How could have Germany won the war?
your thoughts?
If it includes something about Rommel proving how great a commander he is that that makes your answer even better.
This question has always intrigued me and i wanted to hear everyone's opinion.

Oh and by the way I just joined, and am a WW2 history FREAK!

Here's a link to a thread that discussed this question.

Could the Axis have won?

another

What did Germany need to win the war?

And welcome to the forum.

__________________
Best Regards,
JW

Welcome.
I like the "Victory for Fatherland" spirit of yours. We definitely need more of that in this forum.
How could Germany have won the war due to Rommel's military genius? It could have been possible if Rommel murdered Hitler and started a military dictatorship with Manstein as the Führer before Operation Barbarossa commenced. Rommel then would have to spend the time between 1940-1942 on improving the overall mobility of the Wehrmacht as a whole and the supply efficiency for the Wehrmacht. Attack Russia in 1942 with "Operation Rommel” in 1942..........
By the way, here is a Rommel avatar if you want it.

Attached Images

erwin_rommel.jpg (14.3 KB, 8 views)

Germany fighting everybody else in the world? Not really likely to win any war even with Rommel. Once you get the military powers of the USSR and the USA against you it´s all over. You just can´t match the production power and amount of men. Just my opinion.

__________________

Not going to war with the Soviet Union........


And what is this obsession with Rommel? He is far from the best in my opinion

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

I'll agree with you that Rommel did OK, with the 7 Panzer Div in 1940.
BUT....
If he was THAT good why did Hitler send him to the side-show of North Africa and not the main event in Russia?

__________________

Because Rommel wasn't that good. Rommel was good as a traditional cavalryman. Lots of dash and capable of the quick win. What he lacked was a strategic plan to hold what he won. If you look at the North Africa campaign Rommel started off spectacularly pushing the British back to Tobruk. There he found a fortified nut he could not crack.
The British regrouped and pushed him, in turn, back to his original positions.
Rommel then got reinforced and made a second push much like the first against a weaker British force (they had withdrawn troops for the Far East this time, Greece the first time). This time Rommel got as far as Alamein where he again ran into a fortified position too tough for his little force to crack.
This time the British reinforced greatly and later assisted by the US pushed him in the end completely off the African continent. This does not speak well of Rommel's strategic vision. He obviously was a good tactician and could virtually run circles around most of his opponets on a battlefield where things were fluid. However, he lacked the resources and ability to deal with a dense battlefield and attrition warfare.

I think if Germany had completed Sea Lion and then captured the rest of Europe, and then built up a massive army with Rommel in command to invade Russia, i think the Riech could have pulled out a victory. In hindsight, its good they lost or else we'd all speaking German right now and living a terrible place. I only admire the Germans becuase they where able to build some of the greatest armies ever in such a short time. Also, how could anyone not think that Rommel was the best. I will admitt that Genghis Khan is better. Heres my top five military leaders of all time.
1. Genghis Khan
2. Erwin Rommel
3. George Patton
4. Tamerlane
5. Douglas MacArthur
Honorary Mention: Paul Von Lettow-Vorbeck
Vorbeck was a WWI German commander in Africa who beat back British armies almost three times his size

-Mannerhiem also was pretty good

My top five:
Genghis Khan
Alexander the Great
Julius Caesar
Hannibal
Attila the Hun

Just interested, why Hannibal and not Scipio Africanus who defeated him?

__________________
Best Regards,
JW

Obsessed, why not check out some of the previous Seelöwe / Sea Lion threads using the search function. I think you will find that Germany couldn't have gotten a miracle from God Himself to pull that one off successfully.

Hmmmm..... An interesting list.

So why do you admire the almighty Rommel so much?

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

Hannibal was the teacher, Scipio was the student.

Personally, I also admired Rommel when I was a lot younger but as I read and learned more about him, I finally viewed him as an over-rated commander but a very good leader.
The really good generals know how to be a leader and a commander at the same time. Rommel didn't have the neccessary schooling for the upper echelons of command. He's a victim of the Peter Principle.
Patton was both a leader and commander.

There are a lot of good generals out there but I tend to side with Sun Tzu's saying "The best way to win a war is not to fight a battle at all."

Do I hear a vacuum cleaner working or does this thread simply suck?

__________________

You definately dont hear mine, upon buying a new one I got a guarantee that forum members would not hear it!!!!!!

Which means only 1 thing......

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

It may have been interesting if Germany had not declared war on the USA, and also if the Germans had followed a 'hearts and minds' policy in Occupied Soviet countries.....

__________________
"Stand by to pull me out of the seat if I get hit" - Guy Gibson

One way I can see that Germany might have had a chance to win is if they could have suckered the Soviets into attacking Poland first. Then if they could have gotten the Poles to agree to trading a corridor to the Ukrain and to East Prussia for aid coming into the war on the side of the Poles. This means they don't have a war in the West. Furthermore they might actually get aid from the West including the US as they are fighting the Communist.

This is actually an interesting point....

Hitler however wanted war more then Stalin. Hitler especially wanted revenge for the Versailles treaty and France was on his mind?

I cant imagine Hitler not going to war with France.

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

I've always thought that 'revenge for Versailles' in addition to regaining disputed territory such as Alsace was a prime motivating force behind German aggression at the start of WWII.....

__________________
"Stand by to pull me out of the seat if I get hit" - Guy Gibson

Have to go with Martin on this one. Britan,by herself was'nt going to hurt Germany too much. Not enough to warrant a SeaLion attack. I also don't think any one commander would've changed the out come with Hitler pulling the strings. Once the U.S. was involved,
Germany was through.