Could Germany have won WWII

[Bill]

Well the certain conditions we must meet for a german victory really did not exist.

[Officer of Engineers]

Bluediamond,

If you do not mind a bellycrawler challenging some of your points,

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.

I disagree on this point. The Americans gave the Germans lessons in strategic manouver and Zuhkov ran circles around all his German counterparts.

3. Britain expected an invasion and expected to not be able to withstand the Germans.

Churchill certainly gave another impression. However, given the natures of both Sea Lion and the fresh troops on the British Isles, I strongly suspect 1st contact would have changed alot of minds.

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 would like to know what you think the German failure point is. The general historic view (and mine) was Stalingrad. I need to know your answer before I can proceed with my questioning of this point.

[Bill]

To me the historical failure point was the BoB.

[Officer of Engineers]

To me the historical failure point was the BoB.

M21,

There are two BoBs. Battle of the Buldge and the Battle of Berlin. I'm assuming you meant the 1st. The 2nd is obvious why it's a failure point for Germany. However, can I ask you to go into your reasoning?

The Battle of the Buldge certainly aided tremendously for the Russians to mount the Battle of Berlin but was it a crippling blow?

[Bill]

I actually meant the other BoB....the Battle of Britian.

Once the nazi's failed to force the UK to accept peace, it was over for them, regardless of what happened in the East or elsewhere.

It was from that point on just a matter of time...

[BlueDiamonds]

German failure point

Bluediamond,

If you do not mind a bellycrawler challenging some of your points,

In fact I'd appreciate it ... I have only my un-argued opinions from what I've read, and I've never had the opportunity you had to study this from the military's perspective.

I disagree on this point. The Americans gave the Germans lessons in strategic manouver and Zuhkov ran circles around all his German counterparts.

The Russians had the advantage of not being answerable for large numbers of casualties. The Americans and British, because of the nature of their society, had soldiers and leaders which were (fortunately) more cautious about casualties. The Germans were under a situation similar to the Russians in that they worked for a ruthless dictator.

I am less familiar with Russian military efforts than American and British, and have not read anything on Zhukov (although I know he is considered one of the best of the war). I'm reading a book now on the battle for Germany in 1944-1945, and the description of the American and (especially) the British efforts have been echoed for other parts of the war. During that time, despite having an overwhelming superiority in manpower and material, it took the western Allies a great deal of time and blood to defeat a vastly inferior force using superior tactics. The Germans knew how to exploit advantages and punish mistakes to a far greater extent than the Americans or British. The British showed little initiative during this period in particular, and there were serious mistakes made by a number of American military leaders as well. Patton is an obvious exception - his aggressiveness was so respected by the Germans that it was used against them, and if he had been used in 1944 the western Allies may have beaten the Russians to Germany (which would have been much better for the Germans by the way).

I'm sure there are other examples of American strategic thinking I am unaware of, and I'd appreciate a few examples I can research.

Churchill certainly gave another impression. However, given the natures of both Sea Lion and the fresh troops on the British Isles, I strongly suspect 1st contact would have changed alot of minds.

I was basing this on declassified British documents (I can't recall the origin but I can find out) which seemed to indicate that even Churchill did not believe that the British could hold out (at least on the British Isles) if the Germans invaded in force. It turns out that, for the Germans, it was the getting there that was the hard part, so no one had to find out.

I would like to know what you think the German failure point is. The general historic view (and mine) was Stalingrad. I need to know your answer before I can proceed with my questioning of this point.

Hmmn, this is a tough question. I definitely think that Stalingrad was Hitler's most devastating mistake. At Stalingrad there were numerous mistakes made (all by Hitler and Goering pretty much), but after Paulus capitulated it was over for Germany - they could not recover from the loss of an entire army and its material, particularly after losing as many men as they did in getting to Stalingrad. It's hard, though, for me to speculate on what would have occurred had Hitler not made this blunder - could they have held up if they didn't divert armor south and instead concentrated on taking Stalingrad before the Russians could set up its defenses? Zhukov still would have had the capability to counter-attack in the winter. What if they had pulled back and set up a defensive position as was requested by the Paulus and others? I also agree that not taking Britain inevitably led to the invasion of Europe, but it is unclear whether, without the great losses in the East, Germany could not have resisted at least better, if not repulsed this entirely.

[Bill]

Once the Nazis failed to force Britian out of the war it was over.

[Officer of Engineers]

The Russians had the advantage of not being answerable for large numbers of casualties. The Americans and British, because of the nature of their society, had soldiers and leaders which were (fortunately) more cautious about casualties. The Germans were under a situation similar to the Russians in that they worked for a ruthless dictator.

Manouver warfare is actually two parts. Your ability to manouver and your ability to deny manouver to the enemy. The Soviets effectively ended blitzkreig at Kursk and western Allied air superiority never allowed the Wehrmacht to manover.

At the strategic level, the ETO was really a war of the generals. You got a very personal feel of each of the generals: Rommel, Kesselring, Von Manstein, Patton, Bradley, Montgomery, and Canadian General Simmds (of which I of course am extremely familiar with). Patton and Rommel are really company level commanders operating at the division level, each readily ignoring prepared planning and took the field to meet and engage the enemy head on. Both were lucky in finding the right centre of mass with an appropriate force.

At the operations level, the Colonels and the LCols had alot more manouver room. When you examined the Battles of the Schelt (a very under-rated strategic battle in which the Canadians finally captured the ever most important port on the continent), both sides exercise manouver and the lack of manouver equally.

I am less familiar with Russian military efforts than American and British, and have not read anything on Zhukov (although I know he is considered one of the best of the war). I'm reading a book now on the battle for Germany in 1944-1945, and the description of the American and (especially) the British efforts have been echoed for other parts of the war. During that time, despite having an overwhelming superiority in manpower and material, it took the western Allies a great deal of time and blood to defeat a vastly inferior force using superior tactics. The Germans knew how to exploit advantages and punish mistakes to a far greater extent than the Americans or British. The British showed little initiative during this period in particular, and there were serious mistakes made by a number of American military leaders as well. Patton is an obvious exception - his aggressiveness was so respected by the Germans that it was used against them, and if he had been used in 1944 the western Allies may have beaten the Russians to Germany (which would have been much better for the Germans by the way).

I'm sure there are other examples of American strategic thinking I am unaware of, and I'd appreciate a few examples I can research.

Patton is the most obvious but Bradley and Montgomery's Market Garden should be examined as examples of Allied strategic manouver. Never mind the failure but just the boldness of the vision and the gamble that it took matched anything the Wehrmacht could have come up with.

I especially like Bradley's campaigns in the Rhineland. The Force assembly is a thing of beauty.

I was basing this on declassified British documents (I can't recall the origin but I can find out) which seemed to indicate that even Churchill did not believe that the British could hold out (at least on the British Isles) if the Germans invaded in force. It turns out that, for the Germans, it was the getting there that was the hard part, so no one had to find out.

Extreme ignorance on everyone's part (except the US who had vast experiences at force landings in the PTO). Dieppe represented the height of the ignorance on both sides of the Atlantic about the feasibility of a force landing against a prepared defence.

Hmmn, this is a tough question. I definitely think that Stalingrad was Hitler's most devastating mistake. At Stalingrad there were numerous mistakes made (all by Hitler and Goering pretty much), but after Paulus capitulated it was over for Germany - they could not recover from the loss of an entire army and its material, particularly after losing as many men as they did in getting to Stalingrad. It's hard, though, for me to speculate on what would have occurred had Hitler not made this blunder - could they have held up if they didn't divert armor south and instead concentrated on taking Stalingrad before the Russians could set up its defenses? Zhukov still would have had the capability to counter-attack in the winter. What if they had pulled back and set up a defensive position as was requested by the Paulus and others? I also agree that not taking Britain inevitably led to the invasion of Europe, but it is unclear whether, without the great losses in the East, Germany could not have resisted at least better, if not repulsed this entirely.

This raises the question to which no one has yet to give me an answer. Without taking Stalingrad, could the Nazis have gotten to the Urals? And that is the premis about how the Nazis could have won the war against the USSR. I just don't see it. Without taking Stalingrad and Leningrad, the Wehrmacht would have faced the exact same situation they had with the Afrika Korps at El Alamein.

[The Chap]

This raises the question to which no one has yet to give me an answer. Without taking Stalingrad, could the Nazis have gotten to the Urals? And that is the premis about how the Nazis could have won the war against the USSR. I just don't see it. Without taking Stalingrad and Leningrad, the Wehrmacht would have faced the exact same situation they had with the Afrika Korps at El Alamein.

Depends on the time of year, I imagine.
LG had to be buggered as the centre of KV series mbt production. Should LG have been strictly a punative action then the army groups could have possibly secured SG and then hence on to the Uruls.
Rather the acting as suface raiders, obvious ships could have certainly blocked the Baltics fully and therefore prevented Allied help to the Soviet machine. :)

[BlueDiamonds]

At the operations level, the Colonels and the LCols had alot more manouver room. When you examined the Battles of the Schelt (a very under-rated strategic battle in which the Canadians finally captured the ever most important port on the continent), both sides exercise manouver and the lack of manouver equally.

I am somewhat familiar with the Holland battles. The Canadians were sent in to clean up the mess that the British had made by not securing the entries to the port of Antwerp. That should have taken only days after getting to Antwerp, but lack of initiative on the part of the British allowed the Germans to regroup, forcing a long and costly battle several months later. It was a huge mistake by the British - the entire thrust toward Germany required the Antwerp port. From what I understand, the Canadians performed very well despite being somewhat handicapped by their government limiting deployments to volunteers.

Patton is the most obvious but Bradley and Montgomery's Market Garden should be examined as examples of Allied strategic manouver. Never mind the failure but just the boldness of the vision and the gamble that it took matched anything the Wehrmacht could have come up with.

Hmmn, I view Market Garden as a blunder. It diverted men and material from the other fronts in an extremely risky adventure. It is true, however, that it was one of Montgomery's only bold plans of the war; he was otherwise quite cautious. I don't believe it had any realistic chance of succeeding. In any case, dropping the British paratroopers so far from Arnhem doomed them. XXX Corps had a difficult task to get so far along such a narrow corridor - they were very vulnerable, and could not maneuver anywhere but on the road. Paratroopers at that time could not have held out very long against any significant force, and even under good conditions (and with no tanks breaking down and blocking the road) it would have taken XXX Corps too long to get to Arnhem.

Extreme ignorance on everyone's part (except the US who had vast experiences at force landings in the PTO). Dieppe represented the height of the ignorance on both sides of the Atlantic about the feasibility of a force landing against a prepared defence.

Obviously Hitler didn't feel like it could work - and he wasn't one to shrink from a military "challenge." What I read did not take up the question as to why Germany did not invade - something else for me to research a bit.

This raises the question to which no one has yet to give me an answer. Without taking Stalingrad, could the Nazis have gotten to the Urals? And that is the premis about how the Nazis could have won the war against the USSR. I just don't see it. Without taking Stalingrad and Leningrad, the Wehrmacht would have faced the exact same situation they had with the Afrika Korps at El Alamein.

The Germans did not have a bomber fleet with sufficient range. They'd have had a tough time getting to the Urals. So I agree - they'd have had to take Stalingrad.

[Bill]

Personally i think it would've been wiser to cordon and bypass Stalingrad.

It had no real military importance, Hitler was just fixated on destroying the namesake of his hated rival.

[antelope]

Could Germany defeat the combined forces of the USSR, USA, Britain, and France all working in concert ...of course not.

Germany however could have "won" World War II if it simply avoided wars with nations it couldn't defeat in any forseeable time horizon, the USA primarily. Germany wasn't going to build a giant Navy and conqueor North America under any reasonable scenario.

How do you keep America out of the war? In public Germany should blame Britain for starting the war, after all Britain declared war on Germany not the other way around. Attack Britain while continually asking in public for an armistice. Make it look like Britain is the reason the war is going on. With Germany asking for peace the anti-war element in America wouldn't want to get involved. In time I suspect the British people would tire of the war and accept "peace".

In the event Britain did not accept "peace" with a Germany only at war with Britain, not the USSR I think it would only be a question of time before Germany did gain the air supremacy it did not have during the "Battle of Britain". With total air supremacy a cross channel invasion of Britain could occur. As noted earlier in the thread even the British thought Hitler could succeed.

Only after Britain was out of the war either through diplomacy or invasion should the Germans have faced the USSR. With a homeland not subject to American and British aerial bombardment German industry and transportation would have made the German-Soviet War quite different. I even envision a strategic air campaign deep into Russia under this scenario as the needs of the war changed German strategy from what we did see historically.

Without American resupply and the U.S. Army Air Force providing the Russians a strategic air assault on the German homeland I think the war would have been very different. It still would have been at a minimum a two to three year war against the Russians but I think Germany could have prevailed.

[Officer of Engineers]

I am somewhat familiar with the Holland battles. The Canadians were sent in to clean up the mess that the British had made by not securing the entries to the port of Antwerp. That should have taken only days after getting to Antwerp, but lack of initiative on the part of the British allowed the Germans to regroup, forcing a long and costly battle several months later. It was a huge mistake by the British - the entire thrust toward Germany required the Antwerp port. From what I understand, the Canadians performed very well despite being somewhat handicapped by their government limiting deployments to volunteers.

Sorry for my point not being clear. At the battalion and platoon level, the tactics between everyone was about the same.

Hmmn, I view Market Garden as a blunder. It diverted men and material from the other fronts in an extremely risky adventure. It is true, however, that it was one of Montgomery's only bold plans of the war; he was otherwise quite cautious. I don't believe it had any realistic chance of succeeding. In any case, dropping the British paratroopers so far from Arnhem doomed them. XXX Corps had a difficult task to get so far along such a narrow corridor - they were very vulnerable, and could not maneuver anywhere but on the road. Paratroopers at that time could not have held out very long against any significant force, and even under good conditions (and with no tanks breaking down and blocking the road) it would have taken XXX Corps too long to get to Arnhem.

We all have the advantage of hindsight. I tried looking at this without knowing the results and seeing what Montgomery (and by extension, Eisenhower) saw. There were serious risks and under-eval of the threats but from that perspective, the risks were acceptable. And despite all that, it was close. Damned close in achieving the break through everyone wanted.

And from hindsight, there were also alot of risks on Wehrmacht victories. When the Germans smashed through Belgium, they ran out of fuel right at Dunkirk. Just 40 miles across the Channel were 2 fresh Canadian divisions.

Luck was a major factor as well as manouver.

Obviously Hitler didn't feel like it could work - and he wasn't one to shrink from a military "challenge." What I read did not take up the question as to why Germany did not invade - something else for me to research a bit.

REALLY GOOD OBSERVATION and one I haven't thought about before. Thank you very much for pointing me to do a little more research here. Looking forward to comparing notes.

The Germans did not have a bomber fleet with sufficient range. They'd have had a tough time getting to the Urals. So I agree - they'd have had to take Stalingrad.

Which again brings the point that they could not have won Stalingrad. When Zhukov launched his offensive, he launched it against both Paulis and Von Manstein. Von Manstein won. Paulis lost. And even then, once Paulis lost Stalingrad, Von Manstein's position was unattainable and had to withdraw.

Personally i think it would've been wiser to cordon and bypass Stalingrad.

It had no real military importance, Hitler was just fixated on destroying the namesake of his hated rival.

Bad idea leaving a fully functional and an intact enemy army in your backyard.

[Officer of Engineers]

Could Germany defeat the combined forces of the USSR, USA, Britain, and France all working in concert ...of course not.

Actually, it was the USSR, USA, Great Britain, and the Dominion of Canada. France capitulated.

Germany however could have "won" World War II if it simply avoided wars with nations it couldn't defeat in any forseeable time horizon, the USA primarily. Germany wasn't going to build a giant Navy and conqueor North America under any reasonable scenario.

How do you keep America out of the war? In public Germany should blame Britain for starting the war, after all Britain declared war on Germany not the other way around. Attack Britain while continually asking in public for an armistice. Make it look like Britain is the reason the war is going on. With Germany asking for peace the anti-war element in America wouldn't want to get involved. In time I suspect the British people would tire of the war and accept "peace".

Perhaps you could explain in detail with the chronology involved. The British and the Canadians were more than holding their own with the American Lend-Lease in full steam. This was before the Americans declared war which happenned when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour and not before.

In the event Britain did not accept "peace" with a Germany only at war with Britain, not the USSR I think it would only be a question of time before Germany did gain the air supremacy it did not have during the "Battle of Britain". With total air supremacy a cross channel invasion of Britain could occur. As noted earlier in the thread even the British thought Hitler could succeed.

Also noted in this thread, Sea Lion was a disaster waiting to happen. In other words, the Brits may not would have won the Battle of Britain but they would more than make that up in winning against Sea Lion.

Only after Britain was out of the war either through diplomacy or invasion should the Germans have faced the USSR. With a homeland not subject to American and British aerial bombardment German industry and transportation would have made the German-Soviet War quite different. I even envision a strategic air campaign deep into Russia under this scenario as the needs of the war changed German strategy from what we did see historically.

The sticking point here again is Stalingrad.

Without American resupply and the U.S. Army Air Force providing the Russians a strategic air assault on the German homeland I think the war would have been very different. It still would have been at a minimum a two to three year war against the Russians but I think Germany could have prevailed.

The Russians were safe at the Urals with or without American involvement and given that Stalingrad could not have been won, how would the Nazis win the Russian Front?

[aussie]

No one will ever be able to take over Russia. Russians will die before surrendering. I remember my teacher telling me a story several years back that a few commanders of Russias military were jailed for bad decisions. When things got worse for the Russians they released them from jail and the commanders went back to lead the military proudly. This shows love and passion for their country.

Also you have to have a 100 percent complete take over or the Siberian winter will definetely kill all who invade!!!!!

Germans losses against Russia in my opinion cost them world war 2!!!!