How Germany could've won?

But Germans have won in 1954: the soccer world cup!

Unfortunately for Germans, they didn't have general "von Yamamoto" to tell the bitter truth: "Mein Führer, I can run wild for six months … after that, I have no expectation of success". There are certain conspiracy theories that Hitler has won and lost the war even before Perl Harbour. The truth is that Germany waged a lost war from its begining. Everything else are sour grapes of beaten German generals.

 

You forgot to mention the logistical difficulties as well.

 

1)Distance Vienna-Istanbul =1200 km (=distance Warsaw-Moscow),the (primitive ) railway did not cross the Bosporus,distance Istanbul-Soviet border :again 1200 km,with a very primitive railway;I doubt that even ONE motorized division could be transported and supplied .
And,I should not take it for granted that Turkey would allow the Germand to enter the country.
2)1940 :world oil production 293 million ton
US :183
Latin America :46
Iraq:2.5
Indonesia :7.5
Iran :8.8
Indonesia:7.9
SU :30.5
Saoudi Arabia :0.7
3)If Spain was joining the Axis ,who would have to feed the Spanish population ? Yes,Germany. Could Germany do this ? No .Result :Spain is starving,and Franco is fired .
If Gibraltar was captured,British naval forces still could enter the Mediterranean via the Suez Canal.

The importance for Britain of the Mediterranean during WWII was very limited.
4)About the Germans transporting their troops with barges/by aircraft,to attack the SU :you are joking of course .If not,please,do some research and calculate how many Ju 52 would be needed to transport ONE division,the same for the barges .(the distance Samsun -Turkish port- to Soci-Soviet harbour- is 400 km)
And,how could artillery,tanks,horses,ammunition,supplies be transported ?
And,there is the " minor" point of going to Samsung and Rasht (Iranian harbour on the Caspian Sea).

 

Although this has been discussed,and discussed,etc,I will repeat the following (hopefully it is the last time)
1)IMHO,it was totally impossible for the Germans to go to the Iraq oil fields
2)But,if they could :could they repair these oil fields ? IMHO ut of the question
3)If the oil installations were repaired,could the oil go to the Mediterranean :IMHO :no way
4)If the oil could go to the Mediterranean,could it cross the Mediterranean and reach Germany :IMHO :negative
5)Did the Germans need the oil of the ME in 1941 ? No.
6)Did Britain need the Iraqi oil ? No
Then,there are also "minor" problems of protecting the oil fields,the pipelines and the Mediterranean harbours against sabotage and air attacks ...
Good soucres are :
on this Forum :yes or no,Germans take Gibraltar (by Brndirt)
on Historykb :Germany conquers Middle Eastern Oil
Thus,why should the Germans go to the ME?

 

My suggestion is seriously discussed in the essay "How Hitler Could Have Won The War" by John Keegan. You should look it up.

 

Was it not "How Hitler could have won WWII" by Bevin Alexander ?,which is a lot of nonsens .

 

Was it not "How Hitler could have won WWII" by Bevin Alexander ?,which is a lot of nonsens .
It seems that Keegan also was writing the same nonsens ,probably,because nonsens is selling better .

 

To understand Hitler you have to understand that he felt the Jews who stabbed Germany in the back in WW1 were in control of Roosevelt and the U.S., so they were already enemies. Hitler knew what America could do, so he thought the only way to survive was to seize the resources of Russia.

 

The essay is only nonsens,it has already been discussed in this section.

 

There are a number of ways Hitler and the Nazi Reich could have survived, nearly all of them begin with Germany not attacking the USSR.

 

Stopping the Allies on DDay could have changed the course of the war. Once the Allies had a foothold in France the Germans were finished and Rommel knew it.

 

I searched this thread and couldn't find it.

"Nearly" is the crucial part here. What is way the with Germany attacking the Soviet Union?

I think if Germany had at least 40 to 60% more manpower and armor than it had starting Barbarossa, and was more lead by pragmatism than ideology so that it used the anti-communism sentiment in the East, pushing the Soviets to the Urals was in the realm of possibility.

 

With all due respect:

To win a war means to achieve certain objectives and Hitler was rather ambitious; his main targets, among others, were to:

1. Exterminate all European Jews,
2. Conquer Russia and exterminate or enslave Slavonic nations

Therefore, Russia wasn't an option, she was one of the primary targets. To win his war Hitler had to attack Russia as soon as possible because Russia at that time has been dramatically increasing her industrial potential and hence her preparedness to fight and defend herself from possible invaders. Barbarossa in 1942 or 1943 would have been decisively too late.

Russia has started her preparations for defense much before it became apparent who will be the invader. In February 1931 Stalin has concluded his speech to industrial managers with the following words:

„We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in ten years. Either we do it, or we shall be crushed.“ *

Therefore, in my humble opinion, Russia cannot and should not be simply removed from equations when assessing the possible outcomes of WW2. Without the victory over England and Russia, the 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] Reich would have been just a kind of EU with Berlin as a capitol.

*) Translation of the complete speech is here:
http://academic.shu.edu/russianhistory/index.php/Stalin_on_Rapid_Industrialization.

 

This section (Alternate history) is swarming with these things:
Alternate Nirth African/Middle Eastern Front WWII(started by Iron Duke on september 26 2009)
also:
Hitler aims for ME oil
The Axis drops in in the Levant
Hitler moves South
The fall of Malta:decisive or not ?
Capture of Malta
Instead of Barbarossa,what about Malta and Gibraltar ?
Etc,etc,etc
All very improbable What Ifs ,with a common characteristic:neglecting of logistics,and total ignorance of the situation in the Mediterranean and the ME.
One exemple :the distance Tripoli-Kirkuk (the Iraqi oil fields) is (as the crow flies) 2871 km (the same as Leningrad-Kirkuk),and,as an army is not moving as the crow ....

 

The "if the Germans had 40/60 % more manpower and armor for Barbarossa" also is very improbable,almost impossible
1) Not the manpower at the start of Barbarossa was decisive,but the reinforcements that could be added
2)Even with more manpower/armor,it was out of the question for the Germans to defeat the SU
3)This what if is,as usual,neglecting the SU .
The Germans started with 2.7 million men and 3.500 tanks,later were added 0.9 million men and 900 tanks
The SU started with 2.7 million men and 12000 tanks,later were added 6 million men(at least) and 3000 tanks .
There is no way that
1) the Germans could start with more (all that could be committed was sent to the border on 22 june)
2)the Germans could catch the Soviet mobilization .

 

The middle east idea is sheer fantasy, how could Rommel conquer and hold an area close to the size of European Russia with a army and how would he be supplied.

 

Then Hitler would not have been himself, the Jewish communists were the central focus of his hatred. The other problem is that Germany was dependent of the Soviets for resources and Stalin could cut off those supplies at any time.

 

I do not dispute that Hitler hated both jews and communists, but that is not the whole story.

Hitler, like many Germans, knew a "Good" jew. His name was Emile Maurice and he did not go to the camps, in fact he was allowed to remain in the SS and a member of Hitler's trusted circle. Prior to outbreak of war wealthy jews could buy thier way out of the Reich, which is contrary to the belief that he must kill all jews. He was willing to see european jews deported to some remote corner of the globe at one point. Even when the camps were in full operation he was still willing late in the war to trade jewish lives for allied concessions. Hitler could be flexible on the jewish issue when it suited his purpose.

Hitler could also show fexibility towards Russia as well. The Ribbontrap Pact demonstrated that he could put his ambitions on hold to achive a desired goal. Even after the invasion of Russia at least once he allowed low level communication aimed at a political settlement rather than a military one.

Hitler was an absolute ruler, and be anyone he wished to be. Hitler could define 'victory' in any manner he chose without fear of disfavor from either the people or the Party. Had Hitler stopped with his bloodless conquests of Austria and Czechoslovakia he would have added over 150,000 sq. kilometers of territory and some 10 million 'Aryans' to the Reich representing a 30% increase in land and a 12% increase in population, all without firing a shot. Free to trade within and without europe at will. Surely this could be 'victory'.

Or he could have stopped in the late spring of 1941. The occupation of westen Poland gained Germany another 180.000 sq. kilometers and nearly 2 milliom 'Aryans', of Luxembourg, the Ardennes and Alsace-Lorainne added another 28,000 sq. kilometers and another 2 million 'Aryans' to the Reich. Northern Yugoslavia added still more. A stalemate with England would have left Germany with all this. This too could be victory.

Or he could have attacked Russia with a radically different agenda. He could have come as a tru liberator. The people of the USSR lovered thier land but not thier overlords. Had been Hitler content with eastern Poland and the Baltic states incorporated to the Reich while allowing the various ethnic peoples to have free reign within thier own lands he might have succeeded in pushing back the communists to the Urals. With these newly free republics as satalites of the reich, this too could have been victory.

Or he could have explored a truce with Stalin in late 1941 to late 1942 in which he traded peace for eastern Poland and the Baltics. I have little doubt that Stalin would make a seperate peace if it suited his purpose. This too could be victory.

 

Does any of them mention Keegan's article?

Then those 40% - 60% additional manpower and armor belong to the reinforcements. German was fifteen miles in front of Moscow; and with those reinforcements the city would certainly fall. The fall of Moscow would have a large demoralizing effect on the Russian people, who wouldn't have the willpower to fight for a tyrant like Stalin after losing the capital. An enemy can have material superiority, but crush his fighting spirit and he's finished. In the first half of 1942 the Soviet Union would capitulate and give everything on the western side of the Ural to Germany.

There's no need for Rommel to conquer the Middle East. The Arabs were pro-Nazi. What he has to do is to conquer Suez to drive out the British. The Arab countries enter Axis as co-belligerents and supply Germany with oil and volunteers.

 

If(miraculously)Rommel was reaching the canal,he still was in (N)Africa,while the British still were dominating the ME.
If the Arab countries were joining the Axis (an illusion:they would not dare to rebel against Britain),it would be very bad ....for the Axis:
why would any one from the ME volunteer to fight for Germany ?And how could the Germans equip these volunteers ?
About the oil :as I already have explained:the oil production in the ME was negligible,it would take the Germans years to repear the oil installations and the pipelines,and,it was impossible for the Italians to transport the oil to Italy (no tankers,and no oil).
There was NOTHING in the ME that the Germans could use (there was no shortage of oil in 1940 ),and,there was NOTHING in the ME that Britain needed in 1940 (Britain's oil did come from the US).