Germany Couldn't have won ww2

It is a common misconception that if Hitler hadn't attacked the USSR or had attacked it earlier he could have won the war but as i am about to prove Hitler's attack on the USSR only sped up the inevitable. Firstly we must examine several things, one why these people believe such nonsense and two why did operation barbarossa fail? Other than being the largest invasion ever operation barbarossa was a violation of the molotov-ribbentrop non aggression pact pact, it stated that Hitler nor Stalin would attack each other and that some territories would be divided between them, it's ironic that Hitler and Stalin signed this pact for the same reason, that is time, time to prepare their armies to strike one another.
Now on the topic of operation barbarossa itself, many people place it’s failure on the russian winters and although the winter did play a great part in Hitler’s defeat the main factor is russia's huge size that is of course not mentioning the red army foreign aid and the western front. The enormous size of “the motherland” is itself enough to spread out german forces to such an extent so that they are unable to form a successful front. It also allows for countless opportunities for the much larger red army to regroup and mount a counter attack. Knowing that a occupation of the USSR is impossible the germans should have begun fortifying its eastern border and focussing on securing the oilfields in africa and the middle east. But of course as i explained earlier, Stalin would have still attacked this time his army being much more prepared and trained. Hitler's army is designed for blitzkrieg, “lightning war” and not a defensive war of attrition that we have in our possible reality, and with the addition of the western front Hitler's doom would have just been a matter of time. Therefore Hitler is not only evil, but also a fool, for starting a war which he cannot win.
Please feel free to debate, otherwise enjoy the article
-Barry

 

If Hitler had not declared the war to the USA and there is no Barbarossa where does Stalin make the agreement with the western Allied to make an invasion to France when he was considered to be on the axis side? Just curious. I do know Stalin would have have a lot more heavy tanks By 1942 to beat the German tanks but he still might have to attack alone.

 

Granted he might of had to attack alone even though I find that unlikely due to the fact that America by 1941 was on the brink of war however the sheer scale of Stalin's army and their willingness to fight would have overwhelmed Germany over time considering they are unable of fighting a war of attrition.

 

I would have to agree with you. Regardless of the public perception of US isolationism, it was, in reality, tentative at best. FDR knew the writing was on the wall. The vast expanse of the SU would have impeded a grandiose land grab. However, if Hitler heeded his Wehrmacht brass and curt tailed his prejudice for a year or two the country may have been able to support Total War dramatically better. Regardless, invasion was doomed from the start if the goals were not modified.

 

Agreed, in fact I couldn't have said it better myself.

 

Germany could not win any war of attrition. All the allies had greater manpower, as well as greater access to resources. Even with France and half of Poland, German armaments production, as measured in Billions of USD, did not exceed that of the UK alone in 1941 (6.5 BUSD (for the UK.) vs 6.0 BUSD (Nazis) and 8.5 BUSD (for USSR)). Further, as the war went on, the allies in general produced more newer types of weapons, whereas the Germans could only produce advanced weapons in small numbers. (The Rise and Fall of Great Powers, by Paul Kennedy p.355)

In 1943, German produced more than the UK (13.8 vs 11.1, BUSD) but then, the USSR produced 13.9 BUSD, despite having lost enormous amounts of land, resources, and manpower.

 

As always GS...good info.

I'll never get over the ridiculous hubris to apply resources to "wonder weapons."

 

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, NOT THAT! I hate the people who say that wonder weapons could have won the war, just a crap ton of bs!

 

I don't think that anyone would say that now. At the time, especially after the western allies sustained a foothold, the V weapons program was propagandized to be the centerpiece of German military renewal. It was all nonsense of course, but German civilians bought into it. Countless civilian journals and SD reports claim there was a belief that such weapons wound turn the tide.

 

By the way, were any documents or other evidence ever found that confirmed the belief that had Hitler not attacked the USSR, Stalin would have attacked Germany?

 

A couple of issues here. In reality the Red Army that existed at the start of Barbarossa was defeated. The massive rebuilding was what the Germans failed to anticipate. They could indeed have occupied the USSR although I don't think their actual plan was to occupy anything east of the Urals. Hitler thought that the Soviet system was fragile and "kicking in the door" would cause the whole thing to collapse. He was obviously wrong.

 

I have seen something that indicated that if Germany was drained enough by a war with the west Stalin would have taken advantage of it. Stalin unlike Hitler wasn't much of a gambler though. If Germany hadn't been seriously weakened elsewhere I don't think he would have tried it.

 

Ok, I can believe that. It fits with my concept of the man. So a sane dictator of Germany would have kept the status quo, with the USSR providing goodies and just fought the Western Allies to draw. This would have left Germany as the ever so dominant power in Europe.

 

Well Hitler had already fallen behind on his payments to the Soviets so it's not clear how much longer he would keep getting "goodies" from them. Without the Soviets in the game I don't think it's a draw long term either. The US will eventually get in the game and then the West can start collapsing the German conquest. An invasion of France may have to wait a year or two longer than historical but I'd guess Germany looses Norway and North Africa and then their cities find a serious decrease in their need for night time illumination. All the while getting shorter and shorter in their supply of many critical resources including food.

 

What would the US reason to declare war to Germany be? FDR would have to have a very good reason. Not that I am not listening to possible reasons but as long as Hitler would be keeping the US out the longer he could keep the US army out. And FDR might not be able to declare war without a reason that would be considered a good reason. The US people remembered the thanx they got for taking part in WW1. Not a lot for their boys getting killed.kph

 

Sinking of US ships good enough?

 

Its the same reason that the us got involved in ww1.

 

I'm sure Germany would have to get out of N. Africa but again, a sane Hitler would have preserved as much of the Afrika Korps as possible. Then we'd be fighting practically the whole German Wehrmacht (unbloodied by the horrible Ostfront) and it would really get ugly! I'm not sure the Western Allies would have the stomach for a repeat of WW1 casualty rates. Then after fighting to gridlock, if Hitler had come out with some sane proposals, they might have been accepted. Besides, if Hitler hadn't planned on fighting the USSR, he might have made more of an effort to keep up with his payments!

 

Hitler had to attack the USSR sooner rather than later because he knew that Stalin was preparing for a war and had to strike first.

 

The Western allies would have to pick off the free or loosly hanging pieces. As you say North Africa. Then likely islands in the Med. From Crete you can hit the Romanian oil fields for example. Take Norway and their goes more of Germany's steel supply as well as some of her access to the Atlantic. Then in 45 German cities start glowing in the dark ...