Hitler winning WW2

I'v been debating this for year's and I wanted to know what your input would be on this subject. Do you think that if Hitler had not betrayed Stalin and had kept Russia as an ally, that he could have won World War 2?

 

Without going into detail, no.

 

Hitler and Stalin were not allies, even before June 1941.

 

Really? I got the impression that they were neutral and keeping the option open for being allies. I don't know much about their relationship, so could you please tell me why they didn't like eachother?

 

Well TA and GreenJacket I have to disagree with you on that one. The first example I'd like to bring up is Poland and the "agreement" Hitler made with Stalin to "split the country".

Russia and Germany were very much working together before 1941 and being so made the attack on Russia a surprise attack from Germany. Russia and Germany may not have been allies but they were certainly working together in world domination until Hitler betrayed Russia.

 

You can read on the pact here:

http://history1900s.about.com/library/holocaust/aa072699.htm

http://www.geocities.com/iturks/html/ribbentrop_molotov_pact.html

They look like having a good time, don´t they?



Ribbentrop, Molotov, Stalin...

 

Perhaps... But Hitler's ideas made the invasion of the Soviet Union imperative.

 

Colin, the question is: Won against whom?

He had already lost the Battle of Britain. The Germans would never have succeeded to bring GB down. Which other enemy would have been left to fight?!

A different question is whether Stalin will keep the pact forever... another controversial topic!

 

In contrast to your other post about WWI, you are now forgetting about Dönitz's little sardine-cans...

A very debatable issue indeed. We can only speculate and try to make interpretations of Stalin's paranoic mind and political treachery and intrigues he used. But that's not a wise thing to do...

 

The problem there (with the U-boat campaign) is that the Guerre de Course is not a winning war strategy. It alone cannot bring victory. So long as the Germans lacked true seapower (ie., a real fleet) Britain was going to be exceptionally hard to defeat. It is rare that a land power (Germany in this case) is able to defeat a seapower without either depriving the sea power of its access to the sea and its fleet or, by aquiring seapower itself.

 

Well, I was asking if Germany could have won against the United States and other allied forces that were invading Europe if they had kept their ties with Russia.

 

German - Soviet ties were never so tight that the two were likely to operate as military allies in the sense you propose. Could Germany have staved off a US / British alliance to retake Western Europe without a war in Russia? No.
Hitler would simply have been the recipent of nuclear bombings in the long run. In the short run, the advantage of seapower to the West allows them the freedom of choosing when and where to engage Germany. Germany on the other hand would have to maintain an enormous standing army at great expense and burden on their economy.
If the Pacific War is still factored in, then once Japan falls (another certainty) then the British and Americans have the threat of an invasion into the Soviet rear to keep Stalin in line. Does Stalin get involved in the Pacific War? If so, it certainly would have put a damper on German - Soviet relations vis-a-vie the US.
Again, the political situation goes against Germany and in favor of the British and US.
Basically, anytime the Germans involve the British (and US by extension) in one of these scenarios the projected result is a loss for Germany.
Just some numbers to ponder: Given the US just produces what they did orginally, and intends to fight a war without the Soviets against Germany. The original US mobilization scheme for this is:
250 infantry divisions (remember, a US infantry division in 1944 is about equal to a full strength PanzerGrenidier division)
40 armored divisions (about double that mobilized. Part of this lower mobilization was due to supplying the French, Chinese, Russians etc the equivalent of 15 divisions of armor)
This doesn't include parachute, mountian, marine, or non-divisional equivalents.
The difference in productivity, manufacturing capacity and, manpower available to the US versus Germany is staggering.
The Germans could not mobilize a fraction of this on the same level of equipment and quality that the US could. And, this doesn't include the British and Commonwealth armies.

[ 23. December 2003, 03:45 PM: Message edited by: T. A. Gardner ]

 

What if Hitler decided not to declare war against the US? When would the US enter the European theatre then? Did Roosevelt have ideas on this?

 

Germany would have defeated Britain if Russia had not been invaded.

1. More German troops to use in the Mediterranean and N. African theatres that England couldn't hope to match. England had problems fighting a 3 Division Afrika Corps.

2. This would allow Germany to secure the Middle Eastern oil fields. This option/plan was being pushed by Admiral Raeder.

3. Germany did not need a surface fleet to starve an import reliant England. Greater concentration on U-boat production and the severing of the Suez and Mediterranean lifelines would be extremely damaging.

4. Germany was under no obligation to declare war on the US after Pearl Harbor. Axis members only agreed to support each other if a signing country was attacked FIRST.

5. No US ground/air support besides lend-lease means no England. The US would have devoted it's military to the defeat of Japan. US public opinion wanted a Japan first option even after Germany declared war on the US. Without that declaration of war by Germany first, Roosevelt would have been forced to opt for the Pacific theatre or be impeached.

 

All this is just revisionist ‘what if’ bunk isn’t it. Hitler could NEVER succeed and endure. The only question was how long everything was going to take. When Hitler attacked the Soviets it sealed his fate in the comparative short term. If he didn’t, eventually the Soviets would have attacked Hitler, it’s in their nature and more important, it’s fundamental to their Communist doctrine.

Britain WAS NOT starving and WOULD NOT have starved without shipping. The Battle of Britain WAS LOST by the Germans without the USA or the Soviets. The Royal Navy WAS the No.1 sea power, and, the third largest navy WAS Canada.

If Hitler managed to land forces in Britain it would have been his thrush’s anvil, and, your hypotheses would have a bit more credibility if you stop keep quoting’ England’ and start stating Britain, which, is only broadly symbolic for the British Commonwealth, Dominions and Empire, and Nepal who, in 1940, when everyone outside those mentioned above just said ‘gee, what a shame’, turned to Britain and pledged total commitment.

1940 - Nepalese Prime Minister: "Does a friend desert a friend in time of need? If you win, we win with you. If you lose, we lose with you."

No.9

[ 28. December 2003, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: No.9 ]

 

it seems to me that eventually even if Hitler hadnt declared war on the United States, the United States would have entered the war on britains side.. especially if it looked to be in real danger of falling.. as effective as the german u-boat fleet was it couldnt have stood up to the combined power of both the USN AND the royal navy.. not to mention its sub-killing aircraft. as far as the campaign in western europe goes, it definitely would have taken a lot longer but eventually the germans couldnt have held on against the allies.. it was just a matter of time for the germans

 

It wouldn't have mattered Germany could have controled the Mediteranian and therefore could have starved even England of OIL. I don't think that England produced oil on there island!

 

Invading the British Isles without a Navy even slightly bigger than the RN was impossible, no doubt.

But cutting its supply lines and depriving those isles from its means to make war and even to feed its own population IS a winning-war strategy.

Dönitz knew it and Churchill knew it. For Great Britain, the most decisive battle was not fought over the skies of England, but under the Atlantic waters.

The USA was undefeatable. With two gigantic oceans between them and their enemies and the tow greatest navies at their dispossal a land war in America is completely out of question. The USA could have been isolated from the rest of the world - not permanently, of course - by destroying its Navy, but couldn't have been deprived from its capacity to make war.

A military alliance between nazi Germany and stalinist USSR is out of question two. And even with the resources of both nations combined, their strenght laid on the ground. Not even with the support of the Japanese Navy... In the long term, they would have lost.

I'm not sure about when. But I'm sure they would have got involved for sure.

And Germany had huge problems transporting and supplying three miserable divisions as well!

Supply lines... Air cover... Sea cover... Assure Soviet neutrality... Yeah...

This is true to some extent, but you're forgetting many considerations.

And I suposse that owning 1/4th of the globe, an univadeable island and the mightiest navy in the world doesn't count either...

 

Rusia have make a huge army from 1940. I think that army was not made to defense. Stalin want to be allied with hitler until this army was big enough to face the germans. To face the germans they need a big army because of lack of training and smart officers.
If Hitler stayed home, he was defeated earlier than 1945.
The atack on Rusia was made in the perfect moment with great result.
In England situation was very clear. Without a good fighter, germans were inferior in air.
The only solution i think in ww2 was to capture the Moscow.
That is my point of view.

 

Welcome aboard, Christi! Hope you like it in here.