Could Germany have won on these conditions?

Okay so I was thinking this over the past few hours how Hitler could have won World War Two. Some of the points are mine but some of them are Bevin Alexander's points. Okay here are some things I believe the Axis could have done to won up to Russia. I think the what ifs going to the US are just too far out of there. Go ahead, I won't be mad if you find any flaws in my statement.

So here are my statements:

Prelude to the war: before September 1939
_______________________________________

-Hitler should have focused on making aircraft carriers in the place of battleships, making the ships more deadly, in a higher quantity, and being able to train Luftwaffe pilots for combat in the sea

-Mussolini should have not invaded Ethiopia, saving money, troops and time

-Hitler should have focused on funding German weapons and science projects, not buildings and monuments

First stage of the war on the West: September 1939- June 1941
_________________________________________________

-Hitler should not have halted the advance at Dunkirk

-Mussolini should not have entered Africa only focusing his efforts at the Balkans

-Hitler should have ended the attempted invasion of two weeks earlier, as well as the subsequent Blitz by February, giving him more time, materials and bombs for Barbarossa

-Hitler should have mobilized the the German Economy in 1940 in order to produce more planes, tanks and guns for Russia

-Hitler should have Mussolini act as a Quasi puppet giving him land to make Italy look strong, but in reality have Germany command the battles, with Italian troops only acting as support, along with the Italian factories producing German armament to have more of superior German technology

-If necessary, assassinate Mussolini and replace him with a puppet Italian dictator who supports the Third Reich

-Hitler should setup a defensive line in the Mediterranean with there being thousands of barges that have anti-aircraft 20, 40 and 88mm flak guns along with destroyers and a few carriers to protect against the British trying to invade from Africa

-Hitler should establish a relationship with Turkey, helping them out by giving the Turks German weaponry to have the Turks have a modernized army, enabling him to use more troops for Barbarossa, to gain access to strategic position in the south of the Caucus to invade and obtain the oil fields faster, being able to cut off the Soviets from a significant supply of oil

-Turkish troops should form a Siegfried type line along southern turkey so they can protect against possible British invasion from the British mandate of Palestine

-Hitler should been able to get the Gevehr 43 mass produced starting this time in order for German troops to have long range semi auto rifles, which will help in Barbarossa

-Hitler should have aircraft carriers and u-boats work together to help aid fight the Royal Navy

-Hitler should not have halted any science projects that would have helped technology going toward the war effort

Operation Barbarossa: June 1941 - January 1942
___________________________________________________

-Hitler should authorize an invasion in April

-Germany must invade the Soviet Union as means of a liberator, just as there are bombing runs, there must be runs where bombers drop typed manuscripts(like the US bombers did with sophie's scholls letters) so that Soviet citizens can get riled up and attack their own government, helping the Germans with the war effort

-Hitler should focus on making tanks that are between heavy and medium to make cheaper tanks, while providing fair enough mobility, firepower and protection(such as a Panther tank with an 88mm)

-Hitler should avoid any moves that halt an advance unless the German army is in absolute need

-Hitler should not siege Leningrad, instead slowly moving inside or eliminate anyone standing in his, in order to prevent loss of material and time, in order to have half of army group north occupy and then the other half go towards Moscow

-Hitler should be able to supply at least a million and half soldiers with proper winter clothing to prepare for the advance on Moscow and ensuing battles in the Russian cold

-Hitler should focus on pocketing large Russians and then forcing them to be used in labor, to prepare for invasion of the US

-Hitler should have funded a prototype heavy bomber, in order to prepare the Red Army moving behind the Urals, and to also prepare to cause more Soviet causalities

 

All these statements are wrong : not one of them is valid .

2 exemples : Hitler did not stop his army at Dunkirk,and ,besides, the whole Dunkirk thing is irrelevant .

: the Ostheer got winter clothing ,but later than was planned,besides, the whole thing is irrelevant for the outcome of Barbarossa .

 

You know your in trouble if I'm in complete agreement with LJAd about the lack of merit in your position.

Aircraft carriers would have done Hitler little good. They were too vulnerable and the time and effort needed to come up with a good operational doctrine just wasn't there for the Nazis.

Italy wasn't really planning on joining in the war until the French were near defeat. Hitler had little control or even influence over Italy in the prewar period so the Italian efforts in Africa as setups to WWII aren't really in play. Indeed Germany would have been arbuably in a stronger position if Italy remained a "friendly neutral" rather than entering the war at all.

Hitler did to a large extent focus on weapons and technology but he was in power especially early on because he promised both guns and butter. He hedged as much as he could on the latter while concentrating on the former but there were limits. The show projects helped make it look like he was at least addressing the "butter" part.

As for Dunkirk Hitler didn't issue the initial halt order and it was issued for good military reasons. It's doubtful if the Germans could have prevented at least some evacuation from Dunkirk and if they commit too much force there they give the French time to establish anther defensive position. It might even allow the proposed merger of the French and British governments to go through.

Italy was already in Africa. It would but Ill Duce in a rather uncomfortable position if he takes Italy to war has his first offensive stopped cold by the French then abandons multiple colonies in Africa would it not?

Are you referring to Sea Lion when you say "attempted invasion"? If so there was never an attempted invasion. Some preparations were made but they were kept in place as a diversion long past the time where the Germans were at all serious about it.

As for the German economy I encourage you to read Wages of Destruction.

Enough for now.

 

Buckle up and hold on tight my friends. We may be feeing turbulence.

 

http://www.ww2f.com/topic/57482-refighting-the-pacific-war-alternate-history-and-the-battle-of-midway/

above thread was just started....please read.....

once he went into Russia--that's it....that's the big, huge, critical front....doesn't matter what happens anywhere else.....still have to waste manpower, etc on other fronts, but Russia too big and populated to defeat!....do you think that Stalin is going to negotiate, stop fighting ,etc just because of some leaflets?? history is full of attacks, raids, invasions, etc where the invader believes the ''people'' will rise up against their 'hated' government, only to find out they won't!!

it was my understanding the economy was at a breaking point as it was, later in the war........they were never going to outproduce or beat the US and Russia.....

from your post, it sounds like Germany has an inexhaustible amount of men and materials...

again, Russia, the US and Great Britain will not be snowmen....they will not just sit still and do nothing...they will counter.......again, the German ''snowmen'' and vehicles need gas, oil, food, etc....it's not as simple as giving them cold weather gear.....

making ships more deadly? higher quantity?? what does this mean?

 

I think Germany may have had he potential of defeating the USSR. However it would have taken more inspired leadership than Hitler provided or encouraged. I've also read that at times Stalin considered offering at least a cease fire.

 

tiny little Germany had massive armies destroying her from two sides...bombed to hell both day and night, at will.....Japan was being pounded to bits, starved by the subs, an atom bombed dropped, and they still did not surrender...and they were not the ones that were back stabbed, ''ambushed''......Russia was invaded/attacked/back stabbed with no declaration...!! Russia will surrender why, and when ?? let's be realistic
just like on Otto's recent alternate history thread, Japan ''thought"" the US would negotiate, ask for peace if our fleet was destroyed....big negative....the US would never have negotiated...not after a back stab!! let's be real...
“Before we’re through with them, the Japanese language will be spoken only in hell.” !!! the US is going to negotiate?? Russia will negotiate, after negotiating a non-aggression pact with Germany, then Germany attacks/back stabs her??!! the Russians and Stalin were full of hate and revenge, just as were the Americans after Pearl Harbor...Russia is not stopping till they reach Berlin
and the leaflets, propaganda--that works both ways, remember...Russia will use it also..they'll use the stab in the back propaganda....just like Remember Pearl Harbor
inspired leadership will not overcome physically impossible logistics, manpower, etc problems....again, there is the human element here

 

If history has taught us anything about Russia is that she doesn't take too kindly to uninvited guests. If Hitler wanted to be victorious in WW2, he should have taken a page out of Von Bismarks book: "Germany must never go to war with Russia".

As for building all those tanks and ships etc. seems you forget that Germany was very reliant on resources. Russia was her main supplier. Do not bite the hand that feeds you

Why need winter clothing? You mean to tell me that the mighty Aryan race is incapable of defeating the sub human Asian hordes in less than 4 months as expected?!?

 

Germany was hardly "tiny" by any measure of the time but fighting a two front war against both the USSR and the Commonwealth was very questionable especially with the US obviously looking to get into it as well. A more creative or inspired leadership would have at least tried to avoid this situation. Looking back on it with 20:20 hindsight Germany would have done better to have concentrated on her economy and diplomacy in the 30s and built up her military in the 40s if at all. That sort of planning was beyond Hitler's grasp though.

 

Well yes and no. The Mongols did pretty well there for a considerable period of time. Then there's the question of whether or not the Russ were invited or not.
If the Germans had made it clear that they were at war with the USSR though there was at least a possibility of defeating them. Whether or not this would result in a "win" for Germany isn't clear though.

 

please compare Russia to Germany on this map...and that's not even all of Russia ! point being, Germany with a much--super much--smaller landmass is not surrendering with HUGE armies crunching, chomping and crushing into Germany...these armies are from countries with BIGGER populations--why would Russia ever surrender with the smaller populated country attacking the HUGE landmass?? even in a one front war....? because internal strife??
caps for emphasis only

 

No way.

Pre-1939

1) Aircraft carriers? How is this going to help defeat Russia? Germany is a continental power, and should've abandoned all fanciful ideas of a grand Navy. Including the battleships. They need a powerful army. All the big ships consumed vast amounts of sorely needed steel and other metals.

2) Mussolini's problems went far beyond Ethopia, and were much closer to Rome.

3) Germany did lots of research. Germany was world leading in many aspects of science in the 20's and 30's. Look at the number of Nobel prizes they took in this era. Their philosophy, however, precluded the participation of the whole of society.

Sept. '39 - June '41

4) Already addressed.

5) Mussolini's problems went far beyond the Balkans, and were much closer to Rome. Never mind Africa. He was there already. With problems.

6) The invasion that didn't happen, because not even Hitler was willing to take that mad gamble? Hitler just didn't know what to do about Britain; like Napolean before him. Hitler had all the time, and bombs for Barbarossa. It didn't help. He didn't have enough men, and he didn't have enough transportation. It was simply, too damn big, the distances too far. The Soviet government didn't crack under the pressure.

7) Read Alan Tooze: Wages of Destruction. It was already mobilized.

8) Forget that Mussolini was Hitler's inspiration during the 20's. Italian industry wasn't really.

9) Can't invade in April '41 in Belorus/Ukraine/Russia; that's mid-thaw. Any attacker is going to get nowhere fast, giving the defender a huge advantage..

10) With friends like these, who needs enemies?

11) What? AA-Barges? You must be kidding. "A few carriers"? Would like 20 or so be enough for you sir? Perhaps a couple of tie-fighters, and a death star as well?

12) The Turkish Gambit.... Because the Turks all so enjoyed Gallopoli, and the destruction of the Ottoman empire so much, they want another crack at dying for the Germans...

13) Nobody wants to invade Turkey.

14) There is a logical and reasoned order when science, experience and technical engineering come together. To get the Gewehr-43 out in sufficient quantities for Barbarossa you are talking about producing something well in advance of it's time. The requirement didn't appear before 1940. The Gewehr-41 was a disaster. This was a necessary experience. So, not in time for Barbarossa.

15) No freaking aircraft carriers! They'd be death traps without the proper support vessels, and Germany does not need them!! They are a diversion!

16) Which particular science projects do you believe he should not have stopped?

Barbarossa June '41 - Jan '42

17) That's insane.

18) No. Soviets were not going to get all up in arms over a leaflet.

19) Panther's are a Mid-war development, based on experiences in the field. They didn't just pop into being. The designs weren't reviewed until Jan '42....

20) Unnecessary halting? When?

21) They tried moving into Leningrad. They couldn't. They didn't have enough men and material to force the issue.

22) Addressed by others. In summary; it's a big place. Logistics.

23) Forced labour was used, on a scale seldom if ever seen before or since.

24) They did have a prototype. They couldn't afford to build them. Building them would've been a death sentence for the Third Reich; they needed fighters, not bombers. They desperately wanted large bombers when they saw the havoc the Western Allies were causing. But they also desperately wanted more fighters, more subs, more tanks, more soldiers, more .... simply more.

They did not have the resources, nor the means, to do everything. They gave it their very best shot, and millions suffered and died because of it. And they failed miserably.

 

another point with the carriers and alternate history realism---hilter was not aggressive with the navy he had....kept the Tirpitz bottled up.....the others running from one port to the next.....he would've had to have had a change of character also, for the carriers to be effective......so now, you have to change hitler's character......? is this realistic?

 

Here is another image of the situation in Europe...

Also most of Soviet Russia is empty of people. Even today, only 40 million people live in Siberia, and that is after generations of forced translocation. in 1914 (fourteen), it was estimated 10 million. Soviet losses in '41 were massive, even in terms of population. Today, Russia's population density is 8.4 people per square kilometre (22 per square mile), making it one of the most sparsely populated countries in the world. The population is most dense in the European part of the country, with milder climate, centering on Moscow and Saint Petersburg.

Others here may disagree, but there seems to have been a crisis in the Soviet leadership late '41. Just as there was serious doubt in the UK leadership at the Fall of France.

It is not unheard of. Alexander the Great ROFL-stomped the Persian Empire.

 

Well first of all the projection of that map makes the USSR look bigger than it was relative to Germany. Admittedly the USSR contains substantially more land than Germany but that doesn't mean Germany is "tiny". Furthermore land area is hardly a reasonable indicator of military strength. Population wise the USSR was only about twice Germany's size (in part dependent on when you make the comparison). Then if you look at the economy pre war it's almost a wash. In a one on one contest Germany has a decent chance against the USSR.

 

ok, if Germany isn't surrendering with massive armies on both sides crushing it, why would Russia surrender to Germany?? why when? when Moscow is taken? when?
when they lost hundreds of thousands of men and tanks?? ...when they lost the Ukraine?

 

I'm not sure how Ethiopia influenced the Second World War....given that it happened four years before, and wasn't THAT large an investment in time and men by the Italians. It was also successful...and I'm sure to Mussolini's mind well worth the effort - as apart from anything else it demonstrated how useless the threats and blusterings of the major powers were to stop him and how useless the League of Nations was.

Building big battleships was a waste and a mistake?

1/ Germany had the right to that number of hulls under the Washington Treaty. It's why it had several units of the old Imperial Navy still in service, and predreadnoughts. It was one of Hitler's major domnestic and foreign policy triumphs that he got agreement with the UK to rebuild the "rest" of the German fleet, the bits/unit types not covered by the Washington/London treaties...and thus put the final nail in the military provisions of the Versailles treaty. What building the new "pocket battleships" did was vastly modernise the German navy....compared to what had been from 1919 to 1934. Some of the new units had major design failures, because Germany had missed out on 15 years of naval development time of course...but it still put those vessels very much on a par with major units of other European and world navies, the ones that hadn't spent money on a rolling modernisation of their fleets in the Interwar period.

2/ Look at the British fear of said pocket battleships 1939-41 It meant that major RN fleet units had to be sent on convoy escort when there was a threat of surface raiders etc..

In regard to building aircraft carriers again - look at any of the detailed threads on the Graf Zeppelin. The Germans couldn't have started work on a carrier fleet in the first half of the 1930s; as noted above they were a decade and a half behind the rest of the world in design terms, and made big errors when they DID start. And as noted above, they had no real use for a carrier fleet UNTIL they ran up against the UK as a potential obstacle. They were for all intents and purposes stuck in the North Sea and Baltic in terms of the factors influencing their thoughts on the use of naval airpower; for most of the 1930s their potential enemies could be reached by LAND-based aircraft.

 

Yes the Mongols were without a doubt the most successful. Russia at this time did not exist as a unified state but rather a mixture of city states if you will, and were easy pickings for the Mongols. Even then the Mongols couldn't capture all of Russia. Novgorod led the charge against the Mongols and eventually (after uniting) kicked them out. Interestingly enough the Tatars accompanied the Golden Horde and settled in Crimea after killing the indigenous population there.

 

As covered above, no.

What would have helped Hitler though would have been GB and its allies sitting on its backside until late 1942 like the USA.

Brian