Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

How Hitler could have won

Discussion in 'What If - Other' started by chromeboomerang, Jul 23, 2006.

  1. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    237
    you are overestimating the importance of oil for the Soviet Union :they were not that dependant on oil . The oil production diminished by 40 % and still they won the war . See 'The economic geography of Soviet oil and coal and their means of transport in WW II '
     
  2. Caudillo

    Caudillo Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2007
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
  3. 9th Inf. Div.

    9th Inf. Div. Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    1
    If not invading Russia isn't an option then:
    -Not invading Yugoslavia and Greece and pushing back the timetable of Barbarossa.
    -Winter preparedness for men and equipment in '41.
    -Asking the Japanese to conduct a meduim to large scale military exercise within Manchuria to try to prevent Stalin from moving troops out of that area for fear of attack might have allowed them to take Moscow.

    Prior to Barbarossa if he could have figured out a way of keeping the Finns in the fight against Russia longer, he might have gotten lucky and France and Britain might have gone thru w/ their talk of plans of sending troops to fight for the Finns seriously risking war w/ Soviets instead of them being allies down the road.
     
  4. brndirt1

    brndirt1 Saddle Tramp

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,713
    Likes Received:
    1,501
    I agree trying to keep the Finns in a little longer may have helped Hitler, but the invasion of Greece and Yugoslavia didn't really alter the timetable much at all. The early and late rains had left the roads complete quagmires, and thus impassable until well after May anyway. If he had launched Barbarossa in May, it would have bogged down anyway, and probably with less penetration into the USSR.

    As to getting the Japanese to engage in the Far East, they were in no mood to do anything of the sort, having had their heads handed to them twice already. The Red Army didn't denude the forces facing the Japanese at anyrate. If you go to this old thread, you can see the numbers of troops left in the area remainded substancial, and actually increased after Barbarossa was launched.

    http://www.ww2f.com/wwii-general/30790-soviet-japanese-non-agression.html

    Be aware, this was during our "older server" era, and there were multiple posts just "repeated" like hiccups, so you will see three from me which are duplicates, and a couple more posters with the same problem happeneing. Doesn't negate the numbers even though it does look like we are talking to ourselves.
     
  5. curiousaboutwwii

    curiousaboutwwii Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    0

    There were a number of related plans put together by Raeder, Donitz, the Luftwaffe, and others that are necessary for this southern strategy to succeed. These are: the Felix plan to take Gibralter, the plan to take the South Atlantic Islands, the plan to bring Vichy in as a full fledged ally, the plan to take Malta by a combined air/sea operation, Rommel's plan to make Libya a major front and take the Suez, a plan (I don't remember the name of it) to take Cyprus and Crete and reinforce the Vichy forces in Lebanon/Sria by air, the planned pro-German coup in Iraq, and a planned pro-German coup in Iran (the Iranians hated the British and feared the Soviets).

    Okay, so this is what has to happen for Raeder's southern strategy to work.

    1. Gibralter (part of plan Felix) - Hitler made a half hearted attempt to "persuade" Franco to enter the war and assist in the capture of Gibralter. Franco agreed in principle and then gave Hitler a huge list of demands for material, arms, and supporting troops in order to "consider" the proposal further. Hitler gave up on this idea. If Hitler had insisted and moved large German forces to the Spanish border, say in 1940, would Franco have capitulated? No one knows but Hitler should have given Franco 3 options: 1) Enter the war as a full fledged ally, today, right now, or, 2) Stay neutral and give Germany free passage through Spanish territory so that Germany can conquer Gibralter, or, 3) Be invaded and conquered. Any of these would have been successful, so the end result would be the same, Gibralter falls.

    2. South Atlantic plan (part of plan Felix) - Raeder suggested conquering Portugal, the Azores, the Canares, the Verdes, and other islands in the South Atlantic. This was possible using a combination of air borne and naval forces. If done after the fall of Gibralter, Italian naval forces can help. If Spain and Vichy are German allies, then Spanish and French naval forces can help. Britain can probably reconquer the islands later but cannot stop them being conquered in the first place. The South Atlantic Islands fall.

    3. Operation Herkules - The planned air borne / sea borne invasion of Malta. If this had been done soon after the French capitulation with a large Luftwaffe bomber/fighter contingent to keep the Royal Navy busy, there wasn't much the British could have done about it. Even as late as summer '41 this plan would have worked. With Malta in Axis hands and large anti-ship batteries on the southern and Eastern coast of Malta, the situation changes for the British in terms of interdicting naval supply convoys headed for Libya. Malta falls.

    4. Vichy as a full fledged ally. Petain claimed many times that he desired that France retain its place in the world as a continental power and a global empire. Hitler should have done everything possible to get Vichy in the war as a full fledged ally. Since Vichy did enter the war as a full fledged ally and fought several small wars against Britain (Lebanon, Syria, Chad, Djoubouti, French Somalialand) before the Allied landings in French Northwest Africa, this is surely within the realm of possibility. Vichy joins the war. German and Italian forces reinforce Northwest Africa, West Africa, Lebanon, Syria, and Chad.

    5. Sudan. Italy successfully invaded southern Sudan originally. With strong Axis forces in Libya and Vichy a German ally, this invasion could be coupled with invasions from Libya and Chad. Strong Luftwaffe forces give the Axis air superiority. Sudan falls.

    6. Germany reinforces Italian East Africa colonies (Ethiopia, Somalialand, etc). With the focus on the Southern Strategy, Spain and Vichy in the war as German allies, Gibralter and Malta in German hands, and strong Axis forces in Libya and Chad, and the fall of Sudan, reinforcement of East Africa is now possible.

    7. Suez. With Malta and Gibralter in German hands, Vichy an active ally, Spain an active ally, and the Luftwaffe totally dedicated to the southern strategy, the Afrika Corps does not have the supply problems it originally had. With Sudan and Chad in Axis hands and the Italians in Ethiopia receiving supplies, a credible force can invade Egypt from Sudan. with Crete and Cyprus in Axis hands and strong Luftwaffe forces in the Eastern Med, and Vichy forces reinforced in Lebanon/Syria, the final push on Suez comes from Libya, Sudan, and Lebanon/Syria. Suez falls.

    8. Lebanon, Syria, Iraq. I link these because the pro German coup of Iraq affects the fighting in Lebanon and Syria. Originally, the British used commonwealth forces stationed in Iraq in the conquest of Lebanon and Syria. Germany made a half hearted attempt to reinforce the pro-German coup in Iraq originally. But, put Germany's full attention on the southern strategy and reinforce Iraq with real air power and air borne troops and the Iraqi coup drives the British forces out of Iraq. These forces are not then in a position to conquer Lebanon and Syria. The French lost 6,000 men killed and wounded in the fighting originally in fighting the British, so this was full scale, hard fighting. With those Vichy forces now backed up by strong Axis air forces, reinforced by air borne troops, and with Afrika Corps armored divisions crossing the Suez headed for Lebanon, and the British fighting for their lives in Iraq, the invasion of Lebanon Syria by Commonwealth and Free French forces cannot succeed, perhaps not even be launched at all. Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq are firmly in Axis hands.

    9. Persia. Reza Shah Pehlavi was anti-British and pro-German. The people of Persia held pro German rallies in response to threats from Britain. Persia was violently anti-Soviet. With Vichy an active German ally, Lebanon and Syria fully in Axis hands, the Suez in Axis hands, and a successful pro-German coup in Iraq that throws the British out of Iraq, Persia can be reinforced. With the Shah very much pro-German, it is conceivable that the Shah would call on Axis reinforcment in the face of British and Soviet threats. The Shah invites Axis forces to reinforce Persia. later Persia signs the Tripartite Pact.

    10. Yugoslavia. Originally, the Germans invaded Yugoslavia because the Yugoslavia government joined the Tripartite Pact, but the people launched a coup that toppled the government. Would they have done likewise with Britain kicked out of the Med? Doubtfull. But, either way, Yugoslavia falls.

    11. Greece. Not much different here. The Greeks still kick the Italians back into Albania. The Germans still rescue the Italians. But this time no BEF force is landed and no British forces are present to resist the invasion of Crete. Greece and Crete fall.

    12. Cyprus. With British forces reeling in front of the Suez canal, Cyprus is easily captured by an airborne invasion. The Fliegerkorps is not shot to pieces at Crete, so Cyprus falls easily. Strong Luftwaffe forces now control the Eastern Med and Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq are reinforced by air.

    NOTE** Axis forces in Africa now do not have serious supply problems. There is no British naval or air force in the Med to interdict supply convoys and the Spanish, French, Italian, Yugoslav, Albanian, Greek, Rumanian, Bulgarian, and Turkish merchant fleets can participate in the effort unimpeded.

    13. Turkey. Turkey now has a big problem. Axis forces face Turkey along every border. The Med is an Axis lake. Strong Axis air forces own the skies. Turkey does not want to fight in the war for any one. They know they are not ready. So, what do they do? Like Spain they have 3 choices, 1) Axis ally, 2) "Neutral" and allowing Axis forces passage over their territory, 3) Axis occupied conquered territory. What would Turkey do? I'm not sure. But, the end result is the same no matter what they do. Axis troops pour in from all sides.

    14. British West Africa. With Vichy an Axis ally and strong Axis forces sent to reinforce French West Africa the British possessions in Nigeria and elsewhere cannot hold. British West Africa falls.

    15. Belgian Congo. Tremendous pressure can be put on the Belgian Congo to rejoin the Belgian empire run from now Axis controlled Belgium. Either that or be conqured. Belgian Congo falls.

    Situation as of summer 1941.
    1. Spain, Vichy, Yugoslavia, Turkey, Iraq, and Persia have joined the Tripartite Pact.
    2. A combined Axis fleet of Spanish, French, Italian, Yugoslav, Turkish, Rumanian, Bulgarian, and German ships has been assembled on the northern Turkish coast ready for an amphibious landing at Poti.
    3. Gibralter is in Axis hands.
    4. Suez is in Axis hands.
    5. British fleet in the Med was scuttled when Suez fell.
    6. British air forces in the Med have been destroyed.
    7. Sudan is in Axis hands.
    8. The Axis control Africa running on an East/West line from Leopoldville to Chisamayu in Italian Somalialand.
    9. Southern Atlantic islands are in Axis hands.
    10. Kreigsmarine has shifted its focus to interdicting British commerce in the south Atlantic. British colonies in Africa are cut off. British colonies in India and the Pacific can now only be reinforced, resupplied via a roundabout route through the north Atlantic, Panama canal, and Pacific.
    11. Strong Axis forces confront the Soviet Union running on a line from the Arctic in Northern Finland to eastern most Persia.

    The invasion of the Soviet Union now includes an amphibious landing on the Black Sea plain due West of Baku near present day Poti accompanied by attacks into the southern Caucuses by a much reinforced Afrika Corps now stationed in northern Turkey and additional forces attacking north from Persia. The Soviet border troops cannot disengage to face the threat on Baku coming from the landings at Ponti. Early in the campaign, Baku falls.

    Hitler now has the oil he needs from three sources. Rumania, the Middle East, and the Caucuses. When the German armies stop in front of Moscow to regroup, there is now no reason to split off some of them to send them south, the drive to Moscow continues, Moscow falls.

    Does this win the war for the Axis?

    Only if Britain and the USSR sue for peace. I don't think they would do that under any circumstance. The US still enters the war and the Axis still lose. Just takes longer.
     
  6. brndirt1

    brndirt1 Saddle Tramp

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,713
    Likes Received:
    1,501
    And if it (WW2) takes much longer than it did histroically, Germany becomes the targets of the first atomics, as originally they were the reason the atomics were persued anyway. This is NOT a good thing for the Nazis, or Europe.

    Without the ability to be more than taking more exporting (food, fuel, fiber, raw material) rather than importing nations under their occupation, Germany really weakens itself rather than strengthens itself.
     
  7. brndirt1

    brndirt1 Saddle Tramp

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,713
    Likes Received:
    1,501
    Here is another veiw on Japan’s dilemma as to "aiding Germany by attacking the Soviet Union".

    When the Russo-German war actually came, doomed country or not, Japan was forced to face the fact that her ambiguous diplomacy had put her on an ambiguous spot. By the Tripartite Pact she was bound to go to Germany's assistance, if Germany were attacked. (emphasis mine) By the neutrality agreement with Moscow, she must remain neutral if Russia were attacked.(emphasis mine) So if she remained neutral, Germany was the aggressor—an ugly thing for a nation to admit about its friend in public.

    Goto:

    Foreign News: Troubled Tokyo - TIME

    Of course those divisions of Red Army troops, hundreds of tanks, Red Air Force planes, and artillery mentioned in those other posts were deterrents as well.
     
  8. JagdtigerI

    JagdtigerI Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2008
    Messages:
    2,352
    Likes Received:
    209
    Ok, so Germany takes Gibraltar but looses Spain's oversea resources and gains many miles of coastline to defend
    Ok, so the Allies do not overlook this and declare war on Spain
    This would be no small task. The Germans would probably take similar loses as they did in France. They probably could have taken it but it would have taken them at least a month and men/resources they could barely afford.
     
  9. LRusso216

    LRusso216 Graybeard Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2009
    Messages:
    14,288
    Likes Received:
    2,605
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
  10. ickysdad

    ickysdad Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2008
    Messages:
    552
    Likes Received:
    31

    And if the Axis try all those 15 steps "curiousaboutww2" mention just where are they going to get all the ssealift and logistical network to carry them out?
    And in regard to the war taking longer and nukes becoming availiable as you suggested one must also not forget the Allied biological & chemical warfare programs.
     
  11. ickysdad

    ickysdad Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2008
    Messages:
    552
    Likes Received:
    31

    and if Germany takes Gibraltar, Spain and Portugal also go along in the deal and that means the British would just sieze the Azores, Canaries , and Cape Verde's basically just replacing Gibraltar with bases on those islands furthermore even if they loose Malta the British can just retreat back to El Almien which is eminently defensible and just play defence in the Mid-East.
     
  12. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    237
    Curiousaboutwwii :about your point 15 :conquer Belgian Congo :you are joking,of-course ? a country of 1.5 000000 square miles,no railways nor airports ?
     
  13. marc780

    marc780 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2008
    Messages:
    585
    Likes Received:
    55
    i am not trying to sound out as the Pro-Nazi advocate. Hitler and the Nazis were evil, cruel, and casually ordered the deaths of millions simply as part of national policy. So they did need to be ripped from power. as they were, and the Nazis at least deserved everything they got.
    The fact of the matter is that in the 20th century and even today, dictators just as evil as Hitler, managed to stay in power for decades.

    Stalin alone probably killed more Russians than Hitler did during the war. Moreover, after WW2 was done, Stalin and the soviets simply occupied all the nations of eastern europe (Poland, Rumania, Hungary, Czech Republic, Yugoslavia) as a "buffer zone" against the evil capitalists and NATO, an occupation almost exactly the same as Hitler's. Stalin died in March 1953 but the eastern european "Warsaw pact" nations continued to be occupied and controlled by the Soviets, against their will, until the late 1980's-early 1990's. All this lead to the "cold war" as soon as Russia was able to build their own nukes (in 1949). The cold war cost the USA and Europe billions of dollars, and thousands of lives fighting proxy wars against communist backed movements (Korea and Vietnam being the largest conflicts among many). The Cold war took place with eastern Europe under Soviet enslavement and Western Europe caught as monkey-in-the-middle, with the distinct threat of the central plains becoming a nuclear battlefield.

    So someone please tell me if and how Soviet occupation was an "improvement" over Nazi occupation, and if and how Stalin, Kruschev, Brezhnev, and all the other commies were better,worse, or exactly the same animal as Hitler?
     
  14. Sloniksp

    Sloniksp Ставка

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    Messages:
    6,321
    Likes Received:
    460
    Well for starters, after Stalin....

    There was no enslavement, forced labor of foreign populations or an ideology which placed a certain group of people above another leading to their extermination. No extermination camps or machines designed solely for the purpose of exterminating people and no global war. Last time I checked, the "Commies" went to war less than the capitalists...

    As for simply occupying "all these nations".... Stalin did nothing out of the ordinary as all of this was discussed on numerous occasions between the allies and the fate of "Post War Europe" was already mapped out between the two sides prior to the war ending and was agreed upon by Roosevelt and reluctantly Churchill. The "buffer zone" was created out of the same countries which went to war with Russia and NOT because of NATO. This feat would be quite difficult considering that NATO did not yet exist.

    As for the proxy wars.... The Soviet Union started none of them. ;)
     
  15. Hufflepuff

    Hufflepuff Semi-Frightening Mountain Goat

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,362
    Likes Received:
    79
    Location:
    Sewanee, Tennessee, USA
    To be honest, I really don't think Hitler could have won even if he DIDN'T invade the Soviet Union. Hitler was surrounded by enemies, it was just a matter of time before he was attacked himself. Maybe that's why he attacked everyone else...
     
  16. Smithson

    Smithson Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2009
    Messages:
    141
    Likes Received:
    5
    Hitler would of won the war if he hadn't started it!
     
    Hufflepuff likes this.
  17. Hufflepuff

    Hufflepuff Semi-Frightening Mountain Goat

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,362
    Likes Received:
    79
    Location:
    Sewanee, Tennessee, USA
    You make a good point. People always say that "The Soviet Union Started the war and everyone blames it on Hitler." But they know the truth. Hitler began the war all on his own terms.
     
  18. Smithson

    Smithson Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2009
    Messages:
    141
    Likes Received:
    5
    i totally agree with hufflepuff
     
  19. Chesehead121

    Chesehead121 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2009
    Messages:
    129
    Likes Received:
    2
    You know, I think debating "whether Germany could have won the war" is completely useless. It's factories and cities were being bombed by Bomber Command (You're welcome, Brits...), its fighters were being obliterated by the hundreds by the new infusion of fighters from yours truly (you're welcome, Brits...), and the taking of Soviet oil was both impossible and useless. The Soviets didn't hesitate to burn their capital city after it was taken, and they certainly wouldn't spare their oil fields from the same fate. Sure, if they had taken the Caucasus from any route, maybe WW2 would have been prolonged by a....month? 2, if they were lucky. But in the end, the Allies did what they were best at... Killin' Nazis.
     
  20. curiousaboutwwii

    curiousaboutwwii Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    0
    1. Gibraltar. If done as soon as France capitulates the needed trucks, planes, and rail assets were in southern France.
    2. South Atlantic - Raeder worked out a detailed plan for this which involved moving the German fleet and part of the Italian fleet into the South Atlantic. Along with air borne forces the plan was sound. Even the British agreed that the plan would have worked.
    3. Operation Herkules - Italy, Vichy, Spain, Roumania, and Bulgaria had 7 million tons of shipping. Malta is 60 miles from Sicily. Naval shipping combined with air borne shipping makes this very plausable if done early in the war. The British were shocked that the Italians did not invade Malta.
    4. Vichy as a full fledged ally. - This was basically a matter of asking for it. The Vichy hated the British and faught several small wars against them before Torch. Germany didn't need logistics networks to make this happen.
    5. Sudan. With Malta and Gibraltar in Axis hands and Vichy in the war Italian East Africa can be supplied via Chad. The British cannot interdict Axis shipping as effectively with Malta gone. In summer of 1940 the Axis had 7 million tons of shipping in the Med and South Atlantic.
    6. Italian East Africa - see #5.
    7. Suez - hinges on Felix and Herkules. If Felix and Herkules succeed, the Axis can field an army in Libya in the summer/fall of 1940 that the British cannot defeat.
    8. Lebanon, Syria, Iraq - These were hard fought campaigns originally, with sufficient air support they would have gone the other way. The Axis could certainly move air fleets and supplies by air in 1940 and 1941.
    9. Persia - Assumes Felix, Herkules, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Suez succeeded. Persia needed air support, a small expeditionary force, and resolve. The presence of German forces would have kept the Russians out until Barbarrosa.
    10. Yugoslavia - use the same logistics network the Axis used in the first place.
    11. Greece - use the same logistics network the Axis used in the first place.
    12. Cyprus - with Felix, Malta, the fall of Yugoslavis, Greece, and Crete, and British forces falling back in front of Suez, Cyprus can be take by air.
    13. Turkey - British forces have been pushed out of the Med. Axis has 7 million tons of shipping in the Med with no interference from Britain, so what is the problem here?
    14. Move supplies across the straights of Gibralter to the rail network in French northwest Africa then down the coast.
    15. Belgian Congo - you have a point here. This will have to be an airborne operation supported by riverine forces operating from French West Africa.
     

Share This Page