Two-Front War

It's said in every WWII show and book that Hitler's blunder was fighting a two-front war, which eventually caught up with Germany as they weren't able to sustain combat on multiple fronts. However, the USA had no trouble pouncing both sides in a two-front war, and pretty much drove Japan back single-handed (with the help British naval vessels and dominion troops). The question is: Would Germany have been able to mount an offensive the the USA did against Japan through the Pacific and have success in the same way America did, especially while fighting in other combat zones? Personally I don't think Nazi Germany would have been able to handle the type of warfare that took place in the Pacific.

 

What I meant is I don't think the Nazis would have been able to handle the naval aspect of the war like the US, the logistics and planning. The combat in harsh conditions, hopping from island to island, against an enemy as fanatical as Japan was something the Marines ultimately could handle. Could the same have been said about the Wehrmacht?

 

I think almost any and all nations could if given the proper logisctical, industrial and resource base for which to use in such a campaign. Just because the US marines did the brunt of beach landings does not make them the only force capable of doing such operations against a fanatical opponent. Australian, Dutch, British, Indian etc all went up aganst fanatical Japanese forces at one time or another and on more then a few occasions we held our own and then some.

US marines in my opinion are a special breed of soldier and that breed is not limited to the US, They exist in all nations you just need to find them and field them to their best capabilities.

So yes the Wehrmacht could have done the same if given the same assets that the US marines/Navy had at their disposal.

 

The one area where there were consistent short comings as far as German doctrine and planning goes was in the logistics area. As GunSlinger mentioned this is key in a two front war and especially one with forced landings and over fronts running from Europe to the Pacfic and back.

 

I have to agree with Iwd. The German tactics during the war were, without question, the major blunders, not necessarily invading the Soviet Union. Looking at it as just a blunder is an oversight. It was going to happen regardless due to Hitler's fanaticism (is that how you spell it) of a non-Soviet continent. His timing, lack of logistical planning, political preparedness and prejudice clouded his judgement on such a major operation.

 

I must disagree ,because what you are saying is suggesting is that with a better timing,better logistic planning (which ,IMHO,was impossible) ,better political preparedness and without prejudice,Adolf could have done better,maybe could have won .

Your argumentation is ignoring the existence of an opponent : the SU .

IMHO,the German operational and logistic planning was reasonable good,considering the German limited possibilities .

 

What is said in every WWII show and book is wrong .

The question : would Germany have been able to do the same as the US (fighting succesfully a 2 front war ) is meaningless,as no other country in the world could have done this .

 

Why?

 

Because no one had the resources the US had .

 

Although I agree that United states has better means of production, my point was an alternative plan by the German Army officials might have been more successful and productive.

 

They had a way better production capacity in Germany, even in the beginning of the war when the big US corporations that were tied in with I.G. Farben were subverting certain metals and lubricants for aircraft manufacturing, and Ford refused to make the Rolls-Royce engines for the Allies early in the war which is why the US struggled to catch up in aircraft in the very beginning. Also, we ultimately would have had more manpower reserves because if need be, we only mobilized a fraction of African-Americans, and the men we did mobilize were only used them mostly in non-combatant roles, Also, we purposely kept between 10-15 million men of service age on the home front for manufacturing purposes, as that was considered our best offensive weapon (check out the article "90-Division Gamble," it explains the US mobilization ideas early in the war).

 

Even with the millions and millions of slaves Germany forced into labor, abused, and treated grossly inhumane, they still couldn't compete, albeit the bombing campaign, but Albert Speer actually improved tank and plan manufacturing numbers to their best output AFTER the mass bombings began.

 

It wasn't " in the beginning of the war", but went all the way back to I. G. Farben agreements concluded with American corporations beginning in 1929 and lasting thru the early 1930's, which financially benefited the American corporations, but gave much control to I. G. Farben. Given that Germany had not yet declared war on America, the contracts were legally binding.

First, be specific, it was Henry Ford that nixed the deal, his son Edsel, was then one who brokered the deal - that Ford would produce 6,000 Merlins for the British and 3,000 for the US.

Second, While Henry Ford passed on the deal, it was quickly given to Packard in, IIRC, September, 1940. Yet, it took Packard almost a full year to produce test engines, and it was not until 1942 that full production was begun.

Third, Rolls Royce tolerances were outside the tolerances needed for Ford to manufacture the Merlin in it's traditional mass production ways, and it took about a year to redraw some 20,000 blueprints/technical drawings to Ford's specifications.
http://books.google.com/books?id=eqRk4CWpgbwC&pg=PA116&lpg=PA116&dq=%E2%80%9COn+the+contrary,+the+tolerances+are+far+too+wide+for+us.+We+make+motor+cars+far+more+accurately+than+this.+Every+part+on+our+car+engines+has+to+be+in&source=bl&ots=iKibLE_QEI&sig=CcRU5KVyUsrvj9EMqKkeiHdYM-0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GYaKU6L9Iu_IsAS-8YKwBw&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%E2%80%9COn%20the%20contrary%2C%20the%20tolerances%20are%20far%20too%20wide%20for%20us.%20We%20make%20motor%20cars%20far%20more%20accurately%20than%20this.%20Every%20part%20on%20our%20car%20engines%20has%20to%20be%20in&f=false

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/merlins-packard-vs-rr-2013-8.html#post419337

Fourth, Henry Ford also designed and developed an "improved" Merlin, the Ford GG Aero Engine. For whatever reasons, although this design was first tested in December, 1940, it was never manufactured and remained in development until 1942, when to meet rising needs for tank engines, Ford removed 4 cylinders and produced the modified engine for tanks.
http://www.enginehistory.org/featured_engines.shtml


All that being said, as you can see, one just does not just start producing engines instantaneously.

 

It is hard to win wars using overly complicated war machines that are produced by unskilled labor, unless your manufacturing plants are expressly set-up to do so(mass production), as the Japanese, like the Germans, found out - to their detriment.

 

I knw that this is a popular WI ,but,I don't see the possibility for the Germans to have a better plan that could become reality :Räder had some alternatives for Barbarossa,but Germany had not the means for his plans .

 

I meant the beginning of the US entry into the war, right after Pearl Harbor. That was a major reason why new airplane production was stalled and slowed.

 

There were several reasons, but Ford not producing the Merlin is not one of them.

You are giving the early variants of the Merlin more credit than they are due, after all, these were not the same Merlin engines that were later fitted to the P-51D.

 

I'm just saying there was opposition from certain US manufacturers to build parts for the Allies, whether those items were effective or not is another story. The Standard Oil-I.G.Farben cartel was even more despicable as they wouldn't release their patents for US manufacturers, and they blackmailed the army and navy by threatening to withhold oil shipments if the government interfered with their business, but ultimately the Congressional hearings forced the patents to be released to American Industry, even though the men at the top of those corporations went unpunished.

 

Just as there was much public opposition to being drawn into another war begun by Europeans. Your attack specifically against Ford is essentially meaningless. I have yet to see you advance an attack against Packard for not building parts for the Allies - even though they also did.

Why was the Farben-Standard cartel despicable? At the time, the US was not at war with Germany, and the United States was "supposedly" neutral. As such, the US government really didn't have much right to go intruding into Standard's business, yet intrude they did, and with the only way possible, with anti-trust court cases.

FYI, it was NOT the Congressional hearings that forced the German controlled patents to be released, but the German Declaration of War on the United States. This led to the creation of the Office of Alien Property Custodian, as per FDR's Executive Order #9095, which confiscated all Axis properties in the United States.

Again, all this goes back several years, beginning before Hitler even came to power in, when German industrialists made some shrewd business deals - that would have unforeseen benefits to the Third Reich - with American industrialists who were looking to get a leg up on their domestic competition.