Could Germany have won WWII

**~~Broken~~** · 19 Jan 05,, 22:39

Originally Posted by lurker

Well, 41 in a whole was a very bad year to go to Russia. With very early autumn rains and very cold winter.

I don't think Hitler was wise to go into Russia at all. He should have focused on controlling the Med and the Mid-East. That would solve his oil problem and help push Britain over the brink.

But if invading the Soviet Union was the only option, 1941 was the window of opportunity. The Soviets hadn't finished their Army modernization, the T-34 and KV-1 were just coming into the field, and modern communications gear was still absent in most of the western border districts. By 1942, Soviet modernization would have been complete. The US would be in the war and an invasion of Russia would have been a much tougher proposition.

**CoyoteNature** · 20 Jan 05,, 04:29

I don't know Hitler made many mistakes, but I think the prime mistake was just ignoring the weather, like when Napoleon tried invading Russia and outfitted his troops with summer clothing.

If he had prepared more for the winter Hitler could have been quite successful.

Of course there's lots of ifs, like what if Hitler had supported the rocket program from early on in the war, then jet fighters might have entered the Battle of Britain and despite the Brit's bravery won.

Or what if Hitler's heavy water manufacturing process had come through, fact is he was darn close to making a A-bomb.

Another what if spawned from that, what if Hitler had won conquered Britain, kept the treath of neutrality with the Soviet Union. Then what would happen, would he have gone to war with the US, depends there were quite a lot of proGerman types there.

Also Hitler combining A-bomb technology with rocketry, probably would have led him to develop balistic missile technology way before either the Soviet Union or the US, what then annihalation for both.

I think Hitler should have consolidated what he had first, then moved onto conquering the rest, he was to impatient, should have kept the treaty of Neutrality, strengthened defenses on the continent, made peace motions to Britain and the US, then hammer away with renewed iniative later.

Another question, read stuff on Stalin, which was worse Hitler or Stalin?

I mean Stalin if one takes into account the people he let deliberately starve, rather then people he ordered killed, killed more people then Hitler ever did, and practically deified himself at the same time.

So which was the greater monster?

So another what if could the War have been won with just the US and Britain?, or was the great Man of Steel, the monster necessary?

**lurker** · 20 Jan 05,, 05:34

Originally Posted by Broken

But if invading the Soviet Union was the only option, 1941 was the window of opportunity. The Soviets hadn't finished their Army modernization, the T-34 and KV-1 were just coming into the field, and modern communications gear was still absent in most of the western border districts. By 1942, Soviet modernization would have been complete. The US would be in the war and an invasion of Russia would have a much tougher proposition.

Totally agree there.
There is also an opinion that if Germany haven't attacked USSR in 41, Stalin would probably attack Germany in 42-43. I think that is at least partially true.

**~~Broken~~** · 20 Jan 05,, 15:28

Originally Posted by CoyoteNature

Another question, read stuff on Stalin, which was worse Hitler or Stalin?

I mean Stalin if one takes into account the people he let deliberately starve, rather then people he ordered killed, killed more people then Hitler ever did, and practically deified himself at the same time.

So which was the greater monster?

So another what if could the War have been won with just the US and Britain?, or was the great Man of Steel, the monster necessary?

Sometimes, it takes a monster to kill a monster.

I can't imagine the US and Britain invading Europe without Russia tying down most of the German army. Churchill had to be dragged kicking and screaming into Overlord as it was. He saw an invasion of France as WWI all over again.

**BlueDiamonds** · 21 Jan 05,, 05:44

Originally Posted by CoyoteNature

I don't know Hitler made many mistakes, but I think the prime mistake was just ignoring the weather, like when Napoleon tried invading Russia and outfitted his troops with summer clothing.

If he had prepared more for the winter Hitler could have been quite successful.

If he had outfitted for winter, Stalin would have prepared (better) for an invasion. Stalin ignored his spies' warnings that the attack was coming because there was no increase in the German army's order of buttons for winter coats (Stalin had a spy in that factory).

Originally Posted by CoyoteNature

Of course there's lots of ifs, like what if Hitler had supported the rocket program from early on in the war, then jet fighters might have entered the Battle of Britain and despite the Brit's bravery won.

I agree, with long-range fighters the quality of the Me-262s he would have had air superiority over Britain, and would not have had to resort to the terror bombing. However, I think that program and the rocket program went as fast as it could have. The Me-262s were being worked on early in the war, but they didn't have the bugs worked out. Remember, Hitler wasn't thinking of a world war in 1938-1939. He wanted to get back what he perceived of as German lands, but didn't expect to have to get anything done before 1945.

Originally Posted by CoyoteNature

Or what if Hitler's heavy water manufacturing process had come through, fact is he was darn close to making a A-bomb.

I'll say it again - this is not true. German scientists either believed or at least convinced Hitler that the A-bomb was a long way off. They had a heavy water manufacturing plant, but it could not have produced enough for even a very small atomic research program. They would not have changed their mind until 1945, when the US deployed theirs, maybe 1944. It would have then taken them over a year, probably 2, to make a weapon. So he was not, under any conceivable scenario, close to making a bomb at any point.

Originally Posted by CoyoteNature

Also Hitler combining A-bomb technology with rocketry, probably would have led him to develop balistic missile technology way before either the Soviet Union or the US, what then annihalation for both.

The V-2 was a ballistic missile. So they already had one. They would have needed to increase its range and accuracy, which would have required a few years. They were, however, far ahead of the allies on this score.

Originally Posted by CoyoteNature

I think Hitler should have consolidated what he had first, then moved onto conquering the rest, he was to impatient, should have kept the treaty of Neutrality, strengthened defenses on the continent, made peace motions to Britain and the US, then hammer away with renewed iniative later.

The allies would have had the a-bomb regardless of Hitler's initiatives. By 1940 the allied scientists were convinced that Hitler's scientists (such as Bohr and Heisenberg) were quite capable of building the bomb. The US scientists were racing against them, and would not have let up regardless. So Hitler wouldn't have been able to do much after 1945 without incurring an atomic attack.

Originally Posted by CoyoteNature

IAnother question, read stuff on Stalin, which was worse Hitler or Stalin?

I mean Stalin if one takes into account the people he let deliberately starve, rather then people he ordered killed, killed more people then Hitler ever did, and practically deified himself at the same time.

So which was the greater monster?

It's pretty much a draw, except that Stalin did not explicitly attempt genocide on one race.

Originally Posted by CoyoteNature

So another what if could the War have been won with just the US and Britain?, or was the great Man of Steel, the monster necessary?

Stalin, and the vast numbers of Russian soldiers who were killed, were necessary. Their sacrifice destroyed Hitler's Wehrmacht. Without the tyranny of Stalin, it is unlikely anyone could have acheived such a sacrifice; any other country, under any other leader, would have broken under the devastation that the Wehrmacht inflicted. Pretty ironic.

**BlueDiamonds** · 21 Jan 05,, 05:59

Originally Posted by lurker

Totally agree there.
There is also an opinion that if Germany haven't attacked USSR in 41, Stalin would probably attack Germany in 42-43. I think that is at least partially true.

I agree. All this makes me wonder how anything could have gone differently.

If Hitler does not attack Russia, they attack Germany in '42 or '43, and Germany is defeated (since you'd have a Russia that hadn't been weakened by the blitzkrieg). If Hitler does attack in 1941, it is not clear to me that any of the "should-haves" were a sure-fire win for Germany. Under almost any scenario, the Russians can outproduce and outnumber Germany by 1942. Hitler himself said he wouldn't have tried to invade if he'd known how many tanks the Russians had. Hitler's generals were extremely pessimistic about being able to defeat the Russians.

**CoyoteNature** · 21 Jan 05,, 17:24

Actually the silly thing about the whole rocket program and the system connected with it was that Hitler did not support because of a dream he had of a rocket exploding, that was why he did not support it.

Which was silly because iniatially they were quite far along with their own program, probably because the Versailles Treaty allowed the Germans to develop rocket technology.

But due to Hitler's stupidity the entire program went on a shoestring until the very end of the war when he was actually getting desperate.

You can find this out in History of Rockets or whatever.

Stalin also ignored most of general's warnings, rather like Hitler did actually, He only listened when he was actually starting to lose and it looked like he personally might actually be affected.

So it's a open question as to how he would have reacted, or if indeed it would have mattered, considering he was terrible tactically.

Actually its kind of funny that Stalin was his own worst enemy, he was the real reason the Russians did so badly iniatially in the war.

"The allies would have had the a-bomb regardless of Hitler's initiatives. By 1940 the allied scientists were convinced that Hitler's scientists (such as Bohr and Heisenberg) were quite capable of building the bomb. The US scientists were racing against them, and would not have let up regardless. So Hitler wouldn't have been able to do much after 1945 without incurring an atomic attack"

I wasn't really talking about atomic attack here, more about conventional warfare, althouth the A-bomb might have led into it eventually, giving more time for its development.

**ASG** · 21 Jan 05,, 22:59

Germany would have won, had Hitler decided not to invade Russia.

**bonehead** · 23 Jan 05,, 22:29

Originally Posted by Maximus

Germany would have won, had Hitler decided not to invade Russia.

That would have been a safe bet if it could have been proven that Stalin would have returned the favor. Those german divisions that were tied up on the eastern front, coupled with competent leadership would have made the allies normandy invasion disasterous.

**BlueDiamonds** · 05 Feb 05,, 05:20

Originally Posted by Maximus

Germany would have won, had Hitler decided not to invade Russia.

Stalin was preparing for an invasion by Germany in 1942, and may have been preparing an invasion of Germany - they were hated rivals. If Hitler had not invaded Russia, in 1942 he would have been facing a hostile army on his border which had not just been reduced by several million men and scores of thousands of tanks. His situation would have been much worse.

**~~Prosto ILya~~** · 05 Feb 05,, 09:24

Originally Posted by CoyoteNature

Another question, read stuff on Stalin, which was worse Hitler or Stalin?

Hardly.

Originally Posted by CoyoteNature

I mean Stalin if one takes into account the people he let deliberately starve, rather then people he ordered killed, killed more people then Hitler ever did

Interesting math. Only Russian casualties in Great Patriotic War are more than 25 millions. Every third Belarus citizen were slain. Countless casualties in Ukraine, Kazahstan, Armenia, Georgia…

Originally Posted by CoyoteNature

So which was the greater monster?

Adolfik.

[/QUOTE]what if could the War have been won with just the US and Britain?, or was the great Man of Steel, the monster necessary?[/QUOTE]

Not the monster needed, but an army of Soviet Union. Besides our people had a quite strong motive – should Hitler succeed in his war against USSR great majority of Slavic nation would face total genocide.

p.s.
I am no Josef fan. Stalin was a monstrosity, many of my relatives were murdered by his orders. Golodomor in Ukraine, Mass murders all around Soviet Union, yes, nobody arguing.
But this man terrorized USSR, and Hitler – entire globe. I apologize for my harsh words, but I seen too many articles in foreign press and seen quite an interesting TV historical programs made-by-Discovery. Visited famous Freerepublic and read about disgusting soviet solders, that no better than Nazi.

**bonehead** · 15 Feb 05,, 17:06

The dogs of war.
You cant win wars without them and you can't look rightous when you let them loose.
I doubt there was ever an army that did not commit atrocities in war.

**lwarmonger** · 15 Feb 05,, 19:14

Originally Posted by BlueDiamonds

Stalin was preparing for an invasion by Germany in 1942, and may have been preparing an invasion of Germany - they were hated rivals. If Hitler had not invaded Russia, in 1942 he would have been facing a hostile army on his border which had not just been reduced by several million men and scores of thousands of tanks. His situation would have been much worse.

Absolutely correct. Hitler's mistake came not from invading Russia, but from not preparing for a two year campaign against Russia. The winter was a large part of what defeated Hitler, and a refusal to go to a full war footing contributed largely to his defeat as well. Germany was never really prepared for a long war until Speer's reforms began to take effect (1943), and by then it was too late to knock the Soviet Union out of the conflict.

**scotsboyuk** · 18 Feb 05,, 00:11

The interesting thing about Hitler's campaign in Russia, indeed his entire conduct of the war, was that it was never a 'total war' until the latter stages. Even in 1943 the Nazis continued to direct valuable resources to the production of domestic goods to keep morale up in Germany as they were fearful, almost to the point of paranoia, of a collapse in morale like there had been in 1918.

Hitler's greatest chance of winning the war was at Dunkirk. If he had pressed the advantage and destroyed the B.E.F. and French forces that were escaping he would have dealt a very serious blow to Britain. Without the men that were evacuated Britain would have had very few experienced troops to send to Egypt, which would have almost certainly resulted in the capture of the Suez Canal. With the Canal in Axis hands and an open path to to both Iraqi and Persian oil supplies, Britain would have been forced to reach India and the rest of the Far Eastern Empire by the longer Cape route.

With reduced Britishs upport, India would have had to have relied upon Australia and New Zealand for heavy industry, somethingt hat neither country could provide in adequate quantities. The Eastern Empire would have had to look to its own defence and it seems highly unlikely that it would have been able to ward of the Japanese with its limited resources.

Britain itself would have been desperately short of experienced troops to defend itself, although this wouldn't matter too much if the airwar could be won. The real damage would have bene if the Axis had taken the Middle East. Britain would have remained a lone outpost of freedom as Hitler was able to attack the U.S.S.R. in both Europe and through Central Asia, with access to valued Middle Eastern reources. Egypt's fall would also have meant that the Mediterranean and Africa would have come under Acis control, allowing the Italians and Germans to free up resources for a war against the U.S.S.R.

The only other point in the war that could have tipped the balance in favour of Germany was the Battle of Britain. If the R.A.F. had lost then the Germans could have invaded Great Britain. The actual success of such an invasion has been hotly debated, it wuld certainly have been nothing like the D-Day landings, the Germans relying upon barges instead of landing craft to transport their troops. There would have been jolly fierce resistance of course, the official government policy was to 'take one with you', in essence promoting the idea of ordinary British subjects giving their lives in defence of the country. Without the necessary levels of troops or equipment, it is unlikely that Britain could have successfully resisted the Germans. With defeat imminent it is likely that the government and the Royal Family would have fled to one of the Dominions, probably Canada, to set up a government in exile and continue the war from afar, although it is uncertain how effective such a campaign could have been.

In this last scenario I have a sort of romantic, and probably correct, notion of the King and Churchill refusing to leave; I doubt very much that either of them would have abandoned the capital and I am almost certain that Churchill would have died a very happy man if he had died fighting in defence of his country.

**Longshot** · 21 Feb 05,, 23:09

Only if Hitler wasn't in control.

View Poll Results: Could Germany have won WW II

Thread: Could Germany have won WWII

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Rate This Thread

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Similar Threads

Poland begs Germany to Salvage Poland

Key US forces to stay in Germany

Who is better general?

If Germany had won WWI

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions