Could Germany have won WWII

[Parihaka]

Sea Lion was not viable. That's the point. It was not viable from a planning perspective and it certainly ain't viable from a 20/20 hindsight. The Wehrmacht would have to make a force landing against entrenched defences, even right after Dunkirk. They would have been chopped to bits.

There was a glimmer of hope when Goering promised the impossible but it was the impossible. The combined allied heavy bomber forces did not destroy the defences at Normandy, let alone Calais, the smaller and lighter bomber force of the Luftwaffle would do far, far less.

Professional soldiers of two eras did not think this would work and you think it would and you're calling us schoolboys.

Sir, in retrospect my comment "schoolboy fantasies" was inapropriate personal comment and apologise unreservedly. I do however reserve the right to continue to question your assertions, especially when made without any posted confirming data.
sincerely parihaka

[Bill]

The fact that he is a former Lt.Colonel of the Canadian Armed forces, and that he's studied this issue in a National war college is confirmation that he's well informed.

You want him to provide you a link to some other Lt. Colonel stating his opinion instead? What would be the difference?

[Parihaka]

You want him to provide you a link to some other Lt. Colonel stating his opinion instead? What would be the difference?

not at all, but whats wrong with background data? same applies to you. is it an insult to ask you to provide evidence of your opinions? are you telling me that any assertion or opinion on this site is unquestionable?

[Bill]

No, i'm telling you that because of the Colonels education and background that he is rightly considered an expert on the subject of warfare.

[Officer of Engineers]

You did not ask for background data. You insulted us without reading what we've said. And I'm not going to look up everyone of my references, including the original orders in archives at RMC, just to get into a pissing contest.

Both M21 and I could go into operational details from memory but I'm not about to quote page by page FM-3.

If you want to ask for our reasoning, go right ahead. We'll enjoy that. But quoting sources without understanding the context that we're speaking about and insulting us at the same time, well, I'm too damned old to get into pissing contests anymore.

[Bill]

That's my job.

[The Chap]

I'm always keen to help out in a pissing contest. Germany lost, not in my assesment, due to manufacturing shortcommings, two fronts, Hitlerian interference in staff decisions, so on, but because their Humint was piss poor. I mean really bad. On Sealion: OoE - you sir, are being far too polite to your detractors! Barges? Across the channel? With sweet F/A air cover?

One good agent can be worth a division. A stiff upper lip in an opponent can also be troubling I gather. As can a proud tradition of shitting on continental beligerants.

[Bill]

"Spies are always useful, and one can never have too many".

Sun Tzu.

[Parihaka]

OoE - you sir, are being far too polite to your detractors! Barges? Across the channel? With sweet F/A air cover?

wot? you mean dunkirk?

[The Chap]

wot? you mean dunkirk?

You know exactly what I mean, you cheeky sod
The flat bottomed jobbies that they made a half arsed job of re-jigging, captured in the channel ports of northen nations overrun.

[Parihaka]

You know exactly what I mean, you cheeky sod

i do indeed, 168 transports (of 700,000 tons)
1,910 barges
419 tugs and trawlers
1,600 motor-boats

not a show, but still worth an argument, just not against OoE

[Lucien LaCroix]

Ok here goes. As my first post and thread to this board I am asking a very simple question. Could Germany have won in world war 2 or not.If so in what ways would things have had to have been done because obviously they would have had to do something different.

Germany POSSIBLY could not have won WWII. I offer my opinion not in terms of a tactical evaluation of history's events but, rather, as an evaluation--simply put--of Hitler's stupidity with regard of his conduct of the war.

Energy drives everything--be it in peacetime or wartime. Germany was a dependent-nation on the issue of oil. Had Hitler devoted his war-making effort to the conquest of Africe versus Russia and England, then he would have likely acquired the energy sources (via the Middle East) to sustain his war efforts. Then he could have had his way, in due time, with the rest of the world.

[mididoctors]

I was amazed at the poll results that indicated that the majority thought the Germans could have won....

with all the facts in and hindsight why on earth does any one think this nonsense..

the number of hurdles they need to overcome is a chain of ridiculous dimensions that hardly warrants an attempt even to answer.

The premise is riduclous not least from the Third Reich own bureaucratic incompetence if nothing else.

I love a counter factual and expect some dissenters but this result is disturbing

Boris
London

[BlueDiamonds]

I have always been fascinated by this topic. As far as credentials, since this has been an issue recently, I have only amateur historian status (although I was an air force pilot for a while). I have read quite a bit, but not exhaustively, on this subject.

Germany made a number of large mistakes, which, in hindsight, are easy to criticize. Whether they could have made different choices given what information they had is questionable. This is a key point - a much different outcome is possible when we view Germany's wartime decisions in hindsight. It is difficult, however, to put ourselves in the place of Germany at the time, with only the information they had at the time. In that light it seems unlikely anything but what happened could have happened.

That being said, however, several things seem to be true:

1. German soldiers, tactics, and equipment were, in general, superior to that of the Allies.
2. The Allies chief advantage was manpower and production capability.
3. Britain expected an invasion and expected to not be able to withstand the Germans.
4. Operation Sea Lion, and several other German operations, were bad ideas which probably (or did) fail. This is not to say other plans wouldn't have succeeded, but again, it is unclear whether the Germans had sufficient information to make other choices.
5. It seems unlikely that Germany could have succeeded in the long run in occupying all of Russia, even with no help from anyone for the Russians. However, better choices could have made Barbarossa a significantly greater success which would have improved Germany's strategic position immensely. I personally believe Germany could have held much of the western part of what was later the USSR for a considerable period of time, but I have little support for that position.
6. US participation was crucial to preventing Germany from dominating all of Europe.
7. The loss of Britain and a successful occupation of the USSR up to the Urals would have made it very difficult for the Soviets to mount a successful attack on Germany, although it is probably impossible to presume what would have occurred in this case. It also might have kept the US from liberating Europe.

I personally do not know what Hitler's long-term intentions were (but it isn't hard to imagine him not being satisfied with just Europe), but it seems that with the perfect foresight Hitler could have secured Europe (including Britain and Western parts of the USSR) for quite a while, if not indefinitely.

[Veni Vidi Vici]

I don't quite understand this thread. I mean under the right circumstances anything could have happened. Under the right circumsatances the French resistance could have won.... ok maby thats a bit much but you get my drift eh?