Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

How Germany could've won?

Discussion in 'Alternate History' started by Jborgen, May 5, 2011.

  1. USMCPrice

    USMCPrice Idiot at Large

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,617
    Likes Received:
    1,658
    Location:
    God's Country
    Not off topic at all, the thread is "How Germany could've won?". If I consider invading the Soviet Union a mistake and that Germany not making that mistake could have helped them win then it is "on topic". That being said, I don't necessarily disagree that Germany had no alternative, Russia and Germany were going to war, it was just a matter of when.

    The military importance was what the two sides placed upon it. Had Hitler bypassed Stalingrad as many of his Generals wanted, you are correct, it would have been of no importance. Once Hitler decided it must be captured it became militarily important to the Soviets, they were tying up German military assets that could be used to good effect in other areas. Giving themselves time to gather strength and eventually launch a counter-attack. Stalingrad was important because the two sides decided to make it so.

    And if you add back the estimated 800K (K/M/Capt) lost at Stalingrad you have nearly 4 million men or an almost 25% increase. Losing 1/4 of your strength IMHO is a big deal.

    Agreed, it is speculation because no one can know for sure the effect on morale. That is one of the reasons many historians ignore morale when they are analyzing battles. It is however one of the more important factors, many a battle has been won on morale/esprit alone. After the battle of Stalingrad the Soviet soldier knew the Germans were not an unstoppable juggernaut. They knew they could meet the Germans head to head and prevail. Unlike earlier battles where a German soldier enjoyed something like a 13:1 kill ratio against the Soviets, here they took the best shot the Germans could throw at them and they killed them in near parity. Both sides gambled their prestige on this battle.

    I will agree that it is hard to, well no it is impossible to arrive at an exact figure. 750000 to 800000 is the most quoted estimate. The Russians found @250000 Axis bodies in Stalingrad after the surrender (mostly German and Romanian), 91000 surrendered, an additional 11000 continued fighting until they were killed or captured (352000). You have to add to this casualties among Axis troops outside the encirclement and those killed earlier in the fighting but interred. The estimate is probably not far off, IMO.
     
  2. Gunney

    Gunney Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2011
    Messages:
    192
    Likes Received:
    8
    some WW2 experts say that Hitler was paranoid about the Russians breaking the treaty so he invaded
     
  3. Sloniksp

    Sloniksp Ставка

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    Messages:
    6,321
    Likes Received:
    459
    If some claim this they can not be experts. Hitlers plan for Russia was quite clear in his book Mein Kamp which was written more than a decade before Barbarossa. Hitler was going to invaded and Stalin who read the book knew it; the Molotov treaty was signed in order to buy time...
     
  4. von Poop

    von Poop Waspish WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2006
    Messages:
    6,211
    Likes Received:
    1,816
    Location:
    Perfidious Albion
    First point is an interesting one, as WW2 Aircraft weren't quite the efficient tank killers they seem to be now. There's some good contemporary (to WW2) studies knocking about on just how hard it was to hit or disable a Tank with the tech available at the time - Rudel's remarkable record was a bit of an exception rather than the rule. The air superiority stuff does stand as highly significant of course, but it was probably more about denying daytime movement than actually killing tanks.

    Point two: couldn't agree more.

    Point three: now that's the clincher isn't it. One can bang on about what the Nazis did or didn't do wrong on the military front, but if they couldn't somehow magically stop or outstrip the Allied work on Nuclear weapons they're buggered, whether they produce a million tanks, or have oil and supplies to spare.

    Until someone can come up with a convincing method for Adolf & his boys to win the Nuclear race (they couldn't, no matter what certain one-track obsessives that haunt the Internerd may try and tell us), then the war was only really going to go one way to my mind.
    It's hard for factories, politicians, Panzers etc. to operate once they've been merged with a sheet of radioactive glass...

    (I just reread post #1.
    I love that "Simply defeated Great Britain", and "simply held off the USA".
    It's always so simple in these hunts for a more successful way for the Reich isn't it...
    "Some chicken; some neck.")

    ~A
     
    LJAd, LRusso216 and Sloniksp like this.
  5. LRusso216

    LRusso216 Graybeard Staff Member Patron  

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2009
    Messages:
    13,866
    Likes Received:
    2,329
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Now Adam, why do you want to throw cold water on this by using logic and facts. One should NEVER let facts get in the way of a true believer's argument.

    I think point number 3 in Price's analysis is the key one. Once the nukes were in play, all the other German factors are so much hogwash.
     
  6. formerjughead

    formerjughead The Cooler King

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Messages:
    5,627
    Likes Received:
    1,003
    Would that be self illuminating radioactive glass?
     
  7. Gunney

    Gunney Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2011
    Messages:
    192
    Likes Received:
    8
    what if Einstein stayed in Germany and Was forced to work on nuclear weapons for them instead of America, Einstein was one of the major contributers to the Manhatten Project
     
  8. LRusso216

    LRusso216 Graybeard Staff Member Patron  

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2009
    Messages:
    13,866
    Likes Received:
    2,329
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    I think that would have been immaterial. There has been a lot of discussion about Einstein's role in developing the bomb. There were many others more intimately involved, including Robert Oppenheimer. Einstein never worked on the Manhattan Project because he was deemed a "security risk" by J. Edgar Hoover. For a more thorough look at this issue, check here Chain Reaction: From Einstein to the Atomic Bomb | Einstein | DISCOVER Magazine
     
  9. Gunney

    Gunney Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2011
    Messages:
    192
    Likes Received:
    8
    if Einstein was not involved in the creation of the bomb then why do people say he was
     
  10. LRusso216

    LRusso216 Graybeard Staff Member Patron  

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2009
    Messages:
    13,866
    Likes Received:
    2,329
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    A quote from contemporary Time Magazine is contained in the article I referenced. "Albert Einstein did not work directly on the atom bomb. But Einstein was the father of the bomb in two important ways: 1) it was his initiative which started U.S. bomb research; 2) it was his equation (E = mc2) which made the atomic bomb theoretically possible.” I would suggest you read the article. It details the complex relationship between Einstein and those who actually developed the bomb.
     
  11. Gunney

    Gunney Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2011
    Messages:
    192
    Likes Received:
    8
    thanks LRusso216, ile try looking for the artical online
     
  12. LRusso216

    LRusso216 Graybeard Staff Member Patron  

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2009
    Messages:
    13,866
    Likes Received:
    2,329
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    All you need to do is click on the link in my post.
     
  13. Gunney

    Gunney Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2011
    Messages:
    192
    Likes Received:
    8
    i cant see any Link?
     
  14. LRusso216

    LRusso216 Graybeard Staff Member Patron  

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2009
    Messages:
    13,866
    Likes Received:
    2,329
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    The last line should be in blue print. If you put your cursor over it and click, it should take you to the article. If it doesn't, I'll copy out the whole link and post it.
     
  15. Gunney

    Gunney Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2011
    Messages:
    192
    Likes Received:
    8
    its not there, went through every word on the last line, no links. can you please post the link
     
  16. GermanStrategist

    GermanStrategist Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2010
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    After the BoB, when it was abundantly clear that mainland Britain couldn't be taken out, Hitler should have consolidated his gains and attempted to force them into peace by other means. He should've slowly peeled away at the British Empire until they came to peaceful terms. Germany's biggest mistake was not securing the Western Front. It could've been done.

    Operation Felix would have secured Gibraltar and would have eased the supply situation in West Africa. The Spanish would have undoubtedly been forced into the war, eating up a large amount of Axis resources, but Franco was prepared to fight a long war of attrition against the Allies if need be. Franco had promised to defend Morocco at all costs. German-reinforced Spanish divisions in Morocco and Portugal would have complicated any British/American landing there. Operation Torch might not have looked as appealing as it did historically.

    After West Africa and Gibraltar had been secured, Germany should've driven eastwards to force Britain to capitulate. With Gibraltar in Axis hands, the supply situation would have been far better than it was historically. Malta would be the next obvious objective. With the western Mediterranean more or less secure, the Axis would only need to find a way to get their armies across the desert and take Egypt. Had the Axis poured all of their trucks and their best divisions into Africa, the British would have undoubtedly collapsed. This entire operation would have taken all of 1941 and driven well into 1942. The SU was in no position to go on the offensive in 1942. Germany would have an extra year to get ready for the showdown. Germany could have used an extra year to better prepare itself against the SU. The Balkans and Greece would have been secured in 1941 as they did historically. When the Suez fell in 1942, the British population would have put significant pressure on Churchill. Terms of peace may have been reached during the end of 1942 or in the early months of 1943. With Britain taken out of the equation, Germany would have its one-front war with Communism that it so desired.

    In 1943, the Soviets would have been far more prepared for the Germans, but the Germans would have been doubly prepared. I imagine the Germans prevailing against the East and then entering a Cold War with the United States. The only other loose cannon is Japan. Would they still have brought the United States into the war? If they did and Hitler declared war, then Germany is still doomed in this scenario because America will still develop and drop the atomic bomb on Germany. If Germany doesn't declare war, then Japan will have become an American puppet state by 1943 and Germany still has a good chance at winning.
     
  17. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    235
    About the decision to attack the SU :I disagree with the majority of the forum:IMHO,Mein Kampf was not decisive:if it was possible,Hitler would have avoided Barbarossa in 1941.The decision was taken mainly for strategic reasons .But,this has been debated already and endlessly,and,if we would do it again,I am sure that,before I could type the names of the 50 states,Suvurov and Icebreaker would be mentioned and that would not be good for the blood pressure of some one:slipdigit: in the heart of Dixie .
    Better (?) would be to look if there was an alternative for Barbarossa:IMHO there was none ,unless one would believe the phantasies of Rommel and his AK marching from Tripoli to the north of Iraq,and this would not be good for my blood pressure (120/80:cool:).
    Whatever,I remember that Brndirt 1:waving:has posted valuable information about the "unimportance" of Gibraltar,Malta and the Mediterranean.If:)confused:) my memory still works,it is available in the sacred cows section .
     
  18. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,234
    Location:
    Michigan
    That seems to be a rather debateable proposition.
    Without Spain Fellix is very likely to fail. With them in the war it has a good chance of succeeding but then the Spanish will likely loose the Canaries. If they invade Portugal then the Azores will soon fall to the allies as well. Now Germany has two more economic basket cases on her hands and a much longer shoreline to defend. Indeed Spanish Morocco might be seen as a more favorable location to invaded than Algeria.
    Didn't Felix plan on using paratroopers? If so it's going to be some time before they can be used again vs Malta. If not the invasion of Malta is still rather problematic. Depends a lot on timing. How about a time line?
    Had they "poured all of their trucks and their best divisions into Africa" they would have devolved into a starving, barely mobile, very thirsty mass of troops.
    But the US might have been. Certainly they will be by 43.
    But the Soviets will also have had an extra year to prepair. The German fuel situation may be degrading by this point as well. All those ops in the Med and North Africa and supporting the Spanish will make for a significant increase in consumption.
     
  19. LRusso216

    LRusso216 Graybeard Staff Member Patron  

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2009
    Messages:
    13,866
    Likes Received:
    2,329
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Try copying and pasting the following:
    discovermagazine.com/2008/mar/18-chain-reaction-from-einstein-to-the-atomic-bomb/article_view?b_start:int=08&-c=

    or go to discovermagazine.com and look for the March 2008 issue.
     
  20. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    235
    About the claim that Hitler should have SLOWLY peeled away at the British Empire :the problem is that he had to wipe out "slowly" from his dictionary .From 1 september 1939,Hitler was in a hurry,because he knew that time was running against him .He was loosing the armaments race against France,against Britain,and,he had no chance against the US and the SU.
     

Share This Page