Multymegaton ****storm :) Could the Germans win the war?

[IMHO]

The question is as given in the topic. Range of questions to consider:

1. Don't we need to throttle up before going to war? (Speer's reforms)

2. Who needs Roeder's big hulls, why don't we give all Kriegsmarine budget to Doenitz?

3. Why don't we have a strategic bomber yet, Mr. Goering?

4. Do we think our Luftwaffe pilots never die, don't we, Mr. Goering? (The issue of trained pilots pipeline for air superiority and CAS planes)

5. Let's imagine pesky Italians hadn't had their Balkan mess so we could have started USSR attack earlier, couldn't we?

6. Why do we need to waste resources on Tigers, Mouse etc. - let's keep it cheap (Stugs + PzKpfW III + PzKpfW IV + PzKpfW V).

7. Radars are force multipliers, aren't they?

8. If a wise guy suspects something we shall listen, shall we not? (Doenitz and Enigma bombes)

And so on and so on...

Whoever is interested - please keep emotions low and language gentlemanly

[DLaurier]

Certainly it is fun to pretend the Germans could pull an endless string of miracles out of their arses... but the sad fact is that the moment they invaded Russia, they lost the war.

Getting Hitler out of the way might have saved them the degree of defeat they suffered, but even a Chancelor Guderian or Chancelor Rommel couldn't produce oil and coal from thin air.

If the July plotters had struck in 1941, they might have been able to convince England to make peace... but even this couldn't stop the Heer from running into that wall in Russia called "over extended supply lines". Nor could it make Russian winters any less cold.

[Sergei]

Bah, that's nonsense. But could Soviets have won the war by 1942? Let's say if Stalin kept his most qualified officers alive through the 1930's and didn't blind his eyes in June 1941 and...

[sburke]

What if France had been able to get through the interwar period with a military more prepared for 1940? Would the German conquest of Europe have been stopped in it's tracks? Barbarossa never happens and instead Russia takes advantage of the situation and attacks Germany?

It all doesn't matter October 21st is still going to be the rapture. Right?

[JonS]

No no guys. You've got it wrong. The way these What-Ifs are supposed to work is that the Germans get to correct all their perceived mistakes using perfect hindsight, AND they get access to any resources. The Allies, on the other hand, get to sit around like second hand chumps, completely oblivious to anything the Germans are doing, and blithely carrying on exactly as they did in the 1920s and 30s - or perhaps making even more mistakes than they actually did.

Once we have those two conditions set, any What-If is all set to create the perfect thousand year retch.

[IMHO]

Certainly it is fun to pretend the Germans could pull an endless string of miracles out of their arses... but the sad fact is that the moment they invaded Russia, they lost the war.

Getting Hitler out of the way might have saved them the degree of defeat they suffered, but even a Chancelor Guderian or Chancelor Rommel couldn't produce oil and coal from thin air.

If the July plotters had struck in 1941, they might have been able to convince England to make peace... but even this couldn't stop the Heer from running into that wall in Russia called "over extended supply lines". Nor could it make Russian winters any less cold.

Well... Personally, I think the Germans lost the war when they attacked Poland. Poland made it inevitable that US and the USSR would have joined against Germany at some point of time. And this would have made it a lost case for Germany anyway. But it's interesting what others think...

[IMHO]

Bah, that's nonsense. But could Soviets have won the war by 1942? Let's say if Stalin kept his most qualified officers alive through the 1930's and didn't blind his eyes in June 1941 and...

I don't think he blinded he just wrongly thought he can read others 100% But I'd bet on Germans even if Stalin kept the officers. Soviet Army was way too arrogant. Deep operations doctrine was too risky - Tukhachevsky didn't account for the air supremacy and logistics.

[IMHO]

No no guys. You've got it wrong. The way these What-Ifs are supposed to work is that the Germans get to correct all their perceived mistakes using perfect hindsight, AND they get access to any resources. The Allies, on the other hand, get to sit around like second hand chumps, completely oblivious to anything the Germans are doing, and blithely carrying on exactly as they did in the 1920s and 30s - or perhaps making even more mistakes than they actually did.

Once we have those two conditions set, any What-If is all set to create the perfect thousand year retch.

No let's keep resource and political constraints. Like if Germany attacks Norway Chamberlain goes down. Just change more or less probable decisions like what competing weapons to produce, what R&D programs to pursue.

[Cogust]

The answer to number 1 (throttle up before the war) is that Germany was so up-throttled for war that they more or less was FORCED to go to war in 1939 as they othewise had to decide between crashing their economy BIG TIME in early 1940 at the latest or halving their military budget right away and hope that their economy would survive. About 60% of the total German production BEFORE the war started was going to the Wehrmacht and it was impossible to increase that or even sustain it for lack of raw material.

There were even coal shortages in the early war despite the fact that Germany was the biggest producer in Europe, that was because all the trains were moving troops, arms and ammunition instead of coal as the Reichbahn's budget had been cut to the bones for the last ten years to fuel the rearmament.

In other words, Hitler gambled EVERYTHING on a war in 1939 or early 1940 at the latest as he believed that the Western powers (supported by the US) would outproduce Germany in the long run, 1939 was his only shot and he believed that he had to take it or accept that Germany would be a secondary power for all future (he had pretty much managed to wreck the German export industry since 1933 and the entire economy was in stagnation except for the enormous surge in arms production in the 1930s).

If you want to get a very interesting view of the economics involved I can recommend Adam Tooze's 'Wages of Destruction'.

[JonS]

No let's keep resource and political constraints.

Well, ok, but only as long as the Germans get to play a perfect game while the Allies play like the three stooges.

[IMHO]

Well, ok, but only as long as the Germans get to play a perfect game while the Allies play like the three stooges.

Why? I never said let's create a Hollywood-style "German wins" scenario. As I said my personal belief is Germany lost the war when it attacked Poland. But may be we can go for a draw, can't we?

[Sgt Schultz]

While I believe there is no way Germany could have 'won' in any way that THEY(hitler et al) envisioned, there were some turning points/decisions that could have kept things interesting a LOT longer and MAY have led to negotiated settlements.

In no particluar order and far from complete personal list...

1. Losing the Enigma machine in Poland(before war even really starts for gawd's sake) and having the English develop a computer at the same time.

2. That Swordfish torp that ruined Bismark's rudder.

3. Swordfish AGAIN ruining the Italian Navy's day at Taranto.

4. Almost every tactical decision Hitler ever made(he did have some rainman-like moments of strategic brilliance).

5. Going with Naval Plan Z(carriers/battleships) instead of the Uboat swarm before the war started.

6. NOT doubling down and taking Iceland right after Norway, and then screwing Portugal and taking the Azores for good measure.

7. Never thinking of strategic air power.

8. Forgoing commonality of parts and logistics efficiencies for over-complicated, non-version-frozen vehicles.

9. Winter clothes and training for Russia.

10. Putting bombs on ME-262s.

11. Letting Porsche anywhere near military vehicle design.

All these have been discussed in much more learned circles than I have ever been privy to, other than reading the conclusions. I could go on and on in regards to this subject. It is one of my favorite 'alternate history' topics.

[dieseltaylor]

Perhaps the interesting gambit was to for the Germans to have gone halfway in simply taking its half of Poland following the vicious attack on its border and then retreated apart from a change with Danzig.

Or even give up Danzig for peace with France and the UK. This leaves Russia out on a big limb which possible stories of brutal murders etc scare the free world. : )

Oh yes much more fun. Germany reverts to a butter economy but maintains trade with its Russian ally/former ally. If Russian realises it has been left on th limb does it get stroppy and go for all of Poland, free Germany, retreat itself. Oh yes all good fun.

And started by the Poles to creat problems. Wily them Poles.

[IMHO]

All these have been discussed in much more learned circles than I have ever been privy to, other than reading the conclusions. I could go on and on in regards to this subject. It is one of my favorite 'alternate history' topics.

Please do. Some points of my particular interest...

2. That Swordfish torp that ruined Bismark's rudder.

Do you think Bismark's important? First they'd kill her sooner or later. Second how would she have been important from a strategic point of view? It can't interdict convoy routes without subjecting itself to an unbearable risk from air cover. Just want to understand your logic...

5. Going with Naval Plan Z(carriers/battleships) instead of the Uboat swarm before the war started.

What would it change? Can they take carriers to the Atlantic bypassing the Isles? If they manage to do it can they resupply them afterwards? Again just trying to understand the logic...

[Holman]

The Germans lost WW2 when they invaded Belgium on 8/3/14.

What? What??

[MikeyD]

What would REALLY have won the war for Hitler? If Prescott Bush and his corporate backers had succeeded in their 1933 fascist military coup attempt against FDR. The only thing that saved the nation was that Bush underestimated the patriotism of the General he had picked to make the grab. Imagine an America not just neutral in the war but actively supporting the Nazis. Don't think it could've happened? Remember Charles Lindberg resigned his commission rather than fly against Hitler. Der fuhrer was said to have had a bust of Henry Ford on his office desk. Much of British aristocracy was married to German Nazi party officials and would've jumped at the chance to make a seperate peace.

The one wild card in this 'counterfactual history' is Japan. If Hitler had been given a choice between an American Axis partner or a Japanese partner perhaps he would have picked the Americans, leaving Japan out in the cold.

[jambai]

Could win anytime before Barbarossa - assuming a random 8-year old girl was the supreme commander instead of Hitler. In other words 100x better tactical and operational decisions

Germany could still win after barbarossa if they weren't so anxious and better prepared for the winter and actually thinking long term. Example, establishing a frontline and dig in behind Moscow, Leningrad and the Volga, to dry the out the soviet manpower (the only things the commies had going for themselves at that point).

...because even if they had captured Moscow/Leningrad etc. they'd still lose because their manpower reserve depletes faster than the soviets, relatively speaking (because again, they actually hoped for a quick war and grossly underestimated the soviet manpower).

But then with Pear Harbor and Hitler's amazingly clever decision to DoW US, every 'what-if' is killed. There is no way Germany could trump the Yankees. Of course Hitler didn't think so, as he thought americans were "a faulty mixed race" that cannot focus it's industrial power

[StellarRat]

The Germans could have done everything right and we still would have won. Only getting the A-bomb and long range delivery systems before the US would have changed the eventual outcome. Even beating England and Russia wouldn't have been enough after we had nukes.

[LemuelG]

But then with Pear Harbor and Hitler's amazingly clever decision to DoW US, every 'what-if' is killed.

Yes, everyone's favorite "Hitler's biggest mistake"... I wonder, should he have just ignored the vast amounts of material sent over the ocean?

I've got one - what if the Nazis didn't squander so much of Europe's resources on the mass-murder and enslavement of millions defenceless civilians? Might that have helped?

[poesel]

Just imagine if this guy had had success:

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

Bad weather saved Hitlers ass - he would have been dead on November 8th 1939. Would Germany have attacked France? I doubt it with the state probably being in turmoil. Would France have attacked? Doubt that, too.

So what would have happened with a german/russian border but no war in the west?

[dieseltaylor]

Interesting link poesel. Thanks.

[IMHO]

I was reading the sources on the German raw material imports during WWII and found a funny story. Fanta was created by the German subsidiary of the Coca Cola company when Allies made it difficult to import Coca Cola syrup into Germany. So they made a drink out of the locally available stuff

[Sgt Schultz]

Please do. Some points of my particular interest...

Do you think Bismark's important? First they'd kill her sooner or later.

'Fleet in being' factor on just Tirpitz kept the Royal Navy up at night for a long time. 4,000lb bomb designed and bombers modified to do one thing... sink Tirpitz. Many planes and ship tasked to one thing ... keep Tirpitz located. Cost effective and barely did anything, and didn't have the prestige of sinking Hood in one shot.

Bismark's escorts had to turn back. If Bismark makes port, she gets a chance to try again with a proper Surface Action Group. No telling what the row in the House of Commons would have been if Bismark scored even one more kill on a major fleet unit.

What would it change? Can they take carriers to the Atlantic bypassing the Isles? If they manage to do it can they resupply them afterwards? Again just trying to understand the logic...

I meant that if they had abandonded plan Z in favor of Uboats sooner, then Donitz would have had closer to the 300 boats he wanted to close the Atlantic.

[IMHO]

'Fleet in being' factor on just Tirpitz kept the Royal Navy up at night for a long time. 4,000lb bomb designed and bombers modified to do one thing... sink Tirpitz. Many planes and ship tasked to one thing ... keep Tirpitz located. Cost effective and barely did anything, and didn't have the prestige of sinking Hood in one shot.

Bismark's escorts had to turn back. If Bismark makes port, she gets a chance to try again with a proper Surface Action Group. No telling what the row in the House of Commons would have been if Bismark scored even one more kill on a major fleet unit.

I meant that if they had abandonded plan Z in favor of Uboats sooner, then Donitz would have had closer to the 300 boats he wanted to close the Atlantic.

1. Sorry I misunderstood you on the second point. Definitely agree - Doenitz could have made a difference.

2. As for Bismarck... My view the Royal Navy had the resources to chase her down without unduly endangering their positions in the North Sea. So it did Inventing ways to resupply her in the North Atlantic was more of a headache for the Kriegsmarine than her presence for the Royal Navy. Every time she would try to mess with the convoys she'd be in great danger from the air cover. And sooner rather than later she'd have been sunk. Taking the costs to build and operate her in the North Atlantic vs. costs to sink her with Swordfish her presence was a great waste of resources. Disagree?

[Michael Emrys]

I haven't read the whole thread as this is ground I've been over several dozen times it seems. So I will just quickly run through my own hayseed version of how Germany could have avoided losing the war. Probably it's not a lot more realistic than any other such scenario as it depends from the outset on several things happening that had nearly a 0% chance of happening.

1. Hitler is killed in the First World War. That still leaves a bitterly resentful German military and a lot of political instability, but the Nazi party has a harder time attaining political dominance.

2. A conservative but much more moderate leadership takes power and has a much more conciliatory attitude towards its neighbors and former enemies. Given that they, and the US especially, were already willing to cut Germany a little slack economically, this might have gone far towards easing its economic problems.

3. As part of the easing of tensions with the West, Germany begins beating the drum—quietly at first, but then more insistently—about the Bolshevik threat to international peace. As a number of Western countries were already anxious about this, this message would have been well received in a number of capitals. After this has taken root, it reveals the "1934 plan", which is a kind of proto-NATO. Germany offers to ally itself with Britain, France, and Italy to guarantee the independence of all the nations bordering on the USSR. Within the context of this alliance, it requests that the Versailles Treaty be modified to allow a limited rearmament of Germany. This would legitimize the steps that the German military had taken in secret during the 1920s and early '30s and extend those.

The upshot of all this is that the USSR confronted with a unified West stays home and there is no war (the problems with Poland having been worked out by negotiation as part of Germany's "peace offensive"). Germany stays home and becomes prosperous and everybody benefits.

And they all lived happily ever after. There, that's my version of the fairy tale.

Michael