What possibilities WERE there for Germany to actually win World War Two?

__________________
„Solange man nicht mit dem Kopf unterm Arm rumläuft geht es doch noch!" Erwin Rommel

Well I reckon:
200g of 'mission command' tactics (I can not remember the german term)
100g of not putting Goering in command of the Luftwaffe for the Battle of Britain
300g of not being allied with Japan and finally
10000000000000000000 Megatonnes of not going to war with Russia, then maybe there was a chance.

__________________
There's no honorable way to kill, no gentle way to destroy. There is nothing good in war. Except its ending.

There is always my perrenial favorite. Of course, this takes some stretch to occur:

Everything goes pretty much as originally occured right up to Dec 7 1941. Then, following the Pearl Harbor attack on the US by Japan Hitler, let's say on the advice of his inner circle, the General Staff etc, is reminded of Karl Haushofer's ideas on geopolitics (which held some currency in Nazidom) and that the United States is: 1. Outside the sphere of influence and interests of Germany and 2. That it contains the largest Aryan / Germanic population in the world. Hitler is also advised that the Japanese will, at some point down the road, be in conflict with Germany after Germany's victory over the Soviet Union (remember, at this point the Germans are still winning).
The result of this is that Hitler declares war on Japan in support of the US. He offers concillitory support like say, a division or two, some aircraft and, some naval units.
This leaves FDR in a quandry. First, the US is now not going to be involved in a European war. Second, lend-lease is a dead issue. One can just imagine some US Senator speaking to Congress (southern drawl here for effect) "Our President is sending our best tanks and planes to the British and Russians who are fighting the Germans who are our allies while our boys in the Pacific are goin' without! I say we impeach the *#$%$#%###*%&#@!"
With lend-lease dead (except for support of Britain in the Pacific possibly)the Soviets crumble under the German assault (one can look elsewhere no further than these very boards to see that that is a reality). The British in North Africa are at most able to stop Rommel's advances outside Cairo (again, the el Alamein position) but unable to go on the offensive. A stalemate in the West ensues.
Germany gets their "living space," Japan gets crushed by the full weight of US military might. Post war the US and Germans have a falling out, and a new cold war ensues.

__________________
Truth is stranger than bullshit!

In reasonable terms, the answer to the original question is: no.

Certainly there are scenarios which could alter the results of the war. TA's one above is a good one, Germany not declaring war on the USSR is another. But in practice, none of those possibilities was ever possible. Hitler WAS going to declare war on the USSR, that was his goal from 1934, if not earlier. Also, while it might be possible that Hitler not declare was on the US December 10th, it is not possible that he would declare war on Japan.

Real counter-factual study must involve situations which could reasonably have gone the other way. If we examine those, then really, there is no way Germany could reasonably have won the war.

Despite the tension of the Battle of Moscow, Hitler never really came all that close to knocking Russia out of the war, he and the German command were ignorant of the industrial revolution going on in and east of the Urals. The 1942 Summer offensive, for all its flash and success, was a limited objective offence, already surrendering the possibility of outright defeating the Russians. Also, it was based entirely on a false premise, that the oil could be cut off from Moscow. In fact new rail lines meant that that objective was unobtainable.

The U-Boat threat to the UK was serious, but it was simply not feasible to strangle the UK with the number available. Even if these were increased by 50%, it would not have sufficed.

Any German victory had to happen before the battle of Moscow in winter 1941-42. That is when they lost the war.


Here one other 'one-decision' war altering theory I can imagine.

-In early 1942, Hitler is faced with an interesting choice, German scientists have confronted him with two potential weapon designs, what will become known as the V1 and the A4 (V2). Hitler examines them carefully, as he always did given his overkeen eye to small details.

After some scrutiny, he rejects both weapons as being inefficient and overly costly, and recommends funding instead for battlefield rockets, a much cheaper and safer alternative.

Thus, in 1943 the German army starts fielding nebelwerfers and similar tactical rocket systems early and in masse. Further, over the next three years, Under Speer's guidance, Germany starts turning out tremendous quantities of conventional arms, enough to stop the Russians in Poland.

Wouldn’t matter in the end, but it would seriously prolong the war, and also lend the possibility of an allied defeat in the west. Of course, in the end Berlin is still invaded by the Russian in early 1946, or nuked by the US in mid 1946. But this way the war is a year longer, costs incalculable more lives, and gives time for Hitler to nearly complete his final solution, killing about 3-4 million more 'undesirables' in the extra year.


The V2 was the stupidest weapon system in the history of man. It killed more Germans in the building of it than allies in the deployment. It cost about half as much as the Manhattan project, for a nation with 1/4 the resources as the US. It was economic and resource suicide for Germany, and for what? So that a 1-ton explosive could be delivered with less accuracy than a bomber? All the V2s put together did FAR less damage than a single heavy bomber raid from the allies.

Scientifically, it was a wondrous achievement, and advanced the subsequent space race by 15 years. But in military terms, the development of the V2 was the stupidest decision of a regime known for stupid decisions. The V2 consumed as much resources at almost 1600 tanks, or four aircraft carriers, and that’s not including labour, expertise usable elsewhere, and invisible costs.

Utter war-losing foolishness.

I guess that this would be decided by beating the Soviets in 1941. After that they would have the resources and also Britain would not get another ally that could help in winning the war.I think that if the Soviets were out of picture the US policy towards helping Britain would change as well, as the war definitely would be long and maybe too costly.

AS always it is easy to say what should have been done. Yet don´t know if this would have changed the end result but it definitely would have helped in that direction to gain victory.

1. Germany was not prepared for a long war. So it is kinda amazing Germany did survive over the winter...The factories and people would work harder and more tanks, guns and ammunition would be available. For instance in autumn 1941 all Hitler was capable of presenting to Guderian was 200 new engines for tanks when Guderian needed loads of new tanks. And the number of planes was too low, the losses at Battle of Britain were not met. As well troops were sent home instead new troops should have been made all the time to serve as reserves when the disaster struck in winter 1941.

2. Hitler´s demands for capturing different places as his object seem to have changed all the while. When it was Leningrad, then the oil and wheat areas in the south , then both of these, and finally he wanted Moscow. By concentrating troops he probably would have captured at least one of these places. The OKH-OKW system worked for Hitler here though it only sabotaged the attacking power of Wehrmacht even if the Generals were shown Hitler´s power to decide.

3. The attack against the civilians: Hitler should have used the people´s ( Baltics etc ) hate against communism for him at the time of the attack. He could have had several divisions more but instead he created the partisan problem. The ideology might not go with this idea, but Hitler could have done with the people what he wanted after beating Russia.So first victory then Einsatzkommando...

4. Prepare for winter anyways...

Just some thoughts...

__________________

T.A. Gardner,

I'm afraid I have to disagree with your point:
This leaves FDR in a quandry. First, the US is now not going to be involved in a European war. Second, Lend-Lease is a dead issue.

FDR was not above going beyond US neutrality to assist Britian and Russia, he proved this when he ordered US escorts to fire on German subs even in international waters. So even if Hitler had not declared war on the US, FDR would have gotten us in it somehow.

The Blue Max

[ 17. September 2003, 08:24 AM: Message edited by: Blue Max ]

I like the Germany "allies" with America scenario all the same - it certainly puts a new slant on things!

__________________
„Solange man nicht mit dem Kopf unterm Arm rumläuft geht es doch noch!" Erwin Rommel

If Germany did ally with America, wow, that would be a huge difference. I think that if Hitler was smart enough to maintain a peace with America he could have achieved all the same in conquering all countries up to declaring war with Britain; I believe after that point America may not have gone to war with Nazi Germany but would have most definetly been questioning Hitler's move. Also in Hitler attacking Russia, I believe at that point the US would realize what was going on and then go to war but then Hitler would have had a little more of a head start on the Atlantic theater and production of Luftwaffe as well as troop training.

__________________
Hence the saying: One may know how to conquer without being able to do it- Sun Tzu

Just keeping America neutral in Europe would have been of great importance for Hitler, I think...

__________________

Andreas! Good to see you back!

__________________
"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!" - Homer Simpson

(banner by Otto)
www.basher82.nl

Well i think germany could of done it if hitler left the tatics to his genrals. he was good at politics and fighting on the ground as a grunt.i say this because the air force problem the navy and the movement of the 5th and 6th army in russia.
I almost think that if the assasination of hitler had worked it might of done more good than not (if germany kept of with the war.

One important drawback to all questions whether Germany could have won the war:

All logical reasons tell us that they NEVER would have gone so far if not the ALLIES had made so many mistakes:

* Poland not setting up suitable defense,
* England/France in fact not doing anything to help Poland,
* England let Germany successfully invade Norway,
* France being utterly incompetent in several ways and overrun by Germany,
etc.

It is a very big irony that one of the worst mistakes in the war MAYBE proved to be the key for Allied victory:

When the British troops were about to kick the Italians' butts out of Africa, he pulled out troops to support Greece. This made Hitler invade Yugoslavia and Greece to have a save flank, and help the Italians also in Lybia. As a result, the British were interim beaten in both theaters.

BUT as we know this delayed Hitler's aggression against Russia, made the Germans lose the Battle of Moscwa and finally the war.

What happens if the British troops win in Africa quickly, the Greece continue to kick Italian butt even without British help, and Hitler goes forward in Russia? That's an interesting question.

__________________
If someone tries to remove the speck in your right eye, will you turn to him the other also?

What if Mussolini didn't invade Greece and Hitler invades Russia in May. Could he have won the war before the end of the year and succesfully take Moscow?

__________________