Could Germany have won the war??

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
User avatar
GFM2000
Member
Posts: 303
Joined: 13 Mar 2002 08:27

Re: re

Post by GFM2000 » 21 Jul 2002 05:37

IAR80 wrote: -1943-
Germany and Axis Allies. Although Germany is now falling seriously behind in production numbers, the losses suffered during the soviet counter-offensive in the winter of 1942 would now amount to a fraction of the historical ones among german troops, again because the Wehrmacht manages to stay ahead in the gun/armor race. Operation Zitadelle takes place with the historical plan with 2 exceptions: 1. The german troops are more numerous and better equipped, 2. the soviets are caught by surprise( historically the soviets were informed by the allies about the operation through the "Lucy" spy network, with the UK defeated in Europe, North Africa and Middle East there would be no one to coordinate the resistance, not to mention the reluctance of anyone messing with the nazis which so far have been pretty much winning). With these two observations in mind along with the general favourable evolution of the front so far and the advent of advanced german equipment in much greater numbers (due to the lack of strategic bombing and the initial tech head start as a consequence of Directive No.1), operation Zitadelle had good chances of success and of ending the war in the east.
Huh? By late 1942, the Germans have lost the initiative on the Eastern Front. I strongly doubt the Germans can defeat the Russians in the Kursk operation ; and even if so (a la Mansteins's attack on Kharkov in 1943), would not be able to end the war in the east..... hmmm...

viriato
Member
Posts: 717
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 13:23
Location: Porto,Portugal

Post by viriato » 21 Jul 2002 14:45

Interesting post IAR80 but I have some questions about it:

1-Your point 4 seems to imply that all the UK is occupied by the Germans. Is that so?

2-The Germans should have tried after occupying the UK to go after Iceland/Greenland.

3-It seems to me that Rommel could have achieved the goal of North Africa/Middle East already in late 1941. What do you think?

4-Rommel being victorious in the Middle East means that the Germans can open a new front against the Soviets from the south, especially against the Caucasus and probably against Central Asia. The Germans would of course need the cumplicity at least of Turkey and/or Iran.

5-Why declare war on the US?A good option would have been not to declare war and wait for a US declaration of war instead.

6-Why would the Germans have stopped at the Urals and not push the Soviets eastwards? If so the Germans could have the advantage of reaching the Japanese and thus helping them in their fight against the US.

7-India. It seems to me possible that having been victorious against the Soviets the Germans could try to go against India. If victorious there a new way of communicating by land with the Japanese would have been opened. Furthermore the Chinese would then have been encircled and without any suply lines.

8-It seems that you think the Japanese would have already sued for peace in late 1944, one year before our real time. Why is that?

9-Nuclear weapons. The allies would still have the nuclear weapon in 1945. Their problem would be how to attack Germany with this weapon without having bases in the range of Germany.

User avatar
Christian Ankerstjerne
Forum Staff
Posts: 14002
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 14:07
Location: Denmark

Post by Christian Ankerstjerne » 21 Jul 2002 15:19

I think that Zitadelle had good chances of success. The initial plan was meant to be lauched before the Soviets had a chance to fortify. When taking into consideration that Germany could have won Zitadelle even when it was lauched, had the German forces not been drawn away for Sicily by Hitler, I think it is very plausable that ermany could have won.

The souther pincer, in the real offensive, had suffreed only mild or medium casualties, and had plenty of initiative left (they were actualyl ahed of scedule). The northern one had some difficulties, but the souther attack compensated for this.
Imagine if the Germans had attacked sooner - it would have cut through the Soviets like a warm knife through butter...

Christian

IAR80
Member
Posts: 184
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 21:05
Location: Satu Mare, Romania

re

Post by IAR80 » 21 Jul 2002 16:15

Viriato,

1- Yes it is. I have my doubts about it, though. The Luftwaffe, after reducing the RAF to a handful of fighters, would have to fly round the clock to protect the paratroopers launched prior to the invasion, and also protect the invasion force during the process of deployment on the british soil.

2- Let's not stray away from Hitler's true intentions THAT far.

3- I don't think so. Rommel arrived at El-Alamein, hitorically, in late summer 1942, which is about 200 kms west of Cairo. Even with the british deprived of the BEF and with their navy and supply fleet under attack this would probably speed things up only by a few months, because most of the allied supplies arrived around Africa and through the Suez canal and not through the Gibraltar strait. Also the terrain and equipment attrition can not be ignored, not to mention the poor lines of communications. The extended campaign schedule is not due to enemy resistance but to the harsh battle conditions. That's why I don't think the british would be completely defeated earlier than Nov/Dec 1942.

4- Yes, however the logistical problems would be terrible, even with unlimited fuel at its disposal, such a new front would require supplies at a pace which couldn't be kept, not counting the terrain. The advance would be painfully slow. Also, Stalingrad and the Caucasus oil fields would be secure by then, not to mention that the men of the Africakorps would need some rest after such an infernal Blitz.

5- Let's not make Hitler the wise man he wasn't, shall we?

6- There would simply not be enough Axis, not to mention german, troops to secure the WHOLE of the USSR, not to meantion the logistical implications.

7- Again, insufficient troops and serious logistical problems would bar the way. Also the saying "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" does not apply in politics, the German and the Japanese shared common enemies but that's where the similarities end. Not to mention the fact that Hitler's agenda did not include a "trip" to India.

8- Actually, I think more in the lines of early 1944. This is because there is no other place to focus their efforts, there would be no logic in applying a "Germany First" policy and therefore the US together with what the british evacuated would combine their armies and they would basically maul the japanese. Probably the Japanese mainland wouldn't be invaded to spare troops for the return to Europe, but in all Japan would end up much worse than how it was in Dec. 1941.

9- Correct. However by then Hitler would have at least one rocket capable of reaching New York or Washington and development would continue, not to mention possible missile U-boats and a nice fleet of strategic bombers. The reason the germans never completed the nuclear bomb is that among delays due to other emergencies, the heavy water plant in Norway was sabotaged by a british commando( I forgot when, 1941 would be my best guess, though) . In this scenario this would not happen and the nuclear project would be ready by 1944 and the first delivey means by spring 1945.

viriato
Member
Posts: 717
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 13:23
Location: Porto,Portugal

Post by viriato » 22 Jul 2002 19:24

I would like to make some comments on IAR80 statements.

I wrote:
2-The Germans should have tried after occupying the UK to go after Iceland/Greenland.
IAR80 wrote:
2- Let's not stray away from Hitler's true intentions THAT far.
I still say that it makes sense trying to occupy Iceland at least. It would make a fine front line to the German armies for:

a-Would diminish the chances of long range US bombers approaching Europe;

b-If the US tried to invade Europe than this would retard their movements and allow Germany time to arrenge their defence;

c-Making the NE US/Canada a target for German operations - long range bombers or rockets;

d-Even if the Germans wouldn't use it for strategic operations it would be nonetheless a threat and somewhat a bargaining power on the hands of the Germans.
5- Let's not make Hitler the wise man he wasn't, shall we?
8) Ok...
6- There would simply not be enough Axis, not to mention german, troops to secure the WHOLE of the USSR, not to meantion the logistical implications.
The problem for the Germans would be that the Soviets would have not finished the war only because they have been defeated in Europe. The Germans would have to go after them the same way they did in Europe.
7- Again, insufficient troops and serious logistical problems would bar the way. Also the saying "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" does not apply in politics, the German and the Japanese shared common enemies but that's where the similarities end. Not to mention the fact that Hitler's agenda did not include a "trip" to India.
The same thing as above, only now substitute the Soviets by the British.
8- Actually, I think more in the lines of early 1944. This is because there is no other place to focus their efforts, there would be no logic in applying a "Germany First" policy and therefore the US together with what the british evacuated would combine their armies and they would basically maul the japanese. Probably the Japanese mainland wouldn't be invaded to spare troops for the return to Europe, but in all Japan would end up much worse than how it was in Dec. 1941.
And have the US really applied a "German First" policy? Even if they have would have the change of policy made such a difference - one year and a half- ? Would have they abandoned the Soviets to pursue a "Japanese First" policy?
9- Correct. However by then Hitler would have at least one rocket capable of reaching New York or Washington and development would continue, not to mention possible missile U-boats and a nice fleet of strategic bombers. The reason the germans never completed the nuclear bomb is that among delays due to other emergencies, the heavy water plant in Norway was sabotaged by a british commando( I forgot when, 1941 would be my best guess, though) . In this scenario this would not happen and the nuclear project would be ready by 1944 and the first delivey means by spring 1945.
I think that the Germans were still far away from achieving the nuclear bomb even if they had no problems in their research like the Norway episode.

User avatar
Cantankerous
Member
Posts: 1277
Joined: 01 Sep 2019 21:22
Location: Newport Coast

Re: re

Post by Cantankerous » 01 Oct 2023 04:27

GFM2000 wrote:
21 Jul 2002 05:37
IAR80 wrote: -1943-
Germany and Axis Allies. Although Germany is now falling seriously behind in production numbers, the losses suffered during the soviet counter-offensive in the winter of 1942 would now amount to a fraction of the historical ones among german troops, again because the Wehrmacht manages to stay ahead in the gun/armor race. Operation Zitadelle takes place with the historical plan with 2 exceptions: 1. The german troops are more numerous and better equipped, 2. the soviets are caught by surprise( historically the soviets were informed by the allies about the operation through the "Lucy" spy network, with the UK defeated in Europe, North Africa and Middle East there would be no one to coordinate the resistance, not to mention the reluctance of anyone messing with the nazis which so far have been pretty much winning). With these two observations in mind along with the general favourable evolution of the front so far and the advent of advanced german equipment in much greater numbers (due to the lack of strategic bombing and the initial tech head start as a consequence of Directive No.1), operation Zitadelle had good chances of success and of ending the war in the east.
Huh? By late 1942, the Germans have lost the initiative on the Eastern Front. I strongly doubt the Germans can defeat the Russians in the Kursk operation ; and even if so (a la Mansteins's attack on Kharkov in 1943), would not be able to end the war in the east..... hmmm...
Even if the war in Eastern Europe was a lost cause for Hitler, he could have chosen to direct the Luftwaffe to take the war to the US by having the RLM place production contracts for 90 Messerschmitt Me 264s, 160 Blohm und Voss Bv 238s, and 130 Junkers Ju 390s, while giving the green light for the proposed Focke-Wulf Großtransporter and Blohm und Voss Bv 250 (a land-based derivative of the Bv 238) to enter full-scale development. Also, the existing inventory of Messerschmitt Me 323s would have been used to ferry half a million German troops and 120 tons of battlefield equipment to the eastern US to take over state capitals and the White House so that Hitler would instruct US voters to vote for a far-right man in the 1944 GOP presidential primaries who could be inclined to seek an accommodation with the Nazis and order plutocratic American Jews to leave the US and turn over their bank deposits to American bankers of German ancestry.

KDF33
Member
Posts: 1282
Joined: 17 Nov 2012 01:16

Re: re

Post by KDF33 » 01 Oct 2023 05:13

Cantankerous wrote:
01 Oct 2023 04:27
the existing inventory of Messerschmitt Me 323s would have been used to ferry half a million German troops and 120 tons of battlefield equipment to the eastern US to take over state capitals and the White House so that Hitler would instruct US voters to vote for a far-right man in the 1944 GOP presidential primaries who could be inclined to seek an accommodation with the Nazis and order plutocratic American Jews to leave the US and turn over their bank deposits to American bankers of German ancestry.
Why would you ever think of posting this?

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6254
Joined: 13 Jun 2008 22:54
Location: Kent

Re: Could Germany have won the war??

Post by Terry Duncan » 02 Oct 2023 08:19

Thread Necromancy from 2002 brought to people by Cantankerous. Please start acting your age before you find yourself taking an extended holiday.

Terry

Return to “What if”