Could the axis during ww2 have better leaders than they did in actual history? IF so how?

[American hist]

What were the biggest leadership mistakes by the axis during ww2 and how could they have been prevented with more competent axis leaders.


I have wondered about this question for a long time and have been intrigued by the possibilities. For example, did the axis leaders have competent leaders during ww2, which in my opinion, is a no given Hitler's mental instability and some of the choices made by Mussolini and Tojo. Still, known the axis had some good generals, including government officials.

So the real question is this how could nazie Germany, Japan, and Italy have a point of divergence where they might have competent leaders to replace the dictators?

I remember Gorring was at one time Hitler's planned successors if he had died but from my knowledge, was bombastic and incompetent, but Himmler, while evil to the core, might have been a much more competent leader than Adolf Hitler. So the question I will be asking is how could a point of divergence have occurred for the axis to have the most capable leaders at the earliest.

disclaimer

by no means do I sympathize with the axis, and I'm not ignorant of ww2,but the history of nazie Germany or hilters biography just isn't one of my strong suits. Heads up, historians have debated Rommel and Hitler's relationship along with Rommuels viewpoints during that time so Rommel would not be a possible axis successor . My brother, who is much more knowledgeable of ww2,, believes that Rommel thought Hitler was his friend,at first but also believes the General didn't support the Holacust so romuell cant be placed as leader of the nazie state or anything like that.

[lordroel]

Feb 25, 2022 16:18:11 GMT American hist said:

disclaimer

by no means do I sympathize with the axis, and I'm not ignorant of ww2,but the history of nazie Germany or hilters biography just isn't one of my strong suits. Heads up, historians have debated Rommel and Hitler's relationship along with his viewpoints during that time so Rommel. My brother, who is much more knowledgeable of ww2,, believes that Rommel thought Hitler was his friend, but also believes he didn't support nazism so romuell cant be placed as leader of the nazie state or anything like that

Thanks for the disclaimer but not needed as there are plenty of discussion both here and on other forums about, what if the Axis did better, as long as we follow the rules of the forum, everything is fine.

[stevep]

Feb 25, 2022 16:18:11 GMT American hist said:

What were the biggest leadership mistakes by the axis during ww2 and how could they have been prevented with more competent axis leaders.


I have wondered about this question for a long time and have been intrigued by the possibilities. For example, did the axis leaders have competent leaders during ww2, which in my opinion, is a no given Hitler's mental instability and some of the choices made by Mussolini and Tojo. Still, known the axis had some good generals, including government officials.

So the real question is this how could nazie Germany, Japan, and Italy have a point of divergence where they might have competent leaders to replace the dictators?

I remember Gorring was at one time Hitler's planned successors if he had died but from my knowledge, was bombastic and incompetent, but Himmler, while evil to the core, might have been a much more competent leader than Adolf Hitler. So the question I will be asking is how could a point of divergence have occurred for the axis to have the most capable leaders at the earliest.

disclaimer

by no means do I sympathize with the axis, and I'm not ignorant of ww2,but the history of nazie Germany or hilters biography just isn't one of my strong suits. Heads up, historians have debated Rommel and Hitler's relationship along with Rommuels viewpoints during that time so Rommel. My brother, who is much more knowledgeable of ww2,, believes that Rommel thought Hitler was his friend,at first but also believes the General didn't support the Holacust so romuell cant be placed as leader of the nazie state or anything like that.

  The best bet for Germany would be if some other group than the Nazis come to power, say a military coup which brings generals into power, probably in cooperation with big business.  They can still foul things up as Ludendorff showed in WWI but you could avoid a lot of the OTL WWII errors.  Although alternatively a more sane leadership could well failed to match Hitler's early successes as they are less likely to be as reckless.

  If you have the Nazis come to power their such a bunch of deranged characters, crooks, egomaniacs etc that its difficult to see any of them bringing significantly greater ability to a German war effort if Hitler was removed.  Not to mention the bloody power struggle that could well occur if Hitler say fell victim to one of the many assassination events that he OTL survived.

  Italy its possible that if Mussolini was to have an accident - real or arranged - a more responsible leader could come to power.  However Italy at the time simply didn't have the resource base to make a massive different.  Unless you take the view that without the Italian invasion of Greece, which eventually resulted in the German intervention was crucial in preventing the collapse of the USSR in 1941.  Plus again a more responsible leader, knowing that Italy isn't at all ready for war in 1940 again could avoid the dow on the allies, possibly seeking to expand its own empire at Yugoslav and/or Greek expense in the expectation that a Britain still fighting Germany won't add Italy to its list of enemies.

  For Japan its more difficult.  The biggest measure for Japan avoiding catastrophic defeat if it goes to war with some of the western powers, other than being less genocidal in China and possibly getting stronger puppets hence avoiding a wider war would be not to attack the US in Dec 1941.  This avoids the very strong US reaction to the attacks and especially Pearl Harbour.  Even if Roosevelt is able to get a quick US dow through Congress public opinion in the US will be more divided and some early failures coupled with the struggles of the allies could prompt a peace settlement.  At the very least, especially if Japan was to avoid some of its worst excesses it might still be able to negotiate a peace short of total surrender.

  Of course the converse also applied.  All the allied leaders made big errors, a number of which if avoided could have greatly shortened the war and changed its character greatly.

[melanie]

If Italy stays out, Libya likely becomes Italian majority and remins Italian to this day. i can see them keeping Italian Somaliland and the Dodecanese as well. Ethiopia will be let go once the Moose dies, though i doubt the Ethiopian Empire is re-installed.

[stevep]

Feb 27, 2022 14:23:30 GMT melanie said:

If Italy stays out, Libya likely becomes Italian majority and remins Italian to this day. i can see them keeping Italian Somaliland and the Dodecanese as well. Ethiopia will be let go once the Moose dies, though i doubt the Ethiopian Empire is re-installed.

  Libya might but that doesn't mean that Italy will keep it.  Neighbouring Muslim states as they become independent will see it as a European colonial outpost and will be hostile.  They might not be in a position to openly oppose Italy but aid to partisans will be a continued problem.  Plus you might have issues like economic boycotts of Italian goods and once Egypt gets control of the Suez Canal I wouldn't be surprised to see some issues for Italian use of it.  Or ultimately the Gulf states applying oil/gas pressure.  Libya does have its own resources which are likely to be discovered and developed but they and their supply routes are likely to come under continued pressure.

  I'm not saying that Italy won't be able to maintain control of Libya if they get a majority Italian population there but its not going to be easy I suspect.

  Italian Somalialand could have similar issues and is likely to face additional problems because of its distance from Italy.  Eritrea might have a better chance if the Italian government is canny enough to persuade the population their better off under Italian control than Ethiopian.

  I do agree however that Italy, provided its not crippled by having a fascist - or any anti-democratic - regime would be better off not being involved in WWII, although that applies for just about every country that entered/were dragged into it.  About the only groups that gained advantages were probably the US and the ruling communists in the USSR and later China & N Korea [as opposed to the people in those countries].

[melanie]

stevep, American hist, The Moose was born in 1883, so he likely is to die of natural causes some time in the mid to late 1960s... which is not a very good time for a huge power struggle in an important European nation, given some world events are likely to be similar (American struggles for civil rights et al). Oh, and if Italy has remained neutral in WWII, it also keeps the bits of territory that were ceded from Italy to Tito's Yugoslavia in OTL and likely has a "de facto" sphere of influence over Austria as well.

[stevep]

Feb 27, 2022 22:59:20 GMT melanie said:

stevep , American hist , The Moose was born in 1883, so he likely is to die of natural causes some time in the mid to late 1960s... which is not a very good time for a huge power struggle in an important European nation, given some world events are likely to be similar (American struggles for civil rights et al). Oh, and if Italy has remained neutral in WWII, it also keeps the bits of territory that were ceded from Italy to Tito's Yugoslavia in OTL and likely has a "de facto" sphere of influence over Austria as well.

  True plus while it would be difficult to tell what butterflies would occur from Italy staying neutral its still likely that your going to have a bi-polar world with the US and USSR being the key players.  Britain should do better than OTL without N Africa and Greece conflicts which could give huge advantages against Japan as well as Germany but its still likely to be economic exhaustion by the end of the conflict.  As such instability in Italy as you say in the 1960's probably could be very bad for the world.

[1bigrich]

Feb 25, 2022 16:18:11 GMT American hist said:

So the real question is this how could nazie Germany, Japan, and Italy have a point of divergence where they might have competent leaders to replace the dictators?

I think Germany's problems predate the ascension of the Nazis.   The Weimar Republic was already cheating on the Versailles Treaty, and both von Papen and Schleicher both asked von Hindenburg to turn the republic into a dictatorship.  They might be a path to better leaderships, but better leadership would start with avoiding the war in the first place. 

That said, with the Nazis in power any war was effectively lost in January of 1933 when Hitler became Chancellor.  See Adam Tooze's book, The Wages of Destruction.  As Lady Thatcher said, the problem with socialism is sooner or later you run out of other people's money.    Germany was skirting bankruptcy for the duration of the Nazi regime.   They built a war machine that was unsuited to strategic victory.    Wars had to be short, cheap and leave the target country relatively intact for looting to finance Germany.  They also pushed the maximums of manpower and production, so significant changes mean resources come from elsewhere.   As Stuart Slade said of the Luftwaffe, more trainers means less fighters.   Strategic bombers mean a lot less fighters.   

I don't know that Germany could have replaced Hitler pre-war., between 1933 and 1939    Prior to the Night of the Long Knives, Ernst Röhm might have been a replacement, but obviously the rest of the party wasn't going to let that happen.  

Replacing Mussolini I think might be easiest; Victor Emmanuel could do it, and probably should have done it when the Lira was heavily devalued in the mid-1930s.  However another fascist is just as likely to continue the poor policies.

I have my doubts about Japan as well.   I don't think Tojo can be replaced unless there is a civil war between the navy and the army.   And the navy might lose that any case.  

My brief thoughts, 

[oscssw]

How about Dr. Joseph Goebbels? Leni Riefenstahl, who was in a position to know, disliked Goebbels. In her autobiography she stated "Goebbels has a chilling ability to coldly size up any situation with absolute clarity". There is no record of an IQ test, but most academics estimated that it was somewhere in the low 140 range, which would put him in the top 1%.

I think his brilliance and ability to accurately understand a situation would make him a formidable opponent.
With no 'Military experience" he would be unlikely to think he knew better than the generals. He would also see early on when things were starting to go bad and make realistic adjustments instead of stubbornly perusing policies that were not working.

Goebbels’s shrewd political instinct and his opportunism were demonstrated by his switch to Hitler’s side in 1926, which was rewarded by his appointment in November of the same year as Nazi district leader for Berlin-Brandenburg.
Here he demonstrated his managerial powers which were much better than Hitler's.

[melanie]

Copying my own post from Axis History:

My assessment of Goering is that he rather missed his vocation. But for the accident of being born a German, he would have made a typical South American dictator - strutting around in gaudy uniforms, weighed down with so many medals that he can hardly stand up straight, and living in luxury on ill-gotten gains - but not all that interested in actually _fighting_ anyone. Recall Julius Caesar's remark about men who are fat. It's often the _austere_ dictators that you really have to worry about. Goering, I suspect, would have been looking to wallow in luxury and admire his stolen artworks - not to conquer the world.

Also Interesting to think what his post-release life would have been like had he been sentenced to prison rather than execution. Imagine Goering on American or British talk shows in the 1960s and 70s?

[michelvan]

How i put this in polite words ?

Hitler fought the War on pure ideological reason and subordinate military tactic
But his generals were not better as they propose to attack Moscow, after War the generals remember that fact quite different as is happen...
also the madness to attack a enemy with litte intelligence information only to find out the hard way the enemy is far superior numbers.
Hitler attack USSR with 3 million soldiers, Stalin could trow 12 million Solders agaist the germans...

Mussolini had big mouth, but his glorious Italian army and Air force and Navy were no match for WW2 theatre...

Tojo had issue that Military are running Japan, the Generals and Admirals made fatal mistake they could attack USA in Pearl Harbor to intimidate them.
oh boy, were they surprised as USA hit back hard, very hard, after battle of Midway the Japanese were fighting against the Wall
also madness to Invade China that has 10 time more population as Japan ended very bad...

[melanie]

the London Poles would have been happy to take the Oder Neisse territories AND retain the Eastern Borderlands - a veritable Polish Empire.

[stevep]

   With reference to alternative Nazi leaders I think the only two who seem to have any significant degree of intelligence were Goebbels and Heydrich.  If the latter had lived longer and those two had made a pact, say in the power struggle after a successful assassination of Hitler that could have been dangerous.  Goring apparently became a lot more indulgent after he was injured in the Beer Hall Putsch and became a morphine addict as a result so if that hadn't happened he might have been more dangerous as well?

  However Goebbels seems to have been pretty fanatical as he and his wife committed suicide after killing their 6 children,  Goebbels having refused, unlike other Nazi leaders to leave Berlin even after Hitler's suicide.

  I think Hitler could have been removed post-1933 but it would have been by one of two routes.

a)  One of the many assassination attempts actually succeeded.  This would however probably leave the Nazi party in charge of Germany unless it was in the latter states of the war and you ended up with a military coup to avoid a civil war possibly.

b)  If Britain and France had stood up to Germany earlier.  Any time from the re-occupation of the Rhineland to possibly the Munich crisis you might have seen a military coup to remove Hitler and probably the other Nazis as many in the army were fearful of another war that they couldn't see themselves winning.

[American hist]

For this pod, I wish evil Hitler to be removed as soon as possible. Once, he first starts interfering with choices that prevented an axis victory, like during Dunkirk when he stopped the German army from destroying the British expedition army.

Invading the USSR wasn't necessarily a bad idea. It was a bad idea to invade Russia when Hitler did it; which nazie potential leader might prevent Germany from invading Russia as they did historically?

Which nazie or Japanese leader might improve cooperation between these two nations? Indeed, the nations didn't have a lot In common nor in collaboration, but these nations could have had additional friendliness, such as exchanging technology, Strategy, and goals.

It would be intriguing if a chain reaction could have developed for all of the axis nations to have good leaders

Also, which axis puppet states could have had better leaders?

How could Italy have been more robust, and what if it initially decided not to go to war until 1942, which its leaders said was when its military Would you be ready?

[miletus12]

Feb 28, 2022 17:29:25 GMT oscssw said:

How about Dr. Joseph Goebbels? Leni Riefenstahl, who was in a position to know, disliked Goebbels. In her autobiography she stated "Goebbels has a chilling ability to coldly size up any situation with absolute clarity". There is no record of an IQ test, but most academics estimated that it was somewhere in the low 140 range, which would put him in the top 1%.

I think his brilliance and ability to accurately understand a situation would make him a formidable opponent.
With no 'Military experience" he would be unlikely to think he knew better than the generals. He would also see early on when things were starting to go bad and make realistic adjustments instead of stubbornly perusing policies that were not working.

Goebbels’s shrewd political instinct and his opportunism were demonstrated by his switch to Hitler’s side in 1926, which was rewarded by his appointment in November of the same year as Nazi district leader for Berlin-Brandenburg.
Here he demonstrated his managerial powers which were much better than Hitler's.

As can be seen, IQ scores are not an indicator of sanity or competence. We might note that Albert Speer, the most effective Nazi, was far more effective in the practical achievement metrics than Wilhelm Keitel or that other complete imbecile, Ribbentrop; or the inept Rosenberg or that ineffectual Jodl? 

We might look at Karl Doenitz and inquire if his "IQ" was an indicator of his ability to problem solve or manage his taskings as opposed to his British or American counterparts? That would be a "no" as he failed to properly meet the changing challenges of naval war he waged. He was incompetent.

The book on Goebbels was that he was slavishly devoted to Hitler and to the Nazi ideology as observed in his acts. Both attributes can be seen at work in how he exited this life. The Allies certainly were not going to seek vengeance on his wife, children and family pets.  Yet, one notes that Goebbels murdered his wife, killed his and her children, offed the pets and killed himself and did so promptly when Hitler suicided.  Does this betoken evidence of a person who saw the situation coldly and realistically and had good administrative skills and adaptability as Speer did? No.   

The book on Heydrich was that his own secret police told him there was a plot afoot to assassinate him. Did he take precautions or act prudently to secure his own person? No. He was Ferdinanded and assassinated. This historically still makes no sense.