Other Chances to Win World War II

That would only depend on what you considered wining was. Simply the Fall of France, Denmark, Norway, Poland and the other low countries, then yes they win.

The eventual beating of the Combined allied forces? Then never. Perhaps they could win in Africa with more support from Germany, but for what reason, the Nile? There was nothing there of real value, had they atacked into South Africa, they would be esposing there troops to great danger for in reality nothing of great value, no great industies, not great natural resoucse. Sure they would make the convoys trips longer having to go around AFrica, but nothing would change.

Now this is going to start this up again but, the Fall of Briitain? Unlikely. They couldn't do it before, so they cant do it in this scenario, have al look in the other threads fro more info on this.

The Defeat of the USA? impossible.

 

This sounds rather specious at best given how much was known about the Nazi regime. The enormous amount of mostly mediocre equipment the Germans had would have presented a titanic logistical nightmare.

The Germans were suffering enormous supply difficulties by the end of 1941 with their professional forces- how could they support and control these substandard troops of "forced" loyalty?

 

Was he now?

Hitler had publicly announced his policy of Lebensraum years before he invaded Eastern Europe and certainly made no secret of it in Germany. The German state was just as "monstrous", if not more so, as the Soviet state. The people in Eastern Europe were not stupid and could easily understand that the Germans were not motivated to shed their blood for altruistic reasons. Just as soon as the German colonists began arriving, the "honeymoon" was over and the Eastern Europeans saw through the charade.

My mother's family is from Lithuania and I remember my grandmother telling us kids how worried they were during the First World War that the Russians might not be able to hold the Germans back. After the Russian collapse in 1917, they were all scared to death the Germans might take over the Baltic states; that's why they emigrated to the 'States.

Hitler never had a chance of winning "hearts and minds" in Eastern Europe.

 

Yep, that's what I meant. They never had the ability to crush the Soviet Union unless they worked to get their economy was restructured into more efficient, less "socialist" terms. Reich economics was the true "rotten edifice".

Defeating the USA/Soviet Union is impossible. Declaring war on the US was an unquestionable, idiotic folly- let the Japanese rot, lol. Taking the UK would require many years of naval construction and R&D on the "Third Reich" side.

However, I don't think a "surprise" attack by combined UK/USA forces in the West would have come to fruit. There would be too many powerful, undamaged, and professional German units operational throughout their empire. Without the Allied military restructuring that occurred during their desert/Italian expeditions, their armored formations would have been chewed up by the superior Panzer divisions, most likely at those beachheads.

 

Mediocre is as mediocre does; this is the exact same equipment that eventually stopped the Germans at Moscow in 1941/42, with much of it used throughout the entire war.

Supply difficulties, yes there were, but not insurmountable.

As for substandard red army troops, check the final result of WWll. With the cause of liberating their motherland from the soviet yoke, these troops certainly would have fought just as hard and effectively against the red state they hated. Indeed, hundreds of thousands did actually fight against the Soviet Union.

Forced loyalty? This was not entirely a German war by any means; the Germans had loyal, hard fighting allies in the Romanians, Hungarians, Finns and many others. They wanted to fight on the German side, especially against the horrific soviet state.

 

A simillar approach like D-Day would be likely, but superior Panzer DIvisions? WHy are they so experienced, they only faced the ill equipped units of France, they are yet to engage the might of the RUssian armed units, so their combat experience would be little more then the western allies. Who is too say Hitler would not go with a similar defencive posture as historically,(keeping the panzers of the beachhead). Granted, the going would be tough but the allies would eventually win.

 

The Panzer Divisions' experiences in 1939-1940 transformed theory into practice. A lot of restructuring occurred after these attacks increased their battlefield effectiveness and efficiency- and this was only achieved through battle experience. It was the Poles that were ill equipped- the French had far more material.

Example- the Kasserine Pass and the early British failures in North Africa showed how inferior Allied armor doctrine was compared to their foes. This was of courseremedied by the Allies, but not without a lot of blood, expenditure, and a lengthy campaign.

I consider that unlikely.

You do realize that instead of the equivalent of 10 half-trained panzer divisions in France..the Allies would have to face probably around 30 (I grade) Panzer Divisions in the same amount of terrain by 45' or whenever they decided to do it?

Many times more Professional grade troops and armor instead of the conscripts they faced in 1944? And they would be much, much better armed and motorized on a qualitative level, as well.

 

Yes, Hitler's goal of lebensraum was fairly known in Westen European countries and in the US, but I dont believe that a farmer in the ukraine, or a fisherman in estonia had read Mein Kampf and knew what was coming.


They only knew the day to day misery of living under soviet oppression. Most peoples in the east were ready for liberation from the horror of Stalin's purges and collectivism. The German invasion looked, in the beginning, like the answer to their prayers.

 

I was referring to the European equipment from previously conquered territories. But your theory about millions of captured Soviet troops attacking their own countrymen and desiring to be Hitler's slaves isn't even remotely plausible.

Gee, they sure did a swell job in equipping their professional troops with winter clothing in the winter of 1941.

lol wut. The Soviet "helpers" didn't exactly fight. Their choice was starve to death in a POW camp or be a German army slave. They chose life. There were Ost-troops in certain formations but these were generally Russian political pro-nazi loons rather than your typical sane Russian. And their performance was generally abysmal and full of desertions.

Romanians and the Hungarians weren't exactly "hard-fighting" or loyal. They were outperformed by Soviet formations repeatedly, even on a qualitative level. And they weren't even fighting as Nazi slaves.

The Finns were pretty good soldiers, though.

 

Yes the going would be tough, but the Germans had no where near the amount of men avaiiable or materials to match the combined Allies. The US was uncomparable in terms of manufacturing new tanks and equipment, and in time the would win, It just means that D-day would be on a much larger scale. The US would also learn just as the Germans did, why? Because they are not the only country in the world that had technogical advances, they were not the most advanaced. The Americans were catching them in many fields and in others surpassed them, it would only be a matter of time or if the US considered it too much loss of life, then would probably result to the ATomic bomb which they eventually did to Japan.

 

By this measure, the Germans should have failed in France or suffered heavy, bloody losses. They didn't. You're also forgetting about the German strategic position. They would have years to reorganize the economy of Europe to expand their military strength rather than send 2.5-3 million men (their best soldiers) and an enormous amount of material to their destruction in Russia before D-day (1944).

I think you're forgetting about German defensive advantages. With 30 full strength Panzer formations (certainly all SPW equipped by 1945) and many motorized infantry divisions, they would be able to easily concentrate immense numerical and qualitative supremacy (at least on the ground) over Allied landing concentrations. The Germans would have the strength to launch an attack even stronger than Barbarossa concentrated, rather than dispersed..against even the largest Allied invasion force.

The bomb is a different story, though and the US would have to play the aggressor nation(and mobilize the American people accordingly) against the third Reich.

 

We have lost sight of the original intent of this post which was what might have happened IF Hitler had held his hatred in check and made allies of the oppressed countries to the east and used their populations to fight the terrible soviet state and then when that war was won, turn on his former allies in the east for his stated goal of more territory for Germany.

As for Germany's actual Romanian and Hungarian allies, I would recommend further reading, without the whitewash, regarding the heroism of these axis troops, especially the Romanians at Stalingrad and the Hungarians fighting in the battle of Budapest.

 

So, he gives them extra Alcohol and chocolate? They'll turn against their homeland after a few months of listening to Gobbel's Snout? How combat worthy and educated are these people? Do they have years of military training and experience like the Germans? Do the Germans have the logistical support to supply these people?

And the populations of the "oppressed" countries in the East were rather marginal.

Individual or isolated unit acts of heroism doesn't equal military competence. They were even tactically and materially outclassed by Soviet formations. They suffered accordingly.

 

Don't see how Russian soldiers could be ineffective as axis partners yet very effective as soviet pawns, does not make sense. They would have been an extremely strong tool used in tandem with German units.

As a soldier in WWll, I would have prefered Romanian and/or Hungarian troops covering my backside rather than any Italian troops or many of the French to be specific.

 

You're ignoring a lot of what I'm saying. The Germans don't have the logistics to continually support these people with firepower. They could barely support their own first-grade units and, in fact, failed to adequately support one of their best- the 6th Army at Stalingrad in 1942. Or earlier, when they suffered logistical breakdown in front of Moscow.

Their infantry divisions walked into Russia mostly on foot with horse transport and only partial motorization.

 

Not ignoring one single thing.

Operation Barbarossa, with troops from the captured eastern countries, especially the Russian troops with their captured equipment, all added to the German army, the war against the Soviet Union is over by the end of 1941.

End of story; logistics on a long-term basis becomes a moot point.

 

Hilarious.

 

Even if you had a magic wand that could transform every captured Russian POW from a wide variety of shattered, annihilated units into a fanatical, Hitler-loving German and arm them with Russian weapons, they'd still be combat ineffective.

They'd need to be retrained and reorganized for operations for at least half a year or more. And they'd need horses, material, motor vehicles, and fuel which the Germans didn't have.

These are troops that have barely any training to begin with, let alone mount long-range offensive operations. In the earlier stages of Barbarossa, these were the very same men who were outfought by professional German infantry units in droves. And they'd have little to no motorization as the Soviets didn't really leave behind much of that. (this was before Lend-lease)

What the Germans needed were more well-supplied and well-supported motorized Panzer and Panzergrenadier divisions to smash through Soviet defenses and instigate more Russian encirclements, not more foot sloggers of low training levels and firepower.

Your 1941 victory claim is insane.

 

No, Logistics is the long-term basis. Suppose the people who joined the German ranks came already equiped as you mentioned. How would you supply ammunition and maintenance to the said equipement? Plus, how would they arranje an effective system to feed them?? It was hard enough to feed their own army and horses without the extra million mouths to feed.
Anyway, unless the entire structure crumbled, it'd be impossible to do what you propose. The only good thing to come out of it would be the limiting of the manpower available to the SU.


Cheers...