How does Germany win WWII
Discussion
In view of something written on a different thread vis-a-vis the battle of Britain
I have quite a simple question really (though a complex answer one suspects as there would be soooooo many variables)...
I would have thought that had they not been brutal in extremis to the people they conquered (especially in the USSR) they may well have seen a far more favourable outcome in the East. I suspect that had Russia been knocked out then that could have caused the even US some issues in terms of natural resources.
No strategic/long range bombers (thanks to Goering and Hitler in the main IIRC) didn't help matters.
If Germany hadn't declared war on the US would the US have entered the war given their isolationism?
come on let's have at it and see where we can get to
I have quite a simple question really (though a complex answer one suspects as there would be soooooo many variables)...
I would have thought that had they not been brutal in extremis to the people they conquered (especially in the USSR) they may well have seen a far more favourable outcome in the East. I suspect that had Russia been knocked out then that could have caused the even US some issues in terms of natural resources.
No strategic/long range bombers (thanks to Goering and Hitler in the main IIRC) didn't help matters.
If Germany hadn't declared war on the US would the US have entered the war given their isolationism?
come on let's have at it and see where we can get to
Biggest mistake was invading Russia. Without that, they could feasibly have won, although it much depends if America had entered the war or not. Before Pearl Harbour they had no appetite to provide men, even if they were prepared to sell us weapons. So lets assume they are happy providing munitions, but not men. Britain cant win by herself, so gets defeated. An amphibious landing into Europe is therefore impossible. At some point Stalin/Hitler will fight if nothing else due to their personalities, and while Hitler made a mistake in underestimating the Russians, had Moscow fallen (which it very nearly did) then the 'mistake' would have been seen as a triumph.
A lot of ifs, buts and maybe's. My own opinion is that the opportunities for a German victory were squandered due to Hitlers own meddling in the armed forces. While the tactics he personally insisted on at the start of the war were successful, by 1941/2 he was causing problems for his generals by not listening to what they wanted and insisting on vanity projects instead. Look at the amount of resources spent on 'wonder weapons' when the Allies were using vastly inferior kit, but more than made up for that in the rate of production.
A lot of ifs, buts and maybe's. My own opinion is that the opportunities for a German victory were squandered due to Hitlers own meddling in the armed forces. While the tactics he personally insisted on at the start of the war were successful, by 1941/2 he was causing problems for his generals by not listening to what they wanted and insisting on vanity projects instead. Look at the amount of resources spent on 'wonder weapons' when the Allies were using vastly inferior kit, but more than made up for that in the rate of production.
As said, picking a fight with the Soviets at that time was his mistake, he should have consolidated his hold in Western Europe and put the resources he used in the East into North Africa.
With increased German numbers in the the region he could have pushed Britain out of North Africa and the Middle East, setting up puppet states where needed. Even doing territory deals with the Soviets along their southern borders.
After Pearl Harbour he should have been more diplomatic and condemned the attack, playing both sides.
Then it would have been a race to develop the wonder weapons to stop any Soviet threat and possibly supporting an invasion of Britain, or maybe supporting Britain's home grown fascist movements in a civil war.
With increased German numbers in the the region he could have pushed Britain out of North Africa and the Middle East, setting up puppet states where needed. Even doing territory deals with the Soviets along their southern borders.
After Pearl Harbour he should have been more diplomatic and condemned the attack, playing both sides.
Then it would have been a race to develop the wonder weapons to stop any Soviet threat and possibly supporting an invasion of Britain, or maybe supporting Britain's home grown fascist movements in a civil war.
irocfan said:
In view of something written on a different thread vis-a-vis the battle of Britain
I have quite a simple question really (though a complex answer one suspects as there would be soooooo many variables)...
I would have thought that had they not been brutal in extremis to the people they conquered (especially in the USSR) they may well have seen a far more favourable outcome in the East. I suspect that had Russia been knocked out then that could have caused the even US some issues in terms of natural resources.
No strategic/long range bombers (thanks to Goering and Hitler in the main IIRC) didn't help matters.
If Germany hadn't declared war on the US would the US have entered the war given their isolationism?
come on let's have at it and see where we can get to
Even after the Phoney war ended, there were talks being done to have a ceasefire with Hitler.I have quite a simple question really (though a complex answer one suspects as there would be soooooo many variables)...
I would have thought that had they not been brutal in extremis to the people they conquered (especially in the USSR) they may well have seen a far more favourable outcome in the East. I suspect that had Russia been knocked out then that could have caused the even US some issues in terms of natural resources.
No strategic/long range bombers (thanks to Goering and Hitler in the main IIRC) didn't help matters.
If Germany hadn't declared war on the US would the US have entered the war given their isolationism?
come on let's have at it and see where we can get to
Hitler allows Gurdarian to take BEF at Dunkirk, and keeps pushing the diplomacy route at the Brits, agrees ceasefire and then has an unbattered Luftwaffe to take Russia. Of the three main plans, go for the Black sea one and take those oilfields, Russia is doomed.
Biggest mistake was not dealing with Britain first before taking Russia.
Should've gone for quantity over quality. The easy to build and simple to maintain T-34 was vastly inferior to the Panthers and Tiger 1's but they kept going whereas the German tanks broke down (edit - and/or couldn't be produced fast enough). As has already been said, trying to take Russia in the first place was the biggest mistake.
Also, diverting bombers from UK airfield missions to cities was a pretty daft idea.
Also, diverting bombers from UK airfield missions to cities was a pretty daft idea.
The Americans would have entered the war regardless of Pearl Harbour it just accelerated things a touch and gave Roosevelt more justification and greater public support for getting involved.
Roosevelt was preparing for war in 1941 prior to Pearl Harbour it was an election year though so he couldn't come out and say directly 'if i'm elected we're declaring war'
The war was actually greatly beneficial post 1920's recession for the Americans as they were selling arms and supplies to the Allies which increased their economic output and reduced unemployment wonderful for politicians.
Given that the Americans were also aware of Germany's intent on developing an atomic bomb they'd have also likely ramped up their research and development on the Manhattan project regardless of Pearl Harbour. Germany with the Atom bomb likely meant world domination anyway.
Roosevelt was preparing for war in 1941 prior to Pearl Harbour it was an election year though so he couldn't come out and say directly 'if i'm elected we're declaring war'
The war was actually greatly beneficial post 1920's recession for the Americans as they were selling arms and supplies to the Allies which increased their economic output and reduced unemployment wonderful for politicians.
Given that the Americans were also aware of Germany's intent on developing an atomic bomb they'd have also likely ramped up their research and development on the Manhattan project regardless of Pearl Harbour. Germany with the Atom bomb likely meant world domination anyway.
Without Hitler's big blunder of declaring war on the USA, it is doubtful if/when the US would have entered the European portion of the war. Britain was very close to collapsing financially when the US actually did...any prolonging of that (which most definitely would happened without the declaration) would have accelerated that process.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_World_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_World_...
There is no right or wrong answer on this one really.
You could argue that the mistake wasn't invading Russia so much as failing to take Moscow before the first Winter. They came bloody close.
Additionally, the inexplicable strategic switch from airfields to cities during the Battle of Britain was a key aspect. You could argue they thought they were getting no where and after the balls up with the lone bomber hitting London and the subsequent retaliations it was going to happen - but this at its most generous can be described as an intelligence failure by Germany.
The RAF was on its knees on the switch. Arguably days away from capitulation, but the respite allowed them to stand back up again.
Alternatively an argument could be that the RAF just stuck it out so long, the Luftwaffe changing strategy was going to happen....but if the Luftwaffe had kept going...less than a week.
The German hold on Western Europe would have been much more secure as there wouldn't have been a convenient staging post for invasion in the west
You could argue that the mistake wasn't invading Russia so much as failing to take Moscow before the first Winter. They came bloody close.
Additionally, the inexplicable strategic switch from airfields to cities during the Battle of Britain was a key aspect. You could argue they thought they were getting no where and after the balls up with the lone bomber hitting London and the subsequent retaliations it was going to happen - but this at its most generous can be described as an intelligence failure by Germany.
The RAF was on its knees on the switch. Arguably days away from capitulation, but the respite allowed them to stand back up again.
Alternatively an argument could be that the RAF just stuck it out so long, the Luftwaffe changing strategy was going to happen....but if the Luftwaffe had kept going...less than a week.
The German hold on Western Europe would have been much more secure as there wouldn't have been a convenient staging post for invasion in the west
Secure Europe, by which I mean don't pause the advance at Dunkirk, carry on over the water with full strength fighting force.
Once that's done, way until the next Spring and then launch the advance on Russia, plenty of time to do the job with the whole German army rather than half of it battling in a Russian winter.
Once that's done, way until the next Spring and then launch the advance on Russia, plenty of time to do the job with the whole German army rather than half of it battling in a Russian winter.
Depends what you mean by "Win".
If you mean beat the allies into capitulation then as others have said above they should have finished the UK when they had the chance in Autumn 1941. This would have been beating the RAF then starving & bankrupting us, through the War in the Atlantic, into the negotiation room to sign an unconditional surrender involving our demilitarisation, not that there was that much left after the global lossesin 1941. A German invasion of the UK wouldn't have worked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea_Lion_%... That would then have left them free to invade Russia, but as above they would need quantity not quality, of everything. Even then I think they would have been unlikely to win as invader; focussing solely on the UK in '41/42 may have allowed the Russian's to rearm if the Germans had not been able to maintain the diplomatic subterfuge to keep Stalin calm.
If you mean "lebensraum" and revenge on the Jews, there's a school of thought in alternative history that if the Germans had created an anti-Soviet alliance with Poland in '39 they could have moved their forces east to Poland's border with Russia. With that alliance in place the UK & France wouldn't have their treaty obligations towards Poland, which would mean WW2 in Europe would become a straight fight between Germany and Russia. With Poland as an eastward blitzkreig jumping off point they would probably have been more successful in 1939. If the German's had then been more cautious in not entering Stalingrad and also better prepared for the Russian winter they could have taken sufficient lebensraum space off the Soviets, as well as the oilfields in the Ukraine. Once the oil is gone Stalin would be powerless to defend the rest of his country and under threat of internal revolution he would need to sue for peace with the new borders staying as they were. The Germans could then have carried out the Holocaust and we would have looked the other way until it was unavoidable, we would then be powerless to prevent it as by then the Nazis would have also developed the atomic bomb and the V2 missile. At that point the UK Empire in Africa would be threatened and we would be screwed...
If you mean beat the allies into capitulation then as others have said above they should have finished the UK when they had the chance in Autumn 1941. This would have been beating the RAF then starving & bankrupting us, through the War in the Atlantic, into the negotiation room to sign an unconditional surrender involving our demilitarisation, not that there was that much left after the global lossesin 1941. A German invasion of the UK wouldn't have worked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea_Lion_%... That would then have left them free to invade Russia, but as above they would need quantity not quality, of everything. Even then I think they would have been unlikely to win as invader; focussing solely on the UK in '41/42 may have allowed the Russian's to rearm if the Germans had not been able to maintain the diplomatic subterfuge to keep Stalin calm.
If you mean "lebensraum" and revenge on the Jews, there's a school of thought in alternative history that if the Germans had created an anti-Soviet alliance with Poland in '39 they could have moved their forces east to Poland's border with Russia. With that alliance in place the UK & France wouldn't have their treaty obligations towards Poland, which would mean WW2 in Europe would become a straight fight between Germany and Russia. With Poland as an eastward blitzkreig jumping off point they would probably have been more successful in 1939. If the German's had then been more cautious in not entering Stalingrad and also better prepared for the Russian winter they could have taken sufficient lebensraum space off the Soviets, as well as the oilfields in the Ukraine. Once the oil is gone Stalin would be powerless to defend the rest of his country and under threat of internal revolution he would need to sue for peace with the new borders staying as they were. The Germans could then have carried out the Holocaust and we would have looked the other way until it was unavoidable, we would then be powerless to prevent it as by then the Nazis would have also developed the atomic bomb and the V2 missile. At that point the UK Empire in Africa would be threatened and we would be screwed...
soad said:
Don't waste troops in Africa?
I would have thought Africa should have been better supported. Had Rommel been better supported he could have feasibly moved on Egypt and then onto the oil fields of the Middle East cutting off a main source of oil for the UK and by capturing the Suez Canal greatly increase transit time for allied shipping and put a massive strain on shipping levels in general.Agree with the above - shouldn't have bothered with Russia until after Europe was fully under Axis control. Should have focused more on GB and had his best chance after Dunkirk was lost. Whilst we held our own during the BoB, operation Sealion should have been launched at that time despite the lack of suitable barges and no overall control of the air. Hitler was not bothered about losses so whilst casualties would be very heavy for Germany I think they would have prevailed as we lost an awful lot of good equipment at Dunkirk and morale was at a low ebb.
By conquering GB, they would deny the USA any hope of invading Europe as they would have no convenient bases to launch from and the USA would then concentrate on a Japan policy instead. Also by beating the UK and taking over the Middle East, Germany has a chance to join up with Japanese forces through Burma thus allowing supplies back and forth and putting more pressure on India and Australia and making it much harder for the US to beat Japan.
the best thing to happen for us was for Hitler and his cronies to remain in charge. Had the Generals been given a free hand with no meddling then the outcome may have been very different.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff