Germany win or lose

[Nikolai]

Now this may be a waste of time or it may turn into a productive discussion unlike my last thread in the politics section. O h and combatlogo this one may well belong in oz but it still makes an interesting yap at any rate (i hope).
So the point of it. Could Germany have won WW2 or would they have lost anyway. there are no special cirumstances no alternate timelines. take it from the year 1939 at the invasion of Poland and start talking. Could they have won and if so what would have allowed them to do this. Or were they simply destined to lose no matter what.
I personnaly believe they could have but things would have had to have been done very differently. I'l give examples why and how when someone answers this. Oh by the way you can give examples of specific battles etc there is no need to create an entirely new history from 1939 but you cannot go before it.:D

[Bam Bam]

no they were destined to lose. The insanity and poor military management of Hitler assured that

[yellowjacket]

I reckon they could have won. I don't see how England could have held out indefinitely if Barbarossa didn't happen when it did or if the USA never came on board.

Germany declared war on America, not the other way round, avoiding that might have been a help

Peace with Stalin wouldn't have held indefinitely, but in 1941, the Russians definitely wanted at least another couple of years worth of peace.

If the Germans hadn't have got distracted in the Balkans, and started Barbarossa in May 1941 as originally scheduled, there's a good chance they would have taken Moscow, at the very least this would have been a big morale booster.

Holding back at Dunkirk and letting the BEF evacuate was another turning point, along with when they switched from bombing RAF airfields to attack London. Either one might have caused the British to be a lot weaker.

[Groundhog]

Hitler broke the First rule of Land Warfare. Never March on Moscow. If the Germans had put a s much effort into invading Britain as they did into extermination camps, and obeyed the First Rule, they could have won the war before Japan attacked Pearl Harbour and gave the US a causus belli.

[Nikolai]

absolutley

:D couldnt agree more yellowjacket the switch to bombing cities instead of airfields was a huge mistake. Apparently (so my history teacher told me when i was in school) the Luftwaffe nearly had the RAF beat but the switch to bombing cities gave them breathing room. As for the BEF Hitler(responsible for so many disasters) and Goering were to blame for that balls up.
Also true Groundhog. the concentration camps were a waste of time, money, troops and other resources.
Also if the Japenese had had the brains not to attack America Germany would have been less likely to declare war on them (the whole japan/germany alliance thing).Also had japan not attacked America they would have been able to continue the war against Russia. If im not wrong Russias best troups were tied up with the japenese until the japenese gave up (got into a war with u.s.). Whe Japan gave fighting with russia Russia was then able to move more troops out to the western front against the Germans. :D

[Jimmy C]

2 things which could have turned the tides in Germanys favour:

1: If Albert Einstein, in 1939, neglected to tell Roosevelt about Germanys increased activity with uranium and instead worked with his native Germany, who knows what was it would have turned out? We know Einstein's work was a great help to America's nuclear programme. The tought of Germany with A-bombs in WW2 is scary.

2: The commonly known "What would have happened if Germany attacked Russia in late spring, to take advantage of survivable weather conditions, as was originally planned?". Tanks wouldn't have siezed up with cold, supply lines wouldn't have been cut, hypothermia wouldn't have claimed so many German lives and there would have been more German troops in Europe for D-Day.

[combatlogo]

Originally posted by yellowjacket
I reckon they could have won. I don't see how England could have held out indefinitely if Barbarossa didn't happen when it did or if the USA never came on board.

Germany had no plans, or more importantly, no capability to mount a cross-channel invasion, not least because France had fallen so quickly. The Kriegsmarine was very definitely the poor relation of the armed services in terms of allocating resources, not surprising given the fact that Germany was a continental not a maritime power.

I agree with everything else you wrote.

The question really needs to be addressed in terms of what Germany's war aims were - Hitler didn't want war with the western democracies, he did however ultimately want a war of annihilation with the USSR, not in 1941 though. The Germans became victims of their successes in the west, with large amounts of troops being required to garrison them which cd have been used in Russia.

Even without D-Day, the Red Army wd still have beaten the Wehrmacht.

[yellowjacket]

I agree that a German invasion of the UK was unlikely to succeed, however I'd suggest it wasn't necessary. In his history of WWII Churchill states that he was most afraid of the U-Boats.

By giving full attention to attacking Britains supply convoys, in other words imposing a near-blockade, Britain would have had to sue for peace or starve. Attaking Britains navy would have required significantly degrading the capabilities of the RAF, which up to September 1940, the Germans were achieving nicely.

To a large extent, the USSR was kept afloat by massive amounts of Allied food and equipment aid. Apparently almost all of the Red Army was transported by Studebaker trucks for example. If the USA hadn't proveded this, things could have worked out very differently on the Eastern Front.

[Nikolai]

im not so sure

Combatlogo. I reckon ur right about that one

Even without D-Day, the Red Army wd still have beaten the Wehrmacht.

even still i do think they could have held and even defeated the red army. As im sure you are aware the Germans had deplyed 50 divisions to Normandy to stop the allies. 40 of those divisions were lost in the normandy fighting. Had D day not been a worry for the Germans i think those 50 divisions could have made a big difference. lets not forget they had such fighting formations as the 12th S.S. hitler Jugend, the Panzer Lehr and a number of other crack formations. In fact if im right one of the best tank aces to appear in recent history Michael Wittmann was part of the Panzer Lehr.

[combatlogo]

If im not wrong Russias best troups were tied up with the japenese until the japenese gave up (got into a war with u.s.). Whe Japan gave fighting with russia Russia was then able to move more troops out to the western front against the Germans.

You're sublimely wrong - The Soviet Union and Japan never engaged in any major military ops against each other, the Russians only declared war on Japan after the surrender of Germany.

Granted, the Russians had troops stationed in the East in case the Japanese attacked. However, it was pretty clear that the Japs wd attack the US, a fact confirmed by Stalin's spy in Toyko, Richard Sorge. (Stalin's use of intel indicating a German invasion of the USSR was, ahem, less impressive).

In Dec 1941, with the Germans on the outskirts of Moscow, the Soviets were able to transfer several Siberian divisions (well-trained, and well-equiped for winter warfare unlike the Germans), which permitted Zhukov to mount his counteroffensive and throw the Germans back from Moscow.

Also if the Japenese had had the brains not to attack America

Easy to be wise after the event - the decision to attack was a calculated gamble which failed - the Japanese were effectively saying to the US " we know you can beat us in a prolonged struggle, we have hit you hard, it will take you years to build up your fleet again during which time we will have consolidated our gains in the Pacific - now let's come to an agreement, one which gives us a free hand in China".

The Japanese really had no choice but to attack - they were being starved of raw materials and to get the supply turned on again, they wd have had to cease their ops in China, an unthinkable loss of face.

Yamamoto was under no illusions as to the power of the US, the whole "we have awoken a sleeping giant" quote.

Pearl Harbor was a good op but it wd have been much better if they had gone after the infrastructure (fuel tanks, dry yars etc)...and of course, they didn't get the carriers.

[Nikolai]

oki day

I see. no bother i stand corrected. still cant remember where i got that idea from but anyway. I know hindsight is great and all.

In Dec 1941, with the Germans on the outskirts of Moscow, the Soviets were able to transfer several Siberian divisions (well-trained, and well-equiped for winter warfare unlike the Germans),

very true, and you have actually re highlighted the fact that germanies delays in getting to Russia cost them dearly (good one Mussolini).

[combatlogo]

In fact if im right one of the best tank aces to appear in recent history Michael Wittmann was part of the Panzer Lehr.

Once again, you're wrong - Michael Wittman was in the SS Liebstandarte Division.

Had D day not been a worry for the Germans i think those 50 divisions could have made a big difference.

That's the exact point I made - and that's what you get for having a two-front war.

What I meant about the Russians winning without D-Day was that they wd have defeated Germany without the invasion of France. D-Day was as much about preventing Western Europe falling into Soviet hands as anything else.

YJ, I have done a lot of reading about the Battle of the Atlantic - I hold a revisionist view - the U-Boats never came close to cutting the Atlantic lifeline - when they began to approach doing so in March 1943, the Brits responded with decisve force so that two months later, Doenitz was forced to call off the campaign The other time the LOC's were threatened decisively was when the Bismarck got loose - the Brits met the threat with overwhelming force.

[Nikolai]

i am a bit confused

was he oh so he was, just checked the panzer ace website and it agrees. still you know what im gettin at and i have got the general idea right have i not. :D

[Nikolai]

on a different point

Did anybody here know that when the war ended the Allies discovered that the Germans had Developed and built a variant of the V2 capable of reaching new york. Also it was noted that this rocket allthough capable of delivering a TNT payload was designed to carry something else ( i would surmise Nuclear payload).
Also apparently according to a few documentaries i seen recently the Germans were toward the end of the war actually close to building an A bomb but got disrupted. An allied airraid designed to knock out power to a region of norway (i believe) accidently knocked the germans heavy water and uranium centre. the last point im unsure of but it has come up in 1 or 2 documentaries so there it is.

[yellowjacket]

Originally posted by combatlogo
YJ, I have done a lot of reading about the Battle of the Atlantic - I hold a revisionist view - the U-Boats never came close to cutting the Atlantic lifeline - when they began to approach doing so in March 1943, the Brits responded with decisve force so that two months later, Doenitz was forced to call off the campaign The other time the LOC's were threatened decisively was when the Bismarck got loose - the Brits met the threat with overwhelming force.

This is true, however that's in the context of Germany fighting on several fronts against many enemies. If they'd had the sense to hold off on Russia, and put their full energies into a naval blockade with intense aerial bombardment I reckon they could have put serious pressure on Britain to make a peace deal.

The uncertain variable in this is the USA, by mid 1941, officially neutral US warships were escorting allied convoys in the Western half of the Atlantic. Whether the potential starvation of the UK would enable Roosevelt to get a declaration of war out of Congress is hard to assess.