What a discussion!

First of all, lets get the obligatory out of the way - the ruling regimes in the Axis forces were the cause of the war, and the root foundation for the outcomes as well. Their ascent to power is viewed properly by history as a cost to humanity that can only be called a criminal calamity of huge proportions.

Uboat crews were Nazi's... This is historical fact. I can say it because I understand it. This does NOT mean that they believed the rhetoric - its a reflection of the society at the time. To be in Germany, as a German, during that time frame, you simply were a Nazi. With the brown/black shirt goon squads roaming - to not be a card carrying, dues paying member - well - my grandfather had a gun to his head when he was asked whether he was a member of the Nazi party..... a wrong answer meant his brains exited his cranial cavity, and he had a family to care for. I don't disrespect his choice in answering.

Yet very few people in Germany truly followed the rhetoric in their hearts. So I still honor the sailors and ordinary "joe's" who went out and did what they saw as their duty, not for Hitler or Hirohito or some party line, but because they loved their country.

Now to the discussion itself. The uboats did not lose the war for Germany. Not unrestricted submarine warfare, because sinking neutrals that were carrying supplies to the island nation of Great Britain was a necessary evil. If one wishes to fight a war and win, you cannot pull punches. As is often said - He who is the friend of my enemy is my enemy, while the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Countries were warned not to supply England, and that doing so put their ships at risk.

One flaw that comes from this mathematical what is built vs what is sunk comparison is that its not the weight of what is sunk, its what is sunk itself that matters. All the freighters making it thru carrying tanks and trucks and toilet paper dont matter a bit when an island must have the fuel and ammunition to drive and fight them, or the food that is required to feed their population.

The original arguement claims that the uboats failed to pack enough "punch" to stop convoys. BdU agreed, which is why the wolfpack concept became a major effort. One Type VII may not do much - but three or four hitting a convoy could decimate it - as happened more than once.

The Uboat war did not doom Germany. If anything doomed the "Battle of the Atlantic" for Germany, it was her ally, Japan. In attacking Pearl Harbor (which Germany had no knowledge they were going to do), they forced Germany into direct conflict with America. Up until that time, US hulls were being sent to the bottom and existing US escorts were used through the lend/lease program, but little resource was put into modernization/R&D of ASW since the war was undeclared. Once war was declared, ASW in the Atlantic took on a greater priority, and thus began the technological race that ultimately the U-boats lost. While the Battle of Britain became a tactical blunder, and thus hindered Operation Sea Lion, it was the decision to delay indefinitely Sea Lion itself due to lack of full air and sea control that created in High Command (aka - Hitler) the need to lash out toward another target - that being Russia.

While I could go on and on - like how both Stalin and Hitler knew that the Non-Aggression Pact was a farce (Stalin also had plans to invade Germany) there truly is not a "single" thing that caused the outcome of the war as a whole - it was the sacrifice of so many on the various fields of battle that did that - and for that we all can be thankful. I will also add that there are a few times it appears that divine intervention may have helped.

I also appreciate the tone this has - so far at least - been carried in. Well done to all for an interesting, thought provoking discussion with class.

Admiral Togo, not Tojo wiped out the Russians at the naval battle of Tsushima in 1905 in the Russo-Japanese War. I think the 'butt-kicking' skirmish the original poster is referring to is the far later land battle of Khalkin Gol in Manchuria in 1939. General Zhukov basically crushed the Japanese with superior tank and infantry tactics to the tune of some 45,000 casualities during an undeclared border war. The Japanese weren't too keen on facing the Soviets after that one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khalkhin_Gol

Granted. Submarines are a very cost-effective means of waging war. Except that we could afford the cost and much more. The Japanese could not. The Germans could not. Similarly, we could absorb a number of casualties that would cost the Axis powers the wars and come back for more. We fought two years in the Pacific without winning a single battle, losing tens of thousands, caught our breath and spent more, lost more men and won. Victory comes only to those who are willing and able to pay the terrible cost.

The Kriegsmarine was willing but not able. If they had another 100 submarines, they would not have had enough crew to man them. One of the reasons the Type XXI never got into combat was their inability to train crews. Topp talked about that in a famous interview where he said the Type XXI couldn't have turned the tide. Numbers of subs don't win wars, the qualified and well-trained people in them to.

Hitler as part of the equation makes sense also. For my reasonable plan for Germany to work, Hitler would have had to be sane. A sane man wouldn't have even begun WWII to get to the point where they could consolidate their victory on the Continent, mollify Britain and then attack Russia at their leisure and with British and American aquiescence (the next step in my logic). After all, British and American supplies were instrumental if the survival of Russia. As it was, victory was initally by a small margin for the Russians. The unknown is how cohesive Russia would be if deprived of Stalingrad, Moscow and Kiev, losing the entire European part of Russia. Would the Asian Russians fight to regain Europe, or would cultural differences result in the Asians saying good riddance to their European oppressors? I can't begin to guess the answer to that one.

And you can meld the crazy ruler is the reason for defeat with my weird theory if you wish. A sane Hitler would (if he was still crazy enough to start the war:rotfl:) not have used U-Boats in unrestricted warfare, realizing that they had no choice but to attack American shipping and realizing that U-Boats were utterly powerless as a weapon against the United States. Once the US entered the war the Germans were losers.

@CaptainHaplo I agree with you about how amazing the discussion has been. I had some misgivings when I launched it as evidenced by my last paragraph about the spirit I hoped the discussion would have. It has had better than I dared to hope. It just shows what a great place SUBSIM is.

My theory is really more of a thought experiment than a reflection of reality because as others have said, it was the insanity of Naziism that caused the war to begin with and was responsible for the lousy choices Germans made throughout the war. If you believe my theory about consolidating victory on the continent, coopting America and Britain and then whipping Russia, you have to believe in a total reversal in the mindsets of Hitler and his henchmen. Of all the military leaders in Germany, only Admiral Donitz would have been capable of such imaginative thought and abandonment of Nazi doctrine to achieve victory.

I hadn't thought of your point that if you consented on any terms to be led by Nazis, you were one of them regardless of your personal beliefs. Maybe it's ownership of that lousy truth that has made the German people the great people they are today. If we Americans are smug about not being that stupid, I would counter by saying that there was another country in the world that could have gone that wrong: the United States of America. It's possible that Germany just beat us to it. Who knows. I just know that if Naziism happened in a country with the cultural richness of Germany, it could have happened elsewhere.

This is a great thread and I must admit, RR has really peaked my curiosty. RR, your making alot of sense in you argument and I'm waiting anxiously for more! :yep: I love someone throwing out an unconventional idea that validates some of my own thoughts.:up:

The Japanese reason for war was less "mad" by far - Japan needed the resources of the Far East, particularly Indochina - to continue to fuel the economic expansion they were undergoing. When the American policy of isolation and a trade embargo occurred, Japan had little choice but to go to war. Doing so meant that they ultimately HAD to face an American force intent on protecting its own economic interests. For an island nation that lacked the resources at "home" that were needed, there was little choice if economic growth was to continue.

However, the start of WWII in Europe was not due to the need for resources. The Rhine Valley was, and is today, a major source of industry. Germany, economically speaking, had the financial base to compete with just about any major player. The problem wasn't financial, it was the fact that the Treaty of Versailles was an insult to the idea of "German pride". It is often said that the seeds of WW2 were sown in the ending of WW1 - and that is very true. While the average German after WW1 did suffer economically, industry itself (and by that read corporations) were thriving. It was this economical disparity that allowed Hitler to stir the masses initially, by promising to return Germany to its "rightful" place and restore its glory - and in so doing, have the masses benefit. The same type of economic situation was what led to Mussolini gaining power in Italy as well.

Ultimately - the "New German Empire" grew too fast, made too many enemies (its own fault) and its few friends were to distant or inept to aid it. Had ole Adolf been content in uniting continental Europe and securing what resources Europe lacked (mainly oil) from the Middle East, we would have a drastically different world today. Thankfully, Adolf was a nutjob and the world avoided what could have been a far more greater disaster due to his and others blunders.

Had "greater Germany" extended more respect to the rest of Europe instead of setting up the numerous puppet governments, broken away from the "superior race" nonsense and the rest of the silly Nazi bullcrap, they might have stood a chance. But its a good lesson that such history teaches - when the foundation is rotten, it doesnt matter how big the house is - its going to fall....

Such was the history of the Greeks, the Romans, the 2 attempts by Germany, etc - yet for some reason - we as humanity still haven't learned.

I have one minor question here. People here have stated that WW2 began with Germany's invasion of Poland and the Anglo-French declaration of war, and that Germany was ultimately doomed from that point.

Given that the Soviet Union also invaded Poland at more-or-less the same time, ought Britain and France to have declared war on the Soviet Union too?

Also, @ RR

It is clear that the axis could never have conquered the US, but I don't think that would have been necessary. If Britain and the Soviet Union were defeated, the US would be equally unable to conquer continental Nazi Europe as they would have been to conquer the US.

Not without proposing the war would continue well into the atomic age, of course, with carrier borne atomic warfare. (nasty thought).

Anyway I suspect that if Nazi Germany had attained a victory in Europe, this would probabley have occurred before heavy US involvement, and the US would have had to accept the reality and signed a treaty.

you know what... there are some interesting but highly complicated board games that cover this era, such as A World at War. It might be quite cool to do a forum game here sometime.

Very interesting thread. Although I don't really see the reason to explain why a very much expected result did happen. My point is that Germany vs Brittish empire was a pretty even match to begin with. Add the Soviet union and USA to one side and it's like two grown men and a teenager against a teenager and his little brothers (Italy and Japan). Germany must have made a lot of good desicions, created a lot of good designs and doctrines to make this brawl last for almost 6 years.

Poland wanted them to and reminded them of that fact. Remember, Neville Chamberlain was still Prime Minister of Britain and the time and didn't desire making the war any larger than it already was. Given how both powers were relatively helpless as it was to aid Poland against Germany, taking on the Soviet Union as well would probably have been counter-productive. France and Britain came very close to going to war with Stalin when he invaded Finland in the winter of 1940. But when plans fell through to put Allied soldiers in the country via Sweden it never happened. Hitler made it plain to the Swedes that Allied soldiers transiting a resource-rich Sweden on which he depended heavily for iron and nickel supplies would result in a German declaration of war on Sweden.

@joegrundman - Soviet invaded Poland on 17 Sep 1939 in pursuant to the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact. Why GB anf France didn't declared war on Soviet Union?

Bacause they weren't obliged to do that. Poland-GB and Poland-France pacts were pacts in the case of war with Germany.

It's sad, but although the United Kingdom and France declared war on Germany, no direct military action was rendered. France was in direct violation of the Franco-Polish Military Alliance that was signed in May 19, 1939, where France promised to attack Germany if Poland was attacked. Great Britain also refused to attack Germany, even though they had sworn to do so in the case of a German invasion. The Wehrmacht was occupied in the attack on Poland, and the French Army enjoyed decisive numerical advantage on their border with Germany, but the Allies failed to contribute solid assistance.

In September 1939 Poland was alone...

Let me throw another monkey wrench in there!
 

Yes, the Phony War, where words attempted to take the place of deeds and the time wasted was all to the Germans' advantage. To be fair, I HATE to contemplate the consequences of a French attack on anything. I wonder if the words "French" and "attack" can rightfully co-exist in the same sentence. Their whole plan was based on static defense, and that was the end of them. The British would have had to go through the French and the two of them mix like oil and water. They have a long history of mutual disdain, which even we Americans took advantage of to gain our independence from Britain. So if they HAD tried to fulfil their agreements immediately, I wonder how it would have worked out.

However, here's the ultimate injustice of leaving Poland to be devoured by two mad dogs. It was Polish mathemeticians, not the British or Americans who solved the Enigma code. According to the Ducimus theory, which is solidly based on fact, the moment those Polish mathemeticians landed in Britain and convinced authorities that they indeed could read the code and the British organized Bletchley Park with the Poles at the core, the Germans lost a battle decisive as the Battle of Stalingrad or the Battle of the Atlantik. Poland was not lost in vain.

Here are my to cents and I make it very short so that you guys don't have to read that much.;)

1.The Navy wasn't ready for a war. In fact Hitler had promised Admiral Raeder that a war would occur not earlier than 1945. Because of that the German Navy lacked a lot of ships and and U-Boats.

2. Ther Germans started their research on radar, HF/DF and other eletronic devices rather late and thus had a major disadvantage.

3. The Allied could read the messages that U-Boats sent via Enigma and thus could locate and sink the U-Boats.

After all the U-Boats lost the war because they didn't have the technology and because the leadership (Hitler, Dönitz) made some grave blunders.

I believe we are trying to compare apples and oranges
here.
a succsesful strategic anitsubmarine campaign
vs.
a succesful strategic submarine campaign.

Both are individually complex enough to
fill a lifetime and never finish.
there is no simple answer in their comparison
each campaign has enough in it to fill
volumes.
there are no single warbreaking factors on
either side.

I abstain.
M

My position is that U-Boats could not have won the war, regardless of numbers or technology short of nuclear ballistic missiles. They were an inappropriate tool for the task at hand. The war was a hex nut. U-Boats were a phillips head screwdriver, a fine tool but not suited for the job.

But that's my point. Both England and the United States had prominent people who were pro-German and a few who were even pro-Nazi (Charles Lindberg comes to mind). A little-known fact is that Churchill moved the British secret service, a shadow government and a duplicate Enigma decoding team to the US before our entry into the war for fear that the British would join forces with Germany. (read A Man Called Intrepid for all the juicy details) Germany could have taken advantage of that fact to avoid fighting either party at all. Then whether the US could conquer continental Nazi Europe would be moot. The US and Britain would have had no interest in doing so. Both fought not for conquest but in defense against an aggressor.

I have to disagree. The U-Boats were a great weapon and if Doenitz had 300 boats at the beinning of the war Great Britain would have been starved out pretty soon.
Again, the reason why the U-Boats weren't successful are the small numbers of U-Boats available and advanced allied technology.
But since you think that U-Boats were not suitable for the job at hand I've got one question: What kind of U-Boat would one need to defeat GB?

I'm pretty sure the Germans tried the "we're brothers" approach, and I'm pretty sure the British would never have gone for it. Well, Chamberlain might have, but he was part of the problem anyway. I don't think it would have happened.

On the other hand, I have myself proposed a similar 'dissuassion' concerning the start of the American Civil War, so who knows? Speculation is always fun.

[edit] I see I've fallen behind the conversation. Never mind.

I don't know what the ambassador exactly said, but German ideology was that the English were Aryans as well. Actually Hitler didn't like to fight other Aryans.
BTW: German ideology although dictated that the Japanes were the Aryans of the far east.

That makes perfect sense, since in the previous war the King and the Kaiser were first cousins. On the other hand, the British Royals changed the family name from Saxe-Coburg und Gotha to Windsor, so they probably didn't see it the same way.

That's my exact point
 

No kind of U-Boat could have defeated Great Britain. The reason for that is that Great Britain was very different from Japan.

Japan was importing raw materials on Japanese bottoms to make into war materiel. England imported finished goods and raw materials, but here's the dynamic: Britain was importing on other nations' bottoms, including the United States. If you sink those ships, you're fighting those nations. Supplies to the United States were not interruptable at sea unless Donitz could figure out how to torpedo a train 100 miles inland. Even Eugene Fluckey couldn't do that!

In addition, the US had to capacity to literally pave the Atlantic with ships. If you have a 1000 ship convoy, what are 100 active U-Boats going to do? (figure 100 on station, 100 in transit to and from and the other 100 in training or repair. My 100 on station is hopelessly optimistic. 70 would have been a best-case estimate with more than half of them not positioned to deliver a blow) What if you have 5 1000 ship convoys? This was entirely within the capability of the United States, which outproduced the losses inflicted by the U-Boats at the top of their form before ASW techniques were meaningfully good. Keeping the US out of the war was essential if Germany was to have any chance of lasting success at all. U-Boat use made that (therefore victory) impossible.

German victory depended on divide and conquer. First, keep the Allies from shutting down their war machine while they prepared for conquest. (done) Then keeping Britain and Russia happy while they controlled the European continent. (not done) Then making peace with Britain and the US so they could do what they pleased with Russia before Stalin could get aggresive (not done), because you know that given time Stalin would have attacked Germany anyway. Stalin was no pussycat, you know.:arrgh!:

Dead on. Hilter did now want a war with the Brits. Hilter just wanted them to understand that he wanted all of Europe and had no interest in the UK. In fact, I had read somewhere that Hitler was stunned when the Brits declared war on Germany.

Simple fact remains, there were not enough u-boats to keep up with the amount of merchant vessels slipping off the blocks at the construction yards. It is very similar to the Sherman tank. The German tank was far superior to the Shermans. It is just that there were Shermans being built like mad. Sheer numbers once again over came the issue at hand.