Could Germany have lost alone?

[Sergei]

Let's suppose that Germany never went to save Mussolini in the Balkans and Libya, Romanians never were in charge of 6th Army's flanks and the Japanese decided to wait till 1952 before bombing Hawaii. No fear about untrustworthy allies suing for separate peace. No spreading of industrial capacity to equip their primitive armies nor diverting resources against Murmansk. In that case, could Germany have lost the war?

[Holman]

I think it would all depend on whether the US was willing to save England or not.

Some considerations:

Would a neutral Italy have stayed neutral, or would the English have been able to sway them to the allies? Given Mussolini's capricious pride, it's possible to imagine him seeing Hitler as his real rival.

Does the U.S.-Japan war happen anyway or not? If it happens but the Japanese are not in the axis, would FDR still be able to lead the US towards fighting Germany?

[Slappy]

US / Japan war happens anyway. US threats of oil embargo over Japanese actions in China drew Japan into the war. They didn't have the fuel stocks to last until '52 without siezing SE Asia which would have brought the US in either way.

[hurtzDonut]

Roosevelt was determined to help Churchill one way or another, if England was invaded I believe the US would have come to their aid.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Slappy:

US / Japan war happens anyway. US threats of oil embargo over Japanese actions in China drew Japan into the war. They didn't have the fuel stocks to last until '52 without siezing SE Asia which would have brought the US in either way.

Since I said "let's suppose", we suppose that this doesn't happen for one reason or another, even third if necessary. Maybe the Emperor and Roosevelt suddenly realize that they are long lost twin brothers, and in a touching display of fraternity they make a compromise in which US gives oil and Japan promises to concentrate on doing mischief in China. Or maybe the Japanese replace oil with solar power or find oil from Korean peninsula.

In which case, would Germany still have had any kind of chance to lose? Or was their eventual defeat dependant on their allies?

[ May 08, 2004, 02:30 PM: Message edited by: Sergei ]

[Michael Emrys]

I can't see that over all having allies hurt Germany. They may not have helped a lot. I think Germany and Italy both would have been better off if Italy had simply stayed neutral. Italy as an active belligerent becomes a drain and threatens to open another front from which Germany can be attacked. But Finland, Hungary, and Rumania were of some use and could have been more if properly handled.

The important point is that without its allies Germany is still doomed. Its productive capacity is only a fifth or sixth of the combined industrial capacity of the Allies. Manpower balances were similar. Hitler was an idiot.

Michael

[Mad Russian]

I agree with Michael. Germany is not doomed by her allies but by her own mistakes.

These are almost too numerous to cover but a few will demonstrate the problems.

They cover everything from the wrong armaments on the tanks that invaded Russia, to not fielding the Me-262 as a fighter but as a bomber in the beginning. An armaments industry at much less than maximum output and a strategy that simply was not within their operational ability to make happen. Such things as stopping the production of tanks in October of 1941 before coming to their senses and continuing with production.

Germany was doomed from the beginning to lose the war. IMHO.

Panther Commander

[JasonC]

This is a joke thread, right? Obviously half a dozen allies with over a hundred divisions helped Germany enourmously.

[Michael Emrys]

While I'm not as sure about the "enourmously" (sic) part, that's pretty close to my point. It was obviousy a lot better for Germany to have those countries and armies on its side than lined up against it.

Michael

[Buffy the Panzer Slayer]

Yes but, Hitler was still an idiot!

[Buffy the Panzer Slayer]

Look at the Ardennes offensive. There was no way Hitler could have won!

[Alexei]

Originally posted by Sergei:

Let's suppose that (...) Romanians never were in charge of 6th Army's flanks

Who else would have done the job then ? Elite (German) divisions were needed everywhere, especially in Caucasus at that time. There were simply too few of them.

[Sergei]

Well, maybe they could have used barbed wire to protect their flanks, no???

Anyway, I take it that the consensus is that Germany COULD have lost the war without any allies. Thanks for your feedback!

[Big Jim]

Originally posted by Buffy the Panzer Slayer:

Look at the Ardennes offensive. There was no way Hitler could have won!

To be fair, Hitler was playing to win the war- not come to a negotiated peace in which he would no longer be leader of the Reich. Ardennes was a pretty far fetched idea, but stuff like the holocaust meant Nazi Germany could never reconcile with the Allies, only face utter destruction or victory.

Italy, Japan = bad news

Hungary, Finland, Romania = good news

Hitler chewed off way too much in one go- Britain first, then Soviet Union, then America would have been more easily faced at once. Did he never play Risk?!

[Sgt AA]

Acually, I think that Germany could have won in the east - not by force - but if they had "liberated" Ukraine and the Baltic (instead of terrorize them), then the USSR probably would have collapsed from the inside.

Hitler was an idiot!

Regards/

PS "We had to choose between to dictators, we choose the one that speak russian!"

Unknown russian soldier.

[JasonC]

Sgt AA - another unlikely myth. Leaving aside the fact that a German government that would have acted that way wouldn't have attacked in the first place, there is the minor matter of it not making a bit of difference. The Germans got over 100,000 Hiwis to fight for them despite how nasty they were. Didn't make a bit of difference.

They didn't lose the war because of a lack of poor quality satellite infantry formations. They had those coming out of their ears, and they fell apart at the first breath of a major Soviet offensive. What they lacked was enough tanks and German army soon enough, in 1941 and 1942 when it mattered. They got a lot more even of those things by 1944, but that was too bleeding late. The reason everything was so late was, they didn't think they needed it earlier.

I continue to be amazed at the resistence this simple proposition seems to evoke, and all the wild fantasies that seem so much more plausible to people - in the Med, oil fantasies, magical Russian collapses, enlightened rule by German overlords, crusades, yada yada. All pure fantasy.

Whereas all they actually had to do was not underestimate the Russians, plan on a long war in which production and numbers would matter, right from the start, and therefore mobilize the economy completely, for total war and immediate land armaments output, the instant they decided to attack a state as powerful as Russia.

Completely doable. Not a fantasy at all. No giant political constraints in the way, no logistical impossibility, no requirement for half the rest of the world to act completely differently. Just turn on the bleeding economy before running off into the middle of Asia. It is so doable it was an act of madness not to take this precaution, even if they hoped for a quick victory.

They didn't do it because they thought they were God's own gift to military prowess and the Russians were degenerate idiot subhumans who could not be expected to tie their shoes, much less resist the master race. Because they believed, and I quote, "kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will fall to the ground." Hubris. Overconfidence. Victory disease.

Pride is a weakness. That is all. No mysteries.

[Screeny]

a fine speech indeed

[guachi]

I was struck by a section in "Achtung Panzer".

In some chapter, Guderain lists the automotive production capacity of several major countries (Germany, Russia, Britain, America, etc) The Americans dominate and Germany's capacity sucks.

I can't remember when "Achtung Panzer" was written, but Germany's capacity couldn't have increased that much by the time the war started. It seems clear (in hindsight, of course) that Germany needed to shift to full-time vehicle production if they wanted to stand a chance. Or they would get buried, at a minimum, under tons American equipment assuming America built equipment for Germany's foes (which they did) or entered the war and built stuff for themselves (which they did).

Jason

[Sgt AA]

JasonC

You´re absolutly right in your military/economic analys, I'll give you that. But there are more than one angle to wiew a problem. Stalin's biggest fear was that the russian population would turn against him, and he was wery pleased with the fact that the germans treated POW very bad. Of course, the aim with Barbarossa wasn't to "liberate" the russians so my political argument is simply not realistic (in that sense it's a myth). But it´s a fact that Red Army was suffering from heavy losses and without reinforcements from the liberated areas they would have had serious problems.

It's a big differens between being a "hiwi" for food or fighting for an independent Ukrine (Zukov and some other importent leader was from Ukrine).

The partisan movement later in the war wasn't unimportent; disturbing logistics, gathering informations and lower the german morale. Without it, the germans would have had one significant problem less.

Regards/

[ May 10, 2004, 11:10 AM: Message edited by: Sgt AA ]

[Mad Russian]

Jason, who is living in a fantasy world now?

"Whereas all they actually had to do was not underestimate the Russians, plan on a long war in which production and numbers would matter, right from the start, and therefore mobilize the economy completely, for total war and immediate land armaments output, the instant they decided to attack a state as powerful as Russia.

Completely doable. Not a fantasy at all."

This is not a fantasy?

How was Hitler going to convince the German people that they were going to go to war with the Russians and it was going to be a long war?

That the Russians would fight as well as the Germans. That if it took another six months to prepare the German industry, there would be T-34's in hordes, the size of which, was any German commanders worst nightmare.

Instead of looking for that 'magic bullet', that you accuse of others of looking for, maybe you should consider a few things as well.

First, the Panzer III tanks were on Hitlers orders to have all been armed with the 50cm KwK38 L/42. The only tank in the German arsenal that was actually capable of killing a T-34. Hitler personally ordered all German tanks converted over before the attack. The German armament industry decided that they didn't need to. More than likely it was outside of their capability at the moment.

The Russian Army was larger when it launched it's attack in December than it had been on the first day of the war. The great tactical knowledge and prowess that you attribute to the Soviets was easy to gain when it was used like a sledge hammer. The Soviets had catastrophic failures trying to deploy armored forces in field. The reason was that one of the inventors of armored warfare was shot by Stalin before the war started. In 1941 and 1942 the Soviets were rank amateurs. The Germans made a lot of mistakes. I am not here to play the old 'woe is me', song for the German forces. But let's get real. You always run out with the comments that the Germans made most of their mistakes because they thought the war was over.

I'm here to say that if you had been a German General in 1941 you would have thought the war was over too. AND for almost any other country on earth it would have been. Stalin even considered negotiating a peace on more than one occasion. Any sane person would. He was aware that, like Hitler later, the winners would not leave him in power if he wasn't one of the winners.

The Russian started showing real ability after FM Paulus started teaching them in their own military academy. Couple that with the information on what the German objectives were, where they were aimed and when they would start and you have Russian brilliance. I think I could win a battle or two if I knew the three w's.

You continue to espouse my ignorance because I believe that, then as now, military operations were run on petroleum products. This is not a magic bullet but a fact of life. Yes, Germany had coal, still does. What she needed was oil.

That is why Hitler worked so hard to get Hungary into the alliance and keep them there. That is why in 1942 Hitler attacked south into the Caucasus instead of further north at Moscow. Catching the Russians by surprise, even with Russia's spy's knowing the German moves. They couldn't believe it. Why? According to you there was no need for the Germans to need oil.

You make some compelling arguments. I don't see them as all being correct. I see them as all being well displayed. I see that you can't understand why everyone else in the universe can't see why we should just listen to your point of view and go on. Sorry, I personally weigh the information from a lot of sources, and then make up my own mind. To anyone who hasn't done a lot of study the reams of answers you roll out seem impressive I am sure. To someone who has done much research and been a serious student of history your approach seems little more than egotistical. I have in the past few days tried to discuss with you the different sides of the controversy's we have in these two threads. When we run across an area of the discussion you have no answer for I am just not able to understand your point of view. Then you reel off ten paragraphs that say nothing and go on. You don't quote sources and have attacked me for quoting chapter and verse when I do.

I am less than impressed with your reasoning. But then I don't have to be impressed by it. You seem to be impressed with it enough for both of us.

Panther Commander

[37mm]

It wouldn't at all have been difficult for a military dictatorship in the middle of a war to mobilize to a war economy but JasonC is correct the Germans were just too overconfident too an almost ludicrous degree.

I do disagree with his idea that if (& I agree its a big if) the Germans had managed to invade Russia & avoid slaughtering large numbers of civilians & prisoners this would not have made a difference.

Read any personal accounts of the war & what shows through is just the incredible scale of suffering the Russians had to go through to win (there is no way that a Western society could have gone through this & survive).

Russians regularly fought to the death, time & time again.

Russian's continuously said they were fighting to avenge lost loved ones (usually a rather large number of loved ones).

The Russians hated the Germans to such an extent I'm amazed there is even a German left alive today.

With out this hatred created by German brutality (one of the most important Partisan activities was the creation of an underground postal system so that 'free' Russians usually knew what was going on in 'occupied Russia') Russian military morale may well have collapsed (aka 41).

[Big Jim]

I always was under the impression the Germans wanted the Caucasus to deny the Russians oil as much as gain it for themselves.

What's the use in a tank army three times as big as the German tank army, with no fuel to run them?

[Dandelion]

Originally posted by Sergei:

Let's suppose that Germany never went to save Mussolini in the Balkans and Libya, Romanians never were in charge of 6th Army's flanks and the Japanese decided to wait till 1952 before bombing Hawaii. No fear about untrustworthy allies suing for separate peace. No spreading of industrial capacity to equip their primitive armies nor diverting resources against Murmansk. In that case, could Germany have lost the war?

LOL! Sergei I am shocked! This is not like you. I know you abbreviate here but still. I disagree very much with the presentation of history here. Though I do think the Germans would have liked very much to have it portrayed this way.

- Stalingrad did not happend because of who guarded the flanks. German deployment caused Stalingrad. Half a million men were concentrated in a sack with only two roads leading out, crossing two rivers. There was no rear guard securing the crossings. What kind of idiot deployes like that? It's a ready-made Motti inviting disaster, and disaster was very keen on visiting. The Romanians were put on the flanks because there were no Germans to put there. Thus, the alternative was not to replace them with Germans, but to have nobody there at all - a situation created by the Germans, the Romanians wanted to stop at Odessa and not overstretch. The Romanians had sent ample warning of limited antitank capacity to Germany ever since the spring of 1941. The Germans thus knew what they were doing deploying them as they did, one must presume. The fact that the Romanians were overrun by the 9 to 1 onslaught was the least surprising element in this tragedy, and the loss of 173 000 Romanians that winter is testimony to German abuse of trust, not Romanian failure to answer calls of distress from her ally. Those Romanians were under German command and responsibility, given tasks they had no hope in hell to finish and then they were left to die all alone, with only one German formation even trying to reach them. So it's really disturbing to hear Schiklegrubers ranting about "gypsys on the flanks" on the radio when Stalingrad was a fact. Stalingrad was an all-German failure and now a silent monument of military incompetence, ranging from operational planning and intelligence to execution.

- Save Italy? Hey Yugoslavia was invaded because of her leaving the Axis and becoming a liability. Greece was invaded in order to protect Romanian natural resources and as a general measure to protect the German southern flank, bearing in mind that the slightly hellenophile Brits have a manifested fondness of exploiting this soft belly. Germany actually did offer to save Italy in Greece but the offer was rejected. The plan encompassed the sending of three (later four) divisions (of Austrians and Bavarians mind you) to Albania, which was a negligeb negliga... God I hate that word... which presented no noticeable strain on resources for the Germans. Quite ridiculous numbers of German helpers when compared to the Italian aid lent to Germany in the east, 230 000 troops (half of which died). Germany always had the option of staying out of the Balkans, she opted not to without consulting Italy or anyone else (she never consulted anyone else btw, unilaterality was a trademark of DR), "protecting" her own interests and not those of Italy, and the responsibility for any strain this decision meant rests upon herself. Her allies relieved her of much of it nonetheless, Italy included, by occupying large parts of the Balkans for her.

- Japan was hardly in a position to force Germany to declare war upon the USA, nor did the Germans have any notions of saving Japan. Germany declared war because she wanted war herself. I mean look at this;

Since the beginning of the war the American President, Roosevelt, has been guilty of a series of the worst crimes against international law; illegal seizure of ships and other property of German and Italian nationals were coupled with the threat to, and looting of, those who were deprived of their liberty by being interned. Roosevelt's ever increasing attacks finally went so far that he ordered the American Navy to attack everywhere ships under the German and Italian flags, and to sink them-this in gross violation of international law. American ministers boasted of having destroyed German submarines in this criminal way. German and Italian merchantships were attacked by American cruisers, captured and their crews imprisoned. With no attempt at an official denial there has now been revealed in America President Roosevelt's plan by which, at the latest in 1943, Germany and Italy were to be attacked in Europe by military means. In this way the sincere efforts of Germany and Italy to prevent an extension of the war and to maintain relations with the U.S.A. in spite of the unbearable provocations which have been carried on for years by President Roosevelt, have been frustrated. Germany and Italy have been finally compelled, in view of this, and in loyalty to the Tri-Partite act, to carry on the struggle against the U.S.A. and England jointly and side by side with Japan for the defense and thus for the maintenance of the liberty and independence of their nations and empires.

Sergei, meet Schicklegruber, you won't like him but there he is. This is the German declaration of war upon the USA, as receieved by the USA - and in a rather elegant translation too. I left the hilarious parts in there as an amusement factor in my otherwise rather boring post. This is German aggression spelled out, it's not Germany trying to save her unreliable allies.

- Germany directed her attention to Murmansk because it was the pipeline for allied aid to the USSR, being as it is the only credible harbour on the Kola in wintertime. The Finnish state was AFAIK monumentally uninterested in Murmansk and I can hardly imagine a more sourfaced obstructive participation in the grand German schemes than that of the Finns near Murmansk. Complaints from the arctic were commonplace, dissing the Finns for being unenthusastic. The Germans failed to take Murmansk, and if guilty of anything, the Finns actively chose not to save the Germans stumbling about on the tundra. As an ally, one might have expected them to, but Finland was not an ally of Germany. Hey wait a minute, why am I telling you this? You're Finnish, you know all this.

- The diverting of what assets to equip who? Germany had scarcely any deliveries of German materiél to anybody AFAIK. Large amounts of stolen equipment was handed out - Czech such primarily, but also Polish. In the vicinity of 100 German aircraft were given to Romania for free, the rest she had to produce herself. Romania was given Paks too, several dozens, after Stalingrad. The horses delivered as towing beasts for these were however stolen from Poland. Hungary received almost an entire new airforce... from Italy She also had to produce her own aircraft, under license, paying Germany the license fees Hungarian-owned German tanks consisted of 22 PzKpfw I, which she had bought, not received as gifts I know the Germans sold captured Soviet equipment to the Finns turning a decent profit. Honestly I am hard pressed to find a more hard-fisted, parsimonious sponger than old Schicklegruber. Though I have no figure on it and will not insist, I have the impression that the US equipping of the FFI alone vastly exceeds the total wartime German aid to allies in terms of machines of war and other arms.

All of these objections I round off with some reflections. Romania lost more than 300 000 men dead in the war and more than one million of her troops served as German allies until Romania was overrun. Hungary lost 140 000 troops (dead) and she also had about a million serving by Germany's side, literally until the very end, defending Germany long after Hungary was overrun. 7 Bulgarian divisions were deployed defending the German main supply routes in the Balkans and a further 10 circulated on garrisonduty, guarding terroitory conquered by Germany. Nobody writes books about these guys but you can see what kind of realities lie behind such figures. The Finns, more popular in literature I guess, deployed around 400 000 troops in the east if I am not mistaken. Dunno how many that died but as they died for Finland exclusively, it's not the same as with the others. That's not mentioning Italy, nor bothering with the really really tiny nations such as Slovakia and Croatia.

My conclusion being - the Axis Minors were not a burdeon, they were major and quite critical assets to Germany. Losing them would not increase German chances of victory, it would drastically decrease them. Lets not sing the praise of the Axis - all a bunch of halfcrazed rightist extremist dictators the lot of them - but as allies they were solid enough I think, giving more than they took and in the end, for all her talk, it was Germany who miserably failed them, not the other way around.

Cheerio

Dandelion

[Mad Russian]

Dandelion, that was quite refreshing. A direction not often looked at about the minors contributions. As with the question of Leand-Lease tanks I think the Axis minors real contribution was to free up the more combat capable units for places that the real action was taking place.

In the case of the Stalingrad area the Russians didn't leave it an area of quiet for long. I think you are right in your assessment of the German production leaving her allies in the lurch for supplying them with equipment. The Romanians and Hungarians both produced their own armor as the war went on. Mostly because they couldn't get German models. Some Germans models were delivered but not many.

Certainly not as many as was needed.

Good information.

Panther Commander

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Panther Commander:

The Russian started showing real ability after FM Paulus started teaching them in their own military academy. Couple that with the information on what the German objectives were, where they were aimed and when they would start and you have Russian brilliance. I think I could win a battle or two if I knew the three w's.

Please. So how did they capture Paulus in the first place? Did he just happen to stroll into their lines while those idiot bumbling Red Army commanders were lamenting their own stupidity and his 6th Army soldiers were shooting themselves to help the Soviets out? What could Paulus conceivably tell them on February 1st 1943 that was of any interest in the later battles? That the Germans were gunning for the Caucasian oil? That they thought until November that they had broken the back of the Red Army? That they would have liked to occupy Moscow in 1941, and he had written a study on it then? That they really really, no really! wanted to win the war in the east, and oh wouldn't it have been nice to occupy Leningrad? Anything he knew then was very interesting for the Soviet historians, but not anyone else.

Edit to add - why do you actually think that anyone would like to take lessons from the erstwhile Quartermaster in OKH, who then managed to spectacularly lose his army by consistently underestimating his enemy? :confused: Unless of course he taught the Red Army commanders who really not to do it.

[ May 12, 2004, 06:18 PM: Message edited by: Andreas ]