WW2 The outcome

[Bright Halo]

Another thread on here touched on this and it really fascinates me.
It was stated that the Nazis did not really intend to invade the UK and simply wanted to sue for peace as they neither had the inclination or the equipment to do so.
Also the Nazis could have won if they fell back and held their line against the Soviets.
All results affected by Hitler being a crap strategist.
Opinions on the above.

[SpeckledJim]

Fighting in two directions at once was a fundamental error, IMO.

[Johnnytheboy]

Broadly true.

My feeling is that Hitler's single biggest moment of error was believing his treaty obligations to the Japanese required him to declare war on the US after Pearl Harbour.

[Rude-boy]

SpeckledJim said:

Fighting in two directions at once was a fundamental error, IMO.

Whilst it was not exactly helpful i would suggest that it was not as fundamental an error as it might seem on the surface. Indeed it might have looked like genius in the long run.

The biggest mistake Hitler made with the initial invasion of Russia was do make the same mistake that every other prat that has tried to do it has - start off in mid summer! FFS I know nothing of military strategy but i do now you don't start a war with the Russians at that time of year.

IMO Hitler should have started his offensive against the Russians in March. if he had done that he would have had a chance of bottling things up before the winter hit.

Russia didn't beat Hitler, the Russian Weather and the German failure to adapt or take it into account as it should have did.

[Rude-boy]

Johnnytheboy said:

Broadly true.

My feeling is that Hitler's single biggest moment of error was believing his treaty obligations to the Japanese required him to declare war on the US after Pearl Harbour.

Another error certainly. Even the Japanese were said, when they realised that the mission was not the success they had banked on, to have realised that they had likely just screwed the pooch in the biggest way possible.

[TooMany2cvs]

Bright Halo said:

Another thread on here touched on this and it really fascinates me.
It was stated that the Nazis did not really intend to invade the UK and simply wanted to sue for peace as they neither had the inclination or the equipment to do so.
Also the Nazis could have won if they fell back and held their line against the Soviets.
All results affected by Hitler being a crap strategist.
Opinions on the above.

Was it Yipper?

[TurboHatchback]

It's an interesting topic. I believe there are a number of ways the outcome could have differed in Europe though the Pacific war could only ever really have gone the way it did.

Had Hitler actually invaded the UK the only hope of stopping them would have been an absolute bloodbath in the channel, throwing the full might of the Royal Navy in the face of the Luftwaffes air attacks. If the Germans made landfall it would have been all over for us, our army was in tatters and the efforts of the home guard wouldn't have amounted to much. That would have left no Western front open and hence little division of force and no springboard for the US to enter the war in Europe.

If Hitler had not insisted on invading the Soviet Union when he did (against the advice of his military staff) I think it would have gone differently too. With a few more years to continue the breakneck pace of their rearming and technical development while the Soviet Union stagnated and weakened itself through purges I think they might well have succeeded in defeating them.

Also the Germans were not so far from making some serious breakthroughs in weapons of mass destruction, the US missile and nuclear programs progressed at the speed they did post-war in large part due to the efforts of german scientists and engineers requisitioned after the war. With another couple of years development who's to say they might have had weapons which would have forced the UK and the Soviet Union to sue for peace.

[Frank7]

I always thought that my old dad summed up WW11 succinctly.
He said, America had the money, Russia had the men, and Britain had the time.

[Russian Troll Bot]

TurboHatchback said:

Had Hitler actually invaded the UK the only hope of stopping them would have been an absolute bloodbath in the channel, throwing the full might of the Royal Navy in the face of the Luftwaffes air attacks. If the Germans made landfall it would have been all over for us, our army was in tatters and the efforts of the home guard wouldn't have amounted to much. That would have left no Western front open and hence little division of force and no springboard for the US to enter the war in Europe.

If Hitler had not insisted on invading the Soviet Union when he did (against the advice of his military staff) I think it would have gone differently too. With a few more years to continue the breakneck pace of their rearming and technical development while the Soviet Union stagnated and weakened itself through purges I think they might well have succeeded in defeating them.

Also the Germans were not so far from making some serious breakthroughs in weapons of mass destruction, the US missile and nuclear programs progressed at the speed they did post-war in large part due to the efforts of german scientists and engineers requisitioned after the war. With another couple of years development who's to say they might have had weapons which would have forced the UK and the Soviet Union to sue for peace.

An invasion of the UK would have been highly unlikely to succeed. They had no specialised landing craft, and even if the first few waves secured a beachead the Royal Navy would have taken a massive toll on their fleet and cut them off. There were still plenty of regular troops in the UK, and whilst the Home Guard may have had little in the way of modern equipment, many of them would have fought to the end if called upon. We would have taken heavy casualties as well though, I remember reading that one contingency plan was to throw every aircraft we had at the beach regardless of intended use or pilot skill, so that might have affected our ability to have conducted any foreign campaigns.

The German never got close to making a useable nuclear weapon either, especially after we destroyed their heavy water facilities. They did have some very advanced aircraft in various stages of production, but almost no fuel or pilots, and would have made no difference such was the Allied air superiority.

[glazbagun]

TurboHatchback said:

It's an interesting topic. I believe there are a number of ways the outcome could have differed in Europe though the Pacific war could only ever really have gone the way it did.

Had Hitler actually invaded the UK the only hope of stopping them would have been an absolute bloodbath in the channel, throwing the full might of the Royal Navy in the face of the Luftwaffes air attacks. If the Germans made landfall it would have been all over for us, our army was in tatters and the efforts of the home guard wouldn't have amounted to much. That would have left no Western front open and hence little division of force and no springboard for the US to enter the war in Europe.

Operation Sealion was never going to work, the Germans were good, but an amphibious assault on the most heavily armed island in the world with the biggest navy, a modern airforce and a huge army would be suicide. Even the Germans knew it wouldn't work.


Maybe if he ignored Russia he'd have a shot, but the only chance they really had was to win the Battle of the Atlantic and force us into a truce.

Weather aside, Hitler had the right idea about destroying the Russian army as opposed to ticking off cities (he'd actually studied Napoleons invasion, and learned a fair bit. Though not Monty's First Law, obviously).

I do wonder if he'd have had better luck if he prioritized Russian oil fields. But "better luck" might not be enough when you're trying a land invasion of Russia.

[Dogwatch]

Rude-boy said:

The biggest mistake Hitler made with the initial invasion of Russia was do make the same mistake that every other prat that has tried to do it has - start off in mid summer! FFS I know nothing of military strategy but i do now you don't start a war with the Russians at that time of year.

IMO Hitler should have started his offensive against the Russians in March. if he had done that he would have had a chance of bottling things up before the winter hit.

Russia didn't beat Hitler, the Russian Weather and the German failure to adapt or take it into account as it should have did.

I think that a Spring offensive was the original plan but it got delayed and by the time the Germans finally got over the Russian border it was getting too late.

[CrgT16]

What, you mean we won?? Doesn’t look like it now. Germany controls Europe in a subtle way, has a strong economy and made the satellite little countries completely dependent on being in the so called EU. Brilliant plan give the small countries grants, etc but there is no such thing as a free lunch. It’s incredible how Germany has overcome the 2 WWs.

It saddens me that the UK is set in loosing their role in the world stage... dubious economic growth/manufacturing, extreme cuts to the armed forces. If we loose the financial services it will no be good! But hey, politicians know best. For the sake of my son I hope UK somehow gets stronger in the next 10-20 years...

[jmorgan]

I understand that Russia was a close run thing up to a point, one possibility was recruiting the people’s as they forged east.

However, he was our best secret weapon.

Edit. Reading somewhere he was up for a fight if the UK did not come to the table. Had he let his genearls run the war it would have been different.

[TooMany2cvs]

CrgT16 said:

What, you mean we won?? Doesn’t look like it now.

Of course we won the war. The war which finished 73 years ago.

A lot's happened since then. The outcome of the war is utterly irrelevant to the 21st century, and pretty much ancient history.

[Puggit]

Rude-boy said:

Russia didn't beat Hitler, the Russian Weather and the German failure to adapt or take it into account as it should have did.

While the weather certainly played a huge part in the defeat of the Germans, it must be remembered that other factors came in to play. The Russians were better equipped for the weather, the vast distances involved in controlling the Russian Steppe and re-supply, and the sheer numbers of Russians available to fight also played their part.

[jmorgan]

TooMany2cvs said:

CrgT16 said:

What, you mean we won?? Doesn’t look like it now.

Of course we won the war. The war which finished 73 years ago.

A lot's happened since then. The outcome of the war is utterly irrelevant to the 21st century, and pretty much ancient history.

Indeed. This below did not happen, I call it a win. That would have been the tip of the iceberg.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book

[valiant]

Puggit said:

Rude-boy said:

Russia didn't beat Hitler, the Russian Weather and the German failure to adapt or take it into account as it should have did.

While the weather certainly played a huge part in the defeat of the Germans, it must be remembered that other factors came in to play. The Russians were better equipped for the weather, the vast distances involved in controlling the Russian Steppe and re-supply, and the sheer numbers of Russians available to fight also played their part.

Remember the Russians also had an entire army in the east to ward off any potential Japanese incursion. These troops were ready to be moved westward when the Germans were knocking on Moscow's front door but then the tide started to turn.

Plus Hitler was an arse when it came to strategy and not allowing his forces to retreat where necessary was a huge mistake. Plus having sycophants in key positions rather than generals who knew their onions added to their woes.

I think if the Germans maintained their blitzkrieg they may (and it is a big 'may') have been able to take at least part of mainland GB. The army lost an awful lot of quality equipment at Dunkirk that took time to replace. Had Hitler prepared landing craft to go straightaway he may have had a chance. The RAF could have been kept occupied and whilst the Navy would have pounded the Germans - the Channel is narrow and, I believe, it could have been defended for a while the Germans landed in force. Hitler didn't mind accepting huge loses to secure his goals. Had he achieved taking GB, it is doubtful the US would have been as effective and as they said at the time, GB was the world's largest aircraft carrier. Lose that and you're fighting with one arm tied behind your back. (In Europe at any rate).

There were many Americans who wanted a 'Japanese first' policy instead of prioritising Europe and had this happened, it is probable that the US would only try and contain the Nazi's, stretching the war out for many more years.

All n my opinion of course

[Butter Face]

Alternate History Hub is good for stuff like this.

They’ve recently done a video on Operation Sealion and what would’ve happened if they’d gone ahead

https://youtu.be/tFpd8_-nkH8

As has been said, Hitler didn’t really want to invade the UK, and if he had he’d likely have failed.

Even if he’d ‘succeeded’ he’d have taken London and mostly ignored the rest of the UK and would have been fighting a resistance for an awful long time.

[Gargamel]

Bright Halo said:

Another thread on here touched on this and it really fascinates me.
It was stated that the Nazis did not really intend to invade the UK and simply wanted to sue for peace as they neither had the inclination or the equipment to do so.
Also the Nazis could have won if they fell back and held their line against the Soviets.
All results affected by Hitler being a crap strategist.
Opinions on the above.

I think you have to question what is a "win" for Germany. What does a vistory look like, is it the complete military domination of mainland Europe (including Russia) - in which case they were very very close.

Or is it a political settlement of German hegemony and European "empire" which ends the military conflict. Which was a long way off with (by 1944 - almost all of the world at war with Germany.

There were significant resistance movements in Italy, France, Greece and all of the Eastern Europe states, and the Balkans. Could or would these movement grown or diminished had major military campaigns stopped ?

Could the UK have ever reached an accord with Hitler, very difficult post his betrayal of Stalin and the Russian non aggresion pact, who would trust him ? Plus if the UK did negotiate peace - arguably that would have left our Empire more intact and we would have been able to regain the our Asian dominions from the Japanese.

A few years of rebuilding and potentially we may have had part three, when we were fully re armed and had built up the colonial forces.

Too many ifs.

[Johnnytheboy]

Dogwatch said:

Rude-boy said:

The biggest mistake Hitler made with the initial invasion of Russia was do make the same mistake that every other prat that has tried to do it has - start off in mid summer! FFS I know nothing of military strategy but i do now you don't start a war with the Russians at that time of year.

IMO Hitler should have started his offensive against the Russians in March. if he had done that he would have had a chance of bottling things up before the winter hit.

Russia didn't beat Hitler, the Russian Weather and the German failure to adapt or take it into account as it should have did.

I think that a Spring offensive was the original plan but it got delayed and by the time the Germans finally got over the Russian border it was getting too late.

Greece and associated campaigns like Crete were the delay, where Hitler basically got dragged in by Mussolini.