Could Germany win WW2?

[ljadw]

1)the siege of Britain was impossible,because Germany had not the means
2)the attack on Moscow was logistically impossible in september ,and failed in november
3)an other occupation policy in Eastern Europe :difficult(the Germans needed the food of the Ukraine),it would not add manpower to the Wehrmacht and it would not deny manpower to the Soviets
4)the US :a war with the US was unavoidable;a proof that Hitler did not underestimate the US is that the UBoatcommanders were obliged to fight with one hand on the back,to not give Roosevelt a pretexte for war .

[berrek]

There are always scenarios imagineable where Germany could win. You never know what would have happened if Germany did not attack the USSR or forced it to peace after the first campaign.

[hagen]

1)the siege of Britain was impossible,because Germany had not the means
2)the attack on Moscow was logistically impossible in september ,and failed in november
3)an other occupation policy in Eastern Europe :difficult(the Germans needed the food of the Ukraine),it would not add manpower to the Wehrmacht and it would not deny manpower to the Soviets
4)the US :a war with the US was unavoidable;a proof that Hitler did not underestimate the US is that the UBoatcommanders were obliged to fight with one hand on the back,to not give Roosevelt a pretexte for war .

1) If production had been pointed towards aircraft and submarines might not this have succeeded after another two years?
2) Logistical support was available to support the northern pincer of the Kiev encirclement; what if the attack on Moscow had been continued at this time in preference to creating the Kiev pocket? Was this note the preference of the generals?
3) The occupation in France was hardly popular but the Germans were able to use significant resources from France and as far as I know they were able to recruit more support than the Resistance was able to gather. Had they tried a similar approach in the east they might have got more support and even more importantly NOT alienated local populations who seemed to veer towards the partisans as a result of harsh German measures. Of course the problem is that that would run counter to the whole fascist programme but one would have thought a better approach could have provided better returns. Were they not respected at first as liberators?
4) Why was it unavoidable? The US did not declare war when the Soviet Union was invaded and a successful conquest would not have invoked a declaration of war. When the Japanese attacked there was stong pressure to concentrate on the Pacific War. I see no proof that the USA would automatically declare war on Germany because Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.

[ljadw]

on your point 1
a)2 years would be to long :Germany could not afford 2 years more war
b)the increase of the submarines production would be cancelled by the increase of British anti submarine weapons
c) an unrestricted submarine war could result (as in WWI)in a DOW by the US
d)in 1941,the U Boats did sink less tonnes than in 1940
e)about the number of UBoats :there were in january 1942 249 UBoats,of which 91 front-line boats,and of these only 55 available for the Atlantic,of which only 22 were at any time on patrol .
More fundamental :Germany was to weak for the following
and waging an offensive air and naval war against Britain
and waging war in the atlantic
and defending the Reich against air-attacks (the British also could Coventryzise German cities
AND at the same time protecting the eastern border against a possible Soviet attack .
Already in the summer of 1941,Hitler gave the order to diminish the production for the army
to the benefit of the LW,not only,because he was convinced that the war in the east was won,but (IMHO) because he saw the approaching danger of a British(and US) air offensive
on your point 2:at the end of august 1941,the Germans had already lost (without sick cases) more than 400000 men,(without any replacements),1216 tanks and SG(against 101 replacements).In september and october 337 tanks and SG were sent to the ftont ,with 355000 replacements .
There also was the danger from the SW front (Kiew) for the German lines of communication,if Typhoon started on 1 september .
on your point 4(I will later reply on your point 3) :
there was L-L
there was the landing on Iceland
there was the collaboration between the USN and the RN
There was also the German first strategy that was agreed between the US and Britain .
If Germany did nothing after PH,the US could defeat Japan more quickly and than turn against Germany.

[Robert Rojas]

Greetings to both citizen Guaporense and the community as a whole. Well sir, since the inception of this theoretical exercise on Thursday - December 31, 2009 - 2:28am, old Uncle Bob has been more than just a wee bit curious over the historical time parameters of your creation. So, does this theoretical exercise ostensibly cover the 1939-1945 time period or does this theoretical exercise ostensibly cover the 1939-1949 time period? In light of the time paramter question, at what point within the decade of 1939-1949 does National Socialist Germany and its disparate European Allies achieve either a "victory" or a "stalemate" which would be collectively recognized by the British Commonwealth, the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? Finally, how is your readership suppose to address the not so inconsequential matter of weapons of mass destruction? As of July 16, 1945, both the Britsh Commonwealth and the United States of America will be in possession of a wide assortment of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and the availability of such horrific ordnance will certainly add an entirely new dimension into the Anglo-American aerial campaign over Festung Europa. Finally, if the European conflict should continue into the latter 1940's, will the Allies continue to press for unconditional surrender OR will the Allies tire of the conflict and offer the Fascists of Europe some sort of armistice which would be amenable to all parties concerned? There is much to ponder and thank you in advance for entertaining my pointed inquiries. Well, that's my latest two Yankee cents worth on this expansive topic of interest - for now anyway. As always, I would like to bid you an especially copacetic day down in the ever exotic land that is Brazil.

Best Regards,
Uncle Bob

[berrek]

2) Logistical support was available to support the northern pincer of the Kiev encirclement; what if the attack on Moscow had been continued at this time in preference to creating the Kiev pocket? Was this note the preference of the generals?
3) The occupation in France was hardly popular but the Germans were able to use significant resources from France and as far as I know they were able to recruit more support than the Resistance was able to gather. Had they tried a similar approach in the east they might have got more support and even more importantly NOT alienated local populations who seemed to veer towards the partisans as a result of harsh German measures. Of course the problem is that that would run counter to the whole fascist programme but one would have thought a better approach could have provided better returns. Were they not respected at first as liberators?

Good points.
If you can attack towards Kiev, you can attack towards Moscow and anyway that was what the OKH would have done towards the end of august.
Obviously being more friendly towards the population will make them more cooperative.

[hagen]

(i) Why is two years too long for Germany? They have signed a 10-year peace treaty with the Soviet Union (with what value is a moot point) so why not take a few years to grind down the British. When you want war with the Soviets you will not face a two-front war. Stalin was waiting for the other powers to exhaust each other first.
(ii) The British are going to put everything into winning the war at sea but the Germans are going to start putting a lot in too. Air and sea war is all about capital equipment and there is no reason to suppose that the British are going to stay ahead technological as well as beat the Germans in building rates.
(iii) Submarine warfare might bring the Americans into the war but it is not clear that it will. Sinking rates may have been poor but then we are going to concentrate resources so as to improve that.
(iv) Logistically the Germans had real problems in the vastness of the Soviet Union. However, the population was only about twice that of Germany. I am doubtful that taking the Moscow region would have won the war. It might be the capital, an industrial region and communications centre but there was a reserve capital and the Soviets would have fought on. Then there are all those troops in the Ukraine. However, the generals seem to think it was the right move
(v) The racialist policies of the Nazis makes it difficult to see what deal they might make but I should have thought they might have acted in the east as they did in the west until the war was won and then the screws can be tightened.

Its quite simple really-

a) Germany alone - with minor allies had the fighting power(within its armed forces) to force a decision against one country at a time: possibly two-
b) The Soviet union was not one country but a communist empire made up of several:
c) Germanys allies had not the infrastructure to support or supply mass field armies- and Germany itself did not have the economic stability to maintain attrition (we all know this)
d)How could anyone ask if Germany could of won WW2 ? There would of had to be some pretty crazy changes in direction structure AND policies of not only Nazi Germany but the Soviet Union Britain and the USA.
For all the prowess of the Heer on the battlefield, the navy was gone as a force before it started and the BoBritain tore the heart out of the Luftwaffe. This is before we even enter the Yugoslavis Greece USSR Africa etc.
As a premise it does not get off the ground:

Wars between countrys may be geopolitical in dimensions, but the reality is mass death through battles-with-men-machines and logistics being the final word in gaining victory. War is destroying the others Armies-pulverising industry- breaking the will of a people- The main allies were never any where near having this happen to them. Britain and the Soviet union up till 1942 only suffered one or two of this triumvirate never all three. The world would have had to stand on its head for Germany to be victorious.

Doogal

Well the leaders in Britain and the Soviet Union were clearly worried men.
(a) Agreed
(b) Which made it politically vulnerable
(c) Only because it faced enemies who were bigger. Britain survived because of lend-lease and maybe the Soviet Union too; France did not survive at all.
(d) History had an outcome but I suggest if different choices were made there might have been significant differences in the outcome. Is all deterministic? Was it all inevitable? Churchill only slept soundly once the US was in the war so he was of a view that the outcome was undecided until that moment.

[Peter H]

Discussions on U Boats have the own topic here now:

Causes and effects of U Boat war
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 6&t=175281