What did Germany need to win the war?

Would an experienced military officer managing global strategy have done the trick?

Industry mobilised for war from 1939 onwards?

Winter clothing in Russia?

Jets in 1943?

What events or combination of events do you think would have been neccessary for Germany to win the war?
( And don't say it could never have done it - give them laser guns and they would!)

 

This should get some answers...I bet!

I know you can´t change all the wrongs but the main points I came to think of:

1.Better armament production as the war grew bigger all the time, since 1939, and at the latest autumn 1940 as Hitler decided to attack Russia

2.Put OKH and OKW together, so there is no mixing in the HQ. ( Did happen on April 25 1945 by General Warlimont´s book, but that was quite late ).

3. Hitler could never be higher than OKH/OKW.
( Well, wasn´t OKW kinda Hitler´s puppet?? )And maybe Halder away as he was not too fond of Hitler.

4.Goering out of Luftwaffe by Dunkirk

5. Never start a war with the USA unless you are totally sure you can win it. ( at least beat the USSR first )

 

Put Manstein in charge of the Eastern Front no later than 1942. Preferably from the begining and Hitler out of military affairs.

Mobilised for total war in 1939 or earlier.

Prepared for a long war on the Eastern Front. This would have been a contingency that should have been presented.

 

Actually, Andreas, the logistics required for the lasers would... sorry, I had to!

I'd say there would be two major factors- Hitler himself and the production issue.
On Hitler, here I would refer to some of the more damaging stratigic decisions he made. Stalingrad, Kursk, the Bulge... all of these were operations that expended massive german resources in relatively futile attacks. I think had someone with a cooler head (who probably would not have started the war in the first place!) been in charge, some decisions would have been made differently with more consideration of long-term effects.
The the production issue- we have discussed in the past the problems germany encountered due to the late switch to a wartme economy. If war production and resource managment had been on a military basis as early as 39, Germany would have been in a far better position to conduct a long-term war. Of course, a significant part the production aspect would also center on Hitler, or whoever was in charge- said person would have to keep his nose out of the production and design aspects. The Me262 is a perfect example here- had Hitler not interfered in design and production, I'd think that the 262 would have been operational in larger numbers sooner.

My 2 cents worth.
Well, maybe 4 cents here. Or even a nickel...

 

I knew it!! I knew it when I wrote that - somebody would say it!!!

 

I just thought that as Hitler since August 1941 wanted the Russian industrial territory to win the war,and as he did take up to 60% of Russian industry area, then as hindsight, was he wrong doing this or not? Getting these areas did not win him the war. The Russians still managed to make huge amounts of tanks and weaponry without these areas, and won the war.
What should Hitler have changed about his thinking? Flexible defence? Leningrad? Moscow?

 

A lot of things had to be change to win the war:

1.)start producing maximum 3 different kind of tanks at the same time
2.)keep developping plans for jets, rockets, ... from 1941 on
3.)use paratroopers more, especially to capture islands

1.)let the Whermacht attack the British around Dunkirk
2.)only attack RAF, factories and airfields; not London
3.)invade England
4.)reinforce Africa Corps in 1941, so they can defeat Monty at El Alamein and capture Cairo and Suez at the latest in februari 1942
5.)capture Malta and Gibraltar with help from the Italians and the Spanish
6.)don't let AGC (Army Group Center) head south to encircle the troops around Kiev, let them attack towards Moscow (which would fell in december)
7.)turn north to Leningrad and south to Stalingrad and the Caucasus
8.)use usable jets to destroy last remaining factories
9.)don't declare war on the US, without this the US wouldn't intervene untill it would be already too late

 

Hell, they fought the whole freakin world, basically, and to a point, almost DID win!!! Still blows my mind!!! The one and only thing I'd say is a good leader. Get rid of Hitler early on and bump some of those generals up!!!!

 

Kai, you hit on one of the more ineteresting side-notes here. Hitler did in fact have a decent picture of the economic/resource aspects. We have all probably read about Hitler constantly berating his generals about how they did not understand the economic aspects of the war. Hitler did have many correct ideas here- take the resources in the Ukraine, etc. Problem was, Hitler ignored the practical difficulties in actually obtaining said resources. It's not just "getting" the resources- it's actually being able to make use of them that's important. I remember Andreas mentioing this previously- you can easily capture the enemy's coal mine. But then you need manpower and machinery to run it, you need transport to get the coal back to germany, and you need extra facilties ot process the coal. Much more difficult than just getting it.
Also, Hitler often ignored the practical battlefield aspects of his resource-based campaigns. Again, it's much easier to plan on capturing an area, but then the troops on the ground (and in the air, etc.!) actually have to succeed.
This created kind of a catch-22... Hitler's armies needed more resources to continue the war, but the armies were too short on resources to capture new ones.

Does that make sense?
Hey, it's Friday. If not, that's my excuse...

 

*sigh!*

The german advance towards Moscow failed before winter went bloody cold (during the 2nd half of November 1941). The missing winter equipment had an impact during the soviet counteroffensive, but the Germans weren't stopped a6t Moscow because of missing winter eqipment, but because of losses in men, material and the breakdown of logistics.

Cheers,

 

1): like Panzer II (light), III (medium) and IV (heavy)?

2): Agree, if I expect a long war with GB and USA

3): Had been tried at Crete, unfortunately the elite paras and transportation planes were badly mauled there.

1): Agree

2): Tactics: If you want to bled the RAF fighters white you have to attack London: They _have_ to show up.

3): There is a considerable amount of water between Continental Europe and England. Too far to swim. And if Gy invades GB anyway, why jet airplanes and rockets? Don't get this.

4.): "reinforcing Africa Corps" means: take it away from the East Front in Dec. 41/Jan. 1942. Given the catastrophic crisis at this time this was hardly an alternative. Plus that in your scenario, there would be a German "sealion" (sooner or later), even less German troops available (or no African theater at all, depends on)

5.) Gibraltar: No way, Spain wasn't an Axis Ally. If you winn "sealion", Gibraltar woudn't be an issue, anyway.
Malta: I agree principally, but that would be the coup de grace for the already mauled German paratrooper weapon. Plus you can't have both: Seizing Malta AND advancing in Africa AND trying to avoid a complete catasthrophy at the East Front. Too less landsers around.

6.) This had been discussed in detail, just one comment: AGC wasn't able to advance any further out of logistical reasons (July/August 41) and tactical (open southern flank with a couple intact Soviet Armies).

7.) that makes no sense to me, are you suggesting that the German troops didn't shattered their "schwerpunkt" enough as they did historically? I think they did a pretty "good" job in dividing their forces into seperate directions without focus.

8.) ???

9.) Ever heard of FDR's policy "short of war", the cash& carry and lend-lease agreements to benefit of GB, and the "shoot-on-sight"-order, the various "Rainbow" and "Victory"-plans?

Cheers,

[ 04 October 2002, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: AndyW ]

 

This what if COULD be done.

No, not somebody. CRAZY.

Forget about surface ships in the 1930s and build a lot of U-boats instead.

Total mobilisation of industry in 1939.

Let Von Runstedt and Von Bock smash the Allies in Dunkirk.

No battle of Britain. With more submarines Dönitz would have made the job.

USSR attacked in the East by Japanesse forces.

Done. War won. With all these factors you have a total-mobilised Germany for summer 1941. The three Army Group in Russia are huge and powerful enough to do all their tasks by themselves and finish the war in a single campaign.

 

Germany needed to...

A) Build the Me.262 earlier and in larger numbers
B) Focus on Great Britian instead fighting the war on two fronts with the Soviet Union
C) Get rid of Hitler!!! (He was insane, or at least I think so!)
D) Focus on producing the planes in larger numbers instead of constantly looking for ways to "improve" them.

 

Great posts, everybody!

AndyW, I'm a little disappointed at you. You take the easy way out by not offering any suggestions yourself. Please make some!

 

A) That could have improved Germany's situation about the bombardments, but we have discussed it a lot over here and there was no real conclusion. Beside, that was not going to defeat the UK...
B) True. But as "Seelöwe" was very, very difficult you could have give all the job to Dönitz and that wouldn't have affected operations in the East.
C) It was because of Hitler that Germany won her first and most amazing victories. Beside, without Hitler you don't have WWII in Europe in the way we know it.
D) Actually, Mustang. Germany DID focuss its resources in building reliable planes already tested in combat in large quantities instead of developing more new models and aircraft. It was until summer 1943 that the development of new weaponry really took big importance.

 

I agree with Otto, because losing the Mediterranean would have been a severe blow for the British and it could perfectly be done. Just imagine if the VI Army lost in Stalingrad would have been in Africa with its 24 divisions (including a FLAK, three Panzer and three Motorised)...

 

Good points, Otto & Friedrich. Wasn't von Mellenthin another supporter of the Mediterranean strategy? Or was it Guderian? I think it was Guderian actually, but I can't remember. Or maybe he was saying that with the benefit of hindsight.

But a well-planned and coordinated assault on Malta (and maybe also Gibraltar) and a true German army in Africa under a capable general (perhaps Rommel, perhaps also somebody like Manstein). Spanish and Turkish entry into the war could be achieved, after that Iraq and Iran might join. Both countries fought against the Allies as it was, so they might have joined the Axis.

Meanwhile the Germans stand defensive in the East. Possible.

 

What they needed to win the war?

More Tiger and Panther Tanks, more STG-44s instead of Mauser bolt-action rifles, all their artillery units fully motorized, total control of the air and last but not least--a group of experianced GFMs and Generals running the war instead of a Gefrieter.

 

Going with the overall theme.

Hitler was a brilliant Statesman, he knew how to "play" his opposite numbers really well. He was a great economist. But he was a lowsy General.

Hitler keeps to the political side and lets his generals run the war side. Doesn't interfere with technological developments (like the Me262 etc.)

War production up and running by 1938/39, and count on a drawn out war in Russia. You only have to look at the map to see how big she is and count how many men you have. Takes a lot to win territory, a lot more to hold territory and a hell of a lot more to develop that territory.

New technologies developed and tested ASAP, and not chopped and changed to suit political whims.

Not declaring war on the US. Let the Japanese deal with that one.

It might have worked.

_______________

"Everything is very simple in war, but the simplest thing is difficult. These difficulties accumulate and produce a friction which no man can imagine exactly, who has not seen war" von Clausewitz 1780-1831