Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

How Germany could've won?


  • Please log in to reply
625 replies to this topic

#1 Jborgen

Jborgen

    recruit

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 05 May 2011 - 11:06 PM

Would it be possible for Germany to win if they had simply defeated Great Britain and THEN Attacked Russia? So that Germany's factories wouldn't be bombed as easily?

If the Nazi's didn't persecute (Holocaust) and kill so many of their civilians, could those extra soldiers have helped them?

Then Germany would only have to face Russia and the US... and without the ability to land troops easily, Germany could've easily simply held off America while taking Russia.

Opinions?
  • Kendusimmus likes this

#2 brndirt1

brndirt1

    Saddle Tramp

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,709 posts

Posted 05 May 2011 - 11:19 PM

simple answer? Nope. There is not a single option which allowed Nazi Germany to succeed no matter which options you choose to give them. They couldn't defeat Great Britain because they couldn't mount an amphibious operation to do so.

With Britain at their back and freezing them out of trade with a blockade they couldn't effectively face the USSR. They lacked too many natural resources to self sustain their infrastructure, and with a British blockade they were out of the running for raw materials they lacked, which the Soviet Union had been providing them until the Nazis stabbed the Soviets in the back and attacked.
  • CAC likes this
Happy Trails,
Clint.

#3 Otto

Otto

    GröFaZ

  • Administrators
  • 6,455 posts
  • LocationFestung Chicago

User's Awards

2   

Posted 05 May 2011 - 11:21 PM

Moved to Alternate History forum.

tiger_p_elephant_PzP.gif

Comments, questions or feedback? Contact me at ottomail.png

"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." Socrates


#4 belasar

belasar

    Court Jester

  • ModeratorsOKF Moderator
  • 5,756 posts

Posted 05 May 2011 - 11:31 PM

There are several scenario's where Nazi Germany might have survived to this day, with most of its empire intact, but without a means to cross the channel and take the British Isles, it would be next to impossible to force Britain out of the war without a great ally like the USSR or the USA.
Wars are rarely fought in black and white, but in infinite shades of grey

(Poppy is occasionaly correct, or so I hear)

#5 LRusso216

LRusso216

    Graybeard

  • ModeratorsOKF Moderator
  • 9,729 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 06 May 2011 - 01:07 AM

I would suggest a thorough use of the Search function. This topic has been hashed about numerous times. Please do that before there are any further posts.

image001.png

Lou


#6 RabidAlien

RabidAlien

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,084 posts

Posted 06 May 2011 - 02:12 AM

Sooooo....you're saying....all Hitler had to do to win was to effectively utilize the "search" feature? That was always one of his biggest downfalls, the insistence on using AltaVista to search with, instead of moving to more powerful Yahoo or Google searches. He just couldn't embrace new technology and indexing features.

Sorry, I just couldn't resist. :evillaugh:
  • Sloniksp, formerjughead, Volga Boatman and 1 other like this

#7 LRusso216

LRusso216

    Graybeard

  • ModeratorsOKF Moderator
  • 9,729 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 06 May 2011 - 02:18 AM

Sooooo....you're saying....all Hitler had to do to win was to effectively utilize the "search" feature? That was always one of his biggest downfalls, the insistence on using AltaVista to search with, instead of moving to more powerful Yahoo or Google searches. He just couldn't embrace new technology and indexing features.

Sorry, I just couldn't resist. :evillaugh:

Actually, I think you're on to something. Had he used Google, he would have known his attempts to win would have been futile. Bing just doesn't do it. :rolleyes:

image001.png

Lou


#8 RabidAlien

RabidAlien

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,084 posts

Posted 06 May 2011 - 02:23 AM

'Course not. Bing has certain communistic leanings. Had Hitler, the founder of the Nazi party, tried to use Bing, his entire hard drive would have totally and completely crapped itself, and he would have lost his collection of vintage Hungarian porn. Yeah. Not a good thing. Happened to me once.
  • formerjughead likes this

#9 formerjughead

formerjughead

    The Cooler King

  • TrusteeOKF Trustee
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,874 posts

Posted 06 May 2011 - 04:29 AM

Do either of you have any idea how painful it is to aspirate Cheeto's and Miller Highlife through your nose? I almost fraking choked to death trying not to laugh out loud.

#10 RabidAlien

RabidAlien

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,084 posts

Posted 06 May 2011 - 11:04 AM

My mission here is complete.
  • Von Poop likes this

#11 T. A. Gardner

T. A. Gardner

    Genuine Chief

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,855 posts

Posted 07 May 2011 - 04:07 AM

Let's stay on topic or things will get locked.

#12 A-58

A-58

    Cool Dude

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,262 posts
  • LocationBaton Rouge, Louisiana

Posted 07 May 2011 - 09:08 AM

Oh I think we could go on like this for several days before getting locked down totally. Most of "the cheese" has been here already you know. All we need is Jeff to come by and it'll be like a "Social Groups Anonymous" reunion here.

But just in case and keeping with the merits and wishes of the inner circle, I say there's no way Hitler could have googled himself out of any trickbag after letting the BEF escape at Dunkirk.

Edited by A-58, 07 May 2011 - 09:11 AM.
Because I wanted to do it - good enough for you....

"On the Plains of Hesitation, lies the blackened bones of countless millions who,
at the dawn of victory sat down to rest, and resting died"....

(Adlai Stevenson to Harry Truman on discussing the pros and cons of dropping the big one, or so I'm told)


#13 Volga Boatman

Volga Boatman

    Dishonorably Discharged

  • Dishonorably Discharged
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,640 posts

Posted 07 May 2011 - 10:58 AM

It seems that Hitler's best chance of conquering Europe may well have been to get Goebbels to form 'einen schwing band', and fill stadiums with screaming fans!:trumpetplayer:

Edited by Volga Boatman, 07 May 2011 - 11:26 AM.

Llamas are bigger than frogs.:cool:

#14 belasar

belasar

    Court Jester

  • ModeratorsOKF Moderator
  • 5,756 posts

Posted 07 May 2011 - 01:11 PM

Naw, Volga. The Hof!
Wars are rarely fought in black and white, but in infinite shades of grey

(Poppy is occasionaly correct, or so I hear)

#15 RabidAlien

RabidAlien

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,084 posts

Posted 07 May 2011 - 02:26 PM

If Hitler had finished one front at a time, instead of trying to operate three fronts at once, he might have stood a chance. Completely defeating the BEF and preventing Dunkirk would have helped tremendously in both the Battle of Britain and in North Africa. Eventually the British Air Force would have been worn down (send over more fighters and fewer bombers, perhaps?), allowing Sea Lion to go forward. It would have taken some time to "conquer" the British Isles, and maintaining law and order would have been quite difficult, but would have allowed the North Africa forces to roll up Egypt and the Suez and pretty much every square inch of sandy soil, since there would have been no more replacements/resupply coming from England. Once all of that is under control, turn your field marshals loose on Russia with the strict order to "win at whatever cost"...then step back and let them do it instead of trying to control everything from a bunker 1000 miles away. Russia, I think, would be the real challenge, simply due to its sheer size and the weather. Nothing against Britian...I can see the British as putting up the most determined resistance (I can't imagine all the freckly-faced Irish redhead lassies just sitting idly by....gotta love the mental image of a freckly-faced Irish redheaded lassie toting an Enfield and several pounds of explosives. Probably while wearing a beret and looking totally hot. But I digress.). So, if Hitler and Tojo manage to NOT piss off the US, and there's no Pearl Harbor for Roosevelt to use to get the US into the war, I don't see us coming in anytime before Hitler has most of Europe conquered. But Hitler would have to start trusting his generals and listening to his advisers regarding new technology and what to use it for (ie....the ME262). Heh. I just don't see that happening.
  • Gromit801 likes this

#16 formerjughead

formerjughead

    The Cooler King

  • TrusteeOKF Trustee
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,874 posts

Posted 07 May 2011 - 02:59 PM

It seems that Hitler's best chance of conquering Europe may well have been to get Goebbels to form 'einen schwing band', and fill stadiums with screaming fans!:trumpetplayer:


So you are saying with a better sound track Mr. Hilter would have achieved more success, or even victory, in WW2? Maybe that could explain what happened to Glenn Miller. I don't think it is outside the realm of possibilty that Fatso Goering could have tried to abduct Miller as either an attempt to impress the Little Corporal or to exploit Miller's talents for the Nazi agenda.

Edited by formerjughead, 07 May 2011 - 04:03 PM.


#17 belasar

belasar

    Court Jester

  • ModeratorsOKF Moderator
  • 5,756 posts

Posted 07 May 2011 - 03:23 PM

Did they use the Die Glocke to snach Glen Miller?
Wars are rarely fought in black and white, but in infinite shades of grey

(Poppy is occasionaly correct, or so I hear)

#18 RabidAlien

RabidAlien

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,084 posts

Posted 07 May 2011 - 07:19 PM

Nah. Hitler's UFO got him. Elvis, too.

#19 chris the cheese

chris the cheese

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 42 posts

Posted 07 May 2011 - 09:21 PM

Would it be possible for Germany to win if they had simply defeated Great Britain and THEN Attacked Russia? So that Germany's factories wouldn't be bombed as easily?


The assumption here is that Germany could have defeated Great Britain. The fact is the invasion of Britain was scuppered by the defeat of the Luftwaffe at the hands of the RAF. No air supremacy no invasion. I have no doubt there are members here who could, with the full benefit of hindsight suggest ways in which the Luftwaffe could have defeated the RAF, but even if the RAF did lose one must then consider the toll on the Wehrmacht of an invasion and whether a subsequent invasion of the USSR would have then been likely.

#20 USMCPrice

USMCPrice

    Idiot at Large

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,603 posts

Posted 07 May 2011 - 11:23 PM

Eventually the British Air Force would have been worn down (send over more fighters and fewer bombers, perhaps?), allowing Sea Lion to go forward. It would have taken some time to "conquer" the British Isles, and maintaining law and order would have been quite difficult....


There was never any hope of Germany successfully invading Britain. They had neither the naval power, amphibious doctrine, equipment nor the resources and expertise to develop them. An amphibious assault is the most complicated operation in warfare. That's why after WWI and the disasters at Tanga and Gallipoli most nations considered it impossible to launch a large scale amphibious operation against anything but a minor power, in the modern era. Japan and the United States Navy/Marine Corps did continue to develop amphibious doctrine, equipment and techniques during the inter war period. It was this expertise that allowed Japan to succeed early on and the Allies to mount their reconquest of Axis held territories. Once war was joined Britain, being a maritime nation, was able to leverage it's nautical experience and infrastructure to add a number of innovations. This amphibious doctrine, tactics, organization and equipment were as decisive in this aspect of warfare, as the German development of the vehicles, tactics, equipment and combined arms doctrine that enabled their early dominance in WWII land warfare.
It is imperative in an amphibious assault to build combat power ashore rapidly (troops, supplies and equipment) or the expedition will fail. Germany had neither the shipping, specialized craft nor logistical expertise achieve this. Britain didn't have to stop the Germans on the beach just delay them long enough for aircraft, surface naval units or submarines to get at the amphibious shipping. Whatever troops got ashore would quickly find themselves faced with destruction or surrender as their only options because they couldn't be reinforced or supplied, and with no line of retreat. It would be a Dunkirk in reverse for the Germans only they would be unable to evacuate their troops. Would Germany ever have the logistical capability (sealift) to continue pouring troops and supplies into Britain at a greater rate than the British could reinforce and supply it's forces on it's own home islands? No!
Germany never possessed the capability to pull off SeaLion, even if they had been able to concentrate all their military power in attempting it. Infantry and armored divisions sitting on the French coast mean nothing, if you can't get them across the channel and keep them supplied with fuel, food, munitions and medical supplies, they're irrelevant.

Edited by USMCPrice, 07 May 2011 - 11:42 PM.

  • LJAd and rkline56 like this
"I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you f**k with me, I'll kill you all."Marine General James Mattis, to Iraqi tribal leaders
"Every Marine is, first and foremost, a rifleman. All other conditions are secondary."Gen. Alfred Gray, 29th Commandant of the Marine Corps

#21 freebird

freebird

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 583 posts

Posted 07 May 2011 - 11:58 PM

Let's stay on topic or things will get locked.

Yes, perhaps we could split off the banter from this thread? :confused:

Would it be possible for Germany to win if they had simply defeated Great Britain and THEN Attacked Russia?


Possible? Yes.
Simple? no.

If the Nazi's didn't persecute (Holocaust) and kill so many of their civilians, could those extra soldiers have helped them?


No, not really a big factor. (Leaving moral arguments aside)
There were only about 200,000 Jews in (Greater) Germany at war's outbreak, so assuming that there would have been about 100,000 males and at most perhaps about 30 - 40,000 able-bodied males between the ages of 18 and 38, with even less of those being willing to fight.
Most of the able bodied healthy males would end up in compulsive service with vital areas anyways (mines, work camps etc) so it's doubtful that a few 10's of thousands of extra bodies of questionable loyalty would have much of an effect.

Then Germany would only have to face Russia and the US... and without the ability to land troops easily, Germany could've easily simply held off America while taking Russia.
Opinions?


With Britain either neutral, withdrawn from the war (ie Vichy Britain) or surrendered, the US would not enter the war, it would be exclusively concerned with Japan.

#22 chris the cheese

chris the cheese

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 42 posts

Posted 08 May 2011 - 06:05 PM


No, not really a big factor. (Leaving moral arguments aside)
There were only about 200,000 Jews in (Greater) Germany at war's outbreak, so assuming that there would have been about 100,000 males and at most perhaps about 30 - 40,000 able-bodied males between the ages of 18 and 38, with even less of those being willing to fight.
Most of the able bodied healthy males would end up in compulsive service with vital areas anyways (mines, work camps etc) so it's doubtful that a few 10's of thousands of extra bodies of questionable loyalty would have much of an effect.



With Britain either neutral, withdrawn from the war (ie Vichy Britain) or surrendered, the US would not enter the war, it would be exclusively concerned with Japan.


On point one, neither military personnel, nor labour, manning the German war-machine were exclusive to Germany but were drawn from the occupied regions of Europe as well. Though this actually works both ways as slave labour and theft of property of undesirables helped prop up the war-economy.

On point two, I fail to see why Germany would have remained neutral in the Pacific war without Britain. Germany declared war on the States, not the other way round, in line with the agreements made under the Tripartite Pact.

#23 A-58

A-58

    Cool Dude

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,262 posts
  • LocationBaton Rouge, Louisiana

Posted 08 May 2011 - 06:31 PM

The Tripartite was a defensive alliance. Hitler declared war on the US after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor not because he was obligated to do but did so because he was an idiot, and for some silly reason he figured that the Japanese wanted to tangle with the Rookies again after getting royally thumped in 1939 by them.

Why would being involved in the Pacific benefit the Germans? The PTO was largely a naval conflict, and that's something the Germans had not much of, a surface fleet. There would be nothing for them to be gained by getting involved as a micro-junior partner in a theater of operations like the Pacific.

"On the Plains of Hesitation, lies the blackened bones of countless millions who,
at the dawn of victory sat down to rest, and resting died"....

(Adlai Stevenson to Harry Truman on discussing the pros and cons of dropping the big one, or so I'm told)


#24 lwd

lwd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,896 posts
  • LocationMichigan

Posted 09 May 2011 - 01:18 PM

If Hitler had finished one front at a time, instead of trying to operate three fronts at once, he might have stood a chance.

But how does he "finish" the western front? The only way I can see is to give up a good deal of his conquests. Britian might accept a peace deal that included Germann wthdrawl from Norway, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, and at least parts of France. But I suspect Hitler was constitutionally unable to even consider offering that.

Completely defeating the BEF and preventing Dunkirk would have helped tremendously in both the Battle of Britain and in North Africa.

Could he have "completely" defeated the BER? Remember not all of it was at Dunkirk. It's not clear just how much he could even have prevented from being withdrawn from Dunkirk. The Germans will also take losses trying to reduce Dunkirk and it may tie up forces they could use elsewhere.

Eventually the British Air Force would have been worn down (send over more fighters and fewer bombers, perhaps?),

The evidence is the BOB was wearing down the LW faster than it was the RAF. If for instance you look at the number of operational fighters the Germans started the BOB with a bit of an edge and soon lost it and never recovered it. The British were loosing slightly more at least during some stages but they were building planes faster and training pilots faster and could draw on larger industries and a larger population pool.
  • freebird, USMCPrice and green slime like this

#25 lwd

lwd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,896 posts
  • LocationMichigan

Posted 09 May 2011 - 01:34 PM

... Hitler declared war on the US after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor not because he was obligated to do but did so because he was an idiot,

That's not at all clear. There was pretty strong evidence that the US would be coming into the war on the side of the British in the not too distant future and he may have thought that the timeing maximized the phycological impact. It also allowed the German Uboats to do quite a bit of damage before the US got things under control.

and for some silly reason he figured that the Japanese wanted to tangle with the Rookies again ....

Did he? He may have hoped that they would join in but I've not seen anything that indicates he really expected it.
  • brndirt1 likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users