The earliest date that Germany lost WW2? October 1813.

[jackwei]

Autumn 1942 Operation Blue that to the lost of one of its most experienced armies with enough material to equip a quarter of the entire Wehrmacht in Stalingrad or some can say the declaration of war on the US.

Surprisingly France had a pretty good tanks around 1940 better armor and even guns on their tanks but were much slower than Panzer however the big picture is that they had poor leadership and tactics as they truly didn't understand this new type of lightning warfare the Germans used who had brilliant leadership as well as the coordinating their attacks with Luftwaffe giving them close support that were pivotal in overcoming the allies in the battle for France. Another thing is that it wasn't until the very end of the battle of France that the French actually started to use better tactics with their tanks and infantry together but then again with no air support as the skies were dominated by the Germans they had no hope. Even though the French lost in 6 weeks I don't be bide into them being terrible as they were just caught off guard even the BEF too and didn't by into maximizing the potential of their tanks and air force using new tactics like Germany did or even took the intelligence seriously about the Panzers penetrating the Ardennes forest in Belgium.

[ByzantinePowerGame]

Autumn 1942 Operation Blue that to the lost of one of its most experienced armies with enough material to equip a quarter of the entire Wehrmacht in Stalingrad or some can say the declaration of war on the US.

Surprisingly France had a pretty good tanks around 1940 better armor and even guns on their tanks but were much slower than Panzer however the big picture is that they had poor leadership and tactics as they truly didn't understand this new type of lightning warfare the Germans used who had brilliant leadership as well as the coordinating their attacks with Luftwaffe giving them close support that were pivotal in overcoming the allies in the battle for France. Another thing is that it wasn't until the very end of the battle of France that the French actually started to use better tactics with their tanks and infantry together but then again with no air support as the skies were dominated by the Germans they had no hope. Even though the French lost in 6 weeks I don't be bide into them being terrible as they were just caught off guard even the BEF too and didn't by into maximizing the potential of their tanks and air force using new tactics like Germany did or even took the intelligence seriously about the Panzers penetrating the Ardennes forest in Belgium.

Fall Blau would not have changed the course or outcome of the war in any way. The Soviets so thoroughly sabotaged the oil fields at Maykop, prior to retreating, that German engineers estimated they would need no less than 12 months to get the oil wells operating and that it might be easier to just drill new wells [which would also take about 12 months]. The Soviets were experts at sabotage/scorched earth prior to a retreat and they would have thoroughly sabotaged Grozny and Baku oil fields as well.

Soviet oil production increased even as the Soviets fell back within the Caucuses because Stalin merely ordered production in the Urals to increase with new wells.


Germany was so weak in 1942 that they were not able to advance along the entire front as they had done in 1941 with Barbarossa. In Barbarossa they advanced along the entire front with 3+ million men. In 1942 they were so weak they were barely able to sustain an offensive [that ultimately failed] that involved one army group along their southern axis. By 1943 they were so weak they were barely able to launch an offensive in one sector of the Eastern Front [at Kursk].

Germany did not have the economic strength to beat any of the major allied powers, whether the USSR, USA, or the UK, even if that power was only fighting alone.

Britain had the world's largest empire and access to resources and manpower far in excess of anything Germany could ever hope to field.

The USA had a GDP about 3x that of Germany and a manufacturing base that Germany could never hope to match, let alone beat.

The Soviet Union had a manpower reserve, mobilization ability, and small arms, tanks, etc., production ability that Germany could never hope to match.

As soon as Britain and France declared war on Germany in 1939, and Britain refused to negotiate a peace, it was inevitable that Germany would eventually lose to the British Empire.

If you read Wages of Destruction by Tooze it is clear that even Hitler knew this. He told his closest advisers and major industry chiefs that German steel production was an Achilles heel, along with the food supply, and that if Germany could not find some way to force Britain to make peace, Germany would ultimately lose. The invasion of the Soviet Union, which made sense at the time, was actually a move of desperation on the part of Hitler. It was an attempt to remove the possibility of Soviet intervention on the side of Britain, from the equation, and pressure Britain into making peace.

https://www.amazon.com/Wages-Destruc...of+destruction

[hellheaven1987]

[QUOTE=ByzantinePowerGame;15296529Britain had the world's largest empire and access to resources and manpower far in excess of anything Germany could ever hope to field.[/QUOTE]

Manpower it could not mobilize.

[ByzantinePowerGame]

Manpower it could not mobilize.

The largest number of volunteers in the history of the world were provided by India.

India provided more than 2 million volunteers for the British war effort. Britain probably could have doubled or tripled that with more focused and widespread propaganda campaigns and pledges of post-war Indian independence.

[bigdaddy1204]

Did any of them fight in Europe?

[ByzantinePowerGame]

Did any of them fight in Europe?

They were crucial in defeating the Germans and Italians in North Africa, Indians were essentially the largest contingent of British Empire/Allied forces in the North Africa campaign. There were also 3 Indian divisions and 1 Ghurka brigade in the Italian campaign, more than any other force except the Americans and British/English [more than Canada, etc].

The contributions of India to the Allied war effort against Germany and Italy have generally been completely overlooked and outright ignored.

[bigdaddy1204]

Interesting, thanks for sharing. I learned something new

[conon394]

As soon as Britain and France declared war on Germany in 1939, and Britain refused to negotiate a peace, it was inevitable that Germany would eventually lose to the British Empire.

I don't think so.

Or rather it might have become inevitable that Germany and Japan (and Italy) could not win in the absolute sense of their full desired outcome. However I think there was still a wide wide range of not loosing absolutely that could have happened. For starters nothing says that UK/US/USSR cooperation had to be as effective and well managed as it was in fact. Germany might well have made Fall Blau have impact. It would have required reading its own reports on economics and recognizing Russian oil fields even if secured could not be utilized effectively in a useful time period. A limited campaign designed only to occupy Russia, destroy oil out put and fight fluid battles avoiding static fights like Stalingrad with the intent of a full campaign the next year would have produced very different results. Cutting wasted effort in Tunisia would also have had a significant impact on the war. Having Japan stop holding unto a pointless card in RUssian neutrality and cut the Pacific LL route again would have had an impact. Japan could easily have avoided the results of Midway that was with any number of steps. refitting the Shōkaku with the same alacrity the USN did with Yorktown, not running a pointless diversion of critical ships to the Aleutians 2 light CVs would have been invaluable at Midway. UK and US cooperation might not have been so close on any number of programs Radar, aircraft engines, the Atom bomb. A UK facing the inevitable loss of India that its use of its manpower implied might well have looked on more guarded to a post war world surrounded by both the USSR and USA and wanted its own technological secrets kept closer. All in all none of these see a German victory (at least not the one Hiler imagined in his dreams) but lots of paths to not defeat.

The problem with economic determinism is by that argument Persia wins the Persian wars and the US defeats North Vietnam. The allied line on Total Victory and using their resources to such ends were certainly made feasible by Axis mistakes and absolutist aims that left no room for creeping doubt or negotiations by the allies.

[ByzantinePowerGame]

I don't think so.

Or rather it might have become inevitable that Germany and Japan (and Italy) could not win in the absolute sense of their full desired outcome. However I think there was still a wide wide range of not loosing absolutely that could have happened. For starters nothing says that UK/US/USSR cooperation had to be as effective and well managed as it was in fact. Germany might well have made Fall Blau have impact. It would have required reading its own reports on economics and recognizing Russian oil fields even if secured could not be utilized effectively in a useful time period. A limited campaign designed only to occupy Russia, destroy oil out put and fight fluid battles avoiding static fights like Stalingrad with the intent of a full campaign the next year would have produced very different results. Cutting wasted effort in Tunisia would also have had a significant impact on the war. Having Japan stop holding unto a pointless card in RUssian neutrality and cut the Pacific LL route again would have had an impact. Japan could easily have avoided the results of Midway that was with any number of steps. refitting the Shōkaku with the same alacrity the USN did with Yorktown, not running a pointless diversion of critical ships to the Aleutians 2 light CVs would have been invaluable at Midway. UK and US cooperation might not have been so close on any number of programs Radar, aircraft engines, the Atom bomb. A UK facing the inevitable loss of India that its use of its manpower implied might well have looked on more guarded to a post war world surrounded by both the USSR and USA and wanted its own technological secrets kept closer. All in all none of these see a German victory (at least not the one Hiler imagined in his dreams) but lots of paths to not defeat.

Germany had no ability to attack Baku in any meaningful sense, and it would first have to reach Rostov-on-Don to be able to project medium bombers into the Caucuses.

Also, Germany had no way to reach Soviet oil production in the Urals, which was more than making up for the difficulties the Soviets had in getting oil out of the Caucuses once the Germans cut the main rail-lines from the Caucuses north towards Stalingrad and Astrakhan..

Also, the Germans didn't have enough oil to fight multiple campaign seasons of fluid battles. If you consider that their only major offensive in 1942 was along the southern axis with their forces in the south, and even those were woefully under-supplied and provisioned, it is fairly obvious they had no way to fight fluid battles in the center and north.



I think it is time for a Sun Tzu quote-

• Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.

Germany went to war with excellent tactics, but no serious/coherent overall war strategy. They also failed to properly prepare and they didn't make adequate preparations to assure a victory. They went to war and then fought to achieve a victory instead of first laying the groundwork and achieving victory prior to fighting. At one point the strategy is to encircle huge amounts of Red Army units in Ukraine and Belarus [good strategy, you can't advance towards Leningrad and then Moscow with huge Soviet forces threatening your flanks], then it shifted to taking Leningrad, then it was the Don-Basin, then Hitler let the generals influence him to roll the dice on a rapid advance to Moscow [which was irrelevant at this point]. In my view the number one priority should have been the destruction of as much of the Red Army as possible, west of Kiev [due to the logistical issues Germany was going to encounter as they went further east], followed by the capture of Leningrad, followed by the Don-Basin, and only then the advance on Moscow, which I would have launched from the northwest and the south, as well as the classic Minsk-Smolensk-Moscow route. However, the Germans had a generally incoherent war strategy and it was always shifting and changing.

A coherent strategy would have involved full integration of all Axis partners into the plan, and their commitment to the plan. Ideally Japan would have waited until the Soviets began to shift huge amounts of forces away from the Manchurian border, away from the Soviet Far East, and then struck with all available ground and air forces while the Soviet forces were in transit to the west, so those Soviet forces would have been useless to defend in the East or the West, due to being in transit.

Germany had no serious overall strategy for WW2... Tactical brilliance, strategic deficiency.

Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory, tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.

[bigdaddy1204]

I agree with Byzantine Power Game, above. Good post, sir!

[jackwei]

Fall Blau would not have changed the course or outcome of the war in any way. The Soviets so thoroughly sabotaged the oil fields at Maykop, prior to retreating, that German engineers estimated they would need no less than 12 months to get the oil wells operating and that it might be easier to just drill new wells [which would also take about 12 months]. The Soviets were experts at sabotage/scorched earth prior to a retreat and they would have thoroughly sabotaged Grozny and Baku oil fields as well.

Soviet oil production increased even as the Soviets fell back within the Caucuses because Stalin merely ordered production in the Urals to increase with new wells.


Germany was so weak in 1942 that they were not able to advance along the entire front as they had done in 1941 with Barbarossa. In Barbarossa they advanced along the entire front with 3+ million men. In 1942 they were so weak they were barely able to sustain an offensive [that ultimately failed] that involved one army group along their southern axis. By 1943 they were so weak they were barely able to launch an offensive in one sector of the Eastern Front [at Kursk].

Germany did not have the economic strength to beat any of the major allied powers, whether the USSR, USA, or the UK, even if that power was only fighting alone.

Britain had the world's largest empire and access to resources and manpower far in excess of anything Germany could ever hope to field.

The USA had a GDP about 3x that of Germany and a manufacturing base that Germany could never hope to match, let alone beat.

The Soviet Union had a manpower reserve, mobilization ability, and small arms, tanks, etc., production ability that Germany could never hope to match.

As soon as Britain and France declared war on Germany in 1939, and Britain refused to negotiate a peace, it was inevitable that Germany would eventually lose to the British Empire.

If you read Wages of Destruction by Tooze it is clear that even Hitler knew this. He told his closest advisers and major industry chiefs that German steel production was an Achilles heel, along with the food supply, and that if Germany could not find some way to force Britain to make peace, Germany would ultimately lose. The invasion of the Soviet Union, which made sense at the time, was actually a move of desperation on the part of Hitler. It was an attempt to remove the possibility of Soviet intervention on the side of Britain, from the equation, and pressure Britain into making peace.

https://www.amazon.com/Wages-Destruc...of+destruction

I very much doubt the UK would've beaten Germany on mainland Europe if Hitler didn't declare war on the United States. Yes pretty much in 1942 they were overstretched and had many logistical problems considering the Sixth Army being stripped of much armor and supplies. The 4th Panzer Army with its Axis Allies for the Caucasus campaign it did seem the Wehrmacht was in bad situation as their tanks kept running out of fuel that forced them to abandon some tanks despite attempts of being refueled by the Luftwaffe. I think some can say if the Sixth Army by passed Stalingrad and crossed the Volga would they have enough men to be able to do it and prevent the Russian build up there as they would of been able to starve Stalingrad?
The question to me wonders if attacking the Soviet forces in Ukraine in Kiev in 1941 or the earlier delays with the conflict in the Balkans prevented Heinz Guderian and his Panzers reaching Moscow earlier before the Winter as their tactics were based on lightning warfare which is would work in the short term as maybe they could've reached the Urals before Winter but then again it is difficult would've it been Possible for Germany to defeat the Soviet Union in 1941? For me the Balkans Campaign could've waited but then again deploying troops to assist the Italians who failed big time in Greece and North Africa against the British as Rommel and his men were needed on the Eastern Front.

The British Empire didn't have the strength as it did in WW1 due the big losses not as bad as the French nonetheless use they could hold off Germany in the air and the seas as well as deploy troops anywhere they wanted as they still were one of the big great powers but by then the US and arguably the Soviet Union were moving ahead of her in some areas. As for Germany their economy wasn't perfect but they managed to produce the Luftwaffe and as many Tanks as they could together Equipping their army so well and managed to storm practically all of continental Europe with a few years. Could've the UK really outproduced Germany in Tanks, Equipment and Planes overall in WWII?

[ByzantinePowerGame]

I very much doubt the UK would've beaten Germany on mainland Europe if Hitler didn't declare war on the United States. Yes pretty much in 1942 they were overstretched and had many logistical problems considering the Sixth Army being stripped of much armor and supplies. The 4th Panzer Army with its Axis Allies for the Caucasus campaign it did seem the Wehrmacht was in bad situation as their tanks kept running out of fuel that forced them to abandon some tanks despite attempts of being refueled by the Luftwaffe. I think some can say if the Sixth Army by passed Stalingrad and crossed the Volga would they have enough men to be able to do it and prevent the Russian build up there as they would of been able to starve Stalingrad?
The question to me wonders if attacking the Soviet forces in Ukraine in Kiev in 1941 or the earlier delays with the conflict in the Balkans prevented Heinz Guderian and his Panzers reaching Moscow earlier before the Winter as their tactics were based on lightning warfare which is would work in the short term as maybe they could've reached the Urals before Winter but then again it is difficult would've it been Possible for Germany to defeat the Soviet Union in 1941? For me the Balkans Campaign could've waited but then again deploying troops to assist the Italians who failed big time in Greece and North Africa against the British as Rommel and his men were needed on the Eastern Front.

The British Empire didn't have the strength as it did in WW1 due the big losses not as bad as the French nonetheless use they could hold off Germany in the air and the seas as well as deploy troops anywhere they wanted as they still were one of the big great powers but by then the US and arguably the Soviet Union were moving ahead of her in some areas. As for Germany their economy wasn't perfect but they managed to produce the Luftwaffe and as many Tanks as they could together Equipping their army so well and managed to storm practically all of continental Europe with a few years. Could've the UK really outproduced Germany in Tanks, Equipment and Planes overall in WWII?

Bypassing Stalingrad and crossing the Volga would be ideal, but it was not realistic with the forces the Germans had on hand. They did not have sufficient engineering capabilities with Army Group B to get the Army Group across a river as significant as the Volga.

Army Group B had such limited engineering units that they were often hindered for days by streams and small rivers, 20-50m wide, in the Caucuses campaign.


Advancing on Moscow while leaving 800,000+ Soviet soldiers around Kiev would have resulted in a Soviet counter-stroke, or an entire counter-offensive operation that would have resulted in a cutting off of the German forces advancing on Moscow.

It would have been the height of folly to advance on Moscow without first addressing the massive Soviet presence around Kiev. Making the Soviet forces a priority over Moscow was absolutely the right decision and Hitler should be commended for recognizing it and siding with the generals who wanted Kiev resolved first, instead of siding with the generals who wanted an immediate advance on Moscow.

The generals who wanted Moscow captured at all costs were basically the traditional "capture the capital and the enemy sues for peace" type, old guard. Stalin would not quit the war just because his capital was captured. Moscow was ultimately irrelevant to the German objective of conquering the Soviet Union.

If the Germans had been able to destroy all Soviet forces west of Kiev [prior to say September or even October], it would have been far more relevant and significant than the capture of Moscow prior to winter.

[Kyriakos]

^Was there any realistic case where the german army could effectively occupy/destroy infrastructure in the Urals? That is half a Europe away.
The campaign seemed doomed from the onset.

Russia didn't sue for peace Moscow was captured by Napoleon; they wouldn't in ww2 either. Let alone that the dynamics in ww2 were hugely more in favour of Russia.

[bigdaddy1204]

Moscow wasn't the capital in 1812. That was Saint Petersburg.

[Wulfburk]

I very much doubt the UK would've beaten Germany on mainland Europe if Hitler didn't declare war on the United States. Yes pretty much in 1942 they were overstretched and had many logistical problems considering the Sixth Army being stripped of much armor and supplies. The 4th Panzer Army with its Axis Allies for the Caucasus campaign it did seem the Wehrmacht was in bad situation as their tanks kept running out of fuel that forced them to abandon some tanks despite attempts of being refueled by the Luftwaffe. I think some can say if the Sixth Army by passed Stalingrad and crossed the Volga would they have enough men to be able to do it and prevent the Russian build up there as they would of been able to starve Stalingrad?
The question to me wonders if attacking the Soviet forces in Ukraine in Kiev in 1941 or the earlier delays with the conflict in the Balkans prevented Heinz Guderian and his Panzers reaching Moscow earlier before the Winter as their tactics were based on lightning warfare which is would work in the short term as maybe they could've reached the Urals before Winter but then again it is difficult would've it been Possible for Germany to defeat the Soviet Union in 1941? For me the Balkans Campaign could've waited but then again deploying troops to assist the Italians who failed big time in Greece and North Africa against the British as Rommel and his men were needed on the Eastern Front.

The British Empire didn't have the strength as it did in WW1 due the big losses not as bad as the French nonetheless use they could hold off Germany in the air and the seas as well as deploy troops anywhere they wanted as they still were one of the big great powers but by then the US and arguably the Soviet Union were moving ahead of her in some areas. As for Germany their economy wasn't perfect but they managed to produce the Luftwaffe and as many Tanks as they could together Equipping their army so well and managed to storm practically all of continental Europe with a few years. Could've the UK really outproduced Germany in Tanks, Equipment and Planes overall in WWII?

The Uk actually did outproduce germany in vehicles (tanks there is a small difference) equipment and planes... not to mention ships.

[Hanny]

joel hayword, to little to late, german failure to destroy soviet oil in 42, online as a pdf, or in book form, shows when and how it could have been done. unlike the posted by byz powergame, the prof knows his history.

[ByzantinePowerGame]

I very much doubt the UK would've beaten Germany on mainland Europe if Hitler didn't declare war on the United States. Yes pretty much in 1942 they were overstretched and had many logistical problems considering the Sixth Army being stripped of much armor and supplies. The 4th Panzer Army with its Axis Allies for the Caucasus campaign it did seem the Wehrmacht was in bad situation as their tanks kept running out of fuel that forced them to abandon some tanks despite attempts of being refueled by the Luftwaffe. I think some can say if the Sixth Army by passed Stalingrad and crossed the Volga would they have enough men to be able to do it and prevent the Russian build up there as they would of been able to starve Stalingrad?
The question to me wonders if attacking the Soviet forces in Ukraine in Kiev in 1941 or the earlier delays with the conflict in the Balkans prevented Heinz Guderian and his Panzers reaching Moscow earlier before the Winter as their tactics were based on lightning warfare which is would work in the short term as maybe they could've reached the Urals before Winter but then again it is difficult would've it been Possible for Germany to defeat the Soviet Union in 1941? For me the Balkans Campaign could've waited but then again deploying troops to assist the Italians who failed big time in Greece and North Africa against the British as Rommel and his men were needed on the Eastern Front.

The British Empire didn't have the strength as it did in WW1 due the big losses not as bad as the French nonetheless use they could hold off Germany in the air and the seas as well as deploy troops anywhere they wanted as they still were one of the big great powers but by then the US and arguably the Soviet Union were moving ahead of her in some areas. As for Germany their economy wasn't perfect but they managed to produce the Luftwaffe and as many Tanks as they could together Equipping their army so well and managed to storm practically all of continental Europe with a few years. Could've the UK really outproduced Germany in Tanks, Equipment and Planes overall in WWII?

Ultimately Germany had the combined economic power of Germany, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Norway, Denmark, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, and the General Government of Poland, and it was insufficient to deal with the Soviet Union. Even when they took the rest of Poland, the Baltic States, Belarus, and essentially all of Ukraine, it was not enough.

Germany was not able to produce an adequate supply of fighters and bombers to deal with Britain in 1940 and this was after they had taken Czechoslovakia, Austria, and the General Government area of Poland, they still could not prosecute the Battle of Britain to a successful conclusion.

Germany had a crippling shortage of strategic resources, and frequently of food, and it was never able to permanently address this. Some months were better than others, but Germany consistently failed to meet armaments production quotas and was always having to find ways to "make do" without or "get by" with less.

I don't think so.

Or rather it might have become inevitable that Germany and Japan (and Italy) could not win in the absolute sense of their full desired outcome. However I think there was still a wide wide range of not loosing absolutely that could have happened. For starters nothing says that UK/US/USSR cooperation had to be as effective and well managed as it was in fact. Germany might well have made Fall Blau have impact. It would have required reading its own reports on economics and recognizing Russian oil fields even if secured could not be utilized effectively in a useful time period. A limited campaign designed only to occupy Russia, destroy oil out put and fight fluid battles avoiding static fights like Stalingrad with the intent of a full campaign the next year would have produced very different results. Cutting wasted effort in Tunisia would also have had a significant impact on the war. Having Japan stop holding unto a pointless card in RUssian neutrality and cut the Pacific LL route again would have had an impact. Japan could easily have avoided the results of Midway that was with any number of steps. refitting the Shōkaku with the same alacrity the USN did with Yorktown, not running a pointless diversion of critical ships to the Aleutians 2 light CVs would have been invaluable at Midway. UK and US cooperation might not have been so close on any number of programs Radar, aircraft engines, the Atom bomb. A UK facing the inevitable loss of India that its use of its manpower implied might well have looked on more guarded to a post war world surrounded by both the USSR and USA and wanted its own technological secrets kept closer. All in all none of these see a German victory (at least not the one Hiler imagined in his dreams) but lots of paths to not defeat.

The problem with economic determinism is by that argument Persia wins the Persian wars and the US defeats North Vietnam. The allied line on Total Victory and using their resources to such ends were certainly made feasible by Axis mistakes and absolutist aims that left no room for creeping doubt or negotiations by the allies.

If Persia had decided to begin producing metal armor and metal shields for its infantry, as well as training tens of thousands of soldiers to fight as heavy infantry, then Persia would ultimately have conquered the Greek city-states.

Persia decided to continue fighting war the traditional Persian way, and when they suffered some decisive tactical defeats on the battlefield they sued for peace and quit the war.

It wasn't inevitable, Persia could have continued fighting, changed their methods, and ultimately won. The Greeks never had the ability to militarily knock Persia out of the war, Persia had to decide to quit.

Germany never had the ability to militarily knock the British Empire out of WW2, all they could do was try to win lots of battles and hope Britain would sue for peace.

[Cyclops]

joel hayword, to little to late, german failure to destroy soviet oil in 42, online as a pdf, or in book form, shows when and how it could have been done. unlike the posted by byz powergame, the prof knows his history.

I think BPG has pretty much nailed it. Hitler fluked a victory over France, and went East with Britain unbeaten and unbeatable. IIRC they were even closer to the atom bomb than the Nazis (still unrealistically far off, lacking the spare billions the US had to fling at such a project). They ploughed the bulk of their rearmament budget into the army and airforce, without which they don't get to the channel, and not enough into the naval assets to make Sea Lion work.

Starting from the betrayal of the Munich agreement there's no non space bats scenario where Berlin is unburnt (in my view usually by the Soviets, although the French, US and British would have a certain slice of the alternate universal pie chart).

I consider Conon's argument about a variety of possible outcomes very interesting, but generally they require a degree of sanity on the part of the Axis players that would prevent them from initiating earlier steps. We can discuss academic points about possible successful plots, I think they result in civil war in Germany, and in any case the nuclear clock is ticking from January 1939 and there's only one country with the money and the people to build it.

The old adage is if Hitler is sane enough to win WWII then he's too sane to start it, and the period after any putative Nazi victory in Europe is known as the nuclear winter.

[Hanny]

Fall Blau would not have changed the course or outcome of the war in any way.

Soviet oil production increased even as the Soviets fell back within the Caucuses because Stalin merely ordered production in the Urals to increase with new

soviet oil production did not increase it decreased, from 33 mm tons in 41 to 22 in 42 to 18 in 43 and 44 rising to 19 in 44. 80% of the 42 production was from Baku, had it been further reduced, earlier in the year, by bombing, the fuel to manover in 42 does not exist. No ability to mass, or exploit breakthroughs, or Redeploy, all achieved by air assets that did something else instead. The problem with determinism is that it's bollocks.

[ByzantinePowerGame]

soviet oil production did not increase it decreased, from 33 mm tons in 41 to 22 in 42 to 18 in 43 and 44 rising to 19 in 44. 80% of the 42 production was from Baku, had it been further reduced, earlier in the year, by bombing, the fuel to manover in 42 does not exist. No ability to mass, or exploit breakthroughs, or Redeploy, all achieved by air assets that did something else instead. The problem with determinism is that it's bollocks.

Read Tooze, he makes it clear that Stalin merely ordered additional wells to be brought on line in the Urals. Granted it would take time to bring these online, but the Germans were *NEVER* going to enjoy oil from the Caucuses in a quantity sufficient to change anything, let alone in a timely manner.

Germany didn't need to secure the Caucuses by the end of 1942 to bring oil online by the end of 1943 or the beginning of 1944, they needed oil immediately. It doesn't help them to gain Baku in December 1942 or January 1943 if it takes 12-16 months before they begin to get any oil from Baku.

How do you reduce Baku from the air? With heavy 4 engine bombers that Germany didn't have? Germany lost an enormous number of aircraft launching attacks on Britain, from occupied France, attacks which were covered by their short-range fighters. What sort of fighter cover would German bombers [what few would have range to reach Baku] have, if the aircraft were being launched from Rostov-on-Don, and what sort of payload would they have? Germany would *NOT* have been able to bomb Baku in any meaningful sense.

The Do-217 could take off from Rostov-on-Don, drop a minimal bomb-load on Baku, and then crash-land on the return trip because it would not have enough fuel to get back to Rostov-on-Don.