How much of our modern consensus of the inevitability of Allied victory in WWII is due to information after the fact?

[CHKeeley]

Arguments to the effect of inevitable Allied victory assume a Soviet-German war. Yet, this was not inevitable until Hitler himself made it so.

The user I was responding to had made mention of a Soviet collapse in 1941 so I tailored my arguments to that end, but my argument wasn’t exactly about what specific PoDs rather than the general points about history and hindsight.

With that being said, I’ll indulge you. I don’t really agree. Of course, the word inevitable in alternate history is taboo. But it is extremely likely that with a PoD after the the Nazi invasion of Poland, war between these two powers would happen at some point. The entire Nazi worldview was obsessed with destroying ‘Jewish Bolshevism’ - to them the mass extermination of Jews and the destruction of the USSR were two aspects of the same general objective. The NSDAP was partially built on the raison d’etre on destroying Bolshevism (and whatever they deemed Bolshevik). It isn’t quite as simple as “Hitler just decided to invade.” That almost frames it as a contextless event without any broader world informing his decision and it could easily have been changed if he had just didn’t feel like it. While a tactical agreement was signed with the USSR, I don’t think the evidence bears out that there was any sort of intention to keep it long term. Additionally, Red Army modernization and retraining campaigns would have been largely complete by 1942 and the USSR would be in a position to start to be more aggressive with the Axis. While sure a Soviet-German war was not inevitable, the broader context makes one quite likely to happen even if other events change (like no Barbarossa ‘41).

This tangent is sort of related to the earlier discussion on structural factors in history. Sure, men make their own history, but they don’t just make it as they please. They make their decisions under circumstances, transmitted the past… “the tradition of all the dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living.” It isn’t an iron law of history that the Soviet-German War would happen and it would happen on 1941. That’s an absurd argument. But, after a certain historical point in time, the odds of such a war became increasingly likely. By the time we reach the invasion of Poland, it is incredibly likely at some point in my estimate. The specific circumstances surrounding that war depends on the preceding events in the timeline.

 

[H.Flashman(VC)]

I'm wondering what the exact causal relation is between the defaitisme in the French top and the actual defeat of France. If that relation is strong, then a surrender of the UK can't be denied as a possible outcome.

 

[Tiredworker]

Yes that is literally my point. I fail to see how this supports your argument at all. I’m arguing for studying things in hindsight with full access to data and how history went. I believe you’re arguing for trusting contemporary accounts on the ground during the war. It is only with hindsight that we can tell that the Taliban was stronger than estimates by faulty US intelligence. The exact same thing applies to the Second World War. British intelligence at the time predicted the Soviets would fall in weeks.. with historical research we know this was completely faulty and it would be ASB for the Red Army to utterly fold in less than three months. But from what you’ve argued, this is a narrative and we need to trust what people thought was possible at the time.


I have to admit, I’m sort of baffled by this. If you held this viewpoint, then what’s the point of historical research at all?? Why is research done after the fact automatically tainted? If all post-facto research only serves to vindicate the one thing that actually happened, that would be ridiculous. It’s literally impossible to do such in-depth research while something is happening. Of course, you can point to contingent events like random heart attacks or mass panics but that should be evenly considered with what we know from research. It isn’t one or the other.

I’m fairly sure that it’s implicitly understood that when such statements are made, they are discounting things like the entire American cabinet spontaneously combusting and then the new President withdrawing from the war. Sure it could happen sometime somewhere somehow technically, but the odds are overwhelmingly against it. Should we just completely ignore research and books when discussing alternate history because technically anything is possible?

30th October 1939 - HMS Nelson is struck by two torpedos from a German U-Boat. Both torpedoes explode and the ship sinks within 7 Minutes. Amongst the hundreds of dead is the First Lord of Admirality Winston Churchill..... And just like that all your "research and odds" become meaningless. Halifax almost certainly becomes PM next May - and we have a Billion butterflies. Perhaps he strikes a deal. Or Roosevelt cant stand him and Britain gets a fraction of OTL help which in turn prevents Hitler from declaring war on the US. When things can turn out several ways - this leads to gigantic potential changes down the road - which in turn makes claims of inevitability pretty nonsensical. Sure OTL by 1943 it was pretty obvious that the Axis couldnt win - but it was not inevitable that we would or even could arrive at the OTL 1943 status.

 

[DAv]

Again all of this is based on the power of hindsight. Britain planned to carry on the war without the BEF - but plans are often destroyed by reality or completely rewritten according to the situation. Would it have done so if some 150 000+ British soldiers would have been captured there? Based on hindsight we claim yes - but for the the actors of the time that could not see into the future the answer might have been a no.

It isn't hindsight to say that the British were planning to fight on. That was exactly what they were going to do with, or without the BEF. That was why Churchill was a candidate for leadership, because Parliament expected him to be the best man to carry on the fight. They didn't have to see into the future to know that they were going to fight on due to the war being seen as a question of national survival. This isn't about hindsight, this is what was going to happen and repeating old myths about how Halifax would have led to a quick peace doesn't help your case.

If the BEF was destroyed on the continent, Sealion probably goes in, even without air superiority. Regardless of the outcome to that, the war goes down a different path.

Yes, to the bottom of the English Channel with a sizeable chunk of the German army.

 

[Tiredworker]

It isn't hindsight to say that the British were planning to fight on. That was exactly what they were going to do with, or without the BEF.

We cannot know what effect this would have had on Churchill - we do not know what effect this would have had on Halifax or the government. We can however say that it certainly would have lead to plan changes - perhaps even peace talks. To claim that British course of action was set in stone - that this was "exactly what they were going to do" sound like delusions of grandiour from your side - based on hindsight....

 

[Tiredworker]

This isn't about hindsight, this is what was going to happen

In your imagination based on hindsight perhaps....

 

[Cockroach]

Never say never, but given a relatively OTL starting position (Britain and the US on decent terms; the Nazis their OTL genocidal fuckwits rather than the moronic AH staple of Notzis; etc. etc) and assuming no passing ASBs, asteroids or super-volcanos, I'd say that an allied victory is over-determined certainly post Pearl Harbor, almost certainly once Barbarossa runs out of steam and likely from once Lend-Lease kicks off in early 1941. Between May 1940 and whichever of the prior dates you wanna go with there's some prospect of a German victory (smash the USSR/keep the USSR out (but Nazis not Notzis...), keep the US out and hope the British run out of steam faster than you do), but, well, smashing the USSR or keeping the US out are distinctly non-trivial problems, and plausibly addressing 'em in a TL with a 1939 or later PoD without resorting to blatant hand-waving (e.g. Tiredworker's "Roosevelt arbitrarily hates Halifax for no particular reason") is very hard.

 

[Cymraeg]

In your imagination based on hindsight perhaps....

ENOUGH. This thread is getting bad-tempered enough. Cool it down before CalBear arrives.

 

[Elfwine]

smashing the USSR or keeping the US out are distinctly non-trivial problems,

This seems an issue for things going differently as far as "inevitability of Allied victory". Hitler could send an extra Panzer division to Rommel in Africa and that would probably have some kind of effects.

But "Rommel takes Egypt and storms past Suez." would, considering what we know of why that didn't happen OTL, take a lot more changes than sending him another hundred tanks. Do the Axis have the capacity to make those changes in 1941? That gets increasingly close to "No."

Does that mean people at the time knew all this with certainty? That's a different question than if Rommel has sufficient supplies available, isn't it?

 

[DAv]

We cannot know what effect this would have had on Churchill - we do not know what effect this would have had on Halifax or the government. We can however say that it certainly would have lead to plan changes - perhaps even peace talks. To claim that British course of action was set in stone - that this was "exactly what they were going to do" sound like delusions of grandiour from your side - based on hindsight....

Actually, we do know exactly what the government and Churchill would have done. They'd have carried on fighting. It was the very reason that Churchill was offered the position of Prime Minister in the first place, regardless of the outcome of Dunkirk. For him to go for peace, for Britain to for peace, would have been going against the attitudes and beliefs of Parliament itself. They wanted to prosecute the war. It isn't hindsight to say that.

In your imagination based on hindsight perhaps....

Sealion has been debunked on this site and elsewhere countless times. Regardless of what happens at Dunkirk, Sealion is a no go while the Royal Navy is around.

 

[Puzzle]

Actually, we do know exactly what the government and Churchill would have done. They'd have carried on fighting. It was the very reason that Churchill was offered the position of Prime Minister in the first place, regardless of the outcome of Dunkirk. For him to go for peace, for Britain to for peace, would have been going against the attitudes and beliefs of Parliament itself. They wanted to prosecute the war. It isn't hindsight to say that.

I feel like this is exactly the attitude the OP is trying to hit. We know parliament said this and with how things worked out they did fight on. Similarly I often say I’ll work out and then find myself eating pizza, it’s easy to say things.

I agree that the Axis has no reasonable shot of winning, and that sea lion would have been a bad joke, but to everyone then the Germans were doing whatever they wanted. If they got lucky one or two more times people might start to wrongly think it wasn’t all luck and they should probably find an exit strategy.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

30th October 1939 - HMS Nelson is struck by two torpedos from a German U-Boat. Both torpedoes explode and the ship sinks within 7 Minutes. Amongst the hundreds of dead is the First Lord of Admirality Winston Churchill..... And just like that all your "research and odds" become meaningless.

Except there is no evidence that:-

A: such a successful attack ever took place - the crew of Nelson apparently so inept that they missed being hit by 2 duds and a prematurely exploding torpedo

B: Churchill and Pound were ever actually on board at the time - log book show they visited the ship in port but did not go to sea

Lets face it Zahn was a bit of a failure - and was eventually relieved of further command after he demonstrated what might be described as lack of moral fibre during 2 patrols in 1941 and 1942 where he failed to sink anything and failed to press home attacks on convoys

To top a particulalrly porcine career he was one of the '4 officers' commanding the Wilhelm Gustloff when she was sunk with the loss of 9,343 men women and children in 1945 the worst maritime disaster in history, one that he made sure he survived despite his position of command - abandoning efforts to evacuate the ship before she sank

 

[DAv]

I feel like this is exactly the attitude the OP is trying to hit. We know parliament said this and with how things worked out they did fight on. Similarly I often say I’ll work out and then find myself eating pizza, it’s easy to say things.

I agree that the Axis has no reasonable shot of winning, and that sea lion would have been a bad joke, but to everyone then the Germans were doing whatever they wanted. If they got lucky one or two more times people might start to wrongly think it wasn’t all luck and they should probably find an exit strategy.

But we also know what they would have done if things had worked out differently. The British government was resolved on fighting in the war, regardless of what happened at Dunkirk. We can guess what might be different, but it'd be arguing in the face of what people intended, thought and acted at the time without hindsight.

 

[CalBear]

Its 100% hindsight. By the summer of 1940 Britian was practically beaten, running out of money and resources, hiding behind the ocean, screaming for help from the US. Had this help not arrived through LL and later active US involvement Britain would have to strike a deal.No one could have predicted that something like LL would be passed in March 1941. Same goes for the Soviets not collapsing,ect. The outcome of WW2 was far from "inevitable" some just interpret it as such with the power of hindsight and a cornucopia of information and data at our dispousal the actors 80 years ago did not posses.

This is factually inaccurate. The British were on their heels thanks to the flash knockout of their French ally, but very far from beaten.

Their victory was also far from assured, however, give the rank stupidity of the Reich's Leadership neither were they in the End of the Empire silo.

The Soviets had to do one thing to win. They had to survive the initial shock (e.g. not the the "rotten edifice" of Hitler's delusions).

What hindsight shows, more than anything else is that things are always neither as good or as bad as they appear in the moment. England never came close to starvation (in fact the caloric intake of the middle and lower classes improved thanks to rationing). The Japanese were not flying all inspiring aircraft (and neither were they a race of nearsighted buffoons). The Reich was not all powerful led by strategic geniuses. The Soviet Union isn't large, it is VAST, and that is the narrow part. The United States was NEVER in any real existential danger, arguably it was never even in severe economic danger; neither was it the savior of all mankind.

 

[CaptainCalvert]

30th October 1939 - HMS Nelson is struck by two torpedos from a German U-Boat. Both torpedoes explode and the ship sinks within 7 Minutes. Amongst the hundreds of dead is the First Lord of Admirality Winston Churchill..... And just like that all your "research and odds" become meaningless. Halifax almost certainly becomes PM next May - and we have a Billion butterflies. Perhaps he strikes a deal. Or Roosevelt cant stand him and Britain gets a fraction of OTL help which in turn prevents Hitler from declaring war on the US. When things can turn out several ways - this leads to gigantic potential changes down the road - which in turn makes claims of inevitability pretty nonsensical. Sure OTL by 1943 it was pretty obvious that the Axis couldnt win - but it was not inevitable that we would or even could arrive at the OTL 1943 status.

Why would a member of the Lords be picked?
It's not impossible but it would create problems.
Eden might have been acceptable and would probably have done a good job, or (more interesting for an AH perspective) look at who else had any chance of commanding confidence of the Commons.
An unacceptable choice could lead to a general election although there would be a strong attempt to avoid this and find a consensus candidate [1].
Incidentally, Lord Halifax appears to have been firmly opposed to Hitler and his unwillingness to stick to agreements. There's little to suggest he would have invited Hitler over for tea and scones and an orderly transfer of power, even though he was less combative than Churchill.

[1] Lloyd George would have got consensus but only for being wholly unsuitable so that doesn't count.

 

[CalBear]

To the OP -

None of the players, on either side, knew all the other players cards. It was a natter of all sides both over and underestimating their abilities and position.

That the victory was to a degree ensured is also something of a myth. There were several way that the Reich could have, at minimum, managed a "frozen conflict" with the Nazis ($%#^!!!), Soviets there are even a limited number of ways that the Nazi and Soviets might have come to long term cease fire. The exception is the Japan. There was simply no way that Japan was ever going to defeat China, simply not enough Japanese in the world to pull it off, throwing in a fight with the largest economy on Earth just spend things up.

 

[Pesterfield]

Basically the question is: in the darkest days of the war (June 1940-mid 1943) do the various countries of the allied powers actually know the true data of both themselves and the axis powers?

One way to answer might be looking at books and magazines of the time, when does the press go from talking about the outcome being in doubt to victory is assured?

 

[Tibi088]

Im not the best informed person when it comes to WWII - my interests lie in earlier ages.

OTOH the predetermination of the outcome is I think not nearly as sure as people here think. Was the US even guaranteed to enter the conflict? Against Japan for sure but if they are at war with Japan can they justify LL to fight Germany if they are not at war with it - for example if Hitler doesnt DoW? Could the soviets win without LL? What if something happens to Hitler and he is replaced with someone more sane lets say before Barbarossa? Was a soviet german war guaranteed even without Hitler? There are a lot of variables that could drastically change the outcome at least before the german DoW on the US. After that I think the outcome was a question of when and how and not an if - but before that there were possibilities of vastly different outcomes.

Further - and this is simply a doubt of mine - the idea that nazi germany was on the brink of collapse because of a miriad - mostly economic - reasons even when they had most of continental Europe under their thumb doesnt sound convincing. It seems like a narrative of "the nazis were stupid incompetent evil idiots who would destroy themselves because of their incompetency etc anyway". Im not saying there is not a lot of truth in these and the problems didnt exist but as the british could organize themselves and avoid starvation etc so I think that if things started to really go bad the german would have come up with some sort of solution instead of just inevitably collapsing. It also feels like that these lessens the victory and the sacrifice of those who have beaten them on the battlefields.

 

[Post]

Im not the best informed person when it comes to WWII - my interests lie in earlier ages.

OTOH the predetermination of the outcome is I think not nearly as sure as people here think. Was the US even guaranteed to enter the conflict?

Guaranteed not, but it's not in the US's interest to have nazi-Germany dominate Europe. There was broad support for supporting the UK short of war, certainly after the fall of France. So the US is going to support the UK. Chances are this eventually leads to war. But even if it doesn't, the support guarantees that the UK can stay in the war.

Against Japan for sure but if they are at war with Japan can they justify LL to fight Germany if they are not at war with it - for example if Hitler doesnt DoW?

Yes, because the UK is also fighting Japan. So the US is going to help them. Which kinda means they have to fight Germany also. And if they don't right away, it will escalate soon to an outright war (within 6 months I'd say).
.
Even if Hitler didn't declare war, the US can not afford to let the Germans sink their shippings to the UK without doing anythiing against it. So you're going to protect your convoys. Eventually so many ships or U-boats are sunk that either Germany or the US declares war.

Apart from that, a lot of the US production couldn't be used against the Japanese until the IJN was beaten. And you don't really need 30,000 Shermans against the Japanese.

Could the soviets win without LL?

Not impossible. The Germans cannot win decisively against the USSR due to logistical problems. A stalemate is maybe a more likely outcome than an outright Soviet win.

What if something happens to Hitler and he is replaced with someone more sane lets say before Barbarossa? Was a soviet german war guaranteed even without Hitler?

No guarantees, but nazi-Germany saw the USSR as their main rival. Almost everyone in the German military believed they could beat the Soviets in 6 weeks. Once the USSR is attacked (and doesn't fall within 6 weeks), Germany is going to lose the war. One of the reasons of this is that there will be US support one way or another.

 

[Finbarr the Fair]

There are some interesting secondary issues (IMHO) arising from the original question.

One is that almost All the suggested ways of avoiding an Allied Victory involve political PODs. Britain seeking peace (because??), Soviet collapse of will (?) or the USA stays isolationist (because it doesn't care about the Nazis dominating Eurasia or Japan the Pacific?) Very few scenarios* present the Axis as winning an overwhelming military victory. And they involve the USM or logistically impossible operations (Rommell takes the Suez Canal and Japan occupies Ceylon and Hawaii).

So it's in this sense I think that 'we" consider an Allied victory inevitable. Once the World War became Axis versus the USSR, USA and British Commonwealth and Empire, a military victory for the Axis was impossible. And their chances of forcing a stalemate were low as it required one or more of the Allies decide it could tolerate making concessions that left a hostile, inimicable, regime armed on its borders.

Was this development inevitable in September 1939? No but neither were the German successes in Norway or the Fall of France. The only period when an Axis Victory seemed even plausible was from the Fallof France to the introduction of Lend-Lease and indirect US naval support in the Atlantic war. And maybe between the start of Barbarossa and Pearl Harbour.

* here or in other threads on the Forum.