Could Germany Have Won WWII?[W:513]

[LaughAtTheWorld]

Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

I think there are any number of ways Hitler might, theoretically, have won:

1. Instead of attacking Russia, swing through the middle east to secure oil supplies. Strike Russia afterwards. (I can't remember which military historian proposed this in the collection of essays in the book "What If."
2. D-Day fails either because Russia brings its Panzers to bear more quickly or the Allies used less force than they did; Had the Allies failed to open up a second front, Stalin would likely negotiated a resolution leaving Hitler with most of his objectives in Europe.
3. A super weapon actually succeeds, whether it be a Manhattan style project or the use of jets instead of putting resources into low accuracy missiles.
4. Japan never attacks Pearl Harbor; Germany does not declare war against the U.S. afterwards.
5. Battle of the Bulge turns into a Dunkirk style failure for the Allies.
6. This one has Germany winning, not Hitler: Hitler is assassinated and the holocaust is stopped. Germany negotiates a peace with greater territory than before the war. If done soon enough, this could have been a "win."

I'm sure we could think of dozens of examples.

Oh great, just another several talking points.
1. Securing oil supplies is easier said than done. Trying to take over oil wells can mean high damage to the oil wells, and repairing and replacing such oil wells takes at least years, and with the logistical difficulties of transporting valuable equipment across enemy-infested waters, it wouldn't have mattered. Talking point dismissed
2. The Soviets were already winning when Normandy took place, if Normandy failed, we would have had a wholly Communist Europe (except for Britain) after the war. The Soviets had plenty of manpower and resources to push all the way to Portugal. Talking point dismissed
3. Jets and helicopters hardly made a difference, and the myth of a super-weapon has already been debunked countless times
4. Japan was bound to attack Pearl Harbor, and Pearl Harbor was actually incredibly good fortune for the US. The Japanese never attacked vital port facilieis such as oil tanks and other equipment, which would have knocked out Pearl Harbor for at least several months and forced the USN to base its ships at California. Most of the ships sunk were also raised out of the water, because of the low waters, and no aircraft carrier was destroyed, only WWI-era obsolete battleships. As for the casualty, the number was about 2000, even less than 911. The Japanese and the US were at huge hostile relations because of the embargo (which would have depleted Japanese resources in a few years), and the Japanese already saw the US as a threat to its dream of a Pacific empire. Talking point dismissed
5. The Battle of the Bulge is another over-exaggerated myth, compare it to Kursk or Stalingrad. Even if the Allies lost the Bulge, the outcome would have been the same. I also fail to see how Dunkirk was a failure, in fact, it was a magnificent success. Talking point dismissed
6. It's the only thing that is remotely plausible, in fact, throughout the last days of war, various Nazi officials attempted to make peace, Himmler and Goering among them. Stauffenberg's Valkyrie also called for a negotiated peace.

 

[LaughAtTheWorld]

Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

I generally agree with this. Germany was one small country fighting against two super-industrial powers. If Germany fought on two fronts with ONLY Britain, France and Italy, they would easily have won. Industrial power won the war as much as weapons. If Germany had developed nuclear weapons, and they couldn't have had many, they could've avoided complete capitulation. No more.

Actually, the Axis had more population and industrial resources. It just never mobilized it, until the war was nearly over. Hitler's insistence against employing women at work (Speer was avidly for the plan, but failed) and his policy of guns and butter until 1942 forced down German industrial potential, while the US and the UK introduced women at work, rations, huge industrial mobilization, while everybody knows the case in the Soviets

 

[EagleAye]

Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

Actually, the Axis had more population and industrial resources. It just never mobilized it, until the war was nearly over. Hitler's insistence against employing women at work (Speer was avidly for the plan, but failed) and his policy of guns and butter until 1942 forced down German industrial potential, while the US and the UK introduced women at work, rations, huge industrial mobilization, while everybody knows the case in the Soviets

Did some quick checking. I see the USA had 132 Mil, Russia had 191 Mil, while Germany had 79 Mil, Japan 73 Mil, Italy 44 Mil. I checked these quick but still double checked so they should be reasonably close.

Allies still had the advantage in population. But the truly telling details are that the US and Russia put women to work, and the bulk of the workforce was untouchable by enemies. This left industrial power to operate with little or no interruption. On the Axis side, Germany's industrial infrastructure was constantly under attack, commonly used slave labor (inefficient at best), and resources to supply their industry were constantly interrupted. The same with Japan. Before B-29s were even even hitting the home islands, the populace was on food rationing. US subs were slowly strangling the nation. As industrial powers the Axis were good, but not as large as the Allies, and the Axis industry was constantly under withering attack. They had no chance to compete over the long haul.

 

[Red_Dave]

Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

I guess another intresting possiblility to consider is what would have happend if Operation Felix*, a planned invasion of Gibralter (a british colony of the Coast of Spain) had gone ahead, thus cutting the British off from their oil supplies in the Middle East. Some historians think this wouldnt have made too much of a difference considering the amount of personel we had in India, East Africa etc, but they kinda had their own problems.

*Operation Felix - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[EagleAye]

Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

I guess another intresting possiblility to consider is what would have happend if Operation Felix*, a planned invasion of Gibralter (a british colony of the Coast of Spain) had gone ahead, thus cutting the British off from their oil supplies in the Middle East. Some historians think this wouldnt have made too much of a difference considering the amount of personel we had in India, East Africa etc, but they kinda had their own problems.

*Operation Felix - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's interesting to consider, because it was via Malta (in the Med) that Britain was able to disrupt a lot of the supplies moving to support Rommel. The Axis tried very very hard to reduce Malta and they almost succeeded, but never quite did. It served as a valuable naval base and unsinkable aircraft carrier. The British went to considerable effort to keep Malta in operation because of it's strategic position. If Operation Felix could have cutoff Allied access to the Med, Malta would almost certainly have fallen.

 

[Oberon]

Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

1. Securing oil supplies is easier said than done. Trying to take over oil wells can mean high damage to the oil wells, and repairing and replacing such oil wells takes at least years, and with the logistical difficulties of transporting valuable equipment across enemy-infested waters, it wouldn't have mattered. Talking point dismissed

Well, drilling oil wells is not complicated, nor do they take long, and neither does laying pipelines, or even building refineries, if you're just making diesel, so I'll disagree with this part. Petroleum refining, if you're not concerned with pollution or cracking for gasoline and fractional products, can be done by simply boiling it in pots, for that matter, which is in fact what a lot of early refiners in the Pennsylvania oil boom did.

Also, the idea was to deny them to the Soviets, which was a more important strategy. The Germans still had Romania, and Standard Oil's assets there, along with a shale industry, so even if they didn't spend two or three months developing resources in the eastern oil patch, it would have been big part in strategic victory in the Eastern front.

 

[Bodi]

Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

It was a gigantic mistake. The Luftwaffe had the RAF on the ropes and all but defeated. Two more weeks and the RAF would've been destroyed. The switch to bombing London was the most critical single event in the Battle of Britain. It allowed the RAF to catch a breath and recover.

I was going to say pretty much the same exact thing... great point.

 

[LaughAtTheWorld]

Well, drilling oil wells is not complicated, nor do they take long, and neither does laying pipelines, or even building refineries, if you're just making diesel, so I'll disagree with this part. Petroleum refining, if you're not concerned with pollution or cracking for gasoline and fractional products, can be done by simply boiling it in pots, for that matter, which is in fact what a lot of early refiners in the Pennsylvania oil boom did.

Also, the idea was to deny them to the Soviets, which was a more important strategy. The Germans still had Romania, and Standard Oil's assets there, along with a shale industry, so even if they didn't spend two or three months developing resources in the eastern oil patch, it would have been big part in strategic victory in the Eastern front.

If the strategy was pure denial of access, then it would have been a very good idea. Siberian oil was very limited due to poor technology, hence why the Soviets got 90% of their oil from the Caucasus. If the Soviets lost the South, the huge mineral as well as the industrial wealth would have lost them the war. Its mechanized force, which was important to its survival, would have been useless.

As for the oil equipment part, I have a friend in construction whose specialty was oil rigs. His job was very complicated and my impression was that it took years to get a complex up and running. With a poor shipping situation in the Med, and a logistical nightmare in the Soviet Union, I figured it would have been impossible for the most part

 

[Matt Foley]

Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

I generally agree with this. Germany was one small country fighting against two super-industrial powers. If Germany fought on two fronts with ONLY Britain, France and Italy, they would easily have won. Industrial power won the war as much as weapons. If Germany had developed nuclear weapons, and they couldn't have had many, they could've avoided complete capitulation. No more.

That's right, industry wins wars.

Oh good job free traders.

 

[Wiggen]

Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

I was going to say pretty much the same exact thing... great point.

I would argue that the failure of the Luftwaffe/Abwehr to recognize the importance of the Chain home radar installations and destroy them was at least as critical as the switch to the bombing of London.

Without radar, Britain does not win the Battle of Britain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_Home

 

[EagleAye]

Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

I would argue that the failure of the Luftwaffe/Abwehr to recognize the importance of the Chain home radar installations and destroy them was at least as critical as the switch to the bombing of London.

Without radar, Britain does not win the Battle of Britain.

Chain Home - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Germany did try to destroy them, but the radar towers turned out to be surprisingly difficult to destroy, and not difficult to erect again if damaged. Even the impressive accuracy of the Stukas didn't help there, assuming the Stukas even made it there intact.

 

[Oberon]

Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

As for the oil equipment part, I have a friend in construction whose specialty was oil rigs. His job was very complicated and my impression was that it took years to get a complex up and running. With a poor shipping situation in the Med, and a logistical nightmare in the Soviet Union, I figured it would have been impossible for the most part

Comparing what they do today with what they did in the 1940's is an error. I've worked in and around oil fields about half of my life, here in Texas and overseas as well; the industry today is nothing like it was even 40 years ago, much less 70. Processing fuel oil doesn't take much tech, and neither does drilling or pipeline construction, if you're not concerned with pollution or cracking for fractions. A lot of crude can be used as fuel right out of the ground, and in fact was for a long time, in ships and locomotives. Many farmers run their tractors and trucks on drip gas right off the wells on their property.

 

[Graffias]

Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

Germany could have won if "Werther", aka Martin Bormann, had been exposed for the traitor that he was. Of all the factors that contributed to the defeat of Germany, none probably factored in its defeat as much as the Soviets having a spy planted in Hitler's inner circle. The defeat at the Battle of Kursk was a direct result of Bormann's treachery.

 

[Wiggen]

Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

Martin Boorman destroyed the Panzers? Who knew?:lamo

This fact will cause every history of World War II to be re-written.

 

[Graffias]

Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

Martin Boorman destroyed the Panzers? Who knew?:lamo

This fact will cause every history of World War II to be re-written.

Bormann gave the Soviets the battle plans for the assault on the Kursk salient. Stalin knew the exact date and time the attack would start.

 

[EagleAye]

Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

Bormann gave the Soviets the battle plans for the assault on the Kursk salient. Stalin knew the exact date and time the attack would start.

Well, the battle of Kursk was probably the largest single battle of ww2. Losing that battle was a major setback for Germany. Still, even if they had won they would have lost others later as attrition took its toll on German men and material that could not be easily or quickly replaced.

 

[Graffias]

Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

Well, the battle of Kursk was probably the largest single battle of ww2. Losing that battle was a major setback for Germany. Still, even if they had won they would have lost others later as attrition took its toll on German men and material that could not be easily or quickly replaced.

The most likely outcome of a German victory at Kursk would be a stalemate. A victory at Kursk would buy time for Germany to mass produce weapons like the Me-262 and the V-2. It might also free up enough Axis forces on the Eastern Front to drive the Western Allies out of Sicily and keep them from landing in mainland Italy and France. It would not guarantee a total victory, but at the very least it might have prevented total defeat.

 

[apdst]

Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

The most likely outcome of a German victory at Kursk would be a stalemate. A victory at Kursk would buy time for Germany to mass produce weapons like the Me-262 and the V-2. It might also free up enough Axis forces on the Eastern Front to drive the Western Allies out of Sicily and keep them from landing in mainland Italy and France. It would not guarantee a total victory, but at the very least it might have prevented total defeat.

The Germans's lines of communication were stretched too far, for there to ever be anying remotely close to a German success in Russia.

 

[EagleAye]

Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

The most likely outcome of a German victory at Kursk would be a stalemate. A victory at Kursk would buy time for Germany to mass produce weapons like the Me-262 and the V-2. It might also free up enough Axis forces on the Eastern Front to drive the Western Allies out of Sicily and keep them from landing in mainland Italy and France. It would not guarantee a total victory, but at the very least it might have prevented total defeat.

I would agree a stalemate is maybe the best Germany could've managed at Kursk. But a stalemate would only insure the troops were tied to the region. They couldn't be re-deployed elsewhere without risking a future defeat. Germany was fighting in the South in Italy/Siciliy, day and night bombing raids on Germany proper in the West, and a continuous onslaught in the North conducted by Russia. The Me-262 wasn't getting developed enough because of the wasted resources committed to the V-2. The V-2 wasn't nearly accurate enough to be decisive. Hitler insisted on the Me-262 being a blitz-bomber, instead of an interceptor the way it should have been. The 262 wasn't even used properly at the outset, and by the time it was, the war was already lost for all intents and purposes. Ultimately, the small country of Germany didn't have enough cards to win the game.

 

[Wiggen]

Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

Bormann gave the Soviets the battle plans for the assault on the Kursk salient. Stalin knew the exact date and time the attack would start.

And your proof for this is what, exactly? I would assume you have a number of links supporting this radical new theory, which seems to take the position that it was only betrayal at the highest levels that led to the defeat of the Nazis. I await your sources with considerable interest, since as far as I'm aware not a single historian has identified Martin Boorman as a Soviet agent.

 

[Graffias]

Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

And your proof for this is what, exactly? I would assume you have a number of links supporting this radical new theory, which seems to take the position that it was only betrayal at the highest levels that led to the defeat of the Nazis. I await your sources with considerable interest, since as far as I'm aware not a single historian has identified Martin Boorman as a Soviet agent.

There has been a large number of reports that Bormann was a Soviet agent. Probably the most authoritative was General Reinhard Gehlen, who from 1956 to 1968 was head of the BND, the West German secret service, and considered one of the sharpest spymasters in the world. Die Welt published an excerpt from his memoirs in 1971 where he claimed Bormann had been a Soviet spy, and that he had lived for a time after the war in the Soviet Union. However just before the excerpts appeared, Horst Ehmke, minister of the federal chancellery, warned Gehlen that he could not release any state secrets. Gehlen agreed, and was completely uncooperative to any inquiries from then on.

There is also evidence that Heinrich Müller, head of the Gestapo, may have been working for the Russians toward the end of the war and supplying them with information. This site gives more details:

Defeating the Reich: The Soviet Intelligence War on the Eastern Front (Pt. 1) | The Third Craft

 

[Quag]

Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

The most likely outcome of a German victory at Kursk would be a stalemate. A victory at Kursk would buy time for Germany to mass produce weapons like the Me-262 and the V-2. It might also free up enough Axis forces on the Eastern Front to drive the Western Allies out of Sicily and keep them from landing in mainland Italy and France. It would not guarantee a total victory, but at the very least it might have prevented total defeat.

they were short on pilots and fuel. Even with more me262s they still couldn`t put enough in the air or have enough trained pilots to fly them. As mentioned before attrition was their downfall, Not just in men but in materiel as well.

 

[Wiggen]

Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

There has been a large number of reports that Bormann was a Soviet agent. Probably the most authoritative was General Reinhard Gehlen, who from 1956 to 1968 was head of the BND, the West German secret service, and considered one of the sharpest spymasters in the world. Die Welt published an excerpt from his memoirs in 1971 where he claimed Bormann had been a Soviet spy, and that he had lived for a time after the war in the Soviet Union. However just before the excerpts appeared, Horst Ehmke, minister of the federal chancellery, warned Gehlen that he could not release any state secrets. Gehlen agreed, and was completely uncooperative to any inquiries from then on.

There is also evidence that Heinrich Müller, head of the Gestapo, may have been working for the Russians toward the end of the war and supplying them with information. This site gives more details:

Defeating the Reich: The Soviet Intelligence War on the Eastern Front (Pt. 1) | The Third Craft

I took a look at the web site you posted, and I have to say I'm not impressed. It appears to be a pro-nazi, anti-semitic piece of garbage that identifies itself as 'satanist'. Since this
Boorman claim is not serious or credible, I'm finished with this discussion.

 

[apdst]

Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

And your proof for this is what, exactly? I would assume you have a number of links supporting this radical new theory, which seems to take the position that it was only betrayal at the highest levels that led to the defeat of the Nazis. I await your sources with considerable interest, since as far as I'm aware not a single historian has identified Martin Boorman as a Soviet agent.

You need to study more history.

It's been theorized by several historians that Bormann was a Soviet agent.

Allegations of being a Russian spy

Reinhard Gehlen states in his memoirs his conviction that Bormann was a Russian agent and that at the time of his 'disappearance' in Berlin he in reality went over to his Russian masters and was spirited away by them to Moscow. He bases his conclusion on a conversation he had with Admiral Canaris and on his conviction that there was an enemy agent at work inside the German supreme command. He deduced the latter from the fact that the Russians appeared to be able to obtain "rapid and detailed information on incidents and top-level decision-making on the German side". Of course, at the time he was writing up his memoirs (late 1960s to early 1970s), Gehlen was not aware of the breaking of the Enigma codes. Gehlen goes on to say that he discovered that Bormann was engaged in a Funkspiel with Moscow with Hitler's express approval. He claims that in the 1950s, when he headed first the Gehlen Organization and later the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), the West German Intelligence Service, he "was passed two separate reports from behind the Iron Curtain to the effect that Bormann had been a Soviet agent and had lived after the war in the Soviet Union under perfect cover as an adviser to the Moscow government. He has died in the meantime." (quotes from the 1971 ed.) After the collapse of the Soviet Union, based on KGB archival material from this period, it was claimed that the Russians may indeed have had a spy in the bunker, code named Sasha. However, Sasha was said to have been a Russian, not Bormann.

Martin Bormann - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My self, I believe that there was a Soviet operator gathering intel at high levels of The Reich. Maybe not Bormann, but someone. The Soviets guessed right way too many times, for them not to have someone feeding them information. Let's face it, the Soviet army commander were mediocre, at best, since Stalin had killed all of his most talented generals.

 

[Graffias]

Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

I took a look at the web site you posted, and I have to say I'm not impressed. It appears to be a pro-nazi, anti-semitic piece of garbage that identifies itself as 'satanist'. Since this
Boorman claim is not serious or credible, I'm finished with this discussion.

Pro-nazi or not, the facts presented regarding the Soviet penetration of Hitler's inner circle are accurate. If you don't consider that site a credible source, then read the book Hitler's Traitor:

Amazon.com: Hitler's Traitor : Martin Bormann and the Defeat of the Reich (9780891417101): Louis Kilzer: Books