How Germany could've won?

Thanks, never heard of that battle before. There is still so much to explore in WW2. However the Wiki link also gives an explaination for the high soviet losses.:

Soviet officers later often said that the operation demonstrated the difficulty of amphibious invasions of enemy territory and Soviet shortfalls and inexperience in amphibious warfare, and cited the Soviet experience on Shumshu as a reason for not invading the island of Hokkaido in the Japanese Home Islands.[10][11]
With Shumshu and Paramushiro under Soviet control, the rest of the Kuril Island chain, much more lightly held by Japanese forces, fell to Soviet forces easily. The Soviets completed their occupation of the Kurils on 5 September 1945.[12]



Also I would think that the Russian tanks used here were mostly light ones, because of the amphib. landing. I guess bringing a IS2 over there is too difficult, so they used more T70s etc. which can be penetrated easily even by Jap at-weapons.

 

You also have to remember the only reason the invasion of Shumshu could take place is because the US in late 1944 gave the Soviets under Lend Lease a large number of landing craft capable of such an operation. The Red Navy in the Pacific was literally no match for the IJN even in 1945. Their fleet had 8 destroyers as the core of it. There were a handful of small torpedo boats, and some lend lease PT boats and such along with similar Russian made craft. This was not a navy that was going to make a serious challenge against the Japanese.

The Soviets committed no tanks as they lacked the landing craft to move them there. The main landing force came in 16 US lend lease LCI (L), 5 of which were sunk.

One might note that this whole battle took place after the Japanese surrender had occurred. The occupation of the rest of the Kuriles by the Soviets was done with the Japanese having recognized the surrender having taken place.

 

Arriving a bit late, none the less; I have always believed that Hitlers greatest chance for victory was right after the fall of France. At this point Germany held all the cards along with mainland Europe... Not bad. Once Barbarossa was launched the beginning of the end followed.

 

I tend to agree.

He never had a better hand to play and enough to barter away for a comprehensive peace while retaining Poland and a few provinces in Western Europe in exchange for withdrawal from France and the Low countries, while still getting some resources from Stalin.
Had he pulled this off, he would truly be hailed as the greatest 'German' statesman, even over Bismark.

 

Yes, after the French surrender ad before the BoB, that cemented British resolve, was his best chance, he looked unstoppable on land and perception has a lot to do with getting a good deal at the negotiating table. He could play that France and Britain had declared war on him not the other way round. Had Mussolini not entered the war it would be an even stronger position as Italy would be an unknown factor adding to the pressure on the French and British leadership (the well known chess maxim that a threat is more powerful than it's execution).

Once he went after the USSR "Nazi" Germany could not win, it requires a WW1 like mix of military victories, propaganda and political subversion to bring down the Soviet Union and Hitler just didn't have the mindset for that.

The other "best chance" would be for Germany to be politically more moderate, no loss of Jewish scientists and less hostility in the USA. It may also mean less wasted efforts at the industrial/organisational level where each Nazi leader followed his own personal agenda. But I doubt a more moderate regime could have pulled off the amazing rearmament programme that brought along the early victories.

 

I disagree : there would never be a comprehensive peace with Germany : it was war to the bitter end : the LSS parading at Downing street or the Guards parading Unter den Linden .And,when at the end of june 1940 Britain decided to continue the war ,it was over for Germany .Even if he had won,it would be over for Hitler : the Third Reich would not celebrate its 20 year of existence .

 

IMO the impact of the Jewish scientist may be over rated at least compared to some of the other impacts. The loss of the skilled workers and businessmen along with their contacts not to mention the manpower pool from which they could draw soldiers was probably as if not more important and often neglected. I remember reading that both Germany and Austria thought that the Jews weren't contributing enough in WWI and both conducted studies of the percentages in the military compared to the population and both found that Jews were over represented in the military rather than under represented. Both subsequently chose not to publicize the studies. Which makes your main point here even stronger.

 

There are very few absolute's in human interactions or politic's. Great Britain was given a exceptional opportunity to shine magnificently, and did so, but to maintain that was the only course they could have taken is intellectually juvenile,

lets recap for a moment.

Britain had been expelled from the continent forcibly and her army was more rabble than effective combat force. She had lost all her allies save her Commonwealth. She had gained a new enemy in Fascist Italy whose navy had turned absolute control of the Mediterranean into a toss up for control and providing a potential threat to her actual Empire. Britain lived in fear that Germany would either seize or be given France's fleet which could turn a toss up into the Axis favor in the Med. The only other significant power in Europe, the Soviet Union, was firmly inthe enemy's camp and in any event Britain came close to going to war with them scant months before over Finland. Japan was eyeing the rest of her Empire on the other side of the world with little to nothing to keep them in their place. America, while sympathetic, was unwilling to go to war either to defeat Germany and liberate Western Europe, or even to prevent the fall of Great Britain. Some in America was figuring on a world where Germany would control Western Europe for the foreseeable future after a British collapse or invasion.

Britain had three things, her Navy, Churchill's indomitable will and what turned out to be a series of political and military blunders executed by Germany. We know now that these were enough, but none were absolute givens then.

If Germany were to gain all or part of the French fleet and/or Japan decided it was now or never her RN would be severely stretched. Churchill historically would face a vote of no confidence after a series of military disasters, and if the opposition had put forth a serious contender, Churchill might be sent into the wilderness a second time during a raging conflict. To this point German military and political moves seemed flawless and had suffered no setbacks, so counting on them to suddenly do just about everything they could wrong is not a strategy, but wishful (if not delusional) thinking.

Hitler asked for peace, but offered nothing to Britain she did not already possess. A little forethought on Germany's part could create a different climate.

Offer to withdraw from France, the Low Countries, Norway and Denmark, while retaining some border concessions along the German western frontier that restored the old Imperial border and Poland. Put the US in the position of honest broker of a general peace with a end to all blockades and present the appearance of a reasonable man, rather than that of a megalomaniac.

FDR might not like the idea, but there would be pressure at home to be the 'great peacemaker' if genuinely called upon. The governments in exile, (save Poland) would at least give the idea a look, and might actually lobby London to accept. Britain might find the tables had turned on her in the court of world public opinion over time from the plucky little country standing up to tyranny to the overly proud warmonger determined to fight the war to the last poor suffering civilian in occupied Europe in the hope she could somehow drag other nations at peace into a cataclysmic war over her political goals.

This would require deft propaganda on the part of Germany, but they were skilled at this when they wanted to be. It would also require they play a restrained military hand, no Battle of Britain, no Seelowe, No Barbarossa and focus on solely holding what they had and perhaps a modest investment in Italy, the Mediterranean and North Africa, greater than they did historically. Without Russia this is reasonably possible.

Finally, the 'inevitable collapse' so often counted upon is also wishful thinking. With no Russian bloodbath, and even some continued Soviet aid (to promote their world view that the West would/had to destroy itself) Germany would hold on, suffer sever shortages of course, but hold on with the loyalty Hitler enjoyed from the German people. When or if that flagged, Hitler still had one of the more effective police states in modern history. We have seen many failed economies with one party leaderships that have hung on for generations despite being pariah's on the world stage, Nazi Germany could be one as well, especially before the advent of the internet and cell phones.

Britain's greatest asset, in some respects, was not their great will, Russian willingness to suffer unimaginably huge human losses, or even American industrial power and technical innovation, but Adolf Hitler's megalomania.

 

No

1)Hitler was not more megalomaniac than his predecessors,people like Bethmann,besides his megalomania did not cause the German defeat,neither had it an influence on Germany's defeat .

2)It was excluded that Britain would negotiate with Germany : at the start of the war, Chamberlain said that the aim was to destroy the German regime,later the aim became the destruction of Germany as a big power.

3) The U Boat war would inevitably result in war with the US (as in 1917),besides the US rearmament(which started in 1940) and Cash and Carry indicated that the US would join the war .

4) The role of Churchill is more propaganda than reality : if he died during the war, Britain still wold have won .

5)The SU was NOT in the German camp : it was neutral,much more than were the US

6)The British Army was not rabble : it was strong enough to defeat a German landing .

7)The fate of the French fleet was irrelevant : neither German or Italy could use it .

5)Germany would collaps even if it won the war :it was not strong enough to dominate Europe (NO European country was strong enough: Napoleon failed,Hitler failed):

if the SU was defeated,Germany would collaps :Germany had not the manpower to occupy the SU ;

if there was no war with the SU ,Germany also would collaps : Germany had not the manpower to occupy Europe (SU excluded) and defend its border in the east

6)There were no big German political and military blunders during the war .

 

Yes

1) Hitler not more of a megalomaniac? We are talking about World War II, right? Mass genocide, scorched earth, sending children into battle, forcing Germany to fight to the bitter end. Hitler makes every preceding German leader look like a humanitarian. His policies allowed the Allies to paint him as a monster in a way we could never do with the Kaiser.

2) Chamberlain said a lot of things didn't he, most of which he never realized. His conduct as PM does seem to belie the claim he was determined to destroy the Nazi regime, unless of course he was counting on it to die of old age. He killed every proposition to take the war to Germany and seeming was more interested in entangling Britain in a war with the Soviet Union. You understand that when a country embarks on a war they say they will fight on till victory is achieved right? They don't say we will fight till we get beaten, or till we get bored of it, or till we don't want to anymore do they?

3) Certainly Britain hoped the US would enter the war, but when is the key factor. In the Great war it took 3 years, it could take as long or longer to mobilize American opinion, and when it happened it did not because of U-boat operations, but because of events across the other side of the world at place called Pearl Harbor. You might have heard of it, it was in all the papers. Even with that the US DID NOT DECLARE WAR ON GERMANY. It was Germany who declared war on the US. We were gonna get there, but Germany, in one of those blunders you say they never made, took FDR off the horns of a dilemma, how to get America into the war on Germany when she was focused on Japan.

Cash and Carry did not prove America would join the war, we employed a similar program in the Great war, even selling to Imperial Germany you might recall, all while Wilson did everything he could to keep us out of the war. Lend-Lease would be a better example, BUT it was not enacted till March of 1941, well after this point in time we are discussing.

 

looking at the following post we see a mass of opinion pretty much devoid of fact and logic. Indeed the only piece that has some merit is:

Of course even that was of marginal relevance to the point the original poster was trying to make if I'm reading him correctly. I.e. that the impression was at that point that the British military was in bad shape. I'd have phrased it differently but from what I've read the British were indeed under some considerable strain at that point. The other points could easily be brought to question or refuted in detail but that would risk drawing the conversation off topic as our resident troll would just post more garbage leading us further afield.

 

Just saying.
Again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFNW3heSkq8

 

Again Yes

4) You do a great disservice to Churchill. The difference between him and Chamberlain is almost as that between night an day. He energized the British war effort, he cultivated good relations to any ally who might join the cause, he buoyed the British Commonwealth with his stirring words and did nearly as much for those in occupied Europe, he stirred the American public with his words and charm, greatly speeding American participation. He understood when to push and when to compromise with his principal allied partner (USA) better than anyone else I could name. He understood better than most that Britain was in decline and the US in ascendancy and that the disdain held by some within the British political and command system, if not controlled, could poison the Alliance.

He had a lot of crazy ideas to be sure, but he could be talked out of most of them before any real harm. yes if he died the war would continue, at least for the short term, but one removed by a vote of no confidence might slowly sap public confidence in eventual victory. As with any PM, he served at the whim of the electorate, their constituents and of course the King. I might remind you at the moment of victory, he was sent packing, so his fate was not absolute and public opinion could change.

The point of my original post was that Germany could change the dynamic of the 'debate' and denied Britain of the SU as a Ally and greatly slow American interest in Joining the fight. Hitler made it easy to cast them as the uber villain. A more media savvy
approach might erode the great anti-Hitler crusade and Britain alone could not prevail. How long can any nation throw good resources after bad if there is no clear victory?

5) By all appearances they were. They had both just carved up Eastern Europe, signed a non-aggression pact and the SU was providing important resources to Nazi Germany. America was trading with Britain, but not Germany. We know now just how fragile the arrangement was, but that was far from clear then.To most western observers they seemed the two sides of a similar coin. Hitler's attack upon Russia was a gift to Britain, one they could not count upon and one of those blunders you say they didn't make.

6) I believe in June 1940 only one fully equipped division was available to defend Britain. All other units were in a extreme state of reorganizing and re-equipping. Had Germany landed 6-10 well supplied division's, fully supported by the Luftwaffe, Britain would fall. Her troops would fight with great courage and vigor, but they would be defeated as they had in France. They would fight on from her Commonwealth, but that's a nightmare we didn't have to face.

Of course we know now that would and could not happen, but then the People of Britain braced for this possibility. The point however was that at that point there was no clear path to defeating Germany, just the hope. As with much of your argument you are looking with the hindsight not available then. In that context far more is possible.

We love to think our forebears are statue worthy, who always did and do the right thing, never willing to compromise, always willing to fight the good fight no matter the consequences, but they like us were human and do we always measure up to those standards?

 

Yes

7) If the French fleet was so insignificant why did Britain try so hard to neutralize it? Britain risked pushing Vichy France into the Axis by firing on them at Mers El Kabir and Dakar and forcing other units to surrender or face similar action elsewhere. We know now France had no intention of allowing her fleet to be taken by Germany, and when they did try, France either scuttled her ships or broke out to prevent their capture. You don't kill former and potential renewed allies over a irrelevancy.

5A) You didn't read my original post. In it Germany does not attack Russia, so over extension does not apply. If it did however how do you explain every previous empire that ever stood, say like a certain chilly island just off the coast of France?

6A) Lets see, Battle of Britain, Seelowe preparation, Barbarossa, V weapons, Final Solution, nearly all 'hold to the last bullet/not one step back' orders. But of course those weren't blunders were they?

By June 1940 Germany had achieved all her short term goal's, save knocking Britain out of the war, her next move should have been to de-escalate the conflict, not prolong it. The Grand Alliance that formed around her and eventually destroyed it was not an unavoidable event.

Yes the US was sympathetic and moving toward intervention, but if there was movement one way based upon one set of German actions, then a different set of actions could arrest that movement or even reverse it. Nor is Russia a given as a member of that Alliance. In February 1940 trade agreements between Germany and Russia expanded 400 percent over 1939 levels, helping Germany compensate for Britain's blockade. Both parties got value from cooperation and peace and a rational German leader would/should see this.

Britain and her Commonwealth could not eject Germany from from the summer 1940 Reich without powerful allies, allies she got largely by German actions after the summer of 1940.

 

The french fleet in Mérs-El-Kébir was trapped in the Mediterranean Sea, so even if Vichy-France would have liked it, there was no support for an invasion or the atlantic battle possible.

There were a few wrong key-dicisions, on of it was to treat the occupied countries in eastern europe as colonies. This was extremly stupid and surprising. Hitler knew, what happened in 1917 in Russia, when the country was in an unstable condition. The extremly tough warfare and the increasing numbers of partisans was the result.

 

Simply by

1. Not declaring war to the USSR 1941

2. Not declaring war to the USA 1941

3. Planning new tanks, planes,and tactics meanwhile

 

And being more patient

 

Not in to all this what if stuff but surly if they had wanted to win all they need do was just switch sides and joined the Allies.

Simple?

Brian

 

Churchill was determined to put an end to Hitler story. Even in 1940 when Hitler suggested peace Winston said no.

 

Hell, even in 1936: "We will force this war upon Hitler, if he wants it or not."