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

[Michael Emrys]

Michael, I've found your insightful posts on http://forum.axishistory.com

Oh dear, the cat is out of the bag!

I generally agree with your scenario. But I believe it could have been implemented even after Anschluss and Czech occupation. Having strong isolationist sentiments in the US and general unwillingness to fight in France and UK (never mind Churchill - he always wanted to fight - whoever, whenever )... Think they would forgive the Germany if it would have behaved...

Well, I don't see a proto-Nato happening, at least not right away. By this point even Chamberlain was starting to realize that Hitler was not to be trusted. He (Chamberlain) was just playing for time while the Allies rearmed.

BTW, I don't buy that about Churchill. I know that is a popularly held view in many quarters, both at the time and still. But my view is that he believed a strong stand taken early enough would have meant no war. Look some time into Manchester's biography of him, especially the second volume.

And what do you think abut Mediterranean option?

It's very seductive, but again there are just too many things that could go wrong and almost any one of them would have sunk the strategy. Hitler tried very hard to get Franco to join the Axis, but it wasn't going to happen. Spain was dependent on the West for materials, and especially grain shipments from the US, and Roosevelt had let Franco know that if he got too frisky those would end. Included in the laundry list of demands that Franco put to Hitler were replacements for all the stuff that he wouldn't be getting from Allied countries and colonies as well as enough matériel to rearm his armed forces. And this was more than Hitler could even convincingly promise, let alone begin to deliver.

And once the war is under way, the only real chance Germany has in the Med/Middle East is if Turkey either joins the Axis or becomes an actively pro-Axis neutral, allowing Axis forces to transit and base on their territory. And from all that I can tell, Turkey wasn't going to do that unless Germany had practically tied up the war already and didn't really need them. Turkey had really, really mastered the art of sitting on the fence and not offending anyone that might do them harm.

Michael

[The_Capt]

Interesting staff college topic if there ever was one. I think if you are looking for any real plausible answer you have to pull out of the Harry Turtledove stuff ie "what if they went left instead of right" once the war was on and back the whole thing up to the geopolitical level.

I think a second war in Europe was inevitable. The pressures between old Europe, Communism and Post WWI issues meant a fight was bound to break out one way or another. But as to whether Germany could have won, I think for this you have to accept the answer is "yes" but with entirely different leadership at the helm.

This opens the catch 22 of "would the leadership needed to win have entered into another war in the first place?"

The problem was the Nazis and Hitler were best described as "on fire". They had really nothing in the way of domestic policy beyond spend like lunatics in prep for war and then have to go to war to possibly pay for it all.

The German people proved they could mobilize tremendous energies towards a wartime footing. The German military proved that they had learned the hard lessons of WWI and were probably the best field force in the world, which they proved repeatedly '40-'42.

The problem was who was driving that ship of state. What was the long term diplomatic

end-state envisioned by Hitler and the Party? A One Thousand Yr Reich that will rule the planet with an iron fist is not a realistic strategic objective. Wiping out entire nations based on racial beliefs is also not sustainable.

As the Allies proved, if you want to win a war you have to compromise. Hitler and his crew did not understand the meaning of the word as far as I can tell. Even when they appeared to compromise it was only so they could screw someone else later on. The whole venture was a one way trip to death or victory.

And if you really want to muddy the waters, define "win WWII". Hitler and the Nazis were a nasty bunch who distrusted each other almost as much as the enemy. Does anyone think they could have established a functional empire spanning the globe? The damn thing would have collapsed from within 20 mins after we waved the last white flag.

Now put in German leadership that had a clear and workable end-state ie, we are going to rule Western Europe. And they called it done in 1940. Shore up against Russia because you know they are going to attack eventually but now you are defending against aggression, the US would be even less interested. When Japan commits strategic suicide, back way off and stay well out of it. Hell offer aid and comfort to the US against Japan and we are heading toward a sustainable partnership in Western Europe.

But in order to do this we are no longer talking about the Nazi Party. We are talking about a reasonable government that probably would have never invaded France anyway.

Bottom line, asking if Nazi Germany could have won WWII is like asking if a wolf could lay eggs. Sure it could but it would have to become a chicken first.

[Vark]

Steiner, you forgot the US knew about Pearl harbour, the 9/11 attacks were a blackflag operation so we could launch another Crusade, the moon landings were a fake, area 51 holds alien artefacts (the only reason the US achieved technological superiority) and Western governments spray mind controlling chemicals on their population!

[Michael Emrys]

You forget that the (later) "Allied" nations were rearming at a furious rate. Germany had a sweet time spot to attack before the victim countries got too strong.

That's the problem. Hitler and the Nazis had painted Germany into a corner where they had to either go to war or fold their hands and turn in their cards. The German economy was gasping for breath and on the verge of collapse due to so much of it having been committed to rapid rearmament. It had all but completely run out of foreign exchange, and this in a country that depended on massive imports. Moreover, Hitler had spooked the Allies into rearming and their combined industrial power outstripped Germany's. Very soon they would draw even with Germany and soon after that pull ahead. Hitler hoped that Britain and France were bluffing about Poland (he was very nearly right), and that he would have a year or more to absorb his conquests there before having to take on a major adversary. But that was a year he didn't get.

Michael

[IMHO]

Nice one DLaurier : )

Anyone like my Polish gambit with Russia hanging in mid-air? : (

Why? It's credible. I guess it's another option for playing an anti-commie stalwart to France and Britain. Bust Danzig they could have got without attacking Poles.

[Michael Emrys]

But of course Hitler didn't just want Danzig. He wanted Polish industrial resources and agriculture too.

Michael

[DLaurier]

Hitler had exactly zero grasp of economics. He also failed to build a strategic reserve of materials (oil, coal, iron, grain, etc) He allowed his racial fantasys to drive his policys, and he used slave labour.

He also ignored his generals.

Hitler was a believer though, and a fanatic who believed his own claims. He did not totaly abandon reality untill late 1942... but the war was already lost at that point.

Goering was a corrupt hedonist who understood power.

He was a pragmatic man who just wanted to sleep with a different gaggle of girls every nite, and pass out drunk afterwards.

Hitler wanted to be a crusading pope for protestant and catholic alike.

He was a pious and sanctamonious, moralizing prude. He also micromanaged everything.

Goering just wanted to party his face off like Calligula, and leave the day-to-day administration to people who actualy cared to get out of bed before noon.

[Michael Ivan]

As others have said already Hitler was Hitler and that sealed Germany's fate. Hitler was an amateur economist. (Although not a good one) He believed the only real long term threat to Germany would be America and that was because of America's vast economy. Hitler believed the key to that vast economic power was vast amounts of land and the only place to get those for Germany was the USSR.

Hitler despised or hated pretty much every other country but he had no interest in conquering France, England, Norway etc, etc. He really only wanted Russia and the rest of the world could wait until Germany had digested Russia and built up an immense economy and then he would be able to swallow the rest of the world.

This added to his xenophobia set the inevitable course for the war as long as Hitler lived. The conquest of Russia was always and completely Hitler's goal.

The only "what if" that I see as allowing Germany to win would be some way to knock out Russia in the first couple years. Really the only way I can see that happening is if somehow Stalin was killed. With all the purges and paid trips to unpleasant places that Stalin arranged for so many of his subjects there would have been no one to keep the country from fragmenting and becoming so much fresh meat.

So maybe Germany starts Barbarossa in Late April and takes Moscow. As Stalin flees at the last moment the Luftwaffe attacks his train and Stalin dies. The rump government is unable to hold the government together and Germany takes over up to the Urals. Massive slaughter ensues and entire regions are denuded of people in retaliation for resistance. England sees no chance of winning and gets the best terms for an armistice.

Oh and read Tooze. His information is very persuasive. For a book on economics it is fascinating. (Wow, that is not a sentence I would have ever believed would leave my lips or tapped into my computer!)

[IMHO]

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'.

First of all, hard to argue not having read Tooze so take it with a grain of salt.

1. I agree that politically Hitler would have had hard time keeping the political and emotional momentum behind war idea for many more years ahead. Though I don't think it spelled real problems for his reign - he was a veritable hero of the German nation at the end of 30's. He really gambled all on the war but that was not the economy - that was just psychology.

2. The idea that it was impossible to increase war materiel production is simply untrue. E.g. see the numbers for the AFV production and count in that 1939 AFV were way simpler and less resource consuming than 1944 AFVs.

3. What are the basis of the estimation that 60% of the German GDP were going to Wehrmacht? E.g. synthetic fuel production grew from 10 million barrels p.a. in 1938 to 36 million barrels p.a. in 1943. 1939 AFV production was 1359, 1944 - 22100. 1939 Wehrmacht headcount was 4,722,000, 1944 - 12,070,000. These are the bodies taken away from civil economy and these are the people you have to provide with weapons, ammo, logistics etc. Again, I haven't read Tooze but having these numbers I'd say there should be really bullet-proof evidence that Wehrmacht consumed 60% of German GDP in 1939. Unless you really believe you can increase GDP ten times times within 5 years.

4. I don't have coal production numbers at hand at the moment thought I strongly suspect coal production grew up to 1944 (synthetic fuel production consumes a lot of coal so to grow it 3.6 you need to substantially increase coal production either). Shortages were probably caused by low coal stockpiles - War Command was notorious for underestimating resource requirements (probably because Hitler decision making was unpredictable).

[hm_stanley]

Every time I sit down and ponder this fantasy of German victory in WWII, I come away with the war would have lasted longer with the inevitable outcome of Germany losing, regardless of leadership. I believe "the capt" defined the problem well, war in Europe was inevitable, but if one takes the belief that it would have been a war of aggression by Germany, then I think it ends the same way, albeit in 1948, and it would have ended with an occupied Germany.

If one takes the side that Germany would have fought as a proto NATO organization, I still think you have an occupied, divided Germany with a boundary similar to that of north and south Korea manned by the proto NATO nations. Maybe it might have lead to a more global conflagration with western nations fighting communism, but again, I just don't see it.

With that said, I have studied this topic at such length and frankly I never tire of it. It's a rich "alternate" historical narrative with such interesting implications, however you slice or dice it.

[Michael Emrys]

If one takes the side that Germany would have fought as a proto NATO organization, I still think you have an occupied, divided Germany with a boundary similar to that of north and south Korea manned by the proto German nations. Maybe it might have lead to a more global conflagration with western nations fighting communism, but again, I just don't see it.

Eh? I don't follow your logic here. If you are referring to my idea, I never suggested that Germany alone would constitute proto-NATO (or whatever it would be called). It would be part of a Western alliance confronting the USSR. So I don't get where they end up divided and occupied. Historically they ended up that way because they chose to take on most of the industrialized world almost by themselves. That wouldn't be the case here.

Michael

[hm_stanley]

what I was suggesting, along your logic was a Germany invaded by Russia, with Germany retaliating against that invasion, combined with the involvement of other european powers, essentially "occupying" western Germany to stave off the Russian threat after a protracted engagement by Germany.. something along those lines. I call this the passive German scenario.

Meaning, it looks like the Korean Peninsula. Germany still exists as a power, but has a rather large step-brother in their bedroom.

Does that make sense? This is, without a Hitler.

I guess I am supporting the premise that War was inevitable in Europe, not so much against themselves, but with Russia.. how and what happens after this premise is the stuff we are all debating here.

[IMHO]

Well, I don't see a proto-Nato happening, at least not right away. By this point even Chamberlain was starting to realize that Hitler was not to be trusted. He (Chamberlain) was just playing for time while the Allies rearmed.

Agree on the change of mind for Chamberlain. They prepared Norway landing and that was hardly a policy of appeasement I guess they would have tried to starve Germany resource wise. Like US oil embargo on Japanese just more subtle. Not pushing it to an open conflict because the idea of going to war was unpopular at the time both in France and UK. So containment Your thoughts?

It's very seductive, but again there are just too many things that could go wrong and almost any one of them would have sunk the strategy. Hitler tried very hard to get Franco to join the Axis, but it wasn't going to happen. Spain was dependent on the West for materials, and especially grain shipments from the US, and Roosevelt had let Franco know that if he got too frisky those would end. Included in the laundry list of demands that Franco put to Hitler were replacements for all the stuff that he wouldn't be getting from Allied countries and colonies as well as enough matériel to rearm his armed forces. And this was more than Hitler could even convincingly promise, let alone begin to deliver.

And once the war is under way, the only real chance Germany has in the Med/Middle East is if Turkey either joins the Axis or becomes an actively pro-Axis neutral, allowing Axis forces to transit and base on their territory. And from all that I can tell, Turkey wasn't going to do that unless Germany had practically tied up the war already and didn't really need them. Turkey had really, really mastered the art of sitting on the fence and not offending anyone that might do them harm.

Michael

Well... Here's more complex. On the one hand Spain was also importing 80% of their oil and no way Germany could have made up for that. But on the other hand Franco and Salazar were opportunistic. Having a real threat of Wehrmacht millions ready to sprint over the border they would have given in I believe. After all this would have been right after they've had an easy walk in France and Low Countries. They were thought unbeatable.

Overall I totally agree it's probably the sweetest option but Germany would need many saves and loads to implement it. Too much luck with Allies and satellites. Too many clairvoyant decisions both in weapons production and foreign policy decisions. Too much is based on coordination and team play among German elite. And they had warring feudal fiefdoms for the team play.

[hm_stanley]

...the only real chance Germany has in the Med/Middle East is if Turkey either joins the Axis or becomes an actively pro-Axis neutral, allowing Axis forces to transit and base on their territory. And from all that I can tell, Turkey wasn't going to do that unless Germany had practically tied up the war already and didn't really need them. Turkey had really, really mastered the art of sitting on the fence and not offending anyone that might do them harm.

I often wonder why more books have not been written about this. The diplomatic consequences of this action. Talk about a game changer. I have yet to read a good book describing the "Turkey" problem for Axis Germany. I have often pondered what would have happened if German units were allowed to transit Turkey and move up from the south into the Caucuses. There is a really a dearth of information on this subject.

I can only imagine how strategic Turkey was to Germany's aims, I mean to your right is Persia/Iraq, north, Mother Russia, and south the holy lands. Think about it for a second.. it would have been an entirely different conflict, I believe, with a pro-axis state entrenched in Turkey.

I've also pondered why Hitler didn't see that himself and consider an invasion of Turkey proper, with the intent of bringing back those ol' austrian hungarian types to prop up a puppet government. To think what a pro-axis Turkey would have meant to the Nazi's is stuff that makes me shiver..

[IMHO]

And once the war is under way, the only real chance Germany has in the Med/Middle East is if Turkey either joins the Axis or becomes an actively pro-Axis neutral, allowing Axis forces to transit and base on their territory. And from all that I can tell, Turkey wasn't going to do that unless Germany had practically tied up the war already and didn't really need them. Turkey had really, really mastered the art of sitting on the fence and not offending anyone that might do them harm.

Michael

In 1938 the Turkish standing army had 20 000 officers and 174 000 men. Military service lasted for three years...

The armed forces were poorly equipped; weapons shipments from Germany, Great Britain, and U.S. did little to improve that condition...

By 1940 the Turkish air force was composed of four air regiments (each regiment contained six air companies), and had in possession a total of 370 aircraft (it had 8 500 personnel). Thanks to British and French shipments one more air regiment, along with five independent air wings, was formed in 1941. Shipments of military equipment from Germany replaced the shipments from Allied countries in the same year.

Well... If we allow one more streak of luck I guess Germany could have pushed Turkey into submission. So Germany needed Spain/Portugal to keep a leverage on the UK, Norway/Sweden to have the ore and Turkey to threaten the USSR. So they'd have been stretched for mere 5.5 thousand kms Piece of cake

[IMHO]

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=99326

Thought we've got a Sea Lion mod coming

[Sgt Schultz]

I was fairly certain that the eye-rollers and the "its been done to death" crowd would win out on apathy points on this thread. Love to be proven wrong. It's been a great read.

Out of all the wonderful back and forth, this one grabbed me...

Bottom line, asking if Nazi Germany could have won WWII is like asking if a wolf could lay eggs. Sure it could but it would have to become a chicken first.

Close to what I have always thought, but not quite. My what-ifs always seemed to come back to the leadership. "Almost" just is never good enough on the level they played at. The number of 'almosts' Germany had going for it at numerous times and places has always astounded me. So many pieces were almost ready. Wider war with America could have been avoided in many ways, at least until it was too late to matter. Germany would have given back all of Western Europe to appease the U.S. and Britain, and had everything else West of the Urals. While I obviously still enjoy these discussions, I am very grateful that Germany had leaders that were just that short-sighted and venal.

"Never Compromise" was a real winner of a diplomatic policy wasn't it? Been slapping my forehead on their behalf since I was 12.

Racial idiocy 101.

Turning Gestapo into Dept of Human Resources, and finding productive work for everyone the morons in charge didnt like, until the 'unwanted' got their own province in the Russain Greater Reich may have juuuuussst possibly been a better option. Much better plan in the long run than killing millions of civilians, and inciting almost continuous uprisings in various parts of the occupied areas. "Those people are welcoming us, kill them." is another winner policy statement.

The resource, and greater politcal disparities were of course insurmountable for Germany. In the long run. A real military/political window existed imho. Not for some kind of mythic victory for Nazis. A state that reached from the Ardenne to the Urals was possible.

So instead of a wolf laying eggs, I always thought more along the lines of... if one could have cured the rabies, the wolf could have survived without needing to learn to lay them. My Harry Turtledove idea was Valium and a great group therapist... around 1938. J/K, but something along those lines. Some calming influence, be it the removal of Hitler by whatever means(illness, random chance), or a general "ah ha" moment once they realised the true economic tiger they had by the tail. Too late to stop, but not too late to put professionals in charge. Put the Prussians in charge of the military, get out of the way and turn them loose on Russia while the Leaders keep the West at bay. Americans hated, or were apathetic towards, Commies and Nazis both. It was "6-5 and pick 'em, I need a job.". Put Scheer-like people in charge of industry and go to Total War economy in '40 or even earlier.

Italy screwed Germany fairly well too, for which we can be thankful. I believe I once read some German saying of the time... "If Italy comes in against us, we will need 5 Divisions to hold the Alps. If they come in for us, we will need 25 Divisions to shore them up." Not only came in for, but at the worst possible time. yay fate. Rommel ... in Russia instead of the desert for the entire campaign... goosebumps. Guderian as head of combined OKW/OKH supporting him...

The campaign is taking shape as I write. Must ... have ... Modules...

edit - Manstein gets to be boss. Guderien gets Army Group Center. Raus' 6th and Rommel's 7th in the Race to Moscow. Campaign coming someday. -

[sburke]

I actually do know how Germany could have one, but we can't reveal our plan can we Pinky? No Brain but gee, what do you want to do tonight?" "The same thing we do every night, Pinky—try to take over the world!"

[MengJiao]

.

Oh and read Tooze. His information is very persuasive. For a book on economics it is fascinating. (Wow, that is not a sentence I would have ever believed would leave my lips or tapped into my computer!)

Yes, read Tooze. If there is a moral to the question, it is "So read Tooze."

[JG11Preusse]

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.

the way this war ended was the best way what could happen, i guess.

dont want to imagine what would happened, if my homeland would have won this stupid war.

wondering that so much brainless psychopatics are leading whole counrtrys hitler, stalin and their shoescleaner at ww2, "mr. bunga bunga" in italy now, bush junior 2 times not to long time ago, the brainless whiterussian president an mr. kim jong il. look at iran, lyba, syria and so on... everywhere yo will find one person who strangulates a whole country...... strange, isnt it ?

[JasonC]

Yes Germany could have won the war, if only Chamberlain had stood with the Czechs instead of caving at Munich. That would have been the encouragement Beck required to go ahead with the planned coup in 1938 and removed the bastard driving the country to war. That would have been the real victory - war averted.

[MengJiao]

Yes Germany could have won the war, if only Chamberlain had stood with the Czechs instead of caving at Munich. That would have been the encouragement Beck required to go ahead with the planned coup in 1938 and removed the bastard driving the country to war. That would have been the real victory - war averted.

Good point.

[MengJiao]

IPut Scheer-like people in charge of industry and go to Total War economy in '40 or even earlier.

Not really an option. See Tooze. The basic problem with the German economy was an unbelievably inefficient agricultural sector. What the

UK fixed in the 18th century with enclosures, the US with mechanization and the USSR by shooting the Kulaks, the Germans bumbled and (like the French) just caved in to rich peasants. So after say, 1931, they are doomed unless they follow the lead of the USSR and have ford motors build them some 5-year-plan wonders, collectivize, and purge the army (shoot all those Prussian Generals before they start plotting) and join the USSR and take over the world.

[IMHO]

And now the question: whom do you read on the topic of Nazi Germany economy apart from Speer and Tooze? Mason? Overy?

[MengJiao]

And now the question: whom do you read on the topic of Nazi Germany economy apart from Speer and Tooze? Mason? Overy?

I would just read Tooze. He is the most recent and he takes ideology and its contradictions into the account.

The Wages of Destruction is quite an astounding book really. Once you get through with the influential German dude with "Horace Greeley" as his middle name -- you're ready for anything and Tooze doesn't pull any punches: Germany looks like a trainwreck from 1931 to 1945. Not only that but you will have a pretty good idea why. For example, Speer's miracle was due to retooling in 1942, a retooling that should have been done in 1934.