Nick Fuentes Praises Stalin...

My take...

Fuentes is full of it. Putting aside the death tolls resulting from the collectivization/forced famines and purges, Stain's handling of World War Two was abyssmal. He dismissed early reports of the upcoming Operation Barbarossa (June 22 1941) leaving the Soviet Union under prepared for the six months of German victories that only came to a halt in January 1942 at Moscow. The Red Army suffered defeats at Smolensk, Minsk, Kiev, Vitobesk with Leningrad placed under a terrible siege that lasted three years. It was only after he gave more authority to generals such as Zhokov, Rokossovsky and Vasilevsky coupled with German folly (much of it courtesy of Hitler himself) did the tide begin turning. Stalin also relied heavily on US Lend Lease Aid. The Five Year plans are considered to have mixed results. In the absence of a counterfactual it is easy to extol Stalin especially when much of the information about the plans has been filtered through Soviet Propaganda.

The German Blitzkrieg against the Soviet Union. Was it successful?

(Answered my me on Quora)

Initially it was very successful. However as 1941 progressed it spread itself too thin and could not reach Moscow in a timely manner when faced with a restocked Red Army and a bitter winter. In terms of territory though the Germans in 1941 captured more ground than they did in Poland in 1939 or France in 1940. However the Soviet Union was a different beast. They had ample territory to play the low black and were well aware of the stretched capability of the German’s supply runs.

Having said that several figures in the German elite (including Hitler) did underestimate the Soviets likening their enemies fighting ability to a house of ill construction that would cave in with limited thrust. History would torch this belief.

Snappy Answers to History Questions VI

What were some of the mistakes made by Mao and Stalin?

There were a multiplicity of mistakes that were made by both. Most of which centered around their inability to appreciate their limitations, the innate belief that they were somehow on the correct side of history (like most Hegelians) and the most tragic of all the ransacking of their own countries (read about the Great Leap Forward and the Various collectivization programs in the USSR). Whether this was intentional or not the outcomes were deleterious. Each was a slave to their own hubris with millions of human beings paying with their lives for such such single minded evil.

Did Stalin start the winter war?

Yes he did. He took advantage of his non-Aggression Pact with the Germans and the fact that Britain and France were still engaged in the so-called Phoney War (having done very little to aid the Poles against the twin invasions from both Germany and later the USSR in September 1939) to push for territorial concessions from the Finns. When the Finns failed to comply he authorized military action, that with hindsight would prove to be very costly for the invaders

Why did Mao Zedong kill his people?

Mao espoused an ideology that placed the broader collective and the will of the people before everything else. By necessity this reduces individual beings to material widgets that can be discarded to fit the march toward the respective singularity. Once you strip human beings of the essence that makes them humans genocide is easily rationalized.

Who was the strongest of the Three Leaders; Churchill, Roosevelt or Stalin?

In my opinion Churchill was the strongest in terms of character but he was the leader of the weakest of the three powers. He therefore brought less cards to the table. Roosevelt had the powerful backing of the American economy and military fire power behind him but struggled with deteriorating health as the war ebbed to a close (impacting his judgement). He underestimated Stalin, who was by far the most calculating of the three. However Stalin erred consistently in many of his war decisions and was often baled out by the brave action of his generals (Zhukov, Rokossovsky etc). His propaganda exalted his real status but in reality the people of the Soviet Union paid in great number for many of his poor choices and indecision.

Babi Yar

There seems to be a historical rewrite today transforming Babi Yar (or Babyn Yar) into a specifically Ukranian tragedy (that has been highlighted by the recent Russian bombing at or near the memorial). However it is important to place all of this in context.

Picture source: Times of Israel

Between the 29th-30th September 1941, 33,771 JEWS (29 survived) were massacred by the Ordnungspolizei (Nazi Order Police), the Ukranian Auxillary Police and the Einsatzgruppen. This was essentially the Holocaust with bullets. Many of these Jews were identified as such by Ukranian collaborators. The evil was specifically directed at Jews. Yes the Jews were Ukranian nationals but they were not killed because they were Ukranians but because they were Jews.

It is also worth noting that the Nazis tried to cover this up using the Sonderaktion 1005 action plan with the same cast of victimizers working together once again.

Now it is true that the total number of people killed at the site during the duration of the war likely numbered somewhere between 100,000-150,000 (a figure that includes more Jews, Soviet prisoners of war, Ukranian nationalists and Romany) but this should not detract on the origins of Babi Yar as a testament to the mass genocide of Jews, a tragedy that would not be possible to the same extent without the help of local collaborators

Source: Karel C. Berkhoff (2008). Babi Yar Massacre The Shoah in Ukraine: History, Testimony, Memorialization.

Who won the Battle of Kharkov?

 (My answer on Quora)

Which one? There were four altogether. In the First Battle (October 1941) the Germans took the city. The Soviets then tried to take it back in the Second Battle but failed (May 1942).

The Third Battle (late February and mid March 1943) was part of the Donets campaign and was the last big Axis hurrah on the Eastern Front. The Germans drove out the Soviets who had very recently taken Kharkov (16th of February 1943).

Scenes from the Third Battle of Kharkov. source: http://www2db.com

In the Fourth Battle (August 1943), also known as the Belgorod–Kharkov offensive operation, the Soviets finally defeated the Germans leading to a Wehrmacht retreat into the Ukraine and the Battle of Kiev (another Soviet victory).

All in all the battles proved costly for both sides. However that was not unusual for the battles on the Eastern Front.

Why is WWI less romaticized than WWII?

 My answer on Quora.

There wasn’t as clear a case of good v evil as there was for WWII. Yes the Kaiser had his faults (German action in Belgium in particular was horrendous) but on a scale of depravity he didn’t even come close to the Nazi despot.

In the East the Japanese military during WWII clearly transgressed all accepted norms of conduct with with the Rape of Nanking, their treatment of prisoners and war and the barbarism shown to conquered people. Defeating Tojo and co. scaffolded well into the dichotomy of the force of Light overcoming the Sith.

Add to that the clash of personalities in WWII …Churchill/Stalin v Hitler and you have many sub-plots that make for great reading and subsequent pedestal elevating, despite the fact that abuses were committed by both the Allies and the Axis. Nobody’s hands were clean although one can with careful analysis differentiate by degree of action.

WWII also had a much more obvious resolution than did WWI. It was also a greater expression of the notion of Total War in the way that it impacted civilian populations. In addition it posted a greater global impact that fed into the narrative of the ideological struggle. In a sense it represented a playing out of the politicism that engulfed the Modern world in the 20th century.

On a practical level the Generals and Admirals and Air Marshals were all the more competent in WWII, the weaponry vastly more impressive and the scope of tactics of greater study worthiness.

Where WWI did dominate from a Romantic perspective is that the quality of poetry dwarfed the later conflict. WWII lacked its Wilfred Owen and Siegfried Sassoon. Waiting around in trenches for events to happen was conducive to such writing.

Was Stalingrad that critical a city to take in WWII or was it more a case of prestige?

 (My Answer on Quora).

There is no doubt that the City’s name placed a huge target on its back. The prestige of capture was immense especially after the Axis failure to capture Moscow in December 1941.

However Stalingrad did offer strategic importance. For one it would have given the Germans a chokehold on the Volga which did have supply line significance. In addition victory here would have allowed the 6th Army and the 4th Panzers to join up with the Caucasus Army to push towards the oil fields further south. The Wehrmacht’s campaign here had stalled by December 1942. It may have been re-energized.

Stalingrad success followed by a south linkage would have greatly benefited the German war effort providing them with necessary fuel for further drives elsewhere. It would also have interrupted Allied Lend lease supplies coming through Persia.

Defeat for the Red Army would likely have negatively impacted Soviet morale. They needed win to legitimately turn around fortunes on a longer term. The gains from the win at Moscow a year earlier did not materialize to the extent that Stalin expected them to do. They did after the real world victory at Stalingrad.

What did Italy own in WW2?

 (My answer on Quora)

Italy controlled territory in Somalia, Libya and Abyssinia (Ethiopia) prior to WWII. There was also a small Italian presence in Tianjin, China. During the war she would go on to occupy British Somaliland, sections of south-east France, Yugoslavia, Albania, western Egypt and Greece.

By 1943 all of this territory (including pre-war holdings) would be liberated from Italy.

My grandfather was a Lieutenant in the South African Army that helped defeat the Italians in Abyssinia in 1941.

What role did US submarines play against Japan in WWI?

 (My answer on Quora)

A very significant one. In fact, according to historian Euan Graham, 55% of Japan’s merchant marine losses were courtesy of US submarine attacks. The Imperial Japanese Army (IJA) troop carriers were also attacked with regularity further hindering the Japanese war effort. The net effect of these attacks was to expedite the collapse of the Japanese economy and hinder Tokyo’s military progress.

However submarine warfare didn’t start out that well for the US initially. The 1941–42 Philippines campaign was somewhat of a disaster with US submarines failing to notch a single strike against their Japanese targets. There were operational problems associated with the Mark 14 torpedoes. Fortunately and thanks to the efforts of vice-admiral Charles Lockwood these were corrected.

One of the reasons for US submarine success during the war was that the Japanese failed to utilize the convoy system as well as the Allies did in the Northern Atlantic. Since Japan was extremely reliant on seaborne supplies the impact was significant.

Did the Japanese attack the US West Coast during WWII?

(My answer on Quora)

As others have mentioned the Japanese did indeed attack the West Coast of the United States. The most newsworthy of these was the naval bombardment of Ellwood in Santa Barbara, California that damaged a local oil refinery. This occurred on the 23rd of February 1942.

The military base of Fort Stevens in Oregon was also shelled by the Japanese Submarine I-25 on June 21st 1942 with very minimal damage. In addition the Japanese occupied two of the Aleutian Islands (Kiska and Attu) prior to the Battle of Midway with the intention of protecting their Northern Flank. The Attu landing marked the first time a part of the continental United States had been occupied since the War of 1812.

So why then did the Japanese not go any further? Well the defeat of Kidō Butai (1st Fleet) at Midway put an end to further aspirations on the West Coast by securing naval supremacy in the Pacific in American favour.

However lets place devil’s advocate for a moment and assume that the Imperial Navy had emerged victorious on the 7th of June 1942 with Admirals Yamamoto and Kondō defeating Nimitz, Spruance and Fletcher.

A victory here would have greatly turned the tide in the Pacific in Japan’s favour. It would only have been a matter of time before Pearl Harbor fell and with it Hawaii. With its new position the Japanese could have launched further sporadic attacks against the American West Coast and probably would have to limit an American Naval rebuild. It is very unlikely that the US would have sued for peace even in this alternative scenario (not with the home front intact).

As for a full scale frontal attack on the West Coast proportions this is improbable. The planning and logistic commitments here would have dwarfed D-Day. The expanse of ocean that would have to be traversed was far too wide and the Japanese for all their maritime success did not have the Armed force strength of the Wehrmacht. Their continuing struggles in China and their defeat at the hands of the Soviets/Mongolians at Khalkin Gol had made that clear already. All of this likely played a significant part in the decision of Japan to not open a Second front in the Soviet Union much to the annoyance and ongoing frustration of Adolf Hitler. Invading the US mainland was even worse of an option. This is not the same as an assault against American positions in the Philippines. Far from it.

Besides which Japan was already heavily committed elsewhere having greatly expanded her domain in the Malaya Peninsula (including Singapore), Hong Kong, the Dutch East Indies, the Philippines, French Indochina, Burma and numerous Pacific Islands. Her intentions for the time being would likely have involved the consolidation of gains (against active resistance) with an eye to containing future American rebuilds via a naval check. Anything beyond this would have spelled disaster.

How did Britain defeat Germany in World War Two?

 (Asked on Quora. My answer).

Well to begin with the Soviet Juggernaut in the East was instrumental to winning the land battle and if it weren’t for the overwhelming production capabilities of the United States (which were impacting events even before official US entry into the war) the outcome may have been different. Cash-and-Carry and Lend-Lease were vital.

One also has to give much credit to the legion of British code breakers who not only expedited the computer revolution but also allowed the Allied brass to remain one step ahead of their German counterparts in key battle theatres (although at times the Germans did compromise Allied activities as well).

Britain did rely very heavily on the Commonwealth of Nations that framed her resource basis (in both material and man power) but what needs to be said is that one of the key factors in the wars eventual resolution was the poor decisions made by Herr Hitler at the Apex of the German command.

These include the let off at Dunkirk, key tactical errors at the Battle of Britain, the opening up of two fronts with Operation Barbarossa, the genocide campaign or Holocaust launched against Jews and other groups that drained the Reich of resources (human and otherwise), the decision to declare War against the US very soon after Pearl Harbor, the over reliance on submarine warfare on the seas (this had its successes initially) and the inability of Germany to exploit its own phenomenal prowess in the field of Jet aviation. He also failed to realize the potential the Middle Eastern/North Africa underbelly option that would have supplied the Reich with the oil resources, whose lack thereof eventually paralyzed the Wehrmacht.

It also didn’t help the German cause that Mussolini’s Italy was a poor ally and that Japan was not willing to offer Hitler a second front in the East versus the Soviet Union.

Oh yes I forgot…Britain had Churchill who was determined to win at all costs. Leadership matters.

Were the Soviets the good guys in WWII or just useful allies?

The Soviet Union played a pivotal role in the defeat of Nazi Germany of that there is no doubt however they were more an ally of convenience than anything else.

Winston Churchill said it well here: ‘If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons’.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Don’t forget that until Operation Barbarossa (June 22nd, 1941) the Soviets had a Non-Aggression Pact with Nazi Germany that was signed on the 23rd August 1939, one week prior to the Invasion of Poland by Germany.

This Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact allowed the Germans and Soviets to partition Poland between the two countries and by extension essentially divided Eastern Europe into German and Soviet spheres of influence (the Soviets would use this to extend their control into the Baltic States and Bessarabia).

This was not a formal alliance but the sordid details were revealed during the Nuremberg trials.

Stalin for one, went out of his way to avoid war with Germany and for the period from the 1st September 1939 until Barbarossa actually supplied the Germans with raw material that they would use in their war effort.

In fact even as reports from various sources (especially Richard Sorge in Tokyo) warned of an impending invasion Stalin refused to believe this line of thought. He felt that he had done enough to placate the Nazis.

The massacre at of the Polish army officers at Katyn (April/May 1940) and the harsh treatment of the Poles following the Soviet Invasion of Poland on the 17th of September 1939 do much to dispel the Soviet good guy image.

Having said that the Soviet achievements in rolling back the Germans in Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk and Bagration should not be understated. They broke the power of the Wehrmacht (albeit with considerable resource support from the Western Allies via the convoy system). It was also the Soviets who liberated such death camps as Auschwitz-Birkenau.

So what we have is a lot of grey. Good guys on one side. Tainted on the other. The Iron Curtain that descended over areas of Soviet controlled Eastern Europe following the World War Two reinforced the darker side of what once a marriage of convenience.

There was a greater devil to defeat until 1945.

Which was the Most Powerful country during World War II?

 (Asked on Quora. My answer)

It depends on what portion of the war you are talking about and also what you mean by the word powerful. It is also important to distinguish between theatres of war.

The Economic Powerhouse throughout the war was the United States whose production capabilities were the driving force for an eventual Allied victory. On the ground the military picture is more complicated. Listed below is the respective theatre and the dominant player.

Asia/Pacific Ocean:

1937- June 1942: Japan

June 1942-VJ Day: United States

Although the Chinese initiative in holding the line against persistent Japanese advances should not be understated.

Eastern Europe

September 1st - January 1942 - Germany

January 1942-February 1943 - Roughly equal power between Germany/Soviet Union

February 1943 Onward - Soviet Union

Western Europe

War beginning - D-Day - Germany

D-Day onward - Allies (largely the United States although Britain was a key player).

Allies did make substantial gains through the soft Italian underbelly from 1943 onward.

Atlantic Ocean

Largely the Allies for the war but not without considerable shipping losses.

Mediterranean Sea

British/Italian shared power gradually shifting towards Britain as war progressed. Greatly expedited from 1943. German submarines and air attacks were menacing.

East Africa

Early Italian gains but by 1941 the British dominated the situation here.

North Africa

Early British gains. Rolled back by Rommel. Allied domination after the Second Battle of El Alamein (British with later US Support).

Overall: The Soviets emerged as the ultimate military land juggernaut. However they did rely on Allied support and materials to reach this point (not to mention German strategic failures). In all other areas the US largely dominated come war’s end. Production powerhouse was the United States. Soviets did extremely well under difficult circumstances.

What was the significance of the Spanish Civil War?

 The conventional wisdom is that the Spanish Civil War (1936–1939) was somewhat of a prequel or “dress rehearsal” to the Second World War and there is something to that argument. It highlighted the bloodthirsty and dehumanizing nature of what was essentially an ideological struggle, showcased the destructive nature of aerial bombardment and provided a platform of action for the ambitions of Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini. On another level the war indicated the dangers, of how a relatively sophisticated nation state, can slide into years of terror, when the political center crumbles leaving the populace at the mercy of both the extremes of left and right.

To understand the war’s origins we need to go back to the year 1931 that saw the abolition of monarchy in the country, the end of the reign of Alfonso XIII and the birth of the Spanish Second Republic. Initially there was much optimism in Spain as the newly elected government promised much welcomed reforms that contrasted sharply with Miguel Primo de Rivera’s reactionary period as dictator from 1923–1930.

Alfonso XIII - source: Dictator’s Wiki

The new government that dominated politics in Spain in 1931 consisted largely of a coalition of Republicans, Liberals, Communists, Anarchists and Socialists. It adopted a political agenda predicated on economic, cultural and political reform that took a sharp turn towards anti-clericalism and collectivism ushering in an era that looked to cut into the social fabric of Spain’s traditional core. Land distribution policy was particular troublesome and divisive.

The ruling coalition couched its ideas in an amalgamation of modernization and socialist reforms. Union voices made their presence felt through the actions of the UGT and the CNT-IFA who appeared to be gravitating towards a type of Syndicalism that pressured the Government from the Left.

The right wing opposition consisted of three main groups - Monarchists (broken down into the Alfonsists and Carlists), the Roman Catholic Church and after 1933 the Falangists (Spanish Fascists). The latter was led by José Antonio Primo de Rivera, the son of the former dictator who modelled the Falangists along the lines of Mussolini’s Italian Fascist Party.

While the left enjoyed strong union support, the Right had substantial backing in the Army and Spanish Industrialists who were concerned about the growth of Socialism and Communism within the Republican government. Within the Spanish Cortes (Parliament) right wing interests were largely represented by the CEDA alliance.

As the 1930s evolved the Republican government was forced to put down several insurrections driven by Army elements on the right. At the same time Syndicalists were attacking it from the Left. Concessions to the left were predictably met with more demands and the government coalitions tended to be unstable. CEDA, which represented Middle Class and Conservative Catholic interests was largely excluded from power by a series of alliances even when a center-right coalition dominated the Cortes.

Instability was the byword for the Republic and the chasm between the political poles had escalated rapidly. Isolating Military figures such as Emilio Mola and Francisco Franco (who was sent to the Canary Islands) could only stave off for so long the growing discontent. Oddly enough the enfranchisement of women did result in a surge in support for the centre-right parties that was reflected in the 1933 election.

By early 1936 the drum roll towards more violence was beating with greater intensity. Niceto Alcalá-Zamora, the country’s President was cycling through Prime Ministers. In May 1936 he was replaced by former Prime Minister Manuel Azaña Díaz. Political infighting was endemic. Meanwhile influential general Francisco Franco had left the Canary Islands and arrived at Spanish Morocco. From the North Mola was actively planning for action against the Republican government.

On the 12th of June the Falangists killed police lieutenant José Castillo. The left responded by executing Monarchist José Calvo Sotelo. War began on the 17th of July 1936. Franco’s rebels had Spanish Morocco. He was by now leader of the Nationalists (and soon to be Caudillo) having united all opponents of the Republican government under this broader banner. Nationalist troops would soon seize key towns and cities in the South and Far North.

However the rest of the country was dominated by Republican forces of various stripes. Worker groups had seized control of Madrid, Catalonia, Andalusia, parts of Levante and Aragon. They began establishing collectives placing the economy under full worker control. July-September 1936 was known as the Summer of Anarchy.

With German help Franco’s Army of Africa was air lifted to the Spanish mainland nullifying the Naval blockade that had so far served the interests of the Republic.

Spain at the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War source: Omniatlas

For three years the war dragged on. The Nationalists controlled most of the countryside while the Republicans dominated the cities with the sole exception of Sevilla. Nazi Germany and Italy backed the Nationalists while the Soviet Union stood behind the Republican forces. France and Britain condemned the Nationalists but largely avoided directly assisting Republican forces, Nevertheless International brigades of outside volunteers rushed to join the Republican side. Included in this band was George Orwell who wrote about his experiences in his book Homage to Catalonia (1938).

The CNT Defense Committee fighting the Nationalists in Barcelona source: Socialist Worker

Fighting was brutal with war crimes committed by both sides. Purges were frequent as was the use of torture and mass killings. The bombing of the town of Guernica (1937) by the German Luftwaffe in support of the Nationalists was a particular tragic event and highlighted the destructive nature of air attacks which would become all too apparent in World War Two.

The Bombing of Guernica as immortalized by Picasso source: The Independent

Madrid held out for two and a half years in the face of a bloody siege by the Nationalists. However after Franco had consolidated Nationalist control over Basque territory in the North he swept southeast to the coast splitting Republican controlled territory into two halves. Momentum was with the Nationalists. The Internationalist Brigade has been disbanded some time earlier and the Soviets appeared to be losing their enthusiasm for the struggle. Soon Republican strangleholds would fall.

Francisco Franco source: biography.com

By the 1st of April 1939 the War was over. Franco’s better trained troops aided by the Fascist powers were victorious in a series of sweeping advances. Franco was now in control of all of Spain. His chief rivals on the Right, José Sanjurjo and Emilio Mola had both died in plane crashes. Sabotage was suspected for both fatalities but this was never proven.

As dictator Franco would govern Spain until his death on the 20th of November 1975 with Spain facing international isolation during his tenure in power. King Juan Carlos I was restored to the Spanish throne with Spain becoming a Constitutional Monarchy. Although the Germans and Italians had given him critical support during the Civil War Franco made the wise choice of Maintaining Spain neutrality during World War Two thus avoiding the destruction of his country that would likely have ensued. He did however express sympathy for the Axis Powers.

From an Allied perspective his neutrality was critical as it allowed the Allies to have an ease of entry into the Mediterranean through the straights of Gibraltar with Franco choosing to ignore Hitler’s please to seize the British controlled rock fortress.

Sources:

The Battle for Spain: The Spanish Civil War 1936-1939 Paperback – June 1, 2006 by Anthony Beevor.

The Spanish Civil War: Reaction, Revolution, and Revenge by Paul Preston (2006)

How many troops landed on D-Day?

 (Asked on Quora - my answer).

Ken Ford and Steven Zaloga in their book Overlord: The D-Day Landings (2009) provide a figure of 156,115. This relies heavily on the number determined by Ellis, Allen and Warhurst (2004).

This breaks down into 57,500 American troops (Omaha and Utah) and 75,215 British and Canadian soldiers (Gold, Sword and Juno). A further 15,500 Americans and 7,900 British troops were dropped from the air.

The casualties for the June 6th landing likely topped 10,000+ with 4,414 confirmed dead.

Sources:

Ford, Ken; Zaloga, Steven J. (2009). Overlord: The D-Day Landings. Oxford; New York: Osprey.

Ellis, L.F.; Allen, G.R.G.; Warhurst, A.E. (2004) [1962]. Butler J.R.M (ed.). Victory in the West, Volume I: The Battle of Normandy. History of the Second World War United Kingdom Military Series. London: Naval & Military Press.

What happened to the colonies of countries that were annexed in WW2?

 (Asked on Quora. My answer).

These would be the colonies of three countries - France, Belgium and the Netherlands. Portugal and Spain were neutral during WWII.

France: Most of France’s colonial Empire was initially controlled by the collaborationist Vichy Government (headed by Petain and Laval) following its formation in July 1940. Morocco, Southern Algeria and all of France’s West African possessions fall into this category. Tunisia was more formerly controlled by the Axis powers.

However this vast area, including Tunisia, would eventually be taken over by the Allies and handed over to the Free French following Operation Torch in November 1942–May 1943. Northern Algeria also fell under the domain of Free France after Torch, but it was considered part of Metropolitan France (French Algeria).

Most of France’s Central African possessions plus Chad were administered by the Free French after September 1940. The Free French would later acquire Gabon, Syria and Madagascar (all three before Operation Torch).

French Indochina (Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos) was taken over by the Japanese in two stages from the Vichy French starting in September 1940 (the North) and ending in July 1941 (the Rest).

French zones in India and China proper fell under the jurisdiction of the Free French who also administered territory in South America (French Guiana), the Caribbean, the Pacific and Indian Oceans. The same was true of French territory around Newfoundland. French Somaliland (Djibouti) was formerly returned to the Free French in 1943.

Belgium - The Belgium Congo and other Belgium controlled regions in Africa (Rwanda and Burundi) remained loyal to the Free Belgium government.

The Netherlands- The Free Dutch government administered Suriname and the Netherland’s Caribbean possessions. However the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia) fell to Japanese forces in early 1942. It was liberated in 1945. In the interim it was part of the vast expanse of Japanese controlled territory intended to sustain the Tokyo dominated Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere

Was the outcome of WWII inevitable? What are some examples in history of war that should have been won but wasn't?

 This is a Quora Question. Here is my answer.

There are two components to this question. I will address the first in detail as it has tremendous importance in our understanding of the real time nature of WWII. For the second I will offer the German stay of execution at Dunkirk (1940) as a big opportunity lost from their perspective. To this I would add the Soviet defeat at the Battle of Warsaw (1920) during the Polish-Soviet War. Warsaw turned the conflict in favour of Poland at a critical point when it looked like a Soviet war victory was inevitable.

Battle of Warsaw 1920 source: Warsaw Institute

Now back to Part one…

The outcome of WWII was certainly not inevitable for most of the six years of fighting. The definitive resolution of the war appeared more likely once certain outcomes became a reality but even then it was always possible that a stalemate or more likely a Pyrrhic win could be clutched from the jaws of victory.

There was nothing easy about WWII. It involved an immense amount of sacrifice and although the Allies enjoyed an advantage in raw materials and manufacturing output, especially when the Americans joined the effort, there were absolutely no military or political ‘gimmes’ here. Strategic miscalculations would be paid for in blood and enough losses could cripple any campaign.

Hindsight allows many to speak with extended hubris decades removed but for those living during this dark and dreary period the war’s trajectory at several points in time was not positive. Far from it in fact.

Lets look at how the global situation appeared on October 1st 1941. At this stage of the war Germany had De Facto control of Bohemia/Moravia, Belgium, Denmark, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and Poland. German forces had also consolidated their hegemony in Greece (including Crete) and Yugoslavia. On top of that the Nazis had allies/puppet states in Bulgaria, Croatia, Finland, Hungary, Italy, Romania, Slovakia and Vichy France (with most most of her colonies in Africa and South East Asia).

The Wehrmacht had seen one success after another. It had bulldozed all opposition and had vastly outperformed earlier German forces of the WWI vintage with innovative military attacks and a necessary daring that had demonstrated the effectiveness of an integrated mechanized approach.

While the Battle of Britain had offered a much needed respite from the litany of German successes and certainly handicapped the Luftwaffe elsewhere the situation was far from well for the British.

German submarine Wolfpacks and other Kriegsmarine attacks continued to wreak havoc with enemy shipping with the allies suffering 53 ship losses in September 1941 alone up from 25 the month before and 23 in July. While it is true that this number was lower than levels recorded on a monthly rate for the first half of 1941 German attacks here were taking a heavy toll on Allied Shipping. Victory in the Battle of Atlantic was far from over and it greatly concerned Churchill and the war cabinet of the vulnerable island nation. (Shipping losses in terms of pure tonnage would almost triple in 1942 compared to the 1941 high point marks).

German U-boat submarine source: Britannica

In the Soviet Union Operation Barbarossa launched on June 22nd 1941 was looking to be a success. German forces had hit the Soviet Union with a three pronged attack (north, center and south). Vilnius (Lithuania) had fallen and the Soviets had suffered heavy losses of around 300,000 at Minsk/Bialystock, following encirclement by German troops on June 28th.

In July the Germans would capture Vitebsk (Belarus) opening up the road to Smolensk (which fell in September) and with that the gateway to Moscow for the Panzer corps. Further pockets (Bryansk and Vyazma) were destined to collapse as the Soviets scrambled to balance its forces.

Operation Barbarossa source: Military Wiki

Latvia and Estonia had in short order fallen under German control as had the rest of Poland before that. Leningrad was under siege as Army Group North consolidated the noose on the Baltic Sea coast.

In the South the situation was not much better. The Germans, had taken Kiev, the third largest city in the Soviet Union, by the 26th of September with Odessa slated to fall soon (it did in mid October). The Germans were poised to take the Crimean Peninsula as well. This meant that the road to the Caucasus region would likely open up and with it a smorgasbord of resources for the German War machine.

While it is true that the Allies had enjoyed success in North Africa, the Mediterranean Sea and certainly East Africa against Mussolini’s Italian forces, Desert Fox Erwin Rommel’s arrival in Libya in February 1941 predictably coincided with an obvious reversal of fortunes.

Axis forces in Operation Sonneblume rolled back Allied gains retaking Benghazi and Msus which was then followed up by victories at Derna, Mechili and Halifya Pass. Tobruk was besieged by Afrika Korp troops on April 10th and would not be relieved until November 27th. German air attacks targeted Cairo as the pivotal British island position in Malta strained under the wrath of further Luftwaffe bombings.

If Malta fell it would severely weakens British clout in the Mediterranean thereby endangering the supply lines supporting the 8th Army. A British loss in North Africa would threaten the Suez Canal gateway and the road to the Middle East and India. The British had consolidated their position in Syria and Iraq (reversing a pro-Axis coup) but those gains may not have held in the face of a German thrust from the west.

With respect to Japan it did not look much better for the Allies. Although Chinese Nationalist forces had bravely held on to the Changsha focal point against waves of Imperial Japanese force, they and their Communist allie,s had failed to dislodge the Japanese forces in the North.

Also the presence of the Vichy government in French Indochina (modern day Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia) and a sympathetic regime in Thailand was threatening the British flank in Burma and with that the valuable supply line routes through Rangoon to China that Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalist forces so heavily relied on.

Japan would soon over the next six months following Pearl Harbor significantly expand the territory under her control. source: valkswordwarii

The Japanese were also turning their attention to Malaya Peninsula and the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia) to buttress their endless quest for resources (oil, timber, rubber, rice and tin). Both looked ripe for the picking and would prove so over the next six months.

Yes it looked grim and it if weren’t for the failure of the German attempt at taking Moscow (October 1941-January 1942) it may have looked even worse. Japan ran rampant in the East after Pearl Harbor and until the Battle of the Coral Sea, Guadalcanal and of course Midway, the US was largely playing catch up. The Japanese could never be taken lightly. Their victory at the Battle of the Java Sea (February 1942) is testament to this.

In short there was nothing inevitable about the war in 1941. Nor was that the case until late 1943 at the very earliest (and even with that I would add a great deal of hindsight).

Axis success was overturned but the cost in lives was immense. Those who fought to ensure Allied success are most certainly worthy of the credit given.

Source:

https://www.naval-history.net/WW2CampaignsAtlanticDev.htm