Could Germany Have Won WWII?[W:513]

[Oozlefinch]

Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

It's not so minor as you might think. One of the critical flaws for Germany's strategic operations was a lack of strategic bombers. Allied strategic bombing hit German industry at will and forced Germany's finest pilots into a defensive posture at a time of the allies choosing, not the German pilot's choosing where they would be most effective. Without a strategic bomber, Germany could not apply this kind of pressure in return. Germany could not hit or even disrupt Russian industry producing the fabulous T-34, so Russia could build them at a prodigious rate uninterrupted. Unless Germany could disrupt that industry, they could never defeat Russia.

And that is exactly the point. Imagine the effect on England if instead of Ju87 with it's single 500 pound bomb, they had a German version of the Lancaster, each dropping over 3 tons of bombs over a single area (or even more frightening, a German B-29, dropping 10 tons of bombs each).

England was smashed pretty well during the air war. But imagine how much worse it would have been if Germany had heavy bombers. Their first targets would have been to level manufacturing centers and airports. This would have had a great impact, as they could have destroyed the aircraft on the ground and wrecked landing fields and supply dumps.

Part of the very reason that the Battle of Britan was doomed from the start is that it was almost exclusively fighters against fighters. Without any serious capability to strike devistating blows at the sources of these fighters, it became simply a bloody battle of attrition, one that Germany could not win because this battle took place over England. If an English fighter was shot down and the pilot was able to parachute safely, he could be back in combat the next night. If the same thing happened to the German pilot however, he was then a POW and out of it for the rest of the war.

And Germany did later on realize what a huge mistake it had made. There were several attempts to build Heavy Bombers towards the end of the war, but they were to little to late.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

With all due respect, he was bound to lose a war with the USSR and even without a pre-emptive declaration, the US would have declared war anyways. The mood for a war with Germany was heightened after Pearl Harbor, and the USSR was mobilizing at a faster pace than the Germans. In fact, Stalin prepared for an attack (though he estimated it to be at 1942) and all indications point to Stalin invading if Hitler didn't invade first.
It's my firm position that Hitler would have lost the war, no matter which way he went through.

OK, first you have to consider the mood of the nation at the time. We had a lot of Americans of German descent, and more then a few actually had gone to Germany to fight with Hitler. Also we had a large Isolationist movement, that was constantly preaching against the US fighting in "European Wars". And these were not just some kooks, the America First Committee has such important and influential members as Charles Lindbergh, Sargent Shriver, as well as future Presidents John Kennedy and Gerald Ford.

This group had a lot of influence, and even though they had officially disbanded after Pearl Harbor, I am sure they would have continued to fight against involvement in Europe without provocation. I am sure also that the US would have eventually gotten involved, but more then likely not for another 1-2 years.

And sorry, the theory that Stalin was preparing to invade Germany is nonsense. In fact, the only such plans were drawn up by Marshal Zhukov, which is the job of all Generals and Marshals when they are at peace (look up the US "Rainbow Plans" if you doubt this). They prepare and write war plans and counter-plans, in the event that such a thing is ever needed in the future. But there is absolutely no evidence that this ever went beyond the Marshal and his immediate staff. With the Soviet Union in the complete grip of Stalin, if he had learned of this I have no doubt that the Marshal and his staff would have either been sent on vacation to Siberia, or simply shot.

Because if the Soviets had invaded Germany, then Japan would have been free of their agreement and been able to invade the Soviet Union. And I am pretty sure that the Soviets knew they could not have won a 2 fronted war such as that.

 

[EagleAye]

Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

And that is exactly the point. Imagine the effect on England if instead of Ju87 with it's single 500 pound bomb, they had a German version of the Lancaster, each dropping over 3 tons of bombs over a single area (or even more frightening, a German B-29, dropping 10 tons of bombs each).

England was smashed pretty well during the air war. But imagine how much worse it would have been if Germany had heavy bombers. Their first targets would have been to level manufacturing centers and airports. This would have had a great impact, as they could have destroyed the aircraft on the ground and wrecked landing fields and supply dumps.

Part of the very reason that the Battle of Britan was doomed from the start is that it was almost exclusively fighters against fighters. Without any serious capability to strike devistating blows at the sources of these fighters, it became simply a bloody battle of attrition, one that Germany could not win because this battle took place over England. If an English fighter was shot down and the pilot was able to parachute safely, he could be back in combat the next night. If the same thing happened to the German pilot however, he was then a POW and out of it for the rest of the war.

And Germany did later on realize what a huge mistake it had made. There were several attempts to build Heavy Bombers towards the end of the war, but they were to little to late.

Yes, if Germany had a serious bomber, the Blitz would have been far more effective. I still contend that one of Germany's greatest blunders was switching from attacking airfields to attacking London. The RAF was on the ropes at the time and desperately needed a break. The break came when Germany focused on London, giving the airfields a chance to rebuild and rearm. This was accomplished with just medium and light bombers. Had Germany attacked the airfields with heavy bombers (and these are much harder to shoot down), the RAF would have perished for certain.

Germany had an effective 4-engine bomber in the FW-200 Condor. But it was used primarily for maritime patrol. Why it was used only this way, I cannot explain. It makes no sense to me. Germany also produced the HE-177 Greif with impressive performance. This was unusual in that it was a four-engine bomber that "looked" like a two-engine bomber. The engines were mounted in tandem providing a sleeker aerodynamic profile. This configuration also caused a problem with engine fires and the aircraft was never pursued enough. Had they resolved the fire problem, the Greif would have been a nightmare for the allies. Germany had their opportunities, but unfortunately (for them) they thought in terms of swift Blitzkreig battles but not on a strategic scale. By the time the error was realized, Germany was hard-pressed to put the aircraft designs they had into service. It was already too late. They already needed fighters to defend the Reich far more than they needed bombers.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

Germany had an effective 4-engine bomber in the FW-200 Condor. But it was used primarily for maritime patrol. Why it was used only this way, I cannot explain.

This is something that goes back to many mistakes, both with Hitler, the Luftwaffe, and in what they thought was an effective bomber.

During the Spanish Civil War, Germany largely used the conflict as a way to test out their new weapons. And when they looked at the effectiveness of the aircraft, they noticed that the dive bombers (like the famous Ju87 "Stuka") has an amazing ability for precision. They then compared this to the precision of their more conventional bombers like the Do 11 (which could deliver over 4 times the payload). But when comparing the damage done by a handfull of Ju87s to that of a handfull of Do11s, it seemed that the Stuka was superior. So the order was made, all bombers must perform as dive bombers. Nobody in the Luftwaffe imagined what might have happened if fleets of the less accurate bombers were used in a coordinated manner on a single target.

The He177 was an impressive bomber, with a payload of over 7 tons, but came to late to be of much use against England (1942). The FW200 was in service during the Blitz, but it was still on the light side as a bomber (just over 2 tons), and because it could not perform as a dive bomber, it was then changed to long distance use where the dive bombers could not reach (like naval patrols).

To the Germans, precision was more important then just putting more bombs into the target. This is something they learned to their regret by 1943, when US and UK bombers were starting to strike their arms industries with massive waves of heavy bombers. In one famous strike, the US launched over 1,000 B-17 and B-24 bombers, each with 1-2 tons of bombs which rained down on 3 aircraft production cities.

By then Germany had realized it had made a serious mistake in not building a working heavy bomber, but it was to late. The British and American air forces had a major lead, and their most important targets became striking German aircraft production.

 

[HoongLoong]

Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

Your scenario looks like something plausible only in Starcraft. No supplies, no thoughts for the poitical and diplomatic ramifications, and the assumption that Rommel was a capable army leader. There's a difference in being an army or an organizational leader than a tactial leader.

Only to a person like you who probably didn't read at least a hundred books on WWII, European Theatre. There is only so much one can discuss in bringing forth a speculative alternative in the "what if" realm. Which, as a topic, is a perfectly valid discussion for those with the knowledge and imaginaion which some wannabe Military experts apparently lack.

Rommel was also chosen, by those who obviously know more than you, in the German High Command, to be in charge of the European Theatre's predictable Allied Invasion.This does not indicate his knowledge being confined to his tactical genius.

 

[LaughAtTheWorld]

Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

Only to a person like you who probably didn't read at least a hundred books on WWII, European Theatre. There is only so much one can discuss in bringing forth a speculative alternative in the "what if" realm. Which, as a topic, is a perfectly valid discussion for those with the knowledge and imaginaion which some wannabe Military experts apparently lack.

Rommel was also chosen, by those who obviously know more than you, in the German High Command, to be in charge of the European Theatre's predictable Allied Invasion.This does not indicate his knowledge being confined to his tactical genius.

Your scenario: Even with the actual war (attacking England & France first instead of the theoretical attack on USSR first): Postponing the attack on USSR, Hitler could've built Rommels Corp into a coupla Armies, raced thru Egypt, up thru Lebanon, Syria (by passing Turkey)....going thru Iraq and attacking the Caucuses from Iran.......as the other pincer in the attack from Rumania !!!. BTW. Turkey is the Historical Enemy of Russia. If anything that action mighta got Turkey in the War on Germany's side.
Tell me, do you actually think that it is plausible.

 

[EagleAye]

Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

I don't know that Germany would've honestly had the option to attack the Soviets before England. Churchill was rather like a British Bulldog with his teeth in a steak, unwilling to let go. Germany could have stopped at France and turned to concentrate on Russia or just prepare for it. But Britain and Churchill wouldn't have sat idly by. I expect Churchill might have sent daily air raids across the channel to harass German forces. Germany could not let this happen indefinitely. They might try to sue for peace, but I doubt Churchill would accept. He might even attempt a French beachhead of his own if an opportunity arose, such as a thinning of German forces to take on Russia. Most likely, Germany would be forced to deal with Britain once and for all, resulting in another Battle of Britain type air war.

 

[Sherman123]

Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

I apologize if this has been covered before but the thread was very long and I made an effort to scheme and discern the theme of the arguments being put forward.

One that I think is glaring whenever discussing what-if scenarios involving World War II, is the usual lack of conversation regarding the development of nuclear weapons and the feasibility of a sincere Axis weapons program within a fast time frame. Let's presume that somehow the Germans are successful and manage to breach Soviet defenses and push towards the Caucuses and Baku, and that Moscow and Leningrad similarly are seized. Then lets assume that somehow despite most studies and expectations they manage to figure out a way to take advantage of the oil fields and reserves and transport them west (something they struggled immensely with on the smaller Maykop fields), and force a standstill in the East while supporting their flagging war industries back west.

Alright... then what? This would take place in 1942 or 1943 we can presume depending on the time tables we are talking about. Either way the United States will acquire atomic weapons by the summer of 1945--and Germany will not. There was no feasible way for Germany to embark on a crash course nuclear program in 1942 or 1943 and under the stress and bombardment of Allied air power and commando raids, the dearth of resources, the drain of scientists, etc and manage to beat the Allies by 1945. The end result would have been the steady deployment of atomic weapons against German military formations, cities, and other strategic targets enabling invasion and eventual capitulation.

The only thing I can think of perhaps is a world in which the Germans somehow beat all the odds and managed to defeat the British before the entrance of the US into the war after Pearl Harbor. Perhaps somehow as a result of a British occupation, the Germans and the US might both hedge their bets on avoiding an open confrontation. I doubt this very much, and think US victory would still be inevitable in this scenario, but it is more plausible than others. Really the only one would be a world where Germany had poured resources it couldn't spare into a nuclear program it probably couldn't defend.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

Alright... then what? This would take place in 1942 or 1943 we can presume depending on the time tables we are talking about. Either way the United States will acquire atomic weapons by the summer of 1945--and Germany will not. There was no feasible way for Germany to embark on a crash course nuclear program in 1942 or 1943 and under the stress and bombardment of Allied air power and commando raids, the dearth of resources, the drain of scientists, etc and manage to beat the Allies by 1945. The end result would have been the steady deployment of atomic weapons against German military formations, cities, and other strategic targets enabling invasion and eventual capitulation.

The problem really was that by 1942, the writing was already on the wall. By declairing war against the United States, they did so against the most powerfull industrial nation on the planet.

The most powerfull ship Germany were able to build were 2 Bismark class battleships. The US built 4 Iowa class battleships, each of which was considerably larger, over 4,000 tons larger. Germany never was able to build an aircraft carrier (they tried 4 times, 2 were broken up for scrap, 2 were scuttled at the end of the war, still uncomplete). Germany never built a real heavy bomber. The US was able to build over 50,000 heavy bombers of various makes.

And this continues in tanks. Yes, many of the German tanks were superior. But there were also nowhere near enough of them. During the entire war, Germany was able to build less then 26,000 tanks of 7 different models. The US was able to build over 50,000 tanks of a single model (M4 Sherman).

Once the war entered 1942, the war was already over for Germany. She had already bleed herself dry against the Soviets, her industry was about to be devistated by a combination of constant attacks by the US and UK bombers, and her ally refused to enter the war against the Soviets. And there was never any serious look by the Germans into atomic weapons. In fact, the only nation other then the US and England that was looking into them was Japan.

 

[LaughAtTheWorld]

Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

The problem really was that by 1942, the writing was already on the wall. By declairing war against the United States, they did so against the most powerfull industrial nation on the planet.

The most powerfull ship Germany were able to build were 2 Bismark class battleships. The US built 4 Iowa class battleships, each of which was considerably larger, over 4,000 tons larger. Germany never was able to build an aircraft carrier (they tried 4 times, 2 were broken up for scrap, 2 were scuttled at the end of the war, still uncomplete). Germany never built a real heavy bomber. The US was able to build over 50,000 heavy bombers of various makes.

And this continues in tanks. Yes, many of the German tanks were superior. But there were also nowhere near enough of them. During the entire war, Germany was able to build less then 26,000 tanks of 7 different models. The US was able to build over 50,000 tanks of a single model (M4 Sherman).

Once the war entered 1942, the war was already over for Germany. She had already bleed herself dry against the Soviets, her industry was about to be devistated by a combination of constant attacks by the US and UK bombers, and her ally refused to enter the war against the Soviets. And there was never any serious look by the Germans into atomic weapons. In fact, the only nation other then the US and England that was looking into them was Japan.

Actually, the effect of heavy bombing on German cities by the Allies was heavily overexaggerated. It did have an effect on morale, yet the effect on industry was quite minimal. The Allies concentrated on industry about as much as the Germans did in the blitz: that is, whatever effect they had on industry mainly resulted in bombing cities. German production of tanks more than doubled in 1943, production of planes increased by 80 percent, and production time for Kriegsmarine's submarines was reduced from one year to two months. Production would continue to increase until the second half of 1944, by which time enough equipment to supply 270 army divisions was being produced—although the Wehrmacht had only 150 divisions in the field.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

Actually, the effect of heavy bombing on German cities by the Allies was heavily overexaggerated. It did have an effect on morale, yet the effect on industry was quite minimal. The Allies concentrated on industry about as much as the Germans did in the blitz: that is, whatever effect they had on industry mainly resulted in bombing cities. German production of tanks more than doubled in 1943, production of planes increased by 80 percent, and production time for Kriegsmarine's submarines was reduced from one year to two months. Production would continue to increase until the second half of 1944, by which time enough equipment to supply 270 army divisions was being produced—although the Wehrmacht had only 150 divisions in the field.

Yes, the German production increased. And few disagree that at the same time quality decreased. And most of this new equipment was being destroyed faster then it could be replaced. In 1945 alone (January through May), Germany lost over 120 submarines. The year before they lost 249. They simply could not replace what was lost in combat of most of their equipment. And while the actual damage may be disputed, the loss of time in relocating and repairing German industry can not be disputed, as well as the delays and damage to their transportation infrastructure (rail yards, bridges, etc). All of this only compounded the problems.

 

[Higgins86]

Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

You can downplay the significance of the UK's effort all you want but at the day of the day if Great Britain didnt hold out against the Germans then we have no D-day, North Africa and its immense rescources are lost, no invasion of southern Italy and the Germans would of been able to concentrate it Air Force on the Eastern front. Im not saying that the USSR could of not have still pushed back the Germans but they would of sustained even heavier casulties and it would be hard to imagine the USSR being able to march into Europe as quickly as they did with the Germans only fighting one front.

 

[LaughAtTheWorld]

Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

Yes, the German production increased. And few disagree that at the same time quality decreased. And most of this new equipment was being destroyed faster then it could be replaced. In 1945 alone (January through May), Germany lost over 120 submarines. The year before they lost 249. They simply could not replace what was lost in combat of most of their equipment. And while the actual damage may be disputed, the loss of time in relocating and repairing German industry can not be disputed, as well as the delays and damage to their transportation infrastructure (rail yards, bridges, etc). All of this only compounded the problems.

I'm not sure about the quality, but my point was that production increased substantially even with heavy Allied bombing regardless of whether the equipment culd have been replaced.
Of course, maintaining, guarding, replacing, and repairing the cities and the damaged infrastructure would have drained German resources

 

[HoongLoong]

Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

Your scenario: Even with the actual war (attacking England & France first instead of the theoretical attack on USSR first): Postponing the attack on USSR, Hitler could've built Rommels Corp into a coupla Armies, raced thru Egypt, up thru Lebanon, Syria (by passing Turkey)....going thru Iraq and attacking the Caucuses from Iran.......as the other pincer in the attack from Rumania !!!. BTW. Turkey is the Historical Enemy of Russia. If anything that action mighta got Turkey in the War on Germany's side.
Tell me, do you actually think that it is plausible.

More than plausible.

It would have been the brilliant thing to do.

At that time, England & France were basically outa the war. Using Army Group South's attack as the Northern Pincer. Avoiding Stalingrad, and perhaps masking Stalingrad. While, with a reinforced Rommel's Army Group going thru Egypt, Lebanon, etc., thru Iraq as the Southern Pincer ...... the conquest of the Caucuses woulda been a cakewalk. Certainly a better choice than wasting Paulus's 6th Army on Stalingrad.

 

[Matt Foley]

Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

Ever hear that the Polack partisans were probably a helluva lot more motivated than Rumanian ones (who chose Nazis as allies....albeit with some misgivings). Supply lines woulda been a factor but considering the overall benefits of having only ONE FRONT, facing a delapitaded USSR Army with a wiped-out Officer Corps. And, initially, a crazed Dictator Stalin who, militarily, didn't know his arse from his left nostril ........ the longer supply lines, while important, woulda not been THAT important with ONLY ONE FRONT TO WORRY ABOUT.

Another very plausible concept: Even with the actual war (attacking England & France first instead of the theoretical attack on USSR first): Postponing the attack on USSR, Hitler could've built Rommels Corp into a coupla Armies, raced thru Egypt, up thru Lebanon, Syria (by passing Turkey)....going thru Iraq and attacking the Caucuses from Iran.......as the other pincer in the attack from Rumania !!!. BTW. Turkey is the Historical Enemy of Russia. If anything that action mighta got Turkey in the War on Germany's side.

Waddaya think of them apples ???

Actually A) Germany didn't declare war on France and ENgland

And Actually B) The French front was still a threat even if they did just magically march through neutral-up-to-that-point-and-not-at-war Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania that also had low infrastructure and partisans roaming the countryside.







"Hey neutral Slovakia, neutral Hungary, and neutral Romania that haven't signed the axis alliance yet with partisans roaming the countryside and low infrastructure, can we march through your territory to invade the Soviet Union?"

"Uh no, go away."

"Hey Spain which we helped in your Civil War just a few years ago and saved you from Communists, can we march through your country and take Gibralter?"

"Uh no, go away."

 

[Matt Foley]

Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

Attacking through Poland wasn't that attractive either. The marshes of Byelorussia and Poland was a logistical nightmare. In contrast, the open plains of Ukraina was excellent

Fine theory except for the part where the marshes didn't cover the entire border between Poland and USSR.

 

[LaughAtTheWorld]

Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

Fine theory except for the part where the marshes didn't cover the entire border between Poland and USSR.

I just mentioned that it presented some potential troubles and the Wehrmacht did historically avoid Byelorussia, mostly going through the Baltics and Ukraina

 

[EagleAye]

Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

Actually, the effect of heavy bombing on German cities by the Allies was heavily overexaggerated. It did have an effect on morale, yet the effect on industry was quite minimal. The Allies concentrated on industry about as much as the Germans did in the blitz: that is, whatever effect they had on industry mainly resulted in bombing cities. German production of tanks more than doubled in 1943, production of planes increased by 80 percent, and production time for Kriegsmarine's submarines was reduced from one year to two months. Production would continue to increase until the second half of 1944, by which time enough equipment to supply 270 army divisions was being produced—although the Wehrmacht had only 150 divisions in the field.

Imagine what production would have been without the strategic bombing. In any event, bombing of oil production and refining had a significant effect.

Strategic bombing has been criticized on practical grounds because it does not always work predictably. The radical changes it forces on a targeted population can backfire, including the counterproductive result of freeing inessential labourers to fill worker shortages in war industries.[151]

Much of the doubt about the effectiveness of the bomber war comes from the oft-stated fact German industrial production increased throughout the war.[citation needed] Until late in the war, industry had not been geared for war and German factories only worked a single shift. Simply by going to three shifts, production could have been tripled with no change to the infrastructure. However, attacks on the infrastructure were taking place. The attacks on Germany's canals and railroads made transportation of materiel difficult.[152]

The attack on oil production, oil refineries, and tank farms was, however, extremely successful and made a very large contribution to the general collapse of Germany in 1945. In the event, the bombing of oil facilities became Albert Speer's main concern; however, this occurred sufficiently late in the war that Germany would soon be defeated in any case. Nevertheless, it is fair to say the oil bombing campaign materially shortened the war, thereby saving many lives.[citation needed]

German insiders credit the Allied bombing offensive with crippling the German war industry. Speer repeatedly said (both during and after the war) it caused crucial production problems. Admiral Karl Dönitz, head of the U-boat fleet (U-waffe), noted in his memoirs failure to get the revolutionary Type XXI U-boats (which could have completely altered the balance of power in the Battle of the Atlantic) into service was entirely the result of the bombing. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey (Europe), says, despite bombing becoming a major effort, between December 1942 and June 1943, "The attack on the construction yards and slipways was not heavy enough to be more than troublesome" and the delays in delivery of Type XXIs and XXIIIs up until November 1944 "cannot be attributed to the air attack",[152] but adds, "The attacks during the late winter and early spring of 1945 did close, or all but close, five of the major yards, including the great Blohm and Voss plant at Hamburg".[152]
[...]
Although designed to "break the enemy's will", the opposite often happened. The British did not crumble under the German Blitz and other air raids early in the war. British workers continued to work throughout the war and food and other basic supplies were available throughout.

The impact of bombing on German morale was significant according to Professor John Buckley. Around a third of the urban population under threat of bombing had no protection at all. Some of the major cities saw 55-60 percent of dwellings destroyed. Mass evacuations were a partial answer for six million civilians, but this had a severe impact on morale as German families were split up to live in difficult conditions. By 1944 absenteeism rates of 20-25 percent were not unusual and in post-war analysis 91 percent of civilians stated bombing was the most difficult hardship to endure and was the key factor in the collapse of their own morale.[153] The United States Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that the bombing was not stiffening morale but seriously depressing it; fatalism, apathy, defeatism were apparent in bombed areas. The Luftwaffe was blamed for not warding off the attacks and confidence in the Nazi regime fell by 14 percent. Some 75 percent of Germans believed the war was lost in the spring of 1944, owing to the intensity of the bombing.[154]

Buckley argues the German war economy did indeed expand significantly following Albert Speer’s appointment as Reichsminister of Armaments, "but it is spurious to argue that because production increased then bombing had no real impact". But the bombing offensive did do serious damage to German production levels. German tank and aircraft production, though reached new records in production levels in 1944, was in particular one-third lower than planned.[17] In fact, German aircraft production for 1945 was planned at 80,000, "which gives an idea of direction Erhard Milch and the German planners were pushing", "unhindered by Allied bombing German production would have risen far higher".[18]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II#Effectiveness

Another thing that the bombing did was tie up fighters for bomber interception. This left Fighter-bombers like the US Thunderbolt and the British Typhoon to roam the skies on interdiction missions, destroying trains, truck convoys, and other transportation systems. They also attacked unguarded airfields and destroyed a number of aircraft on the ground. Slowly withering away the Luftwaffe.

 

[Matt Foley]

Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

I just mentioned that it presented some potential troubles and the Wehrmacht did historically avoid Byelorussia, mostly going through the Baltics and Ukraina

Indeed.....

 

[HoongLoong]

Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

I don't know that Germany would've honestly had the option to attack the Soviets before England. Churchill was rather like a British Bulldog with his teeth in a steak, unwilling to let go. Germany could have stopped at France and turned to concentrate on Russia or just prepare for it. But Britain and Churchill wouldn't have sat idly by. I expect Churchill might have sent daily air raids across the channel to harass German forces. Germany could not let this happen indefinitely. They might try to sue for peace, but I doubt Churchill would accept. He might even attempt a French beachhead of his own if an opportunity arose, such as a thinning of German forces to take on Russia. Most likely, Germany would be forced to deal with Britain once and for all, resulting in another Battle of Britain type air war.

Prior to the taking of Poland by the Germans, England & France were seeking every excuse possible to avoid a war with the Nazis. They had an ultra-isolationist stance that was almost, if not completely, incomprehensible in view of what Hitler was doing. Your post makes no sense at all.

 

[HoongLoong]

Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

I apologize if this has been covered before but the thread was very long and I made an effort to scheme and discern the theme of the arguments being put forward.

One that I think is glaring whenever discussing what-if scenarios involving World War II, is the usual lack of conversation regarding the development of nuclear weapons and the feasibility of a sincere Axis weapons program within a fast time frame. Let's presume that somehow the Germans are successful and manage to breach Soviet defenses and push towards the Caucuses and Baku, and that Moscow and Leningrad similarly are seized. Then lets assume that somehow despite most studies and expectations they manage to figure out a way to take advantage of the oil fields and reserves and transport them west (something they struggled immensely with on the smaller Maykop fields), and force a standstill in the East while supporting their flagging war industries back west.

Alright... then what? This would take place in 1942 or 1943 we can presume depending on the time tables we are talking about. Either way the United States will acquire atomic weapons by the summer of 1945--and Germany will not. There was no feasible way for Germany to embark on a crash course nuclear program in 1942 or 1943 and under the stress and bombardment of Allied air power and commando raids, the dearth of resources, the drain of scientists, etc and manage to beat the Allies by 1945. The end result would have been the steady deployment of atomic weapons against German military formations, cities, and other strategic targets enabling invasion and eventual capitulation.

The only thing I can think of perhaps is a world in which the Germans somehow beat all the odds and managed to defeat the British before the entrance of the US into the war after Pearl Harbor. Perhaps somehow as a result of a British occupation, the Germans and the US might both hedge their bets on avoiding an open confrontation. I doubt this very much, and think US victory would still be inevitable in this scenario, but it is more plausible than others. Really the only one would be a world where Germany had poured resources it couldn't spare into a nuclear program it probably couldn't defend.

I agree with you 100%.

I merely posed your last paragraph as the only scenario where Germany might've had their best chance in getting a stalemate with America. And, that chance woulda been possible ONLY with Hitler attacking and conquering USSR first, then wiping out England and France.

I may be at fault for not making it clear that in my mind Hitler was doomed as soon as America entered the war.

In either case the final confrontation with America woulda never occurred, but if it did my conclusion was that Germany woulda lost even without American Nuclear Power.

 

[EagleAye]

Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

Prior to the taking of Poland by the Germans, England & France were seeking every excuse possible to avoid a war with the Nazis. They had an ultra-isolationist stance that was almost, if not completely, incomprehensible in view of what Hitler was doing. Your post makes no sense at all.

Yes, but after Poland, England and France took the exact opposite of an ultra-isolationist stance and declared war. By the end of the Battle of France I think England comprehended what Hitler was doing quite clearly. The RAF had been shellacked and the BEF very nearly obliterated if not for the miracle at Dunkirk. I think wartime England, especially with Churchill at the helm, had quite a different outlook than pre-1939 England.

 

[HoongLoong]

Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

Yes, but after Poland, England and France took the exact opposite of an ultra-isolationist stance and declared war. By the end of the Battle of France I think England comprehended what Hitler was doing quite clearly. The RAF had been shellacked and the BEF very nearly obliterated if not for the miracle at Dunkirk. I think wartime England, especially with Churchill at the helm, had quite a different outlook than pre-1939 England.

You are absolutely correct.

However, you are presenting these incontrovertible facts outa context.

You are introducing this information in the "what if" topic of Hitler attacking the USSR BEFORE attacking Poland, thus committing England & France into a war with Hitler. Now, assuming Hitler coulda conquered the USSR, and there's a damn good chance he could have..........with all the newly acquired resources, Hitler coulda THEN attacked England & France.

IMO, that's the ONLY way Hitler coulda won WWII.

However, if America intervened anytime during this scenario, then Corporal Hitler woulda been kaput in this scenario as well.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

You are introducing this information in the "what if" topic of Hitler attacking the USSR BEFORE attacking Poland, thus committing England & France into a war with Hitler.

Sorry, but that makes no sense. Because there was no way Hitler could have attacked the USSR without attacking Poland first.

 

[PrometheusBound]

Re: Could Germany Have Won WWII?

Stalin intentionally provoked Hitler into attacking. He also made it easy for the Germans to blitzkrieg by intentionally providing a poor defense all the way to Moscow and Leningrad. Not just the autumn rains and the winter cold would trap the Germans, but also the overextended supply line and all the partisans intentionally left in the rear to break up the supply line even more.

The required analysis that Stalin trusted Hitler or was afraid to provoke him by having a strong western defense shows complete ignorance of Stalin's intelligence and deviousness. Stalin arranged the whole war to enable his conquest of Eastern Europe. He held his real fighters fresh and waiting until the blitzkrieg made the Germans put the noose on themselves.