Could Germany have lost alone?

[Carl Puppchen]

I realize that this is the CMBB thread and we are focusing on the East. What people tend to take for granted is that the burden of the allied alliance for a long time was supported by Winston Churchill, in my opinion one of the greatest men if not the greatest man in the 20th century. Mr. Churchill had a heart attack at one point and if he had died and / or been forced out of power it is very possible that the English could have gone w/a negotiated peace. It took a lot of guts to stand up to Hitler the way he did in a nation that was tired of conflict after WW1 and could have collapsed the same way France did in 1940. It was a VERY near run thing from that perspective...

People look back in history and things seem clear. In general, it was nuts for Hitler to take on the Soviets since they had numbers, territory and in many cases equipment on their side. But by God he almost pulled it off. If Stalin hadn't liquidated almost everyone maybe a coup could have happened - the Russians negotiated a peace in 1917, remember. It was a near run thing any way you slice it.

As far as Hitler being a lunatic, of course he was a lunatic! Who else starts a war of conquest? Stalin, too, was a paranoid lunatic whose purges and terrible orders (the deployment of his army in 1941 greatly increased his losses to encirclement) as well as commisars also impacted their ability to fight effectively. I think that anyone who expects a dictator starting an aggressive war to behave rationally is crazy. The only question is HOW irrationally do they behave...

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by spartan1:

IF Germany did not lose precious weeks to attack Balkans (Yugoslavia and Greece down to Crete) would most probably have won the war!

Almost everybody seems to forget that operation Barbarossa was postponed due to the Balkans campaign and to Greek resistance. That resulted in Germans arriving to Moscow to late with very bad weather conditions (snow and freeze temparatures) so they did not capture Moscow although they almost entered the city.

The weather was so bad that in November in some cases the only effective weapon was hand grenades!

SO IF Germans have not attacked south they would have arrived in Moscow early in summer and Moscow and Stalin kaput.

While the Balkans campaign delayed the start of Barbarossa, it wasn't the only delay. Liddel Hart mentions the ground conditions along the Russo-German border as being unsuitable for launching a full scale offensive, especially in Poland where several rivers were at full flood stage. This is important to note since the Germans were counting on speed to encircle the Russian armies deployed along the border.

Something else to consider is that although Germany planned on invading Greece (albeit only far enough to secure her southern flank), she never planned on going into Yugoslavia. A coup brought a pro-western goverment to power in Belgrade, and this forced the Germans to devote a sizeable chunk of those forces that were earmarked for AG south.

[spartan1]

To add a few comments in my earlier posting.

The Germans failed in Russia because they did not achieve any of the three strategic objectives they had: Moscow, Stalingrad, Lenigrand. What is astonishing is that in all 3 objectives they came to close but failed for various reasons.

It is only in Moscow that they failed because of luck in time that's why the delay in the Balkans campaign is so important.

If they have succeed in 1941 - so early, the course of the war in the East would be different.

To sum up: yes the Italian factor proved to be decisive in losing the war in my opinion.

[FM Paul Heinrik]

Originally posted by spartan1:

To add a few comments in my earlier posting.

The Germans failed in Russia because they did not achieve any of the three strategic objectives they had: Moscow, Stalingrad, Lenigrand. What is astonishing is that in all 3 objectives they came to close but failed for various reasons.

It is only in Moscow that they failed because of luck in time that's why the delay in the Balkans campaign is so important.

If they have succeed in 1941 - so early, the course of the war in the East would be different.

To sum up: yes the Italian factor proved to be decisive in losing the war in my opinion.

Well it is possible, the Moscow push would have been stalled and failed just as Leningrad and Stalingrad did regardless of weather.

[Leopard_2]

Nice thread for my first post... Disclaimer: The following is not representative to my overall views of history and the world. Don't judge me by it. Hell, I vote for the *Greens*...

----

Germany couldn't "win" the war, at least not with the goals set by Hitler (Lebensraum im Osten) and the timescale of a single war of a couple of years.

With a more "moderate" set of goals, however, Germany could have turned out *the* big winner of the war, and with only a few turning points. (None of them really related to what's depicted by CMBB...)

----

* In the Battle of Britain, use allied attacks on cities as propaganda material, but keep the focus on RAF-related targets. Commence operation Sea Lion at earliest possible time, or *at least* put Scapa Flow and major chunks of the Royal Navy out of commission while keeping up the threat of invasion.

After Dunkirk, the British Army was at an all-time low. US support hadn't materialized yet. Even Churchill was aware how desperate the situation was - several sources claim that, after his famous "fight them on the beaches" speech, he covered the mike and said to the person next to him, "and we shall fight them with broom sticks and beer bottles for most assuredly that's all we have left".

Yet Hitler was possessed with the idea of some kind of "nordic alliance" with the British even after that rousing speech, and possessed with vengeance on British cities with a Luftwaffe that was much better suited for taking out radar stations, airfield installations and production lines.

* Talk Mussolini out of his "adventure" in North Africa. A completely useless drain of resources, period.

* Do *not* declare war on the US. The stupidest move of all. A country that was very much reluctant to be drawn into a war far away in Europe, out of reach of any effective action by the German, with almost limitless ressources in man and material. Without that declaration of war, supply and support of the British and Russia would have taken a much less effective form, probably for years to come. (See below.)

* Step up the industry for all-out war right from the start, with focus on "doable" projects like the Panther and the Fw-190 (instead of the V-weapons and other "superweapons").

* Do *not* go for "total annihilation" of Russia, including oppression and deportation of civilians. Rather, go for a "realistic" short-term goal. Like the Wolga. Even with things as they were (full involvement of the US, Britain still fully active, industry not up to speed) they almost made that goal. The Wolga would have been a *very* good natural frontline to hold against Russia, and Germany would have had access to the Caucasian oil fields. Get a peace treaty with Stalin that leaves him in power of what's left. (Who wants Sibiria anyway?)

* Reinforce positions - military, economically, politically. Sit back with one of the mightiest empires ever created, and build from there, slowly, step by step. (The US give an excellent example of how it's done these days.)

----

All that being said, good riddance that Hitler was too short-sighted for any mid-range goals.

[ October 26, 2004, 01:42 AM: Message edited by: Leopard_2 ]