Could Germany win WW2?
- Guaporense
- Banned
- Posts: 1866
- Joined: 07 Oct 2009, 03:35
- Location: USA
Could Germany win WW2?
There is a tread about how Germany lost WW2. However, I think that in view of the unfavorable odds facing Germany, I think that a discussion about the possibility of victory is justified.
Many people think that after December 1941, with the US, Britain and the USSR facing Germany, the destruction of the country was sealed. I dissagre with this view, while the allies had about 3 times the resources available to Germany (in terms of production of raw materials, market exchange rates GNP and GDP), this does not guarantee victory.
First, the richest of the allies, the US, had to bypass the atlantic ocean before fighting germany. Second, Britain was never able to deploy a very large army in Europe. Only the USSR, connected by land with Germany, could focus its resources without large logistical costs.
I think that if the USSR was defeated, there is no way with the western allies could reach overwhelming odds versus germany, as were reached by the allies in the second half of 1944 and 1945. This does not mean that the western allies couldn`t win, just that they would have faced much even odds.
And I think that the USSR could be defeated. In fact, I think that after the fall of France in 1940, the odds favoured Germany`s survival. Only superhuman effort by the soviet people saved the USSR from destruction. This would imply in a radical change in the course of world history.
The major threat that the western allies could mount agaist Germany was strategic bombing. However, I think that is cheap to counter strategic bombing, in the sense that the resources required to defeat the strategic bombing offensive are way smaller than the resources involved in making a strategic bombing offensive.
Many people think that after December 1941, with the US, Britain and the USSR facing Germany, the destruction of the country was sealed. I dissagre with this view, while the allies had about 3 times the resources available to Germany (in terms of production of raw materials, market exchange rates GNP and GDP), this does not guarantee victory.
First, the richest of the allies, the US, had to bypass the atlantic ocean before fighting germany. Second, Britain was never able to deploy a very large army in Europe. Only the USSR, connected by land with Germany, could focus its resources without large logistical costs.
I think that if the USSR was defeated, there is no way with the western allies could reach overwhelming odds versus germany, as were reached by the allies in the second half of 1944 and 1945. This does not mean that the western allies couldn`t win, just that they would have faced much even odds.
And I think that the USSR could be defeated. In fact, I think that after the fall of France in 1940, the odds favoured Germany`s survival. Only superhuman effort by the soviet people saved the USSR from destruction. This would imply in a radical change in the course of world history.
The major threat that the western allies could mount agaist Germany was strategic bombing. However, I think that is cheap to counter strategic bombing, in the sense that the resources required to defeat the strategic bombing offensive are way smaller than the resources involved in making a strategic bombing offensive.
Last edited by Guaporense on 31 Dec 2009, 19:18, edited 2 times in total.
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz
Re: Could Germany win WW2?
Well for starters Hitler had to beat Russia. He also had to cut Britain off from America so a whole review of the war on those fronts would be needed to see what Hitler could have done different. And how was he to get at the US anyway? Germany has finite resources and a finite population - she simply can't conquer everyone.
Last edited by john2 on 31 Dec 2009, 03:54, edited 1 time in total.
- Guaporense
- Banned
- Posts: 1866
- Joined: 07 Oct 2009, 03:35
- Location: USA
Re: Could Germany win WW2?
To win is not to occupy the entire rest of the world! For Germany, to win is simply to survive the war as an sovereign state, maybe annex European soviet union.john2 wrote:Well for starters Hitler had to beat Russia. He also had to cut Britain off from America so a whole review of the war on those would be need to see what Hitler could have done different. And how was he to get at the US anyway? Germany has finite resources and a finite population - she simply can't conquer everyone.
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz
Re: Could Germany win WW2?
So what are your ideas then? What could Hitler have done to force peace with Stalin? - that would certainly be a good start.
Re: Could Germany win WW2?
germany maybe could win a limited war
I donot think there was any way for the hitler and the nazi's to win WITHOUT giving up the nazi ideas
if they had gone into the USSR with the ideals of liberation of the nations and people
if they fed and converted massive numbers of POWs from the beginning
and forget the whole wiping out the jewish people ideas
but then they wouldNOT be nazi's
I donot think there was any way for the hitler and the nazi's to win WITHOUT giving up the nazi ideas
if they had gone into the USSR with the ideals of liberation of the nations and people
if they fed and converted massive numbers of POWs from the beginning
and forget the whole wiping out the jewish people ideas
but then they wouldNOT be nazi's
Re: Could Germany win WW2?
In answer to the topic question. No.
Once it became a "world war" Germany had little hope of victory. I don't see any other realigment of major players that's likely to lead to a world war either. Now if Hitler avoids war with the west he may have a chance but then it's not going to be a "world war".
Once it became a "world war" Germany had little hope of victory. I don't see any other realigment of major players that's likely to lead to a world war either. Now if Hitler avoids war with the west he may have a chance but then it's not going to be a "world war".
- Guaporense
- Banned
- Posts: 1866
- Joined: 07 Oct 2009, 03:35
- Location: USA
Re: Could Germany win WW2?
They would have to capture moscow and break the Red Army. Them, they would offer peace to the USSR, and annex most of European Russia. The western allies would probably give up war if Germany propose peace to them, since they would lose millions of soldiers in a direct war with Germany, a loss that is not politically possible. Germany controls all of Europe and becomes a superpower. A cold war with the western allies folows.john2 wrote:So what are your ideas then? What could Hitler have done to force peace with Stalin? - that would certainly be a good start.
Germany was an inch of winning the war in the 1941-1942 period. But after Stalingrad, they were far from it, after Kursk, they had lost. By late 1943, the war was definitely lost, the only hope was that the allies would give up in face of increasing losses. However, the USSR had already lost 19 million men by late 1943, 10 million plus (losses in 1944-45) wouldn`t make a real difference to them.
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz
- Guaporense
- Banned
- Posts: 1866
- Joined: 07 Oct 2009, 03:35
- Location: USA
Re: Could Germany win WW2?
I though like you before. Because of that, I was not interested in WW2. Why are interested in a event with only one possible conclusion? That`s like watching a sports match were only one team will win.LWD wrote:In answer to the topic question. No.
However, if victory was assured in 1941, then, the second part of WW2 is not an relevant historical event! HISTORICAL EVENTS ARE HISTORICAL EVENTS BECAUSE THEY COULD BE DIFFERENT.
Anyway, most historians of WW2 agree that Germany would win if they defeated the USSR. The western allies weren`t a factor after the fall of France in 1940.
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz
- phylo_roadking
- Member
- Posts: 17488
- Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
- Location: Belfast
Re: Could Germany win WW2?
"It's life, Jim, but not as we know it..."However, if victory was assured in 1941, then, the second part of WW2 is not an relevant historical event! HISTORICAL EVENTS ARE HISTORICAL EVENTS BECAUSE THEY COULD BE DIFFERENT.
Re: Could Germany win WW2?
And just how are they going to do that? They proved unable to break the Red Army and there is little indication that the fall of Moscow would have done so.Guaporense wrote:They would have to capture moscow and break the Red Army.john2 wrote:So what are your ideas then? What could Hitler have done to force peace with Stalin? - that would certainly be a good start.
More likely Germany surrenders but not until 46 after a number of her cities glow in the dark.The western allies would probably give up war if Germany propose peace to them, since they would lose millions of soldiers in a direct war with Germany, a loss that is not politically possible. Germany controls all of Europe and becomes a superpower. A cold war with the western allies folows.
Not really and by 42 any hope of a victory was rapidly receading.Germany was an inch of winning the war in the 1941-1942 period. ....
That's a rather strange way to look at history. History happened ie it only has one outcome. One is interested in it because of what happened and why.Guaporense wrote:I though like you before. Because of that, I was not interested in WW2. Why are interested in a event with only one possible conclusion? That`s like watching a sports match were only one team will win.LWD wrote:In answer to the topic question. No.
No No No. Historical events are historical events because they happened. In some cases things might have gone differently and produced different outcomes in other cases such would be unlikely but in either case they are still historical events.However, if victory was assured in 1941, then, the second part of WW2 is not an relevant historical event! HISTORICAL EVENTS ARE HISTORICAL EVENTS BECAUSE THEY COULD BE DIFFERENT.
Another obviously fallacious opinion.Anyway, most historians of WW2 agree that Germany would win if they defeated the USSR.You'll have a very hard time documenting that one.The western allies weren`t a factor after the fall of France in 1940.
Re: Could Germany win WW2?
That is somewhat spacious thinking. It depends on how determined the allies really are. Most Americans were absolutely convinced Hitler planned to take the US next. Anyhow this sort of hazy thinking is what got Hitler into trouble with Britain,when he assumed the Brits would simply give in after France. A strategy relying on luck and hoping the opponent just gives up isn't a very good one. Hitler needed to come up with a military plan to defeat the US and Britain.The western allies would probably give up war if Germany propose peace to them, since they would lose millions of soldiers in a direct war with Germany, a loss that is not politically possible.
Re: Could Germany win WW2?
This question was many times discussed. Have come to opinion that the German army did not have strategy. Hitler's actions from the military point of view were absurdity.
But participants of a forum on the whole fans of history and when to them speak about plans Germans for 1942, it these plans cannot consider from the point of view of a military science. Do not understand.
But participants of a forum on the whole fans of history and when to them speak about plans Germans for 1942, it these plans cannot consider from the point of view of a military science. Do not understand.
Re: Could Germany win WW2?
Off course they could have. But your question is very ambiguous. Germany didn't win so your question automatically assumes a 'what-if' situation. Something must be (done) different from actual history. No way around that.
So what you're really asking is 'what should have happened differently for germany to win' (or have had a good chance of winning because of it).
In my opinion germany could not afford a (prolonged) war on 2 fronts. So what they should have aimed for is to either not fight on 2 fronts at once or if they do, to ensure that the campaign on the second front is short. They didn't do that. While Hitler planned on the russian campaign being short that was wishful thinking. Especially since the attack was not accompanied with a diplomatic offensive to give the soviets a way out (with some territorial losses, remember, the bulk of fighting on the eastern front did not take place in Russia but in other soviet states) nor with a 'hearts and minds' campaign to win over the inhabitants of non-russian soviet territories the germans occupied. That's frankly the only way I see the eastern front being a 'short war'. And then it's a maybe because it depends on the soviet willingness to trade territory for peace.
The western front could be short if the germans either defeat the UK or manage to make peace with them. The only way I see the UK lose militairily is if the lose the war of the atlantic. And that would only happen with a greater german focus on u-boats, raiders and long range aircraft. And to be honest I doubt germany could supply enough of those to win the war of the atlantic even with a shift in the building programs.
Whether peace without a decisive militairy defeat of the UK was possible at all is dubious. Certainly not with Churchill at the helm. Again, the lack of a proper diplomatic offensive cost the germans. Especially concerning the USA. One of the reasons for the UK holding out on it's own was the expectationt hat sooner or later the USA would get involved. If (because of german diplomatic efforts) USA involvement would be much less likely the UK might have been persuaded into a peace with germany.
So to sum up, IMO in order to win WW2 germany needed to secure one front quickly. And that would have required more than just an additional militairy effort. Personally I don't think the Nazi mindset allowed for the diplomatic steps needed, which also explains why it didn't happen historically.
So what you're really asking is 'what should have happened differently for germany to win' (or have had a good chance of winning because of it).
In my opinion germany could not afford a (prolonged) war on 2 fronts. So what they should have aimed for is to either not fight on 2 fronts at once or if they do, to ensure that the campaign on the second front is short. They didn't do that. While Hitler planned on the russian campaign being short that was wishful thinking. Especially since the attack was not accompanied with a diplomatic offensive to give the soviets a way out (with some territorial losses, remember, the bulk of fighting on the eastern front did not take place in Russia but in other soviet states) nor with a 'hearts and minds' campaign to win over the inhabitants of non-russian soviet territories the germans occupied. That's frankly the only way I see the eastern front being a 'short war'. And then it's a maybe because it depends on the soviet willingness to trade territory for peace.
The western front could be short if the germans either defeat the UK or manage to make peace with them. The only way I see the UK lose militairily is if the lose the war of the atlantic. And that would only happen with a greater german focus on u-boats, raiders and long range aircraft. And to be honest I doubt germany could supply enough of those to win the war of the atlantic even with a shift in the building programs.
Whether peace without a decisive militairy defeat of the UK was possible at all is dubious. Certainly not with Churchill at the helm. Again, the lack of a proper diplomatic offensive cost the germans. Especially concerning the USA. One of the reasons for the UK holding out on it's own was the expectationt hat sooner or later the USA would get involved. If (because of german diplomatic efforts) USA involvement would be much less likely the UK might have been persuaded into a peace with germany.
So to sum up, IMO in order to win WW2 germany needed to secure one front quickly. And that would have required more than just an additional militairy effort. Personally I don't think the Nazi mindset allowed for the diplomatic steps needed, which also explains why it didn't happen historically.
Re: Could Germany win WW2?
Two points:would there have been a war between the US and Germany if the SU had collapsed in the summer of 1941 ?
:'one of the reasons for the UK holding out on it's own was the expectation that sooner or later the USA would get involved ' :if it was later,would the UK holding out ?(how much months or years could the UK hold out ? ) and would it be enough without the SU ?Could Brittain hold out till the Bomb in 1946 ?
:'one of the reasons for the UK holding out on it's own was the expectation that sooner or later the USA would get involved ' :if it was later,would the UK holding out ?(how much months or years could the UK hold out ? ) and would it be enough without the SU ?Could Brittain hold out till the Bomb in 1946 ?
- phylo_roadking
- Member
- Posts: 17488
- Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
- Location: Belfast
Re: Could Germany win WW2?
Once Lend Lease was in place, the British could hold out indefinitely - and IT didn't depend on the U.S. actually being IN the war The worst time for the British was the winter of 1940-41 espcially those first few months of 1941; nritish gold reserves ran out, the Amercians took every other gold reserves the British could get their hands on....then went over to Lend Lease after the 1941 elections in the States.
But prior to that, as British money ran out, we were very hard pressed to meet all our loans and interim payments in the U.S. - for food imports as well as industrial raw materials as well as arms and munitions. Thus Lend Lease was the point at which Britain's survival became unquestionable. Once that hurdle was past....
Theoretically - IF the british have to continue the struggle on its own and the Americans don't come in after a Russian defeat...which going by the events of late 1941 would require most of the rest of 1942 to complete!...North Africa is completed anyway by the end of 1942 - stalemate in the Med.
And stalemates are relatively cheap...in manpower and material terms.
But prior to that, as British money ran out, we were very hard pressed to meet all our loans and interim payments in the U.S. - for food imports as well as industrial raw materials as well as arms and munitions. Thus Lend Lease was the point at which Britain's survival became unquestionable. Once that hurdle was past....
Theoretically - IF the british have to continue the struggle on its own and the Americans don't come in after a Russian defeat...which going by the events of late 1941 would require most of the rest of 1942 to complete!...North Africa is completed anyway by the end of 1942 - stalemate in the Med.
And stalemates are relatively cheap...in manpower and material terms.