could hitler win the war?

I read the same and agree. The trucks sent by the US made the logistics of a huge army much much easier and more moble. It gave the Red Army the mobility to keep ahead of the Wehrmacht and no matter how much the Russians downplay the assistance they received, this is a fact.

 

I'm not so sure, from some info I've been looking at recently it looks like lend lease didn't begin to help until the tide had been turned. The RKKA truck park in 1941 stood at 272k, by the end of the year with vehicles taken out of the civilian sector, new production and despite losses this had risen to 318k with 0.4% being imported models.

One year later on 1 January 1943 it was just short of 405k, non-domestic production (captured and Lend Lease represented just 6.1% of the total)

It was after that date that LL trucks started to flood in. Domestic production simply kept pace with losses while all growth came from captured and Lend Lease types so by 01/01/45 of the 621k trucks in the truck park 395k were domestic production, 191k were imported and 35k were captured.

All this info and more can be found at:

http://www.1jma.dk/articles/1jmaarticlelendlease.htm

Clearly since the bulk of lend lease production arrived after Stalingrad it didn't 'save' the USSR though of course it helped in the last years. Looks to me like another case of 'the victory would have taken longer.' USSR would still have won though.

Historian #6: Keep in mind that whilst Germany was in a period of military build up, so was the USSR. Soviet production was higher than that of Germany, reserves of manpower were greater, Stalin knew a war was coming, he just didn't believe Hitler would start it at that point. Seriously, if Germany had started the war in 1943 the outcome would have been just the same, Germany may have been able to defeat Britain at sea but at the end of the day Russia is a big place and would have been doggedly defended, I can't see Germany winning.

 

But numbers alone offer no advantage for example 10 mg42s vs 100 footsoldiers.Mg42s win ok on open level ground

Even thogh Germany was highly outnumbered Germany did some pretty serious damage to the Soviets dispite being outnumbered.

Russia is
a big country true but the vast amount of land tht Germany captured in the first month of campagin makes up a decent percentage of the total area captured in the whole war with Russia.

There are so many of possible outcomes on how the Russian campaign could of gone, it only takes a change in the weather to mess things up.

(if Germany had started the war in 1943 the outcome would have been just the same}
The thing is no one could say that for sure.There could be a great German discovery on a new weapon and tht new weapon massed produced to have a advantage over the Russian campagin or vice versa for the Soviets.This is just one of a near endless list of possible things tht COULD of happend.

 

Actually the Russians have never downplayed this fact. In fact even in the video that Za had provided us of the 1945 Soviet victory parade in front of Stalin, U.S. trucks were present and were carrying Katyusha rockets along with other weapons. Till this day when a WW2 movie is made the viewer can always see American trucks and jeeps carrying Soviet troops to and from the front. Russia has never denied or downplayed the mobile transportation that they received. On the contrary they till this day are very thankful!!

 

Rifleman1987,

Yes, Germany did some very serious damage however most were civilian. In fact if you look at the figures of military casualties, the Germans lost more. Soviets lost slightly more then 8 million, Germans lost a little more then 10 million on the Eastern Front. So the argument of Germany causing more damge while being outnumbered is only valid if you include the Soviet civilian population.

Oh and I have to agree with Stefan when he said that the weather as an excuse, is becoming rather old. Russians suffered just as bad as the Germans did. Please keep in mind that at the outbreak of the war, the "IVAN" was not only caught by surprise but was also outmanned and outgunned not to mention facing a much more sophisticated, modern and experienced military under complete protection of the Luftwaffe. Meanwhile the " Ivan " had to share a rifle between 2 men( this ofcourse changed as the war progressed ). Also some of the worst setbacks for the Germans happend in the summer not the winter ( Kursk )

 

Hmm. There have been 'unofficial' downplaying of the role of the assistance received. I should have been more specific in my responses. As a matter of fact, there have been debates on the value of the assistance on this forum. but we all agree that the trucks did make a significant contribution to the operations of the Red Army

 

Absolutely!!! While most say that the Lend Lease was not a determining factor in the Soviet's success in the east, it absolutely ( motorised transportion ) made things a lot easier.

 

PzJgr, that's for sure. Russian vet's will rarely mention any of the aid provided by the west and when tehy do it's hardly ever in a positive manner (hatred of Spam, various rude things USA could stand for and so on).

Rifleman, you ignore one simple fact. The Germans had limited numbers with which to control a massive area, the population of which quickly turned against them to an extent hardly understood in the west. At the same time, they had to put troops along a huge front, the troops would be thinly spread and ill supplied whatever happened. Now, if the USSR had managed the industrial buildup they had planned, not to mention replaced the officers lost in the purges, I reckon the USSR could have been just as much of a match for Nazi Germany as they were in real life.

 

Just gotta wonder when you look at WW2 how first Stalin ( 1938 ) and then Hitler ( 1943-> ) considered that political view was more important than military wisdom...I think the Red Army had political commissars ( politruk ) or whatever they were called later on in the HQ´s at every level watching the decision making even if they could not make decisions themselves (?!). Stalin however got wiser during the war unlike Hitler in choosing generals.

 

Well, up until 1942 (tail end) there was a two tier command system above company level, any decision made by the military commander could be countermanded by his politruk (political officer). Below company level there was a network of appointed political representatives, all of whom took note of and reported on the conduct and morale of soldiers and officers.

After 1942 things changed significantly, political troops remained responsible for morale, disseminating propaganda and so on, they also controled dicipline but lost powers to countermand orders.

 

the system seemed far too complex, and i think that was a factor in germanys downfall

 

For example making Himmler commander of the Army group in the decisive battles in 1945? Hitler was really losing it.

 

Yes but then again by 1945 Hitler could have made anyone a commander and it really wouldnt have done much good.

 

Stefan posts:
posted 06 December, 2006 08:21 AM


Historian #6: Keep in mind that whilst Germany was in a period of military build up, so was the USSR. Soviet production was higher than that of Germany, reserves of manpower were greater, Stalin knew a war was coming, he just didn't believe Hitler would start it at that point. Seriously, if Germany had started the war in 1943 the outcome would have been just the same, Germany may have been able to defeat Britain at sea but at the end of the day Russia is a big place and would have been doggedly defended, I can't see Germany winning

Please consider again. Had the war been postpond until 1943, then with Germany able to knock Britain out of the war within a year of so, then that would have freed up the majority of the Luftwaffe which was stationed in the West opposite England.

Consider too that the German-Soviet war would not begun until Britain was in pretty dire straits. As it was, Churchill was getting very worried until Hitler made the huge blunder of attacking the USSR.

Yes, the defeat of Germany was determined by the War in the East, but that war was fairly closely run. What would have been the impact of all the equipment, men, energy and mental concentration had the Germans no longer had had to worry of the West?

And though the Soviets, too, were developing their industrial capacity, on paper, at the same or greater rate than Germany, they were also not as a stable and united people as they were once they attacked.what would have been the impact of discordant chords of another purge or two by Stalin upon the morale of the Red Army?

Well, it is all speculation.

But the biggest impact of the removal of Britain in a 1943 launch war may have been the removal of Bletchy Park and the signel intelligence there derived. I am not just talking about Ultra intelligence but the Magic intelligence from Ambassador Ohara (Japanese Ambassador stationed in Berlin), who told Allied Intelligence what Hitler was thinking.

Eliminate the British and it likely that Franco of Spain would have been less hesitant about supplying Wolfram ore to Germany.

Eliminate Britain and it is likely the Traffic via submarine between Germany and Japan would have been more productive. As it was very unproductive in real life does not demonstrate what it could have done. As it was, it provided Japan with the technology to build a prototype of the ME-262 Jet. Given time and a defeated Britain, what would have been the impact of the Japanse hhegemony on the war on USA, and the eventual impact that would have had on the war with America, and how would that have impacted the German war with Russia.

There are just too many ramifications to puzzle out with a quick dismissal.

 

Just flipped through a book titled "How Hitler could have won" at Barnes & noble. He mentions the nuke topic & commented that the US would be much less likely to use it against a Germany in control of Europe, very different to a nearly defeated Japan.

He goes on to mention essentially what has been covered before in the southern route strategy, which is to concentrate on running British out of Egypt, capturing Iranian black gold, which then puts them at Baku's doorstep & well you can guess the rest.

http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/excerpts/hitlercouldhavewon.aspx

The way to victory was not through a frontal attack on the Soviet Union but an indirect approach through North Africa. This route was so obvious that all the British leaders saw it, as did a number of the German leaders, including Alfred Jodl, chief of operations of the armed forces; Erich Raeder, commander of the German Navy, and Erwin Rommel, destined to gain fame in North Africa as the Desert Fox.

After the destruction of France's military power in 1940, Britain was left with only a single armored division to protect Egypt and the Suez Canal. Germany had twenty armored divisions, none being used. If the Axis--- Germany and its ally Italy---had used only four of these divisions to seize the Suez Canal, the British Royal Navy would have been compelled to abandon the Mediterranean Sea, turning it into an Axis lake. French North Africa--- Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia---could have been occupied, and German forces could have seized Dakar in Senegal on the west coast of Africa, from which submarines and aircraft could have dominated the main South Atlantic sea routes.

With no hope of aid, Yugoslavia and Greece would have been forced to come to terms. Since Hitler gained the support of Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria, Germany would have achieved control of all southeastern Europe without committing a single German soldier.

Once the Suez Canal was taken, the way would have been open to German armored columns to overrun Palestine, Transjordan, the Arabian peninsula, Syria, Iraq, and Iran. This would given Germany unlimited supplies of the single commodity it needed most: oil.

As important as oil was for the conduct of modern war, the greatest advantages of German occupation of the Arab lands and Iran would have been to isolate Turkey, threaten British control of India, and place German tanks and guns within striking distance of Soviet oil fields in the Caucasus and along the shores of the Caspian Sea. Turkey would have been forced to become an ally or grant transit rights to German forces, Britain would have had to exert all its strength to protect India, and the Soviet Union would have gone to any lengths to preserve peace with Germany because of its perilous position.

Germany need not have launched a U-boat or air war against British shipping and cities, because British participation in the war would have become increasingly irrelevant. Britain could never have built enough military power to invade the Continent alone.

Unless the strength of the Soviet Union were added, the United States could not have projected sufficient military force across the Atlantic Ocean, even over a period of years, to reconquer Europe by amphibious invasion in the face of an untouched German war machine. Since the United States was increasingly preoccupied with the threat of Japan, it almost certainly would not have challenged Germany.

Thus, Germany would have been left with a virtually invincible empire and the leisure to develop defenses and resources that, in time, would permit it to match the strength of the United States. Though Britain might have refused to make peace, a de facto cease-fire would have ensued. The United States would have concentrated on defense of the Western Hemisphere and the Pacific. Even if the United States had proceeded with development of the atomic bomb, it would have hesitated to unleash it against Germany.

 

One of the few smart decisions he did make was replacing Himmler with Heinrici in command of Vistula. Obviously in the longrun it only delayed the inevitable but neverless a good choice. But I guess any choice was a good one over Himmler though.

 

Hitler also decided to send tanks/troops to the Hungary area in 1945 when the Soviet main attack was Berlin in the end. Well, it did shorten the war but definitely Guderian was rather pissed with this decision as he knew they needed all the forces as possible to protect Berlin.

 

Hitler's mad thinking yet again.

 

Himmler was a brilliant tactitioner and ruthless, so clear why Hitler gave him command.

Regardless of tanks etc or the lack of them in Berlin, the USSR outnumbered the Germans by more than 2:1 anyway, so defeat was inevitable.

Only down to heroes like Mohnke and Weilding that the Berlin defenses held as long as they did imo

 

More like 5-1


Heroes you say??? Well that would mean that the Germans were the good guys.....wow I had no idea!!