NationStates Jolt Archive

I think that the USA, and to a lesser extent the USSR, held what might be called the decisive advantage in WW II. By which I mean that these two countries, singly or together, had the resources, manpower, and material to decide the war in favor of either the Axis or the Allies. Had neither become involved in the war in Europe, it would likely have become a stalemate; Germany and Italy would not have been able to conquer the British Empire, and the British Empire would not have been able to conquer Germany and Italy. Whichever side either of these two countries joined would have the advantage.

Once Hitler opened a second front by attacking the USSR, the Nazis were doomed. They did not have the resources in terms of people or material to defeat both the British Empire and the USSR simultaneously. The USSR probably did more than any other combatent to drain the German war machine. The Third Reich was bleeding to death in front of Leningrad, Moscow, and Stalingrad, even before it was pulverized from the air by the Western Allies.

Even if Moscow had fallen the Russian military and people would simply have fought on, as Napoleon had discovered earlier. To defeat Russia you have to destroy their Army, and the people's will to fight. Or perhaps their ability to fight. During the First World War Imperial Germany (with the help of the Bolsheviks) was able to destroy the Russian people's will to fight. Hitler's orchestrated brutality to the people in captured Soviet territory negated that possibility in the Second World War. Moscow would just have become another city in the long list that had fallen to the Germans. The vital means of production had already been moved east.

What Germany needed was their "Ural bomber" (a long range heavy bomber) to attack those means of production. As it was, the Germans could only destroy Russian war materials on the field of battle, the most inefficient and costly way. Of course, the reverse was also true, but far less critical, as the USSR was allied with the UK and RAF bomber command did have the four-engined heavy bombers necessary to carry the war deep into Germany, as they did.

The bottom line is that the USSR had the numbers and resources to win a war of attrition on the Eastern Front, and Germany did not. The war on the Eastern Front would eventually and inevitably bleed Germany white, as it did, adversely affecting Germany's ability to fight on all other fronts. Or even adequately defend her own airspace against the coming onslaught of Allied bombers and fighters.

The USSR did not have the economic power to hammer Germany to her knees, as did the U.S. But the USSR was able to bleed Germany to death over time, perhaps analogous to the debilitating effects that a slow but fatal disease like leukemia has on the human body.

Probably Germany's best (though slim) chance to defeat the USSR would have been to talk Japan into attacking the USSR from the east (and leaving the US strictly alone). Initally, I suspect that Hitler was too arrogant to ask his Asian ally for help, even though he needed it desperately. Later, it was too late for both Germany and Japan. Also, the Japanese did not want to fight a war in Siberia that they probably could not win, especially as their Army was heavily engaged in China. They were a naval power, and the IJN could not contribute much to a war against the USSR. Of course, the IJN could have contributed a lot to a war against the Royal Navy in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, but that would have almost certainly brought the US into the war, an event that Germany was trying to avoid. Ultimately, Japan had less to contribute to a German victory than the USSR had to contribute to a British victory, so any Japanese strategy would probably have failed.

Similarly, once the US entered the war on the Allied side, Germany was doomed. Even if Hitler had refrained from attacking the USSR and that power had remained neutral throughout the war, America simply had too many resources. Just as in the First World War, the US and the British Empire (plus most of the rest of the Western Hemisphere) would have eventually won a war of attrition.

Again, Germany's best hope would have involved Japan and the USSR. If Hitler had refrained from attacking the USSR (Japanese diplomats were trying to get the USSR to join the Axis when Germany attacked, thereby demonstrating that at least some in the Japanese government had a much better concept of global strategy than did Hitler), and instead convinced both Japan and the USSR to join the Axis and help Germany, Italy, and their allies against the British Empire, the US, and their allies, it would have been a long and bitter war indeed, perhaps another stalemate. The posibility of stalemate or Axis victory would have been enhanced if Hitler also forced Spain into the war on the Axis side, taking Gibralter, driving England from the Mediterranean, and protecting Italy.

In fact, of course, Hitler did open a second front by attacking the USSR, and the US and UK made the European war their first priority after Japan drew the US into the war on Dec 7, 1941. So even though Germany gained Japan as an active ally, she was doubly doomed.

By which I do not mean to imply that defeating Germany (and Italy and Japan) was easy. In fact, it was a long, costly, dangerous, bloody road to victory. At the time it appeared to Allied leaders and soldiers alike that the Axis powers might win the war. From their perspective, they were engaged in a death struggle that they might very well lose. But, with the benefit of hindsight, we can see that their overwhelming industrial might meant that the odds heavily favored the Allies.

Fortunately, none of the Axis heads of state had any plan or strategy for a joint war effort, so the Allies were able to defeat them piecemeal. And the Japanese, who at least had a pre-war grand strategy in the Pacific, over extended themselves after their unexpectedly easy initial victories, and hastened their own defeat.

Since I have considered the possibility of the USSR fighting on the Axis side in WW II, it is only fair to examine the scenerio of the US joining the Axis. Had Hitler not attacked the USSR (and the USSR remained neutral), and had the US unexpectedly joined the Axis, then:

A major war would have been fought in North America, as Canada was already at war with Germany.


After (if) the US defeated Canada, plus Australia, New Zealand, and the rest of the British Empire outside of the UK (maybe with the help of Japan [!] in the Pacific and Indian Oceans), the US Navy could neutralize the Royal Navy in the Atlantic, and the US and German Armies and Air Forces together could defeat the RAF, invade the UK, and win the war for the Axis. Then, Germany could have attacked the USSR with a reasonable chance of success. Of course, politically, there was zero chance of such a thing happening.
I would like to make a few comments about Adolf Hitler, since he personified the Third Reich, and made all of the strategic decisions. I regard Hitler as a superb (if evil) politician with great political insight. This allowed him to gain power, re-arm Germany, and gobble-up parts of Europe with impunity.

Once the war started, however, his weaknesses became evident. He had some tactical sense, probably due to his experience in WW I as a combat infantryman. But, he was a very poor strategist. As far as I can tell, he never had a "grand strategy." By which I mean a clear set of goals for the war and a plan to reach them. Hitler was, in fact, taken by surprise when England and France declared war on Germany. He had expected to partition Poland without fighting a major war, and had no plan beyond defeating Poland. Hence the period of "Phony War" after the defeat of Poland, while the German generals planned the campaign against France.

When Italy joined the war, Hitler and Mussolini made no serious attempt to devise a common strategy. In fact, Mussolini's military mis-adventures in Greece and North Africa drained away valuable German military resources. After the defeat of France, Hitler seemed to have no idea what to do next, no plan at all for defeating the British Empire. Instead, he formulated his plan to attack the USSR, against the advice of his generals and without consulting his allies, and sealed the fate of Germany.

Hitler fought the whole war on an "ad-hoc" basis, a campaign at a time. This lack of any coherent strategy cost Germany dearly.

After Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and brought America into the war, Hitler made no attempt to formulate a common strategy with Japan. Again, he was taken completely by surprise (In truth, the Japanese leaders did not consult with Hitler, either, and may not have had much respect for him. Before the war, Admiral Yamamato declined an offer to meet with Hitler when the Admiral was traveling across Germany). I have always blamed this failure to consult with his allies, at least partly, on Hitler's arrogance. Hitler generally seemed to believe himself superior to his allies, as if he knew more. In fact, in terms of overall strategy, he knew less.

Have you heard that by using 3 panzer division, Rommel could have sized the middle east and africa, and then been in striking range on the caucus?

not to mention the 300 U-boat strategy, and oh-so many more.

By the time this would have been possible the americans were already in the war and they never would have allowed this.

Interesting first post.
Welcome to NS.

*bows*

Interesting first post.
Welcome to NS.

*bows*

Thank you, I put some effort into it.

Have you heard that by using 3 panzer division, Rommel could have sized the middle east and africa, and then been in striking range on the caucus?

not to mention the 300 U-boat strategy, and oh-so many more.

Like I said, they never would have been able to defeat the US ( which would have entered the war when this300 U-boatstragey was implemented ) and the USSR which,because of Hitler, was now at war with Germany. And also defeated the UK at the same time.

Have you heard that by using 3 panzer division, Rommel could have sized the middle east and africa, and then been in striking range on the caucus?

not to mention the 300 U-boat strategy, and oh-so many more.

There is no way that Germany could have defeated the US the UK and the USSR all at the same time. Or one at a time as a matter of face. Each was more powerful, or evenly matched, thus producing nothing more than a stalemate.

Have you heard that by using 3 panzer division, Rommel could have sized the middle east and africa, and then been in striking range on the caucus?

not to mention the 300 U-boat strategy, and oh-so many more.

I was going to mention Rommel. Rommel was put where he was largely because of personal differences with Hitler (If memory serves, and I'm to lazy to double check). If Rommel had been used in the European theater rather than "sent away" I think things could have turned out differently (although likely with the same eventual result. But it would have been much bloodier and coslty)

I was going to mention Rommel. Rommel was put where he was largely because of personal differences with Hitler (If memory serves, and I'm to lazy to double check). If Rommel had been used in the European theater rather than "sent away" I think things could have turned out differently (although likely with the same eventual result. But it would have been much bloodier and coslty)

I agree, Rommel was a superb tactician and would have dramaticly changed the course of the European theatre. But seeing as he was militarily better suited the Hitler, he had to be sent to Africa.

An assault head-on into the Soviet Union had abosuletly no chance of success.

However, by Rommel conquering the Suez Canal, and the middle east, he would of cut of lend-lease and be able to seize the oil fields in the SU.

Furthermore, 300 U-boats would have completely crippled Britain, and forces the U.S. to build an adquete anti-sub force, by which time Germany would have won in the SU, and been casting it's eyes towards Britain, and hopefully started to build an adequate surface fleet.

Also they could easily have built mass numbers of Panthers, Me-262's, and the like.

An excellent and well-presented first post for any NS'er. Just spotted it on the NS homepage, thought I'd check it out, and I am pleased I did so. Much of what you've said holds true. I'd have mentioned Rommel as well, but of course it seems I was beaten to it by others.

Essentially, Germany pushed things too far, too fast. Once the war in Europe was effectively over, Hitler expanded the operations very quickly. First Sea-Lion, the plan to invade Britain, collapsed due to the Luftwaffe's inability to destroy the RAF. Then, Op Barbarossa, invading Russia - once more, a huge miscalculation on the part of Hitler and the higher-level Nazi's. And invading North Africa meant that he was pushing for more war with Britain.

If Hitler had left Japan out of the loop, aside from convincing them to not attack the US, then the war would have indeed settled into stalemate. Hitler and Stalin had a non-aggression pact, so that removes the USSR as a potential threat for now, the US was following a policy of golden isolation, similar to that employed by Britain during the 1870's and 1880's. However, Hitler could have used this stalemate to build up his forces even further, and develop the required technology to attack his enemies. Like you said, a bomber capable of reaching the Urals, or even the hydrogen bomb. As we know, Hitler was only months away from developing the hydrogen bomb as an effective weapon by the time the war ended. Think about it for a moment.

An excellent and well-presented first post for any NS'er. Just spotted it on the NS homepage, thought I'd check it out, and I am pleased I did so. Much of what you've said holds true. I'd have mentioned Rommel as well, but of course it seems I was beaten to it by others.

Essentially, Germany pushed things too far, too fast. Once the war in Europe was effectively over, Hitler expanded the operations very quickly. First Sea-Lion, the plan to invade Britain, collapsed due to the Luftwaffe's inability to destroy the RAF. Then, Op Barbarossa, invading Russia - once more, a huge miscalculation on the part of Hitler and the higher-level Nazi's. And invading North Africa meant that he was pushing for more war with Britain.

If Hitler had left Japan out of the loop, aside from convincing them to not attack the US, then the war would have indeed settled into stalemate. Hitler and Stalin had a non-aggression pact, so that removes the USSR as a potential threat for now, the US was following a policy of golden isolation, similar to that employed by Britain during the 1870's and 1880's. However, Hitler could have used this stalemate to build up his forces even further, and develop the required technology to attack his enemies. Like you said, a bomber capable of reaching the Urals, or even the hydrogen bomb. As we know, Hitler was only months away from developing the hydrogen bomb as an effective weapon by the time the war ended. Think about it for a moment.


Even if the Luftwaffe had destroyed the RAF, the Royal Navy still would have controlled the seas, and the German Army forced to surrender.

Even if the Luftwaffe had destroyed the RAF, the Royal Navy still would have controlled the seas, and the German Army forced to surrender.

Not if you consider the fact that the German Navy, in particular the U-boats, could have had a considerable effect. Germany, thanks to the Treaty of Versailles (I apologise for any poor spelling, it's early in the morning and I was never good at it), was limited, in theory to a smaller navy. But, they were limited in terms of tonnage, not number of ships. This means that Germany could construct more ships, which were faster than the older British battleships. And given the damage handed out in the Atlantic by the U-boats, you can see that in the North Sea and Channel, they would have a large number of targets, who as of yet did not have the capacity to defend against them.

If we consider the RN defeated, hypothetically, the German Army would have no issues conquering Britain. The BEF (British Expeditionary Force) had left huge amounts of equipment on the beaches at Dunkirk, and was seriously short of supplies. Yes, they would have put up a fight, but it is doubtful they would have won.

Well Hitler and his kronies made a lot of stupid mistakes throughout the war, more towards the end. They had a whole lot going for them regardless. I know hindsight is 20/20 but in my oppionion it was very possible for the Reich not have made as many mistakes as they did. If they had done things this way they could very well have taken full control of Europe and with the help of Japan, Asia too. So yes, they could have won but only if they had made a lot of right decisions throughout the war.. which.. obviously.. they didn't.

So yeah, merry christmass to all and to all a good night!

Not if you consider the fact that the German Navy, in particular the U-boats, could have had a considerable effect. Germany, thanks to the Treaty of Versailles (I apologise for any poor spelling, it's early in the morning and I was never good at it), was limited, in theory to a smaller navy. But, they were limited in terms of tonnage, not number of ships. This means that Germany could construct more ships, which were faster than the older British battleships. And given the damage handed out in the Atlantic by the U-boats, you can see that in the North Sea and Channel, they would have a large number of targets, who as of yet did not have the capacity to defend against them.

If we consider the RN defeated, hypothetically, the German Army would have no issues conquering Britain. The BEF (British Expeditionary Force) had left huge amounts of equipment on the beaches at Dunkirk, and was seriously short of supplies. Yes, they would have put up a fight, but it is doubtful they would have won.


But Germany had only a limited timeframe, by the time they built up the Navy, Britain would have recovered.

However, The Luftwaffe could have destroyed the RAF by simply targeting their radar stations.

But Germany had only a limited timeframe, by the time they built up the Navy, Britain would have recovered.

However, The Luftwaffe could have destroyed the RAF by simply targeting their radar stations.

A fair point. No radar means no planes being sent up to stop the incoming bombers.

A fair point. No radar means no planes being sent up to stop the incoming bombers.

Thus not nearly as many heavy caualties.

Not to mention, Hitler diverted the attacks agsinst military targets to civy one's, in order to get back at the british for bombing Berlin.

When did Adolf Hitler lose the chance to win World War 2 ?
What was the moment in time that before it he could still possibly win the war, and after it his defeat was a matter of time ? (and long continued fighting that still cost so many lives).

When was it? How early or late was it ?

How about starting from a relatively late date, when we're sure that Hitler's defeat was just a matter of time, and from it go back in time to a date that marks the change, that marks when Adolf Hitler lost the chance of winning the war he started. Let's see...

In the summer of 1944, with unstoppable massive forces of the western allies pushing from West and unstoppable massive Soviet forces pushing from East, with devastating massive air bombardment, both tactical and strategic, that the already exhausted Luftwaffe could not stop, and with his submarines now being the hunted instead of hunters, it's obvious that Hitler had already lost the war. So it's a good starting point. Now let's step back in time.

In mid-1944, before D-Day, Russia was already unstoppable, even without an invasion of France. The part of the western allies was of course very significant. The threat of an invasion that kept a significant part of the German forces in the West, the air war that increasingly eroded Germany's ability to support its war effort, and the continuing massive material support of the western allies to Russia, were all very important contributing factors. But I think we can agree that by mid-1944 Germany was already losing the war, because although it kept fighting fiercely, it could not stop Russia's massive continued advance all over Eastern Europe, en route to Berlin.

If we look back in time, we can safely say that with the loss of its last major attempt, in Kursk in mid 1943, Germany was no longer able to defeat Russia.

But actually, if we look deeper into the details of the situation, we can say that although Kursk was the last major German attempt, and German army broke its back trying, it already had no hope even earlier. If we look in the details of the Kursk campaign and in those of the battle of Stalingrad, then we can go back to the Stalingrad campaign in late 1942 and say that when the Soviets started their huge counter attack that encircled the massive German forces in and around Stalingrad, Germany lost the strategic initiative and its ability to stop Russia.

But even if Germany had swiftly taken or bypassed Stalingrad in the summer of 1942 and kept pushing further East and South in the endless prairies of South Russia to the Caspian Sea. Would that change the final outcome ? No, it could only delay it, as the outcome of the war was decided even earlier.

In his book "Modern Times", Paul Johnson clearly marks the exact point in time when the outcome of the war was decided. His analysis is shared by other top authors, and was also shared by Winston Churchill himself at the time of events when they happened. Remaining wartime reports by German Generals allow us to see it clearly from the German military's point of view.

It's obvious that Hitler gambled everything by invading Russia, that attacking Russia and failing to defeat it could only mean that Germany will be defeated.

When the German invasion of Russia began in June 1941, Germany could potentially defeat Russia and win the war. Its initial victories were tremendous. Russian losses in men, equipment, and land, were unbelievably enormous. But Russia is HUGE, with endless resources, its soldiers are tough, and its winter is terrible for anyone not fully equipped for it, and the German military was definitely NOT equipped for the Russian winter, and knew it.

But in the first weeks of the invasion the German successes were such that the over-confident Hitler decided that he wants to occupy the rich Ukraine in the South even before taking Moscow, the heart of Russia. To do so he ordered to stop the advance of army group "Center" to Moscow and to give its two tank armies to army groups "North" and "South". This was perhaps Hitler's greatest mistake, and his Generals argued a lot against it, but in vain.

After spending more than a month on this diversion, in September 6th 1941 Hitler realized that he was running out of time in his race to defeat Russia before winter, which his war plan considered a major condition with no alternative.

So then he ordered to concentrate everything in an all-or-nothing effort to take Moscow "In the limited time before winter". Army group "Center" received its two tank armies back, plus a third tank army, and additional air units. In October 2nd 1941 the German military began its final assault on Moscow. In the 2nd week of October, there was a confident German public radio announcement that the outcome of the war has been decided and Russia is defeated.

But then the Russian winter began. Rains and deep mud slowed the German tanks and infantry almost to a standstill. The advance resumed a month later, when the mud was frozen by the dropping temperature. In German cities an emergency effort began, to collect winter clothing for their unequipped soldiers in Russia, who still fought in their summer uniform.

By the end of November 1941, the German armor spearheads reached a distance of just 27km from the center of Moscow, but could advance no further due to strong Russian resistance, and the temperature dropped to around -34C (-29F). The foremost German observers could see the tips of the towers of the Kremlin, but General Erich Hoepner, the commander of the leading Panzer Group 4, reported that his force "reached its utmost limit, with physical and mental exhaustion, unbearable shortage of personnel, and lack of winter clothing".

General Wagner, the German army's top logistics officer also wrote a report that was summarized by the chief of staff with "we reached our limit in terms of personnel and equipment".

And then, in December 6th 1941, the Russian army counter-attacked the exhausted Germans with massive fresh reinforcement units that came from Siberia and the far East, and forced the German armies to a deep retreat, for the first time.

The next day, on December 7th 1941, the Soviet news agency announced the first German defeat since the invasion started. On the same day, Japan attacked the US in Pearl Harbor and the US joined the war with its immense military potential. On that day Hitler ordered to cease the attack and shift to defense.

A week later, General Hoepner reported "my 22 divisions face 43 Russian divisions, none of my divisions is capable of attack or of defending against a stronger force. All my positions are endangered. No fuel, no food for the horses, the soldiers fall asleep standing, everything is frozen, the soil is frozen a meter deep, which makes digging impossible."

As Paul Johnson writes, "at this stage it was clear that Operation Barbarossa failed. A totally new strategy was needed". Instead of that, in December 19, 1941, Hitler, the German dictator and a former WWI Corporal, appointed himself the new commander-in-chief of the German army, and personally commanded the daily war management since then. He no longer trusted his gifted Generals, the highly professional leaders of the world's most effective military machine, to win the war for him. He thought he can succeed where they failed, and ignored most of their advices since. He totally forbid any more retreats, a limiting constraint that cost the German military almost a third of its manpower in Russia before the end of the winter. General Halder wrote "Hitler's constant underestimation of the enemy is becoming grotesque".

In 1941 Russia survived a tremendous blow. Barely, and with horrible losses, but it survived it, and from that point on became ever stronger. Germany on the other hand had just pushed itself to the limit and beyond, and it was not enough. It charged forward again with all its remaining potential once the winter ended, and again a year later when the next winter ended, but it was too late. The weakened German military could not achieve then what it failed to achieve in 1941.

In December 1941 Germany lost the war when it failed in its all-or-nothing attempt to defeat Russia before the winter, and in addition to that, at its moment of failure, the US joined the war and its additional immense war potential further ensured Germany's defeat.

We can ask if Germany lost the war even earlier, for example when it failed to defeat Great Britain with airplanes and submarines, leaving it as an essential future base for massive US forces and a second front. Or when it just began its invasion of Russia. The answer to that is negative. As long as he wasn't at war with Russia, Hitler had options and possibilities, nothing was final yet. When he invaded Russia, he could still do things differently, such as concentrating the effort on Moscow from the beginning, and presenting the war as a campaign of liberation from Stalin's brutal regime in order to soften Russia's resistance, but Hitler interfered with the military conduct of the invasion from the beginning, and the unprecedented Nazi brutality that aimed to decimate and enslave them, left the tough Russian people with no other choice but to fight their toughest war, and utilize their endless resources much better than ever, and by doing so Hitler lost his last remaining options and his chance of winning the war.

So in December of 1941, at the gates of Moscow, Hitler's war was lost. It took 3 1/2 more years to end, thanks to the outstanding fighting skill and loyalty of the German soldier, but he could no longer win it.

As many, many histories have said, Hitler lost the war when he attacked Russia head-on.

head-on apply directly to the forehead.

However, by Rommel conquering the Suez Canal, and the middle east, he would of cut of lend-lease and be able to seize the oil fields in the SU.

A brilliant plan, flawed in only one tiny detail: lend lease wasn't routed through the Suez Canal or Africa. The vast majority was carried by North Atlantic convoys to Murmansk, Vladivostock and Archangel.

A brilliant plan, flawed in only one tiny detail: lend lease wasn't routed through the Suez Canal or Africa. The vast majority was carried by North Atlantic convoys to Murmansk, Vladivostock and Archangel.

And the trade routes through Persia, which was more crtitcal.

And the trade routes through Persia, which was more crtitcal.

Through which about 3% of the total was routed, yes?

Through which about 3% of the total was routed, yes?

I'm almost certain it was way more than that.

I think Robert Harris ("Fatherland") did a pretty fair shake at how the Nazi war machine might have turned the war in it's favour through a series of activities. Of course, much of it also depends on luck.

Cribbed from wikipedia.org

The German armies on the Eastern Front are stopped at the gates of Moscow at the end of 1941. Defeated in battle but not demoralized, they launch a second major offensive into the Caucasus in 1942, cutting the flow of oil to the Red Army. With its armies immobilised, the Soviet Union surrenders in 1943.

Around the same time, German intelligence learns that the British are reading their Enigma code, which is leading to the sinking of their submarines. They withdraw their submarines from the Atlantic temporarily and send false intelligence to lure the British fleet to destruction. The U-Boat campaign against the United Kingdom resumes, starving Britain into surrender by 1944. Winston Churchill, King George VI and other prominent British officials are forced into exile in Canada, and Edward VIII regains the throne.

The United States does not invade mainland Europe, and presumably withdraws its troops from Britain prior to 1944, and instead concentrates on defeating Japan. Germany tests its first atom bomb in 1946, and fires a "V-3" missile that explodes above New York City, to demonstrate Germany's ability to attack the continental United States with long-range missiles. Following this demonstration of power, the United States signs a peace treaty with Germany, leaving the Third Reich as one of the two superpowers of the world.

Having achieved victory in Europe, Germany annexes Eastern Europe and most of the western Soviet Union into the Greater German Reich. Following the signing of the Treaty of Rome, Western Europe and Scandinavia are corralled into a pro-German trading bloc, the European Community. The surviving areas of the USSR become engaged in an endless guerrilla war with German forces in the Ural Mountains. Military leaders and Nazi officials choose to keep up the guerilla war because it amounts to hands-on training that keeps the Wehrmacht sharp and versatile. By 1964, the United States and the Greater German Reich are caught in a Cold War and an arms race to develop more sophisticated nuclear weapons and space technology.

1. Even when the war turned, they invested many efforts in the killings instead of in the war. They used trains to lead Jews to their deaths instead of leading troops to the front.

2. If he weren't Anti-semitic, the Jewish scientists might even have helped him build the bomb, and he could win.

I'm almost certain it was way more than that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Corridor#Statistics

Wikipedia. Pinch of salt, and all that, obviously.

I think Robert Harris ("Fatherland") did a pretty fair shake at how the Nazi war machine might have turned the war in it's favour through a series of activities.

Pity the novel sucked so much as a novel though.

Pity the novel sucked so much as a novel though.Meh, I liked it. Hardly high-art, but enjoyable stuff and certainly truckloads better than "Davinci" (my personal limitus for crap)

Anyhow, for those that are interested, here's a map which shows the eventual state of the Greater German Reich in "Fatherland".

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a55/Falhaar/FatherlansUE64-teraa.jpg

And here's a world map. Notice that Japan has still been pwned and that Australia and Canada have declared independence from Nazi-defeated Britain.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/17/Fatherland.png

Meh, I liked it. Hardly high-art, but enjoyable stuff and certainly truckloads better than "Davinci" (my personal limitus for crap)

I just felt that it was another uninspired trudge over too-familiar territory. SS-GB and The Man In The High Castle were more enjoyable as alt-history novels than Fatherland.

I just felt that it was another uninspired trudge over too-familiar territory. SS-GB and The Man In The High Castle were more enjoyable as alt-history novels than Fatherland.To each his own I guess. Although I will say that I appreciated the fact that Harris actually researched the war and used a lot of historical evidence to back his story up, rather than the K Dick method of taking vast quantities of drugs and then writing "OMG WHAT IF TEH NAZIS WON!!!!!11???"

To each his own I guess. Although I will say that I appreciated the fact that Harris actually researched the war and used a lot of historical evidence to back his story up, rather than the K Dick method of taking vast quantities of drugs and then writing "OMG WHAT IF TEH NAZIS WON!!!!!11???"

I did seven years of research for The Man in the High Castle. Seven years of research: it took me seven years to amass the material on the Nazis and the Japanese. Especially on the Nazis. And that's probably the reason why it's a better novel than most of my novels: I knew what I was talking about. I had prime-source material at the Berkeley-Cal library right from the gestapo's mouth--stuff that had been seized after World War II. Stuff that was marked for the eyes of "the higher police" only. I had to read what those guys wrote in their private journals in order to write THE MAN IN THE HIGH CASTLE. That's also why I've never written a sequel to it: it's too horrible, too awful. I started several times to write a sequel, but I had to go back and read about Nazis again, so I couldn't do it. Somebody would have to come in and help me--someone who had the stomach for it, the stamina, to think along those lines, to get into the head of the right character.

I won't bother to track down a quote from Deighton, as his factual works on WWII speak for themselves.

The war the Germans landed themselves in was unwinnable.
Had they played it smart they probably could have got some Eastern European new recruits. However, they didn't, the Germans stayed evil bastards and ensured the USSR's complete attention.
If the Germans had launched a well-planned and well supplied assault with all their available forces and hadn't got dragged into a war with the US they would have taken the USSR.
As it was there were a few things they could have done to knock the Russians back into the dust, but Hitler lacked the insight to do that.
The problem was that Russia was simply a too big target that was attacked at the wrong time.
The Russians were also good, don't get me wrong; I like my country, but in my opinion the German soldier was probably the best soldier in the Second World War, on average at least.

On 3 occasions Hitler screwed up Germany's chance of winning WW2

On the 27th of May 1940, German forces halted outside Dunkirk and let the British escape.

On 7th of September, ordering the luftwaffe to bomb London, instead of carrying on the attacks on the RAF, RAF was down to about 24 hrs operational readiness left in it.

In the opening stages of the invasion of Russia, people looked to the germans as lights of education and inteligence, as oppossed to the hated communists who stole and imprisoned at will (purges/gulags etc)
When asked what to do about the russian people who wanted to support the germans, Hitler said "sub-human slavs... seize everything they have, they are slaves to the reich now" or something pretty close, so they all hid stuff and supported the partisans.

However, going back to Sept 1940.

If the germans had used their invasion forces as a lure for the British, eg sail the invasion boats out of the various harbours at 6 in the evening when the british could see them setting sail, then turned them around after dark, they could have lured the british navy into the channel and used air power to destroy them while forcing the RAF to come out to defend the navy, then the Germans could have forced a British surrender without ever having to set foot on British soil.

Thus leaving the door wide open to chuck another 1/2 million troops at the Russians in 1941

There is exactly ONE way Hitler could have won WWII - if his scientists had successfully created a nuclear weapon. Nothing else would have done the job, save one (unlikely) scenario.

Suppose two things:
1) Hitler has a sudden rush of blood to the head in 1940 and overrules Goering, so that instead of the Battle of Britain, Germany activates Operation Sea Lion immediately. According to the British War College, which has gamed out the scenario extensively, the Luftwaffe prevents the RN from interfering with the crossing, and British forces on Albion are defeated in six weeks. The Royal Navy retreats to Iceland, South Africa, Malta, and continues to fight, but have no way to continue the blockade of Germany.
2) Hitler repudiates the Axis treaty with Japan immediately following Pearl Harbour. President Roosevelt is overruled by Congress, which refuses to go to war with Germany, and the US instead turns all of it's attentions to Japan. There is no Italian front, or D-Day landings.

Guess what? Even in the above scenario, the Soviet Union crushes Nazi Germany by 1947. In sheer numbers, industrial capacity, and SIZE, Germany is so far outmatched as to be simply unable to pull off a win. Oh, in this scenario Stalingrad probably falls, as does Moscow - but so what? The Russians have lost Moscow before, several times, and kept fighting. Without nukes, the Russian war machine WOULD have eventually crashed across Europe, all the way to the English Channel, and beyond as necessary.

The unlikely scenario I alluded to before is this: The US mops up Japan fast, say early 1944. It then attacks Russia from behind.
In all honesty, I cannot see Roosevelt ever doing this, nor Congress approving it. But it is the only other possibility for Nazi victory.

This is briefly touched upon but I feel the need to enlarge upon it.
Hitler and his minions missed a wonderful opportunity to enlarge upon his manpower supply by treating so many of the peoples his forces captured as animals.
Instead of befriending them and acting as their rescuers they lined them against walls, raped and looted, and generally drove them BACK into Stalins hands. This manpower supply might not have won the war, but it certainly would have helped Hitler signifigantly. It certainly would have helped him build a better base upon which to lean when the RUssian counterblow struck, and got rid of the partisan problem in his rear.

Also, by joining forces with Italy and Japan Hitler made his first MASSIVE mistake. Japan would have handily drawn America away for several years. And Italy could have been used as a staging area for air attacks into the mediterranian, where Allied shipping helped the 8th Army build an unbeatable supply stock even when the Brits had awful tactics. By allowing Italy to attack the ALlies he drew himself into a stupid struggle he didn't want. He should have held Italy back, thrown his own warfighters in, and rolled everything from french Algeria to the caucasus up. THEN he might have beat Russia. Italy was a milestone around his neck. Japan was never really an allie, and caused America to enter the war, and to throw herself against Germany rather than Japan first. He should have found a way to annex Italy (if not in name then in fact) and Got Japan to attack Russia before America. A hrad sell yes, but I think dooable.

I have talked a bit about hitlers chances in going through the middle eastern route instead of a head on attack into Russia in 41 and been laughed at about it here. Nice to see others see similar possibilities.

In the final analysis however, Hitler could never have taken the world. Had the Germans killed him after he built his Reich and replaced him with someone who wasn't insane....maybe. But then his megolamania also helped him win the first half of his victories by simply by being willing to risk it all. I think the first time he really blew it was by invading Poland. He could have got away with more before anyone set themselves against him if he hadn't been so homicidal. His need to kill jews and slavs ruined him.

Hitler could have won, if he'd listened to his generals. Thank God he didn't.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOcCzs6EdLQ

:D

Hitler was too hand's on of a Fuhrer, if he had let his ReichsMarshalls have their way then America would have been a non-issue, Rommel would have crushed the Normandy landing. And if Hitler hadn't frozen aircraft development then German air superiority would have been complete even before the introduction of German Jet aircraft.

And of course, he should have never attacked Russia until Europe was just another word for Germany.

He certainly could have won, he just made a few mistakes here and there. The German military was the best military in the war.

Not to mention, Hitler diverted the attacks agsinst military targets to civy one's, in order to get back at the british for bombing Berlin.

That's certainly one of the most notable reasons for the defeat of Nazi Germany.

But in the first weeks of the invasion the German successes were such that the over-confident Hitler decided that he wants to occupy the rich Ukraine in the South even before taking Moscow, the heart of Russia. To do so he ordered to stop the advance of army group "Center" to Moscow and to give its two tank armies to army groups "North" and "South". This was perhaps Hitler's greatest mistake, and his Generals argued a lot against it, but in vain.

Probably Hitler's most idiotic mistake.

On 3 occasions Hitler screwed up Germany's chance of winning WW2

On the 27th of May 1940, German forces halted outside Dunkirk and let the British escape.

On 7th of September, ordering the luftwaffe to bomb London, instead of carrying on the attacks on the RAF, RAF was down to about 24 hrs operational readiness left in it.

In the opening stages of the invasion of Russia, people looked to the germans as lights of education and inteligence, as oppossed to the hated communists who stole and imprisoned at will (purges/gulags etc)
When asked what to do about the russian people who wanted to support the germans, Hitler said "sub-human slavs... seize everything they have, they are slaves to the reich now" or something pretty close, so they all hid stuff and supported the partisans.

Three more reasons for Nazi defeat.

Suppose two things:
1) Hitler has a sudden rush of blood to the head in 1940 and overrules Goering, so that instead of the Battle of Britain, Germany activates Operation Sea Lion immediately. According to the British War College, which has gamed out the scenario extensively, the Luftwaffe prevents the RN from interfering with the crossing, and British forces on Albion are defeated in six weeks. The Royal Navy retreats to Iceland, South Africa, Malta, and continues to fight, but have no way to continue the blockade of Germany.
2) Hitler repudiates the Axis treaty with Japan immediately following Pearl Harbour. President Roosevelt is overruled by Congress, which refuses to go to war with Germany, and the US instead turns all of it's attentions to Japan. There is no Italian front, or D-Day landings.

These two changes would have made German victory possible...not certain, but possible. I disagree that the loss of Moscow and Stalingrad would not have ended the Soviet war effort. While Russia would certainly have gone on fighting, I believe the Germans, having gained those two major cities, could have switched to a defensive campaign over the winter and held off the Soviets long enough to consolidate their gains and push on the Soviet industry in the Urals.

It's probably only a 50-50 shot for victory, but that's certainly a lot better than no chance.

This is briefly touched upon but I feel the need to enlarge upon it.
Hitler and his minions missed a wonderful opportunity to enlarge upon his manpower supply by treating so many of the peoples his forces captured as animals.
Instead of befriending them and acting as their rescuers they lined them against walls, raped and looted, and generally drove them BACK into Stalins hands. This manpower supply might not have won the war, but it certainly would have helped Hitler signifigantly. It certainly would have helped him build a better base upon which to lean when the RUssian counterblow struck, and got rid of the partisan problem in his rear.

Also, by joining forces with Italy and Japan Hitler made his first MASSIVE mistake. Japan would have handily drawn America away for several years. And Italy could have been used as a staging area for air attacks into the mediterranian, where Allied shipping helped the 8th Army build an unbeatable supply stock even when the Brits had awful tactics. By allowing Italy to attack the ALlies he drew himself into a stupid struggle he didn't want. He should have held Italy back, thrown his own warfighters in, and rolled everything from french Algeria to the caucasus up. THEN he might have beat Russia. Italy was a milestone around his neck. Japan was never really an allie, and caused America to enter the war, and to throw herself against Germany rather than Japan first. He should have found a way to annex Italy (if not in name then in fact) and Got Japan to attack Russia before America. A hrad sell yes, but I think dooable.

I have talked a bit about hitlers chances in going through the middle eastern route instead of a head on attack into Russia in 41 and been laughed at about it here. Nice to see others see similar possibilities.

In the final analysis however, Hitler could never have taken the world. Had the Germans killed him after he built his Reich and replaced him with someone who wasn't insane....maybe. But then his megolamania also helped him win the first half of his victories by simply by being willing to risk it all. I think the first time he really blew it was by invading Poland. He could have got away with more before anyone set themselves against him if he hadn't been so homicidal. His need to kill jews and slavs ruined him.

And that says it all, IMO.

Could Hitler have won WWII??

No.

Could someone else?

Possibly. :p

An excellent and well-presented first post for any NS'er. Just spotted it on the NS homepage, thought I'd check it out, and I am pleased I did so. Much of what you've said holds true. I'd have mentioned Rommel as well, but of course it seems I was beaten to it by others.

Essentially, Germany pushed things too far, too fast. Once the war in Europe was effectively over, Hitler expanded the operations very quickly. First Sea-Lion, the plan to invade Britain, collapsed due to the Luftwaffe's inability to destroy the RAF. Then, Op Barbarossa, invading Russia - once more, a huge miscalculation on the part of Hitler and the higher-level Nazi's. And invading North Africa meant that he was pushing for more war with Britain.

If Hitler had left Japan out of the loop, aside from convincing them to not attack the US, then the war would have indeed settled into stalemate. Hitler and Stalin had a non-aggression pact, so that removes the USSR as a potential threat for now, the US was following a policy of golden isolation, similar to that employed by Britain during the 1870's and 1880's. However, Hitler could have used this stalemate to build up his forces even further, and develop the required technology to attack his enemies. Like you said, a bomber capable of reaching the Urals, or even the hydrogen bomb. As we know, Hitler was only months away from developing the hydrogen bomb as an effective weapon by the time the war ended. Think about it for a moment.

Did he have a chance without the fast expansion?

He put himself at odds with very large economies to start with ... if he had shown his hand and taken the slow path I am not sure that he could have maintained the economic drive to get as far as he had... His biggest strength was the rush

It had weaknesses sure ... But I am not sure they were any worse then the ones that would have come with slow expansion

We would have a different world if Hitler attacked Russia backed by Japan first. The scenario would be Japan doesn't push into the islands first but conquers China and Korea and then moves against Russia with German allies. Russia falls and Germany turns west. There is not as much intervention because the Americans consider the Russians to be "communists" and the Japanese to be expanding their sphere of influence.

We would have a different world if Hitler attacked Russia backed by Japan first. The scenario would be Japan doesn't push into the islands first but conquers China and Korea and then moves against Russia with German allies. Russia falls and Germany turns west. There is not as much intervention because the Americans consider the Russians to be "communists" and the Japanese to be expanding their sphere of influence.

The problem is that in order for Germany to make any serious moves into Russia, they needed the territory in Poland first. The only other way would have been to push up through the Balkans, which would have taken far too much time and would also have involved the Allies. I don't see any way for World War II to work without French and British involvement.

If Russia and the US hadn't join in the war, then Britain would have ultimately lost the war and become like France. Without Russia, the allied forces would have lost more men and the war could have lasted much longer. In fact, the allied forces had waited for Russia and Germany to strain themselves both materially and men until they have seen a weakness point on Germany to attack. Over three million Germans were attacking Russians when the allied forces attacked Normandy, and there were more German defenses stationed in Sweden (The British and Americans have fooled the Germans into thinking that the allied forces were going to attack through that point of area) then were on beaches of Normandy. Without American supply of logistics and money then both Russia and Britain would have easily collapsed by the overwhelming lack of resources.

THere are still two sets of thought about Russia winning the war against Germany alone.

Russia has huge amounts of space to trade for time. Thta is her most valuable asset-even more than manpower or industry. Russia also had vastly greater manpower assets than Germany. And Russia had industrial zones where GErmany cuond't easily get to them. If Russia could have lasted alone until 1943 Germany would never have won against them. THeir industrial production has kicked in, their manpower reserves were still greatly superior to Germanies, and the Russians were beginning to show tactical and strategic skill at least the equal of the Germans.

The other thought process is Germany convinces Japan to calm its action down to placate America and get her oil and steel shipments turned back on, THis leaves Japan Neutral (for a while) and allows her to mech up a bit. Germany take poland and france and demands that Spain allow her access to GIbralter (Spain could never have stopped Germany and as a neutral power she wasn't a very great help to Germany). Hitler takes Malta and GIbralter, wins the mediterranean by actually committing a decent force there instead of hamstringing Rommel with pisspoor forces and a neglected supply situation. Hitler uses Malta to support air attacks all the way around the mediteranean, and wheels north into Greece, TUrkey etc. An easy win for HItler, which Stalin could only stand watcihing due to the non agression pact (in theory) After Hitler recovers his forces from the southern route, he forces the UK to not just come to terms but actually allie with him. THen he allies with Italy and Japan. With these allies HItler could not only force RUssia to fight a THREE front war, he could actually fight Russia on close to simliar levels of manpower. That leaves an Isolationist, and isolated US able only to defend her present assets, and China and Africa waiting to be "properly" exploited.

BOth seem highly unlikely to me, but hey, it's all academic right?

WW2 started because of the actions of Hitler, so lets get in our collective time machine to 1918 and land a artillery shell on Hitler's postion in the line, instead of 300 yrds away, result: Hitler is spread thinly over the landscape.

Lets spin forward to 1945, and we find WW2 has happened anyway because another guy rose to lead the far right and siezed power in 1933.

However Germany has just finished off the russians, after defeating the rest of europe because the leader was not a complete and utter idiot who believed himself god's gift to military leadership.

Conclusion: WW2 started because of Hitler, Germany lost WW2 because of Hitler

If Hitler didn't come to power, we would have had the DNVP-- the right wing of the communist party-- Stalinists, or another branch of the communists to the right as the other choice. The nazi party wouldn't have gotten off the ground, and Russia would have allied with Germany forming a united front overrunning europe and eventually Britain. There wouldn't have been concentration camps, but there would have been pogroms, mass graves, and disappearances of ethnic minorities on a huge scale. Germany was a mess waiting for a strong totalitarian regime to take over after the Weimar republic.

If Hitler didn't come to power, we would have had the DNVP-- the right wing of the communist party-- Stalinists, or another branch of the communists to the right as the other choice. The nazi party wouldn't have gotten off the ground, and Russia would have allied with Germany forming a united front overrunning europe and eventually Britain. There wouldn't have been concentration camps, but there would have been pogroms, mass graves, and disappearances of ethnic minorities on a huge scale. Germany was a mess waiting for a strong totalitarian regime to take over after the Weimar republic.

I more or less have to agree. The Weimar Republic suffered from two fatal flaws. First, it's constitution and executive power base were too weak to maintain democratic rule against a strong challenge, such as the one Hitler conducted as Chancellor. Secondly, it's populace had no respect for or belief in the democratic systemry of the republic. The ultimate defenders of any democratic nation is it's people - and if the people don't defend it, it won't survive.
However, I wouldn't be so sure it would have been the Stalinists who won. Prior to the extreme pressure that the Nazi Party put on the entire German Left Wing, the Christian Socialists were the largest and most important of the Left Wing parties. One of the reasons for the DNVP breaking away from them, IIRC, was their refusal to be dictated to by Moscow.

Hitler made 3 severe strategic blunders that might, if avoided, have allowed him to at least sue for peace while still controlling most of Europe.

1: Operation Barbarossa. Everybody pretty much agrees on this. Attacking the Soviet Union while still dealing with the United Kingdom was classic military stupidity.

2: The Battle of Britain. He ended this campaign prematurely. It has been said that had Germany maintained the bombing of Britain for only 2 more weeks, Britain might have been forced to surrender. One can debate that point, but truly to simply end the bombings enabled the Allies to go from the defensive to offensive.

3: By overruling Rommel's advice to reinforce the defenses at Normandy, Hitler allowed the Allies to gain a foothold in France. Rommel was a military genius, and he anticipated the in vasino at Normandy, but Hitler was convinced the Allies would land at Calais. He ordered Rommel to reinforce at Calais, leaving Normandy (relatively) lightly defended. Operation Overlord was problematic and botched many phases, so it's easy to imagine that if Rommel had been there with his full force, the invasion could have failed, forcing the Allies to continue to focus their efforts in Italy, delaying a French invasion indefinitely.

All of these actions would, at th every least, have dragged the war out longer, possibly swaying public opinion in Allied nations to the point of being willing to negotiate for peace, leaving the 3rd Reich intact and probably in control of most of Europe and northern Africa.

Hmmm.......could Hitler have won WWII? I must say No simply because he didn't win. :D

Thus not nearly as many heavy caualties.

Not to mention, Hitler diverted the attacks agsinst military targets to civy one's, in order to get back at the british for bombing Berlin.

They should have also invested more into their own detection systems. As it stood they only had a ring around the coast of continental europe and around the western side of Berlin. This allowed any bombers to et through the initial curtain (as there seems to have been not enough investment in interceptor fighters) to attack any place without it being known until the attackwas underway.

There is no way that Germany could have defeated the US the UK and the USSR all at the same time. Or one at a time as a matter of face. Each was more powerful, or evenly matched, thus producing nothing more than a stalemate.

Germany was kicking the shit out of the UK. The Blitz was crippling England. If Hitler had maintained his alliance with the USSR, he probably would have been able to dedicate his resources to take on Britain.

The US didn't care that france fell, and wasn't overly concerned with britain falling. If Hitler had not broken the alliance with the USSR, and pearl harbor never happened....yes I think he could have made it through England and conqurered pretty much western europe.

I think then at this point america may not have been as successful, because remember, the only way America was able to truly fight in the war was because they had staging grounds in England. They would have had to use more forces in Africa, which by then would probably have fallen further into German/Russian hands.

Hitler could have potentially won WWII, if:

1) He didn't invade the USSR
2) He stayed out of Africa
3) Japan didn't bring the US into the war

From there, he could have just continued pounding the UK, possibly even invading if he wished, without any major consequences.

Hitler could have achieved military victory if he had been more patient, but he would never have won the war when it comes to winning over the populations of the territories he conquered.

Hitler could have achieved military victory if he had been more patient, but he would never have won the war when it comes to winning over the populations of the territories he conquered.

I dunno, they'd probably stop caring after a while.

A comment -

In 1939 Japan invaded Mongolia and fought with Soviet armies. They were handily defeated by the Soviets under General Zhukov and were forced to a peace treaty for the duration of the war.

Near the end of the war the Soviets, following their agreement to wage war on Japan within 3 months of victory in Europe, invaded Manchuria and utterly destroyed the 1+ million Japanese army there in less than 2 weeks.

Now if the Japanese had thrown everything they had at Russia while Germany conducted their initial forays they might have been able to divert enough troops or if the Soviets ignored them pushed far enough to threaten Soviety industry to ensure German victory.

But Russia had already slapped Japan around and they weren't interested in more of that. So.

Hitler could have potentially won WWII, if:

1) He didn't invade the USSR
2) He stayed out of Africa
3) Japan didn't bring the US into the war

From there, he could have just continued pounding the UK, possibly even invading if he wished, without any major consequences.

I'd disagree with no. 2.

Unlike Germany, which had massive coal to oil convertors, Britain relied heavily on middle east/north african fuel. Since the battle was won on mainland europe pre-June 1941 Germany could have easily spared more tanks an infantry to the region. Since a steady attack on the war facillities (as well as taking longer range missions to throw Britain off kelter) would have kept planes from north africa, no matter if the German expedition was doubled, then a massive advantage could have been had by Germany.

I'd disagree with no. 2.

Unlike Germany, which had massive coal to oil convertors, Britain relied heavily on middle east/north african fuel. Since the battle was won on mainland europe pre-June 1941 Germany could have easily spared more tanks an infantry to the region. Since a steady attack on the war facillities (as well as taking longer range missions to throw Britain off kelter) would have kept planes from north africa, no matter if the German expedition was doubled, then a massive advantage could have been had by Germany.

Perhaps. But Hitler's main aim was to take and hold Europe. Africa diverted resources from that.

Here is why the Germans never stood a chance:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjbYNgIi5ss

:D

Perhaps. But Hitler's main aim was to take and hold Europe. Africa diverted resources from that.

But resources he could spare when compare to the massive benefits of:

-Not only having a much larger second fuel source, a major bottleneck of the wartime german economy and could be supplied to Japan, allowing japan to be convinced to stealthily aid the Germans with production, research and military tacticians for naval and airforce operations.

-A secondary outpost to launch naval attacks, allowing much better attacks on the the more powerful RN surface fleet.

-Deprive Britain of a huge chunk of their fuel supply which would have created a bottleneck in their own aircraft use and production (as synthetic rubbers were a much needed resource) as well as severely weakening morale.

Also LG, have you just gotten up? You seem to be burning through the forum right now.

But resources he could spare when compare to the massive benefits of:

-Not only having a much larger second fuel source, a major bottleneck of the wartime german economy and could be supplied to Japan, allowing japan to be convinced to stealthily aid the Germans with production, research and military tacticians for naval and airforce operations.

-A secondary outpost to launch naval attacks, allowing much better attacks on the the more powerful RN surface fleet.

-Deprive Britain of a huge chunk of their fuel supply which would have created a bottleneck in their own aircraft use and production (as synthetic rubbers were a much needed resource) as well as severely weakening morale.

Also LG, have you just gotten up? You seem to be burning through the forum right now.


I'm all alone. My wife and the kiddies are visiting her parents and I haven't mnaged to contact someone wacky to spend time with today yet. Perhaps later tonight. :)

I'm all alone. My wife and the kiddies are visiting her parents and I haven't mnaged to contact someone wacky to spend time with today yet. Perhaps later tonight. :)

I am not sure that your wife would enjoy you being wacky with someone else.

What is the time there? Its 5am here.

A comment -

In 1939 Japan invaded Mongolia and fought with Soviet armies. They were handily defeated by the Soviets under General Zhukov and were forced to a peace treaty for the duration of the war.

Near the end of the war the Soviets, following their agreement to wage war on Japan within 3 months of victory in Europe, invaded Manchuria and utterly destroyed the 1+ million Japanese army there in less than 2 weeks.

Now if the Japanese had thrown everything they had at Russia while Germany conducted their initial forays they might have been able to divert enough troops or if the Soviets ignored them pushed far enough to threaten Soviety industry to ensure German victory.

But Russia had already slapped Japan around and they weren't interested in more of that. So.

In 1939 Zhukov's forces were equipped with the top of the line in Russian equipment, and were facing a largely occupational force, with no threat from Germany.

In 1945 the bulk of Japanese troops in Manchuria were undersupplied and inexperienced, facing battle hardned Russians, again with no threat from Germany.

Hardly representative of what might have been.

I am not sure that your wife would enjoy you being wacky with someone else.

What is the time there? Its 5am here.

Not that kind of wacky! My wife insists on at least an invitation to any of that.

It's 3 pm here. *nod*

In 1939 Zhukov's forces were equipped with the top of the line in Russian equipment, and were facing a largely occupational force, with no threat from Germany.

In 1945 the bulk of Japanese troops in Manchuria were undersupplied and inexperienced, facing battle hardned Russians, again with no threat from Germany.

Hardly representative of what might have been.

The point was mostly to illustrate that in land warfare (the battle in Mongolia did include a fair amount of air warfare as well) the Soviets had the Japanese outgunned, outmanned, and outfought. Japanese armour was rather pathetic, and even moreso compared to the T-34, the world's most effective tank at the outbreak of the war and arguably of the entire thing. The Soviets had it well within their capacity to crush Japan on land.

OP snip

interesting.

the only 2 points I would make are.

1. had the germans taken Moscow, I think the Soviets would have been out of the war. Even when the nazies were near Stalin did'nt leave the capital. I think he knew that the importance of symbols when it came to holding the soviet nation together. But as it never happened, we can never know.

2. What would have happened if Britain had joined the axis powers?
There would never have been any need to concentrate resources in wester europe, the atlantic, med and africa. instead britain could have attacked the soviets from the south and germany from the east.
Japan would have claimed the dutch, french colonies in south east asia and dealt with china with its full resources.
In this situation even if canada sticked with the US, they would have had to deal with mutliple world powers who had not been drained by war and would have had the projective power to launch an invasion.

Had the nazies launch operation sea lion straight off. I think the invasion would have still failed.
Whenver yous see footage of the Brits during an air raid, you always notice that they have gas masks. I think Churchil or the gov. expected a gas attack.
To me this implies a certain mind set that if pushed far enough mustard gas or what have you would have been used.
So prepare the population, that way if you use gas, at least your population is prepared for the retaliation.

Even if Moscow had fallen the Russian military and people would simply have fought on, as Napoleon had discovered earlier. To defeat Russia you have to destroy their Army, and the people's will to fight. Or perhaps their ability to fight.
Actually, do you know anything about Stalin's wherabouts in that week or so when it looked like Moscow was going to fall?

Exactly. He fled, just like most of the top party brass.

A fall of Moscow in late 1941 wouldn't have destroyed Russia, but it would have destroyed the Communist Party and thus the USSR.

Whatever would be left over in terms of resistance would be disorganised and would most likely have dissolved into a massive partisan campaign. And even though that would have carried on for many years and be of great annoyance to the Germans, it wouldn't have had any chance of actually defeating them.

Which means that there is no Eastern Front, so any American landing would have been that much more difficult. And once Russia has fallen, Germany could easily cut off British contact with India, meaning that there was no conceivable way the British could go offensive, and maybe even a future Sealion II.

So you have America on one side and Germany on the other. Big pond in between and neither side able to attack. So maybe it would have ended with a ceasefire if public opinion in the US shifted, or just the two sides sending occasional long-range bombers over. I suppose in that case the Americans would have had nukes, but actually bringing them in would have been difficult if the Luftwaffe wasn't so preoccupied in the east.

Actually, do you know anything about Stalin's wherabouts in that week or so when it looked like Moscow was going to fall?

Exactly. He fled, just like most of the top party brass.

A fall of Moscow in late 1941 wouldn't have destroyed Russia, but it would have destroyed the Communist Party and thus the USSR.

Whatever would be left over in terms of resistance would be disorganised and would most likely have dissolved into a massive partisan campaign. And even though that would have carried on for many years and be of great annoyance to the Germans, it wouldn't have had any chance of actually defeating them.

Which means that there is no Eastern Front, so any American landing would have been that much more difficult. And once Russia has fallen, Germany could easily cut off British contact with India, meaning that there was no conceivable way the British could go offensive, and maybe even a future Sealion II.

So you have America on one side and Germany on the other. Big pond in between and neither side able to attack. So maybe it would have ended with a ceasefire if public opinion in the US shifted, or just the two sides sending occasional long-range bombers over. I suppose in that case the Americans would have had nukes, but actually bringing them in would have been difficult if the Luftwaffe wasn't so preoccupied in the east.

No. Keep dreaming however. I am sure that you can figure out some way that Germany could have won.

There is no way that germany could have pacified those territories even supposing that the Russian quit because someone stormed moscow (it didn't happen for napoleon either).

The best Germany could get is its cities being bathed in nuclear fire.

There is no way that germany could have pacified those territories even supposing that the Russian quit because someone stormed moscow (it didn't happen for napoleon either).
The partisans were what they were because they had the support from the Red Army.

In Belarus for example during the winter '41/'42 because the partisans didn't get along with the locals and because logistical support was made almost impossible since the Soviet front lines were pushed all the way to Moscow, the counter-insurgency operations were actually quite successful.

And the wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_partisans) on the Soviet partisans says:
The Moscow Battle turned the tide in the morale of the partisans and of the local people in general. However, the real turning point in the development of the partisan movement in Belarus, and, in fact, on the German-occupied terrritories in general, came in the course of the Soviet Winter 1942 offensive.

The partisans weren't some sort of national insurgency. They were a party organ of paramilitary forces, created and directed by Moscow.

As I said, there was the potential to create some annoyance, but without outside support and a central command, the partisans could not have defeated Nazi Germany.

As for the whole Napoleon thing, I don't think there is any sense in comparing the Czar with the Communist Party. The former represented the people at a time when no alternative was imaginable, the latter was a dictatorial organisation widely opposed by normal people (especially in the Ukraine). Non-Russian Soviet Forces would probably have thought twice before listening to the Communist Party if even Moscow fell and Stalin sits in some bunker in the Urals. Plus, Moscow was a major transport and communication hub. The connection between Leningrad and the Caucasus would for all intents and purposes have been cut, and the Moscow area won't serve as an assembly area for any troops from Siberia either.

It is a bit of a long shot, and it's more about politics than about military stuff, but if Germany ever had a chance at winning, that was it.

Hitler made a lot of stupid avoidable mistakes. He attacked the soviet union for no reason. He could have maintained the non aggression pact or even made the ussr if he tried hard enough. If he was allied with the ussr he could have easily invaded Britain. He would then have north africa and the middle east.

This way he could attack the ussr from two fronts and he'd have a much greater chance of defeating them.

Hitler let his political opinions get in the way and he meddle far too much in Germany's war. If he let his talented generals do the work themselves Germany would have been far too successful. His rascism and his feeling of superiority above others made him narrowminded in the war and thus he made a lot of mistakes.

If he had the atom bomb...

Germany could have developed the bomb, even without the large mass of scientists that emigrated. The main problem was that there was not much funding put in when times were better (pre 1943) so by the time much attention was put to developing one it was too late.

Germany could have developed the bomb, even without the large mass of scientists that emigrated. The main problem was that there was not much funding put in when times were better (pre 1943) so by the time much attention was put to developing one it was too late.

Post-war analysis shows that Heisenberg's theoretical work on the bomb was riddled with mathematical errors. He was nowhere near as close as we thought at bringing Germany into the Nuclear Age.

Germany was doomed from the start; it would have taken an obscene amount of "ifs" to really change that. "If" they only hadn't completely compromised their commercial and intellectual centers with their anti-Semitism. "If" they had developed long-range strategic bombers. "If" they had worked with, or at least reigned in, Mussolini's adventures in North Africa. "If" their program of Lebensraum (sp?) hadn't completely alientated their natural anti-communist allies in the Ukraine. "If" they hadn't invaded the Soviet Union. "If" they hadn't stopped bombing the radio sites in Britain. "If" they had built a sufficient merchant and troop transport marine to seriously contest the beaches in England. "If" they hadn't declared war on the United States. "If" they had decided to provision for a longer fight in Moscow. "If" they hadn't shifted directions into the southern oil fields. "If" they hadn't been broken and encircled at Stalingrad. "If" the winter of '40-'41 hadn't been so bad.

What really amazes me is how far they went with so very very much going against them and continuously lousy their strategic analysis was.