suicide. Manstein didn't think so. He and Heinz Guderian, the commander of the German panzer force, were confident that Stukas were more than enough to neutralize any threat in the unlikely event that France and Britain get their stuff together. The speed of the german advance, however, would prevent them from even doing this.
The OKH stonewalled Manstein and refused to respond to him, so Manstein personally met with Hitler and told him the plan. The next day, Hitler ordered the OKH to adopt Manstein's proposal, and they begrudgingly did so. Accordingly, on May 10, 1940, the assault began.
Waves of German soldiers rushed at the Netherlands and Belgium. The first great airborne assault in history immediatly neutralized the Netherlans, and the great Belgian fortress of Eben-Emael was quickly taken. The scale and audacity of these assaults left no room for doubt in the British and French command that the main assault had arrived. Allied commander General Maurice Gustav Gamelin ordered the main force to about fifteen miles east of Brussels.
Then, sixty miles to the west, Guderian's 19th Panzer Corps slammed through the Ardennes. Just to the north was Georg Hans Reinhardt's 41st Panzer Corps, and about twenty-five miles north of that was hermann Hoth's 15th Panzer Corps. Both Guderian's and Reinhardt's corps were commanded by Ewald von Kleist, who had never before commanded armor. He repeatedly ordered the panzer forces to stop at any trouble, being insanely overcautious (even more so the McClellan!). The panzer forces swept north facing nearly no resistance. By nightfall on May 16th, Guderian was at Marle and Darcy, fifty-five miles west of Sedan. Kleist flew in, and upon being told that Guderian intended to continue without stopping, flew into a rage. Guderian promptly asked to be relieved of command. Folowing tense arguments, it was finally decided that Guderian could conduct "reconnaisance in force". Guderian used this excuse to continue advancing. Still, the Allies were unable to organize a responce. They were still in shock. Charles de Gaulle tried attacking with a few tanks at Laon, and was easily repulsed. However, further north in Belgium, a resistance finally yielded results.
Erwin Rommel, leading the 7th Panzer Division, ran into fifty-eight British tanks and two divisions of infantry at Arras. He defeated them, but took heavy damage, losing four times the men lost in the whole of the campaign up till then. The Germans continued pushing up to the coast, but the clash at Arras made the Germans nervous. Gerd von Rundstedt, leader of the whole German army on the Western front, gave a gloomy report to Hitler. The German tanks were so advanced, he said, that a concentrated Allied assault could easily wipe them out. In responce to this, as well as the reassurances of Goring that the German air force could stop any evacuation, Hitler ordered a sto pto the assault. The Germans were just eight miles from the undefended Dunkirk, the last port the Allies could use to escape. A disbelieving Kleist pushed ahead, but recieved emphatic orders to pull back. The British army escaped at Dunkirk. The German Air Force failed to stop the evacuation, but France has still fallen. And Germany was not out of options.

ROM(MEL)PING IN THE SAND
The story of the Battle of the Atlantic and the Battle of Britain is well known, and I'm not going to discuss it here. You can easily find information on it elsewhere. What I will discuss is the least appreciated lost chance Germany had. Welcome to the most understated theater of World War Two; North Africa.
In December 1940, British forces in Egypt crushingly defeated an Italian force far outnumbering them, driving the Italians back to Libya. The Italiand held on, but appealed to Germany for help. Hitler, army commander Walther von Brauchitsch, and chief of staff Franz Halder, completely missed the immense opportunity North Africa provided them. North Africa was the gateway to the Levant, which was the gateway to the Middle East. If Germany could capture North Africa and the Levant, not only would Britain be largely cut off from India and Austalia without the Suez, but the invasion of the Soviets could be a two-front one. Pushing through both Eastern Europe and the Caucasus would have given the Germans a far better chance to win, especially with Soviet oil concentrated in the Caucasus. It wouldn't be a done deal, but it would become a distinct possibility. However, German high command was too focused on a direct attack on the Soviets, and failed to consider this option.
To calm the Italians down, Rommel was dispatched with just the 15th Panzer Division and the small 5th Light Divison to Libya. The British army in North Africa was under the command of General Archibald Wavell, while Lieutenant General Sir Richard O'Connor led the assault on Libya. The British offensive had been halted before capturing Tripoli to send troops to the doomed expedition in Greece. Rommel arrived on February 12, 1941. The British were about 400 miles east of Tripoli. Rommel went on the offensive and, through concentrating his smaller number of tanks, defeated the British in a fierce battle at Mersa el Brega, forcing the British all the way back to Egypt. Tobruk held out, but was surrounded and besieged. The British, unlike the Germans, realized the importance of North Africa, and Churchill sent 295 tanks to Egypt.
Wavell, meanwhile, launched Operation Brevity to relieve Tobruk. The British captured Halfaya Pass, but Rommel recaptured it and stationed antiaircraft guns facing the pass. Brevity failed. But the British weren't done, and launched Operation Battleaxe. However, when the British tried retaking Halfaya, the antiaircraft guns tore into them. Of thirteen tanks sent in, only one escaped. The pass was dubbed "Hellfire Pass" by the British. Meanwhil, the British captured Fort Capuzzo, only to run into another German antitank trap and lose much of their forces. By nightfall, the British had lost more than half of their tanks.
A disapointed and worried Churchill decided to give North Africa his full attention. This weakened the east, and contributed to the Japanese capture of Singapore. Wavell was replaced with Sir Claude Auchinleck. Britain prepared for Operation Crusader, which would become the greatest tank battle in history.
Meanwhile, Hitler was sending practically no reinforcements. Rommel was promoted, but it was in name only. Rommel would have to push on without reinforcements. Ultimately, he came close to winning, but due to his incompetent suordinate Ludwig Cruewell and his lack of reinforcements and supplies, he lost the battle. While the British were pushed back in the end, the cost was too high. Rommel skillfully retreated back to Mersa el Brega, where reinforcements and supplies finally started arriving; it was not much, but it was better then nothing. Rommel counterattacked the British, driving them back to Tobruk, but his men were too exhausted to pursue the British any further. Now under Sir Neil Ritchie, the British retreated to Gazala. Rommel followed, but he was once again receiving no reinforcements. On May 26, 1942, he struck the British at Gazala, and drove them back, but at high cost. The battle lasted until June 10, and Ritchie retreated to Halfaya Gap. When Rommel captured Toruk, he retreated even further, to El Alamein. This was the last stand for the British; if El Alamein fell, Rommel could drive on just 60 miles to Alexandria, Britain's main Meditteranean base and the gate to the Nile Delta. From there, he could sweep up into the British Levant, and the British would be cut off from India and Australia. In addition, it offered the prospect of a second front agsint the Soviets. However, Rommel was at the end of his tether. He had only forty tanks, 2,500 motorized infantry, and 6,000 Italian infantry. He pushed up to El Alamein, reaching it on June 30. Rommel halted to plan an attack. This was a terrible mistake - Auchinleck's tanks had not yet arrived, and a push would have disrupted the British positions. The next day, Rommel's attack was stopped. The British, however, terrified of Rommel, waited until October 23 to launch a counter-offensive. Rommel brilliantly managed to retreat all the way back to Tripolitania without being trapped, but it was too late. Hitler finally realized his mistake, and over the next few noths, tens of thousands of German troops became tied down in Tunisia, trying to hold back the Allies. Rommel nearly beat them back again at Kasserine Pass, but jealous colleagues and th stupidity of the Italian high command ruined it.
In 1941, North Africa hung on a knife's edge. One more division could have made the difference. Just one more German division going to Rommel, and he could have won. But the chance was lost, and North Africa fell.

BOOTED OUT
While this post is about German missed opportunities, there is one fascinating and virtually unknown lost chance that the Allies had. Taking this would not only have led to an earlier end to the war, but also more European land to the Allies instead of the Soviets. Welcome to Sicily.
In May 1943, the Axis were finally driven out of North Africa once and for all. Hitler refused to allow them to evacuate, and as a result, 160,000 soldiers who could have escaped surrendered instead. The Allied command, under Dwight D. Eisenhower, knew that the Italians were reeling and the Germans had only a few troops in Siciliy. Since the Germans had few troops, the heel (Apulia) and toe (Calabria) of Italy had no troops. Several Allied officers proposed a landing here, which would cut off the Germans and Italians in Sicily and force them to surrender. However, the senior Allied officers refused to undertake the operation, since Apulia and Calabria were out of Allied fighter range and the landing troops would have no air support. The assault on Sicily, Operation Husky, met fierce German resistance. While the Germans were overcome, they managed to evacuate to Italy proper, and this in turn bought time for the Germans to occupy northern Italy after the overthrow of Mussolini. The Italian front ground to a halt, and would only be reopened with Operation Dragoon, the Allied landings in southern France. Had the Allies instead attacked Apulia and Calabria, they could have swept through Italy far quicker, and maybe even beaten Germany then and there. They would definitely have done far better in Italy than they actually did. But they missed this oppurtunity, and it took far longer to win.
 
Last edited:
The American Civil War and the Second World War are often assumed to be unchangeable. Sure, minor changes can happen, but nothing major enough to change the outcome. When alternate timelines are presented, more often then not they choose bizzarre points that would have made no difference in the long run. However, this doesn't mean that things couldn't have gone differently.
I hope you've enjoyed this look at some possible turning points of two of history's most revered wars.
 
ROM(MEL)PING IN THE SAND
The story of the Battle of the Atlantic and the Battle of Britain is well known, and I'm not going to discuss it here. You can easily find information on it elsewhere. What I will discuss is the least appreciated lost chance Germany had. Welcome to the most understated theater of World War Two; North Africa.
In December 1940, British forces in Egypt crushingly defeated an Italian force far outnumbering them, driving the Italians back to Libya. The Italiand held on, but appealed to Germany for help. Hitler, army commander Walther von Brauchitsch, and chief of staff Franz Halder, completely missed the immense opportunity North Africa provided them. North Africa was the gateway to the Levant, which was the gateway to the Middle East. If Germany could capture North Africa and the Levant, not only would Britain be largely cut off from India and Austalia without the Suez, but the invasion of the Soviets could be a two-front one. Pushing through both Eastern Europe and the Caucasus would have given the Germans a far better chance to win, especially with Soviet oil concentrated in the Caucasus. It wouldn't be a done deal, but it would become a distinct possibility. However, German high command was too focused on a direct attack on the Soviets, and failed to consider this option.
To calm the Italians down, Rommel was dispatched with just the 15th Panzer Division and the small 5th Light Divison to Libya. The British army in North Africa was under the command of General Archibald Wavell, while Lieutenant General Sir Richard O'Connor led the assault on Libya. The British offensive had been halted before capturing Tripoli to send troops to the doomed expedition in Greece. Rommel arrived on February 12, 1941. The British were about 400 miles east of Tripoli. Rommel went on the offensive and, through concentrating his smaller number of tanks, defeated the British in a fierce battle at Mersa el Brega, forcing the British all the way back to Egypt. Tobruk held out, but was surrounded and besieged. The British, unlike the Germans, realized the importance of North Africa, and Churchill sent 295 tanks to Egypt.
Wavell, meanwhile, launched Operation Brevity to relieve Tobruk. The British captured Halfaya Pass, but Rommel recaptured it and stationed antiaircraft guns facing the pass. Brevity failed. But the British weren't done, and launched Operation Battleaxe. However, when the British tried retaking Halfaya, the antiaircraft guns tore into them. Of thirteen tanks sent in, only one escaped. The pass was dubbed "Hellfire Pass" by the British. Meanwhil, the British captured Fort Capuzzo, only to run into another German antitank trap and lose much of their forces. By nightfall, the British had lost more than half of their tanks.
A disapointed and worried Churchill decided to give North Africa his full attention. This weakened the east, and contributed to the Japanese capture of Singapore. Wavell was replaced with Sir Claude Auchinleck. Britain prepared for Operation Crusader, which would become the greatest tank battle in history.
Meanwhile, Hitler was sending practically no reinforcements. Rommel was promoted, but it was in name only. Rommel would have to push on without reinforcements. Ultimately, he came close to winning, but due to his incompetent suordinate Ludwig Cruewell and his lack of reinforcements and supplies, he lost the battle. While the British were pushed back in the end, the cost was too high. Rommel skillfully retreated back to Mersa el Brega, where reinforcements and supplies finally started arriving; it was not much, but it was better then nothing. Rommel counterattacked the British, driving them back to Tobruk, but his men were too exhausted to pursue the British any further. Now under Sir Neil Ritchie, the British retreated to Gazala. Rommel followed, but he was once again receiving no reinforcements. On May 26, 1942, he struck the British at Gazala, and drove them back, but at high cost. The battle lasted until June 10, and Ritchie retreated to Halfaya Gap. When Rommel captured Toruk, he retreated even further, to El Alamein. This was the last stand for the British; if El Alamein fell, Rommel could drive on just 60 miles to Alexandria, Britain's main Meditteranean base and the gate to the Nile Delta. From there, he could sweep up into the British Levant, and the British would be cut off from India and Australia. In addition, it offered the prospect of a second front agsint the Soviets. However, Rommel was at the end of his tether. He had only forty tanks, 2,500 motorized infantry, and 6,000 Italian infantry. He pushed up to El Alamein, reaching it on June 30. Rommel halted to plan an attack. This was a terrible mistake - Auchinleck's tanks had not yet arrived, and a push would have disrupted the British positions. The next day, Rommel's attack was stopped. The British, however, terrified of Rommel, waited until October 23 to launch a counter-offensive. Rommel brilliantly managed to retreat all the way back to Tripolitania without being trapped, but it was too late. Hitler finally realized his mistake, and over the next few noths, tens of thousands of German troops became tied down in Tunisia, trying to hold back the Allies. Rommel nearly beat them back again at Kasserine Pass, but jealous colleagues and th stupidity of the Italian high command ruined it.
In 1941, North Africa hung on a knife's edge. One more division could have made the difference. Just one more German division going to Rommel, and he could have won. But the chance was lost, and North Africa fell.
It's a nice idea, but there's a reason Rommel wasn't going to get another division: logistics. Rommel faced two insurmountable logistical problems that made capturing Egypt nigh impossible. First, the Italian ports in Libya he relied on to get replacements and supplies to Africa from Europe didn't have enough capacity as it was to supply Rommel's forces. Adding another division just sees it stuck in port for lack of supplies. Second, the coastal road in Libya and Cyrenaica was his only overland supply route. Not only was that limited in capacity as well, but being a road Rommel relied on trucks to transport supplies to the front from the Libyan ports, and the further Rommel lunged the more trucks he needed to supply his frontline forces, an increase that is geometric because the trucks and logistical units needed supply of their own.

The point being, Rommel driving 60 miles from El Alamein to Alexandria is much, much more difficult than the basic distance implies. Given the port limitations, I'm honestly unsure if it could have been done.

RUSSIAN TO MOSCOW
Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union was stupid. It had no chance of success. Right?
Wrong.
OKH planned, not a blitzkrieg, but instead a series on Kesselschlachten; the Germans would sweep around Soviet forces, encircle them, and close in on them. It worked wonders in the early days of the war; 233,000 Russians at Bialystok, 310,000 at Smolensk, 103,000 at Uman, and far more smaller ones. However, there was one crucial flaw in the German strategy; split targets. The three columns, going to Leningrad, Moscow, an Stalingrad, were uncoordinated. This spelled the doom of the Germans.
Except, not quite.
Most of Stalin's forces were lined up at the border, and were destroyed in the initial encirclements. By July, less than a month from the start of the invasion, Moscow lay open for the taking. While the Russians wouldn't surrender because of its capture, the loss of their railway hub would cripple their defense. But then, Hitler realized something - near Kiev, a massiv Soviet army simply sat there, open for the taking. Making the situation even worse for the Russians, Stalin reinforced Kiev to make sure it wouldn't fall. The Battle of Kiev was the largest single military success in history, capturing an unbelievable 665,000 Soviet soldiers. But this victory conceiled a great defeat; in wiping out this army, Hitler lost his chance to take Moscow. Th Soviets rushed Siberian troops to the city, and managed to defend it. Paradoxically, by winning the greatest victory in history, Hitler had lost the war.
First off, taking Moscow would in no way cripple the Soviets' defenses. It would hurt, but the Germans would be at the end of a strung-out logistical tether, badly fatigued with a laundry list of broken-down vehicles, and the Soviets likely still with considerable troops available, most notably 20 mechanized corps they had been forming up before the invasion and which were critical in the OTL Moscow counterattacks. All of this is a situation ripe for the Soviets hurling the Germans out of Moscow after a few months of preparation.

Second, no way in hell was the road to Moscow open in early July. It took most of the month just to take and reduce Smolensk, a key stop on the road to Moscow. Any sort of lunge to Moscow would have to wait until August at the earliest, which is at best a month more time.

And third, even if the Germans lunged forward after Smolensk, that's no guarantee of capturing Moscow. For one, the Soviet logistical arrangements are far and away superior to what they had at the border districts. Most of their fuel, for instance, was stored at Moscow, and now Soviet armies are operating at their own railheads. This means, even absent any other improvements, things won't be nearly as easy for the Germans as they were at the start of Barbarossa, because logistical constraints - in particular, fuel - were one of the biggest reasons for the spectacular German successes. For another, the Soviets didn't just have a massive army chewed up and spat out in Kiev. That means the reinforcements that went south OTL are now available to defend the road to Moscow, and that the forces in the Ukraine have enough strength to potentially launch a counterattack against Army Group Center as it marches to Moscow. And finally, the Germans aren't in great shape themselves. By August, German soldiers and machines were getting increasingly worn out.

Hell, OTL the Germans were counterattacked around Smolensk by the Red Army in early August and promptly chewed them up in large part because they were on a defensive posture with Kiev taking priority. In fact, said counterattacks were an utter catastrophe for the Soviets and were one of the reasons Operation Typhoon went as well as it did. Now, instead, the Germans are running headlong into said formations, a decidedly less favorable position to be in.

tl;dr This operation would have to happen in August and this earlier Typhoon would not be the immediate slam dunk you're making it out to be.
 
Would Rommel capturing Alexandria allieviate his problems?

Or did the Allies/Brits have it all rigged to blow skyhigh?
 
I do think that the "the South could never have won" and "the Nazis could never have won" takes might have a bit of a Spacebattles competence aspect - as in, they look too much at the military side of things, and not enough at the political side of things.

The Confederacy didn't have to win, it just had to survive long enough for the war to become unpopular in the North.

The Nazis could have been much more successful if they'd made better decisions about who to pick fights with (though the bad decisions they made were natural consequences of Nazi ideology...).
 
RUSSIAN TO MOSCOW
Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union was stupid. It had no chance of success. Right?
Wrong.
OKH planned, not a blitzkrieg, but instead a series on Kesselschlachten; the Germans would sweep around Soviet forces, encircle them, and close in on them. It worked wonders in the early days of the war; 233,000 Russians at Bialystok, 310,000 at Smolensk, 103,000 at Uman, and far more smaller ones. However, there was one crucial flaw in the German strategy; split targets. The three columns, going to Leningrad, Moscow, an Stalingrad, were uncoordinated. This spelled the doom of the Germans.
Except, not quite.
Most of Stalin's forces were lined up at the border, and were destroyed in the initial encirclements. By July, less than a month from the start of the invasion, Moscow lay open for the taking. While the Russians wouldn't surrender because of its capture, the loss of their railway hub would cripple their defense. But then, Hitler realized something - near Kiev, a massiv Soviet army simply sat there, open for the taking. Making the situation even worse for the Russians, Stalin reinforced Kiev to make sure it wouldn't fall. The Battle of Kiev was the largest single military success in history, capturing an unbelievable 665,000 Soviet soldiers. But this victory conceiled a great defeat; in wiping out this army, Hitler lost his chance to take Moscow. Th Soviets rushed Siberian troops to the city, and managed to defend it. Paradoxically, by winning the greatest victory in history, Hitler had lost the war.

Erich von Manstein strikes again! To my knowledge the idea that the war was lost with the diversion to Eastern Ukraine begins with him and his memoirs, Lost Victories, which frankly covers his own ass and that of the Wehrmacht far more than it has any right to. To a degree there is sense in this.

The way armies descended from the Prussian General Staff liked to fight wars is that of bewegungskrieg, war of movement, which to vastly oversimplify involves the destruction of an opponents armies in as swift a fashion as possible to bring the opponent to terms, most prominently in the Franco-Prussian war and Austro-Prussian war. This was used to devastating effect in the Polish campaign, Operation Weserubung, and most notably in the Fall of France. However, in all but one of these cases, Germany was not fighting a pear opponent. The Polish army, for all its brave resistance and remarkable grit on a tactical level, was badly crippled by German air superiority and an untimely mobilization along with the indispensable political need to defend along the frontiers rather than on the Vistula. Thus it was completely outmaneuvered on an operational and strategic level, with any hope of resistance along the Romanian Bridgehead going up in smoke with the Soviet Invasion. In spite of this, a Polish government in exile was formed.

Denmark since the creation of a unified German State was always at the mercy of its titanic neighbor, and was summarily occupied with little fighting for the sake of the Danish people.

However, when one views the situation of Norway, cracks begin to appear. Not sharing a land border, success was dependent on near total surprise by landing forces, which was miraculously achieved in most areas save for the short term failure in Oslo leading to the rather embarrassing loss of the brand new heavy cruiser Blucher to Norwegian shore batteries. Thus, a Norwegian government in exile was formed with the Norwegians pledging their sizeable merchant marine to the Allied cause as well as managing to evacuate the Norwegian gold reserves.

One is a fluke, but two? Two is where things start to get interesting. Government in exiles are not that common in history, and you will have trouble finding as high a concentration of them as in the Second World War.

Bewegungskrieg is generally practiced with the hope of swift capitulation of the enemy, with the assumption they will come to terms. Nazi ideology is almost fundamentally opposed to this. War as acted upon the Third Reich was not a means to achieve limited gains, handfuls of provinces or reparations. When Hitler went to war, especially with so called 'mongrel' races, it was war of total annihilation. While Hitler was willing, to an extent to deal with those he saw as Aryan, such as the British, Danish, or Norwegians, when it came to people such as the Polish, or later Serbs, Lithuanians, and Ukrainians, there was no point whatsoever in coming to terms. There was no reason to even give the vaguest consideration of accepting the hegemony of the Third Reich because you would not get a single concession. It would merely mean easing the complete destruction of your people, and its reorganization at the whims of Nazi ideology.

Upon the astounding defeat of the French Third Republic, once again a Belgian, Dutch, and Luxembourgish government in exile. Even in France, where the Vichy regime took hold as a result of the terrible political disunity of France in the interwar period, Charles de Gaulle and his Free French would form a more dubiously legitimate government in exile.

Later still, we see the formation of a Yugoslav and Greek government in exile.

The writing was on the wall at this point. Bismarck's Germany accepted relatively limited war. Even Germany of the First World War had relatively small goals in mind that could, under extreme duress, be made palatable to its opponents.

This was not the case for Nazism. Nazism demanded nothing less than the complete destruction of not only the political system of Europe, but also many of its peoples, and for it all to be completely rewritten under an unacceptably radical set of ideology.

By 1941, no one was willing to treat with the Nazis unless essentially forced to by an SS officer pointing a gun at them. Unless the forces opposed to the Axis had been completely and utterly razed to the ground, there would be no peace.

Bewegungskrieg was still a workable method of war under this set of political constraints for most situations. with the capture of Paris and the encirclement of the BEF and the better part of the French army in the BeNeLux, France could not have feasibly resisted the German army with the resources it had left, merely prolonged the time it took for the Germans to occupy the country by perhaps a month or two, and thus capitulated.

This was not the case for the Soviet Union. While the majority of the standing Red Army was posted essentially along the border with Germany, the Soviet Union was several dozen times larger than France, with a much larger portion of its population available to be called to arms. Despite the utter destruction of the Soviet armed forces at the front, the reality was that unlike any of its previous opponents Russia, if pressed, could afford to trade an effectively near infinite amount of space for as much time as it needed. Despite taking over two million prisoners of war during Operation Barbarossa, with millions more wounded or killed, the actual strength of the Red Army actually continued to increase during this time period as the Soviets called upon their vast reserves of reasonably trained manpower.

In addition, through a level of industrial might and human spirit that I do not believe has been seen before or since, the Soviet Union managed to disassemble much of the industry in territory the Germans were about to take and railroad it to the Ural mountains, safe from German bombing. Despite the incredible victories of the Axis on the Eastern Front in 1941, on the whole, the strength of the Soviet military had actually increased during this time period.

The Axis victories of the time, though great, in truth merely reduced the strength of their opponent from insurmountable to deeply challenging.

Thus, the Soviet ability to resist remained, bloodied, but far from beaten.

If one were to hypothetically make the dash for Moscow in the attempts of forcing a political capitulation, assuming success, it is nearly impossible for the desired result to occur. For one, as much as it crippled the Red Army, there was no one left to challenge Stalin after his purges. There is no Phillipe Petain to usurp the state upon the loss of the capital and sign armistice, and even if such a figure did exist, they would not make peace when it has been so clearly shown that Germany would accept nothing but annihilation of the Judeo-Bolshevik hordes. Even if Stalin were to somehow be killed, the Soviet Union had become sufficiently centralized under a single person at that point that there would be no real risk of devolving into a warlord ridden mess as Tsarist Russia did, with there being no real sources of power to consolidate around except for the central apparatus of state. Someone would simply fill in the gap, not someone of great ability as Stalin had killed most of the people who could have posed a threat, but as long as the understanding exists that there can only be total victory or total defeat, the war will rage on.

The loss of Moscow, though significant, would not be war ending. Core of the railway hub though it may be, its industry would be evacuated to safety, and crucially the agricultural breadbasket of Ukraine would remain partially available to the Soviets along with lengthening the distance to the Caucasus, along with lessening the devastating losses of 1941.

Hitler, I believe, had somewhat adjusted his thinking to that of fighting the Soviets. I am of the opinion that he truly was correct when he said that his generals understood nothing of grand strategy, at least before 1944. When kicking in the door did not in fact cause the whole house to come crashing down, by securing the Eastern Ukraine, he ensured that valuable resources of Grain and Coal would be denied to the Soviets, as well as putting the Axis ever closer to the oil of Transcaucasia, as well as weakening the Soviet Army as more and more Soviet soldiers were encircled and captured after repeated and failed counterattacks.

STALINGRAD
By late 1942, Hitler's chances of an all-out victory were over. He'd lost North Africa and had his troops tangled in Tunisia and he'd lost his chance to take Moscow. However, a favorable peace was still entirely possible; a German negotiated victory. However, even this would be lost at Stalingrad.
In spring of 1942, Hitler decided that a change of plans was in order. Moscow had held, Leningrad was resisting fiercely, but the rich oil fields of the Caucasus looked delightful. If it would fall, not only would Germany's oil problems be solved, but the Soviets would lose their oil. However, Stalingrad threatened the flank of any German army marching to the Caucasus, so one army was sent to Stalingrad while four marched south to the Caucasus. However, on July 28, Hitler suddenly and inexplicably changed the order; now three armies would march on Stalingrad and only two on the Caucasus. The result of this was that German Army Group A, under Wilhelm List, was unable to drive the Soviets from the high mountains of the Caucasus. The disastrous battle of Stalingrad itself is well-known, and I'm not going to discuss it here. After this, Germany had no chance. The only remaining question was who would get more; the Soviets or the Allies.

Case Blue was flawed from its very beginning. Much like how the Schlieffen Plan called for more divisions than the Germans had available, from the very outset the plan required advances on two strategic axis, one northeast towards the Don bend and Stalingrad, and another to the Caucasus. German doctrine held that an army group was sufficient to advance down a single strategic axis. Army Group South was fundamentally overstretched in its goals even before taking logistics into account.

Due to the need to change the gauge of Russian railroads, Rasputitsa, Soviet Partisan attacks, and more, even by the end of 1941 German logistics had been brought to the breaking point and was frankly on the verge of disintegration for much of the war. To the lunge forward into one of the least developed portions of European Russia is on the verge of complete madness, and German logistics showed it.

In addition, I would argue that the operation had failed almost from the outset. STAVKA had recognized that the Germans were once again attempting to encircle and destroy a huge portion of the Soviet army, and partially by accident and partially by design, the Soviet front line in front of Army Group South broke and routed. Compared to the over two million POWs of operation Barbarossa, Case Blue had not even broke one hundred thousand in the first few months. Thus the Soviet army continued its astounding growth in both material and manpower, comparatively unchecked without losses comparable to the previous year.

Even ignoring the additional strain on supplies that would result from sending another army south, the Soviets were in the process of destroying much of the oil extraction equipment in case the Germans against all odds broke through once more. Not only that, but Caucasus oil remained in range of Allied strategic bombers that could be based in Iran at the time.

Had only a single army been sent north, it would simply be inviting an even more devastatingly successful Operation Uranus and Saturn, potentially destroying all of Army Group South this time due to even more badly strained rail infrastructure, and the lack of an additional army in the north to somewhat slow the Soviet advance.
 
Last edited:
It's a nice idea, but there's a reason Rommel wasn't going to get another division: logistics. Rommel faced two insurmountable logistical problems that made capturing Egypt nigh impossible. First, the Italian ports in Libya he relied on to get replacements and supplies to Africa from Europe didn't have enough capacity as it was to supply Rommel's forces. Adding another division just sees it stuck in port for lack of supplies. Second, the coastal road in Libya and Cyrenaica was his only overland supply route. Not only was that limited in capacity as well, but being a road Rommel relied on trucks to transport supplies to the front from the Libyan ports, and the further Rommel lunged the more trucks he needed to supply his frontline forces, an increase that is geometric because the trucks and logistical units needed supply of their own.

The point being, Rommel driving 60 miles from El Alamein to Alexandria is much, much more difficult than the basic distance implies. Given the port limitations, I'm honestly unsure if it could have been done.
I wasn't talking about sending more forces then, I was talking about earlier when the British hadn't yet built up their defense. If more troops had been sent with Rommel initially, North Africa and the Middle East likely would have fallen.


First off, taking Moscow would in no way cripple the Soviets' defenses. It would hurt, but the Germans would be at the end of a strung-out logistical tether, badly fatigued with a laundry list of broken-down vehicles, and the Soviets likely still with considerable troops available, most notably 20 mechanized corps they had been forming up before the invasion and which were critical in the OTL Moscow counterattacks. All of this is a situation ripe for the Soviets hurling the Germans out of Moscow after a few months of preparation.

Second, no way in hell was the road to Moscow open in early July. It took most of the month just to take and reduce Smolensk, a key stop on the road to Moscow. Any sort of lunge to Moscow would have to wait until August at the earliest, which is at best a month more time.

And third, even if the Germans lunged forward after Smolensk, that's no guarantee of capturing Moscow. For one, the Soviet logistical arrangements are far and away superior to what they had at the border districts. Most of their fuel, for instance, was stored at Moscow, and now Soviet armies are operating at their own railheads. This means, even absent any other improvements, things won't be nearly as easy for the Germans as they were at the start of Barbarossa, because logistical constraints - in particular, fuel - were one of the biggest reasons for the spectacular German successes. For another, the Soviets didn't just have a massive army chewed up and spat out in Kiev. That means the reinforcements that went south OTL are now available to defend the road to Moscow, and that the forces in the Ukraine have enough strength to potentially launch a counterattack against Army Group Center as it marches to Moscow. And finally, the Germans aren't in great shape themselves. By August, German soldiers and machines were getting increasingly worn out.

Hell, OTL the Germans were counterattacked around Smolensk by the Red Army in early August and promptly chewed them up in large part because they were on a defensive posture with Kiev taking priority. In fact, said counterattacks were an utter catastrophe for the Soviets and were one of the reasons Operation Typhoon went as well as it did. Now, instead, the Germans are running headlong into said formations, a decidedly less favorable position to be in.

tl;dr This operation would have to happen in August and this earlier Typhoon would not be the immediate slam dunk you're making it out to be.
Erich von Manstein strikes again! To my knowledge the idea that the war was lost with the diversion to Eastern Ukraine begins with him and his memoirs, Lost Victories, which frankly covers his own ass and that of the Wehrmacht far more than it has any right to. To a degree there is sense in this.

The way armies descended from the Prussian General Staff liked to fight wars is that of bewegungskrieg, war of movement, which to vastly oversimplify involves the destruction of an opponents armies in as swift a fashion as possible to bring the opponent to terms, most prominently in the Franco-Prussian war and Austro-Prussian war. This was used to devastating effect in the Polish campaign, Operation Weserubung, and most notably in the Fall of France. However, in all but one of these cases, Germany was not fighting a pear opponent. The Polish army, for all its brave resistance and remarkable grit on a tactical level, was badly crippled by German air superiority and an untimely mobilization along with the indispensable political need to defend along the frontiers rather than on the Vistula. Thus it was completely outmaneuvered on an operational and strategic level, with any hope of resistance along the Romanian Bridgehead going up in smoke with the Soviet Invasion. In spite of this, a Polish government in exile was formed.

Denmark since the creation of a unified German State was always at the mercy of its titanic neighbor, and was summarily occupied with little fighting for the sake of the Danish people.

However, when one views the situation of Norway, cracks begin to appear. Not sharing a land border, success was dependent on near total surprise by landing forces, which was miraculously achieved in most areas save for the short term failure in Oslo leading to the rather embarrassing loss of the brand new heavy cruiser Blucher to Norwegian shore batteries. Thus, a Norwegian government in exile was formed with the Norwegians pledging their sizeable merchant marine to the Allied cause as well as managing to evacuate the Norwegian gold reserves.

One is a fluke, but two? Two is where things start to get interesting. Government in exiles are not that common in history, and you will have trouble finding as high a concentration of them as in the Second World War.

Bewegungskrieg is generally practiced with the hope of swift capitulation of the enemy, with the assumption they will come to terms. Nazi ideology is almost fundamentally opposed to this. War as acted upon the Third Reich was not a means to achieve limited gains, handfuls of provinces or reparations. When Hitler went to war, especially with so called 'mongrel' races, it was war of total annihilation. While Hitler was willing, to an extent to deal with those he saw as Aryan, such as the British, Danish, or Norwegians, when it came to people such as the Polish, or later Serbs, Lithuanians, and Ukrainians, there was no point whatsoever in coming to terms. There was no reason to even give the vaguest consideration of accepting the hegemony of the Third Reich because you would not get a single concession. It would merely mean easing the complete destruction of your people, and its reorganization at the whims of Nazi ideology.

Upon the astounding defeat of the French Third Republic, once again a Belgian, Dutch, and Luxembourgish government in exile. Even in France, where the Vichy regime took hold as a result of the terrible political disunity of France in the interwar period, Charles de Gaulle and his Free French would form a more dubiously legitimate government in exile.

Later still, we see the formation of a Yugoslav and Greek government in exile.

The writing was on the wall at this point. Bismarck's Germany accepted relatively limited war. Even Germany of the First World War had relatively small goals in mind that could, under extreme duress, be made palatable to its opponents.

This was not the case for Nazism. Nazism demanded nothing less than the complete destruction of not only the political system of Europe, but also many of its peoples, and for it all to be completely rewritten under an unacceptably radical set of ideology.

By 1941, no one was willing to treat with the Nazis unless essentially forced to by an SS officer pointing a gun at them. Unless the forces opposed to the Axis had been completely and utterly razed to the ground, there would be no peace.

Bewegungskrieg was still a workable method of war under this set of political constraints for most situations. with the capture of Paris and the encirclement of the BEF and the better part of the French army in the BeNeLux, France could not have feasibly resisted the German army with the resources it had left, merely prolonged the time it took for the Germans to occupy the country by perhaps a month or two, and thus capitulated.

This was not the case for the Soviet Union. While the majority of the standing Red Army was posted essentially along the border with Germany, the Soviet Union was several dozen times larger than France, with a much larger portion of its population available to be called to arms. Despite the utter destruction of the Soviet armed forces at the front, the reality was that unlike any of its previous opponents Russia, if pressed, could afford to trade an effectively near infinite amount of space for as much time as it needed. Despite taking over two million prisoners of war during Operation Barbarossa, with millions more wounded or killed, the actual strength of the Red Army actually continued to increase during this time period as the Soviets called upon their vast reserves of reasonably trained manpower.

In addition, through a level of industrial might and human spirit that I do not believe has been seen before or since, the Soviet Union managed to disassemble much of the industry in territory the Germans were about to take and railroad it to the Ural mountains, safe from German bombing. Despite the incredible victories of the Axis on the Eastern Front in 1941, on the whole, the strength of the Soviet military had actually increased during this time period.

The Axis victories of the time, though great, in truth merely reduced the strength of their opponent from insurmountable to deeply challenging.

Thus, the Soviet ability to resist remained, bloodied, but far from beaten.

If one were to hypothetically make the dash for Moscow in the attempts of forcing a political capitulation, assuming success, it is nearly impossible for the desired result to occur. For one, as much as it crippled the Red Army, there was no one left to challenge Stalin after his purges. There is no Phillipe Petain to usurp the state upon the loss of the capital and sign armistice, and even if such a figure did exist, they would not make peace when it has been so clearly shown that Germany would accept nothing but annihilation of the Judeo-Bolshevik hordes. Even if Stalin were to somehow be killed, the Soviet Union had become sufficiently centralized under a single person at that point that there would be no real risk of devolving into a warlord ridden mess as Tsarist Russia did, with there being no real sources of power to consolidate around except for the central apparatus of state. Someone would simply fill in the gap, not someone of great ability as Stalin had killed most of the people who could have posed a threat, but as long as the understanding exists that there can only be total victory or total defeat, the war will rage on.

The loss of Moscow, though significant, would not be war ending. Core of the railway hub though it may be, its industry would be evacuated to safety, and crucially the agricultural breadbasket of Ukraine would remain partially available to the Soviets along with lengthening the distance to the Caucasus, along with lessening the devastating losses of 1941.

Hitler, I believe, had somewhat adjusted his thinking to that of fighting the Soviets. I am of the opinion that he truly was correct when he said that his generals understood nothing of grand strategy, at least before 1944. When kicking in the door did not in fact cause the whole house to come crashing down, by securing the Eastern Ukraine, he ensured that valuable resources of Grain and Coal would be denied to the Soviets, as well as putting the Axis ever closer to the oil of Transcaucasia, as well as weakening the Soviet Army as more and more Soviet soldiers were encircled and captured after repeated and failed counterattacks.



Case Blue was flawed from its very beginning. Much like how the Schlieffen Plan called for more divisions than the Germans had available, from the very outset the plan required advances on two strategic axis, one northeast towards the Don bend and Stalingrad, and another to the Caucasus. German doctrine held that an army group was sufficient to advance down a single strategic access. Army Group South was fundamentally overstretched in its goals even before taking logistics into account.

Due to the need to change the gauge of Russian railroads, Rasputitsa, Soviet Partisan attacks, and more, even by the end of 1941 German logistics had been brought to the breaking point and was frankly on the verge of disintegration for much of the war. To the lunge forward into one of the least developed portions of European Russia is on the verge of complete madness, and German logistics showed it.

In addition, I would argue that the operation had failed almost from the outset. STAVKA had recognized that the Germans were once again attempting to encircle and destroy a huge portion of the Soviet army, and partially by accident and partially by design, the Soviet front line in front of Army Group South broke and routed. Compared to the over two million POWs of operation Barbarossa, Case Blue had not even broke one hundred thousand in the first few months. Thus the Soviet army continued its astounding growth in both material and manpower, comparatively unchecked without losses comparable to the previous year.

Even ignoring the additional strain on supplies that would result from sending another army south, the Soviets were in the process of destroying much of the oil extraction equipment in case the Germans against all odds broke through once more. Not only that, but Caucasus oil remained in range of Allied strategic bombers that could be based in Iran at the time.

Had only a single army been sent north, it would simply be inviting an even more devastatingly successful Operation Uranus and Saturn, potentially destroying all of Army Group South this time due to even more badly strained rail infrastructure, and the lack of an additional army in the north to somewhat slow the Soviet advance.
And here I have no choice but to invoke my original statement:
DISCLAIMER: What follows is not my own research. It is based almost entirely off the brilliant work of military historian Bevin Alexander, who has written several excellent books on this and other topics. If you notice something that you think is wrong, it's probably from his books, and there's a good chance I won't be able to reply to it.
The argument that the Russian front could have been won comes from his works.
And yes, he is a professional military historian.
I'm not a professional, but I based this entirely off his work.
Sorry I can't give an answer. It's possible his opinion is wrong, but I did base my post off an actual opinion of a real military historian. I realize this is appeal to authority, but I can't do much better. Sorry.
:(
 
Last edited:
I suggest reading War Without Garlands by Robert Kershaw.

He makes a very convincing argument based on primary documentation that during Operation Barbarossa the Wehrmacht essentially victoried itself to death, considering the huge amounts of material and experienced junior officers and NCOs that were lost. It's not an exaggeration to say that the German military in June 1941 and December 1941 were two entirely different beasts. Barbarossa absolutely gutted the "sharp end" of the German spear and wiped out a huge number of the experienced men that were needed for them to keep operating as they had in Poland, France, and earlier on in Barbarossa. The last attack on Moscow was essentially the high water mark of the German war in the Soviet Union and Case Blue finished what Barbarossa started.
 
I'm more interested in thinking about why alt-history is so obsessed with getting two of the worst governments in history into the winner's circle.
 
I wasn't talking about sending more forces then, I was talking about earlier when the British hadn't yet built up their defense. If more troops had been sent with Rommel initially, North Africa and the Middle East likely would have fallen.
This completely misses the point of that part of my post. Namely: it doesn't matter how many troops the Nazis send, or when. The logistical currents working against the Germans in the region are too numerous and too strong. The Italian merchant marine has been gutted, with a third of the ships caught overseas at the start of the war. The Libyan ports can't handle enough to support more troops. And those supplies, once landed, have to go up a single road by truck, where there aren't enough trucks, the trucks end up having to supply the trucks due to distance, and the road doesn't have enough capacity, either.

Oh, and the German tanks would break down long before Alexandria. They were rated, in desert conditions, for at best 800 miles.
 
The argument that the Russian front could have been won comes from his works.
And yes, he is a professional military historian.
I'm not a professional, but I based this entirely off his work.
Sorry I can't give an answer. It's possible his opinion is wrong, but I did base my post off an actual opinion of a real military historian. I realize this is appeal to authority, but I can't do much better. Sorry.
:(


I've read Bevin's work. It's basically a repetition of claims by German general memoirs that historians who have actually done the work through primary source documentation from the German and Soviet and Allied archives have long since refuted.
 
I'm more interested in thinking about why alt-history is so obsessed with getting two of the worst governments in history into the winner's circle.
I think it's because "what if the bad guys won?" is a question that interests people. WWII and the American Civil War are two well-known dramatic turning points in history, they were key events in the story of how the world we know came into existence, and in particular they were key events in the Whig history version of that story, in which they appear as important triumphs of good over evil. "We defeated Hitler" is the closest thing real history offers to being able to say "we defeated Sauron." Of course people find these events fascinating and resonant, and speculate about the dark worlds that might exist if they'd happened differently.
 
I think it's because "what if the bad guys won?" is a question that interests people. WWII and the American Civil War are two well-known dramatic turning points in history, they were key events in the story of how the world we know came into existence, and in particular they were key events in the Whig history version of that story, in which they appear as important triumphs of good over evil. "We defeated Hitler" is the closest thing real history offers to being able to say "we defeated Sauron." Of course people find these events fascinating and resonant, and speculate about the dark worlds that might exist if they'd happened differently.

There's that, yes, but the people interested in that question tend to move away from "the how did this happen", and shift to focusing on the world that results from it.
 
I'm more interested in thinking about why alt-history is so obsessed with getting two of the worst governments in history into the winner's circle.

Largest War in living, barely, memory that involved more or less the entire world one way or another, largest antislavery war that involved by percentage at least an appalling amount of casualties and fanaticism.

The "What Ifs" simply jump at you. There are after all only so many alternate histories one can make about ways to beat the, unquestionably, bad guys faster before the question of what if they somehow won then ???? presents itself.
 
I'm more interested in thinking about why alt-history is so obsessed with getting two of the worst governments in history into the winner's circle.
If the CSA had existed then there might be a big change the German Enoire might have done better in the Great War and thus butterflying away the rise of Hitler, but that is just what I believe what would have happen.
 
A Confederate victory would be likely to butterfly away the Nazis, simply because any change that big and that far back would be likely to butterfly away the Nazis.

I think it's impossible to tell whether the resulting history would be overall better or worse than ours though. There's just too many variables. A change like that might butterfly away both world wars and the Nazi movement and create a much more peaceful twentieth century. Or a WWI-like conflict might still happen, and some Russian Tsar might do the same kinds of horrible things Hitler did and start a WWII-like conflict and be more successful than Hitler, and then there might be a nuclear war in 1977.

I think this is a question in which a variant of left-skepticism applies. The ultimate consequences of a Union victory or a Confederate victory are unknowable, but the immediate and obvious consequences of a Union victory are mostly good, and the immediate and obvious consequences of a Confederate victory are mostly bad.
 
I think it's impossible to tell whether the resulting history would be overall better or worse than ours though. There's just too many variables. A change like that might butterfly away both world wars and the Nazi movement and create a much more peaceful twentieth century. Or a WWI-like conflict might still happen, and some Russian Tsar might do the same kinds of horrible things Hitler did and start a WWII-like conflict and be more successful than Hitler, and then there might be a nuclear war in 1977.

Slavery would endure for another twenty to thirty years. At least.

It'd be worse.
 
I've read Bevin's work. It's basically a repetition of claims by German general memoirs that historians who have actually done the work through primary source documentation from the German and Soviet and Allied archives have long since refuted.
Huh. Well, mea culpa then. I'll remove the section talking about the Eastern front.
Now I get to feel superior for being able to admit that I'm wrong! Take THAT, politicians!
 
The only real way for the Nazis to win is nearly impossible to reach on the battlefield. All their grand plans were based on the idea that the West would just accept them after a show of force.

What Hitler wanted was a free hand to restructure Eastern and parts of Southern Europe with the acceptance of the West. He essentially wanted to turn Eastern and Southern Europe into even more horrifying colonies than the Congo.

A Nazi victory scenario is one, where the Nazis manage to reach a peace deal with Great Britain in 1940, while still being able to successfully loot France for the materials needed for Barbarossa. With world market access and peace in the West the Nazis have the resources to win their terrible crusade in the East.

The big failure of National Socialism always was the missing realization that Great Britain and the USA wouldn't be okay with their genocidal crimes.
 
The only real way for the Nazis to win is nearly impossible to reach on the battlefield. All their grand plans were based on the idea that the West would just accept them after a show of force.

What Hitler wanted was a free hand to restructure Eastern and parts of Southern Europe with the acceptance of the West. He essentially wanted to turn Eastern and Southern Europe into even more horrifying colonies than the Congo.

A Nazi victory scenario is one, where the Nazis manage to reach a peace deal with Great Britain in 1940, while still being able to successfully loot France for the materials needed for Barbarossa. With world market access and peace in the West the Nazis have the resources to win their terrible crusade in the East.

The big failure of National Socialism always was the missing realization that Great Britain and the USA wouldn't be okay with their genocidal crimes.
Not so much "genocidal crimes", those not being particularly known early in the war, but centuries of UK policy of opposing the rise of a Continental hegemon, combined with Hitler and the Nazi state having demonstrated time and again that they could not be trusted to abide by any agreement seeking to contain them.
 
Back
Top