Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Germany would NEVER have won WW2, regardless of what they did


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
5 replies to this topic

#1 Argonoss

Argonoss

    recruit

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 07 June 2003 - 06:18 PM

Germany could NEVER have won WW2 and this is why:

Calamitous decisions and monumental errors of judgement led to Germany’s defeat, errors which were fuelled by a racist ideology which led to a disastrous underestimation of opposing forces, though Hitler was instrumental - in fact he was the chief architect of the ‘war of annihilation’ / ‘’living’ or Lebensraum space in the east for ‘living space’ for the German people, the German state and it’s Armed forces were jointly responsible for the most destructive war in human History.

Even if the British expeditionary force was captured or destroyed at Dunkirk he would have lost, because the German armed forces lacked the sufficient time and resources. Landing craft, a adequate navy and sufficient air cover to firstly land the troops, protect them and more importantly, no provision was made to supply the troops. The makeshift barges that the Nazi’s planned to use were so woeful that they capsized in calm lakes and Hitler was well aware that Britain commanded the most powerful surface fleet in the world with over 1000 combat ships. It must also be noted that it took over 2 years of planning to mount Overlord which used far fewer forces than Hitler intended for Operation Sea Lion. Even if Hitler had turned his attention away from Russia - an impossibility as anyone who has read in-depth concerning the phenomena of Nazism and Hitler’s psyche would no doubt be aware that Bolshevism was seen as a direct ideological threat to Hitler’s dreams of hegemony within Europe. The war with Russia would have happened by 1944 regardless as Hitler felt by this time the Russians would be in an almost unassailable position. Further Hitler was already middle-aged when war broke out, this coupled with Germany’s economic and industrial position forced Hitler’s hand to go for Broke.

Hitler should have opted to cut the British Empire in two by turning his 200 divisions south into Africa and Malta to take the oil fields of Iraq, Iran and the Suez Canal. This coupled with the hypothetical destruction of the British expenditary force at Dunkirk it would have placed almost unbearable pressure on Britain to agree some form of ceasefire and negotiation with Germany. The Weremacht then would be in an easy position to allow a bloodless coup of Greece, the Balkans and the Yugoslav states, Turkey thus getting the oil fields of the Caucasus within the range of their guns. Yet even this would not ensure Germany Victory, as Russia vastly outnumbered Germany in terms of men, material and armaments. For those of you who think the Russians were weak with inferior weapons during this tome I suggest that you brush up on your history.

The events after the First World War were unique, without it Hitler would have been marginalized as nothing more than an embittered WW1 veteran, however his ability as an orator which touched the baser qualities of his audience, chiefly those of Xenophobia, the myth of the stab in the back, the bitter pain of defeat allowed Hitler to become a political force. The almost complete power vacuum left in the fledging German republic too was instrumental in Germany’s overall defeat as Hitler had ascended to power he quickly devolved power within Germany so it changed from a democracy to an autocracy - dictatorship - further he became the chief commander of the armed forces, all decisions had to have his approval. The sycophancy and the degradation of the autonomy of the army to Hitler eroded all will to oppose his decisions - such was effect of obedience to the cult of the personality, which Hitler engendered. The generals acting on their own - now that’s a myth.

The German had staggering victories - one country falling after another in quick sucession, but stunning victories do not guarantee victory if your overall strategy is proved to be flawed to it’s very core. No amount of wonder weapons, battle tactics will help you if things like political alliances, resources, factory output and Demographics are stacked against you. In 1940 the war was already causing an intolerable and unsustainable drain on the German economy moreover Germany was becoming increasingly dependant on Russia for imports

People forget that the Russians had weapons which were superior to the Germans (T55 the IL-2 fighter bombers and the modified yaks.) Though the Russians suffered huge losses of men and materials (over 1.5 million men captured or killed by late 1941, with over 7500 aircraft destroyed in the first 4 weeks of Operation Barborossa alone, 7500 tanks destroyed or captured by September 1941 and around 4000 field guns and artillery pieces were destroyed or captured during this time also. This bolstered Hitler’s reputation as the ‘greatest warlord of all time’ and fuelled his racist beliefs that the Russians were nothing more than subhuman Asiatics, a crass underestimation which would have devastating repercussions later.

Yet by 1942 over a million germans soldiers were dead captured or otherwise missing (and only half had been replaced). By March only 5% of the armoured divisions were fully operational with only 10% of the vehicles replaced.

Yet the German land forces were now in crisis, they were running out of fuel, munitions, and the campaign strategy no longer resembled the original plan. Things were beginning to go wrong, very wrong for Germany, Hitler being aware of this went for symbolic allusion and allegorical victories, rather than go on the defensive. Nothing more mythical than Stalingrad existed for Hitler.

This was the eventuality Germany was faced with as early as May 1940. Germany did not have enough fuel, ammunitions, wood or oil for a prolonged war. Nor did it prepare its industry for total war till 1944. Russia though dealt crushing blow after crushing blow did not succumb. Stalin, pre-empting Hitler moved the entire Industrial base of Russia some 1500 factories and 10 Million workers to the Urals. Production was increased massively also, by the end of the war Russia had over 45000 tanks and some 20000 aircraft, with the relentless bombing and no resources Germany was finished.

Anyway’s I’m getting tired now and will continue this thread later but b4 I go:

As for the mindless act of declaring war on America: Madness, sheer madness.

Overlord failing: hmm this would have only delayed the inevitability of defeat for Germany by a year maybe.

Germany and Japan vs Russia: No chance Japan already knew what the Russian bear could do hence they signed a non aggression pact. This would come as a nasty surprise to Hitler later. Besides Japan was running out of resources maybe less than 4 months of oil which forced them to attack America.

#2 Friedrich

Friedrich

    Expert

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,547 posts

Posted 08 June 2003 - 05:43 PM

Welcome aboard, Argonoss! We hope to see many post from you and that you enjoy yourself in here! ;)

BUT... I do not agree with some of your statements:

First of all, if the BEF would have been annihilated at Dunkirk then Great Britain would have lost nearly all its experienced men to defend the island. They would have had to bring soldiers from all over the Empire to reinforce the defence of Great Britain, weakening every spot of the Empire, specially the Middle East... So, even if 'Overlord' took more than two years to be prepared, the Allied forces were going to face some 45 German divisions. With a destroyed BEF, Germany was going to face some as many as 12 ill-prepared British division at the island. Of course that crossing the Channel was nearly impossible for the Germans in 1940. But you are forgetting that Great Britain could have been defeated and was very close to it thanks to Admiral Dönitz and his U-boats. I just want to think what would have happened if Dönitz had had 300 U-boats in 1939 instead of 80... :rolleyes:

Hitler should have opted to cut the British Empire in two by turning his 200 divisions south into Africa and Malta to take the oil fields of Iraq, Iran and the Suez Canal.

That's curious, you have said yourself that Germany didn't have enough ships to take 9 divisions (not 200) to the other side of the Channel... :rolleyes:

In 1940 the war was already causing an intolerable and unsustainable drain on the German economy moreover Germany was becoming increasingly dependant on Russia for imports

Not really, by 1940 the German economical situation was very good, considering that the people had access to a relatively big number of 'luxury' products. And the weaponry factories were running as fast as they could with the few German workers available and not a full war economy. Yes, Germany depended on importations of resources, but they managed quite alright the next years...

People forget that the Russians had weapons which were superior to the Germans (T55 the IL-2 fighter bombers and the modified yaks.)

This is truth. The Soviet tanks were superior to the Germans, the planes and guns too... But the Russians officers and soldiers were not. That's why it was so easy to destroy a Russian tank or plane while destroying an 'inferior' German weapon was not.

This was the eventuality Germany was faced with as early as May 1940. Germany did not have enough fuel, ammunitions, wood or oil for a prolonged war. Nor did it prepare its industry for total war till 1944.

Truth, but it is a contradiction to the thread's tittle: "no matter what they did". If the economy would have been switched for a total war by 1938 (as we have discussed many times in this forum) then how different it would have been.

Overlord failing: hmm this would have only delayed the inevitability of defeat for Germany by a year maybe.

Totally agree. Specially because we all know that Germany was entirely defeated in the East.

Germany and Japan vs Russia: No chance Japan already knew what the Russian bear could do hence they signed a non aggression pact. This would come as a nasty surprise to Hitler later. Besides Japan was running out of resources maybe less than 4 months of oil which forced them to attack America.

Not truth. Maybe the Japanese were defeated seriously by marshal Zhúkov in Mongolia in 1939, showing that the Japanese Army was not well prepared to face the Red Army. However, if the Japanese would have deployed many more troops in Russia to, let's say, capture Vladivostok, then we would have seen the Japanese might that conquered the whole Pacific in 1942, if not defeating the Soviets, preventing some 20 or 30 Siberian divisions to be brought to the West for the defence of Moscow and the winter counterofensive (which caused the majority of the German casualties in 1941).
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

#3 Peiper44

Peiper44

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5 posts

Posted 08 June 2003 - 07:06 PM

Germany almost won the war in 1940/41. The decision to abort Sealion came about because of several reasons (some of wich you mentioned). Yet Germany did have the potential to defeat Britian directly had she prepared in a more senseable fashion. When the Germans were planning the attack on France there was little or no consideration as to what to do if England continued to fight after France's fall. Hitler figured (and rightfully so) that Britian had nothing to gain and everything to lose if she were to continue hostilities with the Third Reich after a French defeat. If the German High Command had drawn up a detailed and concrete plan for Sealion (like that created for "Sickle Stroke") early on, then they would have avioded the following mistakes:
a.) Dunkirk
b.)poor planning for the need of beach landing craft & transport (no, German industry was not geared for amphibious vechicles but improvisations could have been made at a much earlier date)
c.)the failure to fully capitalize on Germany's excellent airborne divisions for paradrop operations against England
d.) the failure to prepare as many airfields as possible on the Channel coast at the earliest possible date
e.)the failure to build up a massive force to be unleashed in decisive blow that was typical of German operations
f.) Hitler's indecisiveness in the summer of 1940 on how to deal with England, thus giving his enemy more time to prepare
As it was the Luftwaffe almost defeated the RAF in the skies above Britian. When the Germans initially concentrated their attacks on airfeilds, fighter production plants, and other related air defense industries, they almost brought the RAF to its knees in the early weeks of the "Blitz". Of course Hitler and his generals didn't know this, and in their haste decided to bomb British cities instead. "If there was one battle the Germans lost but should have won, it was the air war over England". I don't remember who said this but I would have to agree.
As for as the Eastern Front is concerned Barbarrossa was a gamble. It was thought by the Germans (along with most western governments) that destroying the forward divisions of the Red Army while capturing Ukraine, Belarus, and the Baltic states would cause a military and political collapse in the Soviet system.
The Soviet military was a pathitic combat force in 1941. Just look at the Red Army's performance in the first year of the conflict. They had no organized armoured divisions, most units were poorly trained and led. They lacked wireless communications, and were almost incapable of movement.
What the Russians did prove to be good at was taking punishment. Their willingness to stand and fight against an enemy that was in almost every way their superior bought them the time to reconstitute their Army. What they lacked in skill and organization they made up for in numbers and armaments production. I would even go as far to say that the Wehrmacht was an overall more effective combat force up untill the Battle of Kursk.

[ 08. June 2003, 08:41 PM: Message edited by: Peiper44 ]

#4 Friedrich

Friedrich

    Expert

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,547 posts

Posted 09 June 2003 - 01:11 AM

Peiper, I completely agree with you about the things you posted. The lack of planning concerning Great Britain was perhaps, the main factor. Hitler did not want war with Great Britain and always tought of an alliance or a peace treaty. That is why the adequate preparations for war with Great Britain were not started when they should have (1936 or so). But we must consider that the German High Command did not prepare a war plan against Great Britain because they had no hopes that 'Sickle's stroke' could work. It was even a greater surprise for the Germans rather than to the rest of the world, that Germans won. :rolleyes:

And even with that. Invading Great Britain was nearly impossible. The easisiest and only way to defeat her was to starve the island to death with U-boats.
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

#5 De Vlaamse Leeuw

De Vlaamse Leeuw

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 844 posts

Posted 09 June 2003 - 06:44 AM

If admiral Dönitz would have had his 300 U-Boats than England would have shortages of fuel, food and weapons.

They wouldn't much options. Maybe they would continue to fight or they would sue for peace. Vut I don't know if Churchill would still be Prime Minister.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

#6 KnightMove

KnightMove

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,175 posts

Posted 14 June 2003 - 12:42 PM

I somehow disagree with Argonoss. Guess the Germans do everything right, and the Allies slip up all the way they did, Germany could have won.

But this is not the point. The Allies made far worse mistakes than the Germans did; according to rational judgement, Germany would NEVER have come that far!

In fact, this war could have been much shorter, with much less victims, and the same result.
If someone tries to remove the speck in your right eye, will you turn to him the other also?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users